Veil Ban in France.

Chuck Stone

France ban on Face covering Effective Today.


A CONTROVERSIAL BAN on face veils will come into effect in France today, with women wearing certain face coverings in public places risking fines of €150 and being obliged to attend a “citizenship” course.


The law, which is aimed at reaffirming France’s “secular values” according President Nicolas Sarkozy, will apply only to public places and not apply in a person’s home, a mosque, or a private car.



Are you in favour of this?



Aye or Nay?

liah

I think it's only fair, to be honest. These people are choosing to move to France, they should be okay with choosing to adapt with France's way of public life. The law does not apply in private situations, so it's not an infringement on freedom of belief.

It's the same as banning ski masks from being worn into shops if you take the religious part out of it, I'm sure not many would argue with that.

Le King

I agree with it. Integration is a great thing. We wouldn't have the same population ratio that France does but it would be very welcome if we did. It's not like they are forcing their religion on these people. If you want to live in a country you should integrate. I doubt the women will be allowed out in public now, however.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except that which ordinarily appears thereof and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their [maharim]..." Sura 24:31

Chuck Stone

I say Nay.

I don't like the state directing people what to wear and what not to wear. Also it seems a bit petty to pass a law that only really affects a couple of thousand women who may well be either already oppressed enough by their circumstances or are doing it by choice.

McDave

I'm entirely in favour of the ban. Whatever about my dislike of Sarkozy, I have a lot of respect for how the French went about analysing the issue, deciding on an appropriate measure and following through.

IMO full veils are an affront to human dignity, and constitute a complete exclusion/opting out of social interaction. The phenomenon was considered in great detail by a French parliamentary committee, before being passed by both houses of parliament with only 2 votes against. According to a Financial Times survey last March, the ban is supported by 70% of the French population.

For me, the ban is a no-brainer. While I would consider myself to be of a reasonably tolerant and liberal disposition, I have a very strong gut reaction against the full veil, having also seen it in Dublin on a number of occasions.

For anyone who wants more background on the debate, I did a lot of research on the relevant French language texts on a thread on another board: http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/133610-french-assembly-votes-335-1-ban-full-veil.html

McDave

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I say Nay.

I don't like the state directing people what to wear and what not to wear. Also it seems a bit petty to pass a law that only really affects a couple of thousand women who may well be either already oppressed enough by their circumstances or are doing it by choice.

The state is not really telling people what to wear as such. It's saying people must expose their faces in public.

As it's a point of principle, it doesn't matter if it's 200, 2,000 or 20,000.

Scofflaw

Have to say I'm in favour. A hijab ban would be different, but there are a couple of principles at stake here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

It will be interesting to see what the ECtHR makes of this when a case on this ends up with them as it surely will in due course.

Chuck Stone

If I wan't to walk up the street in a balaclava should I be forced to take money out of my pocket and pay a fine or be threatened with being thrown in prison because someone can't see my face?

Should the police and courts be able to force me to expose my face? To threaten my liberty if I don't conform and expose my bloody face?
It's totally absurd.


Granted, believing in magical Gods and wearing silly clothes and trinkets in respect of said magic gods is pretty absurd but to try to combat it with absurdity is like trying to stop a flood by hosing it with water!

later12

It doesn't work. It won't work. It can't work. This is the French equivalent of the Hunting ban. Sounds good, wins temporary media victory for Sarko against the National Front, but hugely difficult for the police to apply and thereofre inevitably meaningless.

As for the principle, I am completely against it. I find it highly ironic that the UMP champion the niqabi ban as an affirmation of the French Republic and the principle of ''living together'' - this is not living together, it is the lawful enforcement of a principle of un-necessary personal compliance that runs right contrary to those of the Republic and its expressed freedoms.

Daft.

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If I wan't to walk up the street in a balaclava should I be forced to take money out of my pocket and pay a fine or be threatened with being thrown in prison because someone can't see my face?

Should the police and courts be able to force me to expose my face? To threaten my liberty if I don't conform and expose my bloody face?
It's totally absurd.


Granted, believing in magical Gods and wearing silly clothes and trinkets in respect of said magic gods is pretty absurd but to try to combat it with absurdity is like trying to stop a flood by hosing it with water!

Well yes, they should be able to.

The practical application (and major importance) of rules concerning concealing your face would relate to the public service and public security. Also, to a lesser extent, because it is a symbol in itself it is socially divisive.

To say that you cannot be compelled to remove a balaclava if you entered a bank, or wanted to work as a doctor, etc. is very silly.

later12

RandomName2 wrote: »

a symbol in itself it is socially divisive.

