Muslim Woman Asked to Remove Headscarf in NJ Mall

reply to post by torqpoc

The last messenger gave us a complete tribal warfare manual, when you check historical facts and dates

Originally posted by CaptainPicard
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

I guess she is protected.

609.735 CONCEALING IDENTITY.

A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless based on religious beliefs, or incidental to amusement, entertainment, protection from weather, or medical treatment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The above quote clearly states that the woman could wear her scarf/burqa and this is a fact. The person who quoted that we don't do this in her country needs to check his/her country as this is the woman's country.

Oh what Muslims can't be American? Do I smell anti-Muslim bigotry?

Originally posted by timewalker
I guess I fall into the category with the ones posting about security issues, or maybe a better term, loss prevention. I saw one post about wearing a ski mask in a store, they cannot identify you, or more to the point, the FACIAL RECOGNITION software cannot identify you.

It is common place now for large retail outlets to use said software to identify known shoplifters and the like. I know of at least one instance in the last few weeks of a person I know being banned from that big Mart that sells Wals, and headed off at the pass, being hauled to jail for trespassing, known, busted before, shoplifters!!

So in that aspect, the guard had every right to ask her to remove it, IMO. If indeed that is the reason.

Hell, even facebook uses it, TAG your it.

Sorry if that has been posted before, but I was not going to read through the pages to see.

I'm not comfortable with all of these new tracking and monitoring technologies. I know that the CCTV thing has been big in the UK for a while now, with the US starting to follow suit, and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's very Orwellian. I know this is a bit off topic, but are Americans really so complacent that they've forgotten what horrors come along with this type of state-sanctioned monitoring and tracking? The breakdown of our personal freedom and liberties, etc.?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by draco49

 

Once again the mosquito regurgitates the same talking points, without addressing the issue. Kudos!

At what point do you realize that posts like this completely destroy your credibility.

Learn to use some humor.

I don't project my feelings, I recognize a legitimate threat. No fear, just plain ole response of tactical defense.

Try walking into a mall naked, with a couple of your kids and see how badly they violate your rights.

You are clueless at this point in the debate.

LOL you've provided all the humor I need for one day. Good luck to you sir. One last question though... Why would I walk into a mall naked with my kids? That last comment is quite a non-sequitur. Yo no comprendo.

He made a handgesture, thats it? Its a non story to me. Now in turkey women who want to wear the scarf REALLY have a hard time.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

It's embarrassing and disgusting that I live in a country that supposedly has freedom of expression and freedom of religion and yet, this woman is publicly stripped of hers and all the offender has to do is go to a diversity course.

You really believe that the woman in question is FREE? That she CHOSE her religion? I thought that was what freedom of religion meant, to be free to choose ones own religion. Do you know Islam? I would bet you don't because Islam is intrinsically opposed to freedom! In fact, they pride themselves in being anti-freedom! But you're going to brush this aside as "Islamophobia", ignoring the ever increasing evidence there is that Islam is not "just a religion".

The guard did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Therefore, he didn't do good. In fact, he did very bad because this will rile up some more ignorant idiots to speak in defense of something that is oppressive and anti-freedom in nature, because those ignorant idiots want to show how in favor of "freedom" they are. Ever forgetting that the freedom they enjoy had to be fought and killed for and that the women in countries where such garments are mandatory are STILL fighting for their freedom. But hey, lets not let that get in the way of our political correctness now!

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
And countries around the world are now making it illegal to wear in public places.

Yeah, but that's only because they have invested a lot of money in facial recognition software for all their cameras.

So this guard seriously thought she was a security threat? With her 5 and 12yo sons with her?

I think his fear comes from a combination of being over-vaccinated and too much TV exposure, but that's just me...

reply to post by Kharron


WOW. And you called ME a bigot?

When my wife can wear her miniskirt in Arabia...

reply to post by 8fl0z


Because of this subject...Im an idiot?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Once again....of course there is no law.

And Im dropping out of responding anymore here. When freedom that she has...rightly so....she has the right...hinder the ability to identify....thats my only point.

THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE ACCRATELY...thats all. No religious persecution...no cultural persecution. Both are worng.

He came into my face and made a hand gesture like he was going to lift my veil off,’ ” Wakeelah Salaam, 30, told The Post of her ordeal at the Bridgewater Commons Mall last Saturday.

“I felt like he was going to do something. I didn’t feel safe in the mall.”

Did the guard actually DO anything or not? The woman simply _FELT_ "he was going to do something". Felt. Why do we always take women's "experience" as the fact or truth - as if women can't lie or misunderstand or misinterpret situations? Why?

The woman talks about feelings. What she -felt- seems more important than what -actually- happened (typical).

And .. he "came into my face"? I am not a native english speaker, so I don't know if this is an idiom or something, but how do you come into someone's face, unless you are doing something that shouldn't be done in a public place? What does it mean in actual reality, "to come into someone's face"? Maybe the woman again just 'felt' that the guard 'came into her face'.

And the guard, according to the woman, made a "hand gesture". So.. the guard didn't SAY anything, the guard didn't DO anything (like removing the veil), they didn't get into physical or verbal fight about it in any way - a guard simply .. "came into a face" and "made a hand gesture".

