Europe upholds French ban of the Niqab

[Dis86]

Why do you need to see expressions? How about botox which stops facial movement, should we ban it? Does most situations require you to see facial expression? if I wanted to buy a snikers bar, do you really need to know how I feel about it? Aren't there other ways to identify expressions or feelings, from the tone of ones voice?

Why do you need to identify someone where you have no right to identify someone? Do you walk down the street asking to see peoples passports? If you work at the bank, are a bus driver etc and need to identify someone, fair enough. Most people with common sense including most women who wear veils will remove the veil to identify themselves and all it takes is a few seconds. Once identified they can be on their merry way.

Seeing facial expressions is a normal way of communicating with someone. If you look on the left of the screen for example you'll see a digital representation of this. That's how important expressions are. It can infact be difficult to communicate with people with facial paralysis. For example I can think of a certain hollywood actor who has been panned in the past for his same expression for every emotion despite it resulting from a genetic disorder.
If it's such a neutral thing then why don't Muslim men cover their faces too? Does lust and envy only go one way?
However, let's also not take the focus away from the fact that this isn't an attack on islam. It's a ruling by the French government to improve public security as a whole. I don't know if you've noticed but France in recent years has been frequented with riots. This ruling makes it a lot easier to prosecute those involved.

 

[Craterloads]

And if I was comfortable walking down a street where everyone was dressed in a binbag, then I'd move to Wandsworth.
Thank God muslims don't like cows and green fields.

/

See this is the nonsense people have to put up with, with you. You do realise where this law has passed less than 2000 people out of 65,820,916 wear a veil?

 

[regulus]

See this is the nonsense people have to put up with, with you. You do realise where this law has passed less than 2000 people out of 65,820,916 wear a veil?

And the 65,820,916 people felt that that were 2000 people too many.

 

[NVP]

Given that most of France finds this kind of ignorant antisocial display something to legislate against,
then I doubt I'm on my own here

I know you are not on your own, I meet plenty of peopel with a similar attitude to yourself, however I would in no way count you as a majority.

Are you muslim by any chance?

Why do you think I am Muslim?

 

[bitslice]

See this is the nonsense people have to put up with, with you. You do realise where this law has passed less than 2000 people out of 65,820,916 wear a veil?

I'm pretty sure you are taking the figure for 2,000 veil wearers from French statistics,
I'm not aware anyone in the UK has been recording binbag couture.

I know you are not on your own, I meet plenty of peopel with a similar attitude to yourself, however I would in no way count you as a majority.

Probably the same number who voted for UKIP as a guess. I think the figure for France was something like 70% but then they have been living with this problem for longer.

Why do you think I am Muslim?

I don't really, I doubt Craterloads is either, he's just always rushing to apologise on their behalf

 

[Drizmod]

See this is the nonsense people have to put up with, with you. You do realise where this law has passed less than 2000 people out of 65,820,916 wear a veil?

Thats because they have realised that down the years this is going to be a major problem with potentially millions of people fully covered up. They have have dealt with the issue while its still not that much of an issue.

 

[Mark A]

It's their country, they can do what they like. That's usually the argument when the tables are turned.

 

[Craterloads]

Seeing facial expressions is a normal way of communicating with someone. If you look on the left of the screen for example you'll see a digital representation of this. That's how important expressions are..

Perhaps, that does not give you some right to demand facetime with someone who doesn't want facetime with you? Surely you can see that. If said person wanted to they would. Nor does facial expression take away from what is being said, the factual context of what is being said remains without facial expressions. In fact it could be seen as beneficial in some cases for example juries where they can be swayed by emotion from facial expressions rather than the facts in the words.

Heck how many people on these forums do we have who have confidence issues, cant look people in the eye. You see people like that everyday, heck when I'm talking to people I'm not necessarily looking at them. When in a car and driving and my passenger is talking, I'm not looking at them as am focussing on the road. All these scenarios there is no communication issues.

