Advertisement
by Vitaphone Racing » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:00 pm
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Aurora-Nova » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:07 pm
Strykyh wrote:The fuck? This law is retarded. 1 year jail sentence for not complying is a bit extreme. What does the world have against Muslims?
Vitaphone Racing wrote:If Muslim women can wear burkas, I want to wear a ski mask on cold days.
As we speak, the Libyan people are being
massacred by terrorists in arms against the
legitimate government. The elderly, women,
children... everyone in Libya is in danger tonight.
Help raise awareness and support Gaddafi!
“I believe that Palestine is an occupied land
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River,
and this is the right of the entire
Palestinian people, this land.”
~Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah
by Andonam » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:08 pm
by Vecherd » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:11 pm
by Rainbows and Rivers » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:11 pm
by Rhodmhire » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:12 pm
by Sun Aut Ex » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:12 pm
Aurora-Nova wrote:I can see the purpose of the law, but I believe that laws regarding identification of Muslim women should require they remove the veil in a secluded area before a female officer. If the police can't make either of these situations a reality, they should piss off.
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.
Keronians wrote:So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."
Yes.
Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."
by Vitaphone Racing » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:12 pm
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Nordavia » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:18 pm
by Furious Grandmothers » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:19 pm
by Sun Aut Ex » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:20 pm
Furious Grandmothers wrote::palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.
Keronians wrote:So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."
Yes.
Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."
by Vecherd » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:20 pm
Furious Grandmothers wrote::palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??
by Andonam » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:21 pm
Furious Grandmothers wrote::palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??
by Vitaphone Racing » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:21 pm
Furious Grandmothers wrote::palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by TheRightWay » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:31 pm
by Furious Grandmothers » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:46 pm
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Furious Grandmothers wrote::palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??
This would involve fingerprinting the entire nation, spending billions of dollars to outfit every patrol car and every police station with the facilities required for fingerprint ID and violating everyone's freedom by keeping everyone's fingerprints on file.
by Seperates » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:49 pm
by Sibirsky » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:50 pm
by Seperates » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:53 pm
by Israslovakahzerbajan » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:56 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Oh, I bet it counts alright...otaku gets anyone a x50 multiplier on their hell points.
by Sibirsky » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:58 pm
by Kalaspia-Shimarata » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:58 pm
by Sovereign Spirits » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:02 pm
by Enadail » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:04 pm
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Enadail wrote:Frankly, I'm seeing this on the same line as a law that would allow officers to demand someone they stop eat pork, or that they are allowed to burn crosses/effigies of Jesus to test if a Christian is actually who he says he is.
Asking for identification in the investigation of a crime is the same as burning a cross for the sake of burning a cross?
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Enadail wrote:FranklyThis basically reads as Islamophobia. We don't like burquas, they mean we have to do extra work, so now we can tell you to take um off!
Uhh... did you miss the part where they didn't have the power to make Muslims take off burkas at all before this law? You'd prefer it that they just continue flaunting the law?
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Or would you prefer that the law allowed Muslims to get special treatment?
Seperates wrote:No it doesn't... to me it reeks of priviledge. It's not that we don't like burqas (*cough* even if they are a sign of women's repression *cough*), it's just that we are giving a right to these people that other people don't have on the basis of a religion. It's an unreasonable request at 3:00 a.m. to ask for a female officer when there are one or two perfectly capable male officers standing right in front of her. The officers merely want to I.D. the person, not rape her.
by Vortiaganica » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:04 pm
Sovereign Spirits wrote:It's Australia. They want to know where you are every second of every day. They want to know who you are to the maximum extent possible. Despite the fact that they have 100 identification systems, they still claim they don't have enough. Well I say even one is too many. Nobody needs to know who you are. If false allegations become a crime, everyone will be afraid to say anything. That the Officer was cleared should be enough. End of story.
And for the track record of government, there should be allegations and accusations by the thousands every day. And half of 'em are bound to be spot on. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for their Big Brother identification systems, but I'd wear something on my face, too. Maybe a ski mask, perhaps? So they can arrest me for wearing a piece of clothing they don't approve? Ridiculous.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Deblar, Eurocom, Google [Bot], HISPIDA, Ifreann, Mutualist Chaos, Repreteop, San Lumen, Southland, Souverain Revachol, Stellar Colonies, The Apollonian Systems, The Black Forrest, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Unmet Player, Valrifall
Advertisement