Modern life in Saudi Arabia.

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
There are numerous local and state prohibitions against wearing masks or facial concealment.

The city of Lexington,KY for example: Adult Masks Illegal To Wear In Public In Lexington - ABC36 News WTVQ Lexington Kentucky

Similar bans on public concealment can be found throughout the US. Common sense policies.
Actually, the Lexington-Fayette County ordinance doesn't apply to burqas. It only applies to masks, disguises and regalia (fancy, splendid or special clothing). A burqa isn't any of those. It isn't a mask, it isn't an intention to hide one's identity, and as it is normal every day attire, it isn't regalia. As the article noted, he was charged with "disguise" under Section 14-12 Disguises, which specifically mentions "such masks or disguises" as you would find on Halloween. I'm a little surprised that they don't arrest Wildcat and Scratch every week, tho.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
As in the incident cited, the wearer is not a mature adult mentally, but his intentions weren't to deceive anyone, or hide his real identity, he just thought the mask goes with the Batman shirt. Anyone who's ever had a little boy would understand that, lol.
But of course arresting and charging the developmentally-disabled with a crime is what passes for "common sense" in some places ... ;)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The remainder of the clothing could also be an issue, just as it is with the Amish. Long, loose, baggy, clothing makes shoplifting easier. When I was at Cabela's we would get buss loads of Amish come to the store. They had to be watched, REALLY, watched, they were famous for shoplifting. No reason to believe that a Muslim woman, or man, would not try to take advantage of the same. Also makes it easy to conceal weapons, legal or illegal.

Just other sides to the coin.

That 'coin' has my BS meter screaming. Because I grew up in Ohio, where there are a LOT of Amish, and I never saw or heard of them being on a bus, for starters. Modern transportation goes against their way of life, even the more 'liberal' sects. Nor have I ever heard of them being accused of theft in ANY manner. I used to be an avid reader of the local rag's 'Police Blotter" section, and the Amish [who have recognizably Amish surnames, in most cases] never appeared there.
Maybe it was a rogue sect, up there in Michigan, lol.
"Famous for shoplifting"? I don't think so.
Just because, I Googled 'Amish shoplifters' and found not one single reference linking them.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
While I've never heard of Amish using actual buses as transport, there are companies that exist that provide transport for the Amish using vans ... the slang term for such vehicles is:

Urban Dictionary: yoder loader

Apparently riding is cool ... but owning and operating isn't ...

Mostly see them south of here, down around Kidron in Wayne County, or further south in Holmes County to name a couple of places ...
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Actually, the Lexington-Fayette County ordinance doesn't apply to burqas. It only applies to masks, disguises and regalia (fancy, splendid or special clothing). A burqa isn't any of those. It isn't a mask, it isn't an intention to hide one's identity, and as it is normal every day attire, it isn't regalia. As the article noted, he was charged with "disguise" under Section 14-12 Disguises, which specifically mentions "such masks or disguises" as you would find on Halloween. I'm a little surprised that they don't arrest Wildcat and Scratch every week, tho.

It may not be a "mask" or a disguise, but it effectively does exactly what a mask or disguise does. Making it impossible for a defendant to "face" his accuser, since there would be no way to affect a positive ID. The Right to "face" ones accuser is soundly entrenched in the Constitution.

There in lies the problem. So is religious freedom. How do you resolve it when BOTH sides of that coin are correct?
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It may not be a "mask" or a disguise, but it effectively does exactly what a mask or disguise does. Making it impossible for a defendant to "face" his accuser, since there would be no way to affect a positive ID. The Right to "face" ones accuser is soundly entrenched in the Constitution.

There in lies the problem. So is religious freedom. How do you resolve it when BOTH sides of that coin are correct?
Just my opinion, but I feel my right to face my accuser trumps your right to hide your face while accusing me.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Concealing one's face in public isn't going to fly well in the United States. It is a habit outside our culture which rouses suspicion. There is no legitimate reason to cover one's face in any public venue in the US, except perhaps for donning a motorcycle helmet while riding or the use of any emergency gas mask,etc.

