whoa.. is fursuiting is now 'terrorism' to Australian law enforcement?

Discussion in 'Fursuiting and Costuming' started by ChromaticRabbit, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    EDIT: Whoops, that should have been AUSTRIAN. Sorry Aussies. My bad.


    Man dressed as a shark is arrested under Austria's burka ban laws while working as a mascot outside a shop

    The employee was standing outside a computer store called McShark in Vienna
    Officers told him to remove the shark head and he was arrested when he refused
    Protested he was 'just doing his job' but Austrian police slapped him with a fine ...

    ( www.dailymail.co.uk: Man dressed as shark arrested under Austria's burka ban | Daily Mail Online )

    See, this is no good, is it.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  2. SSJ3Mewtwo

    SSJ3Mewtwo Moderator Staff Member

    Austria, not Australia
    Yvvki, GarthTheWereWolf and Yakamaru like this.
  3. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    News at 11: Australia or Austria? Furries have trouble identifying which is which.

    Joking aside, from what little I've been able to gather, the Prohibition on the Covering of the Face also places restrictions on such things as medical face masks and clown make-up.

    As for the individual in question, I can't say that his refusal to comply with police, solely on the grounds of "just doing my job", was worth the €150 fine.
    RueTheFurry and Haru Totetsu like this.
  4. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru Mein Gott

    Covering up your face in public is considered illegal in Austria. The burqa ban is included.

    Hell, even ISIS have banned the burqa after a couple of women fucked some of their leaders over by smuggling in AK's, come grenades and handguns UNDER their burqas and then mowing them down.

    Though it's sad to see the guy getting fined for this shit.
  5. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    From what I've read, it seems as if the law bans all full-face coverings, which would explain why the police thought to make the man take off his shark costume, and I guess this would potentially mean that fursuiting is banned in Austria now. To be fair though, there's supposedly an exemption for covering ones face if it's part of a persons job, so the man probably shouldn't have been stopped by the police. See here:

    "'This law does not apply to professionals who need to cover their faces due to their jobs', said police spokesman Harald Sörös, who acknowledged certain shortcomings in the law."​
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  6. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    Thought of mine: Does this mean that people will be restricted in what costumes they can wear for Halloween? If so, then lol.
    Yakamaru and Simo like this.
  7. Water Draco

    Water Draco I shal breath my fire on SPAM

    This is the problem with laws that are brought in as a kneejerk reaction without adequate thought as to how it should be applied.

    The guy probably did not help the situation by his first refusal to take the head off. Although the store manager should have taken reasonable steps to notify the local police that they were running a promotion where they would have an employee in a mascot suit outside the store. It may have also helped if the store had had an additional employee with him in store uniform as a handler.

    It does seem to be a standard rule of thumb if you intend to go public fursuiting that you should lease with local authorities including police and private land owners (shopping centres, parks ect) where you intend to go, ahead of time to seek the necessary permissions. Once you have those permissions then and carry written copies of these permissions with you.

    Also carry photo ID. Always be polite with the authorities and if they tell you to take your fursuit head off then do it.

    It can go a long way with the authorities if you happen to have a written risk assessment for your activity with you. Also you may consider having some form of liability insurance cover for your activity. Your home insurance may already cover you but don’t assume it does. So check. To get cover independently I would expect it not to cost too much. Again having a copy of liability insurance cover with you can help with appeasing the authorities.

    If challenged, proving that you have thought out the activity you are doing and that you have taken reasonable precautions can go a long way.
  8. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    Whoops, sorry Australians, my error. :)

    That certainly doesn't sound like freedom or liberty to me. It seems authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront. That sounds utterly stifling and oppressive. Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue? Obviously, this is going to vary from locale to locale, but I would deeply resent any interference in this harmless artful activity... if I actually owned a fursuit. c_c

    These memes of fear are not rational. They're meant to condition and control populations. This is bad, divisive, stuff. The fact that our fandom could run afoul of it is sort of like a mineshaft canary or a precursory warning sign that something is not right. Nothing has changed in the world that could justify this sort of contraction of liberty. Nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is the actual terrorist as far as I am concerned., and they are not legitimate nor credible to me.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  9. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    If you don't want to put up with the legalities in order to do something, just don't do it within that jurisdiction.

