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.

Sunglasses protect by concealing the face

Bullockist wrote:
Sunglasses protect by concealing the face

...

No, they cover the eyes. Not the face. They were not designed to "hide identity" as you stated.

 djones520 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Sunglasses protect by concealing the face

...

No, they cover the eyes. Not the face. They were not designed to "hide identity" as you stated.

 djones520 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Sunglasses protect by concealing the face

...

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

They kind of establish identity with that example...

I bet if you took the glasses off the drawing no one would have any clue who that was.

 djones520 wrote:
They kind of establish identity with that example...

I bet if you took the glasses off the drawing no one would have any clue who that was.

To be fair, nobody knew who he was WITH the drawing!

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

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...

nkelsch wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:


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

 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

That's not very California of you.

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.

Interesting read Allod.

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.

It's almost like they learn from the past.

Now if only Russia could.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's almost like they learn from the past.

Now if only Russia could.

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.

Yup, doesn't learn.

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.

Bullockist wrote:
I'm curious if this law will apply to sunglasses

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 .

By sunglasses I believe he is referring to the daft punk style.

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.

One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.

@Hyrid Son...

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.