posted by
FatPhil
on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:45PM
from the they-suspected-he-had-frickin-lasers dept.
from the they-suspected-he-had-frickin-lasers dept.
A man dressed as a shark has been fined under new anti-burqa laws in Austria. A PR agency has admitted the incident was a stunt designed to make a "socially relevant" point.
Police had confronted a man on Friday after he was seen promoting a new outlet of the McShark electronics store in Vienna in a costume that covered his face. When he refused to remove his shark head, he was given a fine of €150 ($176).
[...] Regional daily Österreich reported the officers acted after a call from an unidentified member of the public. Police had suspected the report came from someone who wished to prove a point about the new laws.
http://www.dw.com/en/austria-burqa-ban-man-dressed-as-shark-falls-afoul-of-new-law/a-40872491
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Anti-Burka Law Bites Shark Mascot
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 52 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:55PM (4 children)
It's sharka, not burka, dumb pig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:16PM (3 children)
Good joke, up to the last two words.
Seriously, could people stop insulting pigs by associating them with the LEOs. Pigs have done nothing to deserve that kind of insult.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:45PM (2 children)
Eaxctly, bacons are one of the culinary wonders of the world.. thanks to pigs. No thanks to LEOs.
And don't associate LEOs with dogs either, my pug take offence with extra wrinkles on her already wrinkled forehead.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 20 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
Pugs are ugly annoying shit dogs, and deserve shots to the head almost as much as Chihuahuas do.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday October 22 2017, @09:57PM
Dude tone down the jealousy... I'm sure you're better looking than my pug... yea make sure you repeat that in your head every hour. Have a good day!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:03PM (2 children)
Without Government, where would our Freedom be?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)
At the end of your slaver's chain?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:19PM
The situation has not been made fundamentally better.
Though you're a well-fed slave in the Big House, you're a slave nonetheless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:04PM
Or not, depends on how scared you are I guess.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:07PM
...and that is to have sharks with frickin' burqas attached to their heads.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:13PM (1 child)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:44PM
one of the best, funniest ac posts since soyception, belongs in hof
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:31PM (11 children)
No, it isn't OK to be a shark in public.
Never mind the evils of Islam. Consider the KKK, for which the USA created anti-mask laws. A bunch of democrats, rather like Antifa, were running around in masks causing violent trouble. The masks are used to evade justice. Our faces serve as ID, without which we'd have a much rougher time catching criminals.
If we allow a sharkkk mask, then anybody intending evil will wear one. The same goes for the burqa. You don't get to dress like a ninja.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:33PM (4 children)
On the other hand: "We have no leads, as he was wearing a full-body shark costume", said no police report ever.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:58PM (2 children)
A pox on Halloween for making it near-impossible to search for such things. I hope a murderous clown will do:
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/crime-ampampamp-law/wellington-infamous-clown-murder-still-unsolved-years-later/yb8paMiMRTT7V9ShfBaUfP/ [mypalmbeachpost.com]
Then we have fake nuns robbing a bank:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/28/suspects-disguise-themselves-as-nuns-in-attempted-bank-robbery.html [foxnews.com]
Power Ranger robs a bookie:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8069670/Police-hunt-raider-dressed-as-Power-Ranger.html [telegraph.co.uk]
SpiderMan:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235144/Man-arrested-trying-mug-woman-wearing-Spider-Man-costume-disguise.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Gumby:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/09/07/gumby-botches-robbery-of-san-diego-7-eleven/ [cbslocal.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)
How could you skip what happened today???
Pikachu tries to jump the White House fence [thehill.com]!!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 20 2017, @12:59AM
Yeech. What a horrendous choice in costume.
Let's hope that some kind of poetic justice was served and they tazed him through his suit until he shit himself.
(Score: 1) by Aegis on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:42PM
My criminal record begs to differ.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:48PM (2 children)
Since when is it my duty to make justice's job easy? While we are at it, since you have brought this back to the USA, what about the legitimate first amendment argument? Prior restraint has chilling effects, and I for one am not OK with violating basic constitutional rights to make law enforcement easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:30PM
Because democracy is two sheeps and a goat with a wolf judging, deciding what will be for dinner.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday October 20 2017, @02:42AM
Requiring police to get warrants also impedes their ability to catch Bad Guys in some cases, so I guess we should get rid of that requirement. Everyone knows that our rights should vanish as soon as they become inconvenient for the government.
If anything, in the age of mass surveillance and facial recognition, being able to wear masks is more important than ever.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:49PM (2 children)
Someone robbing a bank ain't gonna be thinking "Well, I guess I'm not allowed to wear a mask!"
