Pat Condell

[TheMercenary]

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?

It obscures facial recognition software, allows men to pose as women when their only goal is to evade capture, and prevents security video from recording them in accordance with the law.

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.

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

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

As you pointed out, as long as you do it within the framework of the law, sure. Otherwise comply or go to jail. Pretty simple.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

transvestite with oversized sunglasses. ban 'em

[Shawnee123]

Srsly, are y'all srs?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Seriously, are you surprised?

Yes, we've had a very nice, calm & relatively intelligent discussion.

[Shawnee123]

Good on you!

[classicman]

Oye.

Originally Posted by classicman

Oye.

Now you didnt answer my question:

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution (evidently, the first step proposed in the Parliamentary process) does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason?

Here's another question.
How do you know that it was politics and not any of the other reasons states (backlash, constitutional guarantees, unworkable)..that went into Sarkosy's thought process that caused him to backtrack from the total ban?


It is simple for me...we should be very careful and proceed in a very deliberative manner before we start taking away guaranteed personal rights and liberties and never do so w/o compelling evidence or intel that it is absolutely required and that results cannot be achieved by any other means.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution (evidently, the first step proposed in the Parliamentary process) does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason?

I don't know - neither do you.
My whole argument - THE POINT I thought we were discussing was the security issue. Remember I took the religious component out a long time ago.

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.

Here's another question.

How do you know that it was politics and not any of the other reasons states (backlash, constitutional guarantees, unworkable)..that went into Sarkosy's thought process that caused him to backtrack from the total ban?

What type of backlash? Political perhaps? Constitutional _____ that too would fall under political to me. Unworkable - we already discussed and agreed upon.

It is simple for me...we should be very careful and proceed in a very deliberative manner before we start taking away guaranteed personal rights and liberties and never do so w/o compelling evidence or intel that it is absolutely required.

Guaranteed personal rights and liberties . . . I don't see being completely covered in there anywhere. This simply seems like an agree to disagree issue, I guess. I personally think the safety and security of the millions is more important than the DESIRE of 2000. But hey, thats just me.
I am quite cognizant of the slippery slope this can rapidly become. But again, that wasn't the point.

(Ohh look at the time - I have to go to bombism service now - Hope I don't get arrested for exercising MY religion)

Originally Posted by classicman

...Guaranteed personal rights and liberties . . . I don't see being completely covered in there anywhere. This simply seems like an agree to disagree issue, I guess. I personally think the safety and security of the millions is more important than the DESIRE of 2000....

Add it to the list of "agree to disagree" along with torture.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Covering their faces is NOT a religious practice, it's a cultural practice. Please keep that straight.

True.

Just as many Christian and Jewish practices are cultural and cannot be directly traced to biblical word.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Covering their faces is NOT a religious practice, it's a cultural practice. Please keep that straight.

[classicman]

uh, yeah.