Avon and Somerset Police Head Coverings

[Dogma's Demise]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/8171151.stm

There you have it: Dhimmitude on a symbolic scale.

I think these people are not realizing that in trying to be "tolerant" and "welcoming" they're just setting the precedent for further demands to be made by Islamists. Besides, the police is a secular institution, it's there to uphold the law, not endorse or promote any particular religion.

About this whole "they're given head coverings so they can enter mosques" thing, total nonsense that (in a way) undermines the authority that law enforcement should have and even the respect it should command (the covering has sexist roots, the idea is that men can't control themselves so therefore women must take extra caution not to give men a boner... or something along those lines). Now, it's private property, they don't need to accept uncovered regular civilians if they don't want to. They do have to accept police with warrants, regardless if they like the uniform or not.

And finally, I'm guessing most policewomen aren't Muslim, so telling them to wear head covering is a violation of their religious freedom.

This is an old story really, but I've only recently been made aware of it. I wonder what the atheist secularists socialists roaming League of Reason will comment on it... Probably will scream Islamophobia yet again, while hypocritically demanding the removal all Christian symbols from public institutions.

 

[Gnug215]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/8171151.stm

There you have it: Dhimmitude on a symbolic scale.

I think these people are not realizing that in trying to be "tolerant" and "welcoming" they're just setting the precedent for further demands to be made by Islamists. Besides, the police is a secular institution, it's there to uphold the law, not endorse or promote any particular religion.

About this whole "they're given head coverings so they can enter mosques" thing, total nonsense that (in a way) undermines the authority that law enforcement should have and even the respect it should command (the covering has sexist roots, the idea is that men can't control themselves so therefore women must take extra caution not to give men a boner... or something along those lines). Now, it's private property, they don't need to accept uncovered regular civilians if they don't want to. They do have to accept police with warrants, regardless if they like the uniform or not.

And finally, I'm guessing most policewomen aren't Muslim, so telling them to wear head covering is a violation of their religious freedom.

This is an old story really, but I've only recently been made aware of it. I wonder what the atheist secularists socialists roaming League of Reason will comment on it... Probably will scream Islamophobia yet again, while hypocritically demanding the removal all Christian symbols from public institutions.

Heh, seeing as you seem to already know what the response will be, I am tempted to lock the thread for the reason of it being pointless.

Also, I know this will just devolve into the usual mess. The law of group polarization will make sure of that, perhaps especially due to the way you're doing these postings, DD.

I'm not going to lock it though. Don't want to spoil a Gnugmas present for Prole.

Now, as for the post itself, without having read the linked article, I'm going to assume that these people are trying to be pragmatic, and show some kind of respect in the hope that this will lead to better results.

While I think religion is bunk, I can't deny its effect on society, so if I were in a position of any authority I'd probably want to be pragmatic, too, and not take a crap in the well.
Doesn't mean I'd like it, but if I felt the net result would be better, I would at least consider it.

But yeah... your last paragraph. You've butted heads with a few people on here, so calling all of us hypocrits and, uh, roaming socialists, who "scream" Islamophobia, well... I suppose it is similar to some of the generalizations you tend to make about Islam, I guess.
It's annoying to get swept up in a generalization like that, even though I know you probably weren't referring to me specifically. Really annoying, actually. Kinda makes me... polarize a little against you.

Disappointing.

 

[televator]

As a socialist, I can't say much from that position. As a secularist, I don't approve of this. Take note Dogma, this in no way validates any of your other crazy opinions. Broken clocks being right twice a day and all that...

 

[WarK]

What kind of police force do we want? One that is close with a community, approachable by the members of the community or one that's seen as an intruder? What kind of police would be more effective?

 

[australopithecus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/8171151.stm

There you have it: Dhimmitude on a symbolic scale.

Not really. Police officers also remove their head gear when entering churches. No difference whatsoever.

I think these people are not realizing that in trying to be "tolerant" and "welcoming" they're just setting the precedent for further demands to be made by Islamists. Besides, the police is a secular institution, it's there to uphold the law, not endorse or promote any particular religion.

Yeah because tolerance and mutual co-operation are terrible. You spout nothing but bullshit. As I said, police officers remove head gear when they enter churches. This isn't going to lead to further extreme demands from Christians. The police aren't endorsing or promoting any religion, so again, you're talking bullshit.

About this whole "they're given head coverings so they can enter mosques" thing, total nonsense that (in a way) undermines the authority that law enforcement should have and even the respect it should command (the covering has sexist roots, the idea is that men can't control themselves so therefore women must take extra caution not to give men a boner... or something along those lines). Now, it's private property, they don't need to accept uncovered regular civilians if they don't want to. They do have to accept police with warrants, regardless if they like the uniform or not.

You're just making shit up now. Law enforcement has accountability, they aren't Judge Dredd. As stated in the article, they were working with the Muslim community in order to build a relationship based on trust, something the police force does in every community. FYI, this was just one police force out of many. This is not a policy enacted across the whole of the UK.

And finally, I'm guessing most policewomen aren't Muslim, so telling them to wear head covering is a violation of their religious freedom.

