Armed robbers disguised in burkhas carry out £4,000 raid

No Limit said:
But bank robberies happen all the time where someone wore a hoodie and a scarf. How come no threads from you then?

Are you saying the bank shouldn't have let them in? Would that have stopped the armed robbery?.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you ban the burka from banks or anywhere else, that won't actually stop the crime from happening. Criminals and terrorists will simply find another method of concealing their identity and continue to carry out the crime. All this will do is anger people and potentially begin criminalizing fundamentalists who don't wish to obey a law they deem oppressive to their religion.

I don't think banning it is the answer at all.
 
People don't commit crimes, burkhas commit crimes!

Ordinary people don't commit crimes, super heroes commit crimes.

Ordinary people don't commit crimes, ex presidents commit crimes

People don't commit crimes, aprons commit crimes

I'm sure somewhere... at some point in time... someone wearing a habit has robbed a store or bank as well.


That being said... wearing masks and stuff are typically illegal here in the states in most public scenarios due to concealment of identity. Muslim garments and any garment that conceals the face should be equally illegal. I haven't seen any such Muslim person wearing anything of the sort here in the states though... I have two mosques or Muslim schools... whatever they are... and they're typically just wearing their little head scarf thing and nothing like you see in saudi arabia or whatever in that Burkha.

xapmx.jpg



Which is absolutely no problem... it's just like little old jewish women or something.






http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...s-in-public-good-or-outdated/question-242732/

Would someone wearing a superman costume be arrested? Everybody knows you can't recognize superman's true identity even though he doesn't wear a mask!
 
No Limit said:
I didn't miss those points, I just don't understand why you decided to completely change subjects. The way a forum works is if you make a thread about a topic you should probably stick to that topic, not move on to something completely different that nobody was talking about.

I know you didn't make an argument for a complete ban, I was being snarky in my first reply to you. Its funny because the entire premise of the thread seems to be another reason (in your mind) to ban the burka but you won't just come out and say that.
Click to expand...

At first i didn't want to make a debate about it, just post news. But since we ended up with one i used some points from the other threads, it's really not that hard to connect.

Why is an example of the misuse of the burka important? If you are making an entire thread about it's misuse clearly you have some kind of point. What's your point?

And yes, you can make an argument that covering yourself can be a security concern in some rare instances, thank you cpt obvious. But bank robberies happen all the time where someone wore a hoodie and a scarf. How come no threads from you then?
Click to expand...

My point is like i've mentioned probably three times from now, is that the burkha was used in a criminal act in europe and therfore may be categorised as a potential security threat AND if situation arises they shouldn't be exempt from the security procedures that demand it to be taken off.
In simple words...if an airport doesn't allow concealing clothes then they can demand the burka to be taken off.
That is as far as i'm willing to drag this issue.

Yes, you mentioned that burkas shouldn't be exempt from current laws. The problem is that this implies the burka is exempt when you have absolutely nothing to back that up. But even ignoring that what in the world does that have to do with a bank robbery where they wore a burka? Are you saying the bank shouldn't have let them in? Would that have stopped the armed robbery? I'm honestly not understanding the connection, please explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, currently i have no proof to back it up. But there was the case with the pupil, like i've said it's not such a big leap of faith.
I am just talking about a possibility if it will happen. However other cases are quite compelling.
 
no **** that, ban that shit.
This a man made attempt to subjugate women.
And the women that want to wear this are brainwashed by their families.
And what kind of stupid argument is:"Jewish women do it too?"
Another man made religion where the males must thank God everyday that he wasn't born a gentile or women.
No freedom to those who'd deny us of all freedoms if they had the chance.

If you are pro human rights you cannot be pro religious tolerance especially not with the Abrahamic religions. It's incompatible
 
unozero said:
no **** that, ban that shit.
This a man made attempt to subjugate women.
And the women that want to wear this are brainwashed by their families.
And what kind of stupid argument is:"Jewish women do it too?"
Another man made religion where the males must thank God everyday that he wasn't born a gentile or women.
No freedom to those who'd deny us of all freedoms if they had the chance.

