The court ruled that the ban "was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face".
A court statement said the ruling also "took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction.
Not so surprised, holding the ban would not press on human rights really. But, it's obviously a security thing, most places require you to not have a motorbike helmet concealing your face so this only makes sense.
I've seen one before with such a narrow slit that it partially obscured the eyes, she had a swarm of children around her and a trolley that could probably hit one of them quite easily with the restricted vision. Instead she hit a small wall.
Frazzled wrote: Vive le France, vive le separation of church and state.
Vive la France
Long live the séperation des l'églises et de l'état!
It is good to see more countries pressing for such laws. Not only for the obvious security reasons, but also because such veils are not compatible with European culture.
Normally I'd be against laws that try to restrict what items of clothing individual citizens can wear, but I've got no really issue with this at all. The full face veil is not only a security issue but a horribly misogynistic item that is totally incompatible with western values.
Frazzled wrote: You don't wear leathers when you ride your bike? Dude...safety!
I wear protective clothing and footwear, but apart from the jacket, gloves and helmet, the rest looks just like regular clothing: padded jeans and reinforced boots.
I would look pretty ridiculous walking all day in the office in full racing leathers and racing boots!
d-usa wrote: In the US people can refuse to follow a law saying they have to provide something to someone else because of their religion.
In Europe you cannot decide what clothes to wear for yourself even if it is your religion.
We could not be further apart...
Could it be argued that the full face covering is a cultural norm as opposed to a religious norm? Perhaps that is part of the reason for the differences in judgement (along with the jurisprudence of the Court, case law, and the legal status of the US Constitution v qualified human right)
Frazzled wrote: You don't wear leathers when you ride your bike? Dude...safety!
I wear protective clothing and footwear, but apart from the jacket, gloves and helmet, the rest looks just like regular clothing: padded jeans and reinforced boots.
I would look pretty ridiculous walking all day in the office in full racing leathers and racing boots!
d-usa wrote: In the US people can refuse to follow a law saying they have to provide something to someone else because of their religion.
In Europe you cannot decide what clothes to wear for yourself even if it is your religion.
We could not be further apart...
Could it be argued that the full face covering is a cultural norm as opposed to a religious norm? Perhaps that is part of the reason for the differences in judgement (along with the jurisprudence of the Court, case law, and the legal status of the US Constitution v qualified human right)
It probably could be.
A woman should not be forced to wear it if she doesn't.
But a law should not prevent her from observing a religious rule if she wants to follow it.
I don't think women should be forced to stay at home, serve their husbands, and have 10 children, all while only wearing clothes that cover their arms and legs.
But a woman should be able to do all of that if she wants to.
Culture does come into effect, and I agree that there can be a very thin line separating what people do because they want to do it and what people do because they feel that they have to do it. And it can be very hard to know what side of the line each person falls on, so you could be helping people that don't need to be helped with laws like this.
Now I don't believe for one second that his law was not the direct result of rampant Islamophobia in France. But even if we pretend that it was not it still is an iffy law IMO.
The stated law might have some very good intentions: to protect women from a culture that treats them as property and treats then as second class people. And that would be a worthy goal. But it also hurts the women that want to do that as part of their religion.
You end up having to balance the needs of the many vs the needs of the few, and there are always going to be people on both sides and many of them won't be happy either way.
Now I don't believe for one second that his law was not the direct result of rampant Islamophobia in France. But even if we pretend that it was not it still is an iffy law IMO.
If it was a case that the only item of clothing that you couldn't wear in public was the veil, then you might be right. But you cannot walk around in public with your faced covered, it doesn't matter if it is a veil, a ski mask or a motorcycle helmet. Why should religion exempt someone from following a law that applies to everyone else?
That is not Islamophobia, that is treating everyone equally.
There is nothing truly religious about the full face veils or indeed the full burka. (aka, the wearable tent)
Those are rather cultural traditions stemming from 7th century ideologies of treating women as barely above the rights of cattle.
Good on Europe for having the balls to stand up to the bleeding hearts & Islamist gakheads.
Full-on face, or even full-on walking tents are a security risk. Whether someone can use it for petty theft, or heaven forbid for more nefarious schemes. Not to mention it flies in the face (pardon the pun) of our judicial system that gives an accused the right to face their accuser.
On the one hand I agree such headdresses are not European. The total face concealment makes ordinary people feel uncomfortable and cannot help integration into everyday society here.
On the other hand, I don't think you can force compliance with cultural norms purely by the power of law. The ban has not actually worked in France. A number of women have been fined, and continued to wear their burkas. The police often ignore them walking around the streets.
The issue is partly cultural and partly religious in the sense that the women who feel they have to wear a burka are doing it because they feel it is part of their religion. Even though other parts of Islam do not adhere to the burka.
There is nothing religious about European's preferences for open face communication. It is a cultural preference here.
And I also just wanted to clarify that I was not just remarking about my indecision about this law or this ruling being right or not.
My original intent was just to mention that this ruling and the SCOTUS ruling just make it very obvious about how different our approach to religions and laws really is.
d-usa wrote: And I also just wanted to clarify that I was not just remarking about my indecision about this law or this ruling being right or not.
My original intent was just to mention that this ruling and the SCOTUS ruling just make it very obvious about how different our approach to religions and laws really is.
That expression reminds me so much of our younger cat Loki when she catches a mouse... She lets out this tiny little kitten growl that's just so damn adorable! (and not the least bit threatening in any way, more like a super-sized purr.)
It is reasonable to request that veils and other head coverings get removed for specific checks, such as when a car is stopped by police or when boarding a plane. It isn't reasonable to insist the veil never be worn. That's just nuts.
Anyone who mentions, say, a person wearing a motor bike helmet... well yeah you'll be denied entering a jewellery store or the like, but that's all, you won't actually be stopped if you're just walking around the streets. There is no reason that any kind of veil couldn't be treated the same way.
Except, of course, there's that whole Islam freak out thing going on.
I mean, what's next? A bride walks down the aisle in her big meringue dress with full veil, and everyone panics because they can't see her face?
sebster wrote: It is reasonable to request that veils and other head coverings get removed for specific checks, such as when a car is stopped by police or when boarding a plane. It isn't reasonable to insist the veil never be worn. That's just nuts.
Anyone who mentions, say, a person wearing a motor bike helmet... well yeah you'll be denied entering a jewellery store or the like, but that's all, you won't actually be stopped if you're just walking around the streets. There is no reason that any kind of veil couldn't be treated the same way.
Except, of course, there's that whole Islam freak out thing going on.
I mean, what's next? A bride walks down the aisle in her big meringue dress with full veil, and everyone panics because they can't see her face?
At times the husband simmers in rage as I verify that the wife is indeed who she is in front of me unveiling before progressing into the interview.
Jihadin wrote: At times the husband simmers in rage as I verify that the wife is indeed who she is in front of me unveiling before progressing into the interview.
We'll see what the European Court of Human Rights has to say about that.
LuciusAR wrote: Normally I'd be against laws that try to restrict what items of clothing individual citizens can wear, but I've got no really issue with this at all. The full face veil is not only a security issue but a horribly misogynistic item that is totally incompatible with western values.
Saying "women can't wear this, even if they want to" is not exactly the last word in feminism.
sebster wrote: It is reasonable to request that veils and other head coverings get removed for specific checks, such as when a car is stopped by police or when boarding a plane. It isn't reasonable to insist the veil never be worn. That's just nuts.
That would defeat the whole purpose of the law since security cameras usually don't have stop and check powers...
And why isn't it reasonable if it applies equally to everyone?
Anyone who mentions, say, a person wearing a motor bike helmet... well yeah you'll be denied entering a jewellery store or the like, but that's all, you won't actually be stopped if you're just walking around the streets. There is no reason that any kind of veil couldn't be treated the same way.
No, the same law expressively prohibits the use of the helmet in public unless you are riding your motorbike, and people using Balaclavas were also arrested and fined because of this law. This isn't specific to veils.
I'm not happy with this ruling, because at the end of the day, it boils down to the court deciding what people can and can't wear.
I'll be emailing my MEP to voice my displeasure, but if I get a reply, which is about as likely as me becoming the next US president, I'll change my name to Frazz and move to Texas!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not happy with this ruling, because at the end of the day, it boils down to the court deciding what people can and can't wear.
I'll be emailing my MEP to voice my displeasure, but if I get a reply, which is about as likely as me becoming the next US president, I'll change my name to Frazz and move to Texas!
And..? There's a difference between wearing clothes and concealment.
jasper76 wrote: Giving the state power to fine you for wearing a friggin hat in the wrong place??? Scary.
But if thats the kind of society you want...have at it.
Full face covering =/= hat.
And in case you haven't noticed, the state already has the power to arrest you for wearing the wrong thing (or for wearing nothing at all for that matter ).
jasper76 wrote: Giving the state power to fine you for wearing a friggin hat in the wrong place??? Scary.
But if thats the kind of society you want...have at it.
So you'd rather a state that forces women to walk around in a mobile tent, never able to leave their home without a male family member, and who can be killed for the pettiest of reasons such as having the sheer audacity of wanting an education?
Except...the authors of the legislation didn't have the courage to say they were talking about a burka. "Clothing intended to conceal the face", if that is the true language of the law, could mean any number of things: hoodies, baseball caps, sno-masks...to name a few off the top of my head.
In any case, I don't think its wise to give the state power to fine its citizens over headwear choices in public spaces (I assume we are talking about not only courts, schools, and other govt buildings, but also streets, public parks, etc). We can jut agree to disagree on this issue.
There are obvious religious freedom implications, as well, but to be honest, I don't know what's what when it comes to religious freedom in France, so I won't comment further on that.
jasper76 wrote: Clothing intended to conceal the face could mean any number of things. Trayvon Martin instantly comes to mind.
As stated, if this is the kind of society you want to live in, have at it, I suppose. We can just agree to disagree that its a good idea.
Trayvon Martin was a violent drug addict who attacked the wrong guy and got unlucky, what does that have to do with anything?
Also, the wording is "Clothing intended to cover the face", not conceal. A hoodie doesn't cover the face and neither does a baseball cap.
Also, you've still failed to explain how having an imaginary friend should exempt people from following the same laws as everybody else or how this is any more a sign of state repression than say: if you don't wear any clothes on in public you'll also get arrested / fined?
jasper76 wrote: Clothing intended to conceal the face could mean any number of things. Trayvon Martin instantly comes to mind.
As stated, if this is the kind of society you want to live in, have at it, I suppose. We can just agree to disagree that its a good idea.
Trayvon Martin was a violent drug addict who attacked the wrong guy and got unlucky, what does that have to do with anything?
Also, the wording is "Clothing intended to cover the face", not conceal. A hoodie doesn't cover the face and neither does a baseball cap.
Also, you've still failed to explain how having an imaginary friend should exempt people from following the same laws as everybody else or how this is any more a sign of state repression than say: if you don't wear any clothes on in public you'll also get arrested / fined?
A hoodie doesn't cover the face? A ball cap doesn't cover the face? Bend down, does it still not cover the face? Can you wear a hoodie or baseball cap with the intent to cover your face? See what happens when vagaries like "clothing intended to cover the face" are used in law?
Trayvon Martin's drug habits are of zero interest to me or relevance to the issue at hand. The plain fact is that a wannabe-cop vigilante saw a black guy with a hoodie, and took it as license to stalk him. He got beat up for this, as he deserved, and took his beating as a license to kill. Apparantly, if he were in France, Mr. Martin might have gotten saved, because a cop would have just given him a ticket and sent him home. The connection to the issue at hand is a hoodie, which by no large exercise of imagination can be construed as "clothing intended to cover the face".
A hoodie doesn't cover the face? A ball cap doesn't cover the face? Bend down, does it still not cover the face? Can you wear a hoodie or baseball cap with the intent to cover your face?
So can a t-shirt if I pull it all the way up to the top of my head! And so can my boxer shorts if I decide to use them on my head instead of my ass! Thanks allot France, now I can't even wear boxer shorts!
Trayvon Martin's drug habits are of zero interest to me or relevance to the issue at hand. The plain fact is that a wannabe-cop vigilante saw a black guy with a hoodie, and took it as license to stalk him. He got beat up for this, as he deserved, and took his beating as a license to kill.
US law seems to disagree with you in this as well... I begin to see a pattern here, apparently you have a problem with laws in general and not just this one.
So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
In any case, I have obviously delved into a touchy subject here. If you think its wise to give the state power to criminalize head-wear options, and it doesn't violate your constitution, of which I have no knowledge, all I'll say is that it IMO it is unwise, because whatever protections this may afford you come with the risk that this very law could one day be used against you or those close to you.
At least France tries to state that exposing the face is a means of social interaction and identity (as well as confirming an identity).
To cover your face provides many advantages over others and is (intentionally) off-putting.
What is funny is that the only thing that governs "covering up" in the Quran are areas considered "awrah" or "intimate parts".
Specific references in the Quran only speaks of genitals and breasts (the general rule is for both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public).
Many scholars of Muslim belief / law interpreted the face to be included as well some of the reasoning being below(Wiki quote):
A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the Saudi Arabian website IslamQA.com, states:
"The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman's face is 'awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest 'awrah of a woman."
