1903 Iroquois Theatre in Chicago (killed 603); new building; largest theatre in Chicago; 2,000 people in matinee audience; 500 performers in backstage area; supposedly equipped with an asbestos curtain; short circuit in footlight ignited velvet stage draperies; fire-resistant curtain hung up on stage lights when lowered; curtain burned completely and was later found to be non-fireproof; actors directed audience to remain in seats; actors fled through backstage door; only 1 performer died; incoming air through the backstage door ignited a fireball inside the theatre; no extinguishers or fire hose; fire burned through in 15 minutes and extinguished in 30 minutes; most killed by smoke or trampling; 250 injured; unmarked, blocked exits; inward-opening doors, locked exits; incomplete fire escape; theatre later re-opened for 20 years; deadliest single-building fire in U. S. history, subsequent code revisions required emergency exit lighting, sprinkler systems, extinguishers, fire restrictive scenery and outward-opening doors in public buildings.
1908 Lakeview Grammar School in Colinwood, Ohio (killed 176); malfunctioning basement furnace started a fire which quickly engulfed the front door; construction materials and open stairway caused rapid fire spread in 6-year old, 3-story building with 300 students; single exterior fire escape saved most students from 3rd floor; inward-opening doors, back door locked; most deaths from bottom 2 floors; fire burned out in 3 hours.
1911 Triangle Shirt Waist Factory in New York City (146 killed); non-sprinklered high-rise garment factory; 625 workers on the 8th, 9th and 10th floors; 70 injured; 4 fires in new building previous year; some exits locked from outside, inward-opening exit doors, narrow exits; wood floors and window sashes; only 2 staircases rather than 3 required by building code; 1 of 2 freight elevators was inoperable, remaining elevator soon failed; open gas lighting; cigarette dropped on cloth cuttings started afternoon fire on 8th floor; 1 stair on 9th floor was blocked by fire; locked door on other stair; inward opening doors; sole exterior fire escape collapsed under initial escapees; Fire Department ladders only reached to 6th floor; standpipe hose line was rotted, valves were rusted shut; most workers on 8th and 10th floors were able to evacuate, most on 9th died; 60 young factory girls leaped to their deaths on sidewalk from 8th, 9th and 10th floor windows; some jumped down elevator shaft from 8th floor; some escaped to adjacent high rise; fire burned through in less than 20 minutes, Asch building is still standing; resultant code changes required fire-proofing, sprinkler systems and improved exiting from high-rises; this fire resulted in creation of the first New York City Bureau of Fire Protection, better conditions for workers, enforcement of fire codes for compulsory fire drills and sprinkler installation in factories and eventually led to development of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code.
1929 Cleveland Clinic Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio (killed 125); 8-year old, 4-story building with 300 occupants; basement steam explosion or cigarette ignited highly-combustible x-ray film; fire door did not work correctly; poisonous yellow smoke carried throughout building by ventilation shafts and stairways; firemen arrived quickly but were unable to enter due to gas fumes; two street entrances blocked by patients; stairways clogged with patients; many fire survivors died days later from gas effects; use of safety film was subsequently required by law.
1930 Ohio State Penitentiary in Columbus, Ohio (killed 329); total population of 4,300 inmates; interior finish contributed to flame spread, possible arson fire started in adjacent scaffold, spread to highly combustible roof; guards delayed unlocking cells; Fire Department arrived 2 minutes after alarm, some prisoners attempted to cut hose, firefighters controlled fire in 2 hours; most deaths occurred in upper 2 tiers of 6-story prison.
1940 Rhythm Club in Natchez, Mississippi (killed 207); fire in a crowded, 1-story dance hall; combustible decorations, 1 decoration caught fire; victims tried to exit through front of 38-foot by 120-foot building, sole exit opened inward; 200 injured in crowd of 700.
1942 Cocoanut Grove Night Club in Boston (killed 492); Boston Building Department inspected and approved new addition to brick and stucco building shortly before this 5-alarm fire; Fire Department approved inspection performed 8 days prior to fire; electrical wiring by unlicensed contractor; crowd of 1,000 with an occupancy rating of 600; insufficient exits, many rooms with confusing floor plan, numerous alterations; interior decorations of cloth, paper and bamboo; rattan, simulated leather and wood covered walls; ceiling of suspended satin fabric; underage busboy’s match ignited gauze draperies in large basement Melody Lounge; crowd delayed exiting while 10 p.m. fire fought by customers; sole basement exit stair blocked within 2 minutes by crowd, smoke and fire; exterior door at top of basement stair was locked by management because panic hardware was broken; revolving doors at club entrance were jammed by bodies of evacuating guests; 2 other exit doors locked; some doors welded shut; nearby firemen responded to fire prior to receipt of 1st alarm at Fire Department; overturned chairs and tables impeded evacuation; curtains and interior decorations concealed unmarked exits; doors and windows were covered with paint and decorations; lighting system failed; inward-opening door in new street level Broadway Lounge jammed; fire spread throughout complex in just 5 minutes and burned through 4 rooms in 12 minutes; 200 people died in front of 2 revolving doors where bodies were stacked 4 and 5 deep; 100 died in front of new Broadway Lounge exit; bodies blocking doorways prevented firefighter entrance for either rescue or fire suppression; over 200 people injured; something wrong with every building exit; fire officials later stated outward-opening doors could have saved 300 people; little structural damage; subsequent building and fire code changes required revolving doors be supplemented with outward-opening hinged doors and battery-powered emergency exit lighting; led to requirements for a minimum of 2 separate exits for public assembly areas, better marking of exit doors, maximum occupancy certificates, posting of occupancy limits, prohibitions on use of basement areas for assembly, minimum aisle width between tables, securing tables to floor to prevent overturning, limitations on combustibility of interior furnishings, changed code requirements for construction materials and listing restaurants and nightclubs as public assembly areas; eventually led to nightclub requirements for sprinkler systems and accessible exits marked by emergency lighting; many improvements resulting from this fire were incorporated into the Life Safety Code; grand jury indicted 10 people; owner convicted of manslaughter and received 12-15 year sentence; contractor convicted of building law violations and sentenced to 2 years; criminal indictments issued against Building Commissioner, head of the Fire Prevention Bureau, fire inspector and police night captain, all later acquitted; worst multi-death nightclub fire of the 20th century, deadliest U. S. nightclub fire; 2nd deadliest U. S. fire in a single building; eventually led to development of counseling programs for victim family members. As an aside, one of the persons who was badly burned, survived after many skin graft operations. Several years later, he was in a car accident and burned to death.
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Saturday 28 August 2010
What a truly dishonourable family is really like
An honor killing is the murder of a family member (mostly female) or clan member by one or more (mostly male) family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice, (c) engaging in certain sexual acts or (d) engaging in relations with the same sex, (e) and even as innocent as refusing to wear a covering over their heads. These killings result from the perception that defense of honor justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonors their clan or family.
It goes without saying that such killings are against all religious beliefs, be they Christian, Islamic, or any other. It is also against humanity. It is no different than murdering someone for profit. The crime is an evil crime and there is no justification for it at all. It is unfortunate however that there are creepy families around the world who believe that murdering members of their families is the honourable thing to do if the victims have offended them.
These horrendous crimes are generally committed in Mid Eastern countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan and others where the people are of the Islamic faith. These so-called honour murders occur in India also.
In April 2008 it came to light that some months prior, a Saudi woman was killed by her father for chatting on Facebook to a man. There are no exact official numbers about honour killings in Lebanon as many honour killings there are arranged to look like accidents. It is believed that 40-50 women are killed each year in Lebanon in honour related killings. In the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, it is believed that 3-4 women per month are killed in honour killings. In Jordan there is minimal gender discrimination and women are permitted to vote, but men receive reduced sentences for killing their wives or female family members if they have brought dishonor to their family. Families often have sons who are considered minors, under the age of 18, to commit the honor killings. An unfortunate loophole in the juvenile law allows minors to serve time in a juvenile detention center and they are released with a clean criminal record at the age of 18 notwithstanding that they committed an honour killing of a relative. There have been a series of murders of Sikh women in British Columbia, Canada by their husbands and other relatives. In October 2006, the charred remains of schoolteacher Manjit Panghali were found in Surrey. Her husband and brother-in-law were charged in her murder. Around the same time, Gurjeet Kaur Ghuman, a nurse, was shot in the face, blinded by her husband before he killed himself. Yet another woman, Navreet Kaur Waraich, was stabbed to death—her husband is charged with her murder.
The subjugation of women in underdeveloped countries like Pakistan, India and others as well as in immigrant communities within Canada, is not rooted in some uniquely reactionary quality of Islam or Sikhism, as some right-wing ideologues claim. The institution of the family—the main vehicle for the transfer of private property and the regimentation of society—is the main source for the oppression of women. Men in those societies treat their women as if they are mere chattels.
The concept of ‘family honour’ i.e., control of the sexuality of women by the father or husband, far from being exclusively Islamic or Sikh, is actually connected to a form of belief where a clan—a series of related extended families—holds and works the land in common. As Engels noted: “In order to guarantee the fidelity of the wife, (that is the paternity of the children) the woman is placed in the man’s absolute power; if he kills her, he is but exercising his right to do so.”
It doesn’t surprise me one bit that these disgusting and dishonourable people who approve of honour killings have slithered (by air) into Canada and other westernized nations and then have done exactly what their fellow citizens in their own countries have done; murder members of their own families because they felt that they were offended and dishonoured.
This article is about one of those families that moved to Canada in 1999 and 2001 respectively from Pakistan and settled into the city of Mississauga, just west of Toronto, Ontario. I am speaking of Muhammad Parvez who slithered into Canada in 1999 and his wife Anwar Parvez and one of their sons, Waqas Parvez who both slithered into Canada in 2001 after him. When you realize what these three scumbags did to a member of their family, you will agree with me that the words, ‘slithered’ and ‘scumbags’ are not so insulting at all, at least not when describing that trio. Muhammad worked as a taxi driver and Wagas worked as a tow truck driver and Anwar remained at home as a housewife.
Muhammad and Anwar Parvez were the parents of 16-year-old Agsa Parvez who lived with her parents and six of her siblings. Two other siblings lived elsewhere. I used the past tense of ‘was’ because Agsa was murdered by her father and that other scumbag, her brother Waqas on December 10, 2007.
Women in the Parvez family were expected to dress traditionally, to rely on men for financial stability, and to spend most of their free time confined to the household. Arranged to be married to a Pakistani man, Aqsa longed for the freedom to dress as she wished and spend evenings with her friends; she craved privacy, as her bedroom had no door.
What was their motive? Well, it seems that Agsa wanted to be like other girls in her school. She wanted to be able to show her beautiful hair, visit her friends in their homes, go to movies, have privacy in her own bedroom (in which there was no door) and most of all, not have to marry a cousin who lived in Pakistan as per the order of her father as an arranged marriage. She had fought her parents for the right to wear Western clothing, and to jettison the hijab they wanted her to wear. She was going to apply for a part-time job, something her father refused to allow. Then she ran away from home for the second time in three months. The first time, her father had sworn on the Koran he would kill her if she ever ran away again. But she ran away again. She had been living with a friend but was lured to the family's Mississauga home that day by her brother, who told her she could pick up her clothes.
While she was in her bedroom gathering up her clothes, her father and her brother, Waqas entered her room and together, they strangled her to death. They later admitted to the murder and were convicted of second degree murder.
Thirty-six minutes later, her father called 911 saying he had killed her. When police arrived, they found his wife crying hysterically and the father with blood on his hands. In a Brampton courtroom in June 2010, the victim’s father, Muhammad Parvez, 60, and her brother, Waqas Parvez, 29, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The penalty for second degree murder is 10 years minimum to 25 years imprisonment before they can apply for parole. At the time of this writing, they haven't been sentenced yet.
When asked by his wife why he had killed their daughter, her husband told her: “My community will say you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult. She is making me naked.” Such a statement must surely appear in the annals of history as utter stupidity and as a very weak form of justification for killing one’s own daughter.
Observers say the case, among the first so-called honour killings to gain widespread attention in Canada, will cast a spotlight on generational strains that can tear at families adapting to a new culture. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said it’s a particularly pernicious form of murder to kill a member of one’s own family for cultural reasons. He further said, “That’s one of the reasons we have been explicit in condemning what we call barbaric cultural practices such as honour killings.”
Multiculturalism is a widely accepted phenomenon in Canada but it is not an excuse, or a moral or legal justification, for such barbaric practices. Multiculturalism does not equal cultural relativism.
Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah said the guilty plea is a wake-up call for parents to understand that young women are not the possessions of men. Muslim leaders who do not call Ms. Parvez’s murder an honour killing are avoiding the real issue.” He added, “If someone cannot see through the notion of the hijab being used as a basis of killing someone, (then) they’re blind. How many more Muslim women have to die before ... Islamist groups open their eyes?”
After 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her brother and father in a so-called honour killing, her mother blamed the slain girl for not obeying her family's strict rules.
Alone in a police interview room after her son choked Aqsa to death in December 2007 and her husband took the fall for it, Anwar Jan was caught on a recording suggesting Aqsa's murder was the headstrong teenager's own fault. Aqsa, “Aqsa, my daughter is dead. Everyone tried to explain to you. This would not have happened if you would have listened." I am forced to ask this question. Where was she when her evil husband and evil son were murdering her daughter? I don’t think I can ever be truly convinced that she didn’t know what was going in her daughter’s bedroom when she was being strangled to death.
Waqas Parvez choked his younger sister to death in her bedroom less than 20 minutes after they arrived home and after he left her for dead, then fled, according to an agreed statement of facts read in court. It's apparent from his DNA found under her fingernails that she tried to fight back while he had his hands gripped around his sister’s neck. Waqas Parvez told a colleague two or three days before the murder that he was going to kill his sister because she was causing the family embarrassment. He later admitted to the colleague that he killed her.
In the agreed statements of facts submitted to the court, Waqas said only he and his father were involved, but that the family knew what was going on. Some claimed they were asleep. I doubt that. The fact that their younger sister had suddenly returned home would have been enough to keep them well aware as to what was going on. Even though the other siblings denied that they heard anything, I strongly believe they were well aware as to the fact that their sister was being murdered. The police asked the mother of the victim if she thought killing her daughter was wrong. All she said was, "I don't know." Her brothers and sisters didn't condemn the killing either. The entire family is rotten.
According to the United Nations, as many as 5,000 girls and women are murdered every year around the world as part of so-called honour killings, a crime generally defined as the premeditated murder of a female relative believed to have brought dishonour upon her family.
A second-degree murder conviction carries an automatic life sentence. Both the Crown and defence are calling for them to be able to apply for parole only after 18 years. I disagree with that kind of sentence. They should get the maximum of twenty-five years in prison. Such a sentence will serve as punishment and a deterrent to others of their ilk who think that honour killing is an honourable thing to do when women disobey men. I think however that they will probably have to serve 18 years before applying for parole simple because it was part of a deal between their lawyers and the crown.
If these two murderers and the victim’s mother are not Canadian citizens, they should be shipped back to Pakistan----her immediately and the other two when they have served their sentences. Canada doesn’t need these kinds of people in our country. We are not the world’s garbage dump.
It goes without saying that such killings are against all religious beliefs, be they Christian, Islamic, or any other. It is also against humanity. It is no different than murdering someone for profit. The crime is an evil crime and there is no justification for it at all. It is unfortunate however that there are creepy families around the world who believe that murdering members of their families is the honourable thing to do if the victims have offended them.
These horrendous crimes are generally committed in Mid Eastern countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan and others where the people are of the Islamic faith. These so-called honour murders occur in India also.
In April 2008 it came to light that some months prior, a Saudi woman was killed by her father for chatting on Facebook to a man. There are no exact official numbers about honour killings in Lebanon as many honour killings there are arranged to look like accidents. It is believed that 40-50 women are killed each year in Lebanon in honour related killings. In the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, it is believed that 3-4 women per month are killed in honour killings. In Jordan there is minimal gender discrimination and women are permitted to vote, but men receive reduced sentences for killing their wives or female family members if they have brought dishonor to their family. Families often have sons who are considered minors, under the age of 18, to commit the honor killings. An unfortunate loophole in the juvenile law allows minors to serve time in a juvenile detention center and they are released with a clean criminal record at the age of 18 notwithstanding that they committed an honour killing of a relative. There have been a series of murders of Sikh women in British Columbia, Canada by their husbands and other relatives. In October 2006, the charred remains of schoolteacher Manjit Panghali were found in Surrey. Her husband and brother-in-law were charged in her murder. Around the same time, Gurjeet Kaur Ghuman, a nurse, was shot in the face, blinded by her husband before he killed himself. Yet another woman, Navreet Kaur Waraich, was stabbed to death—her husband is charged with her murder.
The subjugation of women in underdeveloped countries like Pakistan, India and others as well as in immigrant communities within Canada, is not rooted in some uniquely reactionary quality of Islam or Sikhism, as some right-wing ideologues claim. The institution of the family—the main vehicle for the transfer of private property and the regimentation of society—is the main source for the oppression of women. Men in those societies treat their women as if they are mere chattels.
The concept of ‘family honour’ i.e., control of the sexuality of women by the father or husband, far from being exclusively Islamic or Sikh, is actually connected to a form of belief where a clan—a series of related extended families—holds and works the land in common. As Engels noted: “In order to guarantee the fidelity of the wife, (that is the paternity of the children) the woman is placed in the man’s absolute power; if he kills her, he is but exercising his right to do so.”
It doesn’t surprise me one bit that these disgusting and dishonourable people who approve of honour killings have slithered (by air) into Canada and other westernized nations and then have done exactly what their fellow citizens in their own countries have done; murder members of their own families because they felt that they were offended and dishonoured.
This article is about one of those families that moved to Canada in 1999 and 2001 respectively from Pakistan and settled into the city of Mississauga, just west of Toronto, Ontario. I am speaking of Muhammad Parvez who slithered into Canada in 1999 and his wife Anwar Parvez and one of their sons, Waqas Parvez who both slithered into Canada in 2001 after him. When you realize what these three scumbags did to a member of their family, you will agree with me that the words, ‘slithered’ and ‘scumbags’ are not so insulting at all, at least not when describing that trio. Muhammad worked as a taxi driver and Wagas worked as a tow truck driver and Anwar remained at home as a housewife.
Muhammad and Anwar Parvez were the parents of 16-year-old Agsa Parvez who lived with her parents and six of her siblings. Two other siblings lived elsewhere. I used the past tense of ‘was’ because Agsa was murdered by her father and that other scumbag, her brother Waqas on December 10, 2007.
Women in the Parvez family were expected to dress traditionally, to rely on men for financial stability, and to spend most of their free time confined to the household. Arranged to be married to a Pakistani man, Aqsa longed for the freedom to dress as she wished and spend evenings with her friends; she craved privacy, as her bedroom had no door.
What was their motive? Well, it seems that Agsa wanted to be like other girls in her school. She wanted to be able to show her beautiful hair, visit her friends in their homes, go to movies, have privacy in her own bedroom (in which there was no door) and most of all, not have to marry a cousin who lived in Pakistan as per the order of her father as an arranged marriage. She had fought her parents for the right to wear Western clothing, and to jettison the hijab they wanted her to wear. She was going to apply for a part-time job, something her father refused to allow. Then she ran away from home for the second time in three months. The first time, her father had sworn on the Koran he would kill her if she ever ran away again. But she ran away again. She had been living with a friend but was lured to the family's Mississauga home that day by her brother, who told her she could pick up her clothes.
While she was in her bedroom gathering up her clothes, her father and her brother, Waqas entered her room and together, they strangled her to death. They later admitted to the murder and were convicted of second degree murder.
Thirty-six minutes later, her father called 911 saying he had killed her. When police arrived, they found his wife crying hysterically and the father with blood on his hands. In a Brampton courtroom in June 2010, the victim’s father, Muhammad Parvez, 60, and her brother, Waqas Parvez, 29, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The penalty for second degree murder is 10 years minimum to 25 years imprisonment before they can apply for parole. At the time of this writing, they haven't been sentenced yet.
When asked by his wife why he had killed their daughter, her husband told her: “My community will say you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult. She is making me naked.” Such a statement must surely appear in the annals of history as utter stupidity and as a very weak form of justification for killing one’s own daughter.
Observers say the case, among the first so-called honour killings to gain widespread attention in Canada, will cast a spotlight on generational strains that can tear at families adapting to a new culture. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said it’s a particularly pernicious form of murder to kill a member of one’s own family for cultural reasons. He further said, “That’s one of the reasons we have been explicit in condemning what we call barbaric cultural practices such as honour killings.”
Multiculturalism is a widely accepted phenomenon in Canada but it is not an excuse, or a moral or legal justification, for such barbaric practices. Multiculturalism does not equal cultural relativism.
Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah said the guilty plea is a wake-up call for parents to understand that young women are not the possessions of men. Muslim leaders who do not call Ms. Parvez’s murder an honour killing are avoiding the real issue.” He added, “If someone cannot see through the notion of the hijab being used as a basis of killing someone, (then) they’re blind. How many more Muslim women have to die before ... Islamist groups open their eyes?”
After 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her brother and father in a so-called honour killing, her mother blamed the slain girl for not obeying her family's strict rules.
