Should the Dutch ban wearing the burqa in public?

[mancroft]

Should the Dutch ban wearing the burqa in public?

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18361

[ApeTheDog]

The Dutch have problems. That place has become really nasty.

No, they should not ban the burqa, for really obvious reasons.

[ApeTheDog]

I see someone has voted yes, so I'm going to have to argue a bit I guess.

They should not ban the burqa because forcing other people to live their life a certain way is criminal and morally incomprehensible.

It would be fine, if the Dutch way of living was somehow better than that of some burqa-toting islamic person, but they're no better - the random Dutch individual surely isn't better than the random burqa-wearing one.

This, by the way, creates a dangerous precedent towards a police state. If you disallow people to wear a burqa - you have to also disallow construction workers to, for example, wear jeans that don't completely cover up their ass, or any other similar mild disturbances. And then everybody loses their freedom. And in return for what?

I'd rather a place with individuals, where sure - some will annoy me from time to time - than one in which I'm not allowed to be myself and instead have to live according to a guidebook.

[BerberElla]

If you disallow people to wear a burqa - you have to also disallow construction workers to, for example, wear jeans that don't completely cover up their ass, or any other similar mild disturbances. And then everybody loses their freedom. And in return for what?


No this is not the same thing, the Burka poses a certain amount of a security risk and they have already banned helmets and hoodies or masks, why not burkas?

I want to vote yes, but I also believe in individual freedom to wear what you like. Tough one.

[Lurker]

No, probably not. But I really don't care much.

[ApeTheDog]

A security risk?

It's a sheet with a hole in it!

[mancroft]

No this is not the same thing, the Burka poses a certain amount of a security risk and they have already banned helmets and hoodies or masks, why not burkas?

Yes, a burqa could pose a security risk and there is also the problem of identifying the person in it.

[tinribz]

Yes, a burqa could pose a security risk.So is not carrying an ID card, or allowing yourself to be tagged, or cameras in your home. What have you got to hide?

[AcidGoethe]

I don't see any valid reason for them to do so. People should have the right to wear what they want and show signs of their religion. From a practical point of view, it would anger the local communities and this would lead to diplomatic problems.

[Arioch]

The idea is quite silly, making a lot of dutch citizens feel unwelcome in their own country just to stop a few dozen women from wearing the burqa. Yes, thats how many women in the Netherlands wear such clothing, merely a few dozen.

I suspect that this is really just a ploy for a handful of severely right-wing politicians in the Netherlands to attract votes by misleading the public.

[PonderBee]

I am not Muslim but my understanding is that Islamic scholars disagree on whether or not a burqa is required to be worn in public. Therefore there are many Muslims who require women in their community to wear a burqa.
I do not feel that a burqa is anymore a security risk than a backpack or loose clothing. Law enforcement should step-up to the times, strengthen their skilss, improve their resources and not expect citizens to loosen long-held and deeply felt religious customs.

[tinribz]

I suspect that this is really just a ploy for a handful of severely right-wing politicians in the Netherlands to attract votes by misleading the public.No I suspect it really is about security. But instead of eroding civil liberties the authorities should be looking to changing foreign policy responsible for the threats rather cheap diversionary knee jerk reactions like this.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Specifically banning the burka is pointless. There already are laws preventing the wearing of masks etc. The fact that a part of the population feels threatened by the religion of another part is at most a signal to improve relations.

[BerberElla]

Specifically banning the burka is pointless. There already are laws preventing the wearing of masks etc.

So should the Burka or the Niqab be seen as a mask because that is what it looks like? And if It is a mask, then why is it exempt from the initial mask ban?

[Xander]

God damn nanny culture idiots.

If you wear swat style body armour then expect people to look at you first if there is a shooting. If you wear a mask then expect people to start wanting to see your face should something untoward happen and the perpatraitors face have been hidden.

So the thing arouses suspicion. So what?

Drug dealers have a tendancy to drive fancy souped up cars. Does this mean we should ban fancy souped up cars? Hell no.

At what point do we the people tell our governments "no more"? How much is enough? They are trying to dictate what people wear incase there is an attack and incase one of these people was involved and incase there is no other way of finding them. I wonder how their staticians would view the potential gain on that one.