What kind of idiotic thought process are you employing here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
We arrest them on the way to the bank, as soon as we see them in a mask. We can also arrest them on their way home with the loot.
This works especially well for violent mobs, since they intend to be around for a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:30PM
They don't go walking through witnesses wearing all their gear.
Man, you're as dumb as a pile of rocks. Get outta here!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:39PM
Where are the anonymous members when we need them?
Where are the ninjas?
Where are the tactical balaclava wearing SWAT teams? Oh, that's right, this law wouldn't apply to allowing law enforcement to become anonymous, would it?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)
He who sows wind, will reap a hurricane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:51PM
... a lot of people waving their hands in front of their noses.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:24PM (17 children)
Is it really an anti burka law? Or a Show Your Face In Public law?
Maybe the law is not targeted specifically at burkas. Simply at the larger problem that burkas represent. That is, that a
[x] terrorist
[x] child molester
[_] politician
[x] person observing their religion
might be concealing their true identity (and gender) in order to do bad things.
You could hide a machine gun under that burka. Or shark suit.
Since I live in the US, I am unfamiliar with the law's specifics.
Police can legally stop you for having too much tent on your window.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:45PM
"You could hide a machine gun under that burka."
Uh... Baggy clothes are still legal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)
Heaven forbid people have the right to hide a shark suit under their burkas!
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:40PM
Fonzi, as he jumps the laser: "Stand back! I've got a loaded shark suit under my burka, and I ain't afraid to use it! Heyyyy!"
Sorry, I blame it on too much Mad Magazine and Monty Python exposure during my formative years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:09PM (9 children)
The politicians dress it up as a pro-feminist law, but cynical me sees it as a means to ensure that surveillance cameras have unobstructed view of everybody's face.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:08PM (8 children)
Yes, advancing feminism by denying women the right to practice their religion freely!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:43AM (5 children)
All the religions that require women to wear stupid outfits -- including the crazy Christian ones with the head coverings and all that jazz -- are dangerous because these people really believe their moronic fairy tales. Religion is fine so long as it is neutered and everyone sort of only gives it half-hearted deference. But when it makes you wear certain clothes, shave (or not shave) a certain way -- you know it's gone off into the dangerous cult territory.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday October 20 2017, @03:30AM (3 children)
When you try to combat injustice by banning people from wearing certain clothing, you have already failed. We must respect people's individual liberties first and foremost. If some people are being forced to wear these clothes or are being attacked for not doing so, then we should handle that on an individual basis, even if we can't catch all the bad guys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:18PM (2 children)
Why? Any scientific reason for that? Where's the respect for liberties of children or the mentally retarded/unstable?
My guess is the OP wants to draw a line where even adults don't have that much liberty. Like parents forcing children to behave in certain ways till they hopefully grow mature enough to understand why it actually makes sense.
Personally it's fine with me for people to wear almost whatever they want as long as it's safe for wherever they are wearing it[1]. Or even not wear anything.
But lots of people can't handle that. Nudity or semi-nudity may have too strong an effect on many young males with raging hormones... My guess is it might be more "hard-wired".
From what I see "traditional clown outfits" seem to cause more distress to children than people in burqas, so if anything we should ban people from being in clown outfits in public places. See also: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/international/news/1.116934 [sheffield.ac.uk]
Clowns scare many kids even when it's their first time seeing one. But burqas don't seem to bother most kids much. Seems to me that the aversion against burqas is more like a developed prejudice. So perhaps we should allow or even encourage burqas in public to help weed out the prejudiced adults who can't control themselves ;).
[1] For example, when near moving machinery no wearing of stuff that could easily be accidentally snagged in it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday October 21 2017, @12:33AM
What does that mean? Why do I need a "scientific reason" to make a value judgement? Even if you could scientifically demonstrate that doing X would lead to some result that could be deemed positive by some people, that wouldn't change the fact that the question of whether we 'should' do X or not would still be entirely subjective.
People can disagree with me and be authoritarian trash if they wish to.
I don't know. Are you assuming I agree with the lack of respect for their liberties? There are countless situations where I do not agree with that.