I think if the rule was intended specifically for modesty and applies to both sexes why are Muslim men not required to cover their face?? Since men do not cover-up I figure their right to "religious reasons" for face covering is that much more bull.
<edit> Come to think of it, for women that insist on it's use are either conceited "My face is immodest!" or more likely they are concerned the men cannot control themselves around anything that looks remotely female (which oddly sounds more likely to me).
Again, this is not all Muslims, just some that are more, shall we say devout and the problem is religion and law are one and the same so interpretation would need to be very carefully handled because the only higher court of appeal is Allah and he is terribly busy and pretty much told us all we needed to know in the Quran.
We get into lively enough discussions with rules interpretations for games, I shudder to think how rules that govern if someone lives or dies and is viewed as the literal word of God (written and re-written by us mere mortals!), scary stuff.
Trayvon Martin's drug habits are of zero interest to me or relevance to the issue at hand. The plain fact is that a wannabe-cop vigilante saw a black guy with a hoodie, and took it as license to stalk him. He got beat up for this, as he deserved, and took his beating as a license to kill.
US law seems to disagree with you in this as well... I begin to see a pattern here, apparently you have a problem with laws in general and not just this one.
If you're referring to the fact that the dude deserved a beating for stalking someone because they were black and had clothing objectionable to the stalker, I am not saying that legally he deserved the beating he got, only that he deserved the beating he got.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: At least France tries to state that exposing the face is a means of social interaction and identity (as well as confirming an identity).
To cover your face provides many advantages over others and is (intentionally) off-putting.
What is funny is that the only thing that governs "covering up" in the Quran are areas considered "awrah" or "intimate parts".
Specific references in the Quran only speaks of genitals and breasts (the general rule is for both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public).
Many scholars of Muslim belief / law interpreted the face to be included as well some of the reasoning being below(Wiki quote):
A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the Saudi Arabian website IslamQA.com, states:
"The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman's face is 'awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest 'awrah of a woman."
I think if the rule was intended specifically for modesty and applies to both sexes why are Muslim men not required to cover their face?? Since men do not cover-up I figure their right to "religious reasons" for face covering is that much more bull.
Again, this is not all Muslims, just some that are more, shall we say devout and the problem is religion and law are one and the same so interpretation would need to be very carefully handled because the only higher court of appeal is Allah and he is terribly busy and pretty much told us all we needed to know in the Quran.
We get into lively enough discussions with rules interpretations for games, I shudder to think how rules that govern if someone lives or dies and is viewed as the literal word of God (written and re-written by us mere mortals!), scary stuff.
Although the law is clearly intended to target Muslim women, it is not specifically targeted at Muslim women, and could be applied to any "clothing intended to cover the face"...could mean just about anything. It gives an excuse for any cop to shake you (hypothetical French citizen) down because they don't like the way you look.
The French must really, really trust there police.
If you're referring to the fact that the dude deserved a beating for stalking someone because they were black and had clothing objectionable to the stalker, I am not saying that legally he deserved the beating he got, only that he deserved the beating he got.
1. This statement is inappropriate to this thread.
2. This statement is stupid on its face. (see how I tied it back to this thread! )
@Frazzled: Oh, he deserved the ass-whooping he got. Of course, this is just IMO.
I just brought up Trayvon Martin because of the notorious hoodie as an example of clothing that is not a burka, but could be reasonably construed as "clothing intended to cover the face."
I'm bowing out. This is all just interesting trivia to me, but I am glad I live in a country where such things would be highly unlikely to happen.
Carry on France! You certainly don't need my permission or apporoval.
Clothing *intended* to cover the face is different than clothing that goes on your head. The word intended is what makes this law about burquas and ski masks and motorcycle helmets, and not about baseball caps and hoodies.
Can you cover your face with a baseball cap? Yeah, if you wear it wrong. Can you cover your face with a hoodie? Yeah, if you put it on backwards.
Can you hold your head in such a way as to temporarily obscure someone's view of your face while wearing a baseball cap? Yeah. Can you do that to obscure your face from everyobdoy around you? No. It can't be done, because the bill of a baseball cap isn't capable of concealing your face from all observers at all angles at all times. Saying that it can is silly.
Hats are not intended to "cover the face". They cover the tops of the head, and maybe have a bill or brim that can kind of conceal the face sometimes, depending on how you hold your head. A ski mask is not a hat. A ski mask is intended to cover the face.
You can argue that this law is an infringement of religious liberties, but you cannot argue that this law is open and vague and allows the police to arrest you for wearing a fedora.
jasper76 wrote: Although the law is clearly intended to target Muslim women, it is not specifically targeted at Muslim women, and could be applied to any "clothing intended to cover the face"...could mean just about anything. It gives an excuse for any cop to shake you (hypothetical French citizen) down because they don't like the way you look.
The French must really, really trust there police.
Makes it really easy to execute the law RAW including the amendments (face mask to prevent germs, motorcycle helmets... basically safety items).
Clothing "intended to cover the face" or "by design" not by happenstance.
Would be interesting to see if scarf or handkerchief would be an issue.
A "shakedown" would be hard to justify if there is nothing obscuring from forehead to chin AND not designed to cover face like the mentioned hood.
What burns me is how one group (men) can determine that a rule does not apply to them but does to another (women).
The psychology of why women wllh argue the strongest for the covering will be even more interesting to dig into on why.
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
In any case, I have obviously delved into a touchy subject here. If you think its wise to give the state power to criminalize head-wear options, and it doesn't violate your constitution, of which I have no knowledge, all I'll say is that it IMO it is unwise, because whatever protections this may afford you come with the risk that this very law could one day be used against you or those close to you.
You've yet to reply how this is any different to the myriad number of laws that exist in every country (including the US) and that govern what parts of your body you can or cannot expose?
The thing is... a hoodie and douchebag sunglasses covers way more of a face than a headcovering... especially since it is easier to identify someone via their eyes opposed to their chin and lips. When people 'obscure' themselves on the internet, they obscure their eyes usually.
This is legal:
So I can wear a hoodie and oversized sunglasses and have facial hair and obscure my identity way more than someone exposing their eyes and having a religious head covering... Why?
Bigotry, that's why.
Edit: Also: Does Europe not have snow or cold winters? When it is cold in the US, a hood, face covering scarf are practically mandatory and 90% of the pedestrian population will be wearing them. Does this mean people need to risk frostbite whenever in a public place with security cameras for the good of public security?
squidhills wrote: Clothing *intended* to cover the face is different than clothing that goes on your head. The word intended is what makes this law about burquas and ski masks and motorcycle helmets, and not about baseball caps and hoodies.
Can you cover your face with a baseball cap? Yeah, if you wear it wrong. Can you cover your face with a hoodie? Yeah, if you put it on backwards.
Can you hold your head in such a way as to temporarily obscure someone's view of your face while wearing a baseball cap? Yeah. Can you do that to obscure your face from everyobdoy around you? No. It can't be done, because the bill of a baseball cap isn't capable of concealing your face from all observers at all angles at all times. Saying that it can is silly.
Hats are not intended to "cover the face". They cover the tops of the head, and maybe have a bill or brim that can kind of conceal the face sometimes, depending on how you hold your head. A ski mask is not a hat. A ski mask is intended to cover the face.
You can argue that this law is an infringement of religious liberties, but you cannot argue that this law is open and vague and allows the police to arrest you for wearing a fedora.
Unless there is something lost in translation, "clothing intended to cover the face" could equally mean (a) clothing intended by design to cover the face, or (b) clothing intended by the wearer to cover the face. No distinction is made in the synopsis of the law presented on the BBC website. Maybe the words translated by the BBC mean something different than what was presented on the news article???
You've yet to reply how this is any different to the myriad number of laws that exist in every country (including the US) and that govern what parts of your body you can or cannot expose?
While I am aware of laws that say you cannot expose parts of your body... I have yet to hear of a law that requires mandatory exposure of a part of your body in nay country... except now france.
Covering your butthole because bare starfish on a bus seat is a public health issue and requiring body parts to be bare by law are two totally different issues.
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
In any case, I have obviously delved into a touchy subject here. If you think its wise to give the state power to criminalize head-wear options, and it doesn't violate your constitution, of which I have no knowledge, all I'll say is that it IMO it is unwise, because whatever protections this may afford you come with the risk that this very law could one day be used against you or those close to you.
You've yet to reply how this is any different to the myriad number of laws that exist in every country (including the US) and that govern what parts of your body you can or cannot expose?
We are not talking about exposure of body parts, which lends itself to wierd perverts bent on exposure, and potentially health issues as noted directly above. We are talking about covering body parts. Not really the same thing.
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
In any case, I have obviously delved into a touchy subject here. If you think its wise to give the state power to criminalize head-wear options, and it doesn't violate your constitution, of which I have no knowledge, all I'll say is that it IMO it is unwise, because whatever protections this may afford you come with the risk that this very law could one day be used against you or those close to you.
You've yet to reply how this is any different to the myriad number of laws that exist in every country (including the US) and that govern what parts of your body you can or cannot expose?
We are not talking about exposure of body parts, which lends itself to wierd perverts bent on exposure, and potentially health issues as noted directly above. We are talking about covering body parts. Not really the same thing.
So preventing the exposure of body parts: completely fine.
Preventing the covering of body parts: Abuse of state powers?
While I am aware of laws that say you cannot expose parts of your body... I have yet to hear of a law that requires mandatory exposure of a part of your body in nay country... except now france.
We have almost the exact same law over here. Unless you have good reasons to, you cannot walk around in public with your face covered in such a way that prevents your identification.
Phantom Viper, I'm bowing out of the discussion. I've stated my position clearly, stated what I perceive the risks of this law to the general French public are, noted the violation of religious freedom, which for all I know doesn't even exist in France.
We just simply disagree, and that's fine. I don't live in France, and its less than likely that I'll ever find myself there, so to me this is just trivia.
You don't get to use your imaginary friend as an excuse not to follow the same laws as everyone else.
Everyone is treated the same way is the exact opposite definition of bigotry.
Everyone should have the right to wear whatever they wish for whatever reason... So everyone should be treated the same. Making a rule which applies to everyone but directly impacts one group is bigotry...
I should be able to cover any part of my body for any reason at any time... It is my body... As long as it isn't hurting anyone, there is no problem. The same cannot be said for butt-scooting your bare butthole on a public bench. So covering up parts = public health, forcing parts to be uncovered = abuse by the state intended to disenfranchise an unwanted minority with state-driven bigotry and discrimination.
While I am aware of laws that say you cannot expose parts of your body... I have yet to hear of a law that requires mandatory exposure of a part of your body in nay country... except now france.
We have almost the exact same law over here. Unless you have good reasons to, you cannot walk around in public with your face covered in such a way that prevents your identification.
And douchebag sunglasses, facial hair and a hoodie does that way more... So basically if it is to protect your eues, keep your head/face warm from cold, it is ok... but if it is for personal reasons, it needs to be banned?
Bigotry. Not equal at all.
I agree with Jasper... I will live a full life never stepping foot in France, and if they want to ban religion, pas bigoted laws and live in a society where they try to make non-Europeans unwelcome... more power to them. So this is all very academic. Won't happen in the US and if it did I would be very upset if someone tried to introduce such a law.
The "it applies to everyone" is really just a smoke screen, since it still clearly targets a specific group of people because almost nobody else does it.
It would be like targeting Baptists for their religion:
If you passed a law saying "no immersion Baptism" you would clearly be targeting a specific group with this bill.
Pass a law saying "nobody is allowed to dunk another person underwater", now you are still covering your target group but it's fair "because it applies to everyone".
Say whatever you want about the law being helpful or not, or stupid or not. But don't act like any reasonable person is too stupid to realize what the primary purpose of it was.
Everyone should have the right to wear whatever they wish for whatever reason... So everyone should be treated the same. Making a rule which applies to everyone but directly impacts one group is bigotry...
Nope, sorry but it doesn't work like that over here. Covering up the face in such a way that it prevents identification is a serious security concern for society at large and that overrides abstract directives that have absolutely no bearing on reality.
And again, your opinion is in direct contradiction of your own country laws that prevent the use of clothes that expose the breasts of women, for example. Why isn't that considered bigotry?
And douchebag sunglasses, facial hair and a hoodie does that way more... So basically if it is to protect your eues, keep your head/face warm from cold, it is ok... but if it is for personal reasons, it needs to be banned?
Bigotry. Not equal at all.
That photo that you've posted would also be considered illegal since it has a mask that covers the lower half of the face. But its exactly that, if it has a practical application like germ prevention, masks to prevent the inhalation of fumes in construction sites, keeping your face from freezing off in a cold winter day, etc, then it is permitted. But your personal reasons don't override any laws in any country in the world.
Pass a law saying "nobody is allowed to dunk another person underwater", now you are still covering your target group but it's fair "because it applies to everyone".
Perfect example... "Oh, it is criminal child abuse! Really!"
No, it is a harmless religious custom which doesn't need the government involved.
If this was an issue of 'public safety' then allow those who have medical or religious reasons for obscuring their faces to obtain IDs which they can wear which provides an identity to make people feel 'safe'. Real criminals are going to conceal themselves regardless of laws... they can use makeup, masks, facepaint, hoodies, all sorts of 'legal' concealment. This solves nothing and further oppresses the law abiding while doing nothing for public safety. It is designed to disenfranchise foreigners which mere presence offend Europeans.
d-usa wrote: The "it applies to everyone" is really just a smoke screen, since it still clearly targets a specific group of people because almost nobody else does it.
