This is a nice example of trade-offs:
The Pune Jewellers’ Association, on Friday, tended an apology to bring an end to the controversy they raked up by barring burqa-clad women from entering their stores. “Our statements were misconstrued and sent wrong signals to society. We apologise in case it has hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community,” association president Fatechand Ranka said.
He said they had only sought the state government’s permission after a spate of thefts by burqa-clad robbers. “There are other means to put security in place. We will consult Muslim women on the measures to be taken for checking them before entering jewellery shops,” he said, after leading a protest march to the police commissionerate.
Maybe the jewelers would have been more successful with their ban if they had said a woman wearing a veil hurts their sentiments. I wonder what the other security measures might be. Put a cash deposit down, or even the whole amount, before handling the jewelry? Use man-trap doors so that no-one can leave the store until all the goods are accounted for? Anonymous purchase can only be seen as fair when the seller has some guarantee(s) against fraud/theft.
In somewhat related news, the I read a report earlier this year that banks in America believe anti-mask rules have been successful at reducing crime:
Some banks are also restricting what customers wear.
After several of its 33 branches were hit by the same ski-mask-wearing robber, West Suburban Bank installed signs asking customers to remove their hats, hoods and sunglasses. The Lombard, Ill.-based company says a similar program in Missouri reduced the number of robberies in participating banks by 40 percent.
Interesting statistic. Wonder if they were taking weather or other factors like seasonal changes into account. I have to say I also noted a very crucial detail at the end of the report:
Banking officials say most bank robbers usually net a few thousand dollars, at the most. The real harm comes in the form of reputational damage.
And that helps explain why the Jewelers would back down when a Muslim community complained about their rules. Incidentally, I’m sure someone must be wondering how these women can shop for jewelry at a public store when their entire body is covered from public view. Does it make more sense to give them private “viewing” rooms? The jewelers could thus put veiled customers in a small private room, with a small drop-box, and only allow them to leave after they returned the jewelry.