Discrimination

redto

Is it discrimination when motorcyclists have to remove their helmets in shops banks etc to allow for identification and certain religeon's dont have to remove their head coverings?

What is the basis for the 'helmets must be removed' notices or is there any

onlyrocknroll

redto wrote: »

Is it discrimination when motorcyclists have to remove their helmets in shops banks etc to allow for identification and certain religeon's dont have to remove their head coverings?

What is the basis for the 'helmets must be removed' notices or is there any

The basis is that the helmet conceals the identity of the wearer in the same way a balaclava would.

If you're arguing that certain religions who cover their face shouldn't be allowed do so in banks, then you have a serious point worth raising.

But if you're saying that motorcyclists are being discriminated against (which you seem to be) then I suggest that you're a bit oversensitive.

meditraitor

When I start seeing Burkha wearing criminals on crimwatch robbing post offices I might agree with you but for now, live and let live....

redto

I suppose im being oversensitive but only in so far as why is it not the same rule for everyone/ every headgear type

onlyrocknroll

meditraitor wrote: »

When I start seeing Burkha wearing criminals on crimwatch robbing post offices I might agree with you but for now, live and let live....

Even then, that would just be a double standard, the OP is claiming that he's being discriminated against!

Looking through the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I can't find the right to wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank or a shop.

OP, are you afraid of injuring yourself when you shop or something?

OhNoYouDidn't

redto wrote: »

I suppose im being oversensitive but only in so far as why is it not the same rule for everyone/ every headgear type

Because there is a long and proud tradition of people in motorcycle helmets robbing banks that doesn't exist with nuns or muslim women.

You don't have to wear your motorcycle helmet when you aren't on your bike in the same way people feel they should wear scarves for religious reasons. Its safety wear, what is going to injure their heads in a bank?

redto

meditraitor wrote: »

When I start seeing Burkha wearing criminals on crimwatch robbing post offices I might agree with you but for now, live and let live....

Usually I do but every now an then something bugs me and this is one of those things. I never did anything wrong so why pick on me.


Some people who robbed post offices wore helmets, Some people who wore burquas carried out suicide bombings.

redto

Im being pedantic , motorcyclist nun takes off helmet but has veil on under it.

OhNoYouDidn't

redto wrote: »

Usually I do but every now an then something bugs me and this is one of those things. I never did anything wrong so why pick on me.

You aren't being picked on. There have been previous incidents of people with motorcycle helmets robbing banks and as such, because there is no valid reason for you to have a helmet on in a bank, you are aksed to take it off.

redto wrote: »

Some people who robbed post offices wore helmets, Some people who wore burquas carried out suicide bombings.

Ahhh, to coin a phrase, the mask slips. This is plain old muslim bashing.

onlyrocknroll

I agree with OP.

I like wearing masks and carrying crowbars. Sometimes when I combine these hobbies whilst out shopping I get discriminated against. I'm being victimised.

redto

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Even then, that would just be a double standard, the OP is claiming that he's being discriminated against!

Looking through the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I can't find the right to wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank or a shop.

OP, are you afraid of injuring yourself when you shop or something?

Im not afraid of injuring myself,

some days sh t happens and i wonder where I live.

I got the remove helmet thing in a shop, there was a lady with a head covering but no one said anything to her.

Im just having a rant because sometimes I think everyone has some special something that allows them to claim discrimination against them. Im a middle aged white irish guy who rides a motorcycle.

Im not a 'non national, traveler, colored, gay, bi, short, disabled, muslim, jewish, 'eastern european' therefore Im a nobody,

I will pay my taxes and shut up and do what im told by everyone, legislation will be passed, notices put up but none for my benifit.


Rant over

Nodin

redto wrote: »

Im not afraid of injuring myself,

some days sh t happens and i wonder where I live.

I got the remove helmet thing in a shop, there was a lady with a head covering but no one said anything to her.

Im just having a rant because sometimes I think everyone has some special something that allows them to claim discrimination against them. Im a middle aged white irish guy who rides a motorcycle.