It targets bikers just as much if not more than it targets Muslims.
That photo that you've posted would also be considered illegal since it has a mask that covers the lower half of the face. But its exactly that, if it has a practical application like germ prevention, masks to prevent the inhalation of fumes in construction sites, keeping your face from freezing off in a cold winter day, etc, then it is permitted. But your personal reasons don't override any laws in any country in the world.
How does a security camera distinguish between: "It's cold, I'm sick, the airquality is bad and a health risk, I am a criminal and cultural custom" and make some of it perfectly ok and others a horrible issue needing to be addressed by the government?
Bigotry, that's how. There is no valid need for the government anywhere to force uncovering of anyone's body. You can't legislate intent and say 'depending why you intended to cover your face changes if a crime is occuring.'
If this was an issue of 'public safety' then allow those who have medical or religious reasons for obscuring their faces to obtain IDs which they can wear which provides an identity to make people feel 'safe'. Real criminals are going to conceal themselves regardless of laws... they can use makeup, masks, facepaint, hoodies, all sorts of 'legal' concealment. This solves nothing and further oppresses the law abiding while doing nothing for public safety. It is designed to disenfranchise foreigners which mere presence offend Europeans.
Religious reasons aren't a valid claim not to follow the law, every other real cause for exemption is already covered.
d-usa wrote: The "it applies to everyone" is really just a smoke screen, since it still clearly targets a specific group of people because almost nobody else does it.
It targets bikers just as much if not more than it targets Muslims.
Thanks for repeating the smoke screen. We have already established that.
France must have had a major problem with biker gangs running around in their helmets causing trouble and committing crimes...
That photo that you've posted would also be considered illegal since it has a mask that covers the lower half of the face. But its exactly that, if it has a practical application like germ prevention, masks to prevent the inhalation of fumes in construction sites, keeping your face from freezing off in a cold winter day, etc, then it is permitted. But your personal reasons don't override any laws in any country in the world.
How does a security camera distinguish between: "It's cold, I'm sick, the airquality is bad and a health risk, I am a criminal and cultural custom" and make some of it perfectly ok and others a horrible issue needing to be addressed by the government?
Bigotry, that's how. There is no valid need for the government anywhere to force uncovering of anyone's body. You can't legislate intent and say 'depending why you intended to cover your face changes if a crime is occuring.'
The camera doesn't have to distinguish anything. If you have a valid reason to cover your face, then you are allowed to do so. Religion is not considered a valid reason and so doesn't override the security concerns that caused this law to exist.
And again, your own government forces people to cover perfectly innocuous parts of their body for much worse reasons and I don't see you cry 'bigotry' for it.
And of course you can legislate intent! That is one of the reasons why you have several degrees of murder, for example!
d-usa wrote: The "it applies to everyone" is really just a smoke screen, since it still clearly targets a specific group of people because almost nobody else does it.
It targets bikers just as much if not more than it targets Muslims.
Thanks for repeating the smoke screen. We have already established that.
France must have had a major problem with biker gangs running around in their helmets causing trouble and committing crimes...
I don't know how it is in the US, but over here we do have a serious issue with bikers pulling up at gas stations and just stealing the gas and running away afterwards.
The camera doesn't have to distinguish anything. If you have a valid reason to cover your face, then you are allowed to do so. Religion is not considered a valid reason and so doesn't override the security concerns that caused this law to exist.
And again, your own government forces people to cover perfectly innocuous parts of their body for much worse reasons and I don't see you cry 'bigotry' for it.
And of course you can legislate intent! That is one of the reasons why you have several degrees of murder, for example!
It is bigotry to have a law and allow exceptions except for a few targeted 'personal reasons'. It is a law intended to disenfranchise a unwanted minority. How is it 'equal' when you can opt-out of the law simply by making up an excuse? What if every muslim in France said they had a perpetual cold?
Maybe they should simply say 'People in france smell bad and this protects them from becoming ill due to their stentch?'
How do you have ambiguous exceptions based upon 'valid reasons' and then discount someone's reason being invalid only because you don't like the culture. Bigotry.
If no one can have face coverings, then frostbite, communicable diseases, skin cancer and mesothelioma for all regardless of reason.
This is really fascinating to me, beacuse in my opinion, this wouldn't even be a religious issue in the US, it'd be quickly struck down as a limitation of freedom of expression.
I don't know how it is in the US, but over here we do have a serious issue with bikers pulling up at gas stations and just stealing the gas and running away afterwards.
90% of our pumps won't pump without pre-payment. So you can't steal without either going inside and paying or pre-paying with a card.
The disingenuous "it's not bigotry, it affects everyone equally" is no different to "gay people have the same rights as straight people - the right to marry the opposite sex." If you want to discriminate against Muslims who wear these for whatever reason, at least own it.
I don't know how it is in the US, but over here we do have a serious issue with bikers pulling up at gas stations and just stealing the gas and running away afterwards.
90% of our pumps won't pump without pre-payment. So you can't steal without either going inside and paying or pre-paying with a card.
Over here is the other way around, some pumps work like that, but the majority allows you to fill up before paying for it.
Polonius wrote: This is really fascinating to me, beacuse in my opinion, this wouldn't even be a religious issue in the US, it'd be quickly struck down as a limitation of freedom of expression.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The disingenuous "it's not bigotry, it affects everyone equally" is no different to "gay people have the same rights as straight people - the right to marry the opposite sex." If you want to discriminate against Muslims who wear these for whatever reason, at least own it.
The difference is:
"Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex... except people who want to marry same sex or family members for financial tax reasons or medical coverage, they are ok too and may marry same sex... But if you are doing it for love/sex and are actually gay... no you cannot marry someone of the same sex. "
The fact that you can be exempt from the law as long as you have a 'reason' which doesn't conflict with the cultural opinions of the country, then you are good to go.
d-usa wrote: The "it applies to everyone" is really just a smoke screen, since it still clearly targets a specific group of people because almost nobody else does it.
It targets bikers just as much if not more than it targets Muslims.
Thanks for repeating the smoke screen. We have already established that.
France must have had a major problem with biker gangs running around in their helmets causing trouble and committing crimes...
I don't know how it is in the US, but over here we do have a serious issue with bikers pulling up at gas stations and just stealing the gas and running away afterwards.
So with this law, bikers have to remove their helmet and drive to the gas station without helmets so that they cannot steal the gas?
And how many people with full face veils committed crimes that contributed to this ban?
Because it seems kind of dumb to go "bikers with full helmets commit crimes, so we should ban all face coverings anywhere" instead of "bikers with full helmets commit crimes, so lets make it illegal to wear your helmet unless you are riding your motorcycle".
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The disingenuous "it's not bigotry, it affects everyone equally" is no different to "gay people have the same rights as straight people - the right to marry the opposite sex." If you want to discriminate against Muslims who wear these for whatever reason, at least own it.
The difference is:
"Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex... except people who want to marry same sex or family members for financial tax reasons or medical coverage, they are ok too and may marry same sex... But if you are doing it for love/sex and are actually gay... no you cannot marry someone of the same sex. "
The fact that you can be exempt from the law as long as you have a 'reason' which doesn't conflict with the cultural opinions of the country, then you are good to go.
I'll just leave this here for our American friends and bow out of this discussion:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
FLORIDA Chapter 876 Criminal Anarchy, Treason and other Crimes Against Public Order
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
NORTH CAROLINA
While the following sections were enacted primarily as a result of KKK activities, it has been enforced against people wearing other types of masks, such as dust masks and team mascot masks.
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
WEST VIRGINIA 61-6-22.
Wearing masks, hoods or face coverings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, whether in a motor vehicle or otherwise, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby any portion of the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, may:
(1) Come into or appear upon any walk, alley, street, road, highway or other thoroughfare dedicated to public use;
(2) Come into or appear in any trading area, concourse, waiting room, lobby or foyer open to, used by or frequented by the general public;
(3) Come into or appear upon or within any of the grounds or buildings owned, leased, maintained or operated by the state or any political subdivision thereof;
(4) Ask, request, or demand entrance or admission to the premises, enclosure, dwelling or place of business of any other person within this state; or
(5) Attend or participate in any meeting upon private property of another unless written permission for such meeting has first been obtained from the owner or occupant thereof.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person:
(1) Under sixteen years of age;
(2) Wearing a traditional holiday costume;
(3) Engaged in a trade or employment where a mask, hood or device is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer;
(4) Using a mask, hood or device in theatrical productions, including use in mardi gras celebrations or similar masquerade balls;
(5) Wearing a mask, hood or device prescribed for civil defense drills, exercises or emergencies; or
(6) Wearing a mask, hood or device for the sole purpose of protection from the elements or while participating in a winter sport.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both fined and imprisoned
Only Louisiana and Minnesota seem to make exceptions based on Religious grounds.
PhantomViper wrote: I'll just leave this here for our American friends and bow out of this discussion:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
FLORIDA Chapter 876 Criminal Anarchy, Treason and other Crimes Against Public Order
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
NORTH CAROLINA
While the following sections were enacted primarily as a result of KKK activities, it has been enforced against people wearing other types of masks, such as dust masks and team mascot masks.
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
WEST VIRGINIA 61-6-22.
Wearing masks, hoods or face coverings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, whether in a motor vehicle or otherwise, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby any portion of the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, may:
(1) Come into or appear upon any walk, alley, street, road, highway or other thoroughfare dedicated to public use;
(2) Come into or appear in any trading area, concourse, waiting room, lobby or foyer open to, used by or frequented by the general public;
(3) Come into or appear upon or within any of the grounds or buildings owned, leased, maintained or operated by the state or any political subdivision thereof;
(4) Ask, request, or demand entrance or admission to the premises, enclosure, dwelling or place of business of any other person within this state; or
(5) Attend or participate in any meeting upon private property of another unless written permission for such meeting has first been obtained from the owner or occupant thereof.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person:
(1) Under sixteen years of age;
(2) Wearing a traditional holiday costume;
(3) Engaged in a trade or employment where a mask, hood or device is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer;
(4) Using a mask, hood or device in theatrical productions, including use in mardi gras celebrations or similar masquerade balls;
(5) Wearing a mask, hood or device prescribed for civil defense drills, exercises or emergencies; or
(6) Wearing a mask, hood or device for the sole purpose of protection from the elements or while participating in a winter sport.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both fined and imprisoned
Only Louisiana and Minnesota seem to make exceptions based on Religious grounds.
The key is that the intent is to conceal the identity. A burqa is not intended to do so.
Also, I haven't seen the case law, but I wouldn't want to be the the State Attorney arguing a conviction under those against a person wearing religious garb.
Polonius wrote: This is really fascinating to me, beacuse in my opinion, this wouldn't even be a religious issue in the US, it'd be quickly struck down as a limitation of freedom of expression.
PhantomViper wrote: I'll just leave this here for our American friends and bow out of this discussion:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
FLORIDA Chapter 876 Criminal Anarchy, Treason and other Crimes Against Public Order
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
NORTH CAROLINA
While the following sections were enacted primarily as a result of KKK activities, it has been enforced against people wearing other types of masks, such as dust masks and team mascot masks.
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
WEST VIRGINIA 61-6-22.
Wearing masks, hoods or face coverings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, whether in a motor vehicle or otherwise, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby any portion of the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, may:
(1) Come into or appear upon any walk, alley, street, road, highway or other thoroughfare dedicated to public use;
(2) Come into or appear in any trading area, concourse, waiting room, lobby or foyer open to, used by or frequented by the general public;
(3) Come into or appear upon or within any of the grounds or buildings owned, leased, maintained or operated by the state or any political subdivision thereof;
(4) Ask, request, or demand entrance or admission to the premises, enclosure, dwelling or place of business of any other person within this state; or
(5) Attend or participate in any meeting upon private property of another unless written permission for such meeting has first been obtained from the owner or occupant thereof.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person:
(1) Under sixteen years of age;
(2) Wearing a traditional holiday costume;
(3) Engaged in a trade or employment where a mask, hood or device is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer;
(4) Using a mask, hood or device in theatrical productions, including use in mardi gras celebrations or similar masquerade balls;
(5) Wearing a mask, hood or device prescribed for civil defense drills, exercises or emergencies; or
(6) Wearing a mask, hood or device for the sole purpose of protection from the elements or while participating in a winter sport.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both fined and imprisoned
Only Louisiana and Minnesota seem to make exceptions based on Religious grounds.
And many of those explicitly say during a public offense... And almost all of those would lose and need to be re-written if taken to court on religious grounds in the US... Hence why we have courts.
The key is that the intent is to conceal the identity. A burqa is not intended to do so.
What? A burqa is totally intended to conceal the identity of the wearer. The better to protect men from the uncontrolable lust they would feel if they had to look a woman in the eye.
The key is that the intent is to conceal the identity. A burqa is not intended to do so.
What? A burqa is totally intended to conceal the identity of the wearer. The better to protect men from the uncontrolable lust they would feel if they had to look a woman in the eye.
