Jack Weber Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Try walking into a bank with a Halloween mask on...report back with the results. Ah...But I have gone into my bank on Halloween and the tellers have been dressed in disguises!!! I particularily like the young hotties dressed like hookers...For the obvious maximum slutitude effect!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Security must trump religious freedom. There's a reason religions freedoms are listed before security of person in the Charter. If citizens are not safe then everything breaks down. It's pretty hard to tell the family of someone dead because of a terrorist hiding under a burkha that they should feel better because at least religious freedoms were respected. There you go with that stuff again. It's irrelevant. I don't care how some people feel about something. So I suggest that we allow veils and burkas, with one stipulation. If it ever happens that a terrorist hides under a veil or a burkha then at that point they are banned forevermore! That is a very very slippery slope. I suppose you are for banning guns then? Kitchen knives? Quote
Bonam Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 They arent MY priorities. They are the priorities of a free society. The people tasked with providing us with security are supposed to do so within a constitutional framework that preserves our rights. The founders of our society knew that very first thing government would try to do when the shit hit the fan was make arguments from utility why they didnt have to follow the rules anymore, and why our rights could be superceded, and they knew that a cowardly population of reactionary sycophants would buy those arguments from utility hook line and sinker. So they made sure that those rights supercede security in all but a few extreme situations. Like I said... if you take the position that security trumps the law, then you can justify literally ANYTHING. Lets face it, we would be way more "secure" if society was locked down, and authorities listened to our every word and watched our every move. I have no problem with this argument and am inclined to agree. I merely take issue with your earlier statement, that "cowards" don't deserve to be secure. Either people have a "right" to security, or they do not. You can't say that some people deserve to be secure and others do not, based on arbitrary criteria such as whether they prioritize rights and freedoms in the way you think is appropriate. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Ah...But I have gone into my bank on Halloween and the tellers have been dressed in disguises!!! I particularily like the young hotties dressed like hookers...For the obvious maximum slutitude effect!!! Few actually wear masks though, as in Point Break. Maybe you just have a lazy bank due to no past attempts. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Either people have a "right" to security, or they do not. You can't say that some people deserve to be secure and others do not, based on arbitrary criteria such as whether they prioritize rights and freedoms in the way you think is appropriate. That isn't what was said at all. People don't have the right to take away the freedom of others because they don't feel secure. Quote
Bonam Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 That isn't what was said at all. People don't have the right to take away the freedom of others because they don't feel secure. Umm, of course they do, it is simply a matter of extent. The freedoms of a murderer are taken away so that society can be more secure. Terrorists and militants are confronted and deprived of their freedom or their lives so that we can be more secure. Your freedom to enter a plane at will and your privacy is restricted for the needs of security. Your right to own a gun is restricted for the supposed safety benefit such restrictions provide to others. Now, I am not saying face coverings are comparable to the above, they aren't, but just pointing out that your statement is completely incorrect. We restrict freedoms for the sake of security all the time. Quote
dre Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 I have no problem with this argument and am inclined to agree. I merely take issue with your earlier statement, that "cowards" don't deserve to be secure. Either people have a "right" to security, or they do not. You can't say that some people deserve to be secure and others do not, based on arbitrary criteria such as whether they prioritize rights and freedoms in the way you think is appropriate. I think the word fits perfectly. What term would better describe a person that would surrender their own values out of fear, then the term "coward"? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 (edited) Now, I am not saying face coverings are comparable to the above, they aren't, but just pointing out that your statement is completely incorrect. We restrict freedoms for the sake of security all the time. Those are reasonable restrictions that are almost universally aimed at criminals. After saying the above, I'm really not sure what your point is. Edited August 5, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Bonam Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 (edited) Those are reasonable restrictions that are almost universally aimed at criminals. After saying the above, I'm really not sure what your point is. Yes, reasonable restrictions, aimed at criminals. Now if Canada passed a law banning face coverings, hey, the people still wearing them would be "criminals" too, and probably many people would think it is reasonable, according to polls. It is up to society to define what it considers to be a "criminal" and what it considers to be "reasonable". If you want to say face coverings should not be banned (and I agree), you need a better argument than "but hey I don't think that's reasonable". Edited August 5, 2010 by Bonam Quote
Jack Weber Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Few actually wear masks though, as in Point Break. Maybe you just have a lazy bank due to no past attempts. I live in a small town... Not exactly Jihadist Central... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 It is up to society to define what it considers to be a "criminal" and what it considers to be "reasonable". Well, that isn't completely true. That's why we have courts and constitutions that are difficult to change. Things can't always simply happen on societies whim. Quote
betsy Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 So Hallow'een masks are okay. And muumuus are okay. But Hallow'een masks and muumuus together must immediately be banned because combined they pose a continual theat to public safety? Read again. Quote
