Hilary or Donald

[wide eyed and legless]

Banning the way you dress based on a terrorism thread is just ******* stupid

Talk about the far right going to the point of stupidity


in SOME cases, not all WEAL

So your happy with the way KKK dress, would you feel more at home with them walking around the street, I didn't say all,I have been in many Muslim countries and the majority show women respect and they don't make them go walking around covered from head to toe in fabric and feeding themselves, (not what they choose but what their husbands choose) through a little flap in front of the burqa

 

[wide eyed and legless]

And?

People discuss the potential pros and cons which is what we're doing

We won't be voting, but as I have said women deserve the respect that is due.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

So your happy with the way KKK dress, would you feel more at home with them walking around the street, I didn't say all,I have been in many Muslim countries and the majority show women respect and they don't make them go walking around covered from head to toe in fabric and feeding themselves, (not what they choose but what their husbands choose) through a little flap in front of the burqa

Drawing a long bow between the KKK and Muslim women .... I mean the KKK are actual terrorsists

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Laws do currently exist in Australia to prevent some people wearing what they want to wear in public.

Those people do not wear that clothing for religious purposes, but to identify themselves as part of a club, or 'gang' if you will.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Laws do currently exist in Australia to prevent some people wearing what they want to wear in public.

Those people do not wear that clothing for religious purposes, but to identify themselves as part of a club, or 'gang' if you will.

Um...No.....not really... They are not allowed to wear it in licensed venu's, but they can wear it in public...and do

 

[Brownsworthy]

Am I wrong in believing that in countries such as France there has been an increase of terror related incidents since banning the burqa?

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Um...No.....not really... They are not allowed to wear it in licensed venu's, but they can wear it in public...and do

Um. . no... yes really;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-anti-bikie-laws-toughest-crime-laws/8077572

 

[good4whatAlesU]

My point being that a precedent has been set where an Australian state government has outlawed the wearing of certain types of clothing in public if they see a link between that clothing and imminent violence or law breaking.

However, I don't think we have reached that place with the burqua .. But nevertheless the precedent exists.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Am I wrong in believing that in countries such as France there has been an increase of terror related incidents since banning the burqa?

You are correct in pointing out that there is an association between the two, but that does not mean the association is causative.

I.e. Increased violence may have occurred anyway.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Um. . no... yes really;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-anti-bikie-laws-toughest-crime-laws/8077572

That is only in Queensland....which I often wonder if it is actually part of Australia

Which is actually a ridicules law as now you dont know who or where the Bikies are, before you knew where they where and could stay away from them.

All the law did was drive them underground, which is worse then having them visible to the public

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Yes. It is part of Australia.

 

[madpierre06]

That is only in Queensland....which I often wonder if it is actually part of Australia

Which is actually a ridicules law as now you dont know who or where the Bikies are, before you knew where they where and could stay away from them.

All the law did was drive them underground, which is worse then having them visible to the public

Yeah, it did do that. It also had the effect of reducing the public disturbances which had started to proliferate where they were having mass brawls, including incidences of guns going off in the public arena where there was at least one case of a woman, I think, sustaining gun shot wounds. So a bad thing it was not in this case.

And we're onlt part of Australia because it is legislated...so our civil liberties have been affected.

 

[Brewnicorn]

The QLD anti-association laws were to target bikies for their illicit activity. It has curbed it, not stopped it. It's not outlawed their outfit as a means of curbing public offence because of the outfit. It's part of the larger association and building a tree of offences that's designed to contain the associations. The arguments for the banning of religious dress as comparable are absurd. If you find it confrontational, hard luck I guess. No one has moved to legislate against terry towelling shorts with balls exposed or plumbers cracks from loose ruggers or bunny ears. Worse yet their links to underground fashion groups whose aim is to undermine our civility. I don't need to prove those groups or the motivation exists, I just have to be offended. Nah doesn't wash with me. Live and let live I say. Again, more offensive things to be concerned with.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;

1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.

Outside of that, persons can waive (forgo) utilisation of their available civil liberties if they like by choice. That's up to them.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;

1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.

Outside of that, persons can waive (forgo) utilisation of their available civil liberties if they like by choice. That's up to them.

Even if they are fully clothed, they still have to remove the garment or be able to show their whole face for the purpose of identification. Same as a motorcycle helmet, balaclava, gorilla make...etc

And just what is " Full communication"...?

 

[manticle]

Fax, email and phone.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I just have to be offended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Fax, email and phone.

So, I am guessing if they dont have any of those on them, they get locked up untill they do...?

 

[manticle]

Bring back Coles' Spanking machine.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Even if they are fully clothed, they still have to remove the garment or be able to show their whole face for the purpose of identification. Same as a motorcycle helmet, balaclava, gorilla make...etc

And just what is " Full communication"...?

Probably seeing the full face and arm/hand gestures I would suggest.