It can infact be difficult to communicate with people with facial paralysis. For example I can think of a certain hollywood actor who has been panned in the past for his same expression for every emotion despite it resulting from a genetic disorder..

You are confusing facial paralysis, which equals difficulty in speaking clearly, with not being able to read facial expressions. If you are referring to Sly which I believe you to be. On the other hand the majority of your celebs are pumped full of botox and there face appears glued to the head with little movement, yet they are clearly understood.

If it's such a neutral thing then why don't Muslim men cover their faces too? Does lust and envy only go one way?

I'm not for or against, I'm for freedom of choice.

However, let's also not take the focus away from the fact that this isn't an attack on islam. It's a ruling by the French government to improve public security as a whole. I don't know if you've noticed but France in recent years has been frequented with riots. This ruling makes it a lot easier to prosecute those involved.

That's not exactly the case since it started off against veils, yet to get around the European appeals system it was worded to be none discriminatory.

Not sure how many problems they had with women in veils during the riots.

 

[Castiel]

I don't think it really affects very many people, even in France which has one of the highest Muslim populations in Europe. There is no Islamic requirement for this and therefore the European court are correct insofar that the ban doesn't affect religious freedom, partially because the Niqab is not part of the Islamic Faith and partially because the ruling itself is not limited to the Niqab, but to all face coverings (with some noted exceptions). I would be more concerned with the banning of various religious garments such as the Kippa, Hijab and Keski..which are all, to one degree or another legitimate mandated garments in the respective religions...all done in the name of Secularism. For me Secularism means the freedom to practice any religion or none with impunity...this would include wearing the necessary symbols if they are so mandated. Niqabs are not mandated or required other than by cultural tradition so should not, in my opinion warrant protections under the same rights as the others.

I understand that the Court earlier upheld a challenge regarding the Kelski in France, I do not know whether France complied and now allow Sikhs to wear them in Schools.

From a strictly personal and agnostic perspective I think people should be allowed to wear whatever they want to wear, be it the Niqab, Balaclava or whatever..as long as they comply with security at airports etc where the identity of a person is necessary or warranted. I don't think the State should be dictating what an individual should or should not wear in general.

 

[StriderX]

Ban women.

 

[Castiel]

I don't really, I doubt Craterloads is either, he's just always rushing to apologise on their behalf

Craterloads is very much a Muslim.

 

[Craterloads]

I'm pretty sure you are taking the figure for 2,000 veil wearers from French statistics,
I'm not aware anyone in the UK has been recording binbag couture.

If we compare statistics both nations are similar, in fact the UK has a smaller Muslim population so we could easily extrapolate a figure of around 2000, which again just shows how tinfoil your irrational fear is.

I don't really, I doubt Craterloads is either, he's just always rushing to apologise on their behalf

And you on the other side spouting rubbish as usual.

 

[Conscript]

I don't think it really affects very many people, even in France which has one of the highest Muslim populations in Europe. There is no Islamic requirement for this and therefore the European court are correct insofar that the ban doesn't affect religious freedom, partially because the Niqab is not part of the Islamic Faith and partially because the ruling itself is not limited to the Niqab, but to all face coverings (with some noted exceptions). I would be more concerned with the banning of various religious garments such as the Kippa, Hijab and Keski..which are all, to one degree or another legitimate mandated garments in the respective religions...all done in the name of Secularism. For me Secularism means the freedom to practice any religion or none with impunity...this would include wearing the necessary symbols if they are so mandated. Niqabs are not mandated or required other than by cultural tradition so should not, in my opinion warrant protections under the same rights as the others.

I understand that the Court earlier upheld a challenge regarding the Kelski in France, I do not know whether France complied and now allow Sikhs to wear them in Schools.

From a strictly personal and agnostic perspective I think people should be allowed to wear whatever they want to wear, be it the Niqab, Balaclava or whatever..as long as they comply with security at airports etc where the identity of a person is necessary or warranted. I don't think the State should be dictating what an individual should or should not wear in general.

Spot on. I agree with the ruling being upheld, but I do not agree with the ruling itself.

