Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

[cybercoma]

What does freely accessible mean?

[Saipan]

What does freely accessible mean?

Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

Why do you ask?

[jbg]

Freely accesible space by public. I.e. no private property.

Actually Playland is literally public; it is operated by the County of Westchester.

[guyser]

Do you know of any who paid $250 for not having licence?

Yes, a number of them, probably three that I recall.

Point?

They are NOT required because they fish to eat. They are 'required' only in theory.

Sadly no, plenty of children would require them,recreational aboriginal boaters would have to have them.

[Saipan]

Google only has the answers they want you to see. What is public space?

Who are "they"?

[Saipan]

Yes, a number of them, probably three that I recall.

Which reserve?

Sadly no, plenty of children would require them,recreational aboriginal boaters would have to have them.

Why sadly?

"Would have" and "have" are two different things.

Is there a difference if 'sustenance" fisherman kill a diver or if it 'recreational' boater?

Edited September 6, 2011 by Saipan

[Argus]

They weren't banned before 2007 and there had never been an issue with them. No one has ever been hurt by wearing them on the rides. It's a little hard to say something poses a risk, if people were allowed to do it before and they were never injured from it. In this way, I don't think it's sensible at all.

The point is it`s a safety issue as all headwear or loose clothing is banned on certain rides. The secondary point is that most people, on being told they can`t go on a certain ride unless they remove their headgear or whatever, would either remove it or turn away. These people instead got violent.

[Argus]

Key words: coming to Canada. In other words, it became a lightning rod for racist and xenophobic points of view. There was religious garb like this prior, but it was just another thing to make the haters become angry.

Nice that your knee gets such a regular workout...

[Argus]

And, yes. I remember 9/11. Do you remember how many of the hijackers were wearing traditional Muslim headcoverings? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up. The answer is ZERO.

The hijab and other more extreme versions, like the burqua, are something relatively new in their spread and the belief that women are required by Islam to wear them. The Koran only calls for modest dress. Thus it is the interpretation of that requirement which is at issue, and the interpretation has been getting more, not less severe, particularly over the last twenty years. I don`t care enough about this issue to find the references I once looked up, but I recall seeing pictures from various Muslim cities in the forties and fifties. Believe it or not, the bulk of the women were wearing less than they are today. This is particularly so in places like Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, which have been becoming steadily more Islamisized.

In short, this type of dress is not simply identified by many of us as a religious requirement or uniform but a statement that the woman involved, and likely her family, are Islamists, and dedicated followers of all that extreme school of thought which is the enemy of most of our own values.

So call me names if you want, but as far as I`m concerned, no one wearing a Hijab or Burqua or the like, nor the men who believe they ought to, should even be allowed to enter Canada, much less to become a citizen of this country. I realize that doesn`t sit well with the frantic P.C. set, but I have almost as little respect for those types as I do for Islamists anyway. That`s partly because, like the Islamists they too hold our culture, values and history in contempt. And, like the Islamists, would like nothing more than to impose their own shrill, ideological behavioural requirements on the rest of us.

[Argus]

This is true, jbg. I have nothing but respect for you, but what's being discussed in this thread is consistent with the discrimination faced by Jews in the early 20th century.

You don`t think his feelings might be slightly affected by the fact the majority of Muslims want him dead, do you ...

[Argus]

We don't usually attribute mob violence to the religion of the groups involved. Unless, of course, we're prejudiced and trying to make a case.

That`s nonsense. If they were a bunch of cultists, that would figure prominently in all reports. If they were all bikers or bakers, that would be reported, too. You might not like it but Muslims have a well earned reputation for religious and political violence. Granted, not so much in this country, but since they do it so much elsewhere, and since almost all Muslims are foreign born, people are wary of it... and them.

[Argus]

The point is: groups of people act in similar ways when you provide a certain environment. It's just bigoted to point out the attributes that you want to demonize, to say that one group is worse than yours.

Is it your contention, then, that no group is worse than any other group, nor better?

[Argus]

No they can't. They're not allowed to discriminate. If they serve the public, they can't make a rule that says, "No Blacks Allowed!"

What if it can be determined that Blacks are dangerous to the public?

[Argus]

This has nothing to do with 'Muslim rights'. That you fail to see that shows just how narrow-minded you are. In fact, it shows that you think Muslims specifically shouldn't have rights.

Funny, all I get from this thread is that you don`t know how to argue the topic coherently and have resorted to attacking the poster rather than what they`ve said.

This is clearly a safety issue. I think the cites she`s posted have closed the gate on that one. You should just stop now.

[bloodyminded]

The hijab and other more extreme versions, like the burqua, are something relatively new in their spread and the belief that women are required by Islam to wear them. The Koran only calls for modest dress. Thus it is the interpretation of that requirement which is at issue, and the interpretation has been getting more, not less severe, particularly over the last twenty years. I don`t care enough about this issue to find the references I once looked up, but I recall seeing pictures from various Muslim cities in the forties and fifties. Believe it or not, the bulk of the women were wearing less than they are today. This is particularly so in places like Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, which have been becoming steadily more Islamisized.