Im not a 'non national, traveler, colored, gay, bi, short, disabled, muslim, jewish, 'eastern european' therefore Im a nobody,

I will pay my taxes and shut up and do what im told by everyone, legislation will be passed, notices put up but none for my benifit.


Rant over

God love ye, ye poor thing.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Burkha clad robbers hhhhhhmmmmmm

well there not totally unheard of

http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim

onlyrocknroll

redto wrote: »

I got the remove helmet thing in a shop, there was a lady with a head covering but no one said anything to her

.

She sounds terrifying. :eek:

Im just having a rant because sometimes I think everyone has some special something that allows them to claim discrimination against them. Im a middle aged white irish guy who rides a motorcycle.

Im not a 'non national, traveler, colored, gay, bi, short, disabled, muslim, jewish, 'eastern european' therefore Im a nobody,

You're a nobody because you have to take off your helmet?

OhNoYouDidn't

redto wrote: »

Im not afraid of injuring myself,

some days sh t happens and i wonder where I live.

I got the remove helmet thing in a shop, there was a lady with a head covering but no one said anything to her.

Im just having a rant because sometimes I think everyone has some special something that allows them to claim discrimination against them. Im a middle aged white irish guy who rides a motorcycle.

Im not a 'non national, traveler, colored, gay, bi, short, disabled, muslim, jewish, 'eastern european' therefore Im a nobody,

I will pay my taxes and shut up and do what im told by everyone, legislation will be passed, notices put up but none for my benifit.


Rant over

What Joe Duffy nonsense.

Your helmet has a specific puropse - to offer your head a degree of protection when on your bike. You have no reason to be wearing it in a shop.

The lady in the headscarf, whether she me Catholic, Muslim or Jewish wears the scarf all the time.

This rant is the equivalent of me complaiing I'm discriminated agaisnt because swimmers are allowed wear speedos and nothing else in the pool, but when I do the same outside the girls primary school I have to wear a tag and sign on the register.

Context is everything. You have no business wearing that helmet in a shop, i have no business wearing a banana hammock around schoolgirls.

onlyrocknroll

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What Joe Duffy nonsense.
This rant is the equivalent of me complaiing I'm discriminated agaisnt because swimmers are allowed wear speedos and nothing else in the pool, but when I do the same outside the girls primary school I have to wear a tag and sign on the register.
.

There should be a funny analogy of the day award on boards.

Laminations

Redto, its not discrimination, it is double standards. However many on here will only agree with a campaign against doible standards if it is a minority or an ethnic or religious group being affected. People pointed out to you that some individuals in the past have worn helmets in the commission of crime. These instances, in their eyes, justify restrictions on you and everybody else who wears a helmet regardless of whether you have committed crimes or intend to commit crime. however it's the identity concealment attribute of a motor cycle helmet that makes it intimidating and dangerous. Regardless of whether you are a criminal or not, the fact that it hides your identity is the issue. This issue is present for any face covering but if you raise this as a double standard, you are shouted down as a bigot. I don't care if a burka wearer has no intention to commit a crime, just like I don't care whether you have no intention to commit a crime- you remove your helmet because of it's characteristics, and being required to do so in no way tarnishes your character. Same with burkas IMO, but many on here won't give an even handed approach when an issue involves something sensitive like religious beliefs. In certain areas/buildings face covering of any sort should be banned.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What Joe Duffy nonsense.

Your helmet has a specific puropse - to offer your head a degree of protection when on your bike. You have no reason to be wearing it in a shop.

The lady in the headscarf, whether she me Catholic, Muslim or Jewish wears the scarf all the time.

This rant is the equivalent of me complaiing I'm discriminated agaisnt because swimmers are allowed wear speedos and nothing else in the pool, but when I do the same outside the girls primary school I have to wear a tag and sign on the register.

Context is everything. You have no business wearing that helmet in a shop, i have no business wearing a banana hammock around schoolgirls.

