[Brillopad]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...144241639.html

Commensense. The woman is not above security laws.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Yep

[Oliver_W]

Perched for "Brillos muslim thread"



But yeah, when anyone refuses to show their face, it's reasonable that steps are taken.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Perched for "Brillos muslim thread"



But yeah, when anyone refuses to show their face, it's reasonable that steps are taken.

Nope. It's become painfully obvious such discussions will be shut down on here, one way or another. Only one side of the argument is allowed to be heard! A niqab thread only and opinions on how this incident was dealt with.

[LeatherTrumpet]

If some one arrived dressed as a clown, same thing, both are the same, silly costumes, fine if that what you believe in but keep it at home, not in public.

[Cherie]

Common sense, you can't wear a hat or sunglasses so no issues here

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Common sense, you can't wear a hat or sunglasses so no issues here

Yes, security should always be the primary concern, over and above anything else. Seeing someone's face is crucial in indentification. Anything else has to be an afterthought. They handled it as they should and in accordance with the laws. Good to see.

[Marsh.]

Is there really any need for the OTT headline?

She wasn't deported for wearing that. She was deported for refusing to show her face (ie. verify her identity).

More clickbait rubbish.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Is there really any need for the OTT headline?

She wasn't deported for wearing that. She was deported for refusing to show her face (ie. verify her identity).

More clickbait rubbish.

Talk about slitting hairs, she was deported because her face was covered, if someone was deported for refusing to remove a balaclava you would expect to see the word balaclava in the title, what's with the pussy footing around, the woman obviously felt the usual laws of the land do not apply to her because of her culture

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Is there really any need for the OTT headline?

She wasn't deported for wearing that. She was deported for refusing to show her face (ie. verify her identity).

More clickbait rubbish.

I just repeated the headline. The wearing of a niqab has been against the law in Brussels for more than five years. She tried in on. She tried to put her cultural beliefs above the law of the land. Who does she think she is?

There is no getting away from the fact that the act was one of deliberate attempted sabotage. I'm glad she was not allowed to get away with it.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Talk about slitting hairs, she was deported because her face was covered, if someone was deported for refusing to remove a balaclava you would expect to see the word balaclava in the title, what's with the pussy footing around, the woman obviously felt the usual laws of the land do not apply to her because of her culture

It's not pussy footing around. I never said they should fail to mention what she was wearing but the headline insinuates she was deported because they saw what she was wearing and didn't want a Muslim in as they saw her as a security risk. Yet, that's not what happened.

She also wasn't deported "because her face was covered" they allow people to cover what they wish and wear what they wish. She was deported for refusing to remove the clothing from her face for a few moments to verify her identity and get through security.

"Man wearing balaclava is deported" isn't quite the same thing.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I just repeated the headline. The wearing of a niqab has been against the law in Brussels for more than five years. She tried in on. She tried to put her cultural beliefs above the law of the land. Who does she think she is?

There is no getting away from the fact that the act was one of deliberate attempted sabotage. I'm glad she was not allowed to get away with it.

I never insinuated it was your headline my comment was aimed entirely at the news report.

As much as she was in the wrong for not verifying her identity in a security situation, it's as ludicrous for the niqab to be banned in Brussels as it is for the countries where wearing a niqab is the law for women.

[LeatherTrumpet]

At least the balaclava man does not think that a big invisible man in the sky runs his life and will kill him if he does not follow his crazy guidebook

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

At least the balaclava man does not think that a big invisible man in the sky runs his life and will kill him if he does not follow his crazy guidebook

No religion I can think of believes anything of the sort so you need to work on your put downs.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No religion I can think of believes anything of the sort so you need to work on your put downs.

i dont need to, they are all quite capable of putting themselves down with their abject superstitious cultish buffonery

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i dont need to, they are all quite capable of putting themselves down with their abject superstitious cultish buffonery

And I'm sure they all give a sh*t about what you think.

But here we are, proving my earlier point to Cherie right. The way the article is presented causing what they want "Bloody Muslims with their silly beliefs being bloody borderline terrorists!" When I'm sure dozens of Muslims and members of other religions go through that airport perfectly fine every single day.

But, no, this incident we have to highlight.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

At least the balaclava man does not think that a big invisible man in the sky runs his life and will kill him if he does not follow his crazy guidebook

I know some really religious catholics.

[Toy Soldier]

Commenscents.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Commenscents.

this isn't chat and games

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

this isn't chat and games

It is though.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is though.

debate..... differing opinions....not sure you like differing opinions...

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And I'm sure they all give a sh*t about what you think.

But here we are, proving my earlier point to Cherie right. The way the article is presented causing what they want "Bloody Muslims with their silly beliefs being bloody borderline terrorists!" When I'm sure dozens of Muslims and members of other religions go through that airport perfectly fine every single day.

But, no, this incident we have to highlight.

It highlights a refusal to obey Western laws. It highlights a belief that some consider themselves and their culture to be above Western laws. If such people want to live in the West they obey the laws or bugger off. It isn't rocket science.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I know some really religious catholics.

I prefer the atheist catholic myself

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It highlights a refusal to obey Western laws. It highlights a belief that some consider themselves and their culture to be above Western laws. If such people want to live in the West they obey the laws or bugger off. It isn't rocket science.

Which has nothing to do with my point but thanks anyway.

This is one person in one incident.
But by all means let the stupidly sensationalist article rile you up about those pesky Muslims.

[Niamh.]

Don't think anyone would argue against the tbf