A symbol? If symbolism in itself is enough to divide us, we need to take a good hard look at why exactly this is the case and why community is built upon such a flippancy. Who is to say that the veil alone does not cause social divisions? You cannot just apply arbitrary boundaries to clothing and fashion and especially those of a non-sexual nature.

• I have a 'Bollocks to Blair' t-shirt in my bedroom identical to that which tens of thousands of pro-hunting activists wore in central London in 2004. Divisive. Possibly offensive. Legal.

• Sinn Fein sell IRA Undefeated merchandise on their website for public to wear going about their daily lives. Again, divisive. Possibly offensive. Legal.
• "A blow job is better than no job", "End Israeli Apartheid", these are just two examples of t shirts I've seen walking on the street recently. Would you deem the former offensive to some people? And the latter, for some, divisive?

I'm not in favour of forcing women to wear veils, ninja costumes, shoulder pads, sequin dresses or whatever the Hell they want. I don't think its a role for society. While I can understand some, perhaps elderly, people finding crude sexual references alarming or stressful, alarm or distress at the veil and the niqab is a phenomenon that completely escapes me.

Lockstep

Not a fan of this tbh.

The State arbitrating on what you can/can't wear isn't a route I like to see liberal democracy going down.

If a woman is being forced to wear a veil then yes, the State should be getting involved and defending her. However, if she voluntarily chooses to do this then I really don't see how it's the State's business.

I grew up in Brussels (Muslim population; around 25%) so I've seen it in practice a lot. Not something I'd see an issue with.

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes, they should be able to.

So you support state violence and coercion. How can I argue against this except with violence?

The practical application (and major importance) of rules concerning concealing your face would relate to the public service and public security.

Rubbish. Also, this doesn't require a law - only some institutional rules. You want to go into a bank with a mask, well no, it's a security risk - nobody has a problem with that.

Also, to a lesser extent, because it is a symbol in itself it is socially divisive.

Says who? I personally couldn't care less what people wear on their faces.

To say that you cannot be compelled to remove a balaclava if you entered a bank, or wanted to work as a doctor, etc. is very silly.

To put words in my mouth hints that you have difficulty reading and understanding what I wrote.

.

southsiderosie

I will admit that personally I find it startling to see a woman wearing a niquab, especially with those big gloves. The funny thing is, most of my encounters with it were in Turkey, where at least half of the women were wearing hijab. So it stands out, even in predominately Muslim countries.

I also don't like what it stands for, and think it is actually quite degrading to men as well as women. The vast, vast majority of normal men can control themselves if they see a woman's face or the shape of her body.

But that said, I think it is a stretch to ban this kind of stuff in a liberal democracy, and I see no point to this ban other than political grandstanding.

liah

southsiderosie wrote: »

I will admit that personally I find it startling to see a woman wearing a niquab, especially with those big gloves. The funny thing is, most of my encounters with it were in Turkey, where at least half of the women were wearing hijab. So it stands out, even in predominately Muslim countries.

I also don't like what it stands for, and think it is actually quite degrading to men as well as women. The vast, vast majority of normal men can control themselves if they see a woman's face or the shape of her body.

But that said, I think it is a stretch to ban this kind of stuff in a liberal democracy, and I see no point to this ban other than political grandstanding.

Are ski masks not banned in public places in the US? I thought they were. Do you agree with them being banned? I don't see this as any different tbh. The law isn't about religion, but being able to see someone's face. I think it's completely understandable, particularly in banks or other important buildings where identity is crucial.

Denerick

Its a simple exploitation of bigotry and ignorance in order to pander to the far right.

A woman from a strict Muslim household may decide not to wear the veil; fine, she has just insulted her parents. A woman from any household may decide to wear the veil; uh-oh, she has just offended 'the state'.

Whole different ball game IMO.

later12

liah wrote: »

Are ski masks not banned in public places in the US? I thought they were. Do you agree with them being banned? I don't see this as any different tbh. The law isn't about religion, but being able to see someone's face. I think it's completely understandable, particularly in banks or other important buildings where identity is crucial.

Private businesses like banks will always reserve the right to refuse admission, so that wouldn't really be an issue as far as I can see. Parisian banks expressly ask niqab enthusiasts to remove face coverings as a matter of policy, I'm sure it is similiar everywhere.

Denerick

liah wrote: »

Are ski masks not banned in public places in the US? I thought they were. Do you agree with them being banned? I don't see this as any different tbh. The law isn't about religion, but being able to see someone's face. I think it's completely understandable, particularly in banks or other important buildings where identity is crucial.

I'm sorry, but you would have to be painfully naive not to think this law wasn't entirely and utterly about religion.

RandomName2

later10 wrote: »

A symbol? If symbolism in itself is enough to divide us, we need to take a good hard look at why exactly this is the case and why community is built upon such a flippancy. Who is to say that the veil alone does not cause social divisions? You cannot just apply arbitrary boundaries to clothing and fashion and especially those of a non-sexual nature.