No it isn't... And they are not all burqas... There are lots of head coverings for different cultures, which have different origins and needs, but many of them are done to hide a woman's beauty so she can be judged on the merits of her knowledge and character and not be objectified. It has to do with modesty and not being materialistic, not hide her identity.
It is often seen by westerners as a tool utilized by men to control and silence women, but it often is not at all motivated in that way and is not always a symbol of oppression or done as a part of giving up your rights.
Also, head coverings come from lots of different cultures and to lump them all together in the same 'religion sucks' attitude is ignorant as well as it is not always religious.
There are dozens of non-muslim head coverings:
Abaya
Burqa
Burqini
Chador
Cowl
Ghoonghat
Niqāb
Paranja
Purdah
Sari
Tudong
Yashmak
Christian headcovering
Tichel
Tzniut
PhantomViper wrote: I'll just leave this here for our American friends and bow out of this discussion:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;
(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or
(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.
FLORIDA Chapter 876 Criminal Anarchy, Treason and other Crimes Against Public Order
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
Deals with Loitering, not "wearing a mask anywhere at anytime".
NORTH CAROLINA
While the following sections were enacted primarily as a result of KKK activities, it has been enforced against people wearing other types of masks, such as dust masks and team mascot masks. Source?
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
WEST VIRGINIA 61-6-22.
Wearing masks, hoods or face coverings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, whether in a motor vehicle or otherwise, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby any portion of the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, may:
(1) Come into or appear upon any walk, alley, street, road, highway or other thoroughfare dedicated to public use;
(2) Come into or appear in any trading area, concourse, waiting room, lobby or foyer open to, used by or frequented by the general public;
(3) Come into or appear upon or within any of the grounds or buildings owned, leased, maintained or operated by the state or any political subdivision thereof;
(4) Ask, request, or demand entrance or admission to the premises, enclosure, dwelling or place of business of any other person within this state; or
(5) Attend or participate in any meeting upon private property of another unless written permission for such meeting has first been obtained from the owner or occupant thereof.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person:
(1) Under sixteen years of age;
(2) Wearing a traditional holiday costume;
(3) Engaged in a trade or employment where a mask, hood or device is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer;
(4) Using a mask, hood or device in theatrical productions, including use in mardi gras celebrations or similar masquerade balls;
(5) Wearing a mask, hood or device prescribed for civil defense drills, exercises or emergencies; or
(6) Wearing a mask, hood or device for the sole purpose of protection from the elements or while participating in a winter sport.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both fined and imprisoned
Only Louisiana and Minnesota seem to make exceptions based on Religious grounds.
Highlighted the relevant portions. It is interesting that you left out the actual reason for the bans on quite a few of those. And court cases usually always find that the intend requirement also exists for those that don't specifically mention it.
In addition to quoting the laws we also have to take into account any court cases relating to these laws. And many of these laws cannot be enforced because they violate the constitutional expression of Free Speech and Religion.
Pretty much all court cases (and all laws passed that actually think about stuff) make it clear that you cannot conceal your face if the intend is to hide your identity during a crime.
It's not a crime to cover your face, it's a crime to cover your face to hide who you are while committing a crime.
The actual effect of the law is important, too. If I'm a Muslim and believe I have a moral imperative to wear a full veil then am I going to instantly stop caring about it after a lifetime of having done so or am I going to just leave the house far less?
There is a bit in there about making it criminal to force someone to wear a veil (though I would have thought that would be illegal already) and that's cool, but I'm far from convinced that "let's remove women's choice so they don't make the wrong one" is some amazing defense of the rights of women.
Polonius wrote: This is really fascinating to me, beacuse in my opinion, this wouldn't even be a religious issue in the US, it'd be quickly struck down as a limitation of freedom of expression.
That is an interesting take on the matter, though the burka is not obviously an expression of political or social views so whether it would be protected is not clear.
Personally I think people who come to settle in a country ought to make an effort at least not to obviously avoid joining in with the local culture. I don't think it can be legislated, though. I dislike the burka for various reasons however I don't think legal sanctions are an effective way of persuading women to abandon it. As noted earlier, the French law failed.
PhantomViper wrote: I'll just leave this here for our American friends and bow out of this discussion:
Spoiler:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
FLORIDA Chapter 876 Criminal Anarchy, Treason and other Crimes Against Public Order
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
NORTH CAROLINA
While the following sections were enacted primarily as a result of KKK activities, it has been enforced against people wearing other types of masks, such as dust masks and team mascot masks.
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
WEST VIRGINIA 61-6-22.
Wearing masks, hoods or face coverings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, whether in a motor vehicle or otherwise, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby any portion of the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, may:
(1) Come into or appear upon any walk, alley, street, road, highway or other thoroughfare dedicated to public use;
(2) Come into or appear in any trading area, concourse, waiting room, lobby or foyer open to, used by or frequented by the general public;
(3) Come into or appear upon or within any of the grounds or buildings owned, leased, maintained or operated by the state or any political subdivision thereof;
(4) Ask, request, or demand entrance or admission to the premises, enclosure, dwelling or place of business of any other person within this state; or
(5) Attend or participate in any meeting upon private property of another unless written permission for such meeting has first been obtained from the owner or occupant thereof.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person:
(1) Under sixteen years of age;
(2) Wearing a traditional holiday costume;
(3) Engaged in a trade or employment where a mask, hood or device is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer;
(4) Using a mask, hood or device in theatrical productions, including use in mardi gras celebrations or similar masquerade balls;
(5) Wearing a mask, hood or device prescribed for civil defense drills, exercises or emergencies; or
(6) Wearing a mask, hood or device for the sole purpose of protection from the elements or while participating in a winter sport.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both fined and imprisoned
Only Louisiana and Minnesota seem to make exceptions based on Religious grounds.
I was about to note there are quite a few laws on the books about wearing hoods and masks.
Especially hoods.
Especially put into law because of a certain group of guys
who wore hoods
white hoods.
So yea we do this all the time.
Note I am not however, taking a side on this issue, just noting that the US has quite a few interesting laws, some of which are appropriate to the subject.
It has already been adjudicated that, if stopped by the PoPo and on your license you have to show your face if wearing religious headgear.
I thought I heard of a case adjudicated on that you couldn't wear completely concealing headgear on a jury either.
OT but, am I the only person who hears "headgear" and thinks of that horrific teeth braces thingy from Sixteen Candles?
We have identification with a picture of our face for a reason.
If the police questioning someone, court of law or anyone taking a driving test cannot have their identity verified it becomes rather problematic holding people accountable.
Just in these forums, people act differently under the mask of anonymity than if their identity can be verified.
"Unfair targeting" is less of a concern than the control of movements of completely unidentifiable people.
If I wanted to rob anyone (or the simple planting a bomb in public) a full body covering is perfect, and maybe on rollerblades: No-one would have a single feature to describe of you (height being suspect with above example). You could possibly even have a backpack and you would just look hunched. Then you could later-on throw off the outfit and voila! Completely different!
Before you say I am being prejudiced, I am just thinking of the outfit for anyone's use to abuse as they see fit. Abuse that a few times and see how much worse those outfits will be viewed.
Maybe the "compromise" is apply black face paint like a reverse geisha, that should meet the requirement.
To make a case against public identity by going further than the religious book specifically states is hard to accept.
I understand this is an acceptable practice in other parts of the world but the unfairness of not being able to see the person's face and potential for abuse is hard to accept in the best of conditions.
We have identification with a picture of our face for a reason.
If the police questioning someone, court of law or anyone taking a driving test cannot have their identity verified it becomes rather problematic holding people accountable.
Just in these forums, people act differently under the mask of anonymity than if their identity can be verified.
"Unfair targeting" is less of a concern than the control of movements of completely unidentifiable people.
If I wanted to rob anyone (or the simple planting a bomb in public) a full body covering is perfect, and maybe on rollerblades: No-one would have a single feature to describe of you (height being suspect with above example). You could possibly even have a backpack and you would just look hunched. Then you could later-on throw off the outfit and voila! Completely different!
Before you say I am being prejudiced, I am just thinking of the outfit for anyone's use to abuse as they see fit. Abuse that a few times and see how much worse those outfits will be viewed.
Maybe the "compromise" is apply black face paint like a reverse geisha, that should meet the requirement.
To make a case against public identity by going further than the religious book specifically states is hard to accept.
I understand this is an acceptable practice in other parts of the world but the unfairness of not being able to see the person's face and potential for abuse is hard to accept in the best of conditions.
Do you think it's proper to place a paternalistic restriction on what a specific group of women choose to wear because you can imagine a movie plot that involves someone covering up their identity with a veil and committing a crime?
The key is that the intent is to conceal the identity. A burqa is not intended to do so.
What? A burqa is totally intended to conceal the identity of the wearer. The better to protect men from the uncontrolable lust they would feel if they had to look a woman in the eye.
No it isn't... And they are not all burqas... There are lots of head coverings for different cultures, which have different origins and needs, but many of them are done to hide a woman's beauty so she can be judged on the merits of her knowledge and character and not be objectified. It has to do with modesty and not being materialistic, not hide her identity.
It is often seen by westerners as a tool utilized by men to control and silence women, but it often is not at all motivated in that way and is not always a symbol of oppression or done as a part of giving up your rights.
Also, head coverings come from lots of different cultures and to lump them all together in the same 'religion sucks' attitude is ignorant as well as it is not always religious.
There are dozens of non-muslim head coverings:
Abaya
Burqa
Burqini
Chador
Cowl
Ghoonghat
Niqāb
Paranja
Purdah
Sari
Tudong
Yashmak
Christian headcovering
Tichel
Tzniut
I am fully aware that not all head/face coverings worn by Muslim women are burqas. That's why I used the word "burqa" and not one of the many that you listed. Burqas conceal everything. They don't leave the eyes exposed like a Niqab; they cover every part of a woman from view. The purpose of the garment is to conceal a woman's features completely. The purpose is to conceal identity. There may be religious motivations behind it. There may be social motivations behind it. But the fact is that the purpose is concealment. To argue otherwise is wrong.
And I want to point out that I am not arguing for or against this law; I'm merely pointing out that some of the arguments being used on this thread are based on flawed reasoning. An earier poster tried to claim that this law would forbid the wearing of baseball caps. I pointed out that it would do no such thing. You are claiming that a burqa isn't intended to conceal identity. I'm pointing out that that isn't true. I am not saying I am in favor of this law or not. Personally, I'm against it on freedom of expression grounds. The state has a right to ban certain articles of clothing for security or safety reasons, if there is a compelling state interest to do so. Absent a widespread series of crimes or terrorist attacks being committed by Muslim women wearing burquas or Niqabs, there is no compelling state interest to ban the coverings. It's just bigotry worded in a way to hide the bigotry.
Pass a law saying "nobody is allowed to dunk another person underwater", now you are still covering your target group but it's fair "because it applies to everyone".
Perfect example... "Oh, it is criminal child abuse! Really!"
No, it is a harmless religious custom which doesn't need the government involved.
Pass a law saying "nobody is allowed to dunk another person underwater", now you are still covering your target group but it's fair "because it applies to everyone".
Perfect example... "Oh, it is criminal child abuse! Really!"
No, it is a harmless religious custom which doesn't need the government involved.
squidhills wrote: An earier poster tried to claim that this law would forbid the wearing of baseball caps. I pointed out that it would do no such thing.
Defending myself here: I didn't say that this law would forbid the wearing of baseball caps. However, "clothing intended to conceal the face" could be easily and reasonably construed by a police officer to mean that if a kid is wearing a baseball hat too low for the cop's comfort, he is intending to use his clothing to conceal his face...then boom!, give him a fine and shake him down.
In fact, unless something is missing from translation from the BBC article in the OP, I don't think its unlikely that a situation similar to this will occur, if it hasnt already happened yet.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: I thought neo socialist secular progressive europe was a place of understanding and respect.
France has been getting press for xenophobia for quite sometime now. Perhaps its not the land of wine, cheese, and happiness we've been led to beleive.
Polonius wrote: This is really fascinating to me, beacuse in my opinion, this wouldn't even be a religious issue in the US, it'd be quickly struck down as a limitation of freedom of expression.
That is an interesting take on the matter, though the burka is not obviously an expression of political or social views so whether it would be protected is not clear.
Well, wearing a Burqa is an expression that you think burqas should be worn. It's self reflexive, but it's something.
More generally, its an expression of cultural identiy. It also certainly announces that such a person is a devout muslin. I could be wrong, but in the Legal definition of Speech, you'd be hard pressed to exclude cultural/religious garb.
Then, of course, you'd have to show that there's a reason to interefere with the practice of religion. Keep in mind, courts have upheld requiring face photos on Government IDs and the like, so there's a bit of a line already there.
Personally I think people who come to settle in a country ought to make an effort at least not to obviously avoid joining in with the local culture. I don't think it can be legislated, though. I dislike the burka for various reasons however I don't think legal sanctions are an effective way of persuading women to abandon it. As noted earlier, the French law failed.
It happens, usually within three generations, here in the US. One reason is that there is no dominate homogenous culture, another is that immigrants are made citizens comparitively simply (And their children born here are automatically so), and a third is that we dont' have the knee jerk sort of expectation of comformity, which allows every person to become an American as they see fit.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's proper to place a paternalistic restriction on what a specific group of women choose to wear because you can imagine a movie plot that involves someone covering up their identity with a veil and committing a crime?