Some people can't handle nudity? Too bad for those people. Government thugs shouldn't be able to control what you wear or stop you from being nude. Anyone could be offended by anything, so why do we only pay attention to people offended by things such as nudity? Why not listen to people who don't want to see others wearing red shirts, for instance? Their concerns are not any less valid. My guess is that a lot of the people in power are just forcing their own preferences on everyone else by restricting what people can do even if they are harming no one.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:11PM
Granting that puberty is a tough time: what a crock of shit. Respect your fellow humans' rights or society has no obligation to respect yours, there's no excuse "his face offended me with its ugliness, I couldn't help but shoot him" that flies in any reasonable forum or courtroom. If the natural human form provokes you to uncontrollable reaction, you either need therapy or a cell at the zoo.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:50AM
> including the crazy Christian ones with the head coverings and all that jazz
There is no problem if a law forbids to cover head in public. Nuns can uncover their heads without risk of retaliation. In fact nuns strike a good balance between uniformity sacrifice and freedom nowadays. Hasn't been always like that, but hey, hard times were hard for mostly everybody.
OTOH I can attest some decades ago women still covered themselves in the south of Italy, where males are still very possessive. I would add paranoid, but I sensed a lot of repressed sluttiness there, so...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @08:46AM (1 child)
Not only that. It is seen - by politicians - as the men controlling their wives and daughters forcing them to wear burqas. Problem is, while we in the north-western parts of Europe are used to religion being something people do on Sundays in a special building, in other parts of the world - including the middle east - they actually believe in their religion.
Any woman that believes that her God wants her to wear a burqa unless she wants to go to hell, she is not going to stop just because her husband can't force her to wear it. And of course a law like this can't prevent her from wearing a burqa. All the law does is forbid her from leaving the house.
Now, who is more oppressed? The woman who is forced by her husband to wear a burqa, or the woman who is forbidden by law from leaving her home?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @04:02AM
If she believes it that much, it is better she stay at home and avoid infecting others with her retarded thoughts.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday October 20 2017, @01:48AM (3 children)
I don't understand why you left "politician" unchecked. Please explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @12:24PM
Politicians do bad things without hiding their face.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Friday October 20 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
It is a law. Politicians pass laws. Politicians would never check the box identifying themselves as a threat. Even though they are probably a bigger threat to our freedom, democracy, and civilization than all the other things combined.
Thank you for actually asking. And nicely.
Police can legally stop you for having too much tent on your window.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 21 2017, @03:59AM
Gotcha ... and I agree too. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tizan on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:25PM
Should be allowed as i don't care...it does not effectively affect my basic rights...
I can look away or not.
As Our Heroic Fearless Leader Donald Trump would say..where will it stop ?
A law for
1) stinky armpits
2) Too long a beard
3) Too much butt showing
4) Too little butt showing
Sure if a cop has enough prior reason that a crime is being committed he/she can stop and ask for identity and check for it etc...just like suspicion of drunken driving or robbery is happening....if not then let people live the way they want or feel comfortable...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:02AM (1 child)
The burka is just another symbol of hate, violence, and extremism similar to what the swastika has become. Banning the symbol won't necessarily solve the underlying disease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:46AM
Your first assertions are correct but by the same token, these symbols of hate deserve to be and should be derided to the point people are too embarrassed to show them in public.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bziman on Friday October 20 2017, @01:56PM (1 child)
It gets cold in the Austrian Alps. There's no way I'm not having a full face mask when there's a minus twenty wind chill!
But of course everything about a law like this is chilling. People have a right to be anonymous and people have a right to practice their religion. This is offensive on both counts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @08:36PM
The law has provisions for extreme temperatures in areas where that happens. But unless you can prove the temperatures are 'extreme' they can still nail you with the anti-mask laws the rest of the year, or where it is cold enough for YOU to need one, but not cold enough for a 'normal' person to need one.
All of this really is bullshit, but there is not a lot which can successfully be done.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday October 20 2017, @02:02PM
Was the Shark a good dancer?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:58AM
Why do legislators go out of their way to look fair when opposing islam, and at the same time specifically target national socialism?
In other words, why can you show around a sickle and hammer, symbol of regimes that did all the things the nazi regime did? Simple! because the law specifically targets the nazi party. AND IT IS FINE LIKE THAT, because nazis lost the war. Vae fucking victis.
Islam? they lost the war too, only earlier. Lepanto anyone? apparently we forgot. Now they are attacking with demographics. Not a new tactic for them, do a research.
So, why cannot people simply say: letting muslims have their way will destroy what's left of this society, so all ISLAMIC symbols are banned from the public view and they are allowed to worship only in their homes? Because of international treaties? Well then be international and apply to muslims the law they apply to infidels in their country. Fair is fair.
Note, I am trolling but only up to a point.
Account abandoned.