"A blow job is better than no job"? How does that assign you to any particular group? The great mass of unemployed?

Add a hammer and sickle to that, and join a marxist group, ascribe to marxist teachings (including the abolition of the state) and yes, I would consider that divisive symbolism.

There are not arbitrary boundaries by definition because the clothing itself is part of a convention.

But it is arguable how much freedom people should have in displaying symbols. Should people be allowed dress up as nazis? Klu Lux Klan members? Horsearchers of the Golden Horde? Stormtroopers from Star Wars?

It's hard to know where to draw the line because of the cyclical argument concerning free speech VS the threatening manipulation of visual media. Shouldn't symbols representative of things that are wrong be ridiculed, not banned?

But the practical implications of people having their faces in public and in the public service are plain to see. That's why this argument is a no-brainer concerning the veil.

What people wear (or don't wear) in their own homes is, of course, their own business.

later12

RandomName2 wrote: »

A blow job is better than no job? How does that assign you to any particular group? The great mass of unemployed?

Look, we all know old ladies who gasp at FCUK clothes so lets not even get into who may or may not find what offensive. As we see right here on boards, people take offense at the slightest things all the time.

Add a hammer and sickle to that, and join a marxist group, ascribe to marxist teachings (including the abolition of the state) and yes, I would consider that divisive symbolism.

Ah yes, but ought marxist symbolism be banned?

There are not arbitrary boundaries by definition because the clothing itself is part of a convention.

It is hugely arbitrary to decide that the chin, the cheekbones, the nose, the mouth and the jaws be visible, but not the ears, the hair, the neck, the shoulders, the eyes ,and the eyebrows. I don't see how that can be denied.

liah

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you would have to be painfully naive not to think this law wasn't entirely and utterly about religion.

Of course that's a part of it, but it's not like they're banning religion. They're, officially, banning a face covering that happens to be part of the religion. There may be religious motivations, sure, but it doesn't make it a bad idea and doesn't make the reasoning of identification any less valid.

Lockstep

Banks are private institutions (Inb4 IRISH ONES AREN'T!).
If they want to determine what people can wear to use their services, that's their own business.

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

Banks are private institutions (Inb4 IRISH ONES AREN'T!).
If they want to determine what people can wear to use their services, that's their own business.

Well, I'm not talking about just banks, simply using them as an example, really. I'd feel uncomfortable as a public service worker of any kind (receptionist, cashier, waitress, whatever) if I couldn't see who I was serving, and if you allow masks in shops (again, take this out of a religious context) it leaves some pretty glaring holes in security. What happened if someone wearing one robbed the shop or assaulted an employee? They'd not be able to catch them unless there were cops on-hand in the shop. It could very easily be exploited by the non-religious as a means to theft. This is why pretty much everywhere requests you remove hats/masks/balaclavas/whatever else before entering. Why should the burka be treated differently in a secular public society?

The problems with comparisons to skimasks is that if you can't wear a skimask, the result is not being housebound. In the case of many women wearing the full veils, this WILL be the result, or assault.

liah

bluewolf wrote: »

The problems with comparisons to skimasks is that if you can't wear a skimask, the result is not being housebound. In the case of many women wearing the full veils, this WILL be the result, or assault.

Which is upsetting, of course, but as much as I hate to say it, these women have the ability to decide their religion for themselves if they live in a secular country like France. If they decide they want to be a part of something that means they're housebound, that's their choice, as it is also their choice to move to/stay in a country that is not in line with their belief system. I know that it's not really their "choice" insofar as they've more than likely been indoctrinated and know no other way, but we still have to respect the fact that everyone needs to decide their path for themselves. Personal responsibility et al.

Provided balaclavas, masks, etc. are banned in public in France (I'm no expert on French law), it would be hypocritical if, as a secular society, they gave a religion an exemption to the rule.

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

Well, I'm not talking about just banks, simply using them as an example, really. I'd feel uncomfortable as a public service worker of any kind (receptionist, cashier, waitress, whatever) if I couldn't see who I was serving, and if you allow masks in shops (again, take this out of a religious context) it leaves some pretty glaring holes in security. What happened if someone wearing one robbed the shop or assaulted an employee? They'd not be able to catch them unless there were cops on-hand in the shop. It could very easily be exploited by the non-religious as a means to theft. This is why pretty much everywhere requests you remove hats/masks/balaclavas/whatever else before entering. Why should the burka be treated differently in a secular public society?

Again, if a shop wants to ban facemasks, that's their own business. They're private entitites and are free to impose these kinds of restrictions.
Governments are not. We live in liberal democracies and to ban certain clothes is a worrying over-reach of State power.