Movie plot??
You are a gamer correct?
Look at a "rule" and see all the ways it can be broken.
Then look at how to mitigate that loophole so it does not break things.
There is an albeit small number of people who are taking a "guideline" and running with it in all things.
To not allow police to see their face to establish identity or to properly gauge if someone is lying or under the influence (veil will not allow seeing eye dilation), or to be properly identified in court or any number of government requirements, examination in doctor / hospital setting...
So-far seems to be a matter of perspective but a statement of being "protected from the prying eyes of men" is not making me feel warm and fuzzy about this.
I think in summary of these works I would say that to "ban" the face coverings fly in the face of a democratic society and values BUT reasonable means of identification (reveal face to another woman for identity) for any official means of identification is still necessary.
I guess my "gut" feel of these things is the same as talking to someone who keep mirrored glasses on when I talk to them: it feels plane rude, just one min, I need to put my shades on.
It is like a reminder that it is an outfit of emotional armor where we like to think it is no longer necessary and makes it so hard to connect with someone that has so little to give by visible indicators.
Defending myself here: I didn't say that this law would forbid the wearing of baseball caps. However, "clothing intended to conceal the face" could be easily and reasonably construed by a police officer to mean that if a kid is wearing a baseball hat too low for the cop's comfort, he is intending to use his clothing to conceal his face...then boom!, give him a fine and shake him down.
In fact, unless something is missing from translation from the BBC article in the OP, I don't think its unlikely that a situation similar to this will occur, if it hasnt already happened yet.
The difference is that a baseball cap cannot be used to effectively conceal one's features from view. You can do it from exactly one angle, while leaving your face visible from every other angle. Police could not use this law to shakedown baseball cap wearing people because no reasonable person would find a baseball cap alone, by itself, to be any kind of effective disguise. A baseball cap, in conjunction with dark sunglasses and an oversized fake beard would qualify as an effective concealment, but a baseball cap by itself would not qualify. This law is not going to lead to habedashery-related shakedowns.
In related news, I see a lot of people talking about how this is a security issue, not a religious one. I can grant that security concerns can be valid reasons for banning certain articles of clothing. We have restrictions on face-concealing clothing in many areas of this country for that very reason. However, the law cannot ban certain articles of clothing unless there is evidence that not doing so will lead to a negative impact on the safety of the citizens. We can't ban ten-gallon hats just because they look tacky. We can ban them if a string of violent crimes are committed by men concealing hand grenades inside ten-gallon hats. This law in France is trying to claim that everything that completely conceals a person's face must be banned, but they have failed to demonstrate how face coverings favored by Muslim cultures threaten the safety of French citizens. There have been no string of violent crimes committed by burqa or niqab wearing women in France (as far as I know). They have failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest in banning the garments.
Wearing the burqa in public was not forbidden in France for security reasons (that would be silly, as the examples with baseball caps, hoodies and motorcycle helmets already proved), but because it was, in so many words, deemed offensive.
That Europeans are banning something because it's "offensive" (whatever that's worth in legal terms), while many American posters here are lamenting this intolerable limitation of personal freedoms, is incredibly ironic. As someone who's already stated in other threads that in my opinion, "the right not to be offended by something somebody else does" doesn't exist, I think that this ruling is an outrage and sending the wrong message. Not to mention the ECHR's argument that this is fine because it only affects 2000 people, as if personal rights and freedoms were somehow dependant on a head count.
I agree with "France" that burqas (and niqabs) are misogynistic, sectarian, segregational, and anti-social, and thus inherently offensive. I disagree that anybody should be forbidden to do something just because I or somebody else feels offended by it.
That Europeans are banning something because it's "offensive" (whatever that's worth in legal terms), while many American posters here are lamenting this intolerable limitation of personal freedoms, is incredibly ironic. As someone who's already stated in other threads that in my opinion, "the right not to be offended by something somebody else does" doesn't exist, I think that this ruling is an outrage and sending the wrong message. Not to mention the ECHR's argument that this is fine because it only affects 2000 people, as if personal rights and freedoms were somehow dependant on a head count.
I agree with "France" that burqas (and niqabs) are misogynistic, sectarian, segregational, and anti-social, and thus inherently offensive. I disagree that anybody should be forbidden to do something just because I or somebody else feels offended by it.
Defending myself here: I didn't say that this law would forbid the wearing of baseball caps. However, "clothing intended to conceal the face" could be easily and reasonably construed by a police officer to mean that if a kid is wearing a baseball hat too low for the cop's comfort, he is intending to use his clothing to conceal his face...then boom!, give him a fine and shake him down.
In fact, unless something is missing from translation from the BBC article in the OP, I don't think its unlikely that a situation similar to this will occur, if it hasnt already happened yet.
The difference is that a baseball cap cannot be used to effectively conceal one's features from view. You can do it from exactly one angle, while leaving your face visible from every other angle.
According to the French law, the clothing doesn't need to be effective at facial concealment, only that it is intended to conceal the face (intended by design or by usage...no differentiation between the two has been presented in this entire thread, despite that I've admitted there may be something lost in translation in the BBC article).
"clothing intended to conceal the face"
When you pass vague laws like this, thats fine I suppose. Just don't be surprised when law enforcement exploits the vagaries.
well, and I am mostly playing devils advocate here,
but they can still wear them in private,
just as orgies have to be in private, for the same "offensive" reasons.
personally, my opinion is let em wear whatever they want in public, but if they need to be ID'ed for a license or want to enter a court building, be sworn in, ect, then they need to remove it to be identified properly.
According to the French law, the clothing doesn't need to be effective at facial concealment, only that it is intended to conceal the face (intended by design or by usage...no differentiation between the two has been presented in this entire thread, despite that I've admitted there may be something lost in translation in the BBC article).
"clothing intended to conceal the face"
When you pass vague laws like this, thats fine I suppose. Just don't be surprised when law enforcement exploits the vagaries.
Ok, I'll grant you that the wording in that part is a little vague. I automatically leaned toward interpretting it as "intended by design" to cover the face, but I do know that there are lawyers out there who would argue it as "intended by usage". That could definately leave potential for abuse or exploitation.
squidhills wrote: In related news, I see a lot of people talking about how this is a security issue, not a religious one. I can grant that security concerns can be valid reasons for banning certain articles of clothing. We have restrictions on face-concealing clothing in many areas of this country for that very reason. However, the law cannot ban certain articles of clothing unless there is evidence that not doing so will lead to a negative impact on the safety of the citizens. We can't ban ten-gallon hats just because they look tacky. We can ban them if a string of violent crimes are committed by men concealing hand grenades inside ten-gallon hats. This law in France is trying to claim that everything that completely conceals a person's face must be banned, but they have failed to demonstrate how face coverings favored by Muslim cultures threaten the safety of French citizens. There have been no string of violent crimes committed by burqa or niqab wearing women in France (as far as I know). They have failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest in banning the garments.
Well, there's the case of any facial covering effectively defeating the CC cameras that Europeans adamantly regard as essential to safety and security.
According to the French law, the clothing doesn't need to be effective at facial concealment, only that it is intended to conceal the face (intended by design or by usage...no differentiation between the two has been presented in this entire thread, despite that I've admitted there may be something lost in translation in the BBC article).
"clothing intended to conceal the face"
When you pass vague laws like this, thats fine I suppose. Just don't be surprised when law enforcement exploits the vagaries.
Ok, I'll grant you that the wording in that part is a little vague. I automatically leaned toward interpretting it as "intended by design" to cover the face, but I do know that there are lawyers out there who would argue it as "intended by usage". That could definately leave potential for abuse or exploitation.
To be fair, the law in question is more clear if you don't mind butchering the English language a little: "No one is allowed to publicly wear clothing which has the purpose of concealing his/her face."
The intent of the wearer is less emphasized than the "intended usage" of the piece of headwear.
Im conflicted. I have always found freedom of religion important
But I also find face coverings wrong in the context of many religions. They had a place in the desert, where the sweat would cling to the cotton and evaporate slowly to preserve the body. But it is also oppressivve to the women who are forced to wear it outside. And it is an insult to men aswell, because it is said that they cant control their urges.
But the oddest is how many people I see at the water park in two piece bikinies wearing a face covering.
For me the Freedom of Religion (and how it applies to yourself) is the important thing for me here.
I think that you should be able to do to your body what you want in this context. If you think Tattoos are in your religion, then tattoo yourself. If you think you have to wear holy underwear, then wear it. If you think that you have to have 10 children then have 10 children.
But I also understand that religion can be used to control others. I don't think others should be forced to have a tattoo because it is part of your religion, they shouldn't be forced to wear holy underwear, they shouldn't be forced to have 10 children.
So, once we look past people that are just stirred up by pure Islamophobia, I can see that there are people who have a legitimate argument when they want to help women be less oppressed and help them become free of this burden. And I do think that for some of those women this is probably very applicable. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to help the women who are forced to wear it. But then we are also crossing in to forcing women not to wear it who want to wear it.
Which brings this back into the "iffy" territory for me.
squidhills wrote: In related news, I see a lot of people talking about how this is a security issue, not a religious one. I can grant that security concerns can be valid reasons for banning certain articles of clothing. We have restrictions on face-concealing clothing in many areas of this country for that very reason. However, the law cannot ban certain articles of clothing unless there is evidence that not doing so will lead to a negative impact on the safety of the citizens. We can't ban ten-gallon hats just because they look tacky. We can ban them if a string of violent crimes are committed by men concealing hand grenades inside ten-gallon hats. This law in France is trying to claim that everything that completely conceals a person's face must be banned, but they have failed to demonstrate how face coverings favored by Muslim cultures threaten the safety of French citizens. There have been no string of violent crimes committed by burqa or niqab wearing women in France (as far as I know). They have failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest in banning the garments.
Well, there's the case of any facial covering effectively defeating the CC cameras that Europeans adamantly regard as essential to safety and security.
Maybe they could put some kind of mark on the outside of the clothing, to help identify everybody on camera...
d-usa wrote: For me the Freedom of Religion (and how it applies to yourself) is the important thing for me here.
I think that you should be able to do to your body what you want in this context. If you think Tattoos are in your religion, then tattoo yourself. If you think you have to wear holy underwear, then wear it. If you think that you have to have 10 children then have 10 children.
But I also understand that religion can be used to control others. I don't think others should be forced to have a tattoo because it is part of your religion, they shouldn't be forced to wear holy underwear, they shouldn't be forced to have 10 children.
So, once we look past people that are just stirred up by pure Islamophobia, I can see that there are people who have a legitimate argument when they want to help women be less oppressed and help them become free of this burden. And I do think that for some of those women this is probably very applicable. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to help the women who are forced to wear it. But then we are also crossing in to forcing women not to wear it who want to wear it.
Which brings this back into the "iffy" territory for me.
Thats the thing I think. Many religions dont have the indoctrination that Islam has, or so I hae seen. the Magic underwear. My friend is morman and he jokes "It isnt protecting me from anything. God loves me either way. But he doesnt love you hotsauceman." But Islam In my experiance the kids are often wearing to coverings or the headscarf(Dont know proper terms) To the point that a symbol of oppression becomes so engrained that it is normal. I talked to women and their answer is "I have always worn it, I never gave much thought" with many of them being well educated and way smarted then people I know.
jasper76 wrote: I wonder how the French feel about KISS makeup in public?
There's a very niche subsection of the fashion industry who research and develop methods for defeating facial recognition through the use of cosmetics, actually. From the state security angle, I'd say they'd probably dislike it. This was one of the more prominent examples I recall reading about on Slashdot: http://cvdazzle.com/ It's a little, uh, avant garde though. I could see it making for a good Shadowrun look
As far as the question of sensibility goes, I think MOST people wouldn't go for it, French or otherwise.
Religion is all about symbolism and belief but also has that extra bit of something: needing a "uniform" where religious "requirement" can be blurred.
Like a Sikh: (wiki) "can also be recognized by the Five Ks: uncut hair (Kesh); an iron/steel bracelet (kara); a Kirpan, a sword tucked in a gatra strap; Kachehra, a cotton undergarment; and a Kanga, a small wooden comb. Baptized male Sikhs must cover their hair with a turban, while turban is optional for baptized female Sikhs."
Got enough of a nasty discussion of joining Canadian military or the Royal Mounted Police not meeting the uniform dress code.
Interesting reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltej_Singh_Dhillon
I REALLY do not like the face coverings and still looking at the "benefits" and pro-discussions on it I think it is rather weak.
I think the freedom lost by actually legally banning them is unacceptable for what precedence it sets however.
We cannot just ban things because people find it offensive.
Women are allowed the other way and can be topless in Canada (still with some controversy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada Heck, some men really should not take their shirt off...
I do not want to even think when those two opposing forms of thought get within close proximity.
Like matter / anti-matter?
Fun stuff.
For those of us men who can control ourselves; women can wear as little as they want.
