Europe upholds French ban of the Niqab

muon · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:23

Tefal said:
so not shopping then like you said?

The government banning it in all public places and private places the public has access to is different from private spaces asking for it on reasonable grounds.

Caged · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:24

Tefal said:
so not shopping then like you said?

You'd have a point if "going shopping" specifically meant going into a privately owned mall, but it doesn't. Read it as "going about daily life" if you want, or you could continue to labour over an argument that was never made.

Richie · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:24

dowie said:
no because its a completely different principle... has the govt banned hoodies in public? no they haven't

What about balaclavas?

muon · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:26

Richie said:
What about balaclavas?

Are balaclavas banned in public spaces in the UK? No. Should they be? No.

RDM · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:38

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar said:
I understand the liberal impulse to respect multiculturalism, but aren't human rights more important than cultures? Humans have rights, cultures don't, cultures evolve and reform. Liberal friends and allies ask churches and pastors to accept gay rights and women's rights. It is disrespectful and even racist to ask any less of mosques and Muslim leaders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/is-the-hijab-a-symbol-of-_b_4796907.html

estebanrey · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:46

muon said:
Are balaclavas banned in public spaces in the UK? No. Should they be? No.

Whilst there is no law preventing people wearing balaclavas per se, the police can use their powers to arrest you for wearing one on the basis they consider it going 'equipped' for burglary...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...-walsall-offender-arrested-for-wearing-158586

If you are pro-niqab I wouln't use the balaclava as an example because the fact is anyone wearing one in public is almost certain to be accosted by the fuzz whereas they wouldn't touch a Muslim women for wearing a face veil for fear of being accused of racism. So all you've done is point out how the niqab wearer has more rights (in the real world if not on paper) than someone who likes ski masks.

dowie · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:51

The thing is you've got very little reason to wear a balaclava most of the time so it would raise obvious suspicion... however on a very very cold day in February you could well be fine - if you were stopped then there wouldn't be any issue in removing it briefly as its being used to keep warm not shield your face... and ditto to walking into shops - you're using it to keep warm, you can remove it when going inside.

Actually I'm half tempted to wear a balaclava next winter now... I work in the city and will quite likely be stopped given the whole ring of steel thing... I'd definitely have to remove it when I get to the office - security calls the police when people take pictures outside even...

Tefal · 2 Jul 2014 at 22:55

dowie said:
The thing is you've got very little reason to wear a balaclava most of the time

you can use the exact same reason for the niqab..You don't want people to see your face.

unless you're saying people have little reason to wear a niqab?

Arthur Hucksake · 2 Jul 2014 at 23:01

If you go to banks.... lower them. Walk into a shop or place of business... lower it, or legally be asked to leave.

Why is that so difficult?

Why does anyone have the right to see your face? I want to walk around in a Jason mask all week, i'd be quite happy to do that.

I'm a bit of a righty, but think this is a pathetic law. If people want to dress up like ninjas, then let them. It's nobody elses business.

I don't care about the Religious aspects of any of it. Trannys are in disguise, but nobody is allowed to ban or get in the way of that are they.

Arthur Hucksake · 2 Jul 2014 at 23:05

dowie said:
The thing is you've got very little reason to wear a balaclava most of the time so it would raise obvious suspicion... however on a very very cold day in February you could well be fine - if you were stopped then there wouldn't be any issue in removing it briefly as its being used to keep warm not shield your face... and ditto to walking into shops - you're using it to keep warm, you can remove it when going inside.

Actually I'm half tempted to wear a balaclava next winter now... I work in the city and will quite likely be stopped given the whole ring of steel thing... I'd definitely have to remove it when I get to the office - security calls the police when people take pictures outside even...

I use to wear them in the winter, they are awesome. Work far better than a scarf.

dowie · 2 Jul 2014 at 23:07

Tefal said:
you can use the exact same reason for the niqab..You don't want people to see your face.

unless you're saying people have little reason to wear a niqab?

nope they've got a fairly clear reason - they don't want people to see their face - but the reason for that is generally their personal beliefs about showing their face not an intent to not be identified after carrying out a dubious act.

On the other hand some people wear coverings because they've suffered burns and also want to hide this others are allergic to sunlight etc..etc..

The difference is the intent... tights are designed for putting on your legs and balaclavas are designed to keep your face warm when its very very cold. Under normal circumstance when people chose to wear either of these items on their head to conceal their identity it can often be because they're up to no good - EDL protestors, IRA terrorists, bank robbers etc... I think someone wearing a balaclava on a summer day perhaps should expect to be asked about it.

Johno please? · 2 Jul 2014 at 23:49

dowie said:
no good - EDL protestors, IRA terrorists, bank robbers etc... I think someone wearing a balaclava on a summer day perhaps should expect to be asked about it.

