burqa hat removal powers for police

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

The crayons keep me occupied when things on RA are a little slow.

How do they taste?

Ralph Wiggum: “Miss Hoover my crayon went into my mouth and i , uh ate it”

Mysteryman said :

The crayons keep me occupied when things on RA are a little slow.

How do they taste?

Return of the fashion police.

johnboy said :

Jim Jones said :

But the typical comments here that surrounds the decision is pretty typical.

Typical comments are typical?

Typical poster typically doesn’t read typical post before posting … typically.

Jim Jones said :

But the typical comments here that surrounds the decision is pretty typical.

Typical comments are typical?

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

fgzk said :

I think its obvious the “hoody” that poses the greater threat to our society. Are Hoodies to be uncovered.

Presumably, yes.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

I think this legislation is a good idea.

Colour me unsurprised

Unsurprised, uninteresting, uninformed…

We could use a whole box of crayons on you 😉

I take your comment to mean that you don’t agree that police should have the power to identify drivers during traffic stops and other operations. How do you suggest they do their job, then, if they aren’t allowed to see the face of the person driving the vehicle?

I don’t disagree. But it’s a non-issue. How often do police run into problems identifying drivers? I’d suggest ‘absolutely fecking never’.

Nice to know you own some crayons though.

Not being a police officer myself, I wouldn’t know how often it does or doesn’t happen. I’d suggest that they’re raising the issue for legitimate reasons but I’m not really in a position to know for certain.

The crayons keep me occupied when things on RA are a little slow.

Erg0 said :

Jim Jones said :

aceofspades said :

If there had not been attempts to escape justice and punishment elsewhere in this country by headdress wearers then this would not be an issue. I have no sympathy to anybody culturally offended, they brought it on themselves.

Who did?

I’ve heard (anecdotally) about a single incident – and haven’t even had this verified.

Here you go: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/middle-east/news/article.cfm?l_id=8&objectid=10733890

Ta!

Honestly, the legislation seems fine, and it sounds like everyone’s been consulted and isn’t fussed about it.

But the typical comments here that surrounds the decision is pretty typical.

“46-year-old mother of three Carnita Matthews” who allegedly made a false complaint against a policy officer. I hardly think that constitutes serious “attempts to escape justice and punishment elsewhere in this country by headdress wearers”. This is just someone being a pain in the ass. Being a jerk is completely cross-cultural.

Funky1 said :

Diggety said :

fgzk said :

I think its obvious the “hoody” that poses the greater threat to our society. Are Hoodies to be uncovered.

Yes, they are.

But the hoody is not likely to impede facial recognition anyway, unless it is worn back-to-front.

You obviuously haven’t seen the hoodies that can be zipped right up the front of the face, creating a mask.

No, I haven’t. Thank Allah.

m00nee said :

Interesting to see how few people actually read the media release. To Quote:
“Mr Corbell said that the new laws would cover such head coverings motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, large sunglasses and *hooded jackets*.”
Specific mention is made regarding woman wearing religious headwear, and the provisions in the legislations for their specific needs.
I personally am in full support of this legislation. If you have nothing to hid, then uncover. it’s as simple as that.
It is such a pity that the likes of Carnita Matthews, a career criminal who hides behind a naqib when it suits her needs, have caused such distrust in the general community towards muslim woman.

That’s partly becuase of teh way the original post is presented. With the obvious title and only quoting part of the press release relating to the ‘cultural issues’.

Diggety said :

fgzk said :

I think its obvious the “hoody” that poses the greater threat to our society. Are Hoodies to be uncovered.

Yes, they are.

But the hoody is not likely to impede facial recognition anyway, unless it is worn back-to-front.

You obviuously haven’t seen the hoodies that can be zipped right up the front of the face, creating a mask.

54-11 said :

So that means that servos that insist that motorcyclists take off their helmets must call the cops, who are the only ones with the authority to enforce removal?.

a servo is private property, they can do what they like. If you don’t want to remove your helmet don’t enter the servo in the first place.

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’d like someone to point me in the direction of a woman driving here in Canberra while wearing a burqa. – i can honestly say i have not seen a woman wearing that perticular headdress here. I have seen Hijabs (the regular see your face kind), and and older woman wearing a niqjjab (the ones that looks like a ninja) but not a burqa. Has anyone else seen one? and if so was she the age to drive and not like 80 or something?

I have, but I couldnt tell you if she was 80 or something coz all I could see was the shape of a person inside the cloth.
Great law!! Glad to see Hoodies also included, I get really annoyed when I see some kids walking up to a bar in a club with the hood on. Same when I see them driving along with hood on and apparently no front seats

fgzk said :

I think its obvious the “hoody” that poses the greater threat to our society. Are Hoodies to be uncovered.

Yes, they are.

But the hoody is not likely to impede facial recognition anyway, unless it is worn back-to-front.

m00nee said :

It is such a pity that the likes of Carnita Matthews, a career criminal who hides behind a naqib when it suits her needs, have caused such distrust in the general community towards muslim woman.

It is unfortunate, but it also exposed a loophole that needed to be closed. It sounds like nobody has any major objections to the proposed solution, so hopefully this will be the last we’ll hear of it.

Interesting to see how few people actually read the media release. To Quote:
“Mr Corbell said that the new laws would cover such head coverings motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, large sunglasses and *hooded jackets*.”
Specific mention is made regarding woman wearing religious headwear, and the provisions in the legislations for their specific needs.
I personally am in full support of this legislation. If you have nothing to hid, then uncover. it’s as simple as that.
It is such a pity that the likes of Carnita Matthews, a career criminal who hides behind a naqib when it suits her needs, have caused such distrust in the general community towards muslim woman.

Jim Jones said :

aceofspades said :

If there had not been attempts to escape justice and punishment elsewhere in this country by headdress wearers then this would not be an issue. I have no sympathy to anybody culturally offended, they brought it on themselves.

Who did?

I’ve heard (anecdotally) about a single incident – and haven’t even had this verified.

Here you go: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/middle-east/news/article.cfm?l_id=8&objectid=10733890

aceofspades said :

If there had not been attempts to escape justice and punishment elsewhere in this country by headdress wearers then this would not be an issue. I have no sympathy to anybody culturally offended, they brought it on themselves.

Who did?

I’ve heard (anecdotally) about a single incident – and haven’t even had this verified.

If there had not been attempts to escape justice and punishment elsewhere in this country by headdress wearers then this would not be an issue. I have no sympathy to anybody culturally offended, they brought it on themselves.