If you are pro human rights you cannot be pro religious tolerance especially not with the Abrahamic religions. It's incompatible
Click to expand...

Yeah... sorry, but you're not going to change the minds of the religions by banning their shit. It doesn't matter even if they were brainwashed... banning the garment isn't going to do anything. The only logical sense I see in banning the thing is in the facial concealment... in which case just ban the facial concealment part... simply for concealment of identity purposes... which is the only legitimate problem I can think of. Using it as concealment for stuff isn't a logical argument... since many everyday items can be used to conceal weapons. Trench coats... regular coats... robes... whatever the **** ever can conceal weapons.

No freedom to those who'd deny us of all freedoms if they had the chance.
Click to expand...

This is retarded. You can't deny a citizen their freedom simply because they may have backwards views themselves about freedom. It makes you absolutely no better than them. Until they actually do something that legally revokes their freedoms... they still retain them.

Being ex-religious, I have a deep sense of religious intolerance... but I still understand how wrong and naive it is to try and change the world by banning garments... which changes absolutely nothing. And I'm against banning religion as well. We just have to work past it as society and make it a thing of the past because the people will it, and not because we enforce it to be a thing of the past. Those types of strong arm tactics are wrong.



EDIT: Wow... run on sentences galore. I'm going to bed.
 
same^

I should have added that I at least would like to see public ban in Religious symbols.
Keep that shit in your Living Room.

nite.
 
jverne said:
At first i didn't want to make a debate about it, just post news. But since we ended up with one i used some points from the other threads, it's really not that hard to connect.
Click to expand...
We were debating your original thread. You wanted to change the subject. And you were not just posting news, your post clearly had a point behind it, a point you didn't want to clearly spell out.

My point is like i've mentioned probably three times from now, is that the burkha was used in a criminal act in europe and therfore may be categorised as a potential security threat AND if situation arises they shouldn't be exempt from the security procedures that demand it to be taken off.
In simple words...if an airport doesn't allow concealing clothes then they can demand the burka to be taken off.
That is as far as i'm willing to drag this issue.
Click to expand...
Again, what does that have to do with a bank robbery? Do you think it should be banned in banks? No? Then why would you post this? If your point was that it shouldn't be exempt from existing laws then you should have posted examples of it being exempt from existing laws, not a bank robbery story that has nothing to do with it. So forgive me for not believing you when you say that was really your point and it had nothing to do with bans on burkas.

And hey unozero, just shut up bro.
 
Criminals perform a crime while wearing a piece of clothing.

Does it follow that we should ban the clothing they were wearing?

Criminals will commit crimes using whatever means are available to them, and will conceal their identities by whatever means they please. Banning pieces of clothing because they may be used by criminals is absurd.

This is essentially the same idea as banning trench coats because the columbine shooters used them. There are many ways to conceal one's identity, and many ways to conceal weapons.

If you want to stop bank robberies, improve security in banks. Don't restrict freedoms for everyone, just because they might use those freedoms to commit a crime.

That said, I do think the burkha is a symbol of female oppression in the Islamic world, and its disgusting that they are forced to wear them. Banning them, however, is not the answer. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they want -- including burkhas.
 
I think the correct course of action here is not to ban the burkha, but to ban women.
 
No Limit said:
Again, what does that have to do with a bank robbery? Do you think it should be banned in banks? No? Then why would you post this? If your point was that it shouldn't be exempt from existing laws then you should have posted examples of it being exempt from existing laws, not a bank robbery story that has nothing to do with it. So forgive me for not believing you when you say that was really your point and it had nothing to do with bans on burkas.

And hey unozero, just shut up bro.
Click to expand...

Banned in banks?

I think a law that prohibited concealing identities in sensitive buildings would be reasonable enough. Banks, airports, city halls,...

