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.

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???

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 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:

PhantomViper wrote:

 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?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Bigotry, that's why.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

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.

Honestly, I'm torn about this issue. I see both sides and I think both sides have merit, I just don't know which one is better for society as a whole.

I have to think about this a while longer.

nkelsch wrote:

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?

nkelsch wrote:

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.

 d-usa wrote:

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.

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.

PhantomViper wrote:


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.'

nkelsch wrote:


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.

Clothing intended to cover the face up, so, nothing that you keep mentioning.

PhantomViper wrote:

 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...

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


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:

France must have had a major problem with biker gangs running around in their helmets causing trouble and committing crimes...

Have you ever been hit by a baguette at high speeds wielded by irate and effeminate bikers?

It ain't pretty.

 d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

PhantomViper wrote:


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

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.

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

True... but, you can't wear the veil while your picture is taken for driver licenses...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-06-license-veil_x.htm

We highly applaud that decision. It's good to see religiously justified oppression ruled out.

 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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 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".

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

Sure, that's a reasonable addendum.