Lets get him!

[Malcolm Robinson]

  Have a good look do you recognise this halfwit?  

 

Seriously we don't need this type of low life in our Town!  

 

Trying to mug a 74yr old woman in broad daying on Front Street!  

 

[threegee]

Definite case for banning the burka in public places there!

[mercuryg]

mmm, actually, despite the poor picture, it bears a resemblance to someone I vaguely know, although have not seen for a good while.....unfortunately I only know his christian name, and not address. I'll pass my scant info to the relevant people....

[Canny lass]

I Think Brett should change his Picture. Just joking Brett!

[Canny lass]

After careful consideration I must ask you 3g just how does the picture posted above give any reason for banning the burka? It appears to be a person, gender unidentifiable, fully clothed from top to toe with very little facial exposure. Why does this justify banning the burka and not, för example, trousers, hoodies (especially those with pockets which can hide the hands), shoes or even socks? Not to mention Halloween outfits, tights and nylon stockings. The majority of people who wear these are not up to any mischief. They are simply dressing as they wish to - just as you and I do.

 

It's not so very difficult to identify a woman in a burka. Without it she would still wear clothes - maybe even a hoodie and trousers.

 

I've had the pleasure of helping several burka covered women with their language problems. I still bump into some of them on the street and can identify any of them from 50 paces even from a rear view. How? Because they are all different in some ways if we only take the time to look beyond the burka. They have different heights. They have different widths. They have different bodily proportions - well visible even under a burka. A large busted woman will have a burka that appears shorter at the front. A large backside gives the opposite appearance. Some are pear-shaped giving the burka an a-line appearance. Some are downright skinny which makes the burka hang straight. They all walk differently. They all sound different, not only in tone and texture of voice but also in accent. They have different ways of carrying their burka in wet weather or when running. They hold their arms in different ways when talking to you.

A burka doesn't prevent identification any more than the clothes in the Picture.

 

Aren't we going just a bit too far when we start dictating what people should wear?

 

Of course, if a woman is wearing a burka because a man is forcing her to wear it that's a different matter. However, I don't think banning it would be the answer to the problem. A ban would only serve to make the majority of burka wearers unhappy. Most see it as a comfortable outer garment, handy to throw over your clothes when popping to the shops, keeping them clean and covering their modesty (let's not forget that they see modesty in a different way to most europeans but even so they manage to accept semi nudity among european visitors to their countries).

Edited June 27, 2015 by Canny lass

[mercuryg]

An interesting post, Canny Lass. I find the growing trend towards Islamaphobia uncomfortable, to say the least, just as would if it were another religion that was being singled out. Of course, the paranoia is fuelled by the few 'bad apples' who practise the extremist view, and who tar the rest of their religion as a result. This is not unique to Islam, it should be said; we don't need to look too far from home to find examples of good old Christians, of whatever ilk, doing nasty things across the years. I should say that I find the burka ridiculous; that's because it's not my culture, and I dare say I don't understand it. I'm currently wearing a shirt woth a pattern print of small dogs; plenty will find that ridiculous, too. To be fair, though, my shirt doesn't prevent me being recognised (quite the opposite - 'there's that idiot with the stupid shirt') as many see the burka as doing, which is where the 'ban the burka' theme emerges. I fail to see, however, how it would prevent, in any way, the extremist muslims from being so. Furthermore, while we're at it, should we ban Sikhs from carrying the Kirpan? After all, unlike a burka, one could conceivably kill you.

[Canny lass]

The burka, for most of those wearers I've encountered, is a bit like Christmas - it's long since lost its religious meaning. To them it's simply a comfortable, practical garment. I can understand that they like it. I like jeans. They think my jeans are uncomfortable and far from practical. I, on the other hand, think otherwise and woe betide anyone who tries to ban a piece of clothing I've grown up with and wear on a daily basis.