Alone in a police interview room after her son choked Aqsa to death in December 2007 and her husband took the fall for it, Anwar Jan was caught on a recording suggesting Aqsa's murder was the headstrong teenager's own fault. Aqsa, “Aqsa, my daughter is dead. Everyone tried to explain to you. This would not have happened if you would have listened." I am forced to ask this question. Where was she when her evil husband and evil son were murdering her daughter? I don’t think I can ever be truly convinced that she didn’t know what was going in her daughter’s bedroom when she was being strangled to death.
Waqas Parvez choked his younger sister to death in her bedroom less than 20 minutes after they arrived home and after he left her for dead, then fled, according to an agreed statement of facts read in court. It's apparent from his DNA found under her fingernails that she tried to fight back while he had his hands gripped around his sister’s neck. Waqas Parvez told a colleague two or three days before the murder that he was going to kill his sister because she was causing the family embarrassment. He later admitted to the colleague that he killed her.
In the agreed statements of facts submitted to the court, Waqas said only he and his father were involved, but that the family knew what was going on. Some claimed they were asleep. I doubt that. The fact that their younger sister had suddenly returned home would have been enough to keep them well aware as to what was going on. Even though the other siblings denied that they heard anything, I strongly believe they were well aware as to the fact that their sister was being murdered. The police asked the mother of the victim if she thought killing her daughter was wrong. All she said was, "I don't know." Her brothers and sisters didn't condemn the killing either. The entire family is rotten.
According to the United Nations, as many as 5,000 girls and women are murdered every year around the world as part of so-called honour killings, a crime generally defined as the premeditated murder of a female relative believed to have brought dishonour upon her family.
A second-degree murder conviction carries an automatic life sentence. Both the Crown and defence are calling for them to be able to apply for parole only after 18 years. I disagree with that kind of sentence. They should get the maximum of twenty-five years in prison. Such a sentence will serve as punishment and a deterrent to others of their ilk who think that honour killing is an honourable thing to do when women disobey men. I think however that they will probably have to serve 18 years before applying for parole simple because it was part of a deal between their lawyers and the crown.
If these two murderers and the victim’s mother are not Canadian citizens, they should be shipped back to Pakistan----her immediately and the other two when they have served their sentences. Canada doesn’t need these kinds of people in our country. We are not the world’s garbage dump.
Tuesday 24 August 2010
Bandit Tow Truck Scams
Towing vehicles is a legitimate business that services the needs of the customer. So what is all this talk about a towing scam called bandit towing? Bandit tow truck operators are differentiated from legitimate tow operators in their practice of monitoring private parking lots in order to tow away vehicles whose owners are not patrons of the businesses associated with that lot. Often, the tow operators dismiss the fact that the car owner does patronize a business associated with the lot before going elsewhere.
Everyday, the Police Departments all over the country receive complaints from individuals who had their car towed out of a private parking lot when they "just went around the corner" for a cup of coffee or a newspaper, usually after patronizing a business associated with the parking lot. When the individual returns to their car, it is either gone or in the process of being towed. A large fee, which grows each day the car is held in an impound lot, is attached with this significant inconvenience.
Under most state and provincial laws, property owners have the right to remove cars from their private parking lots after the car has been parked there for more than one hour. The property owner, representative, or agent must be present at the scene of impound to sign the authorization. ‘Bandit’tow truck operators have interpreted this law in a way which is financially lucrative for their companies.
When I lived in a townhouse complex in Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s, I was the parking administrator and I had the authority to tow cars illegally parked in resident’s parking spots or cars that were not being driven and were simply stored on the property. Over the years, I ordered several hundred cars towed. In one case, the car that was towed was brand new. I told the man where his car was being stored in the pound. Instead of retrieving it, he insisted that I retrieve it after paying the towing charges. Naturally I refused. Three months later, it was still in the pound. Then it was put up for auction since the pound had a lien on it. The owner was informed and he had to bid against others for his car. He finally got it back after he paid several thousand dollars for storage fees.
If you are a victim of a ‘bandit’ tow truck operator, remember these facts: The tow truck operator does not have a legal lien on your vehicle until it is in transit on a public highway.
• If you car is already on the tow truck, but still in the parking lot, the tow operator can ask you for half of what an Official Police Garage would charge for towing.
• If you will not or cannot pay the requested amount, the issue becomes a civil matter, and the tow operator must release your vehicle.
• If the tow operator leaves the lot with your vehicle because you would not or could not pay the requested amount, the tow operator is in violation of many US State codes, which is taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.
Efforts are underway to legislatively amend Federal law to end this loophole in which "bandit" tow truck operators have been able to use to their advantage.
Who has the right to tow your vehicle in the United States?
Prior to 1995, local law enforcement had the ability to regulate towing businesses by enacting ordinances that governed their activities as to price, route and service. This was accomplished by imposing local permit requirement's, that made it a misdemeanor offense to operate a towing business within a local municipality without a permit issued by that municipality, or to violate other regulatory provisions of the ordinance. Each state is different and one should review the local ordinances for confirmation.
In 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA) was enacted which effectively deregulated the motor carrier transport industry by preempting local government from imposing a permit scheme via local ordinance to regulate motor carriers, which included tow trucks. Large motor carrier transport business were successful in lobbying for this federal law claiming they were over regulated by having to obtain a permit in each city in which they conduct business across the United States.
Most of the complaints investigated by local authorities are after the incident has occurred, when the victim's vehicle has been towed and is stored in a tow yard for an inflated rate. Authorities must then determine through an investigation if the towing company was authorized to remove the vehicle. Determining who authorized an impound, if anyone, and was that person a legal representative of the property owner is critical as to whether or not the codes were (Taking a vehicle without an owner's consent) was violated.
One of the common threads in these complaints is that the victims allege their vehicle was towed away after having been parked for only 5 or 10 minutes. It is the property owner's, or their legal representative's, responsibility to wait one hour before having an illegally parked vehicle towed under most state statutes. However, tow truck operators are in essence lying in wait watching the motorist walk away from their parked vehicle to a business other than the one for which the parking is designated. Several minutes after the motorist walks away from their vehicle, a tow truck is quick to tow the vehicle away.
In an effort to aggressively address this problem, some jurisdictions have conducted "sting" operations utilizing undercover police officers posing as motorists that have parked their vehicle on private property. When a tow truck arrives to remove the officer's vehicle, the undercover officer returns and demands their car be released without charge. If the tow truck driver refuses and takes off with the car, the tow truck driver is arrested for violation of local or state Vehicle Codes (Taking A Vehicle Without Consent). Commission Investigation Division is increasing the frequency of these "sting" operations to send the clear message that the Los Angeles Police Department is committed to using all resources available to deter unscrupulous towing operations from engaging in this illegal activity.
Towing Scams: and companies violating the law.
Who has the right to tow your vehicle?
The worst news a motorist can get is that his or her vehicle has been towed to a storage lot that is closed on weekends and the per day storage fee is running at a rate of $30 to $50 a day. Then, when you demand to get your car that day, the storage facility charges you an extra $50 so-called "gate fee." The "gate fee" is to have the person who stays in a trailer on the lot walk to the gate and open it for you. Some times they call it a labor fee and then they tack on a release fee. These tactics and extra charges are illegal under most state laws.
Many of the towing companies skate on a fine line of legality. In the City of Los Angeles, California the Police Commission has jurisdiction over the towing industry if they have police permits. But the towing companies that do not have these LA Police permits can do as they please under new deregulation. But that comes to a sudden stop when they tow cars on city streets. The police call these un-permitted tow trucks "bandit tows." LAPD Detectives have setup "sting operations' to catch the towing companies in the act of breaking state and city regulations and law. Not all, but many towing companies continue to break the laws. The LA Police Commission is keeping a close eye on the "bandit" towing operators who think they can ignore city and state laws and regulations.
Here is a good example, the LA Police Commission's Towing Section received a complaint from a San Fernando Valley resident that his car had been towed to a storage lot in the city of LA and they were over charged for towing, and they were charged a "gate fee" for someone to come to the lot and let them pay the storage fee and get their vehicle. The LA Police Commission told the family that it was illegal to have a gate fee in the City of LA. They said it was a violation of the California Civil Vehicle Code for a towing company to charge more than the fees that the city would charge for the same towing service and storage. (The city fee is $120) In this case the towing company charged more for the tow, more for the storage, and a gate fee than the City would charge. So the company was operating totally in violation of a civil law, but the Police Commission said they could not do anything about it because the Vehicle Code said that it had to be resolved in a civil court. So the Police Commission sent the family a copy of the Vehicle Code and suggested they file against the towing company in Small Claims Court to get their money back. This helps the family though this legal maze, but all this does, is put the "Monkey" of enforcing the civil law on the back of the citizens. However, this is the way your State Law-Makers kept the cops out of the system. The Valley family has to pay to file in court, pay to have the Sheriff's Deputies serve the court documents, and then have to pay the Sheriff's Department again to serve the court judgment if they win. It may take the family months to get any money from the towing company and then they may not even break even in the settlement.
The LAPD says it is a violation of criminal law to tow a vehicle on city streets without the permission of the owner. And under the DMV vehicle code the owner must be given a one-hour grace period when parking on private property. So when a McDonald's has a car or truck towed by a "bandit" tow truck, that has been parked 25-minutes it is a violation of the DMV rules. The towing company must have an operator of the private property signed for each tow. If the towing company already has your car on a truck or hooked up on the private property then they can ask you to pay half of the towing fee to get your vehicle back. Half the fee in LA is $46.50. If you refuse to pay then they can hold your vehicle and take you to civil court for parking it on private property. This will take some time and they will normally win. But most tow companies will not wait to take the matter to court and they will tow your car off on city streets, which is a criminal offense. They can legally tow off private property, but then the company cannot tow on a city street without the permission of the owner. Also the towing companies cannot charge for storage on a vehicle unless they have a lien against it. This is information coming from LAPD and the DMV.
You must also lookout for what I call the Midnight Hookers. These are tow trucks that will illegally hook-up your vehicle off parking lots and tow it to their storage lot. To do this legally they must have the property owner or the owner's representative sign the tow slip at the time the vehicle is towed. They cannot sign a bunch of tow slips the next morning, or sign tow slips in advance to be filled out by the driver. In some cases the tow truck driver has a kick back deal with the security guard at the business. For each tow slip he signs the security guard gets $50. This scam also happens in the middle of the day on private parking lots.
Here's another tip: When you have a tow truck pickup your vehicle, make sure it is taken to the shop where you want it fixed. Many drivers will take your vehicle to a repair shop that pays them a commission on the job. This just means everything will cost you more. Also if you have the shop do the repairs or bodywork make sure they agree to pay for the towing charges.
'Bandit' tow truck drivers are black hat operators who make it a practice to monitor privately owned parking lots in order to tow away cars whose owners are not patronizing businesses associated with that lot. In many instances, the bandit tow truck driver ignores the fact that the cars owner does patronize a business associated with the lot before going to another business.
In the city of Mississauga, Ontario, if you are involved in a motor vehicle collision any licensed tow truck responding to the scene will be required to charge you $230.00 plus HST, no more and no less with no other charges other than the applicable federal and provincial taxes. This fee covers the cost that will be incurred to have your car towed from the accident scene to a location of your choosing. There should be no additional charge for mileage. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you can have your car towed hundreds of miles or kilometres away for that price.
Before towing your vehicle, the tow truck driver is also required to fill out and have you sign a ‘Permission to Tow’ form which is to be completed prior to the start of any towing. This form does not commit the vehicle owner to having any work done other than having the vehicle towed and provides a written record as to your intention regarding your intended destination.
Some times tow truck bandits will town someone’s car from private property to a private car pound and then demand a large sum of money to get it back.
The owner of the car can check to see if a ticket was placed on the windshield and that the ticket is a legitimate ticket issued by a bylaw enforcement officer working for the City of Mississauga. If that is so, you will have to pay the pound money to get your car back. But sometimes, tickets are printed to look like official tickets when in fact, they are not and in fact have been issued by a private company that enforces parking regulations on private property. If the ticket was not issued by the City under the authority of the Provincial Offences Act then the vehicle has been towed under Common Law. If that is so, the owner of the vehicle can demand the return of his car and he doesn’t need to pay any fees at that time, but the company that towed the car may seek payment for services in small claims court at a later date, though this is rarely done.
Years ago, I drove a friend to a private pound to pick up his car. It had been towed from private property. The ticket was not issued by a bylaw enforcement officer. The man at the pound demanded money from my client. I told the man that if he didn’t immediately give the keys to my client, I would have him charged under the Criminal Code with being in possession of stolen goods. He tried to call my bluff. I pulled out my cell phone and called the police. While the police were on the phone, the man at the pound handed my friend his keys and he drove his car out of the pound without paying a money at all.
Currently, there is no provincial legislation in Ontario governing tow trucks but there is a Bill before the legislature that has yet to be approved. In that Bill, it states in part;
7. The board may revoke the registration of an operator or a tow truck driver,
(a) if the operator or driver is found guilty of an offence that, if committed in Ontario, would be an offence under the laws of Canada or of Ontario and that renders the person unsuitable to registered;
(b) if the operator or driver fails to comply with this Act, the code of ethics or any other regulation made under this Act.
Metropolitan Toronto has a Municipal Licensing & Standards Division which also licences tow truck operators and drivers.
Of course, anyone can sue a tow truck driver and his firm if their vehicle is taken away when it shouldn’t have been removed. I once represented a man whose vehicle was illegally removed and we got judgment for $2,000 plus costs against the tow truck company.
Years ago, I was on a highway that divided Toronto from Mississauga and my car slowed down and stopped. I called the CAA in which I am a member. I waited for a CAA tow truck to arrive and five minutes later, a tow truck pulled up in front of me. I told him I was surprised that he arrived so quickly since I only called CAA five minutes earlier. He hooked up my car and took it to the garage that I normally deal with. After we arrived, he asked for $200. I told him that I am a member of CAA and I don’t have to pay CAA tow truck drivers for towing my car. He then told me that he wasn’t a CAA tow truck driver and insisted that I pay him $200. The owner of the garage offered to give him a cheque for that amount but he wouldn’t take it. The owner of the garage called the police. The police officer asked the tow tuck driver to show him his tow truck licence. It turned out that he could only tow trucks in Mississauga and not in Toronto where the garage and the highway were located. The man then said, he would release my vehicle and accept the $200 from the garage which he did.
I called the tow truck firm and told them that I was going to sue them and their driver for a thousand dollars in the small claims court. He asked me if we could settle the matter out of court. I told him to send me a cheque for $200.00.
This he did. The CAA also sent me a cheque but I returned their cheque since I had already been paid by the tow truck firm.
Don’t take any nonsense from tow truck drivers if you suspect that they are bandits. If paying them is the only way you can get your car back, then pay them and then sue them in small claims court. You don’t need a lawyer. It is very simple to sue anyone in those courts. Also ask for punitive damages.
Everyday, the Police Departments all over the country receive complaints from individuals who had their car towed out of a private parking lot when they "just went around the corner" for a cup of coffee or a newspaper, usually after patronizing a business associated with the parking lot. When the individual returns to their car, it is either gone or in the process of being towed. A large fee, which grows each day the car is held in an impound lot, is attached with this significant inconvenience.
Under most state and provincial laws, property owners have the right to remove cars from their private parking lots after the car has been parked there for more than one hour. The property owner, representative, or agent must be present at the scene of impound to sign the authorization. ‘Bandit’tow truck operators have interpreted this law in a way which is financially lucrative for their companies.
When I lived in a townhouse complex in Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s, I was the parking administrator and I had the authority to tow cars illegally parked in resident’s parking spots or cars that were not being driven and were simply stored on the property. Over the years, I ordered several hundred cars towed. In one case, the car that was towed was brand new. I told the man where his car was being stored in the pound. Instead of retrieving it, he insisted that I retrieve it after paying the towing charges. Naturally I refused. Three months later, it was still in the pound. Then it was put up for auction since the pound had a lien on it. The owner was informed and he had to bid against others for his car. He finally got it back after he paid several thousand dollars for storage fees.
If you are a victim of a ‘bandit’ tow truck operator, remember these facts: The tow truck operator does not have a legal lien on your vehicle until it is in transit on a public highway.
• If you car is already on the tow truck, but still in the parking lot, the tow operator can ask you for half of what an Official Police Garage would charge for towing.
• If you will not or cannot pay the requested amount, the issue becomes a civil matter, and the tow operator must release your vehicle.
• If the tow operator leaves the lot with your vehicle because you would not or could not pay the requested amount, the tow operator is in violation of many US State codes, which is taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.
Efforts are underway to legislatively amend Federal law to end this loophole in which "bandit" tow truck operators have been able to use to their advantage.
Who has the right to tow your vehicle in the United States?
Prior to 1995, local law enforcement had the ability to regulate towing businesses by enacting ordinances that governed their activities as to price, route and service. This was accomplished by imposing local permit requirement's, that made it a misdemeanor offense to operate a towing business within a local municipality without a permit issued by that municipality, or to violate other regulatory provisions of the ordinance. Each state is different and one should review the local ordinances for confirmation.
In 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA) was enacted which effectively deregulated the motor carrier transport industry by preempting local government from imposing a permit scheme via local ordinance to regulate motor carriers, which included tow trucks. Large motor carrier transport business were successful in lobbying for this federal law claiming they were over regulated by having to obtain a permit in each city in which they conduct business across the United States.
Most of the complaints investigated by local authorities are after the incident has occurred, when the victim's vehicle has been towed and is stored in a tow yard for an inflated rate. Authorities must then determine through an investigation if the towing company was authorized to remove the vehicle. Determining who authorized an impound, if anyone, and was that person a legal representative of the property owner is critical as to whether or not the codes were (Taking a vehicle without an owner's consent) was violated.
One of the common threads in these complaints is that the victims allege their vehicle was towed away after having been parked for only 5 or 10 minutes. It is the property owner's, or their legal representative's, responsibility to wait one hour before having an illegally parked vehicle towed under most state statutes. However, tow truck operators are in essence lying in wait watching the motorist walk away from their parked vehicle to a business other than the one for which the parking is designated. Several minutes after the motorist walks away from their vehicle, a tow truck is quick to tow the vehicle away.
In an effort to aggressively address this problem, some jurisdictions have conducted "sting" operations utilizing undercover police officers posing as motorists that have parked their vehicle on private property. When a tow truck arrives to remove the officer's vehicle, the undercover officer returns and demands their car be released without charge. If the tow truck driver refuses and takes off with the car, the tow truck driver is arrested for violation of local or state Vehicle Codes (Taking A Vehicle Without Consent). Commission Investigation Division is increasing the frequency of these "sting" operations to send the clear message that the Los Angeles Police Department is committed to using all resources available to deter unscrupulous towing operations from engaging in this illegal activity.
Towing Scams: and companies violating the law.
Who has the right to tow your vehicle?
The worst news a motorist can get is that his or her vehicle has been towed to a storage lot that is closed on weekends and the per day storage fee is running at a rate of $30 to $50 a day. Then, when you demand to get your car that day, the storage facility charges you an extra $50 so-called "gate fee." The "gate fee" is to have the person who stays in a trailer on the lot walk to the gate and open it for you. Some times they call it a labor fee and then they tack on a release fee. These tactics and extra charges are illegal under most state laws.
Many of the towing companies skate on a fine line of legality. In the City of Los Angeles, California the Police Commission has jurisdiction over the towing industry if they have police permits. But the towing companies that do not have these LA Police permits can do as they please under new deregulation. But that comes to a sudden stop when they tow cars on city streets. The police call these un-permitted tow trucks "bandit tows." LAPD Detectives have setup "sting operations' to catch the towing companies in the act of breaking state and city regulations and law. Not all, but many towing companies continue to break the laws. The LA Police Commission is keeping a close eye on the "bandit" towing operators who think they can ignore city and state laws and regulations.
Here is a good example, the LA Police Commission's Towing Section received a complaint from a San Fernando Valley resident that his car had been towed to a storage lot in the city of LA and they were over charged for towing, and they were charged a "gate fee" for someone to come to the lot and let them pay the storage fee and get their vehicle. The LA Police Commission told the family that it was illegal to have a gate fee in the City of LA. They said it was a violation of the California Civil Vehicle Code for a towing company to charge more than the fees that the city would charge for the same towing service and storage. (The city fee is $120) In this case the towing company charged more for the tow, more for the storage, and a gate fee than the City would charge. So the company was operating totally in violation of a civil law, but the Police Commission said they could not do anything about it because the Vehicle Code said that it had to be resolved in a civil court. So the Police Commission sent the family a copy of the Vehicle Code and suggested they file against the towing company in Small Claims Court to get their money back. This helps the family though this legal maze, but all this does, is put the "Monkey" of enforcing the civil law on the back of the citizens. However, this is the way your State Law-Makers kept the cops out of the system. The Valley family has to pay to file in court, pay to have the Sheriff's Deputies serve the court documents, and then have to pay the Sheriff's Department again to serve the court judgment if they win. It may take the family months to get any money from the towing company and then they may not even break even in the settlement.