If the waiter, receptionist or shop assistant is so sensitive that they're uncomfortable serving someone who's face is hidden then they really need to get over themselves. What if someone isn't comfortable serving blacks or gays? As a security risk, fine. Leave that up to individual businesses. Don't enforce governmental control of clothing.


For the record, I've never worked in a place requiring you to remove helmets, masks or whatever. Seen a few signs up in banks and that's about it so your claim that it's 'pretty much everywhere' doesn't sit with my own experiences.

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

Again, if a shop wants to ban facemasks, that's their own business. They're private entitites and are free to impose these kinds of restrictions.
Governments are not. We live in liberal democracies and to ban certain clothes is a worrying over-reach of State power.


If the waiter, receptionist or shop assistant is so sensitive that they're uncomfortable serving someone who's face is hidden then they really need to get over themselves. What if someone isn't comfortable serving blacks or gays? As a security risk, fine. Leave that up to individual businesses. Don't enforce governmental control of clothing.

What about my other questions? And do you really think it's wise to allow face coverings in government buildings of all places? Embassies, etc.? Passport offices? Post offices? Dole offices? Do you not think that could be very easily exploited?

By "pretty much everywhere" I guess I don't really mean everywhere. It's certainly been my experience in North America though.

Denerick

liah wrote: »

Of course that's a part of it, but it's not like they're banning religion. They're, officially, banning a face covering that happens to be part of the religion. There may be religious motivations, sure, but it doesn't make it a bad idea and doesn't make the reasoning of identification any less valid.

They're deliberately targetting c. 2,000 French women who happen to wear the veil. And these aren't immigrants; they are French citizens born and raised in France. I don't understand why you are defending a disgusting assault on women's freedom to wear what they want by chauvinistic and bigoted politicians.

BTW, it isn't a big deal for banks etc. to require women to lift their veil in order to show their faces for 5 seconds in a row. This is an attempt at social engineering, and its a dangerous slippery slope to something worse.

Europe's Muslim population is only going to grow. Now I hope like everyone else that most of their people become atheist and decadant along the way. But lets not piss off our largest minority while we're at it, eh?

liah

Denerick wrote: »

They're deliberately targetting c. 2,000 French women who happen to wear the veil. And these aren't immigrants; they are French citizens born and raised in France. I don't understand why you are defending a disgusting assault on women's freedom to wear what they want by chauvinistic and bigoted politicians.

BTW, it isn't a big deal for banks etc. to require women to lift their veil in order to show their faces for 5 seconds in a row. This is an attempt at social engineering, and its a dangerous slippery slope to something worse.

Europe's Muslim population is only going to grow. Now I hope like everyone else that most of their people become atheist and decadant along the way. But lets not piss off our largest minority while we're at it, eh?

But why should a religion be given an exemption in a secular society? This is the part I don't get. If they don't want to live in a secular society, why do they do so? Why do they force a secular system to give them an exemption?

Again, this is provided masks etc. are also banned for security reasons. If not, then I agree entirely - but I just don't feel people should be given exceptions because they happen to belong to a religion whose culture is vastly different to that of the country in which they choose to live. There's plenty of other countries available they could move to which allow face coverings and which are more in tune with their beliefs. It's not as if they have literally no options, that France is the only place they could live. I don't think it's right that they're forcing a country with an entirely different culture to adapt to theirs and give them exceptions that no one else gets.

It's like trying to say you shouldn't have to learn English to live in an English-speaking country - if you don't want to ever learn English, why move to a country where you have to do so to enjoy your life there? It doesn't make sense, and it's unfair to force somewhere else to change its system based solely on a minority.

As a female I seriously don't see what's chauvinistic about it, and I don't see how it's bigoted either. It seems like a standard secular move for security purposes. Again, it's not like they're banning the burka in private or religious settings - they still have the freedom to do what they want on their own time.

Denerick

liah wrote: »

But why should a religion be given an exemption in a secular society? This is the part I don't get. If they don't want to live in a secular society, why do they do so? Why do they force a secular system to give them an exemption?

Again, this is provided masks etc. are also banned for security reasons. If not, then I agree entirely - but I just don't feel people should be given exceptions because they happen to belong to a religion whose culture is vastly different to that of the country in which they choose to live. There's plenty of other countries available they could move to which allow face coverings and which are more in tune with their beliefs. It's not as if they have literally no options, that France is the only place they could live. I don't think it's right that they're forcing a country with an entirely different culture to adapt to theirs and give them exceptions that no one else gets.

It's like trying to say you shouldn't have to learn English to live in an English-speaking country - if you don't want to ever learn English, why move to a country where you have to do so to enjoy your life there? It doesn't make sense, and it's unfair to force somewhere else to change its system based solely on a minority.