It's simple really, if you want to make it fair with current law. Any place where the wearing of helmets, hoodies or the like is disallowed then people should also be asked to remove any other forms of concealment or leave. That way is fair. Unless of course they fancy trying to explain why their bannign all full face helmets because they pose a security risk.

If you ask me this is just another piece of pointless political sabre waving and should be dealt with like any other childish behaviour. Give the assholes a "timeout". About 5 months in solitary should do the trick.

[Ferrus]

Yes, they should be free to wear a burqa and we should be free to mock their God and prophet.

[Xander]

Yes, they should be free to wear a burqa and we should be free to mock their God and prophet.
Does this mean they're free to tar and feather you for it though?

[MacGuffin]

Does this mean their free to tar and feather you for it though?
That makes no sense.

[Ferrus]

Does this mean their free to tar and feather you for it though?
No, there is a distinction between a physical act of violence and the expression of an idea.

[Xander]

That makes no sense.
Whoever let such Nazi's know how to spell deserves shooting. Well at least tazing lots.

;P

Better now?

[MacGuffin]

Whoever let such Nazi's know how to spell deserves shooting. Well at least tazing lots.

;P

Better now?
I... what?

[Ferrus]

I... what?
Both his grammar and line of arguement were excrable.

[Tayshaun]

No.

It seems to be a bad idea, as it comes across as a big provocation. Is it really worth it for the political and social consequences involved?

This law might affect fifty people in the most densely populated country in the world! It is likely that many of the one million dutch muslims will feel victimized and alienated for a law affecting one muslim out of ten thousand!

The debate about conspicuously displaying your religion in a public school is a different story though. This specific issue has aggravated the social tensions in France. In many European countries, and particularly France, school is the primary sanctuary of "laicite" or non-religiousness. Unlike the U.S. ("one nation under God"), the public school is supposed to be exempt of all religion, since State and religion have been separated in the Constitution.

[Xander]

Both his grammar and line of arguement were excrable.
:huh: ?

Me no understandy. Please speaky de english. *chuckle*

I usually type as I would speak in conversation. This comes with it's own flaws in structure and literal meaning. However to write both correctly and in regard to all the normal strictures and caveats would take far too long and be soooo boring as to be mind numbing. Perhaps you two should quite hanging around the SJ corner a little :smooch:

[MacGuffin]

The debate about conspicuously displaying your religion in a public school is a different story though. This specific issue has aggravated the social tensions in France. In many European countries, and particularly France, school is the primary sanctuary of "laicite" or non-religiousness. Unlike the U.S. ("one nation under God"), the public school is supposed to be exempt of all religion, since State and religion have been separated in the Constitution.
Tyrants!

[Tayshaun]

Tyrants!

It's their fault

http://www.viamedias.com/images/revolution-francaise.jpg

http://francehistoire.free.fr/epoque/revo/guerre.jpg

[Ferrus]

Perhaps you two should quite hanging around the SJ corner a little :smooch:
Whilst worrying about grammar seems a very J thing, it is also a wonderful way to prove how less intelligent other people are, hence aiding the INTPs quest.

[Xander]

Whilst worrying about grammar seems a very J thing, it is also a wonderful way to prove how less intelligent other people are, hence aiding the INTPs quest.
Surely quibbling over details which are only really worthwhile worrying about once the theory is set and ready, written up and is being typed up to be passed onto the publishers?

Before such a point it is merely distracting and detracting from the main exchange of ideas and concepts which would elevate the merely clever to a realm of genius.

Alongside this, if it is illogical to disregard an idea (or worse, assault it) because of who is presenting it then surely it is also illogical to act in such manner because the spelling, grammer or punctuation was not correct.

In conclusion I sumise that it must be an SJ thing and you pair are in it up to your necks. After all it couldn't be me in the wrong. That's like saying gravity isn't in effect. :smooch:

[htb]

Does this mean they're free to tar and feather you for it though?The preferred response by thugs masquerading as Muslims is to shoot eight times, sever the windpipe and pin a missive to the chest via dagger.

On topic -- rather than abridging the exercise of religion, might Amsterdam consider the insular, fascistic subculture adopting such extra-Koranic mores?

[Stoned_Rider]

The preferred response by thugs masquerading as Muslims is to shoot eight times, sever the windpipe and pin a missive to the chest via dagger.