The LAPD says it is a violation of criminal law to tow a vehicle on city streets without the permission of the owner. And under the DMV vehicle code the owner must be given a one-hour grace period when parking on private property. So when a McDonald's has a car or truck towed by a "bandit" tow truck, that has been parked 25-minutes it is a violation of the DMV rules. The towing company must have an operator of the private property signed for each tow. If the towing company already has your car on a truck or hooked up on the private property then they can ask you to pay half of the towing fee to get your vehicle back. Half the fee in LA is $46.50. If you refuse to pay then they can hold your vehicle and take you to civil court for parking it on private property. This will take some time and they will normally win. But most tow companies will not wait to take the matter to court and they will tow your car off on city streets, which is a criminal offense. They can legally tow off private property, but then the company cannot tow on a city street without the permission of the owner. Also the towing companies cannot charge for storage on a vehicle unless they have a lien against it. This is information coming from LAPD and the DMV.
You must also lookout for what I call the Midnight Hookers. These are tow trucks that will illegally hook-up your vehicle off parking lots and tow it to their storage lot. To do this legally they must have the property owner or the owner's representative sign the tow slip at the time the vehicle is towed. They cannot sign a bunch of tow slips the next morning, or sign tow slips in advance to be filled out by the driver. In some cases the tow truck driver has a kick back deal with the security guard at the business. For each tow slip he signs the security guard gets $50. This scam also happens in the middle of the day on private parking lots.
Here's another tip: When you have a tow truck pickup your vehicle, make sure it is taken to the shop where you want it fixed. Many drivers will take your vehicle to a repair shop that pays them a commission on the job. This just means everything will cost you more. Also if you have the shop do the repairs or bodywork make sure they agree to pay for the towing charges.
'Bandit' tow truck drivers are black hat operators who make it a practice to monitor privately owned parking lots in order to tow away cars whose owners are not patronizing businesses associated with that lot. In many instances, the bandit tow truck driver ignores the fact that the cars owner does patronize a business associated with the lot before going to another business.
In the city of Mississauga, Ontario, if you are involved in a motor vehicle collision any licensed tow truck responding to the scene will be required to charge you $230.00 plus HST, no more and no less with no other charges other than the applicable federal and provincial taxes. This fee covers the cost that will be incurred to have your car towed from the accident scene to a location of your choosing. There should be no additional charge for mileage. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you can have your car towed hundreds of miles or kilometres away for that price.
Before towing your vehicle, the tow truck driver is also required to fill out and have you sign a ‘Permission to Tow’ form which is to be completed prior to the start of any towing. This form does not commit the vehicle owner to having any work done other than having the vehicle towed and provides a written record as to your intention regarding your intended destination.
Some times tow truck bandits will town someone’s car from private property to a private car pound and then demand a large sum of money to get it back.
The owner of the car can check to see if a ticket was placed on the windshield and that the ticket is a legitimate ticket issued by a bylaw enforcement officer working for the City of Mississauga. If that is so, you will have to pay the pound money to get your car back. But sometimes, tickets are printed to look like official tickets when in fact, they are not and in fact have been issued by a private company that enforces parking regulations on private property. If the ticket was not issued by the City under the authority of the Provincial Offences Act then the vehicle has been towed under Common Law. If that is so, the owner of the vehicle can demand the return of his car and he doesn’t need to pay any fees at that time, but the company that towed the car may seek payment for services in small claims court at a later date, though this is rarely done.
Years ago, I drove a friend to a private pound to pick up his car. It had been towed from private property. The ticket was not issued by a bylaw enforcement officer. The man at the pound demanded money from my client. I told the man that if he didn’t immediately give the keys to my client, I would have him charged under the Criminal Code with being in possession of stolen goods. He tried to call my bluff. I pulled out my cell phone and called the police. While the police were on the phone, the man at the pound handed my friend his keys and he drove his car out of the pound without paying a money at all.
Currently, there is no provincial legislation in Ontario governing tow trucks but there is a Bill before the legislature that has yet to be approved. In that Bill, it states in part;
7. The board may revoke the registration of an operator or a tow truck driver,
(a) if the operator or driver is found guilty of an offence that, if committed in Ontario, would be an offence under the laws of Canada or of Ontario and that renders the person unsuitable to registered;
(b) if the operator or driver fails to comply with this Act, the code of ethics or any other regulation made under this Act.
Metropolitan Toronto has a Municipal Licensing & Standards Division which also licences tow truck operators and drivers.
Of course, anyone can sue a tow truck driver and his firm if their vehicle is taken away when it shouldn’t have been removed. I once represented a man whose vehicle was illegally removed and we got judgment for $2,000 plus costs against the tow truck company.
Years ago, I was on a highway that divided Toronto from Mississauga and my car slowed down and stopped. I called the CAA in which I am a member. I waited for a CAA tow truck to arrive and five minutes later, a tow truck pulled up in front of me. I told him I was surprised that he arrived so quickly since I only called CAA five minutes earlier. He hooked up my car and took it to the garage that I normally deal with. After we arrived, he asked for $200. I told him that I am a member of CAA and I don’t have to pay CAA tow truck drivers for towing my car. He then told me that he wasn’t a CAA tow truck driver and insisted that I pay him $200. The owner of the garage offered to give him a cheque for that amount but he wouldn’t take it. The owner of the garage called the police. The police officer asked the tow tuck driver to show him his tow truck licence. It turned out that he could only tow trucks in Mississauga and not in Toronto where the garage and the highway were located. The man then said, he would release my vehicle and accept the $200 from the garage which he did.
I called the tow truck firm and told them that I was going to sue them and their driver for a thousand dollars in the small claims court. He asked me if we could settle the matter out of court. I told him to send me a cheque for $200.00.
This he did. The CAA also sent me a cheque but I returned their cheque since I had already been paid by the tow truck firm.
Don’t take any nonsense from tow truck drivers if you suspect that they are bandits. If paying them is the only way you can get your car back, then pay them and then sue them in small claims court. You don’t need a lawyer. It is very simple to sue anyone in those courts. Also ask for punitive damages.
Saturday 21 August 2010
Loud music is causing teenagers to go deaf
How many times have we heard very loud music emenating from inside a car that is driving by us? Many times. Imagine if you will what it would be like inside the car with the windows closed and the decibel level dangerously high. The young fools who submit their ears to this kind of sound don’t really appreciate the fact that they are gradually becoming permanently deaf.
The tympanic membrane, or eardrum, is a thin membrane that separates the external ear from the middle ear. Its function is to transmit sound from the air to the ossicles inside the middle ear. The malleus bone bridges the gap between the eardrum and the other ossicles. Rupture or perforation of the eardrum can lead to permanent hearing loss. From then on, the person must use a hearing aid in his or her ear.
If you you use a needle to punch small holes in a snare drum, eventually, the drum becomes useless because it won’t vibrate any longer. Extreme noise does the same thing to a human ear drum. The small holes are very minute and cannot be seen by the human eye but they are there nevertheless. Too many holes in the ear drum brings about deafness. It certainly will bring about a ringing noise in your ears.
When I served in the Canadian Navy in the early 1950s on board one of the navy’s two cruisers, our ship on occasion fired the six-inch naval guns. My job was that of a shell-hoist operator. I stood between two of the three large guns and when they were fired, the very big BANG each time the three of them went off at the same time, assaulted my eardrums. We were given cotton batten to put in our ears but the cotton batten kept falling out of my ears. I couldn’t put it back into my ears because I was straddling a large opening that went down into the ship some considerable distance. Besides, my hands were always on the handles that controlled the hoists that raised the heavy shells up from down below.
It was while I served on the cruiser that I began having a ringing in my ears. The ringing in my ears never left me. I imagine all of the sailors that were in the three gun turrets and on the bridge suffer form the same ailment. Nowadays, armed forces people who fire or load large guns wear ear protectors.
A recent survey conducted by Australian Hearing found, adults aged between 18 and 24 reported suffering from tinnitus or ringing in the ear. That means that, at some point in their lives, they've felt ringing in their ears at least once.
Doesn't this just mean that 18 to 24 year olds are more likely to have attended a few concerts? Granted, these concerts do cause some minor hearing loss, but nothing you'd miss. We all feel kinda sick after a tinnitus-inducing concert experience.
Research in the US suggests that MP3 players, iPods and more exposure to live music have caused an increase in hearing loss among teenagers. A national study noticed that the number of teenagers suffering from hearing problems has shot up by nearly a third in the past 20 years. Also, between 2005 and 2006, one in five adolescents suffered some form of hearing loss. The increase was significantly 6.5 million more than in an earlier survey conducted between 1988 and 1994.
Scientists feel that the exposure to loud noise, including amplified music, may be an explanation for the hearing loss that the teenagers are suffering from.
Dr Josef Shargorodsky, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, went through the two databases to find out if there was a comparable degree of hearing loss in the different time frames. Though majority of teenagers suffered from slight hearing loss, the number of cases of mild or worse hearing loss was 77 per cent higher in the second survey.
The authors wrote in the journal JAMA: “Hearing loss is a common sensory disorder, affecting tens of millions of individuals of all ages in the United States.”
Has anyone noticed that the sound level in movie theaters has steadily increased over the past few years? No, I'm not talking about obnoxious people sitting behind you... it's coming from the speakers.This is especially true with the trailers before the movie starts. You have two choices: Go deaf, or cover your ears. It's gotten to point where at times it's downright painful.
Sure, movie explosions and music building to a crescendo have always been the louder parts of films... but lately the audio level has risen to the point where I sometimes find myself covering my ears.
Is this what happens when you put teenagers in control of the audio in the projection booth because they are gradually becoming deaf themselves? Sure, I listened to my music so loud it blocked out the external world when I was 16, but to inflict that on a couple of hundred people is just not right. I have on occasion complained to the manager of a theatre to have the projectionist tone down the volume.
Though older males exposed to significant occupational noise demonstrate significantly reduced hearing sensitivity than their non-exposed peers, differences in hearing sensitivity decrease with time and the two groups are indistinguishable by age 79."
We already know loud noises are harmful to our hearing. This is why, when we hear a loud noise, or go to a concert, our ears hurt afterward, sometimes for a day or two. Pain, if you're unaware, is how the human body informs you of injury.
If someone constantly subjects him/herself to painful auditory trauma, and remains oblivious to their gradual hearing loss until it becomes significant. By then of course, it’s too late to correct the problem.
I suppose some day in the future, ear drums can be replaced or maybe even the minute holes in the damaged eardrums can be plugged. But until that occurs, by the time teenagers in this era get to my age (77) they will need to wear hearing aids in both ears.
Just a minute. “What did you say dear?” I wish my wife would speak up. I can hardly hear her. Just kidding. There she did it again. I can see her lips moving. But to those young people reading this article----turn the volume down. The ear drums you save are the only ones you have for the rest of your life. Ignore them and you will lose them.
The tympanic membrane, or eardrum, is a thin membrane that separates the external ear from the middle ear. Its function is to transmit sound from the air to the ossicles inside the middle ear. The malleus bone bridges the gap between the eardrum and the other ossicles. Rupture or perforation of the eardrum can lead to permanent hearing loss. From then on, the person must use a hearing aid in his or her ear.
If you you use a needle to punch small holes in a snare drum, eventually, the drum becomes useless because it won’t vibrate any longer. Extreme noise does the same thing to a human ear drum. The small holes are very minute and cannot be seen by the human eye but they are there nevertheless. Too many holes in the ear drum brings about deafness. It certainly will bring about a ringing noise in your ears.
When I served in the Canadian Navy in the early 1950s on board one of the navy’s two cruisers, our ship on occasion fired the six-inch naval guns. My job was that of a shell-hoist operator. I stood between two of the three large guns and when they were fired, the very big BANG each time the three of them went off at the same time, assaulted my eardrums. We were given cotton batten to put in our ears but the cotton batten kept falling out of my ears. I couldn’t put it back into my ears because I was straddling a large opening that went down into the ship some considerable distance. Besides, my hands were always on the handles that controlled the hoists that raised the heavy shells up from down below.
It was while I served on the cruiser that I began having a ringing in my ears. The ringing in my ears never left me. I imagine all of the sailors that were in the three gun turrets and on the bridge suffer form the same ailment. Nowadays, armed forces people who fire or load large guns wear ear protectors.
A recent survey conducted by Australian Hearing found, adults aged between 18 and 24 reported suffering from tinnitus or ringing in the ear. That means that, at some point in their lives, they've felt ringing in their ears at least once.
Doesn't this just mean that 18 to 24 year olds are more likely to have attended a few concerts? Granted, these concerts do cause some minor hearing loss, but nothing you'd miss. We all feel kinda sick after a tinnitus-inducing concert experience.
Research in the US suggests that MP3 players, iPods and more exposure to live music have caused an increase in hearing loss among teenagers. A national study noticed that the number of teenagers suffering from hearing problems has shot up by nearly a third in the past 20 years. Also, between 2005 and 2006, one in five adolescents suffered some form of hearing loss. The increase was significantly 6.5 million more than in an earlier survey conducted between 1988 and 1994.
Scientists feel that the exposure to loud noise, including amplified music, may be an explanation for the hearing loss that the teenagers are suffering from.
Dr Josef Shargorodsky, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, went through the two databases to find out if there was a comparable degree of hearing loss in the different time frames. Though majority of teenagers suffered from slight hearing loss, the number of cases of mild or worse hearing loss was 77 per cent higher in the second survey.
The authors wrote in the journal JAMA: “Hearing loss is a common sensory disorder, affecting tens of millions of individuals of all ages in the United States.”
Has anyone noticed that the sound level in movie theaters has steadily increased over the past few years? No, I'm not talking about obnoxious people sitting behind you... it's coming from the speakers.This is especially true with the trailers before the movie starts. You have two choices: Go deaf, or cover your ears. It's gotten to point where at times it's downright painful.
Sure, movie explosions and music building to a crescendo have always been the louder parts of films... but lately the audio level has risen to the point where I sometimes find myself covering my ears.
Is this what happens when you put teenagers in control of the audio in the projection booth because they are gradually becoming deaf themselves? Sure, I listened to my music so loud it blocked out the external world when I was 16, but to inflict that on a couple of hundred people is just not right. I have on occasion complained to the manager of a theatre to have the projectionist tone down the volume.
Though older males exposed to significant occupational noise demonstrate significantly reduced hearing sensitivity than their non-exposed peers, differences in hearing sensitivity decrease with time and the two groups are indistinguishable by age 79."
We already know loud noises are harmful to our hearing. This is why, when we hear a loud noise, or go to a concert, our ears hurt afterward, sometimes for a day or two. Pain, if you're unaware, is how the human body informs you of injury.
If someone constantly subjects him/herself to painful auditory trauma, and remains oblivious to their gradual hearing loss until it becomes significant. By then of course, it’s too late to correct the problem.
I suppose some day in the future, ear drums can be replaced or maybe even the minute holes in the damaged eardrums can be plugged. But until that occurs, by the time teenagers in this era get to my age (77) they will need to wear hearing aids in both ears.
Just a minute. “What did you say dear?” I wish my wife would speak up. I can hardly hear her. Just kidding. There she did it again. I can see her lips moving. But to those young people reading this article----turn the volume down. The ear drums you save are the only ones you have for the rest of your life. Ignore them and you will lose them.
Wednesday 18 August 2010
Identity theft via phishing
The term phishing ( fishing) refers to luring techniques used by identity thieves to fish for personal information in a pond of unsuspecting Internet users. Their objective is to take this information and use it for criminal purposes such as identity theft and fraud. Phishing is a general term for the creation and use by criminals of emails and websites which is designed to look like they come from well-known, legitimate and trusted businesses, financial institutions and government agencies in an attempt to gather personal, financial and sensitive information.
These criminals deceive Internet users into disclosing their bank and financial account information or other personal data such as usernames and passwords.
Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the United States Department of Justice are jointly issuing this special report to advise the public about the risks of responding to phishing emails and websites, and the steps to take when they encounter them.
Since 2003, law enforcement authorities, businesses and Internet users have seen a significant increase in the use of phishing. A growing number of phishing schemes are using the names and logos of legitimate financial institutions, businesses and government agencies in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region for illegal purposes.
At first glance, phishing emails and the associated websites may appear completely legitimate. One recent phishing attempt in the U.S. used the names of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and two of its officials, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. What Internet users may not realize is that criminals can easily copy logos and other information from legitimate businesses' websites and place them in phishing emails or bogus websites.
In addition, if the recipient of a phishing email clicks on a link it contains, even the window of the Internet browser that opens may contain what looks like the true Internet address (URL) of a legitimate business or financial institution.
Unfortunately, some phishing schemes have exploited a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer browser that allows phishers to set up a fake website at one place on the Internet, which will make it appear as if the Internet user is accessing a legitimate website at another place on the Internet.
Most phishing emails include false statements intended to create the impression that there is an immediate threat or risk to the bank, credit card or financial account of the recipient. The phony FDIC emails mentioned above falsely claimed that the Secretary of Homeland Security had advised the FDIC to suspend all federal deposit insurance on the recipients' bank accounts. Other recent phishing emails have falsely claimed that the recipients' credit card was being used by another person or that a recent credit card transaction had been declined.
As another example, a mass email circulated in the summer of 2004 advising customers of a leading Canadian financial institution, which had experienced information technology problems, that they needed to enter their client card numbers in order to access their accounts. In fact, the email was not sent or authorized by that financial institution.
In some cases, phishing emails have promised the recipients a prize or other special benefit. Although the message sounds attractive rather than threatening, the objective is the same: to trick recipients into disclosing their financial and personal data.
People who receive phishing emails are also likely to realize that the senders may have used spamming techniques (mass emailing) to send the message to thousands of people. Many of the people who receive that spammed email do not have an account or customer relationship with the legitimate business or financial services company that is purportedly the originator of the email. The people who create phishing emails count on the fact that some recipients of those emails will have an account or customer relationship with the legitimate business, and may be more likely to believe that the email has come from a trusted source.
Ultimately, people who respond to phishing emails may be putting their accounts and financial status at risk in three significant ways. First, phishers can use the data to access existing accounts to withdraw money or purchase expensive merchandise or services. Second, phishers can use the data to open new bank or credit card accounts in the victim's name, but use addresses other than that of the victim. Finally, the Internet users may not realize that they have become victims of identity theft.
Canada 's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the United States Department of Justice recommend that Internet users keep the following three steps in mind when they see emails or websites that may be part of a phishing scheme:
1. Recognize it – If you receive an unexpected email from a bank or credit card company saying that your account will be shut down if you do not confirm your billing information, do not reply or click on any links in the email. Phishers typically have one purpose in mind: to entice people to react immediately by clicking on the link and inputting their password or credit card number before they take time to think through what they are doing. Internet users need to resist that impulse.
2. Report it – Contact your bank or credit card company if you have unwittingly supplied personal or financial information. You should also report the matter to your local police. They will often take police reports even if the crime may ultimately be investigated by another law enforcement agency. In addition, a creditor who mistakenly believes that you are the person responsible for a fraudulent transaction may want to see a copy of a police report before correcting your credit account or credit report. Finally, report your identity theft case immediately to the appropriate government and private-sector organizations. Canadian and American agencies such as these are compiling information about identity theft to identify trends and assist law enforcement agencies in potential investigations.
3. Stop it – Become familiar with the practices of your financial institutions and credit card companies. They normally will not use email to confirm an existing client's information. Keep informed of the latest advisories and steps on how to protect yourself from identity theft and fraud. A number of legitimate companies and financial institutions that have been targeted by phishing schemes have published contact information for reporting possible phishing emails as well as online notices about how their customers can recognize and protect themselves from phishing.
In addition, people who use the Internet Explorer browser should immediately go to the Microsoft security home page to download a special patch that will protect against certain phishing schemes.
Here are examples of what I received by these scammers who were hoping that I would fall for their schemes and give them my personal information.
Dear friend,
It's my pleasure to acquaint you with this proposal for a financial and business assistance.I know my message will come to you as a surprise.Don't worry I was totally convinced to write you in reference to the transfer of USD$10.5M to your account for onward investment ( Hotel industries and estate building management) or any profitable business in your country.
Please,if you are interested,Email me so that I can give you more information. Remain bless while expecting your prompt co-operation.
Regards
From Johnny Peters
(Officer in African Development Bank)
This scammer wanted my bank account number.Here is a similar one sent to me.
Dear friend.
It's my pleasure to acquaint you with this proposal for a financial and business assistance.I know my message will come to you as a surprise.Don't worry I was totally convinced to write you in reference to the transfer of USD$10.5M to your account for onward investment ( Hotel industries and estate building management) or any profitable business in your country.
Please,if you are interested,Email me so that I can give you more information. Remain bless while expecting your prompt co-operation.
Regards
From Hassan Adama
The only thing that is different is the name of the scammer.I think it is the same scammer because you will note that in both messages, there are no spaces after the commas.
Dear E-mail Account User,
We have temporarily limited all access to sensitive account features, in order to restore your account access, you need to reply to this email immediately with your E-mail account Username here:( __________) and password here: (___________).
Due to much junk/spam emails you receive daily, we are currently upgrading all email accounts spam filter to limit all unsolicited emails for security reasons and to upgrade our new and improved E-mail account features and enhancements, to ensure you do not experience service interruption.
You must reply to this email immediately and enter both your user name and password in the space provided to enable us upgrade your E-mail Account properly.
A confirmtion link will be send to you for the Re-Activation of your e-mail Account, as soon as we received your response and you are to Click on the "Confirm E-mail" link on your mail Account box and then enter this confirmation number: 1265-6778-8250-8393-5727
Your failure to provide your e-mail account login details will lead to a temporarly disabled of your e-mail account or we will immediately deactivate your e-mail account from our database.
Thanks For Your Understanding.
