Are veiled "women" allowed, without more, to enter government office buildings in Western Europe? In this country? In Congressional office buildings? In the White House?

How far up does the farce play out?

Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2006 9:46 AM

It amazes me that criminals don't use the veil in order to commit crime more frequently. It's an ideal cover in order to commit crime.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 31, 2006 9:54 AM

"It amazes me that criminals don't use the veil in order to commit crime more frequently. It's an ideal cover in order to commit crime".

Voltaire, think again.In the middle east, it is not uncommon for males to don burqas/veils, to gain closer proximity to "coy"(;)women in cinema halls, shopping malls for their hanky panky exploits.

We are the most naive gullible idiots refusing to wake up always looking for "moderates" and grameenloan fortified dogooders(SIC)...arrrgh...

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 31, 2006 10:46 AM

Muslim killers like to hide behind women's skirts

Posted by: Voyager at December 31, 2006 11:00 AM

The silver lining: the cop killed here was a fellow Mohammedan.

And the Pune jewellers are told not to worry.

They should smuggle L-e-T & SIMI gunmen in burqhas the next Iftar dinner that's held by these dhimmindian pols, and let them loose. A few hundred dead MPs later, they'll understand. And the icing on the cake - those who don't won't be around to obstruct sane security measures either.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 31, 2006 11:51 AM

maryam! Where are you?
I thought you said muslim men were forbidden to dress as women....??!!

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 31, 2006 11:55 AM

Ban the veil! end of problem .

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 31, 2006 12:48 PM

Good grief! The veil must be done away with! H-e-l-l-o US Justice Dept.?

Posted by: Taylor at December 31, 2006 1:47 PM

Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 sets legal guidelines for businesses not to discriminate based on race, color, religion,/b>, sex, or national origin.

Title VII is invoked when a woman who wears the veil is "discriminated" against in the workplace.

Many cases have demonstrated an employee's legal right to reasonable accommodation in matters of religion. Examples:

1) The employee need only show sincerely-held religious beliefs. (E.E.O.C. v. Reads,
Inc., 1991)

2) Companies cannot give effect to private biases. In other words, just because an employer believes customers will be prejudiced against a woman in a veil, that does not mean the employee can be fired. (Palmer v. Sidoti, 1984, also Cf. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1971)

3) There are no health or safety concerns at issue. (Cf. E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 82-1, 1982, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 81-20, 1981)

4) An employer must demonstrate "undue hardship" caused by the wearing of religious attire. (TWA v. Hardison, 1977) Hardships recognized by the courts include cost to the employer or effect on co-workers.

5) Dress codes can have disproportionate impact on certain faiths. (E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-2620, 1971, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-779, 1970)

And the beat goes on...

Posted by: Taylor at December 31, 2006 2:31 PM

Taylor posts some legalese drivel here:

"Many cases have demonstrated an employee's legal right to REASONABLE accommodation in matters of religion....
(example cases)
3) There are no health or safety concerns at issue."

The article here reads:

"A suspected Islamic militant gunned down a police chief after posing as a Muslim woman hidden behind a veil.."

HELLO? Taylor, What ere ye tackin aboot?

This the point Taylor--It's not reasonable to accomodate masks for the sake of religion--hello? Hugh--you said it well first and so do the rest of you. STOP the insanity. How would you even know who came to work with that getup?

Posted by: BB at December 31, 2006 4:04 PM

As the burka comes more common, there will be a lot of crimes committed while in it.

I just love it.

Can you see the Muslim transvestite? What would he be dressed in? I could only guess about prostitution in the Muslim world. All of them could hide in their burkas. How would you be able to pick one out? How about the special parks for Muslim women? Hey Hey Hey. A guy can put on the burka and mingle with them.

Posted by: credit man at December 31, 2006 4:41 PM

Brazen? I have no idea where this reporter was educated, but cross dressing jihadist cowards hiding behind a veil don't quite fit the definition of 'brazen'.

Maybe it's because he was too large to fit in a baby carriage and commit a 'cowardly' act.

Posted by: ThomasD at December 31, 2006 4:42 PM

[sigh] Sorry... BB

Beneath the title is "But no one in Grand Rapids has any problem with the veil."
Then, in the article we have, "A suspected Islamic militant gunned down a police chief after posing as a Muslim woman hidden behind a veil..."

From those two items alone one can reasonably assume that an issue here is whether or not the wearing of the veil poses any problems, e.g. of the lethal variety.

Then Hugh posts:

"Are veiled 'women' allowed, without more, to enter government office buildings in Western Europe? In this country? In Congressional office buildings? In the White House?

How far up does the farce play out?"

In my second post, I give the "legalese drivel," AKA the actual court cases which Muslim women have and or will use to justify their wearing of the veil -- legally. They can legally wear the veil in many places. The issue of where they can't wear the veil, the last I heard, was in federal court and has yet to be fully hammered out yet. Compromises are being made by the US Department of Justice so as not to offend Muslims, from what I've heard (no link, but I have a friend who works in the DOJ).

Posted by: Taylor at December 31, 2006 4:52 PM

But no one in Grand Rapids has any problem with the veil

I mentioned this is regard to the original GR bus-veil posting a few weeks ago: what about the large rapid-transit and commuter systems in the big cities? Do veiled women ride them? Are any of the JW or DW contributors from the big cities? The last time I rode an American subway was in Washington several years ago (pre 9/11), and at that time one simply bought a ticket at a machine, ran it thru a turn-style, and headed down the stairs to wait for the train. One might see a cop here or there but there was no one to stop you from going thru the turn-style or getting on the train. Has this changed post 9-11?

