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.

Since I'm drunk (again)

I miss Tbone. He was my best friend and the canine image of my dad.

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.

We Ninja's are not happy with the court decision!

Ninja's wont care, as you'll never see them anyway.

 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?

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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?

Some exemptions like the Carnival and weddings apparently already exist.

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.

Anyway, yeah, I'm happy with this.

This would be kinda funny, if it weren't so scary.

 jasper76 wrote:
This would be kinda funny, if it weren't so scary.

How is it scary?

Do you have a fear of not having your face covered?

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.

 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.

Giving the state the power to punish you for concealing yourself in public, making security camera's useless etc.? Great, can I have another?

 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 ).

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.

 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?

Because that's what the burka represents.

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?

PhantomViper wrote:

 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".

 jasper76 wrote:


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!

 jasper76 wrote:

See what happens when vagaries like "clothing intended to cover the face" are used in law?

No, but I do see what happens when people decide to construe strawman arguments instead of actually discussing the facts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

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! )

Zimmerman'ed!

*stamps* Dakka Bingo Card™.

@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?