It is obvious what this scammer wanted. He wanted to get access to my computer so that he could use my email address to commit further crimes. Needless to say, my e-mail account wasn’t deactivated like he claimed it would be.
The National Lottery
P O Box 1010
Liverpool, L70 1NL
UNITED KINGDOM
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9580X2/45
Batch: 062/01/ZY469
WINNING NOTIFICATION:
It is obvious that this notification came to you as a surprise, but please
finds time to read it carefully as we congratulate you over your success in
the following official publication of results of the e-mail electronic
online draw held by UK NATIONAL LOTTERY.
We happily announce to you the draw (#942) of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY,
online Sweepstakes International program held on friday, 19th of february,
2010. It is yet to be unclaimed,and you are getting the FINAL NOTIFICATION
as regards this. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number:16474620545
188 with Serial number 5268/02 drew the lucky numbers:4-7-9-11-15-30 (bonus
no.25), which subsequently won you the lottery in the 2nd category i.e
match 5 plus bonus.
You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of 1,000,000 (One
million pounds sterling) in cash credited to file KTU/9013115308/03. This
is from a total cash prize of 10,000,000 shared amongst the(5)lucky winners
in this category i.e Match 5 plus bonus.All participants for the online
version were selected randomly from World Wide Web sites through computer
draw system and extracted from over 100,000 unions,associations, and
corporate bodies that are listed online. This promotion takes place weekly.
To file for your claim, please contact our fiduciary agent:
Dr. Gerald Watson
Email: dr-geraldwatsonclaims-unit@discuz.org
Tel:+447035950961
Contact him by sending him with the underlisted informations :
***IMPORTANT*** FILL OUT THIS WINNERS VERIFICATION FORM BELOW:
*Name of
Beneficiary:.....*Address:.........*City/State:.......*Nationality:.............
*Country:.......*Sex:......*Age:......*Tel:.........*Occupation:.....*Next
of Kin:.........
Sincerely,
Yours faithfully,
Mrs.Lorraine Dodds.
Online coordinator for THE NATIONAL LOTTERY
Sweepstakes International Program.
If I was stupid enough to give this scammer all that private information about me, he could get a credit card in my name. The clue that stands out about the fraudulent aspect of this message is him asking me for my occupation. Why would he need that information if I really won a lottery?
Hello ,
i am private business consultant ,Here I have some interested top government officials who need your business experience and connections to invest in your country.
I wait your response to provide you with more information.
Yours faithfully,
Mr.Chai.
If I fell for that scam by responding, he would then ask me for information about my firm (if I had one) and then he could order things in the name of my firm and have them delivered to his own address. What follows is a similar scam.
You have won 1,000, 000.00GBPS. Send NAme,Address,Tel
How do you like that one for brevity?This one was sent to me many times.
Dear Internet User,
This Email is to inform you that you emerged a winner of the sum of 750.000.00 Euros with the following numbers attached Ref Number: PW 9590 ES 9414,Batch Number: 573881545-NL/2010 and Ticket Number: PP3502 /8707-01 on our online draws which was played on the year 2010.For further Information about your Winnings,contact your Lottery Claims Officer with the following contact Address Below.
Mr. Robert Anderson
Tel: +447045721780
Email: notice-prize@xnmsn.com
Of course, if I contacted him, he would pump me for all kinds of personal information.
Dear Sir/Madam,
My Names are Mr. Paul Anderson, Staff of Nat West Bank UK. I would like you to
indicate your interest to receive the transfer of $11.5 Million Dollars. I will
like you to stand as the next of kin to my late client whose account is
presently dormant for claims. Please once you are interested in my business
proposal, further details of the transfer will be forwarded to you as soon as i
receive your return mail. clik on the blow link to confirm the genuiness of the
deceased death. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/859479.stm
Regards
Mr. Paul Anderson
Please send your Reply to my private email address.
Email: millipiyango@informaticos.com
There is no doubt in my mind that he was seeking information with respect to my bank account.
Your mail id has won 1,000, 000.00 Pounds in the Uk lottery send:
Name:...
Address:..
Tel:...
Then he would send me a form to fill in which would include spaces for my bank account and password.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are Guangxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp.
( GXME ) based in china, We are interested in employing
your service to work with us.
Are you looking for a lucrative job? The job takes only
2-4 hours a day, And its a chance for you to make over
$1,000 extra per week depending on how useful you are
to the company .
Also you do not need to resume at any office to get
started , Its a work from home and you do not pay any
fee to get started. Try now without risking your
current job by sending us an email with the following
informations to(gxme_desk1@yahoo.cn).
Full Names........Residential Address...........Phone...........
We awaits your prompt response if interested.
Sincerely,
Gang Wang.
My name, address and phone number won’t be the only information he would have wanted from me.
Remember that old adage. If it sounds too good to be true, it isn’t true.
These criminals deceive Internet users into disclosing their bank and financial account information or other personal data such as usernames and passwords.
Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the United States Department of Justice are jointly issuing this special report to advise the public about the risks of responding to phishing emails and websites, and the steps to take when they encounter them.
Since 2003, law enforcement authorities, businesses and Internet users have seen a significant increase in the use of phishing. A growing number of phishing schemes are using the names and logos of legitimate financial institutions, businesses and government agencies in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region for illegal purposes.
At first glance, phishing emails and the associated websites may appear completely legitimate. One recent phishing attempt in the U.S. used the names of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and two of its officials, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. What Internet users may not realize is that criminals can easily copy logos and other information from legitimate businesses' websites and place them in phishing emails or bogus websites.
In addition, if the recipient of a phishing email clicks on a link it contains, even the window of the Internet browser that opens may contain what looks like the true Internet address (URL) of a legitimate business or financial institution.
Unfortunately, some phishing schemes have exploited a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer browser that allows phishers to set up a fake website at one place on the Internet, which will make it appear as if the Internet user is accessing a legitimate website at another place on the Internet.
Most phishing emails include false statements intended to create the impression that there is an immediate threat or risk to the bank, credit card or financial account of the recipient. The phony FDIC emails mentioned above falsely claimed that the Secretary of Homeland Security had advised the FDIC to suspend all federal deposit insurance on the recipients' bank accounts. Other recent phishing emails have falsely claimed that the recipients' credit card was being used by another person or that a recent credit card transaction had been declined.
As another example, a mass email circulated in the summer of 2004 advising customers of a leading Canadian financial institution, which had experienced information technology problems, that they needed to enter their client card numbers in order to access their accounts. In fact, the email was not sent or authorized by that financial institution.
In some cases, phishing emails have promised the recipients a prize or other special benefit. Although the message sounds attractive rather than threatening, the objective is the same: to trick recipients into disclosing their financial and personal data.
People who receive phishing emails are also likely to realize that the senders may have used spamming techniques (mass emailing) to send the message to thousands of people. Many of the people who receive that spammed email do not have an account or customer relationship with the legitimate business or financial services company that is purportedly the originator of the email. The people who create phishing emails count on the fact that some recipients of those emails will have an account or customer relationship with the legitimate business, and may be more likely to believe that the email has come from a trusted source.
Ultimately, people who respond to phishing emails may be putting their accounts and financial status at risk in three significant ways. First, phishers can use the data to access existing accounts to withdraw money or purchase expensive merchandise or services. Second, phishers can use the data to open new bank or credit card accounts in the victim's name, but use addresses other than that of the victim. Finally, the Internet users may not realize that they have become victims of identity theft.
Canada 's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the United States Department of Justice recommend that Internet users keep the following three steps in mind when they see emails or websites that may be part of a phishing scheme:
1. Recognize it – If you receive an unexpected email from a bank or credit card company saying that your account will be shut down if you do not confirm your billing information, do not reply or click on any links in the email. Phishers typically have one purpose in mind: to entice people to react immediately by clicking on the link and inputting their password or credit card number before they take time to think through what they are doing. Internet users need to resist that impulse.
2. Report it – Contact your bank or credit card company if you have unwittingly supplied personal or financial information. You should also report the matter to your local police. They will often take police reports even if the crime may ultimately be investigated by another law enforcement agency. In addition, a creditor who mistakenly believes that you are the person responsible for a fraudulent transaction may want to see a copy of a police report before correcting your credit account or credit report. Finally, report your identity theft case immediately to the appropriate government and private-sector organizations. Canadian and American agencies such as these are compiling information about identity theft to identify trends and assist law enforcement agencies in potential investigations.
3. Stop it – Become familiar with the practices of your financial institutions and credit card companies. They normally will not use email to confirm an existing client's information. Keep informed of the latest advisories and steps on how to protect yourself from identity theft and fraud. A number of legitimate companies and financial institutions that have been targeted by phishing schemes have published contact information for reporting possible phishing emails as well as online notices about how their customers can recognize and protect themselves from phishing.
In addition, people who use the Internet Explorer browser should immediately go to the Microsoft security home page to download a special patch that will protect against certain phishing schemes.
Here are examples of what I received by these scammers who were hoping that I would fall for their schemes and give them my personal information.
Dear friend,
It's my pleasure to acquaint you with this proposal for a financial and business assistance.I know my message will come to you as a surprise.Don't worry I was totally convinced to write you in reference to the transfer of USD$10.5M to your account for onward investment ( Hotel industries and estate building management) or any profitable business in your country.
Please,if you are interested,Email me so that I can give you more information. Remain bless while expecting your prompt co-operation.
Regards
From Johnny Peters
(Officer in African Development Bank)
This scammer wanted my bank account number.Here is a similar one sent to me.
Dear friend.
It's my pleasure to acquaint you with this proposal for a financial and business assistance.I know my message will come to you as a surprise.Don't worry I was totally convinced to write you in reference to the transfer of USD$10.5M to your account for onward investment ( Hotel industries and estate building management) or any profitable business in your country.
Please,if you are interested,Email me so that I can give you more information. Remain bless while expecting your prompt co-operation.
Regards
From Hassan Adama
The only thing that is different is the name of the scammer.I think it is the same scammer because you will note that in both messages, there are no spaces after the commas.
Dear E-mail Account User,
We have temporarily limited all access to sensitive account features, in order to restore your account access, you need to reply to this email immediately with your E-mail account Username here:( __________) and password here: (___________).
Due to much junk/spam emails you receive daily, we are currently upgrading all email accounts spam filter to limit all unsolicited emails for security reasons and to upgrade our new and improved E-mail account features and enhancements, to ensure you do not experience service interruption.
You must reply to this email immediately and enter both your user name and password in the space provided to enable us upgrade your E-mail Account properly.
A confirmtion link will be send to you for the Re-Activation of your e-mail Account, as soon as we received your response and you are to Click on the "Confirm E-mail" link on your mail Account box and then enter this confirmation number: 1265-6778-8250-8393-5727
Your failure to provide your e-mail account login details will lead to a temporarly disabled of your e-mail account or we will immediately deactivate your e-mail account from our database.
Thanks For Your Understanding.
It is obvious what this scammer wanted. He wanted to get access to my computer so that he could use my email address to commit further crimes. Needless to say, my e-mail account wasn’t deactivated like he claimed it would be.
The National Lottery
P O Box 1010
Liverpool, L70 1NL
UNITED KINGDOM
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9580X2/45
Batch: 062/01/ZY469
WINNING NOTIFICATION:
It is obvious that this notification came to you as a surprise, but please
finds time to read it carefully as we congratulate you over your success in
the following official publication of results of the e-mail electronic
online draw held by UK NATIONAL LOTTERY.
We happily announce to you the draw (#942) of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY,
online Sweepstakes International program held on friday, 19th of february,
2010. It is yet to be unclaimed,and you are getting the FINAL NOTIFICATION
as regards this. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number:16474620545
188 with Serial number 5268/02 drew the lucky numbers:4-7-9-11-15-30 (bonus
no.25), which subsequently won you the lottery in the 2nd category i.e
match 5 plus bonus.
You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of 1,000,000 (One
million pounds sterling) in cash credited to file KTU/9013115308/03. This
is from a total cash prize of 10,000,000 shared amongst the(5)lucky winners
in this category i.e Match 5 plus bonus.All participants for the online
version were selected randomly from World Wide Web sites through computer
draw system and extracted from over 100,000 unions,associations, and
corporate bodies that are listed online. This promotion takes place weekly.
To file for your claim, please contact our fiduciary agent:
Dr. Gerald Watson
Email: dr-geraldwatsonclaims-unit@discuz.org
Tel:+447035950961
Contact him by sending him with the underlisted informations :
***IMPORTANT*** FILL OUT THIS WINNERS VERIFICATION FORM BELOW:
*Name of
Beneficiary:.....*Address:.........*City/State:.......*Nationality:.............
*Country:.......*Sex:......*Age:......*Tel:.........*Occupation:.....*Next
of Kin:.........
Sincerely,
Yours faithfully,
Mrs.Lorraine Dodds.
Online coordinator for THE NATIONAL LOTTERY
Sweepstakes International Program.
If I was stupid enough to give this scammer all that private information about me, he could get a credit card in my name. The clue that stands out about the fraudulent aspect of this message is him asking me for my occupation. Why would he need that information if I really won a lottery?
Hello ,
i am private business consultant ,Here I have some interested top government officials who need your business experience and connections to invest in your country.
I wait your response to provide you with more information.
Yours faithfully,
Mr.Chai.
If I fell for that scam by responding, he would then ask me for information about my firm (if I had one) and then he could order things in the name of my firm and have them delivered to his own address. What follows is a similar scam.
You have won 1,000, 000.00GBPS. Send NAme,Address,Tel
How do you like that one for brevity?This one was sent to me many times.
Dear Internet User,
This Email is to inform you that you emerged a winner of the sum of 750.000.00 Euros with the following numbers attached Ref Number: PW 9590 ES 9414,Batch Number: 573881545-NL/2010 and Ticket Number: PP3502 /8707-01 on our online draws which was played on the year 2010.For further Information about your Winnings,contact your Lottery Claims Officer with the following contact Address Below.
Mr. Robert Anderson
Tel: +447045721780
Email: notice-prize@xnmsn.com
Of course, if I contacted him, he would pump me for all kinds of personal information.
Dear Sir/Madam,
My Names are Mr. Paul Anderson, Staff of Nat West Bank UK. I would like you to
indicate your interest to receive the transfer of $11.5 Million Dollars. I will
like you to stand as the next of kin to my late client whose account is
presently dormant for claims. Please once you are interested in my business
proposal, further details of the transfer will be forwarded to you as soon as i
receive your return mail. clik on the blow link to confirm the genuiness of the
deceased death. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/859479.stm
Regards
Mr. Paul Anderson
Please send your Reply to my private email address.
Email: millipiyango@informaticos.com
There is no doubt in my mind that he was seeking information with respect to my bank account.
Your mail id has won 1,000, 000.00 Pounds in the Uk lottery send:
Name:...
Address:..
Tel:...
Then he would send me a form to fill in which would include spaces for my bank account and password.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are Guangxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp.
( GXME ) based in china, We are interested in employing
your service to work with us.
Are you looking for a lucrative job? The job takes only
2-4 hours a day, And its a chance for you to make over
$1,000 extra per week depending on how useful you are
to the company .
Also you do not need to resume at any office to get
started , Its a work from home and you do not pay any
fee to get started. Try now without risking your
current job by sending us an email with the following
informations to(gxme_desk1@yahoo.cn).
Full Names........Residential Address...........Phone...........
We awaits your prompt response if interested.
Sincerely,
Gang Wang.
My name, address and phone number won’t be the only information he would have wanted from me.
Remember that old adage. If it sounds too good to be true, it isn’t true.
Monday 16 August 2010
Message to my readers
I welcome the views of my readers and invite you all to submit your thoughts in the comments section of each of the articles I write. Further, for the most part of those who did submit their views, I have found their views to be very interesting and informative. I strongly suggest that when you read my articles, read the comments of my readers also. They are well written and very interesting.
When you are writing your opinions in the comments section, stick to the substance of the article, don't be abusive or insulting and write them in English only. You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to but if you differ from my own opinions, tell us why and give us your own opinions. If I have erred with respect to facts, let me know so that I can make the necessary corrections.
I will not remove comments of my readers unless they are abusive and insulting or are written in any other language than English.
When you are writing your opinions in the comments section, stick to the substance of the article, don't be abusive or insulting and write them in English only. You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to but if you differ from my own opinions, tell us why and give us your own opinions. If I have erred with respect to facts, let me know so that I can make the necessary corrections.
I will not remove comments of my readers unless they are abusive and insulting or are written in any other language than English.
Sunday 15 August 2010
Should the general be fired?
The top Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, Brig.-General Daniel Ménard, was relieved of duty and ordered home immediately because he was accused of having an inappropriate personal relationship with a female soldier who was a member of his staff under his command. Further, he had this affair despite the fact that he is married with two children.
General Ménard commanded 2,800 Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan, as well as a contingent of American troops serving under Canadian command. He was sacked for alleged conduct unbecoming an officer. He was the first Canadian general officer to be dismissed on the battlefield since the Second World War.
As soon as Lt.-General Lessard, who is the commander of Canadian military stationed overseas; was made aware of the allegations, which was the 29th of May, 2010, he did an assessment of the allegation and made the decision to have Ménard relieved from his duties in Afghanistan.
National Defence spokesperson Lt.-Colonel Chris Lemay said that the female soldier might also face a reprimand after an investigation is complete.
The news came only days after Ménard faced a court martial in Canada, where he pleaded guilty to accidentally firing his weapon twice at the Kandahar airbase in March. The incident occurred as Ménard walked with Canada's chief of defence staff, General Walter Natynczyk, on his way to a helicopter. His fine, imposed by a military judge in Gatineau, Quebec was $3,500 — the stiffest fine handed down for mishandling a weapon.
Menard joined the Royal 22nd Regiment as an infantry officer in 1984. Being only 42 years old and already a flag officer, he was considered one of the army’s top young commanders.
Ménard's sudden removal could permanently damage his military career. For all intents and purposes, his conduct in this affair is unquestionably a career stopper. To show there is no double standard in terms of intimate relationships in the armed forces, Ménard would most likely face a ‘harsher penalty’ than a rank-and-file soldier would.
The concern I have about the general’s intimate affair with someone whose position in the military hierarchy is lower than his is that there might be a feeling within the ranks that if a general can do it, then why can’t those of lower ranks do it also?
An investigation was being conducted into the allegations and Menard, who was to command the biggest NATO campaign of the war in Kandahar in the next few weeks, was returned to Canada immediately.
The Canadian military has a strict non-fraternization policy for deployed troops, forbidding personal relationships of an emotional, romantic or sexual nature. The Department of National Defence has a ‘zero tolerance on personal relationships and fraternization’. The policy forbids any contact between members for sexual purposes. Even a peck on the cheek or holding hands is forbidden.
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and civilian employees, including journalists embedded alongside them, are expected to follow very strict rules governing behaviour with each other. No intimate personal relationships are allowed in theatre, including those involving married couples deployed at the same time.
“Sexual activity or any other form of intimate contact in any context with another individual is prohibited anywhere in the Joint Task Force Afghanistan Area of Operations,” according to theatre standing orders governing personal relationships.
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service said in a statement that Brig.-Gen. Ménard is charged with:
• two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act related to alleged inappropriate conduct as outlined in the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives;
• one count of obstructing justice contrary to section 130 of the NDA, pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
• one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the NDA, laid in the alternative to the obstructing justice charge.
Master-Corporal Bianka Langlois is also facing a charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act.
Menard is not the first high-ranking officer who had a sexual affair with someone of the opposite sex who was of a lower rank or position.
Just days after Menard’s removal from Afghanistan, Colonel Bernard Ouellette, Canada’s chief of staff to the United Nations Haiti mission, was removed from his post under a cloud of accusations, including suggestions of an inappropriate relationship. That relationship is not believed to have involved another member of the military however.
General Maxwell D. Taylor, who commanded the U.S. 101st Airborne Division at the battle of Arnhem in 1944 and later became superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, once remarked that he would happily serve with an officer who was physically fit but had "General Grant's weakness for strong drink" and who was "loyal to his superiors and his profession but disloyal to his wife." To Taylor what mattered was whether a soldier was good at his job. What he drank and whom he slept with were entirely separate issues.
The very recent sacking of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard as commander of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan demonstrates how Taylor's thinking has gone out of fashion. Far more popular in military circles these days is the view of another Arnhem veteran, the Australian-born British general Sir John Hackett. In Hackett's eyes, military character was an all-or-nothing attribute.
“A person,” he wrote, "can be selfish, cowardly, disloyal, false, fleeting, perjured, and morally corrupt in a wide variety of other ways and still be outstandingly good in pursuits in which other imperatives bear than those upon the fighting man.” He also said, “What the bad man cannot be is a good sailor, or soldier, or airman." In other words, the soldier who cheats on his wife cannot be trusted to stand by his colleagues in combat or to abide by the ethics of war. Being a professionally ‘good’ soldier requires a form of moral wholeness. If the allegations are proven, they will primarily demonstrate ‘stupidity on the part of a commanding officer whose job it is to set an example.’
Michael Byers, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia said, “I’m encouraged by the fact that Ménard was removed from his post, since it suggests that the Forces are taking the rules, and the rights and interests of female soldiers, seriously.”
Superficially this logic seems to make sense. One can understand why soldiers might believe that somebody who cheats at cards or at marriage is not 100-per-cent reliable. But Hackett's concept comes with some perverse consequences. If one accepts the assumption about moral wholeness, it is a necessary logical deduction that somebody who has high professional skills must also be morally good. Conversely, it tends to be inferred somebody who is professionally deficient must be morally deficient too. That isn’t exactly true.