Government exists to protect minorities from the majority. Most people are ill informed, ignorant and bigoted. The majority has the potential to completely trample on the rights and dignity of the minority. If you are offended by a Muslim veil, then you have the right to be neither a Muslim nor wear a veil. You cannot force your values on another, because they are 'icky'.

You keep on throwing out this line like these women have a choice to be in France. They were born there and it is their country and they are entitled to the same universal rights as their countrymen. Imagine you like wearing orange jumpers. Imagine one day the irish government decided to ban orange jumpers. Imagine opinion polls indicated that a majority of Irish people wanted orange jumper banned.

You'd be pretty pissed if they went ahead and banned your jumper, wouldn't you?

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

What about my other questions?

Your other questions referred to the private sector (shops, waiters etc)
Like I said, I have no issue if companes want to enforce this in their own shops.

liah wrote: »

And do you really think it's wise to allow face coverings in government buildings of all places? Embassies, etc.? Passport offices? Post offices? Dole offices? Do you not think that could be very easily exploited?

By "pretty much everywhere" I guess I don't really mean everywhere. It's certainly been my experience in North America though.

Well that's different now. If picking up your dole or your passport or something, then its a very simple requirement to require them to show their face during the transaction.That's pretty much the way things have already been done; prior to this, France didn't just allow people to come in wearing a burqa and pick up their dole without any other requirements.

A far cry from actually banning them in public places.

liah

Denerick wrote: »

Government exists to protect minorities from the majority. Most people are ill informed, ignorant and bigoted. The majority has the potential to completely trample on the rights and dignity of the minority. If you are offended by a Muslim veil, then you have the right to be neither a Muslim nor wear a veil. You cannot force your values on another, because they are 'icky'.

You keep on throwing out this line like these women have a choice to be in France. They were born there and it is their country and they are entitled to the same universal rights as their countrymen. Imagine you like wearing orange jumpers. Imagine one day the irish government decided to ban orange jumpers. Imagine opinion polls indicated that a majority of Irish people wanted orange jumper banned.

You'd be pretty pissed if they went ahead and banned your jumper, wouldn't you?

It's not the same thing as a jumper - your jumper doesn't obscure your face. Your jumper doesn't make you impossible to identify. Your jumper (provided it's worn in a conventional manner, anyway) can't be exploited for theft or assault. Your jumper isn't completely against the secular culture you are voluntarily taking part in.

I don't like the implication that because I don't believe burkas should be allowed in public buildings that I'm bigoted or ignorant. I have no problem with people who choose to wear them. I genuinely don't. I've got no ill will towards the people who believe in that particular religion. I don't generalize and think they're all terrorists, I don't think they're stupid for believing what they believe, and I'd respect them as much as I'd respect any individual.

I don't believe ANY face coverings should be allowed in public buildings where security is a concern. It has nothing to do with religion or freedom of expression; as it is most places don't allow you to wear masks, regardless of the reasons you're wearing them. If France has decided they don't want face coverings allowed in public buildings for security reasons, that is their choice, and it is a valid choice that does not exclude anyone, or give anyone privileges over anybody else. It is fair.

You say you cannot force your values on another because they are "icky," but that is exactly what they are doing to France, they are forcing their values upon a society that does not agree with them and does not give preference to religion, when they have the options to move elsewhere to a country that is more in line with their own values.

And these women DO have a choice to be in France. What, are they not allowed to apply for passports? Are they banned from entering vehicles of transportation? Are they held in France by some invisible force I am not aware of? Just because they were born there doesn't mean they're bound there or even have to think of it as their own country. I know that I'm not going to live in a country like, say, Saudi Arabia and try to change it while I'm there, because I don't believe in their value system and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know best for their country. I wouldn't ever live in the country in which I was born because it disagrees with my value system (not Canada, btw). I'm not physically forced to stay there - I can move to a place that suits me better, so I did. Why can they not do the same? Why are they forcing everyone to conform to their beliefs?

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

Your other questions referred to the private sector (shops, waiters etc)
Like I said, I have no issue if companes want to enforce this in their own shops.


Well that's different now. If picking up your dole or your passport or something, then its a very simple requirement to require them to show their face during the transaction.That's pretty much the way things have already been done; prior to this, France didn't just allow people to come in wearing a burqa and pick up their dole without any other requirements.

A far cry from actually banning them in public places.

My questions apply in any social situation. A mask makes a person impossible to identify, they could commit assault, theft, or any number of crimes in government buildings just as they can in private buildings and never be caught because they can't be identified. Burkas are shapeless as it is, you wouldn't even be able to identify gender necessarily.

Do you not believe it could be exploited by the non-religious to commit crimes? That seems a bit naive. People will exploit anything given half the chance.

