Burka Babes

Remove all ads!

Well, I was educated today -- I asked a cop if it's illegal to conceal ones features in public, as with a ski mask, a Nixon mask, or a burka. His answer was "NO" -- he said he could stop someone and ask them what they're up to if they're wearing a balaclava in 30 degree Centigrade weather, but he has no grounds to arrest them. If they enter a business, though, that business has the right to refuse service and ask them to leave if they do not reveal themselves -- an extension of the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" idea. Should they refuse, and also refuse to leave, then the police have grounds for an arrest based on "causing a disturbance". If they rob a place, then the use of the facecovering becomes an "add on" to the robbery charge, said "add-on" being "concealing your identity."

 

That kind of law enforcing does seem contradictory. It's ok to wear the mask in public, but it's illegal to conceal your identity? There must be more to it than that.

 

I agree Blades, it's like it's only illegal to conceal your identity if you're doing something else illegal...

 

There is more to it than that, as LKD stated. It's an add-on to the commition of a crime.

If you wear something to cover your face, and are either acting in a suspicious manner or refusing to remove the covering at the request of a police officer (who should not be making this request arbitrarily), then the officer has probable cause (generally) to suspect you, but not arrest you. If the person is just minding their own business and the officer in question asks the person to remove the covering just because he personally dislikes the practice (or whatever arbitrary reason), then he's out of bounds. But questions about the officer's judgment of what is and is not suspicious are where the slippery slopes in this subject come into play.

 

The cop told me that while he can ask a person for his name, the person does not even have to give it to him unless the officer is arresting him. The person also does not have to reveal his face unless a charge of some sort is being levied. To make it more clear, it only becomes an issue if a crime is actually committed.

 

Makes sense. IIRC in the UK, if you're walking on the street a cop cannot stop you for no reason and ask you for identification, and if he does telling him to pike off (without being aggressive) is legal. From what this cop told you I assume Canada must have a similar or perhaps even identical law when it comes to identity: you don't have to show ID (barring driving permit while driving, obviously), give your name or show your face unless you're already in trouble for a different reason.

I don't think it's contradictory, it's just making a clear differentiation between regular folks and someone doing something suspicious. I see the distinction as a good thing: if you're minding your own business then it's nobody's business who you are or what you look like; if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing (not leaving the bank when asked to, or robbing the bank, or anything in-between) then it shifts to a different set of rules where identification is required.

 

I'm starting to get a sense of deja vu here....

 

I agree with this fully. For example, I don't think a woman who has been pulled over for violating the law can reasonably expect a male police officer to divert resources just so a female officer can see her without her veil*. She was the one who broke the law in the first place, so tough cookies. I also question whether driving in a burqa should even be legal, since the burqa greatly limits its wearer's field of vision.

* If there is already a female officer there, then it is reasonable to request that only the female officer see her without her veil.

 

Actually, I'd say even if there is a female officer present, the officers should not be required to meet the driver's request, simply because it's a bit of confusion that a criminal (with a gun in the car or something) could take advantage of, and police should always treat every traffic stop with the utmost caution, no matter how innocent it seems.

 

Sure, but it's not like she can't just get out of the car and thus be in a controlled environment before she lifts her veil, so I really don't think that would be a major concern. It's gonna be a bit tough to lift a veil and shoot someone at the same time, after all.

 

Most laws are made irrespective of what an individual wants, but based on what society wants, they may see it as being unclethed, but the society that they want to join doesnt.

no its not, a police officer in the UK can stop you at any time to randomly, if they choose, conduct a search and siezure and assertain your identity. and if a cctv operator has given them any reason they can cuff you for the process.

 

My point was more about shooting the male officer as he calls for his female partner to come up. Any moment of distraction is one more potential opening, after all.

 

Sure, but the partner is supposed to be watching, anyway. I doubt he'd have to call for her, since she would in all likelihood be aware of the request already. That said, if the experts that set police procedure really feel that such an accommodation unnecessarily puts their officers at risk, I would defer to their judgment on this.

 

Please NOG, you're just grasping at straws with that one. The police officer simply backs away, just as he would during any other traffic stop.

 

Society is made up of individuals and in democratic countries the laws are (or at least should be) there so all these individuals can live together as a society. If the laws of the society clash with the well-being of the individuals and their ability to live together harmoniously then something is very seriously wrong with these laws.

I'm pretty sure they can't conduct a search and seizure any time they want. The UK is not a police state (yet) and laws don't require you to carry official ID with you at all times. That is going to change with the introduction of the ID cards, which was one of the reason many people were against them. Before the ID cards, since you didn't have to carry a passport, if you didn't drive you never carried any kind of official ID with you anyway, and if you happen to not be a student then chances are you have no ID with you at all. Assertaining identity isn't exactly feasible in this case.

Come on. That's pushing it.

 

No, I'm representing legitimate fears. You can never assume a traffic stop of any kind is "safe" or "routine", even if you've pulled over a minivan driven by a 35-year old woman with a little-league team in the back. I've been told this many times by police officers (I know several). ANY traffic stop is dangerous, and ANY requirement that puts the officers in more danger should require strong backing. Yes, it's extremely rare that a traffic stop goes bad, but when they do, they can go VERY bad, VERY quickly, so the overall risk level is high.

 

NOG, this is the same procedure used when one officer speaks the language of the person in the car and the other doesn't.

Yeah, things can go bad and prodecures are in place for that -- but the worst case scenarios do not dictate how the police officer treats you when pulling you over. The procedures ensure the police officer is protected when things go to hell in a handbasket, but the officer is still able to treat you with courtesy and respect.

 

No, it isn't. If it was really about religion, most western Muslims would wear the Hijab. Most do not. Hell, most Iraqi Muslims don't. When I went to DLI, I was trained in Arabic by native speakers of the language who immigrated into the US as adults. 3 of my instructors were female, one of whom was a Christian. She wore a head covering, but the other 2 Muslim instructors did not. This issue has a lot more to do with culture (ie different standards of modesty) than it does with religion.