Yes if i had direct evidence of them being exempt i would put it up. I said i have not, but considering other cases that were somewhat in the same principle, i wouldn't be so surprised if there will be one sooner or later.
Well technically in Iraq soldiers at check points have the practice to not strip search muslim women, because it offends the locals. However Iraq is not Europe, but when it will happen here...i'll make sure to post it here.

Have you read by chance the link i posted earlier about officers being issued scarfs when entering mosques? In a way that is just the opposite of what we're talking here...non-muslim officers instructed to cover themselves.
Metaphorically speaking looks like the water damn has not yet collapsed but it's full of cracks...it's just a matter of time.
 
So you think the government should decide what clothing is acceptable in banks? This shouldn't be a decision for the bank to make?
 
No Limit said:
So you think the government should decide what clothing is acceptable in banks? This shouldn't be a decision for the bank to make?
Click to expand...

If it is a privately owned bank. It was just an example...there are other public places, that's besides the point. Courts,...

Demanding ones face visible is not really dictating how someone should dress...from a realistic POV. They could just show their face when in the premises and after that they can do whatever they want.

Some shops demand that you leave any large bags at the counter before entering...ok it is a private store (not really relevant), but what i'm pointing out is that this is not such an extreme demand as you think it is. And i really don't think this constitutes as a ban...if it is then it's just barely one.

But like i've said...i'm sure sooner or later an example will pop up, until now nobody has yet used the burkha for a criminal act in Europe. So i wouldn't hold my breath.


And i'm curious...what do you think of that report where officers on official duty are instructed to cover themselves? Would you agree that it is in a way the same principle just from the other side?
 
Most if not all banks are privately owned, no? So I still dont see the point of your original post. But moving past that, so your position from now on in any public buildings you can no longer wear hoodies, caps, sun glasses, scarfs, wigs, surgical masks (for those people obssessed with their health), any kind of seasonal costumes, and anything else that could cover your face in some way?

What other freedoms are you willing to give up so that you can feel safer?

And I didn't even click on your police link because it simply does not matter to what we are talking about, its an attempt by you to change the subject. A church or mosque is a private building. If a cop is going in to on anything other than official business they have to follow the rules of that private institution. If there is a shooting in the mosque or they are going to arrest somebody obviously its not right to make them wear any kind of special clothing. Again, this has nothing to do with your original post.
 
jverne said:
Oh...looky what i found




http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/apr/25/race.humanrights
Click to expand...

I wont get in to a debate about how stupid the idea of a government ID card. But...

I thought your issue was with security? Here they give you an option (that option is available to everyone), show your face or give us your finger prints that will be matched against the ID card. That's actually much more secure than showing your face as someone could confuse the picture on the ID, you can't confuse finger prints. So what's your problem?
 
No Limit said:
Most if not all banks are privately owned, no? So I still dont see the point of your original post. But moving past that, so your position from now on in any public buildings you can no longer wear hoodies, caps, sun glasses, scarfs, wigs, surgical masks (for those people obssessed with their health), any kind of seasonal costumes, and anything else that could cover your face in some way?

What other freedoms are you willing to give up so that you can feel safer?
Click to expand...

Showing your face in sensitive buildings is not that unreasonable. I personally wouldn't mind.
Like i've said...banks were just an example.

And I didn't even click on your police link because it simply does not matter to what we are talking about, its an attempt by you to change the subject. A church or mosque is a private building. If a cop is going in to on anything other than official business they have to follow the rules of that private institution. If there is a shooting in the mosque or they are going to arrest somebody obviously its not right to make them wear any kind of special clothing. Again, this has nothing to do with your original post.
Click to expand...

I think we already finished my original subject...there's nothing else to discuss, or not?

Too bad you won't discuss it, because it's really quite similar, should i make a new thread about it?
And besides...what part of official duty don't you understand? For all i care they can go sign a paper, it doesn't matter...it's while on OFFICIAL DUTY!


No Limit said:
I wont get in to a debate about how stupid the idea of a government ID card. But...