Specifically IRA yea? Other terrorists use what.... tea towels?

edit: HAHAHAH they do!

muon · 3 Jul 2014 at 00:19

estebanrey said:
Whilst there is no law preventing people wearing balaclavas per se, the police can use their powers to arrest you for wearing one on the basis they consider it going 'equipped' for burglary...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...-walsall-offender-arrested-for-wearing-158586

If you are pro-niqab I wouln't use the balaclava as an example because the fact is anyone wearing one in public is almost certain to be accosted by the fuzz whereas they wouldn't touch a Muslim women for wearing a face veil for fear of being accused of racism. So all you've done is point out how the niqab wearer has more rights (in the real world if not on paper) than someone who likes ski masks.

The fuzz can go around asking women wearing niqab if they really feel that's a good use of their time as long as they have reasonable cause to stop the person. Is a niqab wearing person likely to commit or have committed a crime?

Any law which presumes intent to commit criminal activity because you are wearing a balaclava is ridiculous. I am shocked such a law exists. It is a sad state of affairs. I suspect the police as usual stretch things, like what "equipped to commit a crime" means to fit their needs. In the above case they clearly felt he was likely to commit a crime.

AndyCroft1982 · 3 Jul 2014 at 02:38

muon said:
The fuzz can go around asking women wearing niqab if they really feel that's a good use of their time as long as they have reasonable cause to stop the person. Is a niqab wearing person likely to commit or have committed a crime?

Any law which presumes intent to commit criminal activity because you are wearing a balaclava is ridiculous. I am shocked such a law exists. It is a sad state of affairs. I suspect the police as usual stretch things, like what "equipped to commit a crime" means to fit their needs. In the above case they clearly felt he was likely to commit a crime.

How would you know it is a woman underneath? could be anyone trying to hide and thats is the problem. People assume it is a woman but how can you tell from looking at 2 eyes? There has been plenty of occassions when suicide bombers have worn nijabs in order to hide themselves in plain sight so they can kill innocent people. I am glad they banned them and wish the rest of the world would follow suit.

Tefal · 3 Jul 2014 at 02:41

muon said:
The fuzz can go around asking women wearing niqab if they really feel that's a good use of their time as long as they have reasonable cause to stop the person. Is a niqab wearing person likely to commit or have committed a crime?

there have been quite a few cases of them being used as disguises yes.

Any law which presumes intent to commit criminal activity because you are wearing a balaclava is ridiculous. I am shocked such a law exists. It is a sad state of affairs. I suspect the police as usual stretch things, like what "equipped to commit a crime" means to fit their needs. In the above case they clearly felt he was likely to commit a crime.

equipped to steal is quite broad includes carrying a screwdriver etc.

Going equipped for stealing,

A person shall be guilty of an offense if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any 1burglary or theft .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/25#commentary-c1854588

Prosecutors should consider the evidence as a whole in order to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence that the item is possessed for use or in connection with theft. Possession of an item alone, such as an empty rucksack or a pair of gloves, may be insufficient to found a charge of going equipped. However, the surrounding circumstances in which the defendant was found - evidence of the activities of associates, or messages sent to others signalling a certain intent - may provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that the item was for use in the course of or in connection with theft or burglary.

it would seem if they think you have intent an empty bag is enough to arrest you for it

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...order_and_other_offences_(august_2011)/#going

tbyeah · 3 Jul 2014 at 05:25

Boycey0211 said:
I'm not a muslim, I don't have to be one to get irritated by someone speaking nonsense that only serves to drive a further wedge between cultures. The fact that you use that sentence to call it an 'impotent muslim response', and an 'idiotic cult' just serves to make you look a fool.

He can call Islam whatever he likes and within reason won't look too foolish, so long as he doesn't say something plain wrong.

Richie · 3 Jul 2014 at 06:57

muon said:
Are balaclavas banned in public spaces in the UK? No. Should they be? No.

I am talking about France here. no one is up in arms about their rights to wearing a balaclava over there....

Bear in mind, France did not bring in this law to persecute Muslims, it was brought in as a security/safety issue. It just so happens that a religion (of which it is not mandatory) happens to have a piece of clothing that the law affects.

robgmun · 3 Jul 2014 at 07:21

AndyCroft1982 said:
How would you know it is a woman underneath? could be anyone trying to hide and thats is the problem. People assume it is a woman but how can you tell from looking at 2 eyes? There has been plenty of occassions when suicide bombers have worn nijabs in order to hide themselves in plain sight so they can kill innocent people. I am glad they banned them and wish the rest of the world would follow suit.

I completely agree

Also, wasn't the raiders of selfridges in London also wearing burkas?

Freefaller · 3 Jul 2014 at 07:46

tbyeah said:
He can call Islam whatever he likes and within reason won't look too foolish, so long as he doesn't say something plain wrong.

Not really as being offensive isn't fair. It's called being respectful.

Johno please? · 3 Jul 2014 at 08:50

Freefaller said:
Not really as being offensive isn't fair. It's called being respectful.

Being offensive isnt fair? uh what?

Offense is taken not given. Its peoples choice if theyre offended over something someone has said.

Religion commands a lot of respect, when it deserves none.