For example, when President Lincoln was informed that General Grant was a heavy drinker, the president said; “If all my other generals can fight like Grant; then send them all a case of whiskey.
There are some who say that Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan should not have been fired in an unprecedented public and career-limiting way despite allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a member of his staff.
During World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave in to the temptations of a young woman named Kay Summersby, who happened to be his personal driver. While his wife, Mamie was in the states and Dwight was overseas, the affair blossomed. Summersby was a former British model and was quite attractive. She wrote a book in 1977, after Eisenhower had died in 1969, titled Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the book, she describes that she and Dwight had tried on many numerous occasions to consummate their relationship, but there was no such thing as Viagra at the time and Dwight supposedly had problems in that area. Being in an unhappy marriage supposedly had taken the libido away from the 5-star General and his work was his substitute for his inabilities in the bedroom. In 1945 Eisenhower actually asked permission from General George Marshall to divorce his wife Mamie in order to marry Summersby, but permission was refused by Marshall. Eisenhower later became the president of the United States and his wife, Mamie became the First Lady.
Even though General Marshal who was the senior ranking officer in the United States armed forces during the Second World War was aware of the intimate relationship between Eisenhower and his female driver, he wasn’t about to sack Eisenhower since he was a superb leader of men and was later to become the Supreme Commander of all the Allied forces in Europe and as such, was very much instrumental in the defeat of Germany.
That being as it is, then why did Lt.-General Marc Lessard send Brig.-General Menard packing when he knew that the general was an otherwise very capable leader of the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan?
Many of the officers and men who were serving under his command respected him, believed in him, saw him as a good commander and saw him removed in such a ‘shameful and dishonourable way’.
Some people will dismiss the notion that soldiers would be negatively affected and say that the zero-tolerance rule is necessary to ensure the moral of the majority soldiers, who, before the policy was in place, were negatively affected by those soldiers who enjoyed intimate couple relationships.
While Canadian military commanders in Afghanistan sought to down play the controversy as a personal ordeal, military observers and former officers said General Ménard’s dismissal could be damaging to the morale of the troops on the ground, and possibly taint Canadians’ image of the armed forces.
It is particularly unfortunate that it comes so soon after Colonel Russell Williams, the former base commander at CFB Trenton, was charged with multiple murders and sexual assaults. Byers also said, “While the allegations against General Ménard are in no way similar, they will add to the public’s concern about the quality of leadership in the armed forces and raise worries within the Forces as well. People in the military will say ‘Here we go again.”
I remember when I served in the Canadian Armed Forces (Navy) in the early 1950’s; it was rare that we ever saw women on our base or on our ships. Nowadays, that is commonplace. When you mix thousands of testosterone-enhanced males with perhaps a couple hundred women confined for six months inside a potentially deadly theatre of war, someone needs to discourage, if not disconnect, those natural instincts otherwise things can get out of hand.
Nevertheless, one may rightly question whether the rules are sensible ones. As another British general, Patrick Cordingley, once said: "Our soldiers aren't little angels." I suppose it is unrealistic to expect them to behave as such but is it unrealistic to set inhumanly high standards of behaviour, if those standards are based not on professional necessity but on a false conception of moral wholeness?
I believe that Lt.-General Lessard was quite correct to remove Menard from the theatre of war in Afghanistan. If a Catholic priest who is dedicated to his church and its followers; has a sexual relationship with one or more of his parishioners, he has betrayed his trust and abandoned the dictates of his church. He can no longer be a role model that everyone should be able to look up to. If a general in the armed forces chooses to wantonly disobey regulations to satisfy his personal needs, then those who serve under him will wonder if he will also disobey direct orders given to him in the heat of battle. Just as a priest, a judge, a police officer and a school teacher (just to name a few) are people we should try to emulate, so should soldiers emulate a senior officer in the armed forces. When a general’s honesty falters, so does his credibility and when that goes, he is no longer an appropriate person to lead his men into battle.
Another reason why it was necessary to relieve General Menard from his duties in Afghanistan; is that he took advantage of someone who was of a lesser rank than he was. For a general to have sex with a corporal; is to place the corporal in a situation which would make her fear that if she denied him of her sexual favours, what would her chances of promotion be after that? This kind of relationship isn’t permitted in the business world and it shouldn’t be permitted in the armed forces.
Combined with the fact that military personnel live in a degree of isolation from the wider community, the conflation of professional excellence with moral excellence risks producing a sense that soldiers are part of a moral elite. They aren’t. But common decency is expected from those that serve our country and to not accept that, makes it dangerous for the military itself and for society as a whole.
UPDATE:
Brigadier General Menard resigned from the Canadian armed forces with his rank still intact. When asked if he regretted what he had done, he replied, "I regret profoundly what my wife and children have had to go through." He did not express any regret to the troops he commanded.His trial was held in July 2011 and he was demoted to the rank of colonel but that was academic since he is still receiving his pension as a former Brigadier General. He was also fined $7,000. His former lover, corporal Bianka Langlois pleaded guilty in September 2010 and was fined $700.
General Ménard commanded 2,800 Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan, as well as a contingent of American troops serving under Canadian command. He was sacked for alleged conduct unbecoming an officer. He was the first Canadian general officer to be dismissed on the battlefield since the Second World War.
As soon as Lt.-General Lessard, who is the commander of Canadian military stationed overseas; was made aware of the allegations, which was the 29th of May, 2010, he did an assessment of the allegation and made the decision to have Ménard relieved from his duties in Afghanistan.
National Defence spokesperson Lt.-Colonel Chris Lemay said that the female soldier might also face a reprimand after an investigation is complete.
The news came only days after Ménard faced a court martial in Canada, where he pleaded guilty to accidentally firing his weapon twice at the Kandahar airbase in March. The incident occurred as Ménard walked with Canada's chief of defence staff, General Walter Natynczyk, on his way to a helicopter. His fine, imposed by a military judge in Gatineau, Quebec was $3,500 — the stiffest fine handed down for mishandling a weapon.
Menard joined the Royal 22nd Regiment as an infantry officer in 1984. Being only 42 years old and already a flag officer, he was considered one of the army’s top young commanders.
Ménard's sudden removal could permanently damage his military career. For all intents and purposes, his conduct in this affair is unquestionably a career stopper. To show there is no double standard in terms of intimate relationships in the armed forces, Ménard would most likely face a ‘harsher penalty’ than a rank-and-file soldier would.
The concern I have about the general’s intimate affair with someone whose position in the military hierarchy is lower than his is that there might be a feeling within the ranks that if a general can do it, then why can’t those of lower ranks do it also?
An investigation was being conducted into the allegations and Menard, who was to command the biggest NATO campaign of the war in Kandahar in the next few weeks, was returned to Canada immediately.
The Canadian military has a strict non-fraternization policy for deployed troops, forbidding personal relationships of an emotional, romantic or sexual nature. The Department of National Defence has a ‘zero tolerance on personal relationships and fraternization’. The policy forbids any contact between members for sexual purposes. Even a peck on the cheek or holding hands is forbidden.
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and civilian employees, including journalists embedded alongside them, are expected to follow very strict rules governing behaviour with each other. No intimate personal relationships are allowed in theatre, including those involving married couples deployed at the same time.
“Sexual activity or any other form of intimate contact in any context with another individual is prohibited anywhere in the Joint Task Force Afghanistan Area of Operations,” according to theatre standing orders governing personal relationships.
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service said in a statement that Brig.-Gen. Ménard is charged with:
• two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act related to alleged inappropriate conduct as outlined in the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives;
• one count of obstructing justice contrary to section 130 of the NDA, pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
• one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the NDA, laid in the alternative to the obstructing justice charge.
Master-Corporal Bianka Langlois is also facing a charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act.
Menard is not the first high-ranking officer who had a sexual affair with someone of the opposite sex who was of a lower rank or position.
Just days after Menard’s removal from Afghanistan, Colonel Bernard Ouellette, Canada’s chief of staff to the United Nations Haiti mission, was removed from his post under a cloud of accusations, including suggestions of an inappropriate relationship. That relationship is not believed to have involved another member of the military however.
General Maxwell D. Taylor, who commanded the U.S. 101st Airborne Division at the battle of Arnhem in 1944 and later became superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, once remarked that he would happily serve with an officer who was physically fit but had "General Grant's weakness for strong drink" and who was "loyal to his superiors and his profession but disloyal to his wife." To Taylor what mattered was whether a soldier was good at his job. What he drank and whom he slept with were entirely separate issues.
The very recent sacking of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard as commander of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan demonstrates how Taylor's thinking has gone out of fashion. Far more popular in military circles these days is the view of another Arnhem veteran, the Australian-born British general Sir John Hackett. In Hackett's eyes, military character was an all-or-nothing attribute.
“A person,” he wrote, "can be selfish, cowardly, disloyal, false, fleeting, perjured, and morally corrupt in a wide variety of other ways and still be outstandingly good in pursuits in which other imperatives bear than those upon the fighting man.” He also said, “What the bad man cannot be is a good sailor, or soldier, or airman." In other words, the soldier who cheats on his wife cannot be trusted to stand by his colleagues in combat or to abide by the ethics of war. Being a professionally ‘good’ soldier requires a form of moral wholeness. If the allegations are proven, they will primarily demonstrate ‘stupidity on the part of a commanding officer whose job it is to set an example.’
Michael Byers, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia said, “I’m encouraged by the fact that Ménard was removed from his post, since it suggests that the Forces are taking the rules, and the rights and interests of female soldiers, seriously.”
Superficially this logic seems to make sense. One can understand why soldiers might believe that somebody who cheats at cards or at marriage is not 100-per-cent reliable. But Hackett's concept comes with some perverse consequences. If one accepts the assumption about moral wholeness, it is a necessary logical deduction that somebody who has high professional skills must also be morally good. Conversely, it tends to be inferred somebody who is professionally deficient must be morally deficient too. That isn’t exactly true.
For example, when President Lincoln was informed that General Grant was a heavy drinker, the president said; “If all my other generals can fight like Grant; then send them all a case of whiskey.
There are some who say that Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan should not have been fired in an unprecedented public and career-limiting way despite allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a member of his staff.
During World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave in to the temptations of a young woman named Kay Summersby, who happened to be his personal driver. While his wife, Mamie was in the states and Dwight was overseas, the affair blossomed. Summersby was a former British model and was quite attractive. She wrote a book in 1977, after Eisenhower had died in 1969, titled Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the book, she describes that she and Dwight had tried on many numerous occasions to consummate their relationship, but there was no such thing as Viagra at the time and Dwight supposedly had problems in that area. Being in an unhappy marriage supposedly had taken the libido away from the 5-star General and his work was his substitute for his inabilities in the bedroom. In 1945 Eisenhower actually asked permission from General George Marshall to divorce his wife Mamie in order to marry Summersby, but permission was refused by Marshall. Eisenhower later became the president of the United States and his wife, Mamie became the First Lady.
Even though General Marshal who was the senior ranking officer in the United States armed forces during the Second World War was aware of the intimate relationship between Eisenhower and his female driver, he wasn’t about to sack Eisenhower since he was a superb leader of men and was later to become the Supreme Commander of all the Allied forces in Europe and as such, was very much instrumental in the defeat of Germany.
That being as it is, then why did Lt.-General Marc Lessard send Brig.-General Menard packing when he knew that the general was an otherwise very capable leader of the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan?
Many of the officers and men who were serving under his command respected him, believed in him, saw him as a good commander and saw him removed in such a ‘shameful and dishonourable way’.
Some people will dismiss the notion that soldiers would be negatively affected and say that the zero-tolerance rule is necessary to ensure the moral of the majority soldiers, who, before the policy was in place, were negatively affected by those soldiers who enjoyed intimate couple relationships.
While Canadian military commanders in Afghanistan sought to down play the controversy as a personal ordeal, military observers and former officers said General Ménard’s dismissal could be damaging to the morale of the troops on the ground, and possibly taint Canadians’ image of the armed forces.
It is particularly unfortunate that it comes so soon after Colonel Russell Williams, the former base commander at CFB Trenton, was charged with multiple murders and sexual assaults. Byers also said, “While the allegations against General Ménard are in no way similar, they will add to the public’s concern about the quality of leadership in the armed forces and raise worries within the Forces as well. People in the military will say ‘Here we go again.”
I remember when I served in the Canadian Armed Forces (Navy) in the early 1950’s; it was rare that we ever saw women on our base or on our ships. Nowadays, that is commonplace. When you mix thousands of testosterone-enhanced males with perhaps a couple hundred women confined for six months inside a potentially deadly theatre of war, someone needs to discourage, if not disconnect, those natural instincts otherwise things can get out of hand.
Nevertheless, one may rightly question whether the rules are sensible ones. As another British general, Patrick Cordingley, once said: "Our soldiers aren't little angels." I suppose it is unrealistic to expect them to behave as such but is it unrealistic to set inhumanly high standards of behaviour, if those standards are based not on professional necessity but on a false conception of moral wholeness?
I believe that Lt.-General Lessard was quite correct to remove Menard from the theatre of war in Afghanistan. If a Catholic priest who is dedicated to his church and its followers; has a sexual relationship with one or more of his parishioners, he has betrayed his trust and abandoned the dictates of his church. He can no longer be a role model that everyone should be able to look up to. If a general in the armed forces chooses to wantonly disobey regulations to satisfy his personal needs, then those who serve under him will wonder if he will also disobey direct orders given to him in the heat of battle. Just as a priest, a judge, a police officer and a school teacher (just to name a few) are people we should try to emulate, so should soldiers emulate a senior officer in the armed forces. When a general’s honesty falters, so does his credibility and when that goes, he is no longer an appropriate person to lead his men into battle.
Another reason why it was necessary to relieve General Menard from his duties in Afghanistan; is that he took advantage of someone who was of a lesser rank than he was. For a general to have sex with a corporal; is to place the corporal in a situation which would make her fear that if she denied him of her sexual favours, what would her chances of promotion be after that? This kind of relationship isn’t permitted in the business world and it shouldn’t be permitted in the armed forces.
Combined with the fact that military personnel live in a degree of isolation from the wider community, the conflation of professional excellence with moral excellence risks producing a sense that soldiers are part of a moral elite. They aren’t. But common decency is expected from those that serve our country and to not accept that, makes it dangerous for the military itself and for society as a whole.
UPDATE:
Brigadier General Menard resigned from the Canadian armed forces with his rank still intact. When asked if he regretted what he had done, he replied, "I regret profoundly what my wife and children have had to go through." He did not express any regret to the troops he commanded.His trial was held in July 2011 and he was demoted to the rank of colonel but that was academic since he is still receiving his pension as a former Brigadier General. He was also fined $7,000. His former lover, corporal Bianka Langlois pleaded guilty in September 2010 and was fined $700.
Thursday 12 August 2010
The Jew-hater should be sent to prison then deported
Canada has laws that prohibit hate propaganda and the promotion of genocide.
Hate propaganda, defined as 'the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups,' became a criminal offence in Canada in 1970, when laws against it were adopted as amendments to the Criminal Code (sections 318-320). In that same year, Canada ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which had been adopted by the UN in 1965 and signed by Canada in 1966. The Canadian Human Rights Act and various provincial human-rights acts also address the issue of hate propaganda. While the League for Human Rights and several other organizations, as well as many studies and commissions, have proposed changes to strengthen the effectiveness of the existing legislation, there is almost universal agreement on the need for effective laws to deal with hate propaganda.
Keegstra in Alberta and Andrews and Smith in Ontario were charged and convicted under the hate-propaganda laws. Although the respective provincial Courts of Appeal reached opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of section 19 of the Charter, in 1990 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the hate-propaganda legislation, albeit by the narrowest majority. Concern for the values inherent in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter, and for those in the international agreements to which Canada is a signatory, played a significant role in that decision, which underscored the need to preserve the delicate balance between individual and group rights that is the mark of a free and democratic society.
The battle against racism and anti-Semitism will ultimately be won through increased efforts to incorporate multicultural, anti-racist, and human-rights education in our schools and to start this training as early as possible. Many school boards have race and ethno-cultural equity policies on the books, but lack of in-service training of teachers and administrators often leaves staff powerless in knowing how to handle incidents of racism, and may even result in the staff being as much part of the problem as part of the solution. There is a need for education and awareness at every level of the educational system, from early childhood through post-secondary, from teachers' federations to the ministries and departments of education. Students must be helped to stand up to racism instead of being either victims or perpetrators of harassment. Teachers must be given the skills to identify and handle expressions of racism and to develop a curriculum that is both pro-active and anti-racist. We must turn Holocaust denial into Holocaust education, and cries of 'reverse discrimination' into advocacy for organizational change, employment, and educational equity.
It is also against the law in Canada to promote genocide. Section 318 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. In this section, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group (means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin namely (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
In January 2008 the police were investigating Salman Hossain, who was then living in Mississauga, Ontario after he allegedly posted messages online saying he enjoyed “watching the blood flow from the western troops” and allegedly said “the Jews are literally the most treacherous nation on the face of the Earth.”
Hossain, who calls himself "a regular Muslim supporting the jihad overseas" and a "buddy/acquaintance" of the Toronto 18 terrorists, has a history of making provocative statements on the Web. In 2007, he called for terrorist attacks in Canada, supported the killing of Canadian soldiers and made offensive comments about Jews. In his 2007 rantings, he said in part; “Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters.” He was investigated by CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ontario Provincial Police but no charges were laid against him.
Mr. Bentley, the Ontario Attorney General told the Canadian Jewish Congress on October 1, 2009, that Hossain was not charged because he had refrained from making such statements for over a year and was undergoing rehabilitation. But obviously, he hadn’t changed at all.
In one of his new Internet messages, he said in part the following month on November 19, 2009, "The Jews and their allies as a collective must be exterminated. A proper invasion and genocide/slaughter is necessary to punish them. We must kill them off, as many of them as possible." unquote
Three months after police launched an investigation into this Canadian who uses a website to call for the genocide of Jews, no charges were laid and he has continued to advocate for racist violence. The Ontario Provincial Police completed their investigation and their findings presented to the office of Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley, who by law was decide whether or not to proceed with charges.
The National Post reported on March 1, 2010 that police were again investigating Hossain. The Bangladesh-born Canadian was subsequently suspended from York University and left Canada. In doing so, he had the audacity to announce publicly on his website;
"I do not believe in 'Canadian' values whatever they mean. I forfeit my Canadian citizenship and will not literally participate in their fabricated judicial system."
He still continues to advocate for the mass killing of Jews on a U.S.-based conspiracy theory website.
He did not respond to interview requests but his "official spokesman" wrote in an email to a Post reporter: "You need to stop your harassment of Salman Hossain because he's not the only one calling for your execution.... Every last Jew on planet Earth needs executed immediately."
We as Canadians; don’t want a Jew-hater who stated on his website on February 11, 2010, that “a genocide should be perpetrated against the Jewish populations of North America and Europe." On April 1, he posted; "The Final Solution will be to eliminate the Terrorist Jewish community via mass executions from the face of this Earth." and on May 2, 2010, he posted; "Jews around the United States, Canada and Europe should start getting rounded up and executed via acts of collective punishment." Then on May 19th, he posted; "We must bring the war to the West. Millions of the Western populations have to be killed off and permanently suffering with nuclear radiation since they openly co-operate with the Jews in the war on Islam." On May 19th, he posted another message which said; "It would be my ultimate wet dream to see half the population of the United States (150 million) and one-third of Canadians (11 million) get slaughtered."
Finally, the Attorney general of Ontario on July 8, 2010, ordered the OPP to put out an arrest warrant for Salman Hossain. He is now facing charges of willfully promoting hatred and advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group. Hossain’s words and actions speak for themselves and thusly, he must be held accountable under the law.
Arresting this piece of human garbage is going to be a problem because he is somewhere in South Asia. His current address is presently unknown. He is still making his obscene rantings on his US-based website. Even if the Americans pull the plug on his website, he can use the services of another provider elsewhere.
No doubt the particulars of his arrest warrant with be sent to Interpol so if he tries to leave the country he is currently in by plane, he can be arrested at the gate.
Canada will pay for the expense of bringing this creep back to Canada to face charges. And he will be convicted and hopefully, he will be given the maximum sentence (5 years) that can be awarded in Canada for the crimes he is facing. However in Canada, when a convict has served two-thirds of his sentence, he can be released back into society. He will then however be on parole and one of the conditions of his parole would be that he is not to own or use a computer in any manner whatsoever.
Further, he may have to wear an ankle bracelet that will let the authorities know where he is at all times while he is waiting to be deported back to Bangladesh where he came from.
He has stated for the record that he has chosen to forfeit his Canadian citizenship so can Canada deport him? His renunciation of his Canadian citizenship renders him inadmissible to remain in Canada given his Canadian conviction of advocating genocide which is going to be a certainty. Canada will seem like heaven to this piece of human garbage when he is sent back to Bangladesh; a country that still remains a poor, overpopulated, and inefficiently-governed country.
Hate propaganda, defined as 'the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups,' became a criminal offence in Canada in 1970, when laws against it were adopted as amendments to the Criminal Code (sections 318-320). In that same year, Canada ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which had been adopted by the UN in 1965 and signed by Canada in 1966. The Canadian Human Rights Act and various provincial human-rights acts also address the issue of hate propaganda. While the League for Human Rights and several other organizations, as well as many studies and commissions, have proposed changes to strengthen the effectiveness of the existing legislation, there is almost universal agreement on the need for effective laws to deal with hate propaganda.