This desire to wear the burqa goes back to assimilation. When devout Muslims migrate to the US, they need to understand ours is a secular society insofaras public activity is concerned. The United States is not a western outpost of Mecca or Medina. Conform to local custom.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
We are expected to conform to local custom were ever we travel, or move too. There is no reason to expect less of anyone else. It does get a bit tiring hearing that WE should be tolerate of THEIR custom yet many who come here seem they have no reason to be tolerate of ours.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I was recently in Laredo at the J where there was a snotload of cargo vans. Not one of them actually arrived on a snot. Across the street at the TA was a boatload of vans. Not a boat in sight.

Concealing one's face in public isn't going to fly well in the United States. It is a habit outside our culture which rouses suspicion.
That's because people are naturally wary of anything different, and are are afraid of what they don't understand. Still, three-quarters of Americans do not favor banning of burqas (or hijabs).

There is no legitimate reason to cover one's face in any public venue in the US, except perhaps for donning a motorcycle helmet while riding or the use of any emergency gas mask,etc.
The "etc." leaves a really lot of room for exceptions to that, doesn't it? Skiing down a public ski slope, at Lambeau Field in December, wearing a surgical mask on the streets of LA during a smoggy day or anywhere else if you are a germophobe, Mardi Gras masks, it's a long list. Every state (except one) or municipality with a law prohibiting the covering of the face is only applicable to those who cover their face while committing a crime or to evade capture or prosecution for a crime. The one exception is North Carolina who enacted the law in the 50s to deal with the KKK, but has also enforced the law against construction workers wearing dust masks, and college students wearing team mascot masks.

This desire to wear the burqa goes back to assimilation. When devout Muslims migrate to the US, they need to understand ours is a secular society insofaras public activity is concerned. The United States is not a western outpost of Mecca or Medina. Conform to local custom.
America also has a long tradition of respect for different cultural communities and religions under the broad umbrella of universal freedoms, as well as a firm First Amendment protection of freedom of speech from government interference that explicitly includes clothing items (Tinker Test), not to mention the same Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. If you can ban a burqa then you can ban a kippah, or a necklace bearing a cross, or a star of David.

As far as forcing people to alter their religion to facilitate assimilation, I would think that if you copied this thread to your Alma Mater you could get a refund of some sort. Hey, it's worth a shot!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What about the RIGHT to FACE one's accuser? I guess THOSE rights don't count. As SO many want to say, there ARE valid limits to rights. How far will it go? Under certain sects, as an EMT, I would NOT be allowed to touch a female who was injured. Carry it to the silly end, an EMT COULD be caned for treating that woman.

Why is it that OUR rights, and traditions, are expected to be secondary to theirs? Our LAWS demand face to face "confrontation" in court, who's rights win? Both are legit.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The wearing of the niqab also makes invalidates photo ID's required for many things. If I were working behind the gun counter of the Gander store I used to work in, and a Muslim woman, assuming it was a Muslim woman, tried to buy a handgun, I would, by law, have to refuse that sale. Then I would likely be sued for doing my job.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What about the RIGHT to FACE one's accuser? I guess THOSE rights don't count. As SO many want to say, there ARE valid limits to rights. How far will it go? Under certain sects, as an EMT, I would NOT be allowed to touch a female who was injured. Carry it to the silly end, an EMT COULD be caned for treating that woman.

Why is it that OUR rights, and traditions, are expected to be secondary to theirs? Our LAWS demand face to face "confrontation" in court, who's rights win? Both are legit.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

If someone wants to testify against you while covered up, they can be forced to remove the face covering as a condition of testifying, or they cannot testify and their testimony would be inadmissible. The principle of open justice would override the woman's religious beliefs, not to mention the court would need to ensure that an imposter wasn't hiding under the burqa. I don't know that a US judge has been in a position to rule on such a case as of yet, but it has happened in England on multiple occasions.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

If someone wants to testify against you while covered up, they can be forced to remove the face covering as a condition of testifying, or they cannot testify and their testimony would be inadmissible. The principle of open justice would override the woman's religious beliefs, not to mention the court would need to ensure that an imposter wasn't hiding under the burqa. I don't know that a US judge has been in a position to rule on such a case as of yet, but it has happened in England on multiple occasions.
So basically, my position is the right one.