It depends you have to take into the geopolitical and cultural differences into account of what is right. The defintiion can vary greatly for example in Ghana, it is a right while in Saudi Arabia, it is the law. For instance, in America, you can do it, but in Estonia is virtually unknown,
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
Clothing intended to cover the face. This means clothing that was specifically made in order to cover the face. Sure, I could cover my face with a fur hat or my underwear, but those pieces of clothing were not specifically made as face coverings. burkas, some forms of motorcycle helmet, balaclavas etc. are designed specifically to cover the entire face. A hoodie on the other hand, is just designed to cover the head, not the face, and is thus not banned. Good luck pulling your hoodie over your nose and not bumping into stuff
hotsauceman1 wrote: I talked to women and their answer is "I have always worn it, I never gave much thought" with many of them being well educated and way smarted then people I know.
I have two Co-workers who wear them, and it is a symbol of female empowerment for them, not oppression. They are offended by people who feel the need to 'liberate' them from their head coverings. They run their households too and are capable in the business world as well.
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
Clothing intended to cover the face. This means clothing that was specifically made in order to cover the face. Sure, I could cover my face with a fur hat or my underwear, but those pieces of clothing were not specifically made as face coverings. burkas, some forms of motorcycle helmet, balaclavas etc. are designed specifically to cover the entire face. A hoodie on the other hand, is just designed to cover the head, not the face, and is thus not banned. Good luck pulling your hoodie over your nose and not bumping into stuff
Yup, that is one possible interpretation of the English phrase "clothing intended to cover the face". Another is clothing that is worn with the intention of covering one's face.
Ex 1: It was cold outside, so John chose clothing intended to cover his face. (design)
Ex 2: John wanted to rob a bank, so he chose clothing intended to cover his face, but he was foolish in the clothing he chose and got caught on film. (usage)
hotsauceman1 wrote: I talked to women and their answer is "I have always worn it, I never gave much thought" with many of them being well educated and way smarted then people I know.
I have two Co-workers who wear them, and it is a symbol of female empowerment for them, not oppression. They are offended by people who feel the need to 'liberate' them from their head coverings. They run their households too and are capable in the business world as well.
If that line of thinking is what helps them get through the day, more power to them. It's still hypocritical - especially once you cross from hotsauceman's "headscarves" (hijab) into niqab territory.
I have more respect for a woman who at least has the guts to answer "because my god commands it" when asked about her veil instead of hiding behind some pseudo-feminist nonsense that usually only serves to hide the fact that they don't even know how to argue in favor of the hijab, niqab, chador or burqa from an islamic point of view.
jasper76 wrote: So is the fact that the phrase "clothing intended to cover the face" could reasonably be construed to apply to hoodies and ball caps a strawman? How so?
Clothing intended to cover the face. This means clothing that was specifically made in order to cover the face. Sure, I could cover my face with a fur hat or my underwear, but those pieces of clothing were not specifically made as face coverings. burkas, some forms of motorcycle helmet, balaclavas etc. are designed specifically to cover the entire face. A hoodie on the other hand, is just designed to cover the head, not the face, and is thus not banned. Good luck pulling your hoodie over your nose and not bumping into stuff
Yup, that is one possible interpretation of the English phrase "clothing intended to cover the face". Another is clothing that is worn with the intention of covering one's face.
Ex 1: It was cold outside, so John chose clothing intended to cover his face. (design)
Ex 2: John wanted to rob a bank, so he chose clothing intended to cover his face, but he was foolish in the clothing he chose and got caught on film. (usage)
Again:
"Nul ne peut, dans l’espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage."
"Destinée", in the context of the used phrase, is NOT quite as ambiguous as the English "intended"; the key association here is "purpose" of the piece of clothing instead of "intention" of the wearer.
Wearing a scarf over your face in winter = fine, because the purpose of the scarf is to protect against the cold, not to hide your face from view.
Wearing a motorcycle helmet in chronological proximity of actually riding a motorcycle = fine, because the purpose of the helmet is to protect your skull, not hide your face from view.
Wearing a ski mask = coming into grey areas here, because arguably ski masks *do* double as protective winter gear and, well, masks, as seen in countless bank robberies across the world.
So yes, the law could and should be much clearer, but it's far from being a carte blanche.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I talked to women and their answer is "I have always worn it, I never gave much thought" with many of them being well educated and way smarted then people I know.
I have two Co-workers who wear them, and it is a symbol of female empowerment for them, not oppression. They are offended by people who feel the need to 'liberate' them from their head coverings. They run their households too and are capable in the business world as well.
I do not understand how a thing that is a symbol of the fact that in some places there is such oppression of a group of humans that if you don't conceal your face (which is a primary form of self-identity), it'll get you killed can 'empower' someone to do anything other than huddle down and meekly comply with anything for survival. Only your chains can set you free I guess. Some people are addicted to coffee enemas. Some people take shots of vodka through the eyeball. People are crazy.
I mean, personally, I don't give a damn what they WANT to do. I'm just here pointing out the blinders it puts in the panopticon.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I talked to women and their answer is "I have always worn it, I never gave much thought" with many of them being well educated and way smarted then people I know.
I have two Co-workers who wear them, and it is a symbol of female empowerment for them, not oppression. They are offended by people who feel the need to 'liberate' them from their head coverings. They run their households too and are capable in the business world as well.
I do not understand how a thing that is a symbol of the fact that in some places there is such oppression of a group of humans that if you don't conceal your face (which is a primary form of self-identity), it'll get you killed can 'empower' someone to do anything other than huddle down and meekly comply with anything for survival. Only your chains can set you free I guess. Some people are addicted to coffee enemas. Some people take shots of vodka through the eyeball. People are crazy.
I mean, personally, I don't give a damn what they WANT to do. I'm just here pointing out the blinders it puts in the panopticon.
It is a form of modesty and being humble. They do not want to objectify their body and be treated 'lesser' because they are simply a pretty woman. So they choose to wear simple clothes and cover their head opposed to strut around the office in a miniskirt and 100$ of makeup. People are listening to them and doing what they say because they are good at their job and not because of their feminine attributes and having worth being judged on how 'pretty' they are or how pretty their outfit is. That resonates with lots of people on a non-religious level regardless if it is a decree from god or just something a culture believes, or someone simply likes how it looks.
And just like all EXTREME cultures and religions, things get taken to extremes and become horrible. But the origins of the modesty are actually quite reasonable positions for people, even non-religious ones to take... and if they choose to do it via a head covering, so be it. Do marginalize them because you don't like it makes you a bigot. If a woman wants to wear a powersuit with a short skirt and 6" heels to empower herself, so be it, if she wants to wear a plain headcovering, so be it, if she wants to wear a thong and a medium pair of sweatpants over her 500lb booty, so be it. What is not appropriate is people basically trying to tell women what they can and cannot wear and how they should or should not feel when wearing specific outfits or accessories. Calling girls a frump or a slut because someone doesn't like their outfit is no different than people who are wearing a headcovering and are being called oppresed religious slaves... It is ignorant stereotyping and none of your damn business.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Do you think it's proper to place a paternalistic restriction on what a specific group of women choose to wear because you can imagine a movie plot that involves someone covering up their identity with a veil and committing a crime?
Movie plot??
You are a gamer correct?
Look at a "rule" and see all the ways it can be broken.
Then look at how to mitigate that loophole so it does not break things.
There is an albeit small number of people who are taking a "guideline" and running with it in all things.
To not allow police to see their face to establish identity or to properly gauge if someone is lying or under the influence (veil will not allow seeing eye dilation), or to be properly identified in court or any number of government requirements, examination in doctor / hospital setting...
The problem is, the way to do security is to not make up a bunch of movie plots and then think of ways we could defeat the movie plot. It doesn't work. There are always more movie plots.
Of course you can make them sound scary. That's why they're good movie plots. That doesn't mean they're an actual problem that exists in the world.
So-far seems to be a matter of perspective but a statement of being "protected from the prying eyes of men" is not making me feel warm and fuzzy about this.
I think in summary of these works I would say that to "ban" the face coverings fly in the face of a democratic society and values BUT reasonable means of identification (reveal face to another woman for identity) for any official means of identification is still necessary.
I guess my "gut" feel of these things is the same as talking to someone who keep mirrored glasses on when I talk to them: it feels plane rude, just one min, I need to put my shades on.
It is like a reminder that it is an outfit of emotional armor where we like to think it is no longer necessary and makes it so hard to connect with someone that has so little to give by visible indicators.
Well, personally I think some of the reasoning behind the burqa is grievously flawed and misogynistic (men control men, not women. It's the duty of men to control themselves, not women to somehow avoid inciting men) but I don't think trying to ban it solves the problem - it even has a risk of hurting the same women it's claimed (by some) to be helping. Furthermore, is there anyone in this entire discussion anywhere that thinks this is about anything other than attacking Muslims?? I don't remember it being in the slightest doubt at the time and, obfuscations aside, it doesn't seem to be in much doubt now.
In general - I've heard people say it's actually really freeing to not have to worry about the constant nonsense and judgment western culture throws at women about our appearance.
Mhm, yeah, I do always think to myself, that is one empowered woman when I see a stack of curtains forced to walk some arbitrary distance behind her husband.
I'm curious if this law will apply to sunglasses. Sun glasses are intended to cover the face , hide identity and make communication more difficult due to inability to see the eyes.
I hate the idea of this law being passed and upheld. I have no problem with burkas ect, if you want to wear it that's up to you. I think that nijabs can actually look quite attractive. I think most of the excuses given - crime , how many crimes are committed in burkas...really? - not being compatible with western culture ...what a load of gak , 100 years ago you had to wear a hat in western culture, now days where are all the hats? Culture changes , xenophobic gak doesn't. - Paternalistic protection of women...yep that's just great.
Long flowing robes were intended to keep the sun off people. I head covering is also used with them, when you look at the difference between men and women wearing those clothes the difference is only the facial covering, yep that's right only the burka is different, the nijab is the same as what the men wear.
What he said. Sunglasses were designed to prevent sun radiation from melting your eyes. Face veils are there to cover the features of women to keep them "clean" or some other such nonsense.
No, they cover the eyes. Not the face. They were not designed to "hide identity" as you stated.
Are your eyes on your arse? Mine are quite squarely located in my face. They are designed to conceal the face and as a consequence conceal the identity
What he said. Sunglasses were designed to prevent sun radiation from melting your eyes. Face veils are there to cover the features of women to keep them "clean" or some other such nonsense.
Remove temptation I think. Might be it being the ID verification. A female Adjudicator though is the one to due the interview by herself
PhantomViper wrote: And why isn't it reasonable if it applies equally to everyone?
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
No, the same law expressively prohibits the use of the helmet in public unless you are riding your motorbike, and people using Balaclavas were also arrested and fined because of this law. This isn't specific to veils.
Welcome to missing the point.
Some exemptions like the Carnival and weddings apparently already exist.
Oh well then it's a totally sensible law with all the right limitations in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: Giving the state the power to punish you for concealing yourself in public, making security camera's useless etc.? Great, can I have another?
There is not a person on Earth who honestly believes this is just about people covering their faces to avoid security cameras. Not one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Experiment 626 wrote: So you'd rather a state that forces women to walk around in a mobile tent, never able to leave their home without a male family member, and who can be killed for the pettiest of reasons such as having the sheer audacity of wanting an education?
Because that's what the burka represents.
And here we have the real reason behind the burqua ban - people don't like lots of elements of Islamic culture and so they want to ban one of its most obvious symbols.
The problem being, of course, that no sensible person on Earth would claim that banning the burqua will stop honour killings and the denial of education, and none would even claim that this will lead to women leaving the home dressed in more western attire... instead it will result in them not leaving the home at all.
Which of course, achieves nothing but further marginalisation, and so can only be seen as really fething stupid policy.
Unless, of course, the actual lives of these women isn't the point at all. Instead the appeal is to people who are afraid of that community and want to exert some kind of control over them, just to feel a little less afraid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You have to keep in mind that Muslim is not the predominate religion/culture.
At some point, you have to draw "that line" as a society to permit which custom.
As an open, inclusive society, you can only justify drawing a line when there is a harm to general welfare, or if the banning a custom will relieve some kind of exploitation of a specific group.
In this case, given the claims of threat to general society are very silly and the law doesn't reduce exploitation of Islamic women, it should be pretty clear to everyone the law is bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: I don't know how it is in the US, but over here we do have a serious issue with bikers pulling up at gas stations and just stealing the gas and running away afterwards.
And yet this law won't stop them continuing to wear helmets while entering gas stations. In fact, by helmet laws they are required to continue wearing helmets. Nor were simple responses like requiring pre-payment at gas stations required.
Hmm, it's almost as if that claim is total bs with no relevance to why this law is really being put in place...
It is a form of modesty and being humble. They do not want to objectify their body and be treated 'lesser' because they are simply a pretty woman. So they choose to wear simple clothes and cover their head opposed to strut around the office in a miniskirt and 100$ of makeup. People are listening to them and doing what they say because they are good at their job and not because of their feminine attributes and having worth being judged on how 'pretty' they are or how pretty their outfit is. That resonates with lots of people on a non-religious level regardless if it is a decree from god or just something a culture believes, or someone simply likes how it looks.