Keegstra in Alberta and Andrews and Smith in Ontario were charged and convicted under the hate-propaganda laws. Although the respective provincial Courts of Appeal reached opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of section 19 of the Charter, in 1990 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the hate-propaganda legislation, albeit by the narrowest majority. Concern for the values inherent in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter, and for those in the international agreements to which Canada is a signatory, played a significant role in that decision, which underscored the need to preserve the delicate balance between individual and group rights that is the mark of a free and democratic society.
The battle against racism and anti-Semitism will ultimately be won through increased efforts to incorporate multicultural, anti-racist, and human-rights education in our schools and to start this training as early as possible. Many school boards have race and ethno-cultural equity policies on the books, but lack of in-service training of teachers and administrators often leaves staff powerless in knowing how to handle incidents of racism, and may even result in the staff being as much part of the problem as part of the solution. There is a need for education and awareness at every level of the educational system, from early childhood through post-secondary, from teachers' federations to the ministries and departments of education. Students must be helped to stand up to racism instead of being either victims or perpetrators of harassment. Teachers must be given the skills to identify and handle expressions of racism and to develop a curriculum that is both pro-active and anti-racist. We must turn Holocaust denial into Holocaust education, and cries of 'reverse discrimination' into advocacy for organizational change, employment, and educational equity.
It is also against the law in Canada to promote genocide. Section 318 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. In this section, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group (means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin namely (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
In January 2008 the police were investigating Salman Hossain, who was then living in Mississauga, Ontario after he allegedly posted messages online saying he enjoyed “watching the blood flow from the western troops” and allegedly said “the Jews are literally the most treacherous nation on the face of the Earth.”
Hossain, who calls himself "a regular Muslim supporting the jihad overseas" and a "buddy/acquaintance" of the Toronto 18 terrorists, has a history of making provocative statements on the Web. In 2007, he called for terrorist attacks in Canada, supported the killing of Canadian soldiers and made offensive comments about Jews. In his 2007 rantings, he said in part; “Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters.” He was investigated by CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ontario Provincial Police but no charges were laid against him.
Mr. Bentley, the Ontario Attorney General told the Canadian Jewish Congress on October 1, 2009, that Hossain was not charged because he had refrained from making such statements for over a year and was undergoing rehabilitation. But obviously, he hadn’t changed at all.
In one of his new Internet messages, he said in part the following month on November 19, 2009, "The Jews and their allies as a collective must be exterminated. A proper invasion and genocide/slaughter is necessary to punish them. We must kill them off, as many of them as possible." unquote
Three months after police launched an investigation into this Canadian who uses a website to call for the genocide of Jews, no charges were laid and he has continued to advocate for racist violence. The Ontario Provincial Police completed their investigation and their findings presented to the office of Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley, who by law was decide whether or not to proceed with charges.
The National Post reported on March 1, 2010 that police were again investigating Hossain. The Bangladesh-born Canadian was subsequently suspended from York University and left Canada. In doing so, he had the audacity to announce publicly on his website;
"I do not believe in 'Canadian' values whatever they mean. I forfeit my Canadian citizenship and will not literally participate in their fabricated judicial system."
He still continues to advocate for the mass killing of Jews on a U.S.-based conspiracy theory website.
He did not respond to interview requests but his "official spokesman" wrote in an email to a Post reporter: "You need to stop your harassment of Salman Hossain because he's not the only one calling for your execution.... Every last Jew on planet Earth needs executed immediately."
We as Canadians; don’t want a Jew-hater who stated on his website on February 11, 2010, that “a genocide should be perpetrated against the Jewish populations of North America and Europe." On April 1, he posted; "The Final Solution will be to eliminate the Terrorist Jewish community via mass executions from the face of this Earth." and on May 2, 2010, he posted; "Jews around the United States, Canada and Europe should start getting rounded up and executed via acts of collective punishment." Then on May 19th, he posted; "We must bring the war to the West. Millions of the Western populations have to be killed off and permanently suffering with nuclear radiation since they openly co-operate with the Jews in the war on Islam." On May 19th, he posted another message which said; "It would be my ultimate wet dream to see half the population of the United States (150 million) and one-third of Canadians (11 million) get slaughtered."
Finally, the Attorney general of Ontario on July 8, 2010, ordered the OPP to put out an arrest warrant for Salman Hossain. He is now facing charges of willfully promoting hatred and advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group. Hossain’s words and actions speak for themselves and thusly, he must be held accountable under the law.
Arresting this piece of human garbage is going to be a problem because he is somewhere in South Asia. His current address is presently unknown. He is still making his obscene rantings on his US-based website. Even if the Americans pull the plug on his website, he can use the services of another provider elsewhere.
No doubt the particulars of his arrest warrant with be sent to Interpol so if he tries to leave the country he is currently in by plane, he can be arrested at the gate.
Canada will pay for the expense of bringing this creep back to Canada to face charges. And he will be convicted and hopefully, he will be given the maximum sentence (5 years) that can be awarded in Canada for the crimes he is facing. However in Canada, when a convict has served two-thirds of his sentence, he can be released back into society. He will then however be on parole and one of the conditions of his parole would be that he is not to own or use a computer in any manner whatsoever.
Further, he may have to wear an ankle bracelet that will let the authorities know where he is at all times while he is waiting to be deported back to Bangladesh where he came from.
He has stated for the record that he has chosen to forfeit his Canadian citizenship so can Canada deport him? His renunciation of his Canadian citizenship renders him inadmissible to remain in Canada given his Canadian conviction of advocating genocide which is going to be a certainty. Canada will seem like heaven to this piece of human garbage when he is sent back to Bangladesh; a country that still remains a poor, overpopulated, and inefficiently-governed country.
Monday 9 August 2010
Cyber begging: An all time low in scams
One of the newest online rages is ‘cyber begging’ Whatever you call it, it boils down to cyber panhandling or Internet begging. The way it works is that, instead of standing on a street corner, down and out people or scammers do their panhandling online.
A few years ago, cyber begging was seen as not much more than a gimmick to make a quick buck. Now it's become big business. Yahoo! and Google both have entire directories devoted to online panhandling in which they show page after page of people with needs and dreams ("Please Help This Diabetic," "Make Me Richer Than Bill Gates," "I Like Meat But Can't Afford It"). And by now, cyber begging has become so mainstream; there are sites where those seeking cash can connect, get advice and advertise their needs.
“Help Me So I Can Help My Mom…” reads one cyber beggar. The cyber panhandler goes on to say that “One week ago my Mom (she is 72 years old) lost one of her legs to diabetes. All of our savings have been taken by hospital bills and treatments to try and save the other leg before the amputation.”
Begslist is one of the few free cyber begging and online panhandling sites that offers a way for people in need to practice online begging and great donation website for good Samaritans who will fall for any scam to give to those who they believe need it. SaveMeSites.com is another free site that allows users to post their needs and ask for donations. It has provided a forum for more than 16,000 panhandlers; about 3,500 of them are using free Web pages on the site. Some of the begging sites, including CyberBeg.com and DonateMoney2Me.com charge a membership fee. They charge scammers money to post a message ‘asking’ for money. Here's a good one: At the dubious Millionairehelp.org, you can pay $35 to post your plea for six months or $99 for a full year. Get the discount while you can.
Online and Internet begging has the clear advantage to in-person begging and panhandling on the street because it can be practiced with relative anonymity, thereby eliminating or reducing the shame and embarrassment with begging in public.
Steve Donahue, the Webmaster of SaveMeSites.com, says he set it up in response to all those pay sites, which he believes are scams. He believes that too many people are putting their money into panhandling online. He's seen thousands of people come and go without making a dime.
"I don't think it works anymore," he says with a sigh. "It really doesn't. One of the scammers got about 13 thousand dollars, and nobody since then has made anything like that kind of money. If you see a few people who make a few hundred dollars, they're doing good."
That doesn't stop people from asking. On his site, Donohue sees users begging for donations so their cars and homes won't be repossessed. He's also got people requesting money for college, vacations and plastic surgery. Log on and search through the list: "Help, help, help a desperate widow save her home" is listed just above "Need help with my cockatiel vet bills."
The sheer volume of requests is overwhelming. If you clicked and read each one it would take a week. And this is just one site. People are on the verge of losing their electricity, their cars, their homes an/or their health.
Of course, some of the most heartbreaking requests are also the most suspicious. Donohue says he has no way of knowing which users are telling the truth and which are running a scam. He said, "I figure about 10 percent are made up. I think most people looking for help are decent. If you're on the Internet begging for help, you're probably pretty desperate."
Of course, there are scams all over the Internet. And now lots of those scammers are zoning in on the desperate. Donohue's site lists about 50 scammers he's identified recently. They are people who are currently preying on panhandlers with fake promises of money and misleading offers of help.
Cyber begging has gotten serious. It's gotten organized. It's got scammers. But there's only so much money and goodwill to go around, especially among strangers online. You wonder: Is it going to collapse under the weight of its own need?
If we didn't have the Web, would some of these Internet panhandlers be standing on street corners? Collecting spare change under bridges? Is this phenomenon the result of a shaky economy and an Internet-savvy population?
Lee Rainie is the founding director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which releases all kinds of fascinating studies about Americans' Internet use. He says cyber begging is just a small part of the many ways we're using the Web to try to help each other. He may be right. Remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina? On Web sites all over the Net, people started offering and asking for assistance. People were bypassing traditional relief organizations and doing do-it-yourself relief.
The fact is that it's not enough to just ‘ask’ anymore. The need is so great and there's so much competition, that Internet panhandlers are forced to offer something in return.
Sometimes it’s entertainment. Look at Christine Kent Web site. To raise money for an animal charity, she set up a Web site----SaveBuster.com and wrote in the voice of her cat. And she made more than $1,000 from highly amused strangers.
Here are some examples of outright begging on the Internet.
My name is Krystal and I would like to invite you all to visit my website www.Helpsavekrystal.com I am a real person in need of some help. Please take a moment to pass on my site address to your friends and family. Thank you very much. God bless you.
Hello: I am Dorcas and I am writing this because I do not know what else to do... I just found a job after looking for one for the past 3 months. I finally found one (I had to move because of an abusive marriage). I am 3 months behind on my rent at 600.00 per month and my gas is off 220.00. I also have an electric bill of 300.00. I also need help with food. Anything would help, God Bless
I am a hard working, single mom who has been struggling to keep the bills paid, and my son in a school that meet his needs. I've been searching for work I can transition into, after being in several accidents and sustaining injuries that directly effect my ability to paint and restore houses. I just found out about a course to become a Nationally Certified Sustainable Building Advisor. The catch is it starts next week and costs $2,000. I can't afford to wait another year to get a new career going. My debts have been piling up, my teeth need extensive work, neither my son or I have health insurance, and my body can't take much more of the intense physical demands of my work. I know with my experience and this certification I can provide a better life for us, as well as be able to give back.
I am a young lady from Africa. l am looking for help to send my brothers and my sisters plus my elder brothers' children to school. my parents are very old and cannot provide for themselves. This has been made because my three brothers passed away due to HIV/AIDS leaving 11 children in my parents' hands. l would like to give these children education but l can't do that on my salary only. l would really appreciate any help towards this. May God bless you all.
Melissa Bachilla always managed to get by on her own until this Christmas season. The 35-year-old unemployed Las Vegas mother realized she didn't have enough money to buy her daughter any presents. So for the first time in her life, Bachilla posted a plea on Craigslist. It reads:
In the past I have given to many charities. This year I'm unemployed and wanted any kind of help getting information on how to sign up for toys or some kind of charity for Christmas. My daughter is 12 so I'm not sure if we can get any help due to her age. But it's worth a try. Thank you.
Bachilla continues; "I'm not looking for money," "I just want help finding a bike for my daughter. I went to a thrift store, but the bikes there were $45. That's a lot of money for me right now."
Melissa Bachilla is hoping that someone who sees her Craigslist ad will help her find a bicycle to give her 12-year-old-daughter, Natalie, for Christmas.
Since placing the ad a week ago, she has had just three responses. One directed her to an area food bank, which Baschilla says she intends to visit. So far, however, no one has come forward with a bike.
Over the past decade, hundreds of sites have popped up on the Internet that provide people like Bachilla with a place to make direct appeals for assistance. Cyberbeg, Begslist and DonateMoney2Me are just some of sites where people in need can post unscreened, unedited ads.
Those making direct appeals tell of medical problems, home foreclosures, lost jobs and deadbeat dads. Similar stories are heard on the streets of major U.S. cities every day. Online begging, however, is more anonymous. In fact, on sites like Cyberbeg, donations are made via PayPal, so the beggar and benefactor don't have to correspond, much less meet.
That anonymity also makes the arrangement ripe for potential fraud. Unlike a trusted umbrella organization like the United Way, none of the begging Web sites vouches for the authenticity of the people who post there. And the ads tend to blur together, a catalog of hard-luck stories that makes discerning the truly needy from the truly opportunistic that much more difficult.
I can’t help but wonder if these people are really simply scamming people out of their money. Years ago in Toronto, there was a woman who the media referred to as the Shaking Lady. She would stand on street corners, with her body shaking and her hand out. It was later discovered that she was a rich woman who simply scammed money from passersby.
Recently, a woman in Oakville, Ontario pretended that she was suffering from cancer and managed to scam as much as $20,000 from people who were duped.
Isn’t this somewhat similar to the old Nigerian scams? First came the sob story and then the proposal. In these begging scams I am now writing about, first comes the sob story and then the begging.
Some of these people may be in dire need but the problem is; which of them are and which of them are simply making attempts at scamming people out of their money so that the scammers can get richer without having to work for it.
A few years ago, cyber begging was seen as not much more than a gimmick to make a quick buck. Now it's become big business. Yahoo! and Google both have entire directories devoted to online panhandling in which they show page after page of people with needs and dreams ("Please Help This Diabetic," "Make Me Richer Than Bill Gates," "I Like Meat But Can't Afford It"). And by now, cyber begging has become so mainstream; there are sites where those seeking cash can connect, get advice and advertise their needs.
“Help Me So I Can Help My Mom…” reads one cyber beggar. The cyber panhandler goes on to say that “One week ago my Mom (she is 72 years old) lost one of her legs to diabetes. All of our savings have been taken by hospital bills and treatments to try and save the other leg before the amputation.”
Begslist is one of the few free cyber begging and online panhandling sites that offers a way for people in need to practice online begging and great donation website for good Samaritans who will fall for any scam to give to those who they believe need it. SaveMeSites.com is another free site that allows users to post their needs and ask for donations. It has provided a forum for more than 16,000 panhandlers; about 3,500 of them are using free Web pages on the site. Some of the begging sites, including CyberBeg.com and DonateMoney2Me.com charge a membership fee. They charge scammers money to post a message ‘asking’ for money. Here's a good one: At the dubious Millionairehelp.org, you can pay $35 to post your plea for six months or $99 for a full year. Get the discount while you can.
Online and Internet begging has the clear advantage to in-person begging and panhandling on the street because it can be practiced with relative anonymity, thereby eliminating or reducing the shame and embarrassment with begging in public.
Steve Donahue, the Webmaster of SaveMeSites.com, says he set it up in response to all those pay sites, which he believes are scams. He believes that too many people are putting their money into panhandling online. He's seen thousands of people come and go without making a dime.
"I don't think it works anymore," he says with a sigh. "It really doesn't. One of the scammers got about 13 thousand dollars, and nobody since then has made anything like that kind of money. If you see a few people who make a few hundred dollars, they're doing good."
That doesn't stop people from asking. On his site, Donohue sees users begging for donations so their cars and homes won't be repossessed. He's also got people requesting money for college, vacations and plastic surgery. Log on and search through the list: "Help, help, help a desperate widow save her home" is listed just above "Need help with my cockatiel vet bills."
The sheer volume of requests is overwhelming. If you clicked and read each one it would take a week. And this is just one site. People are on the verge of losing their electricity, their cars, their homes an/or their health.
Of course, some of the most heartbreaking requests are also the most suspicious. Donohue says he has no way of knowing which users are telling the truth and which are running a scam. He said, "I figure about 10 percent are made up. I think most people looking for help are decent. If you're on the Internet begging for help, you're probably pretty desperate."
Of course, there are scams all over the Internet. And now lots of those scammers are zoning in on the desperate. Donohue's site lists about 50 scammers he's identified recently. They are people who are currently preying on panhandlers with fake promises of money and misleading offers of help.
Cyber begging has gotten serious. It's gotten organized. It's got scammers. But there's only so much money and goodwill to go around, especially among strangers online. You wonder: Is it going to collapse under the weight of its own need?
If we didn't have the Web, would some of these Internet panhandlers be standing on street corners? Collecting spare change under bridges? Is this phenomenon the result of a shaky economy and an Internet-savvy population?
Lee Rainie is the founding director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which releases all kinds of fascinating studies about Americans' Internet use. He says cyber begging is just a small part of the many ways we're using the Web to try to help each other. He may be right. Remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina? On Web sites all over the Net, people started offering and asking for assistance. People were bypassing traditional relief organizations and doing do-it-yourself relief.
The fact is that it's not enough to just ‘ask’ anymore. The need is so great and there's so much competition, that Internet panhandlers are forced to offer something in return.
Sometimes it’s entertainment. Look at Christine Kent Web site. To raise money for an animal charity, she set up a Web site----SaveBuster.com and wrote in the voice of her cat. And she made more than $1,000 from highly amused strangers.
Here are some examples of outright begging on the Internet.
My name is Krystal and I would like to invite you all to visit my website www.Helpsavekrystal.com I am a real person in need of some help. Please take a moment to pass on my site address to your friends and family. Thank you very much. God bless you.
Hello: I am Dorcas and I am writing this because I do not know what else to do... I just found a job after looking for one for the past 3 months. I finally found one (I had to move because of an abusive marriage). I am 3 months behind on my rent at 600.00 per month and my gas is off 220.00. I also have an electric bill of 300.00. I also need help with food. Anything would help, God Bless
I am a hard working, single mom who has been struggling to keep the bills paid, and my son in a school that meet his needs. I've been searching for work I can transition into, after being in several accidents and sustaining injuries that directly effect my ability to paint and restore houses. I just found out about a course to become a Nationally Certified Sustainable Building Advisor. The catch is it starts next week and costs $2,000. I can't afford to wait another year to get a new career going. My debts have been piling up, my teeth need extensive work, neither my son or I have health insurance, and my body can't take much more of the intense physical demands of my work. I know with my experience and this certification I can provide a better life for us, as well as be able to give back.
I am a young lady from Africa. l am looking for help to send my brothers and my sisters plus my elder brothers' children to school. my parents are very old and cannot provide for themselves. This has been made because my three brothers passed away due to HIV/AIDS leaving 11 children in my parents' hands. l would like to give these children education but l can't do that on my salary only. l would really appreciate any help towards this. May God bless you all.
Melissa Bachilla always managed to get by on her own until this Christmas season. The 35-year-old unemployed Las Vegas mother realized she didn't have enough money to buy her daughter any presents. So for the first time in her life, Bachilla posted a plea on Craigslist. It reads:
In the past I have given to many charities. This year I'm unemployed and wanted any kind of help getting information on how to sign up for toys or some kind of charity for Christmas. My daughter is 12 so I'm not sure if we can get any help due to her age. But it's worth a try. Thank you.
Bachilla continues; "I'm not looking for money," "I just want help finding a bike for my daughter. I went to a thrift store, but the bikes there were $45. That's a lot of money for me right now."
Melissa Bachilla is hoping that someone who sees her Craigslist ad will help her find a bicycle to give her 12-year-old-daughter, Natalie, for Christmas.
Since placing the ad a week ago, she has had just three responses. One directed her to an area food bank, which Baschilla says she intends to visit. So far, however, no one has come forward with a bike.
Over the past decade, hundreds of sites have popped up on the Internet that provide people like Bachilla with a place to make direct appeals for assistance. Cyberbeg, Begslist and DonateMoney2Me are just some of sites where people in need can post unscreened, unedited ads.
Those making direct appeals tell of medical problems, home foreclosures, lost jobs and deadbeat dads. Similar stories are heard on the streets of major U.S. cities every day. Online begging, however, is more anonymous. In fact, on sites like Cyberbeg, donations are made via PayPal, so the beggar and benefactor don't have to correspond, much less meet.
That anonymity also makes the arrangement ripe for potential fraud. Unlike a trusted umbrella organization like the United Way, none of the begging Web sites vouches for the authenticity of the people who post there. And the ads tend to blur together, a catalog of hard-luck stories that makes discerning the truly needy from the truly opportunistic that much more difficult.
I can’t help but wonder if these people are really simply scamming people out of their money. Years ago in Toronto, there was a woman who the media referred to as the Shaking Lady. She would stand on street corners, with her body shaking and her hand out. It was later discovered that she was a rich woman who simply scammed money from passersby.
Recently, a woman in Oakville, Ontario pretended that she was suffering from cancer and managed to scam as much as $20,000 from people who were duped.
Isn’t this somewhat similar to the old Nigerian scams? First came the sob story and then the proposal. In these begging scams I am now writing about, first comes the sob story and then the begging.