Denerick

liah wrote: »

It's not the same thing as a jumper - your jumper doesn't obscure your face. Your jumper doesn't make you impossible to identify. Your jumper (provided it's worn in a conventional manner, anyway) can't be exploited for theft or assault. Your jumper isn't completely against the secular culture you are voluntarily taking part in.

This has been established before. Banks and other private buildings may require customers to reveal their face for commercial and security reasons. Fine. No problem. But walking down the high street? Do you really want to see police wasting their time harassing women because they haven't met 'national fashion requirements'?

As for the secular culture thing; so you do admit this whole thing is entirely about religious bigotry and nothing whatsoever got to do with security? Especially since so few Muslim women in France actually wear the full veil?

I don't like the implication that because I don't believe burkas should be allowed in public buildings that I'm bigoted or ignorant. I have no problem with people who choose to wear them. I genuinely don't. I've got no ill will towards the people who believe in that particular religion. I don't generalize and think they're all terrorists, I don't think they're stupid for believing what they believe, and I'd respect them as much as I'd respect any individual.

I don't care if you don't like the implication; I wasn't implying anything, I was boldly stating the reality. If you believe women are not be trusted (I'm fully aware you are a woman) to dress themselves appropriately and require the State to direct them to a particular and appropriate form of national dress - fine. Good for you. But lets not beat round the bush here as to what such a mentality says about the person holding such views.

And these women DO have a choice to be in France. What, are they not allowed to apply for passports? Are they banned from entering vehicles of transportation? Are they held in France by some invisible force I am not aware of? Just because they were born there doesn't mean they're bound there or even have to think of it as their own country. I know that I'm not going to live in a country like, say, Saudi Arabia and try to change it while I'm there, because I don't believe in their value system and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know best for their country. I wouldn't ever live in the country in which I was born because it disagrees with my value system (not Canada, btw). I'm not physically forced to stay there - I can move to a place that suits me better, so I did. Why can they not do the same? Why are they forcing everyone to conform to their beliefs?

What an awful sentiment. So you think that native citizens should be encouraged to emigrate from their home country, just because you feel they should man it up and get on board with an authoritarian law that directly attacks their freedom of expression? I can just imagine some halfwitted Catholic Irishman in the 1950s complaining about people who didn't want to accept the prevailing social consensus. Thousands of Irish people did emigrate, as it happens, and not always for economic reasons.

liah

Denerick wrote: »

This has been established before. Banks and other private buildings may require customers to reveal their face for commercial and security reasons. Fine. No problem. But walking down the high street? Do you really want to see police wasting their time harassing women because they haven't met 'national fashion requirements'?

I assumed the ban was for public buildings, not just walking down the street. If this is not the case, then again, I agree with you - but not inside buildings. To me it is just too great a security concern, and counterproductive in a secular society.

As for the secular culture thing; so you do admit this whole thing is entirely about religious bigotry and nothing whatsoever got to do with security? Especially since so few Muslim women in France actually wear the full veil?

What? That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm positive you know that. Don't put words into my mouth. It's not about religious bigotry. Secularity is about treating all religions equally and not giving any religion exemptions to laws the entire rest of the public have to obey. It has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry, it has everything to do with equality and fairness.

I don't care if you don't like the implication; I wasn't implying anything, I was boldly stating the reality. If you believe women are not be trusted (I'm fully aware you are a woman) to dress themselves appropriately and require the State to direct them to a particular and appropriate form of national dress - fine. Good for you. But lets not beat round the bush here as to what such a mentality says about the person holding such views.

That, again, is putting words in my mouth that are simply not there. It's nothing to do with women. It's nothing to do with men. It's nothing to do with bigotry or ignorance or chauvinism or thinking people can or can't be trusted. It's to do with being fair to everybody and adapting to different cultures and making things easier on literally everyone when it comes to security and anti-assault and crime measures.

What an awful sentiment. So you think that native citizens should be encouraged to emigrate from their home country, just because you feel they should man it up and get on board with an authoritarian law that directly attacks their freedom of expression? I can just imagine some halfwitted Catholic Irishman in the 1950s complaining about people who didn't want to accept the prevailing social consensus. Thousands of Irish people did emigrate, as it happens, and not always for economic reasons.

It clearly doesn't attack their freedom of expression. This is not an emotional issue. It is an equality issue, and what you are suggesting would give them exemptions and privilege that the rest of their countrymen do not have, and one that is not wise to give given the glaring security issues that would arise from face coverings of any kind, religious or not, being permitted. I'm sure they would do the exact same thing if any other religion required face coverings. It's hardly as if they're telling them they can't follow their religion - they're just asking them to adapt to their culture, as would be expected if anyone moved to any country.