Stupid analogy and it goes to prove the OPs point - that certain clothing is place/context appropriate. A more apt analogy for what he is saying is that you turn up outside a school in just your jocks and get arrested (rightly so) while next to you someone is equally scantilly clad but is wearing religious speedos so is allowed to continue to 'practice' their religion regardless of the appropriateness. It's not discrimination that you are arrested or that redto is told to remove his helmet, it's common sense. It is double standards when someone has religious reasons for doing things that are otherwise not allowed and they are free from interference for fear of offending them

dvpower

redto wrote: »

Is it discrimination when motorcyclists have to remove their helmets in shops banks etc to allow for identification and certain religeon's dont have to remove their head coverings?

What is the basis for the 'helmets must be removed' notices or is there any

Shops and banks can if they want require nuns and muslims to remove their head gear before entering.

They don't because they don't percieve a substantial risk. No discrimination. No double standards.

redto wrote: »

Im not a 'non national, traveler, colored, gay, bi, short, disabled, muslim, jewish, 'eastern european' therefore Im a nobody,

I will pay my taxes and shut up and do what im told by everyone, legislation will be passed, notices put up but none for my benifit.

I see now.
This has nothing to do with discrimination at all. Its just a thinly veiled:pac: dig at minorities.

KeithAFC

Being told im a protestant bastard and told to get out of Ireland. Sigh.

Laminations

dvpower wrote: »

Shops and banks can if they want require nuns and muslims to remove their head gear before entering.

They don't because they don't percieve a substantial risk. No discrimination. No double standards.
.

So you are saying that because motor cycle helmet wearers have committed crime in the past then anyone who wears that attire is a greater risk? What about people who wear tracksuits? Or women with Dublin accents pushing buggies? You seem to be saying that because of certain instances related to certain dress that it is ok to generalise? I'm sure you'd rightly object to similar generalisations in other areas? Why are motor bike helmet wearers seen as a greater risk?

dvpower

Laminations wrote: »

So you are saying that because motor cycle helmet wearers have committed crime in the past then anyone who wears that attire is a greater risk? What about people who wear tracksuits? Or women with Dublin accents pushing buggies? You seem to be saying that because of certain instances related to certain dress that it is ok to generalise? I'm sure you'd rightly object to similar generalisations in other areas? Why are motor bike helmet wearers seen as a greater risk?

Yes. Motor cycle helmets are commonly used by bank and shop raiders as a tool in the commissioning of the crime in order to hide their identity.

When criminals find some ingenious way of using tracksuits, Dublin accents and buggies in a similar way, I'll be supporting counter measures.

Scofflaw

I think we'll find that most robberies are committed by men. There are no religious traditions I know of that require concealing head gear for men. If there were, that might well have the same risk profile as a motorcycle helmet on a man, at least in areas where such head gear was common.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gurramok

One of the London bombers escaped wearing a Burkha. Nice pic too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6378863.stm

Noone should be allowed to cover their face in a bank.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

Redto, its not discrimination, it is double standards. However many on here will only agree with a campaign against doible standards if it is a minority or an ethnic or religious group being affected. People pointed out to you that some individuals in the past have worn helmets in the commission of crime. These instances, in their eyes, justify restrictions on you and everybody else who wears a helmet regardless of whether you have committed crimes or intend to commit crime. however it's the identity concealment attribute of a motor cycle helmet that makes it intimidating and dangerous. Regardless of whether you are a criminal or not, the fact that it hides your identity is the issue. This issue is present for any face covering but if you raise this as a double standard, you are shouted down as a bigot. I don't care if a burka wearer has no intention to commit a crime, just like I don't care whether you have no intention to commit a crime- you remove your helmet because of it's characteristics, and being required to do so in no way tarnishes your character. Same with burkas IMO, but many on here won't give an even handed approach when an issue involves something sensitive like religious beliefs. In certain areas/buildings face covering of any sort should be banned.

The issue isn't about bicycle helmets per say, muslims also have to remove them.

The issue is about RISK and reduction therof. People have turned over too many banks wearing them for banks to allow them. Nuns and muslim women have not turned over banks wearing scarves, so banks don't feel the need to ask them to remove, even though they have the right to do so.

Their place, their rules. Its not some deep conspiracy positively discriminate, its about preventing robberies.

If you can give me a legitimate reason as to why someone needs to wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank, I'll consider their right to do so. If you can't, then they don't have one.

OhNoYouDidn't

gurramok wrote: »

One of the London bombers escaped wearing a Burkha. Nice pic too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6378863.stm

Noone should be allowed to cover their face in a bank.

And if we were discussing counter terrorism, that might have relevance. We aren't, we are discussing banks and shops in Ireland, and I have never heard of a burka wearing thief. I have heard of motorcycle helmet wearing robbers though.

Its that simple. Risk is higher due to past experience.

southsiderosie

redto wrote: »

Im not afraid of injuring myself,

some days sh t happens and i wonder where I live.

I got the remove helmet thing in a shop, there was a lady with a head covering but no one said anything to her.

Just for clarification - she had her head covered or her face covered?

ChocolateSauce

The answer is yes, it is discriminatory.

southsiderosie

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The answer is yes, it is discriminatory.

How?

If the logic behind not wearing motorcycle helmets is that they hide your face, then any apparel that hides the face should be illegal in a bank. If the woman was wearing a full niquab or burqua (which cover the face), then there would be a problem. But if she was just wearing a hijab (which leaves the face showing), then I don't see the problem. This is why I asked the OP to clarify what exactly he was talking about.

johnnyskeleton

If someone observes Islam to such an extent that they insist on wearing a burkah wherever they go, then they are very unlikely to set foot in a bank.

Much the same as you rarely see right wing christians buying condoms.

dvpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If someone observes Islam to such an extent that they insist on wearing a burkah wherever they go, then they are very unlikely to set foot in a bank.

.... so it follows that anyone wearing a burka in a bank isn't a Muslim, but is in fact, a raider about to carry out a robbery.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

How?

If the logic behind not wearing motorcycle helmets is that they hide your face, then any apparel that hides the face should be illegal in a bank. If the woman was wearing a full niquab or burqua (which cover the face), then there would be a problem. But if she was just wearing a hijab (which leaves the face showing), then I don't see the problem. This is why I asked the OP to clarify what exactly he was talking about.

The difference is that wearing a niqab or burqa is a religious requirement (or at least perceived as such by those who wear them), while wearing a motorcycle helmet is not. There is, therefore, nothing lost by the person wearing a motorcycle helmet in being asked to take it off, whereas someone who wears a burqa out of religious duty is being asked to go against their convictions.

For someone who is religiously committed to wearing a burqa, being required to take it off in a bank offers them a choice between breaking their religious commitments or not going into banks - in effect, therefore, the result is to prevent dutiful/religious Muslim women from entering banks. That is discriminatory, and not only in the religious sense, since male Muslims are not required to wear burqas - the result would also further disempower female Muslims with respect to male Muslims, since a religious female Muslim would therefore be unable to transact any business in a bank except through a male agent.

Can the same be said of motorcycle helmets? No, not even slightly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

The difference is that wearing a niqab or burqa is a religious requirement (or at least perceived as such by those who wear them), while wearing a motorcycle helmet is not.

I don't think it is even perceived as necessary by them. Usally they'll say covering hair and dressing modestly is necessary but they just do the full burqa/niqab to please god.

For someone who is religiously committed to wearing a burqa, being required to take it off in a bank offers them a choice between breaking their religious commitments or not going into banks - in effect, therefore, the result is to prevent dutiful/religious Muslim women from entering banks. That is discriminatory, and not only in the religious sense, since male Muslims are not required to wear burqas - the result would also further disempower female Muslims with respect to male Muslims, since a religious female Muslim would therefore be unable to transact any business in a bank except through a male agent.

Well if I ever run a cash operated business they can take 5 minutes out of fully pleasing god if they want to enter my store.