Doesn't that sound suspicious to anyone? What does that really entail? Did the guard extend his hand and start removing the veil, and then the woman stopping his hand movement? Why didn't anything verbal happen afterwards, if that happened? And if that didn't happen - WHAT exactly did happen?

So the facts, according to the woman's own testimony are:

1) The guard didn't say anything
2) The guard didn't actually even try to remove the veil, let alone remove the veil at all
3) The guard "came into a face" and "made a hand gesture" (ooh, how dare he make a hand gesture!)
4) The woman FELT "he was going to do something" (but nothing indicates he was going to, or did), and this is accepted as a factual record of his intentions (women's feelings never lie, you know... )
5) The woman didn't FEEL safe.

A lot of feelings in that story, a hand gesture, and 'coming to face', but not a lot of actual actions, and nothing was even said. How weird.

Sounds like egotistical paranoia, and being way too thin-skinned - a common thing with women and certain other groups (being thin-skinned, I mean). I am sure people will use this part of this post against me, although it's a simple, neutral fact, no prejudice is behind it.

Still, in conclusion, I would really think twice before I start taking her account as "fact", and start blaming a possibly innocent guard, before at least hearing his side of the story first. Equality, remember.. where is it?

reply to post by Shoujikina


I will say it,
The whole thing sounds set up

reply to post by draco49
I really couldn't agree more, I don't like it, unless it was my store and livelihood that I was trying to protect. It's a double standard, I know. The only thing that would stop that juggernaut now is an EMP or CME..

I didn't know the NJ law until I saw the post a couple up. With that, the mall and guard do not have a leg to stand on.

Really, I get so tired of all these non-stories getting so much attention, and now I have contributed to that, bad on me.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Someone else should decide how much is too much or too little,

Not someone, but the community. Before the Catholic church took over and destroyed European culture, Europeans would have a Thing, which is a town meeting, where they decided community standards. The origin of the word "thing" is this community meeting.

Deciding what is too much or too little is basically the purpose of most laws. How fast you can drive, and how slow, how big or how small can your house be, what kind of animals can you have as pets, on and on and on. Including, how much is covering too little, and too much.

The burqa leaves too much room for abuse. You can hide your ten year old bride under there, or the blackened eyes. Sneak in a bomb, hide your identity, on and on and on.

There is a whole wide sloth of possibilities between the extremes, the extremes are just the boundaries where things go too far.

You all realize a mall is owned by private entities. Hence it is private property, you abide by their rules or you leave plain and simple.

You come to my house wearing that and I don't think it's appropriate you leave plain and simple.

Freedom of religion... however YOU made that choice not me. Try wearing that and going into a bank, you'll be promptly escorted out. Again private property.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


What you are saying is true in a way. But by having that attitude, you're no better than the people in the middle east; yet you get a million stars from people have no idea how idiotic they sound when they say 'they should do what we do in our country'. No one should have to be told to do anything by anybody so long as they are harming anyone else. I don't agree with Islam but that's a different matter.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Someone else should decide how much is too much or too little,

Not someone, but the community. Before the Catholic church took over and destroyed European culture, Europeans would have a Thing, which is a town meeting, where they decided community standards. The origin of the word "thing" is this community meeting.

Deciding what is too much or too little is basically the purpose of most laws. How fast you can drive, and how slow, how big or how small can your house be, what kind of animals can you have as pets, on and on and on. Including, how much is covering too little, and too much.

The burqa leaves too much room for abuse. You can hide your ten year old bride under there, or the blackened eyes. Sneak in a bomb, hide your identity, on and on and on.

There is a whole wide sloth of possibilities between the extremes, the extremes are just the boundaries where things go too far.

But teenagers with sub machines guns is perfectly ok...1 in 3 girls raped before 16 is ok..police that beat you senseless for exercising your civil rights is ok..corrupted judges and bought and paid for politicians are ok...25 years for stealing a hundred bucks is ok but stealing 3 billion gets you holiday camp for 3 months - social inequality and injustice is ok....mega corps polluting the food chain and ending the cycle of birth on this planet is ok..a pharmacological industry killing millions and drugging 2 yr olds is ok..but don't you DARE wear a burqa that's a RISK!


life..kills you.

get over it.

Ro

________________________

Seriously I've seen way worse at wallmart Lol,
"People of Walmart"
yet some are whining about a veil, really ?, obviously these people
have tooo much time on their hands.
I remember a time when certain establishments restricted
attendance unless people wore neckties. It didn't last long,
clergy obviously would not take off their collars, 1rst nations
were offended, women discriminated etc.
Only the communists expect conformed clothing and those that do are traitors to freedoms. . . . enough said

__________________________

reply to post by draco49


I'm gonna give you a star for your response in the face of adversity. I do however disagree that there is any such thing as a moderate "religious person". The very modern meaning of religion and the reason it was invented is not about caring about your neighbour. It is about caring about your neighbour as long as they are the same religion as you are.

Those muslims you talked to, have at the very base level, a direct order from their God to subvert you, convert you, and if not kill you. This is not misinterpreation or interpretation. You need to scratch at the surface a whole lot more, noone is going to outright tell you what their hidden agenda is now are they?

T