Yeah, because thugs masquerading as Muslims just happen to be so fanatical about Islam that they get personally offended by any criticism of the Koran or Muhammad. What a coincidence.

[MacGuffin]

Alongside this, if it is illogical to disregard an idea (or worse, assault it) because of who is presenting it then surely it is also illogical to act in such manner because the spelling, grammer or punctuation was not correct.

In conclusion I sumise that it must be an SJ thing and you pair are in it up to your necks.
Except I made no assualt on your grammer/spelling/punctuation. I was attacking your reasoning.

So let's recap:

Xander - 2 reasoning errors
MacGuffin - now slightly bored

When someone says you aren't making sense, don't assume that they are saying you are miscommunicating. Perhaps your idea is fundamentally flawed.

[Geoff]

MacGuffin - now slightly bored



How do we distinguish that from normal MacGuffin.. is is the sobriety that is the clincher?

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

How do we distinguish that from normal MacGuffin.. is is the sobriety that is the clincher?

-GeoffPerhaps.

I need a G&T for sure.

[Stoned_Rider]

Yeah, because thugs masquerading as Muslims just happen to be so fanatical about Islam that they get personally offended by any criticism of the Koran or Muhammad. What a coincidence.

To elaborate, going up to someone in plain public, in the middle of the day, shooting him eight times (as if one shot to the head wasn't enough to kill), then slitting his throat (as if the eight shots weren't enough to kill), then stabbing his chest (as if slitting his throat wasn't enough to kill), while making absolutely no effort to conceal identity, and openly having no remorse about it in court, and knowing that you will probably get caught and that you will probably spend the rest of your life in prison, is hardly an efficient method for a mere "thug". If all thugs were like that then the world would be a much safer place.

In such a situation, one would have to ask the obvious question: What is it exactly that angered the "thug" so much to the point of not giving a fuck about the consequences anymore?

[MacGuffin]

To elaborate, going up to someone in plain public, in the middle of the day, shooting him eight times (as if one shot to the head wasn't enough to kill), then slitting his throat (as if the eight shots weren't enough to kill), then stabbing his chest (as if slitting his throat wasn't enough to kill), while making absolutely no effort to conceal identity, and openly having no remorse about it in court, and knowing that you will probably get caught and that you will probably spend the rest of your life in prison, is hardly an efficient method for a mere "thug". If all thugs were like that then the world would be a much safer place.
Don't make me move this to the Islam subforum.

[Stoned_Rider]

Don't make me move this to the Islam subforum.
I beg your pardon? Shouldn't you be directing this comment to someone else?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

So should the Burka or the Niqab be seen as a mask because that is what it looks like? And if It is a mask, then why is it exempt from the initial mask ban?

It's a local competence, so if there is a law, it is determined by the local authorities. AFAIK the specific law requires a person to be recognizable in public, and anything that hides the identity of a person is in principle illegal. Burkas aren't exempt. In practice, people aren't arrested for wearing sunglasses or changing their hairstyle: that would be seen as needlessly oppressive, and nobody paid much attention to that law.
Recently, there was a majority for a national mask ban, but it was canceled because of constitutional and practical problems.

Adding an anti-burka law is not only bad policy, because it is redundant, it is also a needless provocation. What should be discussed is the relative importance of public non-anonimity vs. freedom of practicing religion.

The debate started because of the animosity between the extremes of the islamist and the nationalistic factions, and is fueled by the latent mutual fear and loathing between ethnic groups, which in fact is based more on economic than religious or ethnic differences - the old story.

[MacGuffin]

I beg your pardon? Shouldn't you be directing this comment to someone else?
Not when one easily ignored post gets commented on TWICE, thus inviting further response.

[Xander]

Except I made no assualt on your grammer/spelling/punctuation. I was attacking your reasoning.

So let's recap:

Xander - 2 reasoning errors
MacGuffin - now slightly bored

When someone says you aren't making sense, don't assume that they are saying you are miscommunicating. Perhaps your idea is fundamentally flawed.
Ouch.
So decisive. Nice to see you surmise. Odd how you come out on top each time though.