I work with women, some of which are significantly smarter and better at their jobs than I am. I somehow manage to not judge their intelligence based upon their attractiveness. I don't think any of them wear $100 worth of makeup. I would probably not be able to judge such a thing on my own anyway. I don't think I've seen anyone wear a miniskirt in a professional atmosphere anyway. I work with a lot of people, male and female, who's origins are from what I can only describe broadly as the "middle east". None of them wear headwear to work, and dress in traditional American fashion. None of them, as far as I know are judged in any of the ways you speak of. Maybe we're all judging them subconsciously, and we're bad people for it, but I've never consciously had that impact my judgement in any case I can remember. I'm not intending on this comment to counter anything you say. My anecdotes don't change what your saying, and I can't disagree with anything you're saying. All I'm saying is that human beings are wired to recognize faces. It's how we establish identity, to a certain extent, for better or worse, both in each other, and in ourselves. It's a reasonably universal thing.
This is an anomaly, not a face. We all see a face there though.
Here as well.
And just like all EXTREME cultures and religions, things get taken to extremes and become horrible. But the origins of the modesty are actually quite reasonable positions for people, even non-religious ones to take... and if they choose to do it via a head covering, so be it. Do marginalize them because you don't like it makes you a bigot. If a woman wants to wear a powersuit with a short skirt and 6" heels to empower herself, so be it, if she wants to wear a plain headcovering, so be it, if she wants to wear a thong and a medium pair of sweatpants over her 500lb booty, so be it. What is not appropriate is people basically trying to tell women what they can and cannot wear and how they should or should not feel when wearing specific outfits or accessories. Calling girls a frump or a slut because someone doesn't like their outfit is no different than people who are wearing a headcovering and are being called oppresed religious slaves... It is ignorant stereotyping and none of your damn business.
I'm not TRYING to marginalize anyone. You tell me of two women that perform an activity for a reason specific to them, and I could show you approximately 7.21 million results on Google that would suggest that it's an activity associated with not getting beaten to death with rocks, and then act like I'm the monster for my surprise. Technically, yeah, actually, I guess that DOES mean I'm marginalizing people. At that level of saturation, it's become a symbol for something it wasn't originally intended to be. The origins of something seldom ever play into the significance in present day reality, because meanings and significance fluidly shift. This is why Dakka gets upset if I were to say I haven't smoked a cigarette in about 10 years, or if I talk about how heavy the [see forum posting rules] of wood was that I had to lug around on the last camping trip I went on. Humans tend to correlate things with other things, justified or not, and language and symbols change in meaning, quite often.
I'm sorry for this, but here are some of the more lazy things that illustrate this:
These are not Nazis. The symbol they're wearing is strongly correlated with Nazism though. I know the difference because there have been numerous studies showing the origin and various uses of that symbol prior to the Nazis. Someone without a broader scope of history of such a thing might not realize that, and there's a lot of those people out there. A complete comprehension of all human history is something I do not think any single person has, myself included.
There's a reason why no one reasonable wears this mustache anymore. It's not because of Charlie Chaplin. If I wore it, I'd probably not get the chance to explain myself. If I claimed it made me feel empowered, that'd probably be even more confusing, no matter how much I liked Chaplin's works, though I bet a cane and derby would probably help.
Again, I'm not saying that, culturally speaking, a mandate by the state that something that selectively inhibits people from doing something is ever good. The state should not dictate cultural norms. I'm saying that these are the things that people associate, for better or worse, when presented with cultural elements. I think that the action of wanting to conceal what people associate as you is a strange one, but a lot of human behavior escapes me. I bet I do a large number of things that perfectly rational people would find completely nuts. I lose literally zero sleep over that, as I'm sure do your coworkers for covering their faces.
I WILL argue that, from a completely technical view, prohibiting facial coverings is in line with the "security" bit, because it limits the effectiveness of the state surveillance systems. I won't present an opinion on whether I think that's a good thing or a bad thing, because at this point, it doesn't affect me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I think people who come to settle in a country ought to make an effort at least not to obviously avoid joining in with the local culture. I don't think it can be legislated, though. I dislike the burka for various reasons however I don't think legal sanctions are an effective way of persuading women to abandon it. As noted earlier, the French law failed.
Agree with everything you said. Especially the part about people in the local culture making an effort to join - I saw a show on TV the other day about English people buying new homes in sunnier climate, and the couple in question said Crete really appealed because there were so many other English ex-pats there - it pissed me off in exactly the same way that Muslims will look to move in to Muslim enclaves in France or anywhere else.
But I think that's always been the case, and while it isn't good in time it also doesn't matter. Their kids will get exposure to the local way of life, and their kids even more so. People use to complain about Dutch ghettos in New York, then German ghettos, then Jewish ghettos and so on, but sooner or later Western culture wins.
And as you say, bringing in laws to make that happen sooner won't work.
Agree with everything you said. Especially the part about people in the local culture making an effort to join - I saw a show on TV the other day about English people buying new homes in sunnier climate, and the couple in question said Crete really appealed because there were so many other English ex-pats there - it pissed me off in exactly the same way that Muslims will look to move in to Muslim enclaves in France or anywhere else.
But I think that's always been the case, and while it isn't good in time it also doesn't matter. Their kids will get exposure to the local way of life, and their kids even more so. People use to complain about Dutch ghettos in New York, then German ghettos, then Jewish ghettos and so on, but sooner or later Western culture wins.
And as you say, bringing in laws to make that happen sooner won't work.
you all know "The Melting Pot" thing right? Well Sociology now has "The Salad bowl" Analogy to promote the idea that multiculturalism promotes. And it ticks me off. Eventually the children will learn the new culture. But NOPE LETS PROMOTE MULTI_CULTURALISM
you all know "The Melting Pot" thing right? Well Sociology now has "The Salad bowl" Analogy to promote the idea that multiculturalism promotes. And it ticks me off. Eventually the children will learn the new culture. But NOPE LETS PROMOTE MULTI_CULTURALISM
Multi-Culturalism is a good ideal to strive for. but in the end, pramatically it cannot be done without major societal overhauls.
You get to Ever culture is equal, cool. but then you get into some things promoted by it, which is "First Language Education" in which you learn in the language you grew up in. Can you imagine how unpragmatic that would be? LA thought about it, but to be equal it would be 80 or so languages to teach all classes in. All classes times 80. Not a feasable Idea right? Well what do you teach in? Spanish? Then those who speak Punjabi dont get any help.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Multi-Culturalism is a good ideal to strive for. but in the end, pramatically it cannot be done without major societal overhauls.
You get to Ever culture is equal, cool. but then you get into some things promoted by it, which is "First Language Education" in which you learn in the language you grew up in. Can you imagine how unpragmatic that would be? LA thought about it, but to be equal it would be 80 or so languages to teach all classes in. All classes times 80. Not a feasable Idea right? Well what do you teach in? Spanish? Then those who speak Punjabi dont get any help.
Well, if we'd all just adopt Esperanto, none of this would have happened!
I don't disagree. There are a good many beneficial and positive things about non-American cultures, and a very large number of not so good things about American culture. The problem is when you pick and choose what's good and bad. The ideal relationship of course would be that newcomers assimilate the good elements of ours, while contributing the good elements of theirs. While simple sounding, the trick is (as always) defining what "good" actually is.
I think multi-culturalism works. Seeing 2nd generation Australians who have bigger Australian accents than I do is awesome. Generally it takes 3 generations for it to come into full effect , I don't see the problem. "enclaves" are going to happen as those of the first generation are going to need help with language ect , I don't think it's anything to get excited about, enclaves just add to the vibrancy of the city.
Even if you want it to happen via integration, everyone is not going to be the same as you. People are different whether they come from another culture or yours, people look different and think differently it's just more noticable if they come from another culture.
Honestly, I do not see why this whole "integration" thing gets people so excited. People are different, all people are different.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you all know "The Melting Pot" thing right? Well Sociology now has "The Salad bowl" Analogy to promote the idea that multiculturalism promotes. And it ticks me off. Eventually the children will learn the new culture. But NOPE LETS PROMOTE MULTI_CULTURALISM
I've heard it described as a patchwork quilt...
Anyhow, I think the silliest thing with so much of this debate is the assumption that you can change the process. What happens in the real world is that people take on parts of their new country as they please, and keep parts of their old country as they please. Each generation takes on more of the new country, and slowly blends in. People can spend decades debating this in sociology class and it doesn't change it from happening.
It's like debating if the sun is good or bad for you - well some parts are good and other parts are bad, but whatever you decide the sun is going to set in the evening and rise in the morning.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Furthermore, is there anyone in this entire discussion anywhere that thinks this is about anything other than attacking Muslims?? I don't remember it being in the slightest doubt at the time and, obfuscations aside, it doesn't seem to be in much doubt now.
Without checking up on it, I seem to recall that the noticable appearance of burqas in the streets was the very reason for drafting this law, which was heralded by Sarkozy's "this is not part of France" speech.
Another reason why I'm still flabbergasted that this law made it through two high court reviews unscathed.
Allod wrote: which was heralded by Sarkozy's "this is not part of France" speech.
What about arresting former Presidents? Is that part of France? Or what about corrupt Presidents, or President's using their power to squash corruption allegations against them? Are they part of France?
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that Sarkozy is a feth.
Under the impression that France has a problem with the Muslim pop within their border. Heard about it while station in Germany early 2000's and over time bits and pieces from fellow troops and NCO's coming back from Germany. The French population are pretty vocal about it. Long weekends there be a warning not to go to certain places in France because of the tension
No way am I trying to stir negativity about the Muslim population in France.
Bullockist wrote: I think multi-culturalism works. Seeing 2nd generation Australians who have bigger Australian accents than I do is awesome. Generally it takes 3 generations for it to come into full effect , I don't see the problem.
Not that I disagree with what you are saying, but that's pretty much the opposite of multi-culturalism, it's successful integration.
In Europe, we couldn't have handled the Muslim immigration worse. First we actively hindered integration because Muslims could never be "proper" Europeans anyway, and now we have a very vocal minority on our hands that not only refuses to integrate, but actively strives to impose its values on the majority. We disencouraged the natural development of a "European" way of being Muslim by alienating those who practiced it until the fanatics came along fifteen years ago.
That we have heaps of 3rd generation Turkish immigrants in Austria who speak German worse than their grandparents who came here (without a hijab, BTW) in the 70s for work, or that there are literally hundreds of young Europeans who chose to leave and fight for ISIL, is a testament to our failure.
I think multiculturalism is just a natural part of integration, people clump together more with people they can communicate well with. In the first generation this is generally the poorer suburbs, but by the 2nd and 3rd generation through the natural movement of people upwardly (in a monetary sense) these "cultural enclaves" break up to some degree.
Like Fairfield in Sydney - first there were Poles and Germans and Italians, then Vietnamese, and then people from islamic countries (Lebanon, most likely but others) this "cultural enclave" is soon (having gone through 3 cultural evolutions) is now being priced out of the immigrant market, so now the "enclave" moves somewhere else. Were there problems there at times? yes, but in about 20 years there will be not much difference between it and any other suburb in Sydney. Now what's the big problem with cultural enclaves? In my opinion not much, they go away eventually.
We have probably a hundred or 2 people over being fools fighting for ISIL , it's just a natural part of people wanting to identify with "THEIR" CULTURE WHILST BEING DISSAfFECTED WITH THE SOCIETY THEY LIVE IN. <----- ignore the caps please. .
SAd yes, normal, also yes.
Jihadin wrote: Under the impression that France has a problem with the Muslim pop within their border. Heard about it while station in Germany early 2000's and over time bits and pieces from fellow troops and NCO's coming back from Germany. The French population are pretty vocal about it. Long weekends there be a warning not to go to certain places in France because of the tension
No way am I trying to stir negativity about the Muslim population in France.
Yep. Evidently its a big problem. One reason for all the car burnings in Paris. I'm surprised they haven't pro-actively surrendered to passing German tourists yet.
France. We can't beat the Germans, but our croissants are to die for.
Frazzled wrote: Yep. Evidently its a big problem. One reason for all the car burnings in Paris. I'm surprised they haven't pro-actively surrendered to passing German tourists yet.
Oh, they have tried. But the Germans were too scared of being seen as 'agressive' and did not accept the surrender. Germans these days...
Jihadin wrote: Under the impression that France has a problem with the Muslim pop within their border. Heard about it while station in Germany early 2000's and over time bits and pieces from fellow troops and NCO's coming back from Germany. The French population are pretty vocal about it. Long weekends there be a warning not to go to certain places in France because of the tension
No way am I trying to stir negativity about the Muslim population in France.
Which Western European country doesn't have problems with Muslim immigrants? It is worse in France because they have the most immigrants, but the problem is everywhere. Now of course there are a lot of Muslims who integrate into their new countries very nicely and adapt to the local culture, but there is also a large group that refuses to adapt and accept Western culture and values and sticks to their Islamic values instead. And as those values are absolutely incompatible with European values, it gives a lot of trouble.
Oh, we learn from the past alright. It just so happens that with all those nasty foreigners having invaded Russia over the last 1000 years that Russians have learned from history to always be on their guard, ready for battle, wary of foreigners and to always look for a chance to strike back. And with NATO encroaching upon Russia's borders, I'd say that is entirely justified. Russia has been attacked twice a century on average, the next one is just a matter of time.
nkelsch wrote: The thing is... a hoodie and douchebag sunglasses covers way more of a face than a headcovering... especially since it is easier to identify someone via their eyes opposed to their chin and lips. When people 'obscure' themselves on the internet, they obscure their eyes usually.
