cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 I'm glad you said most because I'm against the rule. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 You don't think it's a safety issue? Quote
CANADIEN Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 The people who were rioting at the amusement park were and that's what I'm talking about in my post. These Muslims at the park interpret the rules to be solely against them when in fact the rules are in place for everyone's safety. Of course they play the victim card and shout bigotry to all who will listen. This is just a tool to shut down debate, nothing more. Try to discuss this with me without calling me a bigot or a racist or any other name you can come up with. Sikh or Jewish head covering isn't dangerous to the public at large. A scarf is not dangerous to the public at large either. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 I'm not against the park rule, and I doubt that most others here are. These people behaved in an uncivil manner, and police did the right thing. That is quite different from using this as a means to lambast Muslim culture and say there is no room for it in our society. Provided everyone behaves in a civil, law abiding manner, let them wear their religious garb wherever it is appropriate to do so (not on an amusement ride that bans it, not on a motorcycle...), let them pray towards Mecca as often as they wish. Many people here are against me personally for some reason. Well said, I agree for the most part. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Not at all. The rule is relatively recent (after 2007, I take it) and there has never been an accident involving head scarves. The rule unfairly, although probably unintentionally as well, targets a specific group of people because of their religious observances. It more seriously affects a particular group of people than others. If the scarf was a safety issue, then the Jewish sideburns and long hair ought to also be banned from the ride and I presume they're not. And again, there has never been an incident involving these things. I think the rule is unnecessary. Edited September 1, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 A scarf is not dangerous to the public at large either. A full face covering is. Some one, could be male or female wearing a shapeless tent around town with two eye holes cut out of it certainly is dangerous to the public. They could be carrying deadly weapons or anthrax and be strapped with a bomb or they could be a wanted criminal. This is very dangerous to the law abiding citizens of this country. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Not at all. The rule is relatively recent (after 2007, I take it) and there has never been an accident involving head scarves. The rule unfairly, although probably unintentionally as well, targets a specific group of people because of their religious observances. It more seriously affects a particular group of people than others. If the scarf was a safety issue, then the Jewish sideburns and long hair ought to also be banned from the ride and I presume they're not. And again, there has never been an incident involving these things. I think the rule is unnecessary. The rule was most likely forced upon them by the insurance company they happen to use. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 People could hide those things in their clothes. Maybe everyone should walk around naked. But wait... you can't identify them on video surveillance. Maybe we should ban scarves and face-masks in the winter too. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 The rule was most likely forced upon them by the insurance company they happen to use. I don't care if it was forced upon them by the President of the United States of America or God Himself. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 I don't care if it was forced upon them by the President of the United States of America or God Himself. It's a safety issue. Long hair or a long scarf could become entangled and kill someone. Would you feel better if someone died instead but were free to do what they pleased, safety be damned? If someone died due to a long scarf they'd sue the park for sure. They are protecting themselves. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 It's a safety issue. Long hair or a long scarf could become entangled and kill someone. Would you feel better if someone died instead but were free to do what they pleased, safety be damned? If someone died due to a long scarf they'd sue the park for sure. They are protecting themselves. Long hair is not banned and the head scarf wasn't banned for years. It has never been the cause of any safety issue before. So, you have no way of supporting your claim that it is a safety issue. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Long hair is not banned and the head scarf wasn't banned for years. It has never been the cause of any safety issue before. So, you have no way of supporting your claim that it is a safety issue. A private park can make any rules they want. If it bothers anyone, they don't have to go to that amusement park then. They should vote with their feet and frequent someplace else that allows them to do as they please. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 A private park can make any rules they want. 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!" Quote
Michael Hardner Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Try to discuss this with me without calling me a bigot or a racist or any other name you can come up with. We do, but you don't do a great job of listening or absorbing the good lessons you are taught on here. Would you ban the habit ? Force women to become priests ? I don't think so. You have looked at a group of people and decided that their religion is the reason for their behavior, period. You have no evidence of this. Therefore, it's apt to call your opinions prejudiced. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 A full face covering is. Some one, could be male or female wearing a shapeless tent around town with two eye holes cut out of it certainly is dangerous to the public. They could be carrying deadly weapons or anthrax and be strapped with a bomb or they could be a wanted criminal. This is very dangerous to the law abiding citizens of this country. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Well I thought I read in the OP that wearing a scarf on SOME rides was banned. So ie. the problem is not with all rides. That led me to conclude they think it's a safety problem. I could be wrong though. Yeah, it happened once Quote
GostHacked Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Many people here are against me personally for some reason. Your attempt at playing dumb here fails. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Long hair is not banned... Hair (the real kind, anyway) also tends not to blow off. Someone had a point about this possibly being a requirement set down by an insurance company on a park that has had a recent history of fatalities. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 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!" Can't they? Places are permitted to say "No Men Allowed!". Quote
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 No, they can't. And I'll let you take it up with the Canadian and American governments why women's only gyms exist. Quote
jbg Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Posted September 1, 2011 That statement requires proof. If I believe an esteemed former leader of a great democracy, a proof is a proof. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Posted September 1, 2011 And I find this statement ironic. This is what people in Europe have said for centuries. And for a Jew to say "When in Rome" is also ironic, as when the Jews came to Rome they saw it as a decadent society, utterly at odds with their own religious beliefs. They chose isolation. No.We were denied the right not to be isolated in most cases. We made the best of a bad situation. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 If I believe an esteemed former leader of a great democracy, a proof is a proof. Chretien made that statement when a boneheaded reporter asked him, "What is a proof?" I admit his response sounds ridiculous, but it was no more ridiculous than the question. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 If I believe an esteemed former leader of a great democracy, a proof is a proof. (jbg) made the joke long ago, it was mildly amusing, and so he's determined to revisit it again and again despite diminishing returns. Your bag of tricks is mighty shallow. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 1, 2011 Report Posted September 1, 2011 Long hair is not banned and the head scarf wasn't banned for years. It has never been the cause of any safety issue before. So, you have no way of supporting your claim that it is a safety issue. It is a safety issue. It's not just Muslim head scarves that are banned - it's any head gear. It's to prevent the chance of it blowing off and onto the rails. According to the articles I've read, the group of Muslims was informed in advance of the park rules. The "it's because we're Muslims!" claim is ludicrous. Why should anyone else's life be endangered to protect someone else's religious beliefs? Lives trump religious beliefs. Quote
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.