 

On the question of identification, I've already said that I have no problem with the burka. I prefer to 'see' the person rather than their clothing. We are all unik and every person will have some permanent, distinguishing features, unlike clothing which can be changed 50 times a day, if  wished, and is mass produced in numerous identical examples. I can see that identification on a still photograph may be made difficult by the burka but it's also made difficult by hoodies, balaclavas, good old fashioned 'mufflers', turned up coat collars, make-up, masks and stockings over the head. Should we ban all of these as well?

 

The kirpan is interesting. On a recent visit to India I saw thousands of sikhs but not one kirpan. Nowadays it's mostly a symbolic ornament in the form of a small brooch. However, that's not because it's been banned. The sikh population over time has simply discovered that the real thing is cumbersome and no longer serves its purpose. Give it a generation or so and I'm sure the burka will go the same way.

[Maggie/915]

I think 'tartan' was banned at some stage maybe after the 'Jacobite ' rebellion.

Sorry have not got time to research but 'Kilts and Tartan ' as a threat seems crazy.

Mind in a war would the sight of a backside make you scared or laugh.

Again should this be a case for censorship.

[Canny lass]

Not just the tartan, Maggie, but Highland dress in all it's glory!

[Vic Patterson]

I don't think its the Burka that is the real issue I think it is the hiding of the face from identification. I'm told it's not a religious requirement so that should make it easier to resolve.

Many places have banned the total covering the face in normal circumstances, no hoodies over the face, no masks or ski masks. We have a case before the courts right now, a Citizenship court refused to allow a woman take part in the ceremony until she removed her face covering, both sides claimed the other side was not respecting their culture! I can guess who will win that one!

Facial identification is a big part of todays security, drivers licences, security I.D. Airline travel etc. until the other forms of identification become practical e.g. retina, and fingerprint I think facial I.D. is a must, it can be done discreetly. Q. Do the woman covering their faces still have to go through the body x-ray scan at airports?

It wasn't long ago the issue was turbans.

[Canny lass]

I personally Think the reason is much bigger than that Vic. I wonder if the same shenanagans would apply to us if the burka should become popular among White europeans? In the late fifties the 'in thing' for us Girls was to wear a head scarf 'a la Sophia Loren' and huge polo neck sweaters that covered half the face. Nobody ever complained.

 

You are right when you say that the burka is not a religious requirement. However, there is, as in most countries, a dress code and for muslims this code is laid down in the Koran. The aurat specifies just which body parts should be seen as private and therefore covered. The rule applies not only to women but to men and children as well. For men the dress code is 'everything covered between knee and navel'. That rule applies to women as well but only in restricted and well specified company The purpose of the rules is to 'protect women from sexual harrassment' and there are even rules on how to walk so as not to 'arouse the desires of the opposite sex*. The burka does a good job there.

 

There are, however, no rules which state just how the covering up should be done. That was also the case for English women, before the topless craze, when it was still taboo to show a bare breast. You could be arrested for daring to show that part of your body but nobody told you just how it should be covered: bra, bikini, t-shirt, blouse or dress - all were acceptable. Some covered only the breast while others covered Everything down to the knee. Some thought that a bikini was shocking and sat in their riviera deck chairs fully clothed. Everyone chose their own degree of modesty just as muslim women do - with the exception of those who are forced by men to choose a certain fashion.

 

Those women I've talked to have no problems with removing their burka for purposes of identification providing it's done in front of another woman. That's not unreasonable. We european women are patted down by another female at airports and that's not because we have demanded it. Nor is it anyhing to do with religion. It's a matter of common courtesy and respect for our feelings about sexuality Of course facial identity is important but it's not the be all and end all of  the identification process. As you quite rightly say, if it's needed then it can be done with discretion.

[Vic Patterson]

I accept your explanation why they have their customs and traditions regarding their dress code Canny lass, but I think the link to terrorism is what people fear, whether it is justified or not.

When I came to this country I accepted its customs and traditions and do my best to bide by them as I'm sure you did, but that didn't change my personal beliefs, in my house we are just ordinary Geordies but outside we try to be good Canadian citizens, but today more and more immigrants being in the minority are DEMANDING more than equality which often offends the less fortunate citizens.

I think education and understanding is required!

