# Will this encourage more to call for the ban of the Hijab?



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2010)

There have been a few controversies in the Prov of Quebec over the wearing of the hijab, among girls soccer players and passengers boarding Air Canada flights, as well as discussion in other provinces.  Will this latest criminal act, following on those events bring about a cry to ban the hijab as France has done?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> * Ottawa Local News*
> 
> *Hijab-wearing robber hits Ottawa bank
> *
> ...



If a minority really wants to promote a feeling of disapproval of their beliefs and customs, their use of some of those beliefs and customs in the commissioning of crimes is a good way to seek  this disapproval.  It may cause there to be a greater cry for the banning of the hijab, by an even larger number of people, with these criminal acts as a contributing factor that it is necessary.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Dec 2010)

Balaclavas aren't banned because they've been used in robberies.

There may be some people who might attempt to use it to make a narrow-minded attack on Muslims, but it's a pretty weak argument to say it'll reduce crime.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Dec 2010)

Michael. I do agree with you on the narrow-minded, etc.....

However, someone standing in a bank line with a balaclava already over his/her face just might garner a little more attention than a Hijab.


----------



## klacquement (31 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If a minority really wants to promote a feeling of disapproval of their beliefs and customs, their use of some of those beliefs and customs in the commissioning of crimes is a good way to seek  this disapproval.  It may cause there to be a greater cry for the banning of the hijab, by an even larger number of people, with these criminal acts as a contributing factor that it is necessary.



This is, of course, assuming that the person wearing the hijab is from the appropriate religion.  The fact that it is a man wearing a woman's headdress indicates to me that it is not - as far as I understand it, cross-dressing is frowned upon in Muslim cultures.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2010)

So is suicide but we see all sorts of people willing to blow themselves up in the name of religion. Its all how you twist it.


----------



## Bass ackwards (31 Dec 2010)

Funny how this parallels a truly targeted (no pun intended) group -gun owners.

Instead of locking the offending arsehole up for 20 years in some really unpleasant place, the prevailaing wisdom would be to make things miserable for the law abiding.
The Canadian way, I guess...


----------



## Fusaki (31 Dec 2010)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Funny how this parallels a truly targeted (no pun intended) group -gun owners.
> 
> Instead of locking the offending arsehole up for 20 years in some really unpleasant place, the prevailaing wisdom would be to make things miserable for the law abiding.
> The Canadian way, I guess...



Bingo! Hijabs don't rob banks! People rob banks!

But aside from that, anyone suggesting the Hijab be banned nationwide because of a handful of isolated incidents is fear-mongering and making the world a dumber place.  Blowing things out of proportion suggests an agenda that has little to do with actually fighting crime.


----------



## Nostix (31 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Balaclavas aren't banned because they've been used in robberies.



While balaclavas aren't banned country-wide, there are numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Dec 2010)

Nostix said:
			
		

> While balaclavas aren't banned country-wide, there are numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises.



Examples? Links?


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Examples? Links?



Get real Michael.  You walk into a bank and stand in line wearing a balaclava to cover you face and tell us about the end result.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Examples? Links?




Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> * Ottawa Local News*
> 
> *Ottawa man on ATV faces numerous robbery charges
> *
> ...



Does that fill your "MASKED MAN" bill?


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Get real Michael.  You walk into a bank and stand in line wearing a balaclava to cover you face and tell us about the end result.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does that fill your "MASKED MAN" bill?



George,

Neither of your posts provide an example of "numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises" - did you miss that part or are you just trying to win an argument by bullying?

Do YOU have an example or link of an officially published policy?  Or numerous examples?

Or do people only get asked to substantiate their remarks when YOU don't agree with them?


----------



## J.J (1 Jan 2011)

Michael,
You seriously believe a person(s) walking into a public place with a  balaclava or anything covering their face, regardless the weather would garner attention? If you and a significant other were in a restaurant and  person(s) walked in with balaclava's you would not feel threatened and look for an exit and feel a momentary panic?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> Michael,
> You seriously believe a person(s) walking into a public place with a  balaclava or anything covering their face, regardless the weather would garner attention? If you and a significant other were in a restaurant and  person(s) walked in with balaclava's you "numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises"would not feel threatened and look for an exit and feel a momentary panic?



