Pat Condell

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It obscures facial recognition software...

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

ok then it is solved. Intel informs us that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the war on terrorism.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

no need, neither of those hide the wearers face.

Originally Posted by Redux

So do oversized sunglasses.

Not true. Facial recognition software is VERY sophisticated.

Originally Posted by classicman

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the war on terrorism.

It has everything to do with religion...which is why Sarkozy is now backing away from the outright ban in public which, btw, has not yet been enacted by the French parliament, because... it "would be unworkable and likely to backfire" and would "stigmatise Muslims and fall foul of constitutional guarantees in individual liberties."

And, instead, proposing a ban only on wearing veils in government buildings and on public transport.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6988737.ece

It would also most certainly fail a constitutional test in the US.

[Not true. Facial recognition software is VERY sophisticated.

Facial recognition software has come a long way, but works best in passive situations with the cooperation of the individual. It is still relatively easy to fool the software in a large crowd if one wants to, including with sunglasses.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

It has everything to do with religion...which is why Sarkozy is now backing away from the outright ban which has not yet been enacted, because... it "would be unworkable and likely to backfire" and would "stigmatise Muslims and fall foul of constitutional guarantees in individual liberties."

He is backing away for political reasons. Srsly. Is it enforceable - no, but is it something that "has everything to do with religion"? not in my mind - its purely a safety/security issue. On that you have not argued. Can I assume we agree on that point?
If they said a christian could not wear a cross or a Jew could not wear Kippah or Yarmulke, I would agree 100%. To me this is a completely different issue.

It would also most certainly fail a constitutional test in the US.

It would ABSOLUTELY fail here. There is no doubt. Still not the point we are discussing - please try and stay on track here.

Facial recognition software has come a long way, but works best in passive situations with the cooperation of the individual. It is still relatively easy to fool the software in a large crowd if one wants to, including with sunglasses.

What we have here is apparently rudimentary compared to that in the UK. I saw a show on it months ago. I was amazed at what they could so with simply a partial view of a persons face. Their database is massive. Talk about big brother... OMG.

ETA: perhaps it was Three-dimensional face recognition that the show was on. I am not positive.


Also, you never responded to this:

Intel informs YOU that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Also, you never responded to this:

Seriously, are you surprised?

Originally Posted by classicman

He is backing away for political reasons. Srsly. Is it enforceable - no, but is it something that "has everything to do with religion"? not in my mind - its purely a safety/security issue. On that you have not argued. Can I assume we agree on that point?
If they said a christian could not wear a cross or a Jew could not wear Kippah or Yarmulke, I would agree 100%. To me this is a completely different issue.

Or perhaps he is backing away because he determined it would fall foul of constitutional guarantees or that the "political" reason was that it stigmatise Muslims.

I honestly dont see how it is not a religious issue but a safety security issue when the first step in the process is for the French Parliament to adopt a non-binding resolution that would state that "full face-covering by women breached the Republic’s fundamental principles of sexual equality and secularism."

I agree the practice is sexist and, IMO, archaic. But it seems clear to me that the resolution is targeted at one religion's practice, with no mention of security or safety.

Also, you never responded to this:

Intel informs YOU that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.

I thought I addressed that when I responded to Merc :

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman (or man, I would add) posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

Men AND women who are known terrorists (or who might have known connections/contacts with known terrorists based on intel) and who might be using this (or any) means ....should be tracked and targeted with all legal measures.

But I fail to see how that applies to a blanket ban...when there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of women who wear the veil are "known terrorists" or have that intent.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Or perhaps he is backing away because he determined it would fall foul of constitutional guarantees or that the "political" reason was that it stigmatise Muslims.

Then we agree - Political reasons. Why is it so hard for you to just say that. Sheesh!

I honestly dont see how it is not a religious issue but a safety security issue ~snip~ That resolution is targeted at one religion's practice, with no mention of security or safety.

Simply because that one religion wears them? Whats preventing the next Tim McVeigh from wearing one to move about freely and not be able to be tracked?

Men AND women who are known terrorists and who might be using this means ....should be targeted.

Please tell me how the heck we are going to do that if we CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES???

Originally Posted by classicman

Then we agree - Political reasons. Why is it so hard for you to just say that. Sheesh!

The politics of an emotional fear of one religion...OR the potential backlash...OR constitutional guarantees...OR because it is unworkable...sheesh!

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason.. sheesh!

Originally Posted by classicman

Please tell me how the heck we are going to do that if we CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES???

By all legal means...electronic surveillance, human intel, etc.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

Not my problem. Sucks to be them. Security will trump any whine about rights; all the time, every time, everywhere.