When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?

[bodie]

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

['andersom']

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

How about a balaclava?

[Semicolon]

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

During sex.

[bodie]

There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering,  not seen anything about balaclava's.

['andersom']

There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering,  not seen anything about balaclava's.

It makes sense that there are places where you just have to show your face.

[RageBeoulve]

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

Despite my own non-belief, I have to respect the religious beliefs of this woman. I can tell her shes being stupid, but I cannot force her not to wear the burka.

[TheoK]

 

[RageBeoulve]

And many people would call me a horrible person for telling the woman what I really think, even though the people who would feel this way, would be the ones trying to "BAN BURKAS".

Its mystifying to me. What -is- that?

[Al Swearegen]

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

"When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?"

"When you are in line to see your favourite Atheist speaker and you suspect the person in line behind, in a burka, you is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

"When you are nearing a checkpoint and you suspect the person in a burka, standing to the side of the checkpoint is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

"When after a big night out you are naked and trying to coerce the person you bought back to your hotel room, to get undressed and have sex with you, BUT in a moment of semi-lucidity you suspect the person in a burka, lying on the bed fully clothed, and giving you "come hither looks",  is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

[RageBeoulve]

Big news in the UK at the moment.  Muslim woman refuses to show her face in court and demands to make her 'plea' behind a burka!

This has sparked all sorts of discussions about whether a 'law' should be passed to determine exactly when and where the burka shouldn't be allowed.

My common sense view?   I would allow this woman to wear her burka in open court but not while giving evidence, and not while addressing the court in person.  It could be anyone under there! 

I hate to see people having laws imposed on them about what to wear however it does pose a security risk in certain circumstances.  Like passport checks at the airport for example.

I would also refuse to play poker against someone wearing one 

"When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?"

"When you are in line to see your favourite Atheist speaker and you suspect the person in line behind, in a burka, you is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

"When you are nearing a checkpoint and you suspect the person in a burka, standing to the side of the checkpoint is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

"When after a big night out you are naked and trying to coerce the person you bought back to your hotel room, to get undressed and have sex with you, BUT in a moment of semi-lucidity you suspect the person in a burka, lying on the bed fully clothed, and giving you "come hither looks",  is actually a man and that they are strapped up with explosives and a small hand held transmitter"

Its always a possibility, but freedom is never 100% "safe". In a free society, there is always an element of risk and there always will be. From where i'm standing, the choice seems to be a completely secure society which is also completely micromanaged, or a free society with the possibility of danger.

[Al Swearegen]

Well yes. Consider the Pariot Act and the increased powers of police, government and pseudo law-enforcement (TSA etc), now weigh up the times and the amount of encroachment of what was (ought to be) civil liberties and rights of decent Americans VS the deference, and amount of actual criminals and terrorists caught , by virtue of these law abiding American rights suppression.

The terrorists are not suffering Mom and Pop are getting anal cavity searched and having their liberties stripped away. Are they being protected or persecuted and if so........why?

[RageBeoulve]

Well yes. Consider the Pariot Act and the increased powers of police, government and pseudo law-enforcement (TSA etc), now weigh up the times and the amount of encroachment of what was (ought to be) civil liberties and rights of decent Americans VS the deference, and amount of actual criminals and terrorists caught , by virtue of these law abiding American rights suppression.

The terrorists are not suffering Mom and Pop are getting anal cavity searched and having their liberties stripped away. Are they being protected or persecuted and if so........why?

And what exactly is all this protecting us from in the first place? I have to ask that question, because it just seems obvious that the war on terror is a BIG FAT LIE. What exactly is all this overreaching security stopping? It seems to me that the only "terrorist attacks" in America were carried out successfully (9-11, and the boston bombing) and after careful examination, those may have arguably been staged. You would think that if the U.S. government was zapping terror left and right, they would be insufferable braggarts about it, but I've not hears a single word on the matter. None.

[Lestat]

The war on terror has always been a big, fat, honking great faggot fuck of a lie, just like the USA's equally spurious 'war on drugs'

One cannot wage a war against a concept, emotion or ideology; They do not pick up a weapon and start firing, PEOPLE are needed to do that

["couldbecousin"]

There are signs outside most banks, post offices, petrol stations, courts etc saying you must take off your crash helmet before entering,  not seen anything about balaclava's.

  Outside the bank, there was a sign saying customers must lower the hoods of their sweatshirts in the bank. 

["couldbecousin"]

  It would be counterproductive to wear a burka at the dentists's or dermatologist's office.