France bans the Burka

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've seen women driving around here with full face veils and head coverings. Nothing but eyes showing.

Peripheral vision issues come to mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Belgium has already passed such a law, and legislation is pending in Spain and Italy

I wonder why Sarkozy gets all the publicity on this issue here in the US. Did/does the news in Europe cover the actions in the other countries?

I hate the lack of international news coverage in the US.

 

[Thunder]

Care to elaborate on why I can't be anonymous in public?

when I say "anonymous", I mean your face. I don't mean you should have to wear a name tag.

wear a face mask all you like....at home...or on Halloween.

but in public, I have the right to know who is approaching me. as do the police.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh, please. Safety isn't the issue, and you damn well know it.

The burqa isn't a religious symbol. It's a ball and chain and you damn well know it.

 

[epix]

The burqa is a religious symbol and comes in various editions. The French people have banned the extreme case and, I don't think that it would cost them the Eiffel tower. The muslim world seems to care less.

Would anyone else like to join AI and moralize the heck out of democracy?
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20100713002&lang=e

 

[Southwind17]

Except motorcyclists wear helmets which cover the face when driving.

Er ... "riding", to be accurate (not to mention duly respectful of motorcyclists!). Anyway, they're intended to cover the head, mostly, open-face helmets:



... being a case in point.

Full-face helmets ...



... are simply considered more safe on account of the protection afforded to the face.

You do realise the rationale for wearing a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle in contrast to the "rationale" for wearing a veil, yes, and hence appreciate the distinction?

Care to elaborate on why I can't be anonymous in public?

It's not in the public interest, that's why. I'm guessing you're one of those who subscribe to being a net benificiary of societal living, i.e. without contributing by way of foregoing certain freedoms, right?

Peripheral vision issues come to mind.

To be fair, so far as peripheral vision goes, these ...



... ironically, are not a good benchmark, but show that compromise is acceptable, depending on circumstance!

when I say "anonymous", I mean your face. I don't mean you should have to wear a name tag.

wear a face mask all you like....at home...or on Halloween.

but in public, I have the right to know who is approaching me. as do the police.

Debatable. I'm not sure what piece of legislation affords you that right. Anything done or occurring in public, however, needs to be considered in the context of the public interest. I guess that's why stalking and being a peeping tom are illegal. They don't harm the victim per se (unless they're aware of it), but should they be allowed in the interests of freedom?! Don't think so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

when I say "anonymous", I mean your face. I don't mean you should have to wear a name tag.

wear a face mask all you like....at home...or on Halloween.

but in public, I have the right to know who is approaching me. as do the police.

Why? You really haven't given a reason here. It doesn't even make any sense.

 

[epix]

Why? You really haven't given a reason here. It doesn't even make any sense.

What he said makes perfectly sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is to equal a face covering applied for a safety reason with a face covering applied for religion reason. But that equivalence surely makes sense to you.

 

[Southwind17]

Why? You really haven't given a reason here. It doesn't even make any sense.

Again, anonymity in public is not in the public interest. Surely you can see that!

What he said makes perfectly sense to me.

Oh what irony. Sorry

 

[Earthborn]

What doesn't make sense to me is to equal a face covering applied for a safety reason with a face covering applied for religion reason. But that equivalence surely makes sense to you.

I think I can make sense of Geni's argument: both cover the face and are worn in public so a law against wearing face covering in public would necessarily apply to both. Whether it is worn for safety or religious reasons makes no difference in the context of a law against covering one's face in public. (If the argument used for this ban was that it is a religious face covering, the ban would violate European anti-discrimination law)

Where the equivalence veils and helmets ends is in the fact that motorcycle helmets are not really worn in public. Police can at any time order you to take off your helmet if it wants to see your face, and people generally have no problem complying.

 

[epix]

Oh what irony. Sorry

Listen, there are strange options. I don't know how it goes in your state, but here, if a cop stops a biker wearing a full protection helmet and asks for his driver's license, the biker must comply with the cop's request to take off the helmet to make the ID comparison, which never seems to be a problem on the part of the biker. Now if a male cop asks a full burqa-wearing woman for her ID and asks her to remove the burqa to compare the pic on the ID, then that woman can't, coz that request defies the religious purpose that the burqa is worn for. But if the ID pic shows nothing but the textile, then it's a full match . . . Thank you ma'am. Walk safely. LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[malbui]

So by definition if you're Muslim, you're not French? It's not their country, too?

**** that. **** a whole bunch of that.

It's a complicated issue but I think you're getting into homme de paille territory here.

Being Muslim is not incompatible with being French. But the modern French state is founded on certain secular and social values that apply to all citizens. The veil question is just one of the more visible ones.

 

[Wildy]

I don't want to hear the French accuse anybody else of being "Anti Moslem" from here on.

Do you have the same opinion of Turkey and Tunisia? Both countries have a ban on the Burqa.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

i just wanna see people's faces when they walk down the street.

Can you recount any occasion when you, your friends, your friends friends, or anyone you have heard of, has ever come under threat because of someone in a burka?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What he said makes perfectly sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is to equal a face covering applied for a safety reason with a face covering applied for religion reason. But that equivalence surely makes sense to you.

I think you are confused here. I've made no comments whatsoever about the helmut discussion.

And I'm on Sarkozy's side for reasons of women's rights (despite the contradiction other people see in that position).

But the only rationale I've seen in the thread so far for the claim one shouldn't cover one's face in public is because Thunder and now you think you have a right to see the faces of people in public. I don't get the basis, need or even reason for such a right.

 

[Fiona]

Muslims need to get a grip.

As I linked above:a great many French muslims support this law. This kind of rhetoric is not very helpful. Some of those muslims who have reservations about this have them because of this kind of response, so far as I can see

Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, a government advisory body, has supported taking steps to discourage women from wearing the full veil but has said a legal ban would stigmatise a vulnerable group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

 

[Undesired Walrus]

wear a face mask all you like....at home...or on Halloween.

Why on Halloween but not on any other day of the year? I thought you cared about safety? What is less dangerous about October 31st than October 30th?

And Joe can wear a face mask on Halloween, but Rushanara can't wear a full burka on a religious day of the year? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again, anonymity in public is not in the public interest. Surely you can see that!

No, actually, I can't see that. Perhaps in certain situations. Police need to ID people. Faces covered in the store or bank or other places where robbery is more likely is an issue.

But the person walking down the street? That I don't get.

 

[DC]

Democracy at work. What's wrong with that?

Democracies can also make wrong decision. don't you think?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..If the argument used for this ban was that it is a religious face covering, the ban would violate European anti-discrimination law...

If this is the case, how has Belgium passed a similar law and why would Spain and Italy also be considering it?