I thought your issue was with security? Here they give you an option (that option is available to everyone), show your face or give us your finger prints that will be matched against the ID card. That's actually much more secure than showing your face as someone could confuse the picture on the ID, you can't confuse finger prints. So what's your problem?
Click to expand...

Haven't we concluded that my point is the exemption based on religious elements? Security is just a sub category.
I have found another article about muslims bitching that airport scanners are not Islam compatible, however i did not post it because i have mixed feelings about those as well.
Maybe i'm reading the article wrong...but where does it state you'll have the option to choose which one?

Instead of a photograph, there would be an exemption for certain people, who would only have to give fingerprint and iris-recognition data.
Click to expand...
 
Showing your face in sensitive buildings is not that unreasonable. I personally wouldn't mind.
Like i've said...banks were just an example.
Click to expand...
Banks can already do whatever they want, they are private institutions. If they dont want to allow burkas they dont have to. Not to mention how absurd it is to suggest if the burka didn't exist the armed robbery wouldnt have happened or would have been less efficient.

I see people all the time especially when I fly covering their face in some fassion. So according to you we now need to spend all kinds of money in additional resources to have a clothing police at air ports for a immaginary threat that never actually materialized? Really? Like I asked you, what other freedoms would you like to give up for immaginary threats that have a 1 in a billion chance of affecting you?

I went and clicked on your link just for shits and giggles, and then I clicked on the actual source they cited. No where does that source say this is mendatory or that they are forced to wear it on official business in moques. What it says is they handed some headscarves but doesn't actually say they are forced to wear them. I already gave you my position on this, I'll repeat it for you. A mosque is a private property. Cops, atleast here in the states, dont have the right to invade your private property as they wish. So if they aren't there on official business they have to follow whatever rules that private property sets. And official business in this country for a cop is never to sign some papers, I'm not sure what you are talking about. So if they are investigating something and need to talk to someone in a mosque it makes sense for them to have a scarf that way the person they are trying to talk to will allow them in since cops have no right to force themselves in. Seems kind of reasonable when put in those terms, no?

Haven't we concluded that my point is the exemption based on religious elements? Security is just a sub category.
I have found another article about muslims bitching that airport scanners are not Islam compatible, however i did not post it because i have mixed feelings about those as well.
Maybe i'm reading the article wrong...but where does it state you'll have the option to choose which one?
Click to expand...

But the point is this isn't excemption based on religious elements. It will be available to everyone, atleast thats the assumption I am making and you have nothing that disputes this assumption. The article doesnt say this will only be available to muslims. And the reason I make that assumption is that I believe britain is still a country of laws that believes in equal protection, and based on that I gurantee that anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, will be able to get this exemption if they so please. Do you have a problem with this?

On edit: when I reread this I saw I didnt address one of your points so I came back and did so without making a new reply, sorry.
 
No Limit said:
I wont get in to a debate about how stupid the idea of a government ID card. But...

I thought your issue was with security? Here they give you an option (that option is available to everyone), show your face or give us your finger prints that will be matched against the ID card. That's actually much more secure than showing your face as someone could confuse the picture on the ID, you can't confuse finger prints. So what's your problem?
Click to expand...


germany has one and last I checked they didn't devolve in to a 4th Reich.
 
No Limit said:
Banks can already do whatever they want, they are private institutions. If they dont want to allow burkas they dont have to. Not to mention how absurd it is to suggest if the burka didn't exist the armed robbery wouldnt have happened or would have been less efficient.

I see people all the time especially when I fly covering their face in some fassion. So according to you we now need to spend all kinds of money in additional resources to have a clothing police at air ports for a immaginary threat that never actually materialized? Really? Like I asked you, what other freedoms would you like to give up for immaginary threats that have a 1 in a billion chance of affecting you?