This is why you talk so much bollocks, you guess instead of evidence. Nowhere in the piece you posted said anything about anyone being told to wear anything.

This is an old story really, but I've only recently been made aware of it. I wonder what the atheist secularists socialists roaming League of Reason will comment on it...

So we've moved from being lefties to being full on socialists now have we? What exactly does socialism have to do with this exactly, or are you just being an arsehole for the sake of it again? What next, if we don't agree with your we'll be communists? Decepticons? Maybe out final form is Galactus.

You want to know what my comment on it is, aside from you dragging up a useless 3 year old new piece to further promote your fear of Islam? I think it is what the police do in every community in the UK, co-operation. You work with communities, this is not marshal law where you barge in and impose on innocent people just because you don't like their religion.

You are no different than the Taliban, and the irony is hilarious.

Probably will scream Islamophobia yet again, while hypocritically demanding the removal all Christian symbols from public institutions.

You are an Islamiphobe because you are clearly shit scared of Islam, and I haven't demanded any Christian symbols be removed from anywhere. The UK is institutionally Christian, I have no problem with this except when religion tries to dictate legislation.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

australopithecus, that image is of a Sikh cop, right? (BTW, why was it removed?)

But the article implies ALL policewomen will be expected to cover.

Anyway, I do realize there's an argument in favor of this, but I think it's going to be harmful in the long run. This is a clear example of imposition of Islamic dress code on non-Muslims and sets the precedent that when UK authorities' way of doing things conflicts with Islam, it's UK that must make adapt, not the other way around. The thing you need to understand is that police don't choose to enter mosques, duty calls them there if needed.

 

[australopithecus]

australopithecus, that image is of a Sikh cop, right? (BTW, why was it removed?)

So I could expand on my points.

Religious consideration is given to all religions in the UK Police force. No one is forcing anyone to wear anything, it is a matter of choice.

But the article implies ALL policewomen will be expected to cover.

No it doesn't. Not even slightly.

Anyway, I do realize there's an arghttp://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/index.phpument in favor of this, but I think it's going to be harmful in the long run. This is a clear example of imposition of Islamic dress code on non-Muslims and sets the precedent that when UK authorities' way of doing things conflicts with Islam, it's UK that must make adapt, not the other way around.

No one is imposing anything, it doesn't even state this in the piece you posted so essentially you're just inventing things to be pissed off about.

As I said, police officers remove head gear, helmets hats...etc when entering churches. Wearing a headscarf to enter a mosque is no different.

Also, as I again said, this is only one police force in the whole of the UK, from 2009. Have you even bothered to check whether this actually continued past that date?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

You're just in denial, read the article again.

 

[australopithecus]

Read it again.

Avon and Somerset Police is issuing head coverings to its female officers so they can enter mosques. The force says the move will help its officers respect Muslim religious customs while carrying out their job. The garments, designed to match the force's uniform, were designed in consultation with Muslim groups.

Imam Rashad Azami, of Bath, said: "This will go a long way in encouraging a trustful relationship between the police and the Muslim community." Mr Azami, director of Bath Islamic Society, said: "The police have been working closely with the Muslim community in the area on many levels for the last few years."

There are two versions of the head coverings, to match the black of a police officer's uniform and the blue of the Police Community Support Officer uniforms. Both carry the force's crest.

Still doesn't imply anything you says it does. It states they will be issued, it doesn't state they are being forced to wear them. That is something you have invented.

In other news Muslim police women are permitted to wear the Hijab with their uniforms.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Police-adopt-uniform-hijab/story-12058583-detail/story.html

OMG, DHIMMITUDE!!!11

 

[Dogma's Demise]

You really believe that? Am I supposed to believe they're merely being issued them but in no way expected to wear them when going into mosques (if they go into mosques)? Yeah right...

The other story, that's a different story since it refers to Muslim officers.

I wonder however if they'll be asked to take them off if and when they have official business at an atheist NGO like the Richard Dawkins Foundation. In the interests of being more welcoming of course.

 

[australopithecus]

You really believe that? Am I supposed to believe they're merely being issued them but in no way expected to wear them when going into mosques (if they go into mosques)? Yeah right...

I don't actually care what you believe to be honest, at no point did the article state anyone will be made to wear anything. You can infer from that what you like. It makes no difference.

The other story, that's a different story since it refers to Muslim officers.

And will you get butt hurt if there is a news story where it states they will have to remove their head scarves to enter churches?

I wonder however if they'll be asked to take them off if and when they have official business at an atheist NGO like the Richard Dawkins Foundation. In the interests of being more welcoming of course.

Atheism has no such requirements, so again, you're talking bollocks. I'm not offended by women choosing to wear certain clothes, anyone who is needs to rethink their lives.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I didn't say that atheism requires anything.

But I am asking you, hypothetically, if Richard Dawkins Foundation (which is more than just atheism) said "We do not endorse religious clothing on our properties and we ask all law enforcement to remove their hijabs and stuff", what do you think the reaction would be?

 

[Prolescum]

Wow :lol:

Classic Dogma's Demise.
500-odd posts, mostly about Muslims and their evil plans to take over the world, and you still bitch about being labelled an Islamophobe. Perhaps if you'd spent some of your time here talking about phylogeny, existentialism, or I dunno, badgers, you might have cause to protest.

