Thread: I Was Humiliated!

Originally Posted by surasak

don't know why people get afraid of people who are wearing things over their face

Some people I know would actually look less frightening!

Originally Posted by ENT

Bonny Prince Charlie escaped from Scotland dressed as a woman.

I bet he looked good in drag.

He was only a little wee fella..and going by his pictures,prolly looks more like a woman than a bloke anyway.

Originally Posted by surasak

Why should I answer a question if I'm not guilty?

You made the claim. The burden is on you.

If you make a claim and refuse to back it up you are (a) a fool and (b) dishonest.

There are 500 posts on this forum containing the word 'bank.' 31 one of them were posted by me. 0 of them contain a post about my refusal to patronize a bank refusing to allow women to wear a burqa.

I expect either an apology or your resignation from further posting on this forum by 5:00pm.

By 5PM What time.PST or Thai.

Not sure if it is in the "issues' forum,but I sure as hell ain't searching through a zillion posts sonny.

apologise you fiend.

5PM Moskva time

I never said such a thing and you know it (otherwise you would have posted the link to it).

Here's what I said for all the world to see. It mentions nothing about burqa.

https://teakdoor.com/197237-post83.html

Actually,I wouldn't have posted a link to it as it was off memory.My appologies .

This is what you said,but not what I remembered,

Here in the states many banks are requiring removal of sunglasses and hats as well prior to entering. I personally wear a hat and won't patronize such a bank...

That's right, thank you.

A hat |= to a burqa, and, I subsequently even posted in the same thread that banks (and other such places) are not places for concealment.

Ok, let me get back to the original event, a veiled woman having been refused to board a bus. As to some of the comments from the last few pages: a bus isn't an international border, nor an office issueing official documents such as drivers license, nor a high security venue as a bank.

Now, let's see, is it a law in Michigan that one has to show one's face when boarding a public bus? NO.

Questions I posed:
Are images recorded of people boarding buses in Michigan? No answer. Has any veiled woman blown up herself on a bus in Michigan, or within the US? Answer: it could happen.

So, there is no precedence, and no particular risk, pure conjecture stating "Muslims are known for this sort of thing".
I agree with surasak, this mentality is what let the Nazis rise to power.

Looked at rationally, yes it helps identify people if they don't cover their face.

But would this stop any Muuslim from blowing up buses, assuming anyone would want to in the first place? No, they could conceal their identity in other ways which wouldn't draw so much attention as a veil does. Has this ever occured to our Islamophobic posters?

IMO, it's another instance were society, through its parliamentary law-makers, needs to decide whether it is willing to curb people's choice in clothing in public for a small overall improvement in being able to identify criminals.

Originally Posted by stroller

But would this stop any Muuslim from blowing up buses, assuming anyone would want to in the first place? No, they could conceal their identity in other ways which wouldn't draw so much attention as a veil does. Has this ever occured to our Islamophobic posters?

I pointed this out with 6 examples of non-Muslims using concealment to commit crimes in which people were killed. Not a single word of outrage.

But a woman wearing a burqa MIGHT be carrying bombs underneath her outfit? OH THE OUTRAGE!

IMO, it's another instance were society, through its parliamentary law-makers, needs to decide whether it is willing to curb people's choice in clothing in public for a small overall improvement in being able to identify criminals.

Even if you outlaw coats, jackets, hoods, sweaters, pull-overs, scarves, masks, etc. it won't stop someone from committing a crime and finding some way to conceal their identity. What if a Muslim carries a briefcase? Are some people going to suggest that we ban baggage on a bus?

It's the King's bollocks to pick on one small group of people on the assumption that they automatically are all criminals and ban something that they consider part of their religious practices while ignoring the fact that peolpe who don't belong to that group commit infinately more crimes that result in death.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Funnily enough, this afternoon I went to get a replacement Driver's Licence and sure enough, there was a woman in a veil there and sure enough, they told her to take it off!

She didn't mind.

Originally Posted by surasak

That's how it should be.

I agree, but what if she had refused? Then what?

Surely in the day and age of biometrics and computers a compromise can be had that balances the needs of public safety with the ability to respect religious beliefs. Like I said, fingerprints or maybe retinal scan.

You can easily change your face (I could modify my face, go renew my driver's license, and viola! useless ID) but fingerprints....one would have to lose both hands to avoid identification in that regard.

Aliens get fingerprinted when entering the U.S. There you go. Refuse to take off the burqa? Then ID them using fingerprints. Charge more for the driver's license to offset the cost.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Moolslims most certainly should be allowed to board busses but with the proviso they uncover their faces and be photographed like everyone else...

Ehh? The article doesn't mention anything about photos, is it common procedure in the US to take face-pics of everyone who enters a public bus?

It is on these buses in Grand rapids. You live and learn, eh Stroller?

Rapid bus system spokeswoman Jennifer Kalczuk said. The rule was issued earlier this year so that an on-board camera system could help identify riders if there is a disturbance.

Of course, the gutless officials have now rescinded the rule. Wimps!

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by RDN

The logic of being able to determine who blew up the bus, where they lived, who they knew, etc, etc. All the usual methods to identify cells of terrorists.

That is the rational justification,

Thank you. It certainly is quite rational.

Originally Posted by stroller

but this isn't the law.

In the UK we have "by-laws" which are local or subordinate laws or regulations made by a corporation. The "Terms and conditions" on the tickets could also cover the "face coverings" requirement - so it doesn't have to be a "law", i.e. passed by a government, to be effective.

Originally Posted by stroller

And it is a long way from the irrational anti-Muslim sentiment and fearmongering of the OP.

That's the way YOU read it. I didn't read it that way.

