Man wearing hijab robs Ottawa bank

So someone really did pee in your cornflakes this morning!!!

I believe they wanted to ban the burqa in public nor the Muslim woman. As far as I am concerned, it's no one's business what one wears inside their own home or one's bedroom or bathroom. It just happen that in Pakistan and Australia's specific cases , burqa has been sadly worn and abuse by Muslim women (Yes, Ms. Matthews of Australia is a muslim). As for England, Holland, France, and Canadian cases, we do not know yet whether which one is done by a muslim or non muslim. That's just it, there is no way of personal identification with such facial coverings.

Just like you abuse the board… If all you do is accuse racist and hatist this and that, you might want to take on your own suggestions. Although, if that is the only thing that makes you happy, you can call me any name you want. Peace Emily!

Emily, it is quite obvious that you are a lost cause.

I just love the way you allways redirect when you reply to someone who is opposite of your opinion.

"Done here all the time …by non-Muslims" yes the non muslims do it here but, does that make it right? (common sense)

You are so blind to common sense and reality, wow i bet your an anarchist, right?

The one good thing on your side is that you reside in a country that allows you the freedom of speech, too bad you allways use it as abuse of speech.

Just remember this Emily, if you were living in one of the countries which do not have freedom of speech well, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

P/S not everyone commenting on here is racist, they are replying with common sense and reality which is something you never consider in your opinions or replies.

Happy new year to everyone.

What history would that be, Canstud and Emily history.
You obviously have no idead of what defines common sense.

Emily hates anyone who doesn't resemble the person staring back at her from the mirror. She called me racist a while back simply for declaring myself Christian. Somehow, that made me personally responsible for all acts of aggression against non-whites around the globe. At the time, if I'd had the funds to do so, I'd have gone after her for libel. After some reflection, though, it made me realize what a poor, pathetic soul she must be. So now I pray for her instead – if for no other reason than the fact that it will irritate her knowing I'm praying for her…

You are the only one who manufacture the phrase banning religious clothing to perhaps give excuse on something unexcusable and acquire sympathy for no reason. Burqa is a traditional piece of clothing not a religious one. Even Syria vehemently bans it. Eqypt's universities banned it too. Your excuses are getting way beyond thin.

And I don't need to 'excuse' anyone for living.

They have as much right to be here as you.

Are you not paying attention or what??

'Philanthropist · 2 hours ago
A cultural fetish such as wearing this costume presents a security risk to the civilized world, there are many countries outside of the civilized world where the practitioners of this fetish would be more comfortable, they should go there.'

So give the religious bigotry a rest eh?

Well since religious clothing of any kind isn't a security risk to anyone, the rest was just plain bigotry.

Emily is just running low on fuel, so now she is grasping at straws…as usual. Happy New Year Ariadne, ..Blog you next year !!

It's no excuse for religious bigotry, or racism….sorry folks.

Why is it if someone says something negative about Muslims they are called racists? Islam is not a race and Muslims come from many races.

Google – armed robber dressed as priest – are these expressions of Christianity?

I don't assume — I know. Places where the burqa is worn are places where it is illegal not to wear them. If you find it soooooooo diffcult to imagine why women — WOMEN! — would not want to cover their face, forehead to eyebrow, nose bridge to chin and onward, why don't you imagine yourself, yes, you, a man, wearing the same thing day in and day out. Covering your face isn't just about aesthetic — it is an erasure of identity, and that is a seriously psychologically damaging way to grow up. It is especially damaging since men are not subject to the same enslavement, and this is precisely why the burqa and niqab are issues of misogyny and not religious freedom.

" Do we ban everything that a criminal might use to hide their identity?"

That, incidentally, is not the question. The question is whether women should be able to ask for public services that require identification when they are veiled completely aside from their eyes, or that their religion — which doesn't not require that women mask themselves — exempts them from public custom. But returning to the straw man you've constructed, the government already dictates to you what you can and cannot wear in public. See "disguise with intent" and "indecent exposure." Try walking into a store without shoes or a shirt. If you were a woman, I'd invite you to try walking downtown topless. Since you're a man, I'd invite you to walk into a playground topless. See where that gets you.

Misogynist.

What about turbans – don't they set the wearer's of them apart? Are you against them as well?

Thanks Eddie – couldn't have said it better myself!

Jan: if you read my other comments, you'll know I'm fine with the hijab, as the face is visible. It is not the use of cultural or religious garb that I take issue with, but the covering of the face. Any alternate to the niqab or burqa which allows the face to be seen is perfectly acceptable to me.

I am on record, though, as opposing safety exemptions due to the wearing of religious headgear – specifically, allowing a motorcycle helmet exemption for turbaned Sikhs – as I believe our laws must apply equally to all. If we say that helmet laws are there for safety reasons, then all riders must use them. Alternately, we must do away with the law altogether. We can't create classes of citizens based on religion.

@Jan
So in other words you didn't get it.

Try it again without out preconceptions of what you think I'm about, and read what's actually written rather than whatever delusion you happen to be dreaming of at the moment.

Bank robbers frequently disguise themselves. Are you suggesting the banning of traditional female Muslim attire will reduce the number of these crimes?

You dodged my question (and that of other posts preceding mine) and gave an incredibly Emily-like answer.

Re-read Vatro's original post and all the subsequent posts and ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE the rest of us are discussing. You may discover that Vatro is actually on your side (albeit perhaps for different reasons), saying that a ban would have little practical effect. It was you who side-tracked the issue with a misread of his comments and then failed to address the reponses that arose due to your own addle-brained introduction of a side issue.

Where exactly did I side-track the issue? My first post was in response to Jan about bank robbers.

It is a rather nonsensical question, though. Most of the items you mention are generally worn outside to protect against the elements and customarily removed when inside &/or when speaking with others. And they generally don't cover the entire face. Each may make it more difficult to identify the person, but not to the same degree as a full facial covering. Only something like a balaclava or a hallowe'en mask would have the same degree of coverage as a niqab or burqa. How many people wear those in public places on a regular basis? And what would be your honest opinion of someone who did? Would you expect them to receive services in businesses or government offices while wearing them?