This is legal:
So I can wear a hoodie and oversized sunglasses and have facial hair and obscure my identity way more than someone exposing their eyes and having a religious head covering... Why?
Bigotry, that's why.
Edit: Also: Does Europe not have snow or cold winters? When it is cold in the US, a hood, face covering scarf are practically mandatory and 90% of the pedestrian population will be wearing them. Does this mean people need to risk frostbite whenever in a public place with security cameras for the good of public security?
Let me give you some information you seem to have missed.
This gak is legal:
This gak is not legal:
This gak is not legal because it is disrespectful. Whether it is motivated by belief in a magical dream wizard that created the universe out of his ass or not is irrelevant.
It does not. Unless you are talking about sunglasses that prevents from saying any part of your face, in which case they would look ridiculous anyway.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough. Not going to pretend I understand French grammar or vocabulary when all I know is "Je suis frommage."
This sentence makes no sense and fromage, with only one m.
Trust me, I have a French flag next to my post and that law does not allow the police to arrest someone because they are wearing a cap or a sweater.
jasper76 wrote: France has been getting press for xenophobia for quite sometime now. Perhaps its not the land of wine, cheese, and happiness we've been led to beleive.
So, do you mean that this country famous for its commitment to secularism is not going on well with people that insist that much on religious laws? Who could have guessed! Must be xenophobia .
d-usa wrote: For me the Freedom of Religion (and how it applies to yourself) is the important thing for me here.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im conflicted. I have always found freedom of religion important
Hint: it is not, actually. Freedom of conscience is important. Freedom of religion need to die a long, painful and excruciating death.
If you want to do something, and the only reason you can think of why you should be able to do it is “because my religion says so”, it is a very good sign that this is not actually sometime you have a moral right to.
djones520 wrote: This ban really wouldn't ever fly in the US. We try to provide equal protection for all religious beliefs. Great thing about our nation.
I look forward to the U.S. allowing that. It is based off some stupid supernatural belief, that means it must be a good thing and deserve protection, right ?
sebster wrote: But I think that's always been the case, and while it isn't good in time it also doesn't matter. Their kids will get exposure to the local way of life, and their kids even more so. People use to complain about Dutch ghettos in New York, then German ghettos, then Jewish ghettos and so on, but sooner or later Western culture wins.
Let me introduce you to the Greek people. They did not have a nation for about two hundred years. They spent literally more than a hundred years as part of the Ottoman empire. They did not assimilate in the slightest.
Now, let me introduce you to the Jewish people .
1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.
2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.
One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.
This is all just trivia to me. If this is the kind of society that French people want for themselves, who am I to argue?
My only point about xenophobia, was that consumers of US press have seen alot of stories about isalmophopbia and homophobia in France in recent months (years?).
And I know it means "I am cheese". I did not know it was mispelled. If I ever have to right down "fromage" again in my life, I'll try and remember.
1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.
2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.
One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.
You forgot the third kind of person, which isn't prevalent in France, as far as I know, but which does pop up here in the US a lot:
The guy who wants stuff to affect everyone else because a magic skyperson told him so.
Trust me, I have a French flag next to my post and that law does not allow the police to arrest someone because they are wearing a cap or a sweater.
Come on we both know thats a lie. Both France and Italy's constabularies have the full authority to arrest any person wearing a sweater that is just too gauche for the public good.
d-usa wrote: Protip:
Two kinds of people:
1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.
2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.
Who are those peoples exactly?
Because I am pretty sure the part in italics is a pure strawman.
jasper76 wrote: My only point about xenophobia, was that consumers of US press have seen alot of stories about isalmophopbia and homophobia in France in recent months (years?).
And you have no idea how much stories from the U.S.A. we have heard .
No, really, we are so much more exposed to everything that happens in the U.S. than you are to what happens in France. Or the rest of the world.
Anyhow, you got me a bit curious. What were those stories?
jasper76 wrote: If I ever have to right down "fromage" again in my life, I'll try and remember.
The right spelling is “write”. Okay, now I am being pedantic .
Hint: it is not, actually. Freedom of conscience is important. Freedom of religion need to die a long, painful and excruciating death.
If you want to do something, and the only reason you can think of why you should be able to do it is “because my religion says so”, it is a very good sign that this is not actually sometime you have a moral right to.
1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.
2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.
One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.
You forgot the third kind of person, which isn't prevalent in France, as far as I know, but which does pop up here in the US a lot:
The guy who wants stuff to affect everyone else because a magic skyperson told him so.
Good thing that nobody in this thread has advocated that position.
IIRC, protests against gay marriage, and the issue presented here. I was not trying to imply that we don't have similar issues over here, only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc. My post was in response to someone who said something to the effect of "I thought secular socialist Eurpoe was supposed to be some kind of teolerant paradise." I was just responding to that. There does seem to be a rather vocal right-wing element of French society.
IIRC, protests against gay marriage, and the issue presented here. I was not trying to imply that we don't have similar issues over here, only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc. My post was in response to someone who said something to the effect of "I thought secular socialist Eurpoe was supposed to be some kind of teolerant paradise." I was just responding to that. There does seem to be a rather vocal right-wing element of French society.
Nope... Humans can never tolerate others... simply trade one form of intolerant bigoted thought for another. The need to force everyone to think a single way and harm or isolate those who disagree is a cornerstone of our species it appears.
gak, I agree with someone with France. I fully agree that Freedom of Religion is something should've went the second we implemented separation of Church and State. Just because it's part of your religion doesn't mean you get to whatever you want. ( Like killing animals in unethical ways)
Yeah man. Freedom sucks, and should be limited wherever possible.
But seriously, it is possible to have freedom of religion, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any laws (this is the current US Hobby Lobby problem, or your unethical treatment of animals scenario) or infringe on other people's rights.
jasper76 wrote: only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc.
Well, growing up in France, I was given the impression that for most U.S. citizen, socialist paradise is one of the strongest oxymoron they can think of .
d-usa wrote: But what makes it okay to target specific religions with laws when these laws only serve to stop something that has zero effect on anybody else?
Full face veil has an effect on other people though. Just like full nudity. There are some laws that prevent people from going naked in the street around here. There are other that prevent people from systematically covering their face. Both are there for the same reason: social norms. Do you advise removing both?
You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.
Hint: it is not, actually. Freedom of conscience is important. Freedom of religion need to die a long, painful and excruciating death.
If you want to do something, and the only reason you can think of why you should be able to do it is “because my religion says so”, it is a very good sign that this is not actually sometime you have a moral right to.
So, how is that quote related in any way to your strawman?
You know, I am pretty sure there is no such thing as the “human right to do bowling on Saturday night”, that does not mean we should forbid to do bowling on Saturday night.
See just below.
jasper76 wrote: But seriously, it is possible to have freedom of religion, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any laws (this is the current US Hobby Lobby problem, or your unethical treatment of animals scenario) or infringe on other people's rights.
For instance, it is very possible to have freedom to kill people provided that it does not break any law. Like with those castle laws/hold your ground laws/whatever laws in the U.S. about self-defense. Nobody will ever try to justify his or her action by “But freedom to kill people”. Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to. Neither is any kind of religious practice. By the way, those have a non-empty intersection.
You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.
Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.
You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.
Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: For instance, it is very possible to have freedom to kill people provided that it does not break any law. Like with those castle laws/hold your ground laws/whatever laws in the U.S. about self-defense. Nobody will ever try to justify his or her action by “But freedom to kill people”. Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to. Neither is any kind of religious practice. By the way, those have a non-empty intersection.
I find the phrase "freedom to kill people" a little off-the-mark, though technically true. It is really just the freedom to defend yourself.
You have to understand, if something goes down at my home, it'll take the cops about 20-30 minutes to get there on a good day. You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice. Its my responsibility to do so. Hopefully, nothing like that will ever happen.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to.
There are no rights that you are inherently entitled to as a human being. That is a religious myth and a political fiction. The only rights you have are those that your society protects.
You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.
Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.
Damn good catch on that NK. its OSHA though
Dept of health and Human Service DHS
Actually, Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) act under DOL. People have to wear clothes to protect people's bodies from harm and to prevent the massive spread of fecal matter to cause disease. There are minimum for almost all businesses and public places. While there are 'decency' laws as well which some people put on top of OSH standards, if you removed all of people's arbitrary 'footloose town' reasons why people need to wear or not wear a specific look to please a controlling majorities social expectations, the underlying physical safety and sanitary justifications for wearing shoes and covering your 'waste makers' still exist.
France in this scenario is the very best example of dumbocracy at play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Better not trick or treat in france you paganist scum.
Ninja conventions? GTFO, no ninjas in france.
oh wait we will give you exemptions because this is a well thought out law that is neutral...
Exemptions from ban on public face covering
Motorcycle helmets
Face masks for health reasons
Face covering for sporting or professional activities
Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions
.
So for all you bedouin lowlives....in order for you to modernise we will keep you indoors and socially isolate you from society because we claim the full face veil socially isolates you!
You facist islamists
"took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction.
Because getting fined, being socially ostracised, hassled and potentially arrested by the police has less of a significant role in social interaction that someone covering their face.
nkelsch wrote: Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons...
Except it is not true! Nudist beaches do not put people are risk, yet nudist beaches are a tiny minority and other beaches do not allow nudity due to social norms, not sanitary concern.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure .
jasper76 wrote: I find the phrase "freedom to kill people" a little off-the-mark, though technically true. It is really just the freedom to defend yourself.
The law allows you to kill people provided that you meet the legal requirement. That is exactly the same thing as what you described as freedom of religion. I think your description of freedom of religion is off-the-mark.
What about “Freedom to do what the law allows you to do”?
jasper76 wrote: You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice.
Well, no-one else in your family can defend themselves and the rest of the family, using your gun or theirs or any other way?
You are such a hero!
jasper76 wrote: You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice.
Well, no-one else in your family can defend themselves and the rest of the family, using your gun or theirs or any other way?
You are such a hero!
Well, my wife can. My 5-year old cannot, nor can my dog, nor can my ferrets.
And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
Here in the Netherlands, owning guns is illegal for most people, and injuring or killing an intruder is likely to get you in prison (unless you can prove your life or your family's lifes were in danger).
And despite those laws, people here rarely get injured or killed by intruders. In my opinion, giving people the right to kill intruders is just going to make the intruders more violent, which will lead to more casualties.
Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.
You mean lile all the years the US sat on the sidelines in WWI? Or all the years the US sat o the sidelines in WWII?
However that may be, the neutrality of a country in any war, let alone one that happened decades ago has little to no relationship to their stance on "home defence".
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.
You mean lile all the years the US sat on the sidelines in WWI? Or all the years the US sat o the sidelines in WWII?
However that may be, the neutrality of a country in any war, let alone one that happened decades ago has little to no relationship to their stance on "home defence".
I think he was going for the "people who plant trees so German soldiers can march in the shade aren't the best to listen to when it comes to defending stuff" angle.
And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Besides, I need a rifle for protection against bears, to scare off coyotes, and there have been mountain lion sightings here, too. All of which only really care about my true inherent rights as a human being, the right to be food, and the right to surrender food . The plain fact is that. in my situation, I'm much much more likely to need firearm protection from critters than from an aggressive human.
And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
I like that saying
jasper76 wrote: Besides, I need a rifle for protection against bears, to scare off coyotes, and there have been mountain lion sightings here, too. All of which only really care about my true inherent rights as a human being, the right to be food, and the right to surrender food . The plain fact is that. in my situation, I'm much much more likely to need firearm protection from critters than from an aggressive human.
Real men don't need guns to fight off a bear. Guns are for pansies and kids. A real man fights bears with the Rogatina, a bear spear. And if you have the balls for it, wrestling the bear into submission is even more manly
And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
I like that saying
jasper76 wrote: Besides, I need a rifle for protection against bears, to scare off coyotes, and there have been mountain lion sightings here, too. All of which only really care about my true inherent rights as a human being, the right to be food, and the right to surrender food . The plain fact is that. in my situation, I'm much much more likely to need firearm protection from critters than from an aggressive human.
Real men don't need guns to fight off a bear. Guns are for pansies and kids.
A real man fights bears with the Rogatina, a bear spear.
And if you have the balls for it, wrestling the bear into submission is even more manly
Miss something in the picture? He is forced to fight. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground in full effect. His snow shoe's seems busted in left corner of pic
Jihadin wrote: Miss something in the picture? He is forced to fight. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground in full effect. His snow shoe's seems busted in left corner of pic
The bear is clearly no threat - it is a postal bear, trying to deliver a message to Jayne Cobb.
The message is probably "beware, kung-fu wolves are in the area"
And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
I like that saying
jasper76 wrote: Besides, I need a rifle for protection against bears, to scare off coyotes, and there have been mountain lion sightings here, too. All of which only really care about my true inherent rights as a human being, the right to be food, and the right to surrender food . The plain fact is that. in my situation, I'm much much more likely to need firearm protection from critters than from an aggressive human.
Real men don't need guns to fight off a bear. Guns are for pansies and kids.
A real man fights bears with the Rogatina, a bear spear.
And if you have the balls for it, wrestling the bear into submission is even more manly
Miss something in the picture? He is forced to fight. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground in full effect. His snow shoe's seems busted in left corner of pic
I would imagine the snow shoes are off so he can be more nimble on his feet.
)
.