betsy Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 No, security must NOT trump rights and freedoms. As soon as you go down this road an argument from utility can be made to remove literally ANY of our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Cowards that would surrender their values based on trumped up security concerns dont even DESERVE to be secure. Smoking trumps security in trumping rights and freedom! Quote
Argus Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Well, this thread is so utterly, perfectly predictable I wonder you all bothered. The Politically Correct are, as usual, in full defense of a group which, let's face it, despises them and everything about them and their beliefs, and the rest just don't like or trust women wearing bedsheets. For my part, I'm leery of the government telling anyone they must or must not do something without proven need. I don't see a proven need here to stop religious wingnuts from wandering around looking like black ghosts. On the other hand, I do think we should do whatever we can to discourage the practice. To put it bluntly. There were a lot of slaves in the old south who couldn't imagine being anything else. Should we have left them as slaves? However, what I don't want to see is any protection for the wingnuts' "rights". Personally, I think there's something freaky about those people hiding behind their mesh masks. In truth, I don't even think of them AS people. I think the Americans in Afghanistan coined the phrase "moving black objects" for these women walking around in their death shrouds, hidden away from life. I` Now I don't think we need to worry about many of them working. Most are unskilled and wouldn't be allowed to work by their owners anyway. But I've read of enough nonsense about them being allowed to present bus passes, passports and other documents from behind their shroud, and I don't believe that should be allowed at all. If you don't want the bus driver to see your face then walk. It's not like you have anything better to do anyway. I also don't think you should be allowed to drive while wearing one of these things. And I certainly don't think you should be able to work in any government organization where there's public contact. Wasn't there one of them who tried to be a teacher in Quebec last year and went to the HRC about getting booted? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jack Weber Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 The big,giant head has spoken... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
dre Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 The Politically Correct are, as usual, in full defense of a group which, let's face it, despises them and everything about them and their beliefs, and the rest just don't like or trust women wearing bedsheets. Actually thats backwards. Demonizing muslims and putting security over freedom IS political correctness since 911. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
capricorn Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 I also don't think you should be allowed to drive while wearing one of these things. All driving and that includes school buses. In October 2007, a Calgary school bus was involved in a roadside accident in which one girl was killed. News clips showed the driver was wearing a very restrictive headgear that had almost certainly eliminated all peripheral vision and could have been the reason she slammed into a truck parked on the shoulder on a clear day.The Muslim Canadian Congress has done extensive tests with volunteers that indicate wearers of the burka or niqab have little peripheral vision, are unable to see their own feet and are permanently at risk of tripping. Anyone driving an automobile with loss of peripheral vision is a risk to herself as well as other drivers and pedestrians. http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/79954 Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
ToadBrother Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Actually thats backwards. Demonizing muslims and putting security over freedom IS political correctness since 911. And that's it in a nutshell. We've been terrified into believing that only by surrendering or limiting liberties can we hope to be safe, and the government and the police, as these groups ever have since their invention, seek to do just that. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 (edited) And that's it in a nutshell. We've been terrified into believing that only by surrendering or limiting liberties can we hope to be safe, and the government and the police, as these groups ever have since their invention, seek to do just that. Which civil liberties have you personally given up in the name of security? I'd like to know what you could do before, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that you cannot do now. They're great talking points but they're just that...talking points without substance. Edited August 5, 2010 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 Increasing law enforcement powers....anti terror acts...security certificates Quote
Mr.Canada Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 (edited) Increasing law enforcement powers....anti terror acts...security certificates No, not broad strokes. I want to know exactly and precisely what you cannot do anymore that you could do before. If you're going to talk about it back it up or else it's just that...talk. I want to see what civil liberties have been taken away. Edited August 5, 2010 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 I just mentioned security certificates (I believe they're gone now but they certainly existed. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 I think the word fits perfectly. What term would better describe a person that would surrender their own values out of fear, then the term "coward"? How am I surrendering my own values? Veiling one's face is NOT one of my values! I would think that a better example of cowardice is to allow yourself and others to potentially be in danger by bowing to political correctness. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted August 5, 2010 Report Posted August 5, 2010 There you go with that stuff again. It's irrelevant. I don't care how some people feel about something. Don't care how people feel? You're going to make a very good lawyer! That is a very very slippery slope. I suppose you are for banning guns then? Kitchen knives? How does that connect? I suggested that we allow face veiling until and unless it actually was a factor in a terrorist act. Then and only then would I support a ban, in the interests of better security to help prevent such an action from happening again. What does the choice of weapon have to do with anything? Sometimes keeping you on topic is like nailing jello to the wall! You always start arguing about something different than what I said! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.