How far do you wish to push this precedent? What if my religion requires me to carry a loaded AK47 at all times? Not really much more of an extreme example as a burqa gives all the benefits a balaclava would, plus you could wear it from further away from the store as it wouldn't cause panic amonst the surrounding public

OhNoYouDidn't

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think it is even perceived as necessary by them. Usally they'll say covering hair and dressing modestly is necessary but they just do the full burqa/niqab to please god.



Well if I ever run a cash operated business they can take 5 minutes out of fully pleasing god if they want to enter my store.

How far do you wish to push this precedent? What if my religion requires me to carry a loaded AK47 at all times? Not really much more of an extreme example as a burqa gives all the benefits a balaclava would, plus you could wear it from further away from the store as it wouldn't cause panic amonst the surrounding public

That is complete gibberish mate, want to read it again and give it another go?

Bottle_of_Smoke

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That is complete gibberish mate, want to read it again and give it another go?

You could specify why you think it is gibberish. Generally the done thing on the politics forum.

I think it is a risky business letting people cover their faces going into a business. I don't see why someone's spiritual beliefs should let them sidestep that. If I was an a employee at a bank or a jewellery store I'd be in a very difficult position if someone in a burqa rang the doorbell for me to buzz them in.

Probably worth making it clear that I don't think people who wear burqas for religious reasons are more likely to steal, I just think people who want to steal could use a burqa to make their operations easier to carry out.

sensibleken

Can i wear my helmet under a burka?

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think it is even perceived as necessary by them. Usally they'll say covering hair and dressing modestly is necessary but they just do the full burqa/niqab to please god.

Religious people do like to please God. I don't get it myself, but that doesn't mean it's not a real factor in people's lives.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well if I ever run a cash operated business they can take 5 minutes out of fully pleasing god if they want to enter my store.

How far do you wish to push this precedent? What if my religion requires me to carry a loaded AK47 at all times? Not really much more of an extreme example as a burqa gives all the benefits a balaclava would, plus you could wear it from further away from the store as it wouldn't cause panic amonst the surrounding public

On the other hand it's an entirely made-up example. The closest analogue would be the Sikh's right to carry the kirpan ('sword'), which is generally recognised - and indeed has just been legally enshrined in California.

The reason it's important that that's just a made-up example, by the way, is the contrast with the sort of religious rules that lead to the wearing of the burqa - the people concerned don't just make this stuff up. It's not an issue of personal choice, however much it may seem that way to those of us who are atheist/agnostic/apathetic. That's very important, because that's what makes it discriminatory to act against it - you're not simply saying "well, you can't choose to do that here" as you would be about wearing a motorcycle helmet (or picking your nose, or whatever else you chose to ban in your store). In turn, that's why it's not discriminatory that the OP has to remove his motorcycle helmet - because wearing one (while not on a motorbike) is a purely personal choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You could specify why you think it is gibberish. Generally the done thing on the politics forum.

Please translate the below, it makes no sense whasoever.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not really much more of an extreme example as a burqa gives all the benefits a balaclava would, plus you could wear it from further away from the store as it wouldn't cause panic amonst the surrounding public

redto

Scofflaw wrote: »

Religious people do like to please God. I don't get it myself, but that doesn't mean it's not a real factor in people's lives.



On the other hand it's an entirely made-up example. The closest analogue would be the Sikh's right to carry the kirpan ('sword'), which is generally recognised - and indeed has just been legally enshrined in California.

The reason it's important that that's just a made-up example, by the way, is the contrast with the sort of religious rules that lead to the wearing of the burqa - the people concerned don't just make this stuff up. It's not an issue of personal choice, however much it may seem that way to those of us who are atheist/agnostic/apathetic. That's very important, because that's what makes it discriminatory to act against it - you're not simply saying "well, you can't choose to do that here" as you would be about wearing a motorcycle helmet (or picking your nose, or whatever else you chose to ban in your store). In turn, that's why it's not discriminatory that the OP has to remove his motorcycle helmet - because wearing one (while not on a motorbike) is a purely personal choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I guess you have answered the question legally, however it does raise a question. If the reason for asking a helmet or balaclava to be removed is to allow for identification, then should all people not be subject to the same requirement? And yes I am referring to the full head covering not veils scarves etc. surely the same rules should apply to all.

If I go into a place of prayer I remove a head covering, if I go into a synagogue (which I have) i put on a yammulka, I have no particular problem with head covering or any other covering, i simply think that when it comes to notices requiring something it should apply to all people.

Would there be an uproar if only redheads had to do something

redto

dvpower wrote: »

Shops and banks can if they want require nuns and muslims to remove their head gear before entering.

They don't because they don't percieve a substantial risk. No discrimination. No double standards.


I see now.
This has nothing to do with discrimination at all. Its just a thinly veiled:pac: dig at minorities.

I mention that im not a member of any minority therefore I must be having a dig? Can I not pose a question or is my 'status' more important than the question.

If the law does not allow for 'prescreening' of potential criminals then why can shops/banks/post offices etc. therefore it is double standards

Scofflaw

redto wrote: »

I guess you have answered the question legally, however it does raise a question. If the reason for asking a helmet or balaclava to be removed is to allow for identification, then should all people not be subject to the same requirement? And yes I am referring to the full head covering not veils scarves etc. surely the same rules should apply to all.

If I go into a place of prayer I remove a head covering, if I go into a synagogue (which I have) i put on a yammulka, I have no particular problem with head covering or any other covering, i simply think that when it comes to notices requiring something it should apply to all people.

Would there be an uproar if only redheads had to do something

Essentially, the issue is one of competing rights. There is no absolute right for the bank to ask for identification or otherwise to ensure their own safety - they don't have the right to request your PPSN number, force you to strip naked in public to show you're not carrying a gun, or handcuff you while you're in the bank so that you're no risk to them. In each of those cases you have a competing right (privacy, decency, and personal freedom respectively) which supersedes the bank's right of self-protection.

In the case of the burqa, there is the right to freely carry out the obligations of your religion. In the case of the motorcycle helmet, there is simply no competing right.

It's awkward that a long-established religious obligation happens to conflict with the desire of banks for safety, but them's the breaks. I'm sure the bank would like to ask for the removal of burqas, but they accept that they would probably lose a discrimination case if they did so. They can respond by having their security personnel pay particular attention to a burqa wearer, and that is not discriminatory because of the existence of the policy on helmets and other non-religious face coverings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Scofflaw wrote: »

Religious people do like to please God. I don't get it myself, but that doesn't mean it's not a real factor in people's lives.

Yes they like to, but this example is not even a requirement of their religion.

On the other hand it's an entirely made-up example. The closest analogue would be the Sikh's right to carry the kirpan ('sword'), which is generally recognised - and indeed has just been legally enshrined in California.

Though the kirpan has been confiscated on planes and Sikh leaders in 2008 declined to meet the pope because they would have to remove their kirpans. These are specific incidences where their religious tradition is not acceptable for security reasons. Just like wearing a burqa into a business as it could be used to conceal their identity.

The reason it's important that that's just a made-up example, by the way, is the contrast with the sort of religious rules that lead to the wearing of the burqa - the people concerned don't just make this stuff up. It's not an issue of personal choice, however much it may seem that way to those of us who are atheist/agnostic/apathetic. That's very important, because that's what makes it discriminatory to act against it - you're not simply saying "well, you can't choose to do that here" as you would be about wearing a motorcycle helmet (or picking your nose, or whatever else you chose to ban in your store). In turn, that's why it's not discriminatory that the OP has to remove his motorcycle helmet - because wearing one (while not on a motorbike) is a purely personal choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well first of all I think that is a bigger discussion but assuming you are correct, it is not a requirement in Islam to wear a burqa, it is common to see a Muslim family where one female is wearing an all out eyes visible only- burqua but another is just wearing a headscarf. I'm not some massive bigot who wants Muslims out of sight, I'd have no problems with them wearing a scarf covering their hair going into a bank.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Please translate the below, it makes no sense whasoever.

bottle_of_smoke wrote:

Not really much more of an extreme example as a burqa gives all the benefits a balaclava would, plus you could wear it from further away from the store as it wouldn't cause panic amonst the surrounding public

I meant that a burqua allows you to conceal your identity like a balaclava does. You could also use it to conceal your identity on the way to the robbery because the burqua would not cause a public panic like a balaclava would.

sensibleken

KeithAFC wrote: »

Being told im a protestant bastard and told to get out of Ireland. Sigh.

huh?

