69 million page views

No, YOUR arguments are "absolutely ridiculous"

Reader comment on item: Niqabs and Burqas Banned at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
in response to reader comment: Absolutely ridiculous!

Submitted by commonsense (United States), Feb 3, 2010 at 15:28

No Chloe. It is certainly NOT ridiculous to prohibit people in America and other large, mobile, open societies from wearing FACE-hiding attire in public. It is your arguments that are "absolutely ridiculous"

You say: "Wearing those articles of clothing represent a religious and personal choice. They are not harming anyone. If necessary, the person wearing one of those could be asked to remove their head coverings solely for identification, and should be allowed to continue wearing it after they are properly identified....."

First, the issue is NOT "head coverings." It is FACE coverings. This shows that you did not understand Mr.Pipes' points about the dangers of face-coverings, and the attempted ban at the Massachusetts school. Mr. Pipes and the school did not say it supported a general public ban on HEAD coverings. It is possible to identify people commiting dangerous acts with covered heads. It is NOT possible to identify people commiting dangerous acts with covered FACES, unless one can get a DNA sample from the perps, which is rare.

Second, you need to read Mr. Pipes' weblog entry entitled "Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats." In it he details many cases of serious crimes (robberies, abduction) and terrorism committed by people who wore face-veiling attire, or forced others to do so. Obviously they did not, and had no intention whatsoever of "removing" the face coverings so they could be "properly identified" since the whole intent of face-covering was so no one could identify either them or their victims. Rather, they took advantage of the sentiments of people like you-- who try to argue that it is some sort of absolute religious right to wear any kind of attire in public--exactly so that they will not be "properly identified."

Third, yes, people who cover their faces in public for whatever reason, DO harm others by taking away the ability and right of anyone vicitimized by the face-hiders to be able to positively identify them (or their victims). Because of your sort of argument, it was (and will be) impossible for the robbed banks and store owners to say ahead of time to the veiled criminals:"could you please remove your covering while on the premises, just in case you rob me" because the perps will invoke a "religious" right hide their face. Because of your sort of argument, abducted minors and other trafficked individuals will not easily be recovered because the criminals will veil their faces, knowing full well that no onewill dare interfere with their supposed "religious" right to veil someone who appears to be part of your household. Fact is, everyone's rights to safety and the ability to identify those who harm them or theirs is infringed when people, even non-criminals--wear face-coverings in public.

As for "are we so biased toward Muslims that we are banning them from personal decisions about dressing?" the point is a ban on face-coverings in public is not discrimination against Muslims since it applies to EVERYONE. In fact, many of the cases Pipes describes in "Niqabs and Burqas as security threats" were not Muslims, but people wanting others to assume that they were Muslim women exercising a supposed "religious" right to wear face-veils in order to hide their identity and get away with crimes.

As for "Anyone could plan a murder, anyone at all, and they probably wouldn't even wear either of the above head coverings." Again, the issue is FACE coverings NOT head coverings, but this is another "absolutely ridiculous" argument. The point is, if someone commits a murder, all the while keeping their face veiled, it will be impossible to solve the murder, unless DNA is inadvertently left behind, which is rare. In contrast, if the murders does not wear a face-veil solution is greatly facility since they may have been inadvertently witnessed or caught on security cameras. For the government to facilitate people getting away with murder any other kind of crime or accident by allowing people to hide their faces from public view, for whatever reason, is a VERY bad idea. Period.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to No, YOUR arguments are "absolutely ridiculous" by commonsense

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)