[Canny lass]

Spot on Vic!

[Musicmusik]

He looks like 50% of the people who you see on the Front Street unfortunately. Although you can narrow it down by his choice of tracksuit ensemble. He has gone for the all black choice which I hear is very popular in Milan and Paris.

 

Tracksuit tramps dress in many varied styles nowadays. All black, all blue, all grey..... some daring fashion icons even mix and match with black pants grey top etc.

 

He's a scumbag though so if you know him, do the right thing.

[HIGH PIT WILMA]

Tell you what,this makes my blood boil,and if this person dares to try and snatch my wife's bag from her mobility scooter,and I,at 71 years old this month,get hold of him,he will go away with a high sqeaky voice and hopefully two fully broken hands and crippled fingers.

Which is all right,till you start to think rationally about the consequences......HE would claim legal aid,which I and the rest of our law-abiding citizens would have to pay for,and I would be the "Bad lad" and probably end up locked up as a criminal,for defending my Wife.

The Police did have a person who was "suspected" of nearly killing me and my Wife,in April,but couldn't prove anything on her.

She would have claimed legal aid,which didn't half rub salt into thi wounds.

Maggie,you are so gentle and fair-minded,you will think..."not guilty until proven",as I do also,but when a case is blatantly obvious,such as John Lennon's murderer,no trial should be allowed,an eye for an eye,full stop,and my case is blatantly obvious....but no "proof"!!

So my Wife and I are still in pain,and now have to be examined,physically,and verbally,with written statements and forms galore,to try and receive any form of recompense,when we were just minding our own business and coming home from our old caravan up the country.

These scumbags do not care whatsoever about the pain they cause to other people,as long as they get their fix.

[HIGH PIT WILMA]

Now,having finished my rant,let's consider the poor person who did this ....."Low-level crime",......[Defending Solicitor-speak...!].

He probably came from a poor background,and was feeling depressed because he couldn't afford the latest game for his X-box.......

........20 hours community service,and don't do it again..........UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!

[Maggie/915]

HPW

I am not that fair minded , I would ,like you , stand up and be counted.

However there are folks who you just would not want to know.

I was travelling with young kids on a Sunday night, someone came close behind lights flashing, I pulled over he went past and I flashed him.

His answer was to pull in front of me and slam his brakes on.

Lesson learnt let the 'ar------s' pass to kill themselves.

The lady who crossed you will have herself to live with.

Not an easy task!

[HIGH PIT WILMA]

Threegee,I was all set to agree with you,then,having had a break gettin my dinner,and re-reading Canny Lass's comments,I'm thinking that I would have to go out freezing in thi winter,since I was put on a high-ish dose of Warfarin,which makes you feel the cold,even now in our cool summer days.

In winter,you can only see my glasses,cos I wear my motorbike neck-tube,pulled high over my nose and cheeks,and a thick furry-lined trapper hat,which covers my brow,down to my glasses.....all nice and cosy,and minus 10 degrees centigrade doesn't penetrate the face covering,and only my eyes and upper cheekbones feel the cold,which you quickly acclimatise to,when you go out at 2-0 and 3-0 am doggy-walking...as I do.

I was approached by one Police Officer,one night about midnight,mid-winter,who was setting up a road-block,just along the road from my House.

He said hello,nicely,and asked "what I was about"........I tried really hard not appear sarcastic when I replied..."I thought that,THAT would be a bit obvious Officer"....[as I glanced down at Little Black Jess,who was looking up to the Officer,probably waiting for a sweetie,as LBJ usually does!]

"Walking the dog eh?"...he offered......"Uhum officer.." I replied,as I pulled my neck-tube down so he could see that I wasn't a young kid out "Lamping" for deer or whatever.

When he saw I was an old git,with a slightly overweight labrador/cross,[too heavy and old for poaching,]he started cracking on quite differently,with respect.

I said I just live about a hundred yards away in those bungalows,man,and this is LBJ's patch,and I usually keep in contact with the Station if I see any queer goings-on,and we had a gud natter,and I carried on home.

