Europe upholds French ban of the Niqab

dirtychinchilla said:
I agree with you in part, but where does it stop? Do we stop motorcyclists wearing helmets, people dressed up wearing masks, mascots wearing teddy bear heads etc...
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but it's also a matter of using common sense. The law is the law, but as this is only an offence which attracts a penalty (seemingly) I'm sure those who are enforcing it will always be allowed to use their discretion in applying the law.

The BBC article states:

French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face.
Click to expand...

From that I take it that there must be a specific intention to conceal the face. Wearing a motorcycle helmet for instance is not an intention to conceal the face as such but a requirement to which public policy for the protection of individuals safety will prevail.

As for Halloween and the like, I'm not too sure. But again presumably there will be a matter of proportionality and common sense applied. For instance, I doubt a bunch of 6 year olds are going to be stopped by the police on October 31st every year and given on the spot fines.

I think you're unnecessarily worrying about the intricacies of how it will work in practice.
 
Mynight said:
I must admit I do get a bit nervous of people wearing the niqab.
Click to expand...
I find it unpleasant to be around women wearing the niqab, it's antisocial.
If you want to remain concealed, stay at home, or at least stay out of tent shops.

I still don't know what to do with the one man "tent" I bought last week, although she's a damn good cook.

Monkeynut said:
To be honest in open society regardless of your "choice" it is not really appropriate to refuse to show your face in public - We need to read each other's expressions and emotions.
Click to expand...
We should ban Chinese people, they are too inscrutable :(


As much as women should be allowed to wear what they want, we (as English people in our own country) have cultural limits too. And that means no thongs in Waitrose and not dressing up as scary Ninjas.
 
Misleading thread title to say the least! The ban was on face coverings. Not the niqab as the title suggests.
It's just happens that the niqab is covered (ha!) by this ruling.
 
Dis86 said:
Misleading thread title to say the least! The ban was on face coverings. Not the niqab as the title suggests.
It's just happens that the niqab is covered (ha!) by this ruling.
Click to expand...

So as the niqab IS covered by this ruling, NOT a misleading thread title. :rolleyes: Ha !
 
shootersam said:
But it's not a ban on the Niqab, it just happens to be covered. The title implies that France has just banned the Niqab. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is a ban on the niqab. Why did you start your sentence with : 'But it's not a ban on the niqab' ? You're clearly wrong as the niqab is covered by the ban.

Very nit picky of you. (insert yawn smiley here)
 
Judgeneo said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900



This ruling was something of a surprise for me, I fully expected the court of human rights to rule in favour of religious rights over being able to look at someones face. Especially given as the law over here is that they're not forced to remove it at all.



Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Basically any case involving the UK government, the ECHR will rule against the UK. Any case involving any other government, the ECHR will rule in favour of that government.

Pleased for the Frenchies though, sounds like common sense to me.
 
Sliver said:
It is a ban on the niqab. Why did you start your sentence with : 'But it's not a ban on the niqab' ? You're clearly wrong as the niqab is covered by the ban.

Very nit picky of you. (insert yawn smiley here)
Click to expand...

Let me add a word, 'But it's not expressly a ban on the niqab', the title implies that France are purely banning a certain type of religious ware, instead, what they are actually doing, is banning anything that conceals the face in public.

Very nit picky of you. :rolleyes:
 
If this were to come to the UK...

Would our "freedom" not be infringed? We would now no longer be allowed to conceal our face anywhere in public? Surely I have the right to do what I want where I want as long as it does not disturb (in all cases) someone else.

Ban the act of concealing your face in places where it is warranted (bank, petrol stations, airports [passports, ID's]), but for an outright public ban it seems too sensationalist and slightly biased towards the islamic demographic.

All this ignorance about "oooh I'm nervous/scared to be around a woman in her local dress because I can't read her face" & "oooh it's anti social blah blah" ...?! Seriously? Simply because her face is covered? They can still converse, you can have "normal" conversations with them because they are "normal" people too.

What are people scared of? Concealed explosives? Doesn't require a hijab. People hiding faces from security/cameras? Doesn't require a hijab, baseball caps were the shield of choice when I was young. A person of a different culture expressing themselves in their own way on "your land"? Ah, thought so.
 
Dis86 said:
Misleading thread title to say the least! The ban was on face coverings. Not the niqab as the title suggests.
It's just happens that the niqab is covered (ha!) by this ruling.
Click to expand...


Sorry you and Shooter are wrong.

"Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004 concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools"

This law was enacted expressly to forbid the wearing of retarded sky pixie costumes, or Cosplay as we know it.

The later law (Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space) was an extension of this, and specifically mentioned in the FCC review that "women hiding their faces, voluntarily or involuntarily, are placed in a situation of exclusion and inferiority that is manifestly incompatible with the constitutional principles of liberty and equality;"

Motorbike helmets and Halloween masks etc are excluded.



The reason France can do this and not the UK is that France is recognised as a secular state and the UK isn't.

Plus Cameron is fanatical about sucking up to muslims because he is worried about his enforced multiculturalism experiment inevitably failing.
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
I agree with you in part, but where does it stop? Do we stop motorcyclists wearing helmets, people dressed up wearing masks, mascots wearing teddy bear heads etc...
Click to expand...

None of those are worn constantly. If someone walked into a bank wearing a helmet or mask, they would almost certainly be asked to remove it.
 
NVP said:
..
Click to expand...

If you had a male neighbour that wore a black mask every time he was out, you'd consider that normal, correct? You'd have no issue with him passing by your children every day as they play in the garden or going on a walk late at night?
 
NVP said:
All this ignorance about "oooh I'm nervous/scared to be around a woman in her local dress because I can't read her face" & "oooh it's anti social blah blah" ...?! Seriously? Simply because her face is covered? They can still converse, you can have "normal" conversations with them
Click to expand...
If I talked to you in a pub dressed as a Dalek, you'd be comfortable with that would you?

because they are "normal" people too.
Click to expand...
People wearing 6 foot binbags in 2014 on a UK high street because they imagine it is 'modest' are deluded, deluded people are not normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom