Jump to content

danot

Members
  • Content Count

    6,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About danot

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cyclone. I don't have to agree with everything you say, it's not compulsory. It's not part of the Brexit deal. I don't accept hypocrisy and double standards. And you and others are defending both.
  2. Of course you're acknowledging that there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public when you're describing the wearer as being a suspicious/nefarious character who arouses curiosity thus making themselves conspicuous to the police. Again, I find myself having to remind you that it is you, not me, that is proclaiming balaclava wearers and niqab wearers have the exact same unrestricted freedom to conceal their face in public. In fact, you're adamant that niqab wearers are not protected or favoured in any way and certain of there being no known laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict or favour either wearer. So, then what is it that makes the police think of balaclava wearers as conspicuous/suspicious/nefarious characters then? Care to hazard a guess? And, no, no way. This isn't a case of people being politely asked about their face concealing attire, it's about societal attitudes and prejudices that people have against certain face concealing headwear. Treating a niqab wearer as a unknown assailants and/or the police stopping then simply because they're wearing a niqab is considered a hate crime, you know it is, and by the way, this in itself is a 'restrictive measure' that aims to reform social attitudes and prevent the persecution of Muslim women and discourage people from unjustifiably associating the niqab with terrorism. While the balaclava wearer is immediately thought of as being a criminal.
  3. Was about to tell you to stop dreaming then realised I misread social intercourse.
  4. Precisely. You've hit two birds with one stone here Halibut. Firstly, I'm pleased to see you're openly acknowledging that there is stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public by saying balaclava wearers might arouse curiosity and be thought of as being suspicious characters, which would warrant a police officer stopping and questioning them. You say this while simultaneously supporting the view that anyone who subjected a niqab wearer to such prejudicial unfair treatment would be committing a hate crime. You're also adamant that there are no actual restrictions on wearing a balaclava in public. Secondly, you've inadvertently (I'm sure) taken the liberty of illustrating why I've been dismissing your explanations that I called bias. (sorry biased) so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that it has been you (and others) that have persistently claimed that wearing either a niqab, or a balaclava in public is a "unrestricted freedom" that anyone is entitled to do since there's no laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict, or favour either wearer. Once again, you've managed to demonstrate that your hypocrisy actually does know no bounds.
  5. I haven't wasted anyone's time. Here's my original point. This was in response to RootsBooster who then asked- To which I replied- There, you see. In post 700 I acknowledged that there's nothing stopping us from wearing face concealing headwear in public, but added that we wouldn't be allowed to do so unrestrictedly, unlike wearers of face concealing headwear that has religious significance. And the bias lies here below, where you say- "on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police tend to take an interest in weird". But, like I said, wearing joke spectacles, nose and moustache would be just as weird, but the police wouldn't approach someone to discuss how weird they look, they wouldn't waste their time on 'weird', but, if they'd been wearing a balaclava for no apparent reason they'd have most definitely wanted a chat with them. And this brings me back to asking why there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava out in public when doing so is meant to be a unrestricted freedom?
  6. Why's that, is it because I've given you a ptetty damn good example that illustrates how I am able to wear something weird/strange for no apparent reason when out in public without being stopped and questioned by a passing police officer? But, you've obviously found a flaw in my reasoning so c'mon, spit it out.
  7. Because, were I out in public concealing my identity by wearing joke spectacles, nose and moustache for no apparent reason' a passing police officer is likely to smirk and walk by at most. But, wearing a balaclava doesn't receive that reaction in public, but why? Why is stigma associated with wearing a balaclava in public?
  8. You give me one. Example: What would I have done wrong by wearing a balaclava in public if doing so warrants a passing police officer to stop me and question me?
  9. Do you believe they've have stopped me to ask me some random question if I hadn't been wearing the balaclava?
  10. If I was walking down the street wearing a balaclava on a blisteringly hot day and a police officer stopped me to ask for directions then went on his/her way... C'mon. Need I continue?
  11. I haven't ignored explanations. I've dismissed them because they're bias.
  12. The types of headwear are apparent. I'm wont be listing them for you because we've already discussed them. And why do you always persist in denying the blindingly obvious truth? Accept life as it is instead of always defending society's ideals. No?
  13. Let's have a think. How's about- The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime. Too much?
  14. For me, balaclava wearing is a unrestricted freedom, and if the police do stop a balaclava wearer in public to have a quick chat, you'll be witnessing a 'restrictive measure'. Authorities wouldn't want balaclava wearing to catch on, it'd complicate policing somewhat for starters, not to mention Big Brother style street surveillance, which is why the police tend treat it as a matter of interest, and why there seems to be a mild stigma attached to wearing one or accompanying a wearer out in public. It's not the done thing, despite it being one of the many unrestricted freedoms of this country. Anyhow. You're right. Enough about balaclavas.
  15. Loitering you mean? Loitering isn't without its restrictions, so restrictive measures apply here too.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.