[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Do jeans and tee shirts hide faces and identity then? What the wearing of the Burkha would do is make it harder to identify and catch anyone committing any kind of crime, including terrorism. If you can’t see the difference.

Maybe it would help your case if you knew of one example where a terrorist got away with their crimes because they hid their face and then hid from every other cctv camera he passed on their way out of the crime scene?

You're really just suggesting an impossibly imaginary crime could happen, and we must stop that immediately.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I don't like the veil either, but I don't have any rights to tell another human what they can/can't wear of their own choosing.

Why would you even need a burka to smuggle a bomb into a department store? Just carry it in a bag.

What about those snidey nuns? Could they be carrying bombs under their robes too?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Right but you could hide weapons or a bomb under a large coat, and anyone walking into a department store with a gun or a bomb has no need to cover their identity because they're not planning to make it out alive. Are you suggesting that we should ban large coats, and all other baggy / oversized clothing?

[Tom4784]

Using a burkha in a terrorist attack in a western country doesn't make much sense anyway, people take notice of people that wear burkhas, surely the point of a disguise in terrorist attacks is to get into a place where the attack will happen without raising suspicion?

Withano's points about T-shirts and Jeans is true, nobody looks twice at someone in normal clothes.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Using a burkha in a terrorist attack in a western country doesn't make much sense anyway, people take notice of people that wear burkhas, surely the point of a disguise in terrorist attacks is to get into a place where the attack will happen without raising suspicion?

Withano's points about T-shirts and Jeans is true, nobody looks twice at someone in normal clothes.

thats very true, i remember after the tube bombings, anyone with a rucksack was watched constantly

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I don't like the veil either, but I don't have any rights to tell another human what they can/can't wear of their own choosing.

Why would you even need a burka to smuggle a bomb into a department store? Just carry it in a bag.

What about those snidey nuns? Could they be carrying bombs under their robes too?

Fair point about the bag. But covering faces should be a Nono and nuns don’t cover their faces. Faces are our identity and trained personnel can tell a lot about peoples’ behaviours/intentions from their facial expressions and general body language. Both are completely hidden by a Burkha.

Although I agree in principle with people choosing what they wear, like anything there have to be exceptions and wearing garments that cover identity have to be amongst them.

[Withano]

You must have an annual breakdown on the 31st of October

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Withano

You must have an annual breakdown on the 31st of October

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Maybe it would help your case if you knew of one example where a terrorist got away with their crimes because they hid their face and then hid from every other cctv camera he passed on their way out of the crime scene?

You're really just suggesting an impossibly imaginary crime could happen, and we must stop that immediately.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...-teenager.html

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...-teenager.html

The original story that opinion piece is talking about doesn't have anything to do with terrorism? The imaginary links to terrorism is provided by the Fox News writer.

You should really read your links before you post 'em.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...-teenager.html

Did you misread my post or that article / rhetorical

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...-teenager.html

Fox news is well known for their measured approach to Muslims.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Are you confusing a burqa with Harry Potters invisibility cloak?

To be fair here, it WOULD be hard to identify someone on cctv if they were covering their face. Same as it would be hard to identify someone who, for example, walked into a shop with a motorcycle helmet on.

But I don't really think banning anything is the answer here. If security guards are worried about stopping people in burkhas, they need to (excuse the phrase, it just works best here) man the **** up.

I have to be honest here though, I do think anywhere that requires cctv...people should not be able to cover their face. This would include the likes of shopping centres and such. You would not be able to go shopping in a balaclava. But at the same time, this would mean a lot of Muslim women could not go shopping or anything which is kind of unfair too. So I don't know the answer really :S

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Did you misread my post or that article / rhetorical

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

To be fair here, it WOULD be hard to identify someone on cctv if they were covering their face. Same as it would be hard to identify someone who, for example, walked into a shop with a motorcycle helmet on.

But I don't really think banning anything is the answer here. If security guards are worried about stopping people in burkhas, they need to (excuse the phrase, it just works best here) man the **** up.

I have to be honest here though, I do think anywhere that requires cctv...people should not be able to cover their face. This would include the likes of shopping centres and such. You would not be able to go shopping in a balaclava. But at the same time, this would mean a lot of Muslim women could not go shopping or anything which is kind of unfair too. So I don't know the answer really :S

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

You're literally a living parody

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

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

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

You're literally a living parody

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

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 Brother in law works on the cctv)

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

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.