Personally, I would also look for their actions, what they might be carrying and use that to determine motives and intent. If the balaclavas are out of place because of time of year that is another factor, but ....

 That is not the point of the discussion. The point was made that "numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises" and I asked for sources. Is there something wrong with my question?


----------



## J.J (1 Jan 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Personally, I would also look for their actions, what they might be carrying and use that to determine motives and intent. If the balaclavas are out of place because of time of year that is another factor, but ....
> 
> That is not the point of the discussion. The point was made that "numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises" and I asked for sources. Is there something wrong with my question?



Yes there is. Common sense says you do not walk into a public place with a balaclava or motorcycle helmet etc on. It will cause panic. A normal person does not feel the need to hide their identity. 
I do not agree with religious persecution, but I do agree with the will of the majority.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

So, when someone claims that rules exist that fit with your, or George's, world view, I'm not even allowed to ask where those rules are actually published?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds - NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE WEARING OF HIJABS, BALACLAVAS OR, NOW MOTORCYCLE HELMETS SINCE YOU DECIDED TO INCLUDE THEM - IT IS ABOUT WHERE THE RULES ARE THAT WERE MENTIONED.

Clear enough?


----------



## J.J (1 Jan 2011)

When someone disagree's with YOUR view we all are wrong?

When the majorities will rules, it is called democracy. If that is what is decided/determined the minority has to accept it or attempt to change the decision through (hopefully) peaceful means.

It is my opinion and I do not appreciate the insinuation it is stupid because it differs from yours.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> When someone disagree's with YOUR view we all are wrong?
> 
> When the majorities will rules, it is called democracy. If that is what is decided/determined the minority has to accept it or attempt to change the decision through (hopefully) peaceful means.
> 
> It is my opinion and I do not appreciate the insinuation it is stupid because it differs from yours.



I did not ask for anyone's opinion, nor did I offer mine.  I ONLY asked where those rules were to be found for the "numerous stores and banks which ban them from being worn on the premises".

That is the ONLY question I have put forward in this thread.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE?

What I said was stupid was your insinuation that I have no right to ask that question.


----------



## J.J (1 Jan 2011)

The criminal charge would be;

Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

175. (1) Every one who
(*a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,*
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Evidence of peace officer

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 175; 1997, c. 18, s. 6.

If you walked into a bank, restaurant/public place and caused distress to others you could be charged with the above.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> The criminal charge would be;
> 
> Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that paranoid leap of logic that FAILED to answer the question.

Please try again when you can actually provide factual answers to the question.


----------



## J.J (1 Jan 2011)

I assume since you occupy the moral high ground your position would surpass my professional knowledge...


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Examples? Links?



Examples? The liquor store down the street from me has about six signs posted, including such gems as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", "No large bags or backpacks allowed on the premises", "We reserve the right to check all bags", "No hats or face coverings may be worn inside the premises", "No groups of more than four persons will be allowed in the store during <School Hours>". It's not exactly a unique set-up.

The policy against hats and facial coverings is hardly a rarity. If you're going to demand irrefutable internet proof of such a common policy, I can safely say that it's a better use of my time to simply agree to disagree.

Choose to disbelieve at your leisure, it wasn't exactly a life-or-death point in the first place.

Edit: I lied. But only because it was so easy to find a supplier for the signs:

http://www.bankersonline.com/bankerstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1965

Edit 2: Oh what the hell, it's not like I'm doing anything interesting tonight anyways.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/no-hats-no-hoods-no-sunglasses-allowed-nc-bank
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/38239234.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/166943


Happy New Years, everyone!


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Examples? The liquor store down the street from me has about six signs posted, including such gems as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", "No large bags or backpacks allowed on the premises", "We reserve the right to check all bags", "No hats or face coverings may be worn inside the premises", "No groups of more than four persons will be allowed in the store during <School Hours>". It's not exactly a unique set-up.
> 
> The policy against hats and facial coverings is hardly a rarity. If you're going to demand irrefutable internet proof of such a common policy, I can safely say that it's a better use of my time to simply agree to disagree.
> 
> ...



ll I asked for was information. So, what you posted appears to be wrong in that you have found no specific published rules against balaclavas.  Thank you for taking the time to look for it and following up.


[Edited to correct reference to hijabs to balaclavas.]