You say potatoe an I spell it however the mood takes me. Mind you the Firfox 2 at home helps (even more so if they hadn't assigned alt+s to the history menu :mad: ). Thing is in the post you quoted there is no reasoning errors unless you are looking at it with a fixed perspective on the continuation of the thread. This would appear to me to be the pattern behind the words but you may well, and probably will, correct me.

As for assuming it's a criticism of my spelling or grammar, I'd think that much was an obvious leap of judgement considering previous exchanges. I can no more remove history than I can write the future.

[MacGuffin]

As for assuming it's a criticism of my spelling or grammar, I'd think that much was an obvious leap of judgement considering previous exchanges. I can no more remove history than I can write the future.
Sometimes it is both. Reasoning and miscommunicating.

See: wildcat

[Xander]

Sometimes it is both. Reasoning and miscommunicating.

See: wildcat
Surely you jest? Wildcat can not be called anything but lucid and succinct.

I do see your point but mainly because I can find the most logical and succinct posters on here (as touted by the popular opinion) as difficult to follow.

[MacGuffin]

Surely you jest? Wildcat can not be called anything but lucid and succinct.
I... holy... EXACTLY!

MacGuffin: A is A.
Xander: A is B?
MacGuffin: Wha?


I do see your point but mainly because I can find the most logical and succinct posters on here (as touted by the popular opinion) as difficult to follow.
That does not bode well for your T function.

[htb]

Yeah, because thugs masquerading as Muslims just happen to be so fanatical about Islam that they get personally offended by any criticism of the Koran or Muhammad. What a coincidence.Violent people don't always value efficiency, but rather relish temerity; normal people don't commit murder without compunction. The criminally insane and the closed societies they tend to create rely on cultural transmitters, and religion is perfectly tailored. If jihadist "Islam" weren't so internally inconsistent I might agree with you.

MacGuffin, you have derailed the thread on account of a typo that's since been fixed. Given the thread topic, the mention of Islam should hardly be surprising.

[MacGuffin]

MacGuffin, you have derailed the thread on account of a typo that's since been fixed. Given the thread topic, the mention of Islam should hardly be surprising.
*sigh*

Expand outward. Don't get so specific. We were doing fine until your Stoned Rider bait post.

[htb]

Stoned_Rider has a certain civil entitlement to a strong opinion on the broader subject, and is respectful enough in exchanges. Still, understood -- I didn't plan on going on and on.

[Xander]

I think the major problem with these kind of bills is that they specifically target a very narrow selection of people. It doesn't matter what kind of laws exist for others if these select few have always been exempt then it can always seem as though they are being targetted.

On the reverse those who wear the burqas must be able to see that it's hardly the norm for the area and be able to understand how their radically different rules of dress may come into conflict with the locals.

As far as I understand these things the burqa is optional and not mandatory. In which case then perhaps the government need to be a little more diplomatic and perhaps delay such changes till after consultation with the affected parties. Also the religion itself needs to move with the times. They are no more blind than the rest of us. They can see how the world perception of their religion may be getting darker. Okay it's not fair to punish the innocent for the guilty but we do the same everyday in probably every country. So perhaps showing some flexibility on such issues and instead of making a fuss, just encouraging their followers to drop the whole burqa thing while the government liase and then when 90% are happy then bring in the changes to the law.

I'm amazed at how undiplomatic politicians can be. They're almost sociopathic somedays.

I... holy... EXACTLY!

MacGuffin: A is A.
Xander: A is B?
MacGuffin: Wha?

That does not bode well for your T function.
Let's just say I think your Tn and me a bit more Nt. Use the force MacGuffin :rofl:

[Ferrus]

As far as I understand these things the burqa is optional and not mandatory.
What difference does it make? If there was another 3rd religion that said wearing it was compulsory, then fine let them do so. And I reserve the right to criticise their choice.

[Stoned_Rider]

What difference does it make? If there was another 3rd religion that said wearing it was compulsory, then fine let them do so. And I reserve the right to criticise their choice.
Would the same apply to a religion that requires carrying daggers, swords, or even guns around? I'm asking this because I think there is a point where freedom of religion conflicts with security, and security should always come first.

Also, although I voted "yes", I would have thought the burqa should fall under the mask category anyway. I'm still confused about this... is there a mask and/or hoodie ban already in place in Holland? Does it include the burqa? If the answer is yes to both questions then yeah, this is pretty much a stupid law.