    I don't know. Maybe it's just the fact that I'm the kind of guy who thinks that Singapore is a fine role model for lawmaking, further skewed by a military background which involved voluntarily giving up some liberties for accountability purposes in exchange for the capacity to defend a nation using up to and including lethal force as required.
    Fear of a violent death, regardless of whether the threat is foreign or domestic, real or imagined, is enough to get people to abandon liberties as a principle matter of survival; liberties are only beneficial insofar as they can be defended. You talk of conditioning and controlling populations, yet civilization itself was built on such coercion. For that matter, your current 'liberties' - or more correctly, privileges - are about as contractual as you are conditioned to believe them to be, whether or not you realize that it's only due to the authority that backs their existence that they have any significant value.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
    -..Legacy..-, Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  10. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    The psychotic male cultic people who destroy the world are the selfsame people who say you must subscribe to their pathological ideology in order to save it. It's BS. It's a protection racket that men baked up millennia ago to enslave women and raze as heretical all matriarchal Gods. It's time to correct thousands of years of wrongful history and restore civilization long subverted and cut low with these endless acts of genocide, again and again. This is the 21st century, and the sun has finally arisen upon all the old male evil cultic affronts against the world and will of God for the world, for she is the pure true good.

    Just sayin'.
    Simo likes this.
  11. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    And so the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Yet again.

    Good luck in your endeavors, and take care not to burn down everything you touch.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017 at 9:20 AM
    Yakamaru likes this.
  12. Ginza

    Ginza Unironically Ironic

    What does this have to do with men? In any way at all? I mean, literally all this is, is a story about someone forced to take off the head of a mascot. Which by the way, if an officer asked him to do so, regardless of how dumb it is, he should have complied without hesistation. So why has this turned to men somehow enslaving women? Sure, a long time ago society may have been dominated by men, but it most certainly isn't now. I guess I'm just confused as to how exactly your post was relevant or logical in any way at all?
    Yakamaru and ChapterAquila92 like this.
  13. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox Well-Known Member

    Fursuiting is now terrorism?
    No but seriously this is appalling.
    Yakamaru likes this.
  14. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    Where to start with this...

    Okay, first, your title is baity as fuck. Aside from the unfortunate country mix up, you're making a lot of logical leaps. The article you linked isn't about Furries or terrorism. A guy in a mascot costume got fined by police under a new law. They certainly didn't think he was a terrorist or that what he was doing was terrorism or else the encounter would have gone a much different way with more than just a fine slapped on him. Which sounds like it was more in response to his failure to comply than the actual wearing of the costume. Also he was on the street and not at a gathering like a fur con that would likely get permissions under the new law. So no, Furries are not now terrorists in Austria.

    Does the law suck? Yes. Were these cops being dicks? Definitely. No matter how they want to word it, this is a burka ban which is discriminatory and knee jerk legislation. And if there's a clause about masks for work being okay, then the cops should have backed off. But this still isn't about Furries suddenly being put on the list of known terror groups.

    You do realize that we have laws about getting permission to do lots of things right? Things that originally we could do willy nilly. For example, people need to get hunting and fishing licenses. That's asking the government for permission to do the things that kept our ancestors fed. Why? Because times change and rules need to be put in place to account for those changes.

    As I said, I'm no fan of the ban, but it's a reach for you to say all regulations like this are authoritarian affronts to freedom.

    And I'll restate that our fandom has run no more afoul than it already was. A guy at work got fined in Austria. This is not the world declaring war on Furries.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM
  15. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    I think the intended purpose of linking furries to the news article was to bring up that an implication of the full-face covering ban law is that fursuiting is now potentially, in effect, banned in Austria now.

    I otherwise agree with you though.
  16. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    Sure. I get that. But that's not what they were saying with their posts. They could have said "this new law can affect furs, just look at this article" as opposed to "the Austrian gov has declared furries to be terrorists!" Like, the title makes it sound like cops busted up a furry meet and arrested them all as suspected terrorists as opposed to people not being able to walk around with their face covered.
    ChapterAquila92, Yakamaru and Lcs like this.
  17. Water Draco

    Water Draco I shal breath my fire on SPAM

    Although if you would like a conspiracy theory to add to all of this.

    According to the article it was a member of the public who called the police to complain about there being a person in a mascot suit. (apparently to highlight the problems with the new law).
    So a most lightly a low payed employee argues with the police about taking a mascot head off.
    So is it possible this was a setup to either hilight the problems with the new law or a publicity stunt for the store.
  18. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    Bans against burkas are discriminatory and divisive against an entire type of spirituality, an individual's right to self-identity, and, ironically, it appears to be every bit as extreme as Sharia law whose fearsomeness supposedly inspired it. That's the problem, any time you place this default restriction upon the freedom of expression, you're creating dystopia where once peace and freedom stood. That's the attack we should all be terrorized by.