Posted by: ebonystone at December 31, 2006 6:26 PM

One of the problems that keeps this perversion of multiculturalism, and political correctness alive, is the fear of the vast amount of trial lawyers that have been allowed to fester in our court systems over the past twenty-five years or so that corporations and various government run jobs or activities many times endup paying off just to keep court cost down. We even have the wanna-be trial lawyers taking on the most outrageous and frivolous of lawsuits which I know most of you have surely read about. The ACLU in itself operates much like a bunch of trial lawyers in that the legal system has allowed for cities to get sued by them at the full expense of the cities. For me the whole systemic range of so-called legal action is

Posted by: Mackie at December 31, 2006 6:38 PM

Taylor--
I still don't understand your point. Enlighten me please. We are saying security trumps religion (and the farces it presents) on this veiling stuff. So what are you saying?

Posted by: BB at December 31, 2006 6:50 PM

One of the problems that keeps this perversion of multiculturalism, and political correctness alive, is the fear of the vast amount of trial lawyers that have been allowed to fester in our court systems over the past twenty-five years or so that corporations and various government run jobs or activities many times end up paying them off just to keep court and trial costs down. We even have the wanna-be trial lawyers taking on the most outrageous, and frivolous of lawsuits which I know most of you have surely read about. The ACLU in itself operates much like a bunch of trial lawyers in that the legal system has allowed for cities to get sued by them at the full expense of the cities. For me the whole systemic range of so-called legal action is self serving to the legal business in many ways. For me many judges are complicit in allowing these trials to even get a leg in the door.

This is why the Grand Rapids transit system is so afraid of getting sued if they refuse to let a Muslim woman on a bus wearing a veil. Even the work place has become ridiculous when it comes to sexual harassment, did you know a company can get sued if a complaint is lodged by a female employee that someone is leering at her when she is working. How about the burglar that fell through a skylight on the roof of a school that he was burglarizing, He successfully sued the school district and the construction company because the sky light should have been able to hold him. How about the drunk driver that ran over a sidewalk and into an occupied telephone booth that was occupied;you guessed it ,the telephone company was successfully sued, not to mention the old lady that spilled that hot coffee at the McDonalds drive through. The point is that many businesses,agencies, cities, and towns are absolutely paralyzed with fear that they may get sued by some trial lawyer for some unfortunate indiscretion. The point I am trying to make here is that it is the legal system is causing much of the paralysis by allowing these frivolous law suits to control what is done, thus preserving the perversion of multiculturalism throughout the country and endangering America's security efforts on so many fronts from the Imans' in Minneapolis to all the lawsuits that CAIR has brought and will continue to file against anyone who may inconvenience them, and of course the rest of the country be dammed which is of course their objective anyway . I'm going to try and compile a list of how the veil,hijab, Etc. has helped in the commission of crimes and send it to the Grand Rapids transit authority.

Posted by: Mackie at December 31, 2006 7:08 PM

Taylor--
I still don't understand your point. Enlighten me please. We are saying security trumps religion (and the farces it presents) on this veiling stuff. So what are you saying?

Posted by: BB

BB, I'm in complete agreement that security should trump religious beliefs! Get rid of the veils! Problem is, that's easier said than done. The freedom of religion laws that we have in the US were not properly designed to cope with some of the tenants of Islam. As we're finding out here with the veil example.

I simply listed some of our own laws that can and are being used against us. Notice that we don't have these kind of issues with Judaism, Bhudism, Christianity, etc.

Posted by: Joseph at December 31, 2006 8:04 PM

Also, see Mackie's excellent points above.

Posted by: Joseph at December 31, 2006 8:08 PM

Yes indeed. Mackie's points above are excellent and indisputable.

Btw, an Indian muslim (Bombay/Mumbai) woman (bobbed hair, jean and tight fitting accoutrements clad, no,no burqa or veiled) told me that "if I (an Infidel) wear a burqa or veil would be an 'IMPOSTOR' and hence meriting islamic gory punishment. Also Infidel men can potter within their homes in dishdashas BUT SANS the headgear. If he dares to sport one....well you know again koranic punishment.

I am not making it up for effect. She was very serious and meant it with a lot of venomous spite suffusing her Dresden china face and features. (Sic)"Oppressed women"?? Spare me please!

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 31, 2006 9:03 PM

Taylor said

Compromises are being made by the US Department of Justice so as not to offend Muslims

Then I sincerely hope that burqa-clad individuals will be given free access to the Department of Justice, State Department, and any other office that is "making compromises so as not to offend Muslims". I hope that intrusive metal detectors will not be allowed to disturb the dignity of burqa-clad individuals on their way into these government offices. Perhaps big signs can be put up, directing the uninspected and unoffended buraq-clad individuals to the relevant offices.

But that's not going to be the case, is it? The offices making these policies will continue to be protected like Fort Knox, it is just us plebians sitting on a plane or on a train or at a pizzeria who will be dealing with the ramifications of "not offending the Muslims".

And I understand that Taylor is not advocating these policies, s/he is just reporting what is being done.

Posted by: special_guest at December 31, 2006 11:56 PM

If you go into a bank wearing a ski mask and something in a plastic bag you are viewed as a possible bank robber.

The same has got to be considered with these full face veils and the long fabric which could conceal a weapon.

Religion should never be an excuse to put people's lives at risk. If veils are not banned by our respective western governments the whole of Islam in the western nations may well be viewed as a superfluous folly.

Posted by: IceDragon at January 1, 2007 2:56 PM

"4) An employer must demonstrate "undue hardship" caused by the wearing of religious attire. (TWA v. Hardison, 1977)"

.........would dead bodies suffice......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 2, 2007 7:48 AM

Nope, exsarge, they don't seem to count. Witness the stubborn refusal on the part of many Americans to relate the shouts of "Allahu Akbar" to the almost 3,000 dead bodies from 9/11.

Posted by: Vee at January 2, 2007 8:58 AM