[Xander]

What difference does it make? If there was another 3rd religion that said wearing it was compulsory, then fine let them do so. And I reserve the right to criticise their choice.
The point being is that the tradition (again only as far as I know) does not support this claim that a person should be allowed to wear one to keep with their religion. That would be a lie.

If they wish to argue some other reason for being allowed to wear one when all others are being required to be identifyable then they are welcome to do so.

As for any commentary that any person may give, all should be respectful of peoples choices and try to limit any negative impact they have on others. Regardless of comparitive wealth or background.

[Xander]

Would the same apply to a religion that requires carrying daggers, swords, or even guns around? I'm asking this because I think there is a point where freedom of religion conflicts with security, and security should always come first.

Also, although I voted "yes", I would have thought the burqa should fall under the mask category anyway. I'm still confused about this... is there a mask and/or hoodie ban already in place in Holland? Does it include the burqa? If the answer is yes to both questions then yeah, this is pretty much a stupid law.
I think the bone of contention will always come that it's specifically targetting the members of one religion. Where it is applied universally then there should be no need for a new law and any redefinition should come as no surprise to those of that religion. Like you say if a sword is included in a religion (it probably is somewhere, the kris I think is one) then it should be regulated by all the normal laws as a sword with perhaps a little leeway given for religious usage.

[Ferrus]

Would the same apply to a religion that requires carrying daggers, swords, or even guns around? I'm asking this because I think there is a point where freedom of religion conflicts with security, and security should always come first.
A religion that requires weapons as a ceremonial device - as Sikhism does (yet no one complains) - would be acceptable so long as no bodily harm is commited.


The point being is that the tradition
Tradition is irrelevent: the important point is that people are free to speak and express ideas.

[Xander]

Tradition is irrelevent: the important point is that people are free to speak and express ideas.
Your not free to do so. Incitement to riot covers a lot of that.

Tradition is only irrelevant to some, as is religion, as is logic. Different strokes my friend.

[Ferrus]

Your not free to do so. Incitement to riot covers a lot of that.
Law against "incitement" - all of them - are pernicious to my mind.

Tradition is only irrelevant to some, as is religion, as is logic. Different strokes my friend.
But all of these things only have any place in the world inasmuch as they relate to the truth - therefore all should be allowed to be expressed or denied provided they are also allowed to be challenged. A physical act is very different.

[Xander]

Law against "incitement" - all of them - are pernicious to my mind.
It is another set of laws designed to cover against the worst elements of society. Unfortunately it can be harmful to the innocent. However it is unlikely to be changed because it has great "reasons" for being in place and it works in the governments favour when they need it.

But all of these things only have any place in the world inasmuch as they relate to the truth - therefore all should be allowed to be expressed or denied provided they are also allowed to be challenged. A physical act is very different.
Truth? What is truth? Is it even a valid concept when dealing with people?

All things have a place to all people but that place is not the same for all people.

[Ferrus]

Truth? What is truth? Is it even a valid concept when dealing with people?
The fact that you are unaware of it is in fact the pretext for free speech. If we were aware of it then we could circumscribe all speech to that which is "truthful". However, being as this is the case, surely it is better to have an open arena in which such ideas can be expressed and challenged?

[Xander]

The fact that you are unaware of it is in fact the pretext for free speech. If we were aware of it then we could circumscribe all speech to that which is "truthful". However, being as this is the case, surely it is better to have an open arena in which such ideas can be expressed and challenged?
Your talking of ideas and probably new ones at that. This is more about religion which are no longer ideas but beliefs. Beliefs are tricky. You can't just wade in and start altering it all over the place. Not like you can with an idea. Perhaps this is a fault with beliefs, perhaps with the approach.

As for "truth" and free speach, I wouldn't have thought they'd have made it for that. Seems rather enlightened for laws.

[charred_heart]

Would the same apply to a religion that requires carrying daggers, swords, or even guns around? I'm asking this because I think there is a point where freedom of religion conflicts with security, and security should always come first.Since the burqa is not compulsory in Islam, you could argue that it doesn't infringe on their religious rights. Banning it however, is an infringement on the cultural freedoms of those who wear burqas. This would lead to controversy and tension between the minority and the government - something which I don't think would lead to better security in the country.