I find it incredibly regressive that a government should take steps to stop people walking down the street wearing whatever they choose, rather than just in areas where facial recognition is essential for security.

 

[bitslice]

If we compare statistics both nations are similar, in fact the UK has a smaller Muslim population so we could easily extrapolate a figure of around 2000, which again just shows how tinfoil your irrational fear is.

Ah, so you didn't have any actual statistics, you just made a figure up and hoped it was about right.
OK, it's near enough I guess

And if I find people in public spaces wearing 6ft binbags or gimp masks or furry heads uncomfortable to be around, then that's my reaction. It's not irrational to dislike not seeing someone's face. I'm not the culture with the irrational fear of their women being gawped at by men in the UK.

And you on the other side spouting rubbish as usual.

I thought you were one of those awful rich white boys trying really hard to be politically correct and totally right-on liberal because his parents are bankers or something.

But if you are a muslim then that's OK

I find it incredibly regressive that a government should take steps to stop people walking down the street wearing whatever they choose

It's a sign of a regressive culture that they think women need to be hidden from the 'lustful sight of men'.

Just how long do you think this kind of archaic thinking is going to survive?
Eventually FGM and honour killings and marrying a peasant girl from the village and all this other cultural BS they've carried with them to the UK is going to die out.

 

[itchy]

Speak to the cloth as the face aint listening brigade!

I am suprised at this maybe Birtain can follow suit........wait
what did I just bwaaah ROFL! (goto be careful with that ROLF expression latley)

 

[deuse]

Common sense prevails.

Glad to hear this. It was the right decision.

This.

 

[Craterloads]

Ah, so you didn't have any actual statistics, you just made a figure up and hoped it was about right.
OK, it's near enough I guess

I did and was for France, the latter is self explanatory given your reply...

And if I find people in public spaces wearing 6ft binbags or gimp masks or furry heads uncomfortable to be around, then that's my reaction. It's not irrational to dislike not seeing someone's face. I'm not the culture with the irrational fear of their women being gawped at by men in the UK.

Don't be around them then, no one is locking in you in 4x4 room with a man in a gimp mask however much I know that would please you your argument is continuing to evolve in to ones used by homophobes and racists.

What would be irrational would be to deny those people the freedom of choice to dress how they please as long as it isnt a danger to anyone.

I thought you were one of those awful rich white boys trying really hard to be politically correct and totally right-on liberal because his parents are bankers or something.

But if you are a muslim then that's OK

I don't understand this game, you know me and know me very well since we have had heated arguments frequently. I guess you just wanted everyone to know for some weird reason.

 

[D.P.]

Whats next, can't walk down the street wearing socks under sandles because it looks stupid?

 

[Conscript]

It's a sign of a regressive culture that they think women need to be hidden from the 'lustful sight of men'.
.

It is indeed. But regressive as it is, some choose to wear it to uphold the tradition of their religion.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in your own defence there? You claim that the decision that women must wear such facial coverings is the result of a regressive religion, yet support an incredibly regressive ruling in response?

 

[bitslice]

Don't be around them then

I don't get to choose not to, we share the same public space.

And tbh ambling around a supermarket which was essentially 99% white and then bumping into three ninjas wasn't a pleasant experience. Fine if you see that kind of thing every day but I don't.

your argument is continuing to evolve in to ones used by homophobes and racists.

Most Islamic cultures are homophobic and racist? And you really would struggle to find any homophobic comment posted by me, so good luck with that line of argument

What would be irrational would be to deny those people the freedom of choice to dress how they please as long as it isnt a danger to anyone.

This is confusing our cultural freedom to dress with your cultural intention of covering women head to toe with a binbag. One has minor questions about skirt length, the other is just intentionally antisocial and a clear rejection of western culture.
It's hard not to be irritated by someone walking around with that kind of attitude really. Fine, they don't want me to look at their ankle, but don't be so flipping arrogant that I was that interested in the first place.

I don't understand this game

Didn't like to assume that's all, no biggie.