Can't see parity for the hood in the way

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Took Mom shopping over the weekend. While in one of those giant members-only galaxy-sized stores, I saw a lady - excuse me. I saw what I presumed to be a human female - walking around in a black burka. Possibly a niqab. Definitely not a hijab cause she was completely hidden except for her hands.

heh.

What immediately went through my mind was a spear of anger and not for the reasons you are thinking.

Wanna bet?

Here was a person (benefit of the doubt cause I've never seen an ape that tall or any other animal capable of what the entity in the burka was doing) walking around in a store covered head to toe with only a small slit around the eyes to provide limited vision. And now I find myself irked for yet another reason, which I'll detail in a moment.

There was no way to see the person's face. I upset.

Not that I cared what the person looked like. Had the person been horrifically scarred, I still would not care what he or she looked like. I do not judge people on unintentional physical appearance. Intentional appearance is another matter.

I don't care if the person was male or female. I don't care that the garment was full length.

So says the vast majority of people

Why was I mad? 'Cause of a double standard, and not the one you're thinking of.

Had I walked into the same store wearing a slightly different outfit with my face completely covered, I could have been arrested. Why?

You can point to the obvious difference. One full body outfit is of a religious nature. The other, you can argue, is not. Pick a side. I can just as easily argue the other is of a religious nature.

You can also argue that one is embedded in hate and violence and subjugation and terror. I can argue the same thing with an equal amount of historical records to back my side up. Again, pick your side.

In fact, I point you to this report from the Southern Poverty Law Center which argues the Georgia Supreme Court decision I point to above. The author states  "the court emphasized that (the people who hide their faces) had a long record of "harassment, intimidation and violence against racial and religious minorities." I deleted the exact words to parenthetically insert my own to make you think.

Lemme be very clear here. I offer an equal amount of support to both groups of people who hide themselves when in public. Feel free to twist that statement however you wish; it's not going to change what I say.

If it is illegal for one group to go about in public with their faces hidden, it should be illegal for another group to go about in public with their faces hidden. The reasons for hiding are irrelevant.

The law should be equally applied. Carving out exceptions because you like or don't like what one group does is a double standard of the worst kind.

If one is wrong, both are. If one is right, both are.

Now for the reason which irked me as I write this column. I presume - could be wrong but I did not see the person escorted by someone else - this person would get behind the wheel of a vehicle wearing this outfit. It blocks peripheral vision and severely limits a line of sight. In short, this is a major hazard to the driver any passengers and other motorists.

If this person was not driving, then I have no complaint about that.