It was gud that he was on his toes,for my security,and that of the community.

So,after aal that waffle,I would be banned from covering my face and wud just hae ti freeze!!

[HIGH PIT WILMA]

Aye, Maggie,me Wife tells me to just ignore these idiots on the road,when they cut in and nearly run you off the road....and all the other daft things we have to put up with,but it's hard to ignore such mindless callous behaviour.

I was taught to drive with care for other road users,in 1968,and have tried to keep that principle in mind constantly when I am driving.

Courtesy is now a forgotten word ...methinks!

Last year,on the way to Newcastle,on a fine sunny morning,I had exactly the same experience as you describe having.

Only the young kid got out of his car,[a Subaru Impreza....boy-racer!],walked back to my car with a raging expression on his face.

I wound my window down to see what he had to say,watching him like a hawk.

He pushed a clenched fist[the size of a 12 year old schoolboy!],into my face and screamed[yes,literally screamed!],"you do that to me again,an aal

[effing] knock you into thi middle of next[ effing] week wi that..[as he waved his fist up against my nose....]".

I sat smiling glaakily at him,giving him the impression I was afraid of him.

I was still strapped in,and thought of grabbing his arm,winding the window up,and accelerating away,with him hanging there,like I did once before when a drug-crazed kid punched my window out with his bare fist.

But I thought he could have a knife,or even a gun,so I did nothing.

As he walked away,I quickly jumped out of my car,and yelled at him to put his money where his mouth was,that I wasn't strapped in now.

I said come on,you are all mouth,little boy,I am twice your age ,maybe three times,but I will take you on any time,and now is as good a time as any,and I hurried to catch up with  him.

Traffic was queueing up behind my car,they saw him attack me with his fist,and waited patiently.

When the kid saw that I was twice his size,[cos I was sitting hunched down in my car],he virtually ran back to his car,yelling at me to F... off,and drove off at high speed,before I could think about getting his Number-plate.

Now,his car was a champagne-gold Subaru,a rare colour for that car,they seem to always be blue or black!

I have his face indelibly imprinted in my mind,and can see his drug-crazed wide eyes,with enlarged pupils,staring at me.

When I ever see him again,and I won't be mistaken,HE is gonna get the shock of his life..[unless Mrs Wilma is with me,in which case I say nothing!]

Noo,what did I do to deserve this attack?

I overtook his precious.."King-of-the-road" God-car...His Subaru Impreza,with the Signum that I had written off at Easter Sunday night.

.....and HE didn't like being overtook......Strange????????

THIS is what we are up against on the roads nowadays.

[HIGH PIT WILMA]

I am seriously anti-prejudiced,but it annoys the hell out of me that I have,by law,to wear a crash helmet,while riding my bike,but a Turkish person does not,

on religious grounds.

I then have to remove my helmet,with frozen fingers,sometimes,at a petrol station forecourt,before I can fill up my tank,and then have to re-fit my helmet,again with fiddly fasteners,[double-d],and with frozen fingers,whilst a Turkish person,can ride in,fill up,pay,and be 10 miles away while I am still struggling with my helmet.

Some places are o.k. and you CAN keep your helmet on,but it is becoming increasingly common,for the removal demands before filling up,for security purposes.

My philosophy is...When in Rome....etc..!![and everybody should observe and comply with the laws of the land,wherever they are!]

Vic,you are spot-on with your earlier comment.

[Canny lass]

Warning: long post ......

 

First a clarification regarding my question to threegee, post #5 about threegee's statement "Definite case for banning the burka in public places there!", in post #2. My question arose from a genuine difficulty in the interpretation of the content of the statement in relation to the content of the photograph. For me it was ambiguous:

 

1. The face is visible, easy to find the person. The burka would make that impossible.

2. The face is barely visible, difficult to find the person. Same problem would arise with the burka.

 

Well aware of the response I might arouse with my question and equally aware that there might just be people of a muslim persuasion reading, I deliberated at length before posting it. However, as a humanist I find myself fascinated by the question of just why the burka should evoke the response it does among the public, not just in the UK but in Europe as a whole. Nobody, as yet, has been able to give me any satisfactory answer.