Originally Posted by stroller

No veiled women have ever blown up any buses in the US.

See! That rule worked!!

Originally Posted by surasak

The paranoia displayed here is disturbing. You're more likely to be killed in the U.S. by a person concealing a gun under a jacket or trench coat, but, none of you are calling for bans on those articles of clothing.

Maybe paranoia is the wrong word. Bigoted is more appropriate perhaps.

Paranoia? I want sensible precautions to be taken to allow everybody to be identified when in public, irrespective of their religion. Quite simple really.

"Paranoia" IS the wrong word and so is "bigoted", although I know you would like to turn this into some anti-muslim bigotry thread, but it isn't going to happen.

Would fitting a micro chip to everyone so the government knows where everyone is at any given time be a solution, and would you be happy to be fitted with one?

Originally Posted by flash

Would fitting a micro chip to everyone so the government knows where everyone is at any given time be a solution, and would you be happy to be fitted with one?

Don't worry - it's coming to a city or town near you.
My bet is the UK will have 'em before the states.
Take it to the bank...

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by RDN

I think you are both trolling. You clearly understand the need to identify people.

Tell me...has any criminal ever concealed his or her identity?

Pardon??

Originally Posted by surasak

The purpose of concealment is to hide identity.

Correct. 10 out of 10.

Originally Posted by surasak

But yet none of you put forth any calls for bans on other forms of concealment. Why is that?
...

Now, there's 6 examples of how deadly people wearing ski masks and Halloween masks can be to average Americans. Why are you people not calling for bans on these objects yet calling for a ban on an object which has never led to a single death in the United States? Really disturbing.

I think you'll find policemen will look at you very carefully if you are wearing a halloween mask or ski mask in public - except of course at Halloween or near ski slopes

During the "poll tax" riots in the UK a few years ago, I was amazed that the police did not arrest everyone wearing masks, ballaclavas, etc while smashing up central London. Of course, they couldn't because they were out-numbered by the scum rioters. But I certainly think there should be a law prohibitting wearing hoods, balaclavas, etc when it is clearly for the concealment of identitiy and not because it is the "fashion" or because of cold weather.

Originally Posted by surasak

You guys can't even find a single example of anyone dying in the U.S. due to a Muslim woman wearing a burqa yet the catcalls and screams over that particular garment are deafening. I think it's another case of the bigotry of certain posters on this forum coming out in the light. And we all wonder how the Holocaust took place.

Prior to 911, I don't think there was an example of people going to "Flying School" to learn how to fly plane into skyscrapers.

After 911 many people complained that steps weren't taken to prevent people hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers. "Why didn't the FBI take notice of the flying instructor who reported the guy who wasn't interested in landings and take-offs, just going up and down and left and right?"

Bloody obvious NOW isn't it? But before 911 no one thought it would happen.

So now a simple precautionary measure - remove face coverings so you can be identified - brings out the calls of "bigotry" from all the usual suspects on this board.

I guess, when you've lost the logical argument, name-calling is all that is left.

Originally Posted by ENT

...Recent case in UK re. suspect of a woman PC murder[er] being presumed to have escaped to Somalia using his sister's ID etc and fully veiled....

I didn't know about this.

Originally Posted by Eliminator

Well, this might throw some light on why they shouldn't be allowed to wear vails:

Police killer suspect fled Britain in a veil....would you believe it?
Andrew Norfolk (with thanks)

and would he have got out of LOS so easily...

Most wanted man posed as sister to escape ....

Thanks for the link Eliminator.

I think "case closed".

Originally Posted by flash

Would fitting a micro chip to everyone so the government knows where everyone is at any given time be a solution, and would you be happy to be fitted with one?

I wouldn't. I'm quite happy for people to see my face.


Maybe they are not so happy.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by RDN

I guess, when you've lost the logical argument, name-calling is all that is left.

I think the arguments were quite logical, maybe too logical for some. And I didn't really see any name calling.

The name-calling was implying that the people who don't like Muslim women hiding their face by wearing a burqa, are anti-Muslim. The point is - and is missed by most people - that a full face-obscuring garment could be used by anyone (male, female, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc, etc) to hide who they are. And in fact it probably was used in such a way by the policewoman murderer - a man - mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Let's face it, the real problem is not the Veil, but what the Veil represents. It's a political stand that we don't want to see strong symbol of Islam displayed in public. I think we are too coward to say it and instead find silly "justifications" to deny it. We just don't want to see those symbols because of the overly negative image they carry (terrorism, abuse of women etc...)

That's amazing! I never thought of that. I'm quite happy for them to wear the full, black, garment but NOT if it hides their face. We MUST see who they are!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Maybe if this was clear, all those women would understand and stop carrying the Veil in public places.

It should be made clear that we must be able to see who is under the veil, in case we need to identify them later, just like everybody else.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

It's like wearing a Osama Bin Laden mask for Halloween in the US, most Americans wouldn't get the joke

I'm not American and I don't think it's funny.

Now, if the OBL mask was on a "Guy Fawkes" dummy, and set on fire as is the custom in the UK on November 5th, that would be fine.

Originally Posted by RDN

After 911 many people complained that steps weren't taken to prevent people hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers. "Why didn't the FBI take notice of the flying instructor who reported the guy who wasn't interested in landings and take-offs, just going up and down and left and right?"

Is this comparable in any way to a veiled woman boarding a bus?
Some common sense here, please.

Originally Posted by RDN

The name-calling was implying that the people who don't like Muslim women hiding their face by wearing a burqa, are anti-Muslim.

No, the objection was about people claiming "Muslims are known for blowing things up".
Btw, how is your googling going? Anything blown up by veiled women in Michigan or nearby recently?