Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718350)

The garment is as offensive to many women as the robes of the KKK are to many black people and that would not be allowed on our streets.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718360)

Not really, cctv can follow their movements for hours really, before and after the attack. Unless their attack is in some secluded area, which would probably make it even easier cos they'd likely get there and get away by car.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718369)

You're literally a living parody

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9718371)

But what use is that if you still cannot see who they are? :suspect:

Not trying to be awkward here. Just don't quite understand

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718382)

And your baiting is as usual completely transparent. But of course you have your saviour at hand which explains it. No further clarification required as many wil get it.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718383)

You'd follow the movements of the terrorist until you'd catch up with them.

I mean, I'd almost argue that "the one walking hastily in a burqa" is a better descriptor than "brown eyes and a cute v neck t shirt".

These attacks almost always happen in city centres with heavy cctv, which is probably why this isnt an actual issue outside of Brillos mind.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718383)

You'd follow the movements of the terrorist until you'd catch up with them.

I mean, I'd almost argue that "the one walking hastily in a burqa" is a better descriptor than "brown eyes and a cute v neck t shirt".

These attacks almost always happen in city centres, which is probably why this isnt an actual issue outside of Brillos mind.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718401)

They could disappear into a blind spot, slip of the Burkha, and quickly merge into the crowd. In a busy shopping centre it would be hard to identify them.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718350)

It suffiiciently clarifies all the reasons why such a garment should not be allowed in the West including its use by terrorists and criminals.

The garment is as offensive to many women as the robes of the KKK are to many black people and that would not be allowed on our streets. As it is categorically not a requirement of Islam for women to wear it then religious reasons are not even relevant.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718390)

You just compared the meaning behind the robes of the KKK to a burqa. Its like you literally eat the daily mail for breakfast.

Originally Posted by NanaChristmas (Post 9717841)

Surely the thread is more to do with the problem/worry that men can dress as women in a burkha.:shrug:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9718397)

Yeah thats a decent point I guess.

My issue would be..there are always blind spots in cctv. Would be quite easy to duck into an alley and take off the burkha, then the people watching will still be looking for a quick moving dementor.

But thats unlikely too really...that they would also know where the blind spots were and such (I know where all the blind spots are in Durham city centre :D Brother in law works on the cctv)

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718411)

That demonstrates your lack of understanding or concern for what the Burkha represents to many women. Female slavery is an insignificant issue to some men for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9717879)

Who is this guy? Can we keep him.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718403)

So could literally every other criminal in the entire history of the world ever, but lets not campaign for compulsary nudism at all times.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9718408)

It's an opinion piece on a story about domestic abuse.

You were asked if you had an example of a terrorist that got away because they wore a burkha. You didn't offer up an example, you just posted an opinion piece that took a real case of domestic violence and haphazardly used it to link to terrorism.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9718431)

Seconds that!

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9717988)

Plenty of countries have banned them because they see them as a secunity threat. Anything that covers the face is.

What is to stop someone, anyone, donning a Burkha under which is hidden a weapon or a bomb and walking into a department store for instance. My point is is that due to the sensitivity of issues such as religion, female modesty of Muslim women and PC who Is going to ask them to remove their veil. It could be anyone behind it.

If an attack is carried out or another crime is committed it would also be impossible for witnesses or CCTV to identify and catch them.

How anyone can think it is ok for anyone to walk around in public areas covering their faces and identities in this day and age is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718445)

The desperation for alies.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718425)

Right but you are acknowledging that there is a literal meaning, and a misinterpretation? Surely. I genuinely don't know how far back I need to go with you.

There is only one meaning with the KKK robes. And your comparison is ugly, and idiotic.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9718468)

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

As for the terrorist attacks in Europe, not a single one has been carried out by a man or a woman wearing a face covering. Why would they when they have free movement? People are more likely to be suspicious of someone fully covered than they are of a man wearing western style clothing.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9718468)

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718490)

Your dismissal of the significance of requiring a woman to wear a Burkha and how offencive that is and how it is often used to enslave and abuse women who have no power is what many women would find ugly and idiotic.

It is every bit as offensive. Slavery is slavery and can’t be measured with one deemed to be more serious than another.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9718468)

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

As for the terrorist attacks in Europe, not a single one has been carried out by a man or a woman wearing a face covering. Why would they when they have free movement? People are more likely to be suspicious of someone fully covered than they are of a man wearing western style clothing.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718513)

...I have no idea if you're baiting, if you're serious, and if you're okay. So I don't really know how to respond to this, without repeating myself? The KKK robes are used for one purpose. You compared this to a burqa, but not the burqa's main purpose, some misinterpretation of the burqa. Which was inappropriate and ugly. Take a breather, brillo.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718532)

What misinterpretation - it is not a religious requirement of Islam - just a convenient interpretation to enable certain types of men to control and abuse powerless women.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9718535)

"And I know this because last week for breakfast, I had a nice bacon sarnie, topped with fried egg, mustard, relish, and page 22 of the Daily Mail".

