Bulgaria new country to ban burka & niqab
Discussion
Tryke3 said:
Ive been in sofia for the last 8 days, not seen one even 1 burka. Just saying
I've to Bulgaria a lot over many years - now I can state that not once have I ever seen a Burka worn. I do see plenty in he UK but none in Bulgaria.
They were repressed by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years when Islam was forced upon a Christian (Orthadox) country.
johndoe said:
Coincidently this was in this mornings sky news
An MI5 Agent reveals a suspect tried to evade detection by wearing a Burka coming out of a UK mosque
http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-agent-posing-as-begg...
"There were more woman worshippers that had left the mosque than had gone in, so I alerted the team that there was a possibility he had changed his appearance. The suspect had changed into a burka and was pretending to be a woman. Following him, the MI5 team called in a Special Forces unit to arrest the terrorist. Two Range Rovers slammed into the suspect's car."
Using that logic, OP will consider there are 'very clear security reasons' for banning motorbike helmets, too. Do you?An MI5 Agent reveals a suspect tried to evade detection by wearing a Burka coming out of a UK mosque
http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-agent-posing-as-begg...
"There were more woman worshippers that had left the mosque than had gone in, so I alerted the team that there was a possibility he had changed his appearance. The suspect had changed into a burka and was pretending to be a woman. Following him, the MI5 team called in a Special Forces unit to arrest the terrorist. Two Range Rovers slammed into the suspect's car."
Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
iphonedyou said:
johndoe said:
Coincidently this was in this mornings sky news
An MI5 Agent reveals a suspect tried to evade detection by wearing a Burka coming out of a UK mosque
http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-agent-posing-as-begg...
"There were more woman worshippers that had left the mosque than had gone in, so I alerted the team that there was a possibility he had changed his appearance. The suspect had changed into a burka and was pretending to be a woman. Following him, the MI5 team called in a Special Forces unit to arrest the terrorist. Two Range Rovers slammed into the suspect's car."
Using that logic, OP will consider there are 'very clear security reasons' for banning motorbike helmets, too. Do you?An MI5 Agent reveals a suspect tried to evade detection by wearing a Burka coming out of a UK mosque
http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-agent-posing-as-begg...
"There were more woman worshippers that had left the mosque than had gone in, so I alerted the team that there was a possibility he had changed his appearance. The suspect had changed into a burka and was pretending to be a woman. Following him, the MI5 team called in a Special Forces unit to arrest the terrorist. Two Range Rovers slammed into the suspect's car."
Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
iphonedyou said:
Using that logic, OP will consider there are 'very clear security reasons' for banning motorbike helmets, too. Do you?
Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
Err yea but as this jerk was abusing Islam it makes sense that his fellow Islam could and should have pointed the dude out for being a issie tranie Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
No I'm not serious either
iphonedyou said:
Using that logic, OP will consider there are 'very clear security reasons' for banning motorbike helmets, too. Do you?
Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
Well give us the logic for covering oneself from head to toe.Let's ban overcoats because somebody, somewhere, flashed someone. Ban jeans with pockets because somebody, somewhere, concealed a knife in a pocket.
Wholesale banning of articles of clothing because somebody, somewhere, abused it is patently ridiculous. There is no sensible case for it. It's petulant, illogical and reactionary nonsense.
That doesn't make it not a 'security issue'.
Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
irocfan said:
well as it happens motorcycle helmets are banned in quite a lot of places....
Indeed, and justifiably so. But neither OP nor John were calling for specific exceptions, rather outright bans, so that's not relevant here.heebeegeetee said:
Well give us the logic for covering oneself from head to toe.
Why? I don't think how one dresses is particularly a logical matter. It may be religious, or for convenience, or for looks - but logic?johndoe said:
That doesn't make it not a 'security issue'.
Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
As I've said, there are justifiable exceptions for covering one's face in certain places. I see no argument for a full face covering of any sort not coming under the remit of that exception.Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
The OP claimed a wholesale ban on the burka to be justified due to 'security' and your response certainly appeared to support that using the mosque example - I can't see an argument for banning it in a mosque.
I would agree context is everything, and also posit that in the vast majority of contexts, a ban is inappropriate.
johndoe said:
That doesn't make it not a 'security issue'.
Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
With logical and down to earth common sense posts like that one you might make it to a dozen posts before one of the resident leftie libs calls you out as someone who has been banned and come back Walking into a bank in a motorbike helmet and not taking it off is a cause for concern (security issue) amongst bank staff and some customers in the queue.
Try walking into a bank in a balaclava and not removing it.
Neither of these are illegal but both can be security issues. The difference that people are worried about is that balaclavas and motorbike helmet wearing members of the public aren't currently detonating bombs in markets and other places across the globe.
It's all about context.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff