Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.

They're actually worn by some motorcyclists all year around. And motorcycles are gaining in popularity where I live.


Ok, how about this in regards to religion, again a case in Poland - parlament was trying to ban ritual killing of animals due to its potential animal cruelty. This was mostly in regards to Judaic practitioners that bleed animals alive in order to make their meat kosher (their meat has to be fully drained of blood, among other things). Constitutional Tribunal overruled it, though.

So my question is this - do you think someone's rights of religion are important enough to allow animal cruelty? And if not, then why is the security of other human beings any different?

Then their use is limited to winter outdoors and motorcycles. It's still completely different from burkhas in practice.

And yes, I font think ritual killing of the type of kosher wnd halal butcher should be allowed (and it isn't here in Sweden). That compares two completely different religious practices, however, and is definitely like comparing apples and oranges. Banning types of butchery traditions because they cause needless pain to each animal they are done to is nothing like banning religious clothes because some tiny minority might use them to conceal their identity.

[i2amroy]

I could totally see banning burkhas in high security-risk areas, like banks, just like how even if you have all the proper permits you still aren't allowed to carry a gun into a bank, but I do think it's kinda silly to ban them everywhere.

And yeah, agree with scriber there that religious clothes that could (potentially) act as a (small) security risk are a different thing then kosher butchery, which isn't really a security risk in any way I can think of.

[Leafsnail]

We've had no proscriptions on public face covering for years and have gotten along fine.  But suddenly now that there are a tiny number of Muslims covering their faces the world will fucking end if we don't change that.

e: I think face-covering in banks is not actually banned by law so that's a separate issue.

[Cheeetar]

There was some sort of push in Australia to ban burkas in the Parliament- luckily, we're not yet far gone enough for it to have gone through.

[UXLZ]

Oh, wasn't that just set up by some idiot kid? THW made fun of it.

[Cheeetar]

Who's THW?

[UXLZ]

The Hamster Wheel.

Hmm... It's pretty old.

Here you go.

[Cheeetar]

Cheers for the link. The push I was talking about was much more recent- this year, in fact.

Edit: Y'all should watch that video, by the way. Very topical.

[Bauglir]

Oh, jesus, just add additional penalties to the law for committing crimes while wearing something that conceals your face and call it a day. Restricting clothing choices on this sort of thing provides a minimal amount of security, allowing people to catch only criminals who lack the foresight to wear costume makeup or some other disguise and can be identified reliably from video footage, yet consider wearing masks, work quickly enough to get out before a police response can be mustered, can't be found out with any other forensic evidence, and travel from a great enough distance that they can't be tracked down by the surveillance network that presumably prevents them from simply carrying their masks in their pockets and donning them right before committing the crime.

I get that deterrence relying on successfully capturing and trying somebody for a crime doesn't exactly prevent crimes in the first place, but sometimes it's really all you can do without an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties. It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon, for instance, instead of simply making possession of a deadly weapon inherently illegal.

[UXLZ]

It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon

Erm... Most of the things typically thought of as 'deadly weapons' (such as knives) it is illegal to carry around in public... Also, literally anything can be a deadly weapon.

Then again, I might be missing something since I don't live in 'Murica where any average Joe can a buy gun from your local supermarket and convenience store.

[Tack]

This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.

[Sheo]

Hello - this may seem like a troll post, but I swear it is not. Merely someone who is foreign to the US wanting to know more indepth info.

Recently in a discussion about Ferguson something came up. So far what I knew is that while there was evidence that Michael Brown did attempt shoplifting, the shooting was still sudden and uncalled for - that was what I had heard so far.

Yet comment from a fellow moderate was that there was new evidence suggesting Brown had reacted violently and/or tried to resist arrest to the police officer, thus adding more assets towards the cop's innocence regarding this issue.

What is this evidence and how credible is it?

[Angle]

I don't see why you're asking us, we're not the ones who said we had evidence. Ask that other dude.

[Sheo]

I don't see why you're asking us, we're not the ones who said we had evidence. Ask that other dude.

Was in a chan, so as the thread "autosaged"(died) I cannot be in contact with the same person.

I can google it but I either get sensationalist right stuff or sensationalist left stuff. Neither helps my case.

[SalmonGod]

Isn't it banned to go into a gas station with a motorbike helmet on? I think this might be a case to consider.

You don't mean in the U.S., do you?  Because I've done this a few times.

Related thought:  I can understand restricting identity concealing clothes in very specific situations, like government buildings, banks, etc... but while reading this discussion, I also can't stop thinking about the recent push in the U.S. to ban face-coverings and the like at protests or even in general public, quite obviously for the purpose of discouraging political expression.  The ability to protect one's identity is something that I think should be respected, outside of very specific situations.