Some of these people may be in dire need but the problem is; which of them are and which of them are simply making attempts at scamming people out of their money so that the scammers can get richer without having to work for it.
Friday 6 August 2010
A veiled person should lift the veil before entering a plane
If Muslim women are stupid enough to wear a niqab/burqa (fully veiled, including the face) in a westernized country, that is their problem. But wearing the niqab/burqa when entering a plane, a bank, a jewelery store, taking an exam, applying for social assistance, applying for a driver’s licence, etc., is society’s problem.
In Iran, Yeman and Saudia Arabia; three really backward countries, many women are expected to wear the niqab/burqa the moment they leave their homes but in westernized countries, they are not obligated to wear the niqab and yet some of these foolish women do it anyway.
Why do they feel compelled to wear the naqab/burqa when they are in a country that doesn’t insist that they don’t have wear it?
The answer is quite simple. It is the menfolk in their lives that compel these women to wear the naqab/burqa. Why? It certainly isn’t a religious issue since neither the Koran or the Old Testament gives instructions that women’s faces should be completely covered other than their eyes and hands. They do it because it is the custom.
Most Islamic scholars say the face veil is not required but is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began. There is no uniform religious opinion across the Muslim world about whether a head scarf, much less a face veil, is required. No organized or recognized religion specifically orders women to fully cover their entire face and body from head to toe in black.
I don’t really believe that the majority of these totally veiled women really want to rear the naqab but do so anyway because of the pressure put on them by the menfolk in their lives.
Why do these thoughtless men force their womenfolk to wear the naqab? I think there are two reasons. The first is that they don’t want other men looking at their wives. Perhaps it is because they believe that their wives may leave them and subsequently choose to live with another man. The second reason is that they want their wives to have smooth skin. Let’s face it. It is the sun that matures our skin and finally brings us the creases and folds in our skin at an early age. By covering their faces, their faces will remain smoother for a much longer time.
But it is the women who wear the niqabs/burqas that suffer because wearing a black niqab on a particularily hot day must really cause them to overheat. In hot climates the reason women give for wearing black instead of white is that the light shines through white fabric revealing the woman's undergarments or legs. The problem is white fabric reflects heat, and black fabric absorbs heat. I can’t help but wonder if these veiled women look at westernized women with envy especially when they see scenes of women enjoying a day at the beach.
I believe that as the years go by, many Muslim women will refuse to wear the naqab because they will recognize that the wearing of it is an outdated custom. I also believe that Muslim women in westernized countries will make it very clear to Muslim men that if they want to marry them, they have to understand that will not wear the naqab/burqa. Until that time comes, these unfortunate women will continue to suffer the consequences of living with men who want that custom to continue forever.
If these women put a barrier to the showing of their faces, then they can’t integrate with other members of society, I can hardly see how friendships can be made, how social life can go on with someone whose appearance we don’t know.
The concern that I have (as do a great many others) that terrorists, robbers and cheats will wear the naqab/burqa for the purpose of disguising themselves. A terrorist women wore her naqab while disguising the fact that she wore an explosive vest.
How many times have we seen the naqab/burka being used to hide bombs, cover fleeing Muslim terrorists, commit jihad, kill infidels, etc.? Many times. Last May, police officer Stephen Liczbinski was shot in cold blood by burqa-wearing robbers.
Do we want applicants for driver’s licences to disguise their faces when applying for licences? Can we really be sure that the person who passed the qritten exam is the same person who is being given the licence?
In Ontario, citizens are entitled to free medical care. Can we be really sure that the woman wearing the naqab/burqa in the hospital is the same women who is actually entitled to that care and not simply a visitor from another country?
And now, the act of stupitiy has raised itself like a boil on one’s backside. Two veiled Muslims passed unchecked through an airport boarding gate in Montreal. When this became public, a prominent Islamic group dismissed our concerns as part of "a nasty campaign going on against the niqab."
Faced with unverified reports that niqab-clad travellers are routinely allowed to board airplanes without having their photo identification double-checked, Transport Canada has vowed to examine whether a security gap exists.
Transport Minister John Baird said "A serious concern has been brought to our attention. We're taking it very seriously and we're immediately going to look into it." Calling the reports "deeply disturbing," Mr. Baird said the probe will cover both the circumstances of the alleged breaches and potential issues with relevant security policies. He also said, "I've asked my departmental officials to conduct a full investigation to ensure that we have one law that applies to all."
The Montreal video comes amid mounting criticism of the niqab in Quebec, where the provincial government this spring introduced legislation that would require citizens to have their faces uncovered when receiving or dispensing public services.
While one moderate Muslim association points to the video as further evidence of why the niqab should be banned from public spaces, Farooq Khan, executive director of the North American Muslim Foundation, calls the latest furor absolute nonsense.
He also said, "There's a consistent effort going on by certain quarters just to discredit the niqab," he said, noting niqab-clad Muslims typically undergo thorough airport-security checks. Generally, these take place privately with the assistance of a female security agent, Mr. Khan said. He added, "Wearing a niqab does not mean one does not have to go through a security check."
That’s true however, the people at the airline counter have to compare the faces of the passengers with their passports and they cannot do this if the passenger’s faces are covered.
Another passenger video-tape the incident at the airport when the twoburqa-wearing women passed through the security gate. The handheld footage shows a man providing a stack of passports to airline staff, but neither of the veiled women accompanying him are immediately requested to lift the cloth to confirm their faces match those on the identification documents.
Air Canada spokeswoman Isabelle Arthur declined to comment on the specifics of the Montreal incident, but said the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority which is governed by Transport Canada is responsible for security screening, and passengers undergo multiple checks before arriving at the boarding gate.
Passengers are required to show government-issued photo identification to airline staff before boarding, Ms. Arthur said. She confirmed there are "special procedures" to verify photo identification in a private area away from other passengers "as required for religious or medical reasons," but could not say whether such a procedure was followed in the case of flight 864 last month.
Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, questions the legitimacy of the video, noting it fails to show what transpired before or after the 46-second sequence of events. In general, Mr. Gardee said, Muslim women who wear the veil are "more than willing" to remove it for legitimate security and identification purposes.
Under federal identity screening regulations, airlines must be able to verify the identity of all passengers before they board a flight and have procedures in place to check anyone whose face is covered; a rule that must apply equally to all cultures and religions.
Meanwhile, a report from the QMI news agency suggests the video filmed at Trudeau is evidence of a broader-reaching security gap that has repeatedly allowed individuals clad in the niqab to board planes unchecked.
All of which has incensed external observers, such as Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, whose group has called on Ottawa to ban the niqab in all public spaces.
"We could easily have a wanted terror suspect escape," Mr. Fatah said, suggesting individuals wearing full veils should be barred from accessing airports and train and bus depots. He added, "Staff are being bullied into compromising standards, and this could one day lead to other distractions and a lapse in judgment. This 'racism' blackmail must be put to an end."
What better way can a wanted person slip out of Canada or any other country than have him or her wearing a naqab/burqa when boarding a plane?
Several Muslim groups in Canada have expressed fears that the uproar around the incident is moving from one of lax airport security to one coloured by racism and Islamophobia. That is absolutely rubbish. That’s no different than saying that a murder by a Muslim causes everyone to hate Muslims.
“It’s all become an anti-Muslim thing, or Muslims have special privileges or this is politically correct,” says Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. “It’s obviously become a racial kind of issue, when in fact, from what I could gather, it seems to be a lapse by security personnel.”
Samer Majzoub, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Muslim Forum agrees, adding that Canadian Muslim leaders have expressed that the right to wear a religious covering such as the niqab should never trump security concerns. He also said, “We share the security concern of every citizen. We said if there was an issue of those women passing through, it is not their fault. It is the fault of whoever was there, the security people. It has been repeated by every Muslim leader, when it comes to a security issue, no one is against it (taking off the niqab). Who would be ready to compromise security for any citizen? No one.”
Baird, the Transport minister said that an airline employee at the boarding gate must confirm a passenger’s identity, and do a visual check of the person’s face with the person’s photo ID. Peter Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Air Canada, says that as a result of the video, the airline has sent a reminder to employees to ensure that they are following the proper procedures. He said, “Our agents are trained to verify photo ID in a private area, away from other passengers. That can be for religious, or sometimes medical reasons.”
Despite this policy, a veteran airline worker at Canada's busiest airport said that few veiled Muslim women are forced to reveal their faces before boarding flights. The long-time frontline worker at Toronto's Pearson International Airport said there is no clear-cut policy given to airline workers on how to deal with this and other sensitive issues. He said, "It may be in the archives, but it is not presented to the workers."
Air Canada has disputed that, but employees working with various airlines in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa said checks often occur at the luggage check counter, if at all, and women who refuse to show their faces are simply allowed to board anyway.
The veteran Pearson worker said there are many factors that have led to what he deems a security risk: The lack of a clear policy from airline management, worries about political correctness, and often aggressive behaviour from men traveling with veiled women. He added; "In general, what happens is the woman stands at the back, the man comes up with the documents. He's quite aggressive and leaves little room for airline workers to challenge him.”
I for one, would not have permitted the veiled women to go on the plane no matter how angry the man accompanying them was. The decision to enter a plane rests with the airline people and their decisions should not be made for them by Muslims who feel that it is their God-given right to be processed in an airport in the manner that they choose.
Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress agrees that many airline workers would be too intimidated to ask veiled women to show their faces. He said, "Mainstream airline staff are scared they might get sued by the likes of the Five Flying Imams, so they avoid any hassles.”.
Transport Canada says there should be no confusion: “The airline must be able to verify the identity of all passengers before they are allowed to board,” the department said in a written statement.
Egypt's top Islamic cleric is planning to bar students wearing the face veil from entering the schools of al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's premier institute of learning, according to an independent daily.
A security official also told The Associated Press on Monday that police have standing verbal orders to prohibit girls covered from head to toe from entering al-Azhar's institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several universities in Cairo.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the press, said the ban was for security reasons. The moves appear to be part of a government crackdown on increasingly overt manifestations of ultraconservative Islam in Egypt.
While a vast majority of Egyptian women wear the head scarf, only a few wear the niqab, which covers the face and is common in neighboring Saudi Arabia, which practices the more conservative form of Wahhabi Islam. The trend seems to be gaining ground in the Arab world's most populous country.
Sheik of al-Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi's plans came to light when he told a middle school student in a class he was visiting earlier this week to take off her niqab.
Tantawi was inspecting al-Azhar's schools at the start of the academic year to check on measures in place to stem the spread of swine flu, according to details of the visit published Monday by the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm.
Tantawi angrily told the girl that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and is only a custom and made her take it off. He then announced he would soon issue an order prohibiting girls wearing the niqab from entering al-Azhar schools. He said, "Niqab has nothing to do with Islam. ... I know about religion better than you and your parents," the cleric was quoted as telling the student.
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a scholar in an al-Azhar affiliated research center, said al-Azhar's scholars would back Tantawi if he issues the order. He also said, "We all agree that niqab is not a religious requirement. Taliban forces women to wear the niqab. ... The phenomena is spreading and it has to be confronted. The time has come."
Critics of the move, however, say the ban has little chance of being implemented. A previous directive by the minister of religious endowment to ban women preachers wearing the niqab from mosques was hotly contested. A ban on nurses wearing full veil was announced last year, but not enforced.
A researcher wearing the niqab who was prevented from using the library at the American University in Cairo in 2001 took her case to Egypt's supreme court and eventually won. The court ruled a total ban on the niqab to be unconstitutional. The court did recommend that women wearing the niqab be made to uncover their faces before female security guards to verify their identity.
On Saturday, scores of female university students protested outside al-Azhar university dormitory calling for the repeal of the decision barring fully veiled women from entering. There were similar demonstrations at Cairo University.
Sheik Safwat Hijazi, a scholar and preacher, said he would sue anyone who prevented his daughter or wife wearing full niqab from going about her daily life, including entering government offices. "Preventing a woman from wearing what she wants is a crime," Hijazi said. "Whoever says the niqab is a custom is not respectable". More unadulterated garbage.
Hossam Bahgat, of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said the series of government decisions against the niqab are arbitrary and, while designed to combat extremism, only end up being discriminatory against women.
"The veiled female students are barred from government subsidized housing and nutrition because they are considered extremists.” I think that is going too far.
A law banning students and staff from wearing veils and any other religious symbols in state schools was passed in France in 2004.
There are a few women on USA campuses in full veils, and no one notices until it comes time to take an exam where it's necessary to be photographed or to verify ID. Should fingerprints be substituted for face photos? That’s a good idea.
What are the attitudes towards USA women that appear in public, for example, on campuses, in transit, or in business wearing a full veil?
What's the difference between a full veil and a surgical mask worn by nurses and doctors? Nobody has ever asked a woman or man entering a bank or supermarket to remove a surgical mask, especially in the flu season or if the person has a health issue. Nobody would dare ask a person to remove his or her surgical mask in public, on a bus, or in a classroom. Your first thought is the person is protecting an immune system issue. However, there is a difference between wearing a surgical mask and having your entire body veiled.
One example regarding the attitude toward covered faces at shopping malls in Sacramento is that for the Arden Fair shopping center, hooded windbreaker jackets that cover the face are not welcome because of the males wearing hooded jackets in the past that had committed crimes in the shopping center or in some stores and banks. But no mention of rules regarding veiled women in shopping centers has been announced in the media. You see people in every type of traditional ethnic garments at shopping malls and college campuses across the USA. I see them shopping in our malls and stores and am not concerned. I don’t see them as a threat. However, if one terrorist wearing a naqab/burqa and an explosive device blows himself or herself up in a shopping area, I will be deeply concerned.
When it comes to businesses and public transit, is it live and let live? Or remove your hat, hooded jackets that cover the face, and sunglasses before entering any banks, credit unions, or federal buildings? Let's look at France, for example. Today France decided to take the first step towards barring Muslim women from wearing the full veil when using public services, but will stop short of calling for an outright ban in the streets after critics argued that such a move would be socially divisive and hard to enforce.
They banned the full veil in public transit, schools, and in businesses. You can still wear the veil in the street or in a private car. But can you see well enough to drive with a veil when the wind is blowing the veil over your eyes?
Imagine someone with a veil on a bike or motorcycle. The problem is vision and safety. And don't get too near public transit or traffic. A veil could be caught onto a snare or hook on a train, car, or bus, or even on rides at a theme park. Same goes for veils in the USA while on vacation.
In France, the problem of burkas and niqabs led to recommending to ¬parliament that Muslim women should be allowed to continue covering their faces in the street. Last year, women in veils moved freely at theme parks such as Sea World or Disneyland in California.
Nobody noticed, but the veils proved a problem for the women moving through the crowd and on the rides. And how do you eat sandwiches or ice cream at amusement parks wearing the veil where only your eyes are showing to the public?
As for France, its final report recommends that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, or using public transport. It's a safety issue.
You have countries like France and the USA, catering to the secular crowd. How do you accommodate women in veils in public, business, and in schools? And you'd be surprised how many secular men in the USA say they want equal rights to wear veils, too. The topic of secular men asking for equal rights to wear full veils has nothing to do with women's modesty or women's rights to wear a full veil. As a journalist, you could ask the men why they would consider wearing full veils in public. Is it respectful to all equally to even discuss the subject in public?
Another reason why the full veil is not wanted in countries such as France, is that in Western countries, any man can don a veil, pretend to be a woman, and rob a bank or commit another crime without revealing his face or wearing a suspicious-looking ski mask.
If Europe bans the veil as a way to get rid of fundamentalism, then it's not going to work. Did you ever see a man donning a full-cover veil over his face and body to side with women in their protest to have the freedom to dress as modestly as they please in public? If the veil is about modesty, it can be misused in Western society by men or women to hide behind black cloth, concealing all identity as a male or female.
The view is can the veil be used to protect women from being bothered by men whistling at them as is frequently found in Western society? For example, when a young woman passes a group of construction workers, they can whistle or yell suggestive words at her, thereby disrespecting her or intimidating her in a public street or in transit on a bus or train.
On the other hand, in the USA, many banks have a sign, "please remove hats and sunglasses before entering bank." Now if you are covering for religious regions in the USA and don't remove your hijab and sunglasses, will you be thrown out of the bank? That depends upon the bank.
Most banks will not toss out women wearing head scarfs. But what if they enter a bank in a veil that covers their face and body so only their eyes show? Will they be ignored? Will only their eye makeup be stared at? Or will they be told to leave or remove the face covering? There's no way in the USA or Canada you can walk into a bank wearing a face mask, such as a Halloween mask, but what about a veil?
In some cases, women who refused to remove their face veil were denied driver's licenses in the USA unless they allowed themselves to be photographed from the neck up without a hat. In 2003, a Florida woman sued for the right to wear her veil for her driver's license photo and lost on appeal. The woman became Muslim five years previous to that date and applied for a driver's license in order to take her children to and from school. The ACLU says she has a right in the USA to wear her veil due to her religious beliefs. Where does church and state separate?
Should Florida make a separate law for each faith? Is it a public safety matter? Photographing a woman with her face covered and only the eyes showing on a driver's license makes it easy for anyone else to use the license or photo, unless the state uses fingerprints on drivers' licenses for identification, not photos.
If she drives with the veil, it would get in the way of her line of sight at times.
Is it safe to drive with a full-face veil. In the USA, the Education Testing Service, which administers several national exams, requires photographic identification, such as a driver's license or school ID, in order to take the SAT. For the GRE graduate-school exam, a photo must be taken at the actual test site. In both cases, ETS asks people taking the test who may be wearing a veil to remove their face covering in order to be identified and prevent any fraud.
In most US colleges, there are only a few female students who wear a full veil. Most women who cover wear the hijab, which covers their hair and neck. They wear either ankle-length dresses with long sleeves over blue jeans and comfortable walking shoes. There's another issue in the USA, women that are not Muslim, but want to wear the veil for reasons other than religion.
For example, some women who enjoy wearing a snood to cover the hair and long dresses on campuses may do so for reasons of modesty rather than religion, or to conceal leg braces. Some women may wear a face veil to conceal anything from a cold sore to facial disfigurement. It's an individual dress preference. Some Hasidic women cover their hair with a snood or wig and wear long dresses, but they don't cover their neck. Same goes for some Mormon, Amish, or Mennonite women who enjoy wearing long dresses.
You even have students on campus wearing dresses in the style of 1803 because of comfort and to celebrate the era of Jane Austin novels in neo-classic fashion. And that's not related to religious reasons for a certain dress style. But generally, if a woman on campus wears a full-veil, she's does not attract unwanted attention in the classroom.
In the USA, you dress the way you want. Schools will send you away if you show up without clothes. They won't look twice if you show up in a veil. The problem comes when you have to be photographed to take a standard school exam.
Europe is another picture. In France, under the proposals, a woman who fails to remove her veil inside when using any realm of the state would not face a fine for breaking the law, but would be refused access to the service. She would not, for instance, be allowed to collect her child benefit payments or take the bus.
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has repeatedly said that the full veil "is not welcome" on French soil, is believed to favor this partial legislation, rather than more radical suggestions from recalcitrant members of his rightwing UMP party. France has agreed to ban the full veil in all public places other than the street. A woman in a full veil still can walk in the street in France.
Some people will argue that no one should feel stigmatized for wearing full-body covering. After all, people who are blind aren't stigmatized because they can't see. So why should a woman be turned away because only her eyes show to the public? She shouldn’t unless she enters a bank etc.
France will let women in veils walk in the street, but not ride the bus or do business, such as walking into banks. I think the concern about fully-veiled women in buses raises the specter or terrorism and in banks, robberies.
France wants to make clear by laws the garment's practical incompatibility with French values of sexual equality and freedom, according to reports. Banning the full veil either outright or partially in France serves to reinforce the isolation of women already partially alienated from mainstream society in Northern Europe.
Some westerners look at the total veil as a walking prison. Others see it as a halo of protection that honors women's right to take back the night. The complete veil in France is worn only by a small minority of Muslim women. According to police figures, no more than 2,000 women with most of them young and a quarter of them being converts who wear a face-covering veil.
France highly values laïcité – secularism – and which in 2004 banned headscarves in schools, it is unsurprising that such an overt display of religion has raised eyebrows. Despite wide-ranging opposition to the garment and polls showing that most French citizens favour a ban, opinions have differed on how to go about discouraging women from covering their faces. But in the USA, you can wear a veil if you want to, and you don't have to have any religious reason for doing so. Just don't go into a bank with your face covered. The cameras in the bank want to make sure you don't hide behind a veil for a criminal act.
After all, in the USA, any man can put on a veil, walk into a bank, and rob it, and no one will know if the person is male or female. That's why there are signs in so many US banks saying "remove your sunglasses and hats before you enter." And when you go for a driver's license or an identity card for non-drivers in the USA, you're going to be asked to have a full-face photo and fingerprinting for ID.
The question is, what happens to women or even men who decide in the USA or anywhere else to wear full body veils with only their eyes showing just because they want to dress that way for comfort or concealment of any disfigurement or just for warmth on a cold day?
They can't plead that they are practicing their religion. Can they say, it's for modesty or simply because they prefer to dress that way for comfort in areas where the weather creates problems such as high winds, sandstorms in Arizona? Yes, they can say that.