I am critical of the burqa, but I'm smart enough to know that being hostile to burqa wearing women is not the right thing to do.

[Xander]

Since the burqa is not compulsory in Islam, you could argue that it doesn't infringe on their religious rights. Banning it however, is an infringement on the cultural freedoms of those who wear burqas. This would lead to controversy and tension between the minority and the government - something which I don't think would lead to better security in the country.

I am critical of the burqa, but I'm smart enough to know that being hostile to burqa wearing women is not the right thing to do.
Surely you see the case where wearing such garments, regardless of reason, is inadvisable at best and asking for hassle at worst?

[Stoned_Rider]

Since the burqa is not compulsory in Islam, you could argue that it doesn't infringe on their religious rights. Banning it however, is an infringement on the cultural freedoms of those who wear burqas. This would lead to controversy and tension between the minority and the government - something which I don't think would lead to better security in the country.

I am critical of the burqa, but I'm smart enough to know that being hostile to burqa wearing women is not the right thing to do.

Can you really not see how a burqa-wearing person (yes, person, because there is no way you could possibly tell their gender) could pose a security risk, say, on a bus?

It's simple really. When you go out in public, you need to be identifiable. I believe the Netherlands already has a ban on face-covering scarves inside football stadiums. It's a question of security - no more, no less. No one is being unfairly targeted.

[MacGuffin]

So the Dutch should ban scarves in the winter if a person covers their face with it?

[Xander]

Now beards. They obscure the face and make it difficult to identify someone.

Oooo, headshape. If everyone was bald then you'd be able to identify them by the bone structure of their head too.

Ban all kinds of facial hair and any head coverings!! We can catalogue them all and plastic surgery would be inadequate!!

[charred_heart]

Can you really not see how a burqa-wearing person (yes, person, because there is no way you could possibly tell their gender) could pose a security risk, say, on a bus?

It's simple really. When you go out in public, you need to be identifiable. I believe the Netherlands already has a ban on face-covering scarves inside football stadiums. It's a question of security - no more, no less. No one is being unfairly targeted.It could be a security risk if it was tied to a battle ritual or something i.e it is related to violence. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if a person was wearing a burqa or overalls - you wouldn't be able to tell if they have a bomb or not based on that alone. Sticking out like a sore thumb also reduces security risks ;)


Surely you see the case where wearing such garments, regardless of reason, is inadvisable at best and asking for hassle at worst?Yes, it doesn't mean I can tell them to hand over their burqas, or else.

[Stoned_Rider]

So the Dutch should ban scarves in the winter if a person covers their face with it?
Only if they insist on keeping their scarves on for the entire duration of their metro and bus journeys, in their workplaces, or while out shopping.

Xander, while we're at it, I think people should be allowed to freely carry AK-47s, C4 explosives, hell even chemical/biological weapons around, because a ban on such things would infringe the rights of innocent people who carry said things around for cultural/leisure purposes.

Also, we should NOT be suspicious of anyone wearing a belt of explosives on a bus, fingers on the detonator, while shouting "Allahu Akbar!", lest it turns out to be merely an MP3 player. Who are we to tell people not to carry MP3 players around? :rolleyes:

[Xander]

Xander, while we're at it, I think people should be allowed to freely carry AK-47s, C4 explosives, hell even chemical/biological weapons around, because a ban on such things would infringe the rights of innocent people who carry said things around for cultural/leisure purposes.
Allright now I'm pissed.

Why is it that as soon as anyone mentions allowing firearms they just have to mention the friggin AK47. It's year's out of date, the ammo isn't NATO, it's friggin short range low punch mass produced crap.

At least allow me to carry an H&K :D

(I think you know what I was getting at. The whole beard thing was just a little sillyness. The MP3 player thing though is interesting as something that size with C4 could potentially be deadly.)

[Xander]

Yes, it doesn't mean I can tell them to hand over their burqas, or else.
That's what I'm on about. Saying "You lot, give me all those religious garments. They're all now against the law." is completely different to "People are now required to have their face uncovered whilst in public places due to the current threat of terrorism.".

To target one section now is ever likely to piss people off. To impose a blanket rule however is more true to the purpose it is intended for and does not isolate anyone for special treatment.