In short, this type of dress is not simply identified by many of us as a religious requirement or uniform but a statement that the woman involved, and likely her family, are Islamists, and dedicated followers of all that extreme school of thought which is the enemy of most of our own values.

So call me names if you want, but as far as I`m concerned, no one wearing a Hijab or Burqua or the like, nor the men who believe they ought to, should even be allowed to enter Canada, much less to become a citizen of this country. I realize that doesn`t sit well with the frantic P.C. set, but I have almost as little respect for those types as I do for Islamists anyway. That`s partly because, like the Islamists they too hold our culture, values and history in contempt. And, like the Islamists, would like nothing more than to impose their own shrill, ideological behavioural requirements on the rest of us.

But plenty of Islamist terrorists are relatively modern, "Westernized" as the term goes; and many fundamentalists, afraid to look on women's faces, totally eschew all political and religious violence as in opposition to their faith.

This is brought home nicely (and unobtrusively) in, of all things, a British film comedy (maybe "tragicomedy") called "Four Lions." (Which by the way is an awesome movie.)

I bring it up only because it's a slightly more complex matter than you seem to be proposing.

[Michael Hardner]

Is it your contention, then, that no group is worse than any other group, nor better?

No. That's too broad a characterization of what I have said.

[Michael Hardner]

That`s nonsense. If they were a bunch of cultists, that would figure prominently in all reports. If they were all bikers or bakers, that would be reported, too. You might not like it but Muslims have a well earned reputation for religious and political violence. Granted, not so much in this country, but since they do it so much elsewhere, and since almost all Muslims are foreign born, people are wary of it... and them.

I don't like it. It's lazy thinking and it's not apt. The media will gladly report such easyisms but we don't have to parrot them on this board.

[Michael Hardner]

Nice that your knee gets such a regular workout...

Who's the reactionary ? I would say it's the poster who doesn't like a group of people from the outset, and uses false arguments to propose banning them from Canada.

I don't jerk my knee, in fact I spent a good amount of my time combatting knee jerks on here.

[jacee]

...the park was enforcing its rules on headgear by prohibiting the women from wearing their traditional head coverings on some rides.

Women often wear scarves around their necks as part of an outfit, but the ban is not on scarves per se but "headgear".

I'm curious. ... do they ban ball caps or just headscarves? Neck scarves or just headscarves?

I suspect this is more about racism than safety.

[guyser]

I suspect this is more about racism than safety.

No, dont think so.

The ban is on any scarves, around the neck or not, long hair too, ball caps.

None of which are emblematic of any religion creed or colour.

[cybercoma]

Who are "they"?

If you had an English Grammar for Dummies book, you could look up antecedent in there and know who "they" are.

[cybercoma]

You don`t think his feelings might be slightly affected by the fact the majority of Muslims want him dead, do you ...

The majority?

I respectfully disagree.

[cybercoma]

Women often wear scarves around their necks as part of an outfit, but the ban is not on scarves per se but "headgear".

I'm curious. ... do they ban ball caps or just headscarves? Neck scarves or just headscarves?

I suspect this is more about racism than safety.

I highly doubt it's about racism and I wasn't arguing that myself. I think it's inadvertent discrimination through a disparate impact rule. Those that are going to argue that it's a safety hazard, have every right to believe that it's a safety hazard. Perhaps it is. However, when very few other theme parks, if any, ban Muslims from wearing headscarves and this particular park has never had an incident involving them or any other kind of "head gear", I think it's an over-reaction from the park, having a greater impact on Muslims (by restricting their religious freedom).

[Argus]

But plenty of Islamist terrorists are relatively modern, "Westernized" as the term goes; and many fundamentalists, afraid to look on women's faces, totally eschew all political and religious violence as in opposition to their faith.

This is brought home nicely (and unobtrusively) in, of all things, a British film comedy (maybe "tragicomedy") called "Four Lions." (Which by the way is an awesome movie.)

I bring it up only because it's a slightly more complex matter than you seem to be proposing.

I realize it`s complicated. But there is no complicated proposal which can sort through prospective Muslims applicants for immigration to discover those with Islamist leanings, nor any complicated way of making sure that, once they get here, they don`t become Islamists, or their children don`t. For that reason my simple, blunt proposal, is that Muslims be the very last people we want to take in as immigrants. Yes, it`s blunt and simple, and even unfair to more moderate Muslims abroad. But on the other hand, it`s also quite effective.

Your belief that plenty of Islamist terrorists are relatively modern and westernized is not, I think, supported by anything other than their occasional effort to blend in with the population. Those who support Islamist ideologies tend to be bearded men with perpetual scowls on their faces, and faceless women hiding behind scarves and burkas.

[Argus]

No. That's too broad a characterization of what I have said.

All right, then. Is it then not possible for one group, say, for lack of a better one, westernized people, to be better than some other group, let`s say, for theory`s sake, Muslims, and to argue this by pointing out the attributes of of one to suggest how it is better or worse than the other?

And before you respond by suggesting that the comparison fails where the latter group, Muslims, are actually westernized, I acknowledge that this would be true. However, I`m speaking to that group which is categorically not westernized, as in the group in question in this particular topic.