My right to face my accuser trumps your right to hide your face while accusing me.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The Iraqi friends I have tell be that the wearing of the niqab is NOT a tenant of their faith, just a tradition.

I would not have to run any credit card sales, no way to prove that the person with the card truly owns it. No way a cop could verify that the person with that drivers license is who they say they are. OK, wear what you want, no drivers license. Can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The wearing of the niqab also makes invalidates photo ID's required for many things.
Yes it does. Sultaana Freeman famously lost her Florida driver's license when she refused to remove her veil for the photo.

Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good, like in testifying in a court case, actually, and that arrangements could be made to have the women photographed for their ID with only women present in the room (it's uncovering their faces only in the presence of men that' a problem). A photo ID that shows her face does not infringe on the right to free exercise of religion by having to show her face on her license. If you want to drive a car, or buy a gun, you gotta have a photo ID with your face on it.

Incidentally, before 911, Muslim women in this country could have a driver's license photo taken while wearing a burqa. After 911 that changed. And that change is what Sultaana Freeman fought in court (and lost). She already had a driver's license with her wearing a burqa, and when she was told to come in for a new picture, and she refused, her license was suspended. She lost in every single appeal.

If neutral laws applied in a neutral fashion prohibits a person from simultaneously practicing their religion and taking advantage of a state benefit, like a state issued photo ID, then that person must choose one or the other. The Constitution does not provide sanctuary.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
So basically, my position is the right one.

My right to face my accuser trumps your right to hide your face while accusing me.
Correct. Otherwise, we'd have witnesses in court wearing KKK hoods and paper bags, just makin' stuff up about you.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The Iraqi friends I have tell be that the wearing of the niqab is NOT a tenant of their faith, just a tradition.
That's sort of true, kind of. There is nothing in the Qu'ran that explicitly requires women be covered up with a burqa or hajib. It's the interpretations of the passages wherein the rubber meets the road. It's like one interpretation of the Bible (you know, the collection of God's Word) prohibits women from wearing makeup, and another interpretation of the same, exact Bible (again, God's Word) encourages women to get all dolled up Miss America style. Same Bible, two diametrically opposed interpretations. The Qu'ran falls victim to the same kinds of interpretations, issued as fatwahs, in order to let people know how to practice their faith. So while the wearing of a burqa or hajib isn't in the Qu'ran, it's most definitely a tenant of faith, same as is wearing makeup, or not, for Christian women.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That's sort of true, kind of. There is nothing in the Qu'ran that explicitly requires women be covered up with a burqa or hajib. It's the interpretations of the passages wherein the rubber meets the road. It's like one interpretation of the Bible (you know, the collection of God's Word) prohibits women from wearing makeup, and another interpretation of the same, exact Bible (again, God's Word) encourages women to get all dolled up Miss America style. Same Bible, two diametrically opposed interpretations. The Qu'ran falls victim to the same kinds of interpretations, issued as fatwahs, in order to let people know how to practice their faith. So while the wearing of a burqa or hajib isn't in the Qu'ran, it's most definitely a tenant of faith, same as is wearing makeup, or not, for Christian women.

It is only a tenet for some, as you say. Our laws are not capable of honoring the tenets of every sect of every religion on the face of the earth. They are all too often in conflict with each other AND with the laws of the several states and federal government. The question is, where does one draw the line?
 

runrunner

Veteran Expediter
While I've never heard of Amish using actual buses as transport, there are companies that exist that provide transport for the Amish using vans ... the slang term for such vehicles is:

Urban Dictionary: yoder loader

Apparently riding is cool ... but owning and operating isn't ...

Mostly see them south of here, down around Kidron in Wayne County, or further south in Holmes County to name a couple of places ...

I thought the correct term was "yoder toter?
 
Top