In regard to the scarf, it should be required that the face is still exposed other wise it's no different to a ski mask. I think though the problem with most of these religious garments is the degree to which they cover the face. Perhaps a redesign for the 21st century?

[Stoned_Rider]

Allright now I'm pissed.

Why is it that as soon as anyone mentions allowing firearms they just have to mention the friggin AK47. It's year's out of date, the ammo isn't NATO, it's friggin short range low punch mass produced crap.

At least allow me to carry an H&K :D
Alright, I'll have the chemical weapon :thumbup:


(I think you know what I was getting at. The whole beard thing was just a little sillyness.
and I think you know that the whole AK thing was but a humble effort to match your silliness :D


The MP3 player thing though is interesting as something that size with C4 could potentially be deadly.)
Yep, terrorist methods are getting more and more sophisticated, and there is only so much the government can ban before people really start getting pissed of. So, grant them the Burqa one at least :D



That's what I'm on about. Saying "You lot, give me all those religious garments. They're all now against the law." is completely different to "People are now required to have their face uncovered whilst in public places due to the current threat of terrorism"
It would sure be interesting to check out exactly what this law says, and compare it with the above quotes in bold.

[Xander]

Alright, I'll have the chemical weapon :thumbup:
Okay you get the makeup and I'll get the H&K.

Jeez your wierd but I'm sure I'm callous enough to shoot the weird ones too.

and I think you know that the whole AK thing was but a humble effort to match your silliness :D
Yeah. An AK47 is pretty silly. Least you could have said AK74 which I think would be far more likely. I mean.... jeez.

Yep, terrorist methods are getting more and more sophisticated, and there is only so much the government can ban before people really start getting pissed of. So, grant them the Burqa one at least :D
True. Why is it important to see their face? It's what they could be carrying that you have to be worried about. I think briefcases and attache cases should have been banned from the word go (see Hustler's pic in the shooting style thread for the H&K briefcase gun, they make a medical bag version too!!!) :D

It would sure be interesting to check out exactly what this law says, and compare it with the above quotes in bold.
I'm sure my words are pretty much exactly the same as the one's they used. I am, after all, diplomatic.

[Stoned_Rider]

True. Why is it important to see their face? It's what they could be carrying that you have to be worried about. I think briefcases and attache cases should have been banned from the word go (see Hustler's pic in the shooting style thread for the H&K briefcase gun, they make a medical bag version too!!!)
Doesn't matter. It is people who carry out these sort of things. A face-covering ban serves as a deterrent for bombers who do not wish to be later identified by CCTV footage for whatever reason.

I'm sure you agree that being able to identify a suspect's identity, along with possible ties to terrorist cells etc.. could be of enormous help in fighting terrorism. Western governments are on the backfoot these days because most of the anti-terrorism work they've been doing goes largely un-noticed and un-appreciated. People are happy to have a go at anti-terrorism measures, not realizing that such measures have forced the terrorists to work much, much, harder and to think a million times before proceeding with any terrorist act.

[Xander]

Doesn't matter. It is people who carry out these sort of things. A face-covering ban serves as a deterrent for bombers who do not wish to be later identified by CCTV footage for whatever reason.

I'm sure you agree that being able to identify a suspect's identity, along with possible ties to terrorist cells etc.. could be of enormous help in fighting terrorism. Western governments are on the backfoot these days because most of the anti-terrorism work they've been doing goes largely un-noticed and un-appreciated. People are happy to have a go at anti-terrorism measures, not realizing that such measures have forced the terrorists to work much, much, harder and to think a million times before proceeding with any terrorist act.
Personally I don't think that it is possible to stop terrorism, by it's very nature inpart. Hopefully someone is also looking into why we have terrorists at all and are trying to solve the situations which create these people.

[Stoned_Rider]

Personally I don't think that it is possible to stop terrorism, by it's very nature inpart.
I also don't think that it is possible to stop crime. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying, and it sure doesn't mean we should drop the legal system altogether.


Hopefully someone is also looking into why we have terrorists at all and are trying to solve the situations which create these people.
Hopefully.

;)

[Xander]

I also don't think that it is possible to stop crime. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying, and it sure doesn't mean we should drop the legal system altogether.
True but I think with terrorism there's more danger of them throwing the baby out with the bathwater.