Nodin

sensibleken wrote: »

Can i wear my helmet under a burka?

Or if you were wearing a helmet over your burqa, would there be any point taking the helmet off?

OhNoYouDidn't

[QUOTE=Bottle_of_Smoke;68288627





I meant that a burqua allows you to conceal your identity like a balaclava does. You could also use it to conceal your identity on the way to the robbery because the burqua would not cause a public panic like a balaclava would.[/QUOTE]

But there is no precedence of a Burka wearer turning over a bank. There is of motorcycle helmet wearers. Pragmatically speaking the risk is non existant, hence the lack of action from banks.

sensibleken

Nodin wrote: »

Or if you were wearing a helmet over your burqa, would there be any point taking the helmet off?

So we can elliminate any talk of descrimination by compelling burka wearers to wear helmets in banks!

Genius! Vote us everybody!

Bottle_of_Smoke

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But there is no precedence of a Burka wearer turning over a bank. There is of motorcycle helmet wearers. Pragmatically speaking the risk is non existant, hence the lack of action from banks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8667330.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7310658.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8220978.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8678243.stm

ChocolateSauce

southsiderosie wrote: »

How?

If the logic behind not wearing motorcycle helmets is that they hide your face, then any apparel that hides the face should be illegal in a bank. If the woman was wearing a full niquab or burqua (which cover the face), then there would be a problem. But if she was just wearing a hijab (which leaves the face showing), then I don't see the problem. This is why I asked the OP to clarify what exactly he was talking about.

Firstly I haven't a big problem with hijabs as they don't hide the face, I'm referring to items which do.

The reason you're supposed to remove a helmet is so your face can be seen. If one standard is being used for one person and a different standard being used for a different person, it is discrimination by definition. If a woman feels she can't enter a building where her face must be shown, then it is her religion which is barring her from being free to enter the premesis, not those who are trying to apply the rules equally.

Now, arguments could be made that discrimination isn't always a bad thing, as in this case it can increase the social mobility of one section of society (Muslim women) without really harming another (motorcyclists), but that doesn't really change the nature of the situation.

How far do we take these religious exceptions though? Entering a bank is one thing, but if we establish that it is acceptable to grant special provision for religion on this, what about other things? How can we do that? To whom is the right to decide what is acceptable awarded? And why do people get special treatment just because they happen to believe something deeply in an organised and historically documented way? Why is their belief superior to that of others?

I'm reminded of a case I heard of a New York Rabbi who ceremonially sucked the blood out of a baby's penis after a circumcision (the baby later died form this action btw): is this acceptable on the grounds of religious tradition? How about the right of Afghan men to rape their wives?

We live in a society with one law for all, and it should be applied equally.

In this situation, maybe we should just let people cover their faces in banks? I mean, a robber isn't going obey the rules anyway, right?

Finally, I've made this argument for the sake of making an argument. Factually, the Burka is not requirement of Islam, but a cultural hangup, which I think counts for quite a lot.

OhNoYouDidn't

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8667330.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7310658.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8220978.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8678243.stm

4 foreign examples. Not the Irish precedent I was looking for.

So its safe to say no-one has ever robbed anything in Ireland wearing a Burka. So there is no real reason for banks to fear burka wearers the same as motorcycle helmets.

Bottle_of_Smoke

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

4 foreign examples. Not the Irish precedent I was looking for.

So its safe to say no-one has ever robbed anything in Ireland wearing a Burka. So there is no real reason for banks to fear burka wearers the same as motorcycle helmets.

Why does it matter they were foreign?

You do get the connection here? Like that both a motorcycle helmet and a burka disguise your identity by covering the face?

skregs

Never seen anyone wearing a burka in Ireland tbh, so its hardly an issue