I went and clicked on your link just for shits and giggles, and then I clicked on the actual source they cited. No where does that source say this is mendatory or that they are forced to wear it on official business in moques. What it says is they handed some headscarves but doesn't actually say they are forced to wear them. I already gave you my position on this, I'll repeat it for you. A mosque is a private property. Cops, atleast here in the states, dont have the right to invade your private property as they wish. So if they aren't there on official business they have to follow whatever rules that private property sets. And official business in this country for a cop is never to sign some papers, I'm not sure what you are talking about. So if they are investigating something and need to talk to someone in a mosque it makes sense for them to have a scarf that way the person they are trying to talk to will allow them in since cops have no right to force themselves in. Seems kind of reasonable when put in those terms, no?
Click to expand...

Ok i agree that an armed robbery would happen despite what they wore. However the burka is a pretty neat camouflage and i guess security would look suspiciously at anyone entering with a hidden face. But i agree that the burka in technical terms is not that much different than other forms of concealment. In reality IMO people might look the other way at burka wearing women as not to look "racist" wheres they might react if someone came dressed in a trench coat, glasses and cap... However that's not an argument based on pure rationality.
I wouldn't mind if government buildings demanded visible faces.

The article doesn't give any specifics, but the fact they are issued to wear in religious buildings, is pretty tempting for drawing conclusions. I guess we should wait and see how it turns out in practice.
You need a warrant to inspect someones building, but the police might have other business that might involve entering the building. What that business might be is secondary, if they are on official duty that allows them to enter the building they should not cover their heads for anybody.


But the point is this isn't excemption based on religious elements. It will be available to everyone, atleast thats the assumption I am making and you have nothing that disputes this assumption. The article doesnt say this will only be available to muslims. And the reason I make that assumption is that I believe britain is still a country of laws that believes in equal protection, and based on that I gurantee that anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, will be able to get this exemption if they so please. Do you have a problem with this?

On edit: when I reread this I saw I didnt address one of your points so I came back and did so without making a new reply, sorry.
Click to expand...

Thousands of Muslim women will be exempted from having to show their faces on identity cards as the Government moves to allay fears among British Muslims that the new cards will be used to target them in the 'war on terror'.

As David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, faced attack for not allowing enough debate over the introduction of the first ID cards in Britain since the Second World War, officials made it clear that if Muslim women do not want to reveal their faces in public, that would be respected.
Click to expand...

This is what the article says.
 
Banks should have a sign clearly posted: 'No Bank Robbing'. *dusts off hands* there we go.
 
Banks should have a sign clearly posted: 'No Banking'. *dusts off hands* there we go.
 
I have absolutely no idea what this thread is about because 4 pages of just jverne and No Limit is frankly unreadable.

The title appears to be equivalent to "robbers with masks rob bank".
 
I think there should be no facial headgear or concealment in airports and banks whether it be for burkas, scarf's and hoods should be down. Even no sunglasses. It is much easier to spot suspicion when you can see someone's entire face. It is also easier to detect wanted criminals because with burkas you can only tell someone by there eyes up close so this means that they have much better chance of getting out undetected. If they managed to fake a passport and get a burka it would be much more difficult to find out if you are a criminal. They would be reliant on things like fingerprint scanners and have to have eye checks to detect threats in airports. It makes criminals or terrorists jobs a lot easier having facial concealment.

I do not think any pieces of clothing should be banned or burkhas for that matter but they should not be worn(or hoods up) in places like airports and banks and areas that are under constant threat. That's my opinion anyway.

For those who complain about having to take their sunglasses off or whatever I say deal with it. Its not like I am asking you to walk around with your pants off.

There will still be problems even then. People wearing beards and other complex methods and I cannot expect people to shave their beards if they want to fly but I can at least try to cut down some of their methods. People may argue with this but were there is a will there is a way and if a terrorist wants to infiltrate and airport he can do given he is intelligent and puts his mind to it but that does not mean we can give up trying to cut down on there methods. Or just throwing technology at it for that matter since it is easy to counter. Facial features and looking for suspicion is one of the best and low-tech ways to prevent terrorism and this would get rid of it forcing us to depend upon technology more.
 
The bank robbery not being the reason but, burkhas should not be allowed in Western areas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top