Comments on: Scary Fundamentalist pegs the Burka Debate

By: CWTF

CWTF — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:03:57 +0000

“uber liberal”, have you read some of the comments here?
I think you are projecting your partisanship.

Care to add to the debate or is being a troll your way of participating?

By: Rod Edwards

Rod Edwards — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:38:55 +0000

CWTF: Agreed. These divisive issues really make clear the dividing lines.

By: uber liberal

uber liberal — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:05:50 +0000

You cons always seem to be against people of color and it shows! There is much racism with you cons!!

By: CWTF

CWTF — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:45:43 +0000

i think a stake should be driven through the heart of anyone evil enough to think that a woman should be covered in a sack.
And in Synagogues they segregate the sexes. So much for the equality of the sexes… So do we also ban being Jewish?

This debate feels more like a scary-Muslim-rant.

By: Hoarfrost

Hoarfrost — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:50:45 +0000

Let them wear what they want on their own time. Keep them from banks polling booths and other such venues.

By: Scary Fundamentalist

Scary Fundamentalist — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:17:13 +0000

Good thing you have freedom of conscience like the rest of us, old white guy!

By: Rod Edwards

Rod Edwards — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:35:51 +0000

Mark + SF: I agree with SF on this one Mark. A crime committed with a firearm is treated differently than one without; crime with or without disguise should have the same consideration. I don’t think burkas, halloween masks, and balaclavas should be outlawed because they may be useable for crime. After all, so can kitchen knives, hatchets, baseball bats, and lead pipes.

Old White Guy: tell us how you really feel! Note: there are those out there who I’m sure feel similarly towards those who would deny women the choice to cover themselves in a sack.

By: old white guy

old white guy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:28:57 +0000

i think a stake should be driven through the heart of anyone evil enough to think that a woman should be covered in a sack.

By: Scary Fundamentalist

Scary Fundamentalist — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:13:26 +0000

Thanks for the plug, Rod.

Mark, I would think that (disguise + crime) is treated the same way as (gun + crime), in that it’s not illegal but is aggravating enough to warrant a second charge.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:42:51 +0000

A young man is charged in Mississauga with arson at a townhouse complex. Along with the arson charges though he is also charged with “wearing a disguise”. With such a charge this logically means anyone hiding their identity might in fact be committing a crime, including burka wearers.

Also if I ran a bank, I’d make damn sure no burka wearers were allowed in. Too easy to commit robberies wearing this ‘religious’ outfit.