So who are these people who "scream Islamophobia yet again, while hypocritically demanding the removal of all Christian symbols from public institutions"?

 

[australopithecus]

I didn't say that atheism requires anything.

But I am asking you, hypothetically, if Richard Dawkins Foundation (which is more than just atheism) said "We do not endorse religious clothing on our properties and we ask all law enforcement to remove their hijabs and stuff", what do you think the reaction would be?

Couldn't care less. Honestly could not give a single fuck.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Prolescum, I know your kind. You're cut from the same cloth as BinLandonCole who defends Sharia arbitration while saying nativity scenes are bad and I know you didn't mind when Fred Phelps was denied entry into the UK due to this extreme religious views, but you become extremely defensive when an Islamofascist wants to enter the UK and someone suggests it's a bad idea.

If I look into your post history surely I'm not going to find more examples of that am I?

Now true, you did defend that fascist Christian party's existence, but you didn't call my post "Christianophobic" lol... Why is that?

I didn't say that atheism requires anything.

But I am asking you, hypothetically, if Richard Dawkins Foundation (which is more than just atheism) said "We do not endorse religious clothing on our properties and we ask all law enforcement to remove their hijabs and stuff", what do you think the reaction would be?

Couldn't care less. Honestly could not give a single fuck.

Because you know that would never be taken well and the headlines would be screaming "Richard Dawkins is an anti-theist bigot".

Btw,

Wow :lol:

Classic Dogma's Demise.
500-odd posts, mostly about Muslims and their evil plans to take over the world

Try 1300 years of Caliphates waging jihad against non-believers for being non-believers until finally abolished by atheist Ataturk.

Of course not all Muslims want to take over, but only to the PC brigade does that need to be repeatedly endlessly and in vain, it doesn't mean those who do want to take over are some negligible 0.1% minority.

 

[australopithecus]

Because you know that would never be taken well and the headlines would be screaming "Richard Dawkins is an anti-theist bigot".

Nope, because it's a spurious load of bullshit "what if" scenario you invented to try and make your non-argument more substantial (you failed). Also, I really don't give a shit about headlines or what Dawkins does in general.

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum, I know your kind.

I seriously doubt it...

You're cut from the same cloth as BinLandonCole who defends Sharia arbitration while saying nativity scenes are bad and I know you didn't mind when Fred Phelps was denied entry into the UK due to this extreme religious views, but you become extremely defensive when an Islamofascist wants to enter the UK and someone suggests it's a bad idea.

...for that reason.

That the above is a probably a thorough misinterpretation filtered through your prism of hate is not surprising.

I'm not aware (nor do I care about) DLandonCole's views on arbitration, but I suspect they contain far greater nuance than your ideology can cope with, and I would hazard a guess that he says nativity scenes are "bad" given the context of something like the separation of church and state in the US (in other words, they are unrelated except when you simplify his views to the point of uselessness). Fred Phelps, as I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten, was denied entry because of his previous comments on homosexuals, not because of his extreme religious views. I know this is difficult for you to understand because it looks like the same thing (which is probably why you think they're equivalent), but you really should at least try.

If I look into your post history surely I'm not going to find more examples of that am I?

It wouldn't surprise me if you located a post talking about bananas and found some way to interpret it to assert my muzzie-loving agenda.
It's incredibly likely that you've done a hatchet job on DLandonCole's views above (given that he's a thoughtful, well-rounded cat in every video I've seen him in. Every one...), why would I expect to be treated differently?

Now true, you did defend that fascist Christian party's existence, but you didn't call my post "Christianophobic" lol... Why is that?

Perhaps because your views on those Christian fascists don't seem to be based on lies and fear like your Islamophobia...

See, what I actually did was defend the right to representation of political views in a democracy... but you go ahead and re-interpret it in an amusing endeavour to associate me with fascists, as if your games have any other effect beyond making readers laugh at your attempts, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Prolescum]

Just caught your edit.

Try 1300 years of Caliphates waging jihad against non-believers for being non-believers until finally abolished by atheist Ataturk.

Of course not all Muslims want to take over, but only to the PC brigade does that need to be repeatedly endlessly and in vain, it doesn't mean those who do want to take over are some negligible 0.1% minority.

Looks like you're hankering for a spot on CSTDT to compliment your place on FSTDT. Duly noted.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There seems to be some confusion about who removes hats when entering a church.

Men are expected to remove their head-wear - women aren't.

To put it into perspective regarding mosques; policemen would be allowed to wear their helmets/hats - women would be expected to wear a suitable head-scarf.

Additionally, in Israel, female tourists are not permitted to visit/pray at The Wall with men - and gentile male tourists are expected to wear the cap as worn by male Jews.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Well now, DD, now I'm beginning to think you're just here to argue, seeing as you totally ignored posts by myself, Wark and Televator, only to jump straight into your usual slugfest with armpits and Prole.

I'm not sure why you insist on doing that, and doing it in the same fashion as always. Surely you do not expect different results from repeating yourself over and over?