As I said earlier in this article, if Muslim women want to wear body-covering veils on our streets, them let them do so. However, they should forfeit their rights to go into banks or board planes wearing them and they shouldn’t be wearing them when they are driving vehicles or taking exams. If however, a suicide bomber wearing a body-covering veil kills innocent people on our streets or in our shopping stores or in our buses and trains, then we will seriously have to consider bringing in a law that would prohibit them from wearing these garbs at any time in public.
In Iran, Yeman and Saudia Arabia; three really backward countries, many women are expected to wear the niqab/burqa the moment they leave their homes but in westernized countries, they are not obligated to wear the niqab and yet some of these foolish women do it anyway.
Why do they feel compelled to wear the naqab/burqa when they are in a country that doesn’t insist that they don’t have wear it?
The answer is quite simple. It is the menfolk in their lives that compel these women to wear the naqab/burqa. Why? It certainly isn’t a religious issue since neither the Koran or the Old Testament gives instructions that women’s faces should be completely covered other than their eyes and hands. They do it because it is the custom.
Most Islamic scholars say the face veil is not required but is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began. There is no uniform religious opinion across the Muslim world about whether a head scarf, much less a face veil, is required. No organized or recognized religion specifically orders women to fully cover their entire face and body from head to toe in black.
I don’t really believe that the majority of these totally veiled women really want to rear the naqab but do so anyway because of the pressure put on them by the menfolk in their lives.
Why do these thoughtless men force their womenfolk to wear the naqab? I think there are two reasons. The first is that they don’t want other men looking at their wives. Perhaps it is because they believe that their wives may leave them and subsequently choose to live with another man. The second reason is that they want their wives to have smooth skin. Let’s face it. It is the sun that matures our skin and finally brings us the creases and folds in our skin at an early age. By covering their faces, their faces will remain smoother for a much longer time.
But it is the women who wear the niqabs/burqas that suffer because wearing a black niqab on a particularily hot day must really cause them to overheat. In hot climates the reason women give for wearing black instead of white is that the light shines through white fabric revealing the woman's undergarments or legs. The problem is white fabric reflects heat, and black fabric absorbs heat. I can’t help but wonder if these veiled women look at westernized women with envy especially when they see scenes of women enjoying a day at the beach.
I believe that as the years go by, many Muslim women will refuse to wear the naqab because they will recognize that the wearing of it is an outdated custom. I also believe that Muslim women in westernized countries will make it very clear to Muslim men that if they want to marry them, they have to understand that will not wear the naqab/burqa. Until that time comes, these unfortunate women will continue to suffer the consequences of living with men who want that custom to continue forever.
If these women put a barrier to the showing of their faces, then they can’t integrate with other members of society, I can hardly see how friendships can be made, how social life can go on with someone whose appearance we don’t know.
The concern that I have (as do a great many others) that terrorists, robbers and cheats will wear the naqab/burqa for the purpose of disguising themselves. A terrorist women wore her naqab while disguising the fact that she wore an explosive vest.
How many times have we seen the naqab/burka being used to hide bombs, cover fleeing Muslim terrorists, commit jihad, kill infidels, etc.? Many times. Last May, police officer Stephen Liczbinski was shot in cold blood by burqa-wearing robbers.
Do we want applicants for driver’s licences to disguise their faces when applying for licences? Can we really be sure that the person who passed the qritten exam is the same person who is being given the licence?
In Ontario, citizens are entitled to free medical care. Can we be really sure that the woman wearing the naqab/burqa in the hospital is the same women who is actually entitled to that care and not simply a visitor from another country?
And now, the act of stupitiy has raised itself like a boil on one’s backside. Two veiled Muslims passed unchecked through an airport boarding gate in Montreal. When this became public, a prominent Islamic group dismissed our concerns as part of "a nasty campaign going on against the niqab."
Faced with unverified reports that niqab-clad travellers are routinely allowed to board airplanes without having their photo identification double-checked, Transport Canada has vowed to examine whether a security gap exists.
Transport Minister John Baird said "A serious concern has been brought to our attention. We're taking it very seriously and we're immediately going to look into it." Calling the reports "deeply disturbing," Mr. Baird said the probe will cover both the circumstances of the alleged breaches and potential issues with relevant security policies. He also said, "I've asked my departmental officials to conduct a full investigation to ensure that we have one law that applies to all."
The Montreal video comes amid mounting criticism of the niqab in Quebec, where the provincial government this spring introduced legislation that would require citizens to have their faces uncovered when receiving or dispensing public services.
While one moderate Muslim association points to the video as further evidence of why the niqab should be banned from public spaces, Farooq Khan, executive director of the North American Muslim Foundation, calls the latest furor absolute nonsense.
He also said, "There's a consistent effort going on by certain quarters just to discredit the niqab," he said, noting niqab-clad Muslims typically undergo thorough airport-security checks. Generally, these take place privately with the assistance of a female security agent, Mr. Khan said. He added, "Wearing a niqab does not mean one does not have to go through a security check."
That’s true however, the people at the airline counter have to compare the faces of the passengers with their passports and they cannot do this if the passenger’s faces are covered.
Another passenger video-tape the incident at the airport when the twoburqa-wearing women passed through the security gate. The handheld footage shows a man providing a stack of passports to airline staff, but neither of the veiled women accompanying him are immediately requested to lift the cloth to confirm their faces match those on the identification documents.
Air Canada spokeswoman Isabelle Arthur declined to comment on the specifics of the Montreal incident, but said the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority which is governed by Transport Canada is responsible for security screening, and passengers undergo multiple checks before arriving at the boarding gate.
Passengers are required to show government-issued photo identification to airline staff before boarding, Ms. Arthur said. She confirmed there are "special procedures" to verify photo identification in a private area away from other passengers "as required for religious or medical reasons," but could not say whether such a procedure was followed in the case of flight 864 last month.
Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, questions the legitimacy of the video, noting it fails to show what transpired before or after the 46-second sequence of events. In general, Mr. Gardee said, Muslim women who wear the veil are "more than willing" to remove it for legitimate security and identification purposes.
Under federal identity screening regulations, airlines must be able to verify the identity of all passengers before they board a flight and have procedures in place to check anyone whose face is covered; a rule that must apply equally to all cultures and religions.
Meanwhile, a report from the QMI news agency suggests the video filmed at Trudeau is evidence of a broader-reaching security gap that has repeatedly allowed individuals clad in the niqab to board planes unchecked.
All of which has incensed external observers, such as Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, whose group has called on Ottawa to ban the niqab in all public spaces.
"We could easily have a wanted terror suspect escape," Mr. Fatah said, suggesting individuals wearing full veils should be barred from accessing airports and train and bus depots. He added, "Staff are being bullied into compromising standards, and this could one day lead to other distractions and a lapse in judgment. This 'racism' blackmail must be put to an end."
What better way can a wanted person slip out of Canada or any other country than have him or her wearing a naqab/burqa when boarding a plane?
Several Muslim groups in Canada have expressed fears that the uproar around the incident is moving from one of lax airport security to one coloured by racism and Islamophobia. That is absolutely rubbish. That’s no different than saying that a murder by a Muslim causes everyone to hate Muslims.
“It’s all become an anti-Muslim thing, or Muslims have special privileges or this is politically correct,” says Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. “It’s obviously become a racial kind of issue, when in fact, from what I could gather, it seems to be a lapse by security personnel.”
Samer Majzoub, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Muslim Forum agrees, adding that Canadian Muslim leaders have expressed that the right to wear a religious covering such as the niqab should never trump security concerns. He also said, “We share the security concern of every citizen. We said if there was an issue of those women passing through, it is not their fault. It is the fault of whoever was there, the security people. It has been repeated by every Muslim leader, when it comes to a security issue, no one is against it (taking off the niqab). Who would be ready to compromise security for any citizen? No one.”
Baird, the Transport minister said that an airline employee at the boarding gate must confirm a passenger’s identity, and do a visual check of the person’s face with the person’s photo ID. Peter Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Air Canada, says that as a result of the video, the airline has sent a reminder to employees to ensure that they are following the proper procedures. He said, “Our agents are trained to verify photo ID in a private area, away from other passengers. That can be for religious, or sometimes medical reasons.”
Despite this policy, a veteran airline worker at Canada's busiest airport said that few veiled Muslim women are forced to reveal their faces before boarding flights. The long-time frontline worker at Toronto's Pearson International Airport said there is no clear-cut policy given to airline workers on how to deal with this and other sensitive issues. He said, "It may be in the archives, but it is not presented to the workers."
Air Canada has disputed that, but employees working with various airlines in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa said checks often occur at the luggage check counter, if at all, and women who refuse to show their faces are simply allowed to board anyway.
The veteran Pearson worker said there are many factors that have led to what he deems a security risk: The lack of a clear policy from airline management, worries about political correctness, and often aggressive behaviour from men traveling with veiled women. He added; "In general, what happens is the woman stands at the back, the man comes up with the documents. He's quite aggressive and leaves little room for airline workers to challenge him.”
I for one, would not have permitted the veiled women to go on the plane no matter how angry the man accompanying them was. The decision to enter a plane rests with the airline people and their decisions should not be made for them by Muslims who feel that it is their God-given right to be processed in an airport in the manner that they choose.
Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress agrees that many airline workers would be too intimidated to ask veiled women to show their faces. He said, "Mainstream airline staff are scared they might get sued by the likes of the Five Flying Imams, so they avoid any hassles.”.
Transport Canada says there should be no confusion: “The airline must be able to verify the identity of all passengers before they are allowed to board,” the department said in a written statement.
Egypt's top Islamic cleric is planning to bar students wearing the face veil from entering the schools of al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's premier institute of learning, according to an independent daily.
A security official also told The Associated Press on Monday that police have standing verbal orders to prohibit girls covered from head to toe from entering al-Azhar's institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several universities in Cairo.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the press, said the ban was for security reasons. The moves appear to be part of a government crackdown on increasingly overt manifestations of ultraconservative Islam in Egypt.
While a vast majority of Egyptian women wear the head scarf, only a few wear the niqab, which covers the face and is common in neighboring Saudi Arabia, which practices the more conservative form of Wahhabi Islam. The trend seems to be gaining ground in the Arab world's most populous country.
Sheik of al-Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi's plans came to light when he told a middle school student in a class he was visiting earlier this week to take off her niqab.
Tantawi was inspecting al-Azhar's schools at the start of the academic year to check on measures in place to stem the spread of swine flu, according to details of the visit published Monday by the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm.
Tantawi angrily told the girl that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and is only a custom and made her take it off. He then announced he would soon issue an order prohibiting girls wearing the niqab from entering al-Azhar schools. He said, "Niqab has nothing to do with Islam. ... I know about religion better than you and your parents," the cleric was quoted as telling the student.
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a scholar in an al-Azhar affiliated research center, said al-Azhar's scholars would back Tantawi if he issues the order. He also said, "We all agree that niqab is not a religious requirement. Taliban forces women to wear the niqab. ... The phenomena is spreading and it has to be confronted. The time has come."
Critics of the move, however, say the ban has little chance of being implemented. A previous directive by the minister of religious endowment to ban women preachers wearing the niqab from mosques was hotly contested. A ban on nurses wearing full veil was announced last year, but not enforced.
A researcher wearing the niqab who was prevented from using the library at the American University in Cairo in 2001 took her case to Egypt's supreme court and eventually won. The court ruled a total ban on the niqab to be unconstitutional. The court did recommend that women wearing the niqab be made to uncover their faces before female security guards to verify their identity.
On Saturday, scores of female university students protested outside al-Azhar university dormitory calling for the repeal of the decision barring fully veiled women from entering. There were similar demonstrations at Cairo University.
Sheik Safwat Hijazi, a scholar and preacher, said he would sue anyone who prevented his daughter or wife wearing full niqab from going about her daily life, including entering government offices. "Preventing a woman from wearing what she wants is a crime," Hijazi said. "Whoever says the niqab is a custom is not respectable". More unadulterated garbage.
Hossam Bahgat, of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said the series of government decisions against the niqab are arbitrary and, while designed to combat extremism, only end up being discriminatory against women.
"The veiled female students are barred from government subsidized housing and nutrition because they are considered extremists.” I think that is going too far.
A law banning students and staff from wearing veils and any other religious symbols in state schools was passed in France in 2004.
There are a few women on USA campuses in full veils, and no one notices until it comes time to take an exam where it's necessary to be photographed or to verify ID. Should fingerprints be substituted for face photos? That’s a good idea.
What are the attitudes towards USA women that appear in public, for example, on campuses, in transit, or in business wearing a full veil?
What's the difference between a full veil and a surgical mask worn by nurses and doctors? Nobody has ever asked a woman or man entering a bank or supermarket to remove a surgical mask, especially in the flu season or if the person has a health issue. Nobody would dare ask a person to remove his or her surgical mask in public, on a bus, or in a classroom. Your first thought is the person is protecting an immune system issue. However, there is a difference between wearing a surgical mask and having your entire body veiled.
One example regarding the attitude toward covered faces at shopping malls in Sacramento is that for the Arden Fair shopping center, hooded windbreaker jackets that cover the face are not welcome because of the males wearing hooded jackets in the past that had committed crimes in the shopping center or in some stores and banks. But no mention of rules regarding veiled women in shopping centers has been announced in the media. You see people in every type of traditional ethnic garments at shopping malls and college campuses across the USA. I see them shopping in our malls and stores and am not concerned. I don’t see them as a threat. However, if one terrorist wearing a naqab/burqa and an explosive device blows himself or herself up in a shopping area, I will be deeply concerned.
When it comes to businesses and public transit, is it live and let live? Or remove your hat, hooded jackets that cover the face, and sunglasses before entering any banks, credit unions, or federal buildings? Let's look at France, for example. Today France decided to take the first step towards barring Muslim women from wearing the full veil when using public services, but will stop short of calling for an outright ban in the streets after critics argued that such a move would be socially divisive and hard to enforce.
They banned the full veil in public transit, schools, and in businesses. You can still wear the veil in the street or in a private car. But can you see well enough to drive with a veil when the wind is blowing the veil over your eyes?
Imagine someone with a veil on a bike or motorcycle. The problem is vision and safety. And don't get too near public transit or traffic. A veil could be caught onto a snare or hook on a train, car, or bus, or even on rides at a theme park. Same goes for veils in the USA while on vacation.
In France, the problem of burkas and niqabs led to recommending to ¬parliament that Muslim women should be allowed to continue covering their faces in the street. Last year, women in veils moved freely at theme parks such as Sea World or Disneyland in California.
Nobody noticed, but the veils proved a problem for the women moving through the crowd and on the rides. And how do you eat sandwiches or ice cream at amusement parks wearing the veil where only your eyes are showing to the public?
As for France, its final report recommends that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, or using public transport. It's a safety issue.
You have countries like France and the USA, catering to the secular crowd. How do you accommodate women in veils in public, business, and in schools? And you'd be surprised how many secular men in the USA say they want equal rights to wear veils, too. The topic of secular men asking for equal rights to wear full veils has nothing to do with women's modesty or women's rights to wear a full veil. As a journalist, you could ask the men why they would consider wearing full veils in public. Is it respectful to all equally to even discuss the subject in public?
Another reason why the full veil is not wanted in countries such as France, is that in Western countries, any man can don a veil, pretend to be a woman, and rob a bank or commit another crime without revealing his face or wearing a suspicious-looking ski mask.
If Europe bans the veil as a way to get rid of fundamentalism, then it's not going to work. Did you ever see a man donning a full-cover veil over his face and body to side with women in their protest to have the freedom to dress as modestly as they please in public? If the veil is about modesty, it can be misused in Western society by men or women to hide behind black cloth, concealing all identity as a male or female.
The view is can the veil be used to protect women from being bothered by men whistling at them as is frequently found in Western society? For example, when a young woman passes a group of construction workers, they can whistle or yell suggestive words at her, thereby disrespecting her or intimidating her in a public street or in transit on a bus or train.
On the other hand, in the USA, many banks have a sign, "please remove hats and sunglasses before entering bank." Now if you are covering for religious regions in the USA and don't remove your hijab and sunglasses, will you be thrown out of the bank? That depends upon the bank.
Most banks will not toss out women wearing head scarfs. But what if they enter a bank in a veil that covers their face and body so only their eyes show? Will they be ignored? Will only their eye makeup be stared at? Or will they be told to leave or remove the face covering? There's no way in the USA or Canada you can walk into a bank wearing a face mask, such as a Halloween mask, but what about a veil?
In some cases, women who refused to remove their face veil were denied driver's licenses in the USA unless they allowed themselves to be photographed from the neck up without a hat. In 2003, a Florida woman sued for the right to wear her veil for her driver's license photo and lost on appeal. The woman became Muslim five years previous to that date and applied for a driver's license in order to take her children to and from school. The ACLU says she has a right in the USA to wear her veil due to her religious beliefs. Where does church and state separate?
Should Florida make a separate law for each faith? Is it a public safety matter? Photographing a woman with her face covered and only the eyes showing on a driver's license makes it easy for anyone else to use the license or photo, unless the state uses fingerprints on drivers' licenses for identification, not photos.
If she drives with the veil, it would get in the way of her line of sight at times.
Is it safe to drive with a full-face veil. In the USA, the Education Testing Service, which administers several national exams, requires photographic identification, such as a driver's license or school ID, in order to take the SAT. For the GRE graduate-school exam, a photo must be taken at the actual test site. In both cases, ETS asks people taking the test who may be wearing a veil to remove their face covering in order to be identified and prevent any fraud.
In most US colleges, there are only a few female students who wear a full veil. Most women who cover wear the hijab, which covers their hair and neck. They wear either ankle-length dresses with long sleeves over blue jeans and comfortable walking shoes. There's another issue in the USA, women that are not Muslim, but want to wear the veil for reasons other than religion.
For example, some women who enjoy wearing a snood to cover the hair and long dresses on campuses may do so for reasons of modesty rather than religion, or to conceal leg braces. Some women may wear a face veil to conceal anything from a cold sore to facial disfigurement. It's an individual dress preference. Some Hasidic women cover their hair with a snood or wig and wear long dresses, but they don't cover their neck. Same goes for some Mormon, Amish, or Mennonite women who enjoy wearing long dresses.
You even have students on campus wearing dresses in the style of 1803 because of comfort and to celebrate the era of Jane Austin novels in neo-classic fashion. And that's not related to religious reasons for a certain dress style. But generally, if a woman on campus wears a full-veil, she's does not attract unwanted attention in the classroom.
In the USA, you dress the way you want. Schools will send you away if you show up without clothes. They won't look twice if you show up in a veil. The problem comes when you have to be photographed to take a standard school exam.
Europe is another picture. In France, under the proposals, a woman who fails to remove her veil inside when using any realm of the state would not face a fine for breaking the law, but would be refused access to the service. She would not, for instance, be allowed to collect her child benefit payments or take the bus.
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has repeatedly said that the full veil "is not welcome" on French soil, is believed to favor this partial legislation, rather than more radical suggestions from recalcitrant members of his rightwing UMP party. France has agreed to ban the full veil in all public places other than the street. A woman in a full veil still can walk in the street in France.
Some people will argue that no one should feel stigmatized for wearing full-body covering. After all, people who are blind aren't stigmatized because they can't see. So why should a woman be turned away because only her eyes show to the public? She shouldn’t unless she enters a bank etc.
France will let women in veils walk in the street, but not ride the bus or do business, such as walking into banks. I think the concern about fully-veiled women in buses raises the specter or terrorism and in banks, robberies.
France wants to make clear by laws the garment's practical incompatibility with French values of sexual equality and freedom, according to reports. Banning the full veil either outright or partially in France serves to reinforce the isolation of women already partially alienated from mainstream society in Northern Europe.
Some westerners look at the total veil as a walking prison. Others see it as a halo of protection that honors women's right to take back the night. The complete veil in France is worn only by a small minority of Muslim women. According to police figures, no more than 2,000 women with most of them young and a quarter of them being converts who wear a face-covering veil.
France highly values laïcité – secularism – and which in 2004 banned headscarves in schools, it is unsurprising that such an overt display of religion has raised eyebrows. Despite wide-ranging opposition to the garment and polls showing that most French citizens favour a ban, opinions have differed on how to go about discouraging women from covering their faces. But in the USA, you can wear a veil if you want to, and you don't have to have any religious reason for doing so. Just don't go into a bank with your face covered. The cameras in the bank want to make sure you don't hide behind a veil for a criminal act.
After all, in the USA, any man can put on a veil, walk into a bank, and rob it, and no one will know if the person is male or female. That's why there are signs in so many US banks saying "remove your sunglasses and hats before you enter." And when you go for a driver's license or an identity card for non-drivers in the USA, you're going to be asked to have a full-face photo and fingerprinting for ID.
The question is, what happens to women or even men who decide in the USA or anywhere else to wear full body veils with only their eyes showing just because they want to dress that way for comfort or concealment of any disfigurement or just for warmth on a cold day?
They can't plead that they are practicing their religion. Can they say, it's for modesty or simply because they prefer to dress that way for comfort in areas where the weather creates problems such as high winds, sandstorms in Arizona? Yes, they can say that.
As I said earlier in this article, if Muslim women want to wear body-covering veils on our streets, them let them do so. However, they should forfeit their rights to go into banks or board planes wearing them and they shouldn’t be wearing them when they are driving vehicles or taking exams. If however, a suicide bomber wearing a body-covering veil kills innocent people on our streets or in our shopping stores or in our buses and trains, then we will seriously have to consider bringing in a law that would prohibit them from wearing these garbs at any time in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