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ll I asked for was information. So, what you posted appears to be wrong in that you have found no specific published rules against hijabs.  Thank you for taking the time to look for it and following up.



Who said anything about Hijabs?

The discussion was about balaclavas.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

WR said:
			
		

> I assume since you occupy the moral high ground your position would surpass my professional knowledge...



I assumed you might have actually read the thread before joining in.

So, for you, and our viewers playing along at home, let's recap the story so far.

In the original post, George suggested that the use of the hijab by bank robbers might lead to renewed calls for it to be banned.

I then stated that balaclavas has similarly been used without leading to calls for banning, and that banning hijabs would probably not reduce crime

A few posts later Nostrix stated "there are numerous stores and banks which ban [balaclavas] from being worn on the premises".

After he did that, I asked for Examples? Links?, a fairly common request on these forums where we ask members to be prepared to back up their statements of alleged fact.

Since I entered this thread I have been attacked, not for taking a side on the issue, but for asking for more information.

Now, can you actually answer the question? Can you, or anyone, provide a link or source to one of these "numerous stores and banks" that ban balaclavas (or any other covering)? How about a photo of a posted set of rules? Anything?

If someone came here and said the Government had published new rules restricting gun owners, people would be all over them to provide a link, demanding information. Similarly, all I have done is ask for more information.  What was wrong about asking for information?

As you will now see, Nostix has returned and admitted he has not found the rules he suggested existed.


{Edited to correct error regarding mentions of hijabs vs balaclavas.]


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Who said anything about Hijabs?
> 
> The discussion was about balaclavas.



My error on your comment, the original post and main focus of the thread has been about hijabs.


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

Then I will leave, hopefully having fully substantiated to your standards, my original comments regarding the phenomemon of banning such face coverings as balaclavas in certain banks and stores. 

Have a Happy New Year.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Then I will leave, hopefully having fully substantiated to your standards, my original comments regarding the phenomemon of banning such face coverings as balaclavas in certain banks and stores.
> 
> Have a Happy New Year.



Actually, all you found was a sign for sale by a US company.  That does not establish that "numerous," or any, banks and stores are using them as corporate policy.


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

Reposted from my previous post, will the apologies that you happened to read it before I got the second one in.


Edit 2: Oh what the hell, it's not like I'm doing anything interesting tonight anyways.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/no-hats-no-hoods-no-sunglasses-allowed-nc-bank
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/38239234.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/166943

Now, I'm praying that you're not going to somehow make the argument that we are so dissimilar from our Southern neighbors that this, along with my own sworn anecdotal statement, do not constitute sufficient plausibility for such a scenario in Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Thank you. That is all I asked for.  Perhaps others will find Canadian examples. I was prepared to wait until such information was presented, apparently others decided that my question implied some sort of terrorist intent.

For all, I would be interested in seeing if any Canadian institutions do have any similar fixed (and enforced) rules.


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/01/15543416.html

Breaking my balls.  :christmas happy:


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/01/15543416.html
> 
> Breaking my balls.  :christmas happy:



It's a beginning, but not enforced yet.



> Compliance by customers is completely on a voluntary basis.



The article also notes:



> This program is not the first of its kind.
> 
> Hundreds of banks across the U.S. have implemented a similar program to address an increase in bank robberies.


----------



## Nostix (1 Jan 2011)

If you seriously believe that no store owner ever does anything beyond what is reported in the popular media to the letter, then I think you will find your search for proof fruitless. 

It is safe to say your requests for confirmation have quickly spiraled from "mildly inconvenient" into the absurd and semantic. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jan 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Good luck with that.



I am satisfied that your initial encompassing statement overstated the current situation although I am still open to the presentation (by anyone) of specific published rules by banks and stores on the topic.  I still uphold that there's no crime in asking the question, as some have seemed to want to infer.


----------



## hugh19 (1 Jan 2011)

Coast capitol credit union here in Victoria will not allow any one in with hats or hoods on.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Jan 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There have been a few controversies in the Prov of Quebec over the wearing of the hijab, among girls soccer players and passengers boarding Air Canada flights, as well as discussion in other provinces.  *Will this latest criminal act, following on those events bring about a cry to ban the hijab as France has done?*
> . . .
> 
> If a minority really wants to promote a feeling of disapproval of their beliefs and customs, their use of some of those beliefs and customs in the commissioning of crimes is a good way to seek  this disapproval.  It may cause there to be a greater cry for the banning of the hijab, by an even larger number of people, with these criminal acts as a contributing factor that it is necessary.



It may be semantics, but to be accurate the recent legislation in France did not ban the "hijab" but prohibited the public wear of what are commonly known as the "niqab" and "burka".  Both of these latter garments incorporate a full or partial face covering.  The earlier prohibition against the use of the hijab in French public schools was the application of an existing (by decades/centuries) law against the display of *any religious symbol* in public schools.  But that's the problem when trying to describe items using terms from another language or culture.  How many south (well, far south) of the border would know what a "touque" or "balaclava" is if a Canadian were to want a "knit cap" or "ski mask"?

There is an explanation (with visual examples) of the various types of garments worn by Muslim women at this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398

I find it unlikely that the criminal referred to in the original article would be really concerned about backlash to any religious or ethnic group even if he was a member of that religious or ethnic group.  He's a bank robber, a profession not usually identified as ethical.  If he hadn't been wearing (improperly) the women's garments, he might just as well have shown up in a Santa Claus suit, or a nun's habit or any number of disguises.  That simple act, is in itself, contrary to the Criminal Code


> 351. . . .
> Disguise with intent
> 
> (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
> ...



Though individuals dressed as Santa Claus, nuns, the Easter Bunny, the Village People, the Unknown Comic* and soldiers  have committed crimes when they were not the persons who they protrayed (I'm still suspicious about the Easter Bunny), there have been no calls to totally ban the use of those identifying items of dress.  Why then should hijabs be banned based on a few isolated incidents?

But this thread seemed to have veered off in its response to Michael's request for supporting data for a specific statement, which was, in itself, reasonable(?) (and a not unusual demand by those of us more pedantic types on this means).  While I don't have any links showing corporate policies about restricting access to their businesses by individuals wearing garments that obsure their identity, I have, on occasion, seen signs with such restrictions.  It has usually been smaller premises (convenience or liquor stores, nightclubs) and while it may be primarily to ensure that robbers can be IDed, it sometimes seems that it may be a partial attempt to limit the access of those who may be the less than preferred customers, i.e. youths, possible gang members. (_[sarcasm]I have no problem with the state rounding up and interning those who wear hoodies, baseball caps backwards or to the side and especially pants so low that underwear is visible.[/sarcasm]_)  I don't often physically go into banks anymore, but I did have occasion shortly before Christmas to go to the bank.  There weren't any signs about dress restrictions but I do recall one Santa Claus and a women very stylishly wearing a hat and scarf who it would be difficult to identify because of their faces being covered.  I would have no problem picking out of a line-up the woman wearing the hajib who was also waiting to be served.


*For those who may be of a more recent generation the Unknown Comic's costume was a paper bag worn over the head.  I once served with someone (decades ago) who was robbed by someone wearing this disguise.  This sergeant was moonlighting in a 7-11, the offender entered the store and threatened him with a paper bag of poo.  The sergeant handed over the contents of the till IAW company policy.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2011)

The actions of the criminal in this case is only one instance that we see a controversy based on the hijab.  The question (Michael) is not that this criminal's actions may encourage more to call for the ban of the hijab, but that it is an action that contributes along with a series of incidents where there has been call for the banning of the hijab.  We have seen this call come from girls soccer in Quebec.  Numerous other instances have also been discussed in the press and other circles.  This criminal's actions only add to what has already been a matter of discussion in various circles.  Again, would the combination of all these instances hitting the MSM contribute to a BAN or will we simply turn and use the Habit formerly worn by Nuns as an example for letting the hijab disappear on its own, as it has done in numerous other nations where the Muslim population has adopted Western ways or never adopted the hijab in the first place?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2016)

A very articulate letter to the Mayor of Ottawa, from Shabnam Assadollahi, an Iranian Canadian human rights activist, on Ottawa holding an "Ottawa Hijab Day” in Feb 2016.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Open Letter to Ottawa's Mayor Jim Watson about Hijab Day in Ottawa
> 
> By Shabnam Assadollahi \
> 
> ...



More on LINK


----------