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718440)

I explained it’s relevance in my opinion. There have been many reports of criminals/terrorists escaping in Burkhas as i’m Sure many have seen.

To try to imply that to cover your face in public areas is ok in modern times when security and identity increasingly play an important part in our everyday lives is ludicrous. One rule for all.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718527)

So what are you suggesting - we bow down to terrorism and don’t oppose the treatment of women for fear of retribution.

If there is a correlation it is because many Muslim men want the right to be able to treat women as property and are not going to give it up easily.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9717892)

equally, they could dress up as police officers, army etc etc etc .... criminals have been dressing up in disguise for generations, our reaction has never been to ban what they are mimicking

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 9720142)

Are you suggesting with this that risk has risen in France since the burka was banned because of muslim men's reaction to the burka being banned? I'm confused because you also seem to be saying that the burka should be banned over here as doing so will reduce the risk of terrorism? Do these two things not conflict?

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9718527)

So what are you suggesting - we bow down to terrorism and don’t oppose the treatment of women for fear of retribution.

If there is a correlation it is because many Muslim men want the right to be able to treat women as property and are not going to give it up easily.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9720221)

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 9720142)

Are you suggesting with this that risk has risen in France since the burka was banned because of muslim men's reaction to the burka being banned? I'm confused because you also seem to be saying that the burka should be banned over here as doing so will reduce the risk of terrorism? Do these two things not conflict?



A burka isn't really a disguise in the same sort of way as most outfits and costumes though since it covers their whole face and identity which I think is the main problem people have with the it? People who cover their faces using a disguise really do stand out and I think the fear is that the more 'normal' the burka becomes, the less someone will stand out when wearing one, so it will effectively become a disguise that not only hides the face but the person will also fit into a crowd without being noticed, so even though disguises have been around for generations, this would be a particularly unique scenario and very different to any other kind of disguise I can think of.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it tbh, I don't realistically think that security services would stop themselves from questioning someone wearing a burka if they felt there was a security risk. But I understand the general concerns of someone being able to completely hide their identity in a public place. There's a lot of hypotheticals though and I just don't see any direct link between the burka and terrorism so general concerns about the burka aside I'm not sure if banning it would be all that useful with regards to terrorism?

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9720221)

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9720222)

So this isn't really about terrorism, its about your mythical belief that its the Muslim men who make them wear it.

Sorry mate, this has been done to death... add tedium. Nothing will change your tainted view and so I'm not going to continue this conversation with you.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9720236)

I was responding to a poster who seemed to be suggesting that there was a link between banning the Burkha in France and it apparently being the highest risk country in Europe for terrorist attacks.

I don’t know if that is true but rather flippantly suggested that if so it would likely be due to an act of defiance from Muslin terrorists opposed to equal rights for Muslim women and intent on trying to force France and the West to accept their backward views on women and way of life through violence and fear. As has been seen on many occasions fear and violence are clearly the weapons of choice for Muslim terrorists who refuse to integrate or accept the values and laws of the countries they forced their way into. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, maybe it has more to do with numbers. If there is a larger Muslim population in France there may be a higher percentage of Muslim terrorists - I don’t know.

But I also feel that the Burkha could provide Muslim terrorists (male and female) and general criminals with the anninimity to commit terrorist attacks and criminal acts - they have after all already been used this way in Europe and the Middle-East. I have hardly plucked such a scenario out of the air. I do however think they are separate issues involving the wearing of the Burkha so don’t really see a conflict between them tbh.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9720245)

"On one hand if terrorism is up in France it's because Muslim men don't like the burqa ban. But on the other hand, we should probably ban it here because it's an anonymity issue, but in conclusion I think these are separate issues" I've never used a more accurate gif in my life.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9720249)

Jamie explained it much better - a second-rate version was not required.

Maybe Muslim terrorists in France were miffed at the removal of a potential weapon - lots of ifs and buts. Whatever the reason one thing is for sure you don’t have all the answers despite thinking you do. Go back to your pegs.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9720268)

Out of interest, with your contrary arguments pointed out. Are you now saying ban the burqa, don't ban the burqa, or that you don't know?