Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

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.

Nice to see that the ECtHR is doing good for a change.

Not that it doesn't do good mind, just that in the news you often hear about how it gives stupid decisions.

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.

Vive le France, vive le separation of church and state.

 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.

This is great news, those vision restricting clothes are bs.

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...

 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...

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.

Does this mean if you have your face covered during a protest you can be lifted by the police?

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.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Does this mean if you have your face covered during a protest you can be lifted by the police?

No... I don't believe so.

However, if you'd want a State Driver License, you'd have to show your face.

 d-usa wrote:

In Europe you cannot decide what clothes to wear for yourself even if it is your religion.

Just like I can't wear my fully closed motorcycle helmet, because it prevents easy identification.

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

In Europe you cannot decide what clothes to wear for yourself even if it is your religion.

Just like I can't wear my fully closed motorcycle helmet, because it prevents easy identification.

yea but if you have a cool rice rocket and matching racing leathers you're da man.

 djones520 wrote:

 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...

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.

In Europe we don't let people's imaginary friends get in the way of public safety. One of the greatest things about Europe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

In Europe you cannot decide what clothes to wear for yourself even if it is your religion.

Just like I can't wear my fully closed motorcycle helmet, because it prevents easy identification.

yea but if you have a cool rice rocket and matching racing leathers you're da man.

Actually if I wear racing leathers outside the track, I'll just be a douche!

You don't wear leathers when you ride your bike? Dude...safety!

 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)

PhantomViper wrote:

 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!

Ok gotcha.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Like this case and most SCOTUS cases.

 d-usa wrote:

But a law should not prevent her from observing a religious rule if she wants to follow it.

Sorry, but you got that backwards. Religion should not be an excuse for people that wan't to ignore the law.

 d-usa wrote:

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.

I am in two minds about it.

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post then...

 djones520 wrote:

 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...

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.

Except this involves Muslims and not Christians.




I'm not even sure if I am serious anymore.

I'll help.
You're not being serious...

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll help.
You're not being serious...

I have never seen an image of TBone without glowing eyes. It's slightly scary...

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll help.
You're not being serious...

I have never seen an image of TBone without glowing eyes. It's slightly scary...

Well to look upon the face of the Herald of the Great Wienie can be a terrifying prospect.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll help.
You're not being serious...

I have never seen an image of TBone without glowing eyes. It's slightly scary...

"In Dedicato Imperatum Ultra Articulo Mortis"

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll help.
You're not being serious...

OMG he's so cute!

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.)