 

Vic suggested that it may have something to do with it's "link to terrorism". I personally neither know of nor can see any link to terrorism in a piece of women's clothing. Bombs - yes, guns - yes, suicide bombers, yes - four yards of plain-coloured synthetic material - no. Surely, if we are afraid of a simple woman's garment then terrorism has already won and If it is just a symbol then banning it will not remove the terrorism. Over the years I've read and listened to countless reports of bombings. Only once have I heard that a burka-covered woman was involved (that's not to say there haven't been others but they would appear to be a minority). So, why has just this garment been chosen to symbolize terrorism? Why not a pair of trousers, a jacket or a shirt - the more common clothing attributes of terrorist bombers?

 

I'm well aware that many link terrorism to Islam. Can it be that the burka has been singled out to represent Islam and therefore came to represent the terrorism now assosciated with the religion? If that be the case then it is blatant misrepresentation. The burka, as I described earlier in this thread - and despite what we might think about any lack of fashion - is an article of clothing deemed by the wearer to be comfortable and practical in those countries from which it originates, often having a warm climate, a lot of dust and a raised moral awareness. That it also can be used to cover those parts of the body deemed by the Islamic religion to be private is merely a bonus for the Islamic follower. The wearer can, unless dictated to by a male,choose from several degrees of privacy for her body ranging from the minimal 'hijab' to the maximal burka. In terms of 'coverage'  that's pretty much the same choice that other European women have for covering that which they deem to be private. Compare the range bikini to dress for covering the female breast. Having said that, lets not forget that the female neck and a flowing head of hair are thought to be very erotic in the muslim countries so obviously the styles must differ.

 

Speaking purely as an immigrant - and let's not either forget that several among us enjoy that status - I can agree with you, Vic, that immigrants should be good citizens in their host country. For me that's a question of 'following' the law and 'respecting' customs and traditions. With "respecting" I mean that although I have no duty to adopt or even like any of their customs and traditions (they are not statutory),  I never the less do have a responsibility to accept their existence and the individual's right to have them. I don't live two lifestyles. I am what I am, an English woman living in Sweden. I follow the law of the land and I enjoy traditions and customs from both countries. They don't force their customs on me and I don't force mine on them (except for the annual pea and pie supper in aid of the Red Cross and that's not really forcing. They are queuing for a seat). I fail to see how wearing a burka is in any way showing a lack of respect for British custom or tradition and it's certainly not breaking any law - even if we stretch the imagination to give the burka the religious significance that many already give to it.

 

As recently as October 2000 the Human Rights Act (1998) came into force in the UK thereby incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Article 9 of that Convention gives humanity the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and the freedom to 'manifest' that religion is limited only by prescribed law.. But, Is there any UK law prohibiting the wearing of four yards of plain-coloured synthetic fabric?

 

The basic right to 'adequate' clothing is recognized under article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Adequate" surely must relate not only to protection from the elements but even to protection of ones privacy. Those individuals wishing to wear clothing which is representative of their culture, their homeland or society are further protected by article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says:

 

"In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in Community with the other members of their Group to enjoy their own Culture, to profess and practice their own religion and their own language".

 

Maybe, Vic, there are immigrants in the minority DEMANDING more than equality but in light of the above I'm obliged to ask what we are doing in DEMANDING the banning of the burka? Aren't we then doing the same thing? Banning the burka is not the way forward. The way forward, as you so rightly say, Vic, is education and understanding and, I would like to add, that it should encompass both parties.

 

To sum it all up, these women are not breaking any laws or violating any of our traditions by wearing a burka. Given the choice between meeting a burka-covered woman or a motorcyclist dressed from head to foot in black leather and wearing a crash helmet half way down a dark Alley, I know who I would choose (sorry HPW)! And, you know what - I could describe both equally well to the police should I need to. It's not the burka we need to be afraid of, it's the big girl's blouse who is afraid of the burka.