I think a minority that small shouldn't expect millions of people who follow a completely different culture to bend to their will on religious grounds. It's asking for privilege, and France is not a country that gives religious privilege.

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

My questions apply in any social situation.

No, they don't. You were referring specifically to private entities which are free to set whatever grounds they like. If a private gym wants to enforce a women's only policy, that's their own business. If a publicly owned park only lets in white people then that's clearly something the State needs to intervene in.

liah wrote: »

A mask makes a person impossible to identify, they could commit assault, theft, or any number of crimes in government buildings just as they can in private buildings and never be caught because they can't be identified. Burkas are shapeless as it is, you wouldn't even be able to identify gender necessarily.

Do you not believe it could be exploited by the non-religious to commit crimes? That seems a bit naive. People will exploit anything given half the chance.

Yes, and the flipside; a government mandate to ban objectionable clothing is infintely worse. The government always had, and always will ban face-coverings when it present a security risk; they'll hardly allow someone access to the dole when they refuse to show their face. This is just pragmatism; up to now the French government would have already been doing this.
We don't have a burqa ban in the UK or Ireland. Can you offer any proof that there is a significant occurence of burqa robberies occuring in these countries, enough to justify such a draconian measure?

If you're taking the security angle, the government could prevent crimes happening by implanting security tags on every single person. But they don't do this as the benefits would outweigh the risks.
Also going on a purely security viewpoint, it's a disaster. Already the French police are seeing increased tensions from the Muslim community in an already volatile situation (the banlieu riots aren't long ago)

Chuck Stone

liah wrote: »

It's to do.... making things easier on literally everyone when it comes to security and anti-assault and crime measures.

Really? These women are a security threat and had an inclination to assault people?

given the glaring security issues that would arise from face coverings of any kind, religious or not, being permitted

What do you mean by this?

.

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

No, they don't. You were referring specifically to private entities which are free to set whatever grounds they like. If a private gym wants to enforce a women's only policy, that's their own business. If a public park only lets in white people that's not something the State has any business doing.

I'm referring to literally any buildings that value security in any way, shape, or form. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this - I just simply do not see how it is wise to allow people to wear face coverings in public buildings, because it makes crime about 100 times easier to commit if you cannot be identified, and you certainly don't have to be at the counter to commit a crime. Businesses and the government need to protect themselves from theft, the public want to protect themselves from theft and assault, and the religious themselves would probably benefit from not being seen as suspicious everywhere they go. In fact, it could do a lot to reduce racism and bigotry in general. It's much easier to have empathy for a face rather than a veil, and empathy erodes bigotry.

Yes, and the flipside; a government mandate to ban objectionable clothing is infintely worse. The government always had, and always will ban face-coverings when it present a security risk; they'll hardly allow someone access to the dole when they refuse to show their face. This is just pragmatism; up to now the French government would have already been doing this.
We don't have a burqa ban in the UK or Ireland. Can you offer any proof that there is a significant occurence of burqa robberies occuring in these countries, enough to justify such a draconian measure?

Haven't looked into it, but I will do and report back. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it; I simply understand their reasons and think they're and don't think of them as particularly draconian.

If you're taking the security angle, the government could prevent crimes happening by implanting security tags on every single person. But they don't do this as the benefits would outweigh the risks.
Also going on a purely security viewpoint, it's a disaster. Already the French police are seeing increased tensions from the Muslim community in an already volatile situation (the banlieu riots aren't long ago)

There's a massive, massive line between asking to see someone's face and implanting a chip to track their every movement. It's a bit disingenuous to your argument, in fairness, because largely I agree with your sentiment, but leaping to those kinds of conclusions isn't doing you any favours. I don't agree with facism, and am very much a supporter of people being able to do what they want.

I just think that in the interests of equality in the particular case of France, it's only fair that they ban them if they have other forms of face coverings banned, because to do otherwise would be discrimination on religious grounds - even if it's positive discrimination, it's still discrimination.

There's also the fact that I alluded to earlier - people have a much better time empathizing with faces than with veils. I do genuinely believe that there's a chance racism and general bigotry would decrease once they were 'humanized' again. I'd wager they get treated very differently with the veil than without the veil, probably much more coldly and suspiciously than they would otherwise, and all that does is serve to drive a divide between them and the rest of society, and as we all know, that's not really a good thing. No one's asking them to abandon their religion or change their entire dress sense, just to adapt a little to Western culture and show your face in public like the rest of us.

If the government is secular, they just shouldn't give religion privilege. That's what I have the problem with. It's not even necessarily the coverings themselves, I know I'm arguing for security because I think it's a valid concern, but it doesn't mean I think it's the only way it could be handled. I just think the accusations of religious bigotry aren't accurate or valid in any way.

