[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431212]No but it gives shopkeepers a reason to call the cops when someone enters a store without taking that shit off.
Also thisispain I'm not answering that stupid question because it has no link whatsoever with the debate and you know it. The law isn't applying exclusively to Niqabs so we can't contest the usefulness of banning niqabs as they are not the subject of a specific law, they just fall under one of the categories by mere lack of luck.[/QUOTE]
Okay, and what's that going to accomplish? An innocent person gets a fine for a victimless "crime", and not a single criminal or wrong action is prevented.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32431218]the whole debate was sparked up over someone robbing someone else wearing one.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8667330.stm[/url][/QUOTE]
but that's australia, not france. plus wearing a burqa while robbing someone really just shows that he didn't have anything better to cover himself up with.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431224]nowhere [/quote]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32431187]but rather exists to say that "Doing X or wearing a motorcyle helmet in public is wrong". QUOTE]
well i'm glad that you bring this up because it connects back to the original thread concept. it's bleeding obvious that they're just saying "being this kind of muslim is wrong".
but i totally agree.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. This is the problem and why it's so clearly islamaphobic. They are saying that wearing a burqa in public is WRONG, not that you shouldn't do it.
To anyone :
[url]http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2010-02-06/faits-divers-deux-hommes-en-burqa-braquent-un-bureau-de-poste-dans-l-essonne/920/0/421445[/url]
There. It's only one example that Burqa CAN lead to crimes, along with all of the other items put in the list. From that point, banning it for security purposes IS a realist issue - people can just take off the damn thing and reveal their face for about thirty seconds, so they're recognized and the concerned people who might get assaulted or robbed or whatever don't have a problem with it.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431212] they just fall under one of the categories by mere lack of luck.[/QUOTE]
laws aren't built around luck. are you saying the banning of the veil was just an oops moment?
even more reason to overturn it, they banned shit they didn't even want to ban in the first place. what a joke.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431249]but that's australia, not france. plus wearing a burqa while robbing someone really just shows that he didn't have anything better to cover himself up with.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim[/url]
Interestingly enough, there are quite a few cases where burqas have been used, I have no idea why.
I assume it's because it covers most of the body, hides gender etc.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431261]To anyone :
[url]http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2010-02-06/faits-divers-deux-hommes-en-burqa-braquent-un-bureau-de-poste-dans-l-essonne/920/0/421445[/url]
There.[/QUOTE]
Google Translate will have to do:
[quote]Two men covered in a burqa, according to preliminary results of the investigation, have at least one handgun, have robbed the post office in Athis-Mons (Essonne) Saturday 10 am to 30, it was judicial sources said. Believing be faced with two women, an employee opened the hatch of the bank. Once inside, the two men took up the veil and turned the employees and customers, said a judicial source. As shown in Le Parisien, they left with about 4,500 Euros. The investigation was entrusted to the Evry judicial police in Versailles (Yvelines).[/quote]
So two guys put on burqas once they got to a store they planned to rob? Okay, so how would this law have prevented this, considering they weren't wearing the burqas on the way there?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431261]To anyone :
[url]http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2010-02-06/faits-divers-deux-hommes-en-burqa-braquent-un-bureau-de-poste-dans-l-essonne/920/0/421445[/url]
There.[/QUOTE]
if this is post-burqa ban it only proves my point.
people with neckbeards are rather unpleasant and pose a safety risk i propose we place a ban on neck beards
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32431285]
Interestingly enough, there are quite a few cases where burqas have been used, I have no idea why.[/QUOTE]
criminals don't pick something to cover themselves with based on what it actually is. i've heard people robbing each other using bed sheets.
it's a moot point.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431331]if this is post-burqa ban it only proves my point.[/QUOTE]
It was before
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431357]It was before[/QUOTE]
And how would this law have prevented it? As long as the robbers get there in some concealing get-up before the store owner decides to call the police (which I don't think he'll jump to calling the police immediately if two burqa-wearers come in), he'll still get robbed, and this law will have stopped not a single crime.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32431327]So two guys put on burqas once they got to a store they planned to rob? Okay, so how would this law have prevented this, considering they weren't wearing the burqas on the way there?[/QUOTE]
Nah, google translated it wrong.
To do a quick summary, they went there wearing Burqas (all the way from their starting point) and the employees thought they were women. It's only inside the building and after the employees were at ease that they took off the thing and started the robbery.
If Burqas were banned back then, they would have been asked to take off the thing BEFORE entering the post office, spotted as men, and they couldn't have entered.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32431393]And how would this law have prevented it? As long as the robbers get there in some concealing get-up before the store owner decides to call the police (which I don't think he'll jump to calling the police immediately if two burqa-wearers come in), he'll still get robbed, and this law will have stopped not a single crime.[/QUOTE]
Security door, can only get opened if you wait for a few seconds while whoever is in charge of security opens it remotely for you.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431357]It was before[/QUOTE]
well this is good, but i'm guessing you supported the burqa ban and then found actually evidence to justify.
that still allows me to question the reasoning behind it seeing as you're kind of retro-actively justifying it.
either way i doubt the threat of a fine was going to deter these criminals.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431416]well this is good, but i'm guessing you supported the burqa ban and then found actually evidence to justify.
that still allows me to question the reasoning behind it seeing as you're kind of retro-actively justifying it.
either way i doubt the threat of a fine was going to deter these criminals.[/QUOTE]
They could have been arrested, and as they had firearms hid under the veil, they could have been later prosecuted for robbery attempt.
I also endorsed the face-hiding clothes since the very beginning, I was both surprised and shocked it suddenly was considered by the medias as an anti-burqa law because it obviously wasn't intended for that in the first place.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431402]spotted as men, and they couldn't have entered.
[/QUOTE]
are men not allowed to enter banks?
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;32422717]The law is the law. If I were to disagree with the law that forbids me to shoot people in the face, would it be a commendable act or a criminal offense?[/QUOTE]
You're implying wearing a fucking facewrap hurts anyone
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431445]are men not allowed to enter banks?[/QUOTE]
They are but seriously would you trust a man who tried to enter in a secured place with money and valuable belongings inside if he was dressed as a woman and hid guns under is disguise ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431430]They could have been arrested, and as they had firearms hid under the veil, they could have been later prosecuted for robbery attempt.
I also endorsed the face-hiding clothes since the very beginning, I was both surprised and shocked it suddenly was considered by the medias as an anti-burqa law because it obviously wasn't intended for that in the first place.[/QUOTE]
And so would you also ban baggy clothes because you can hide a weapon in certain articles of them? If you're going to be purely about "stopping crime" with these kinds of laws then at least you must be consistent.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32431459]You're implying wearing a fucking facewrap hurts anyone[/QUOTE]
Given people robbed people while wearing this thing (and kept doing it afterwards, only in drastically less amounts), yes, it can hurt people.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431430]
I also endorsed the face-hiding clothes since the very beginning, I was both surprised and shocked it suddenly was considered by the medias as an anti-burqa law because it obviously wasn't intended for that in the first place.[/QUOTE]
considering the fact that anti-islam sentiment in france is very strong (i experienced it first hand), it's not an illogical thing to assume, sarkozy himself saying that he wants it banned.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/europe/23france.html[/url]
either way it's not a just ban and i'm totally unconvinced that any robbery would be foiled simply by banning veils.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32423642]Why don't we just ban clothes so we all can run around naked in the streets?[/QUOTE]
weapons can be hidden in anuses, ban anuses
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431466]They are but seriously would you trust a man who tried to enter in a secured place with money and valuable belongings inside if he was dressed as a woman and hid guns under is disguise ?[/QUOTE]
So because they thought he looked suspicious he can't come in the bank? The bank would have a right to call the police, but certainly not a right to take possessions from him.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431481]Given people robbed people while wearing this thing (and kept doing it afterwards, only in drastically less amounts), yes, it can hurt people.[/QUOTE]
You can still rob someone without a mask.
That's like banning money and iPods because they're related to the crime.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32431496]weapons can be hidden in anuses, ban anuses[/QUOTE]
there are sensible retorts to his argument
you try hiding a fucking shotgun in your anus.
take pictures.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431466]They are but seriously would you trust a man who tried to enter in a secured place with money and valuable belongings inside [/QUOTE]
no if they were just dressed as men and kept their guns hidden under their shirt like other robberies i'm sure they would have been allowed.
and considering it said:
Une fois à l'intérieur, les deux hommes ont relevé le voile et ont braqué les employés et les clients, indique une source judiciaire.
supposedly they revealed themselves from under the veil which means it was purely a plot to get inside.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32431480]And so would you also ban baggy clothes because you can hide a weapon in certain articles of them? If you're going to be purely about "stopping crime" with these kinds of laws then at least you must be consistent.[/QUOTE]
People are still asked to take off their sweaters if they have one or let their motorcycle helmet at the entry so they won't steal anything or hide any weapon. In case of baggy pants, they're most of the time just being watched over.
Though in that case the "hiding weapons under it" just makes it a bit more guilty, doesn't mean it's a reason - face-hiding clothes are worn in the obvious will of hiding your face, which make them much more suspicious.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431493]considering the fact that anti-islam sentiment in france is very strong (i experienced it first hand), it's not an illogical thing to assume, sarkozy himself saying that he wants it banned.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/europe/23france.html[/url]
either way it's not a just ban and i'm totally unconvinced that any robbery would be foiled simply by banning veils.[/QUOTE]
I also find it a bit odd that he makes no mention of crime or prevention of crime, simply that the burqa is a "sign of slavery":
[quote=Nicholas Sarkozy]The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity, the burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.[/quote]
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32431553]People are still asked to take off their sweaters if they have one or let their motorcycle helmet at the entry so they won't steal anything or hide any weapon. In case of baggy pants, they're most of the time just being watched over.
Though in that case the "hiding weapons under it" just makes it a bit more guilty, doesn't mean it's a reason - face-hiding clothes are worn in the obvious will of hiding your face, which make them much more suspicious.[/QUOTE]
So you can't even wear a sweater in a public place without being told to take it off?
suspicious-ness doesn't warrant the ban of a certain type of religious expression and the unfair punishment of innocent people.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32431550]no if they were just dressed as men and kept their guns hidden under their shirt like other robberies i'm sure they would have been allowed.
and considering it said:
Une fois à l'intérieur, les deux hommes ont relevé le voile et ont braqué les employés et les clients, indique une source judiciaire.
supposedly they revealed themselves from under the veil which means it was purely a plot to get inside.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they did, but it's not excusing the fact that two men entered a secured place dressed as women, which is already suspicious in the first place - especially when the said disguise is hiding your entire body.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