    If the guy isn't doing something wrong, why is a law being applied to restrict his activity in this novel way? If they didn't think he was a terrorist, they shouldn't have molested him. They don't have a right to molest people, that's not the kind of world we choose to create for ourselves, where cultural freedom is delegated to dudes with vested authority and a psychotic desire to dominate the things that don't conform to their personal and arbitrary sense of order.

    No. It doesn't "suck." It is in fact utterly indefensible and xenophobic in a western civilized society. Cops being dicks should be qualification for civil rights lawsuits and abruptly ended public service careers, full stop. I never said that furries were being put on lists. Why bother when you can simply make fursuiting unlawful because of the implications of Dick Cheney's wrongful war of terror? In fact, I posit this whole thing is just the actualization of some sick men's far-reaching dark vision for the world. Way to be credulous and defend it?

    Are you equivocating killing things or helping yourself to finite resources with the wearing of a fursuit or a burka for that matter? How is it now that art must be licensed by the government in your world? How is that now an existential issue like staying fed? How has time changed in your opinion with respect to our inalienable natural rights granted by the creator in her infinite benevolence?

    Is it really?
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017 at 3:09 PM
    Simo likes this.
  19. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    So, my entire first post was about you misrepresenting the issue, exaggerating what happened, and using click-baity/fear mongering titling in your post. It was not about the legality or morality of burka bans. Your response to me has been similarly exaggerated and overzealous, misrepresenting what I said and my own beliefs. I suggest you take a step back, take a breath, and cool off before posting next time.

    Let me make this excruciatingly clear to you. I DO NOT support burka bans or other discriminatory measures against Muslims or any other peoples. I even stated in the text you quoted that burka bans are knee jerk legislation that, in a word, sucks. Austria made their law super broad so as not to sound racist/xenophobic, but that's what it is. I am in no way trying to defend it, but rather put accurate and adequate context to the situation presented by yourself and the article.

    The article itself talked about a guy getting fined by Austrian police under this new law that bans all forms of head covering. Even if the law was made in response to terrorism fears, NOWHERE did it mention the man was being labelled a terrorist, being suspected of terrorism (if he was, more would have happened than some "molestation" and a fine), or that somehow this law was made to target furs or decry them as terrorists. So yeah, your title of "fursuiting is terrorism?!" is click-baity as fuck and incredibly misleading. The law is stupid, discriminatory, overly broad, and the whole situation was a mess to put it lightly; but it's not the anti-fur hoopla you make it out to be. A law this broad can have adverse affects on furries, definitely, but furry activities like fursuiting are not suddenly being seen as terrorist acts which your post implies.

    As for the fishing and hunting licences that I mentioned, that was in response to your blanket statement that "Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue" was "authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront". Being part of a society means sometimes having to ask permission for things, and sometimes the things that we once did all the time have to be reevaluated to account for cultural changes and advances. We once hunted and fished all the time but now we see the danger in that and put regulations on it. We make people get building permits and driver's licenses and certifications to do all kinds of things. Again, I want to make clear that I do not support the burka ban or any legislation that discriminates against a group of people, but saying that all legislation which calls for the obtainment of legal permission is authoritarian and an affront to liberty is a gross oversimplification of how government and society works.

    Also, I'd just like to add, that for all your attacks on me for supposedly supporting discrimination against Muslims by pointing out the flaws in your rhetoric, this is the first you've actually deigned to mention Muslim oppression in all this. The most you make mention of it before this post was to call the law a "burka ban", but otherwise, all of your opposition to the laws seemed to be based around furs being inconvenienced by it. I was even tempted to point that out earlier, as it rubbed me the wrong way that you would focus so much on the implied discrimination against furs rather than the overt discrimination against Muslims.

    Priorities, I guess.
    Yakamaru, Simo and ChapterAquila92 like this.
  20. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    This isn't about you or me or even fursuiting per se.

    I continue to feel this has crossed the line into an intolerable affront against self-expression of identity and artistic license.

    I hope that I speak clearly enough. I felt that this example would prompt some discussion and I'm glad that it has. I think it exposes two jarringly different views, one liberal, the other illiberal.
    Simo likes this.

Share This Page