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

[George Wallace]

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

31/12/2010 10:37:58 AM

CBC News
LINK

Ottawa police are investigating a series of bank robberies by a man or men wearing a hijab.

The latest incident, on Thursday afternoon, occurred when a man in the headscarf worn by some Muslim women robbed a bank at Pinecrest Mall in the city's west end.

Const. Katherine Larouche said a man, wearing a dark blue hijab covering his mouth and nose, and a long dark blue robe, handed a Scotiabank teller a note around noon, demanding money.

The suspect fled the bank with an undisclosed amount of cash. No weapon was seen and there were no injuries.

The suspect is described as a dark-skinned male, about five-foot-10, with a slim build, dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He spoke English with a slight accent.

Since the summer, there have been at least four robberies, each involving a man donning the religious garb. But police were unable to determine whether the same man was involved each time.

"This is not the first time he has hit a bank in Ottawa," Larouche said. "There is no way of saying for sure, but sometimes descriptions given by witnesses bear some similarity and a hijab is sort of out of the ordinary."

Anthony Skinner, acting sergeant in the Ottawa police robbery unit, said his team will piece together reports from the other incidents to determine if the same person is responsible for each robbery.

However, Skinner said, the general stature and disguise lead police to believe it is the same man.

"It [wearing a hijab] is not something that has commonly been used," Skinner said. "To wear traditional or religious garments to commit robberies is not something that we see frequently, but I wouldn't call it bizarre."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Examples? Links?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Ottawa Local News

Ottawa man on ATV faces numerous robbery charges

31/12/2010 3:02:53 PM

CBC News
LINK


A 23-year-old Ottawa man is scheduled to appear in court New Year's Day on almost two dozen firearms and weapons charges following a drunken chase on an all-terrain vehicle in Kanata early Friday morning.


A witness told police a masked man was in their backyard in the Hazeldean Road and Abbeyhill Road area at around 2 am with a weapon and on the four-wheel vehicle.

When police arrived the man drove away. He later abandoned the ATV after colliding with a fence but was caught a short time later by police dogs.

Police said he had a firearm, ammunition, a knife and pepper spray.

Jason Holmes, 23, faces 23 charges including dangerous driving, impaired driving, and operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood.

Ottawa's guns and gangs unit continues to investigate.

Does that fill your "MASKED MAN" bill?

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.