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.

 jasper76 wrote:


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.

Not just lawyers...perhaps more frighteningly, cops, as well.

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.

squidhills wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

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...

I was going to respond to your point, but I don't want to be the one to Godwin.

You implied it nicely enough.

 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.

I wonder how the French feel about KISS makeup in public?

I once heard liking KISS in punishable by death in france

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I once heard liking KISS in punishable by death in france

Well, that's the straw that broke the camels back for me...can't visit, I would never come back. Black Diamond!

 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,

 d-usa wrote:
But I also understand that religion can be used to control others.

That's the point.

France sees the Church of Scientology as a bunch of scammers, not as a religion that needs to be protected against "persecutions".

The same things apply to all religious groups : if a sect is detrimental to its believers and to society, it's not welcome here.

 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.

While I strongly dislike the burka for a number of reasons, I don't think this is the right way to solve the problem; it sets a bad precedent.

 Iron_Captain 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?

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)

nkelsch wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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?

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.

Fair enough. Not going to pretend I understand French grammar or vocabulary when all I know is "Je suis frommage."

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

 daedalus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

 Talizvar wrote:

 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.

 Talizvar wrote:
Some reasonable arguments against:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/five-reasons-to-ban-the-burqa/

Some reasonable arguments for:
http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-burqa-and-niqab-uncovering-the-facts/

A slightly more balanced look:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10429954/Ban-the-burka-No-Muslim-women-need-our-protection.html
http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/against-the-burqa-ban/

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.

Anyway, religious freedom is dumb.

There are still plenty Christian factions that teach submission to your husband, so there is that.

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.

Fear is a mindkiller.

Sunglasses were never intended for such a thing.

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.

 purplefood wrote:
Sunglasses were never intended for such a thing.

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.