I would argue completely differently if I knew for certain that general masks weren't, in fact, banned in France. I just have problems when religion tries to control politics.

liah

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Really? These women are a security threat and had an inclination to assault people?

Not at all. I'd say the exact same thing for balaclavas. Nothing to do with the women being security threats - it's not like it's impossible for someone who doesn't belong to the religion to exploit the religious garments in the interest of committing crime. Doesn't have to even be women, with burkas you can't even tell their gender. Just because someone's wearing the costume doesn't mean they are what that costume represents.

What do you mean by this?

If you cannot identify a person in any way, how can you be expected to report crime? You can give a rough height, and a very, very rough weight, and maybe eye colour. But that's literally it. It's a huge security hole - imagine how easy it would be to put on something that covered your face, assault someone, and run away? You'd never get caught. Hell, they can barely catch people when their faces are showing. Why do you think everyone in films wears masks when they rob stuff?

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

I'm referring to literally any buildings that value security in any way, shape, or form. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this - I just simply do not see how it is wise to allow people to wear face coverings in public buildings, because it makes crime about 100 times easier to commit if you cannot be identified. Businesses and the government need to protect themselves from theft, the public want to protect themselves from theft and assault, and the religious themselves would probably benefit from not being seen as suspicious everywhere they go. In fact, it could do a lot to reduce racism and bigotry in general. It's much easier to have empathy for a face rather than a veil, and empathy erodes bigotry.

It's only today that France has brought this in. Can you provide any evidence that its a pressing enough issue to merit such a measure?

If someone is going to commit theft or assault on governmental property do you really believe that they would be prevented from doing so by a ban on it happening?
Banks ban persons covering their faces while on the premises, it hardly means that those entering the premises with such intentions do so barefaced.

liah wrote: »

Haven't looked into it, but I will do and report back. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it; I simply understand their reasons and think they're and don't think of them as particularly draconian.

Meh, like I said, I grew up in Belgium which has a similar law and when they brought it out, it smacked far more of bigotry and a sop to the Daily Mail types than any genuine concerns. Anti Muslim feeling runs extremely high so I'm dubious about such concerns.
I only lived in Franc for a few months so can't comment on this case but I remain to be conviced that it's over security concerns.

liah wrote: »

There's a massive, massive line between asking to see someone's face and implanting a chip to track their every movement. It's a bit disingenuous to your argument, in fairness, because largely I agree with your sentiment, but leaping to those kinds of conclusions isn't doing you any favours. I don't agree with facism, and am very much a supporter of people being able to do what they want.

Of course there's a difference, I was merely trying to show that the logic that its fair to stop crimes can also be used for such measures. Both are very draconian and I fail to see how either provides a genuine mechanism to prevent crime.

liah wrote: »

I just think that in the interests of equality in the particular case of France, it's only fair that they ban them if they have other forms of face coverings banned, because to do otherwise would be discrimination on religious grounds - even if it's positive discrimination, it's still discrimination.

There's also the fact that I alluded to earlier - people have a much better time empathizing with faces than with veils. I do genuinely believe that there's a chance racism and general bigotry would decrease once they were 'humanized' again. I'd wager they get treated very differently with the veil than without the veil, probably much more coldly and suspiciously than they would otherwise, and all that does is serve to drive a divide between them and the rest of society, and as we all know, that's not really a good thing.

If the government is secular, they just shouldn't give religion privilege. That's what I have the problem with. It's not even necessarily the coverings themselves, I know I'm arguing for security because I think it's a valid concern, but it doesn't mean I think it's the only way it could be handled. I just think the accusations of religious bigotry are accurate or valid in any way.

I would argue completely differently if I knew for certain that general masks weren't, in fact, banned in France. I just have problems when religion tries to control politics.

Burqas are worn by a distinct minority; in France only 367 women (0.015% of the population) wear them so I really, really doubt that anyone bigoted is significatly affected by this.

This isn't about giving religion privileges. It's allowing people the free exercise of their religion whenever they want. Unless there is a clear and necessary reason for it (such as for collecting the dole or for an ID check) then a person's clothing shouldn't be factored in, be it religious or otherwise. At least, not by a government.

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

This isn't about giving religion privileges. It's allowing people the free exercise of their religion whenever they want. Unless there is a clear and necessary reason for it (such as for collecting the dole or for an ID check) then a person's clothing shouldn't be factored in, be it religious or otherwise. At least, not by a government.

But what happens when their religious practices don't fall into line with the culture which they are voluntarily subscribing to?

I mean, does this apply for every practice of every religion or are we just cherry-picking here?

I would have massive problems with this if it was an outright ban, but it's not - they feel there are valid reasons for not allowing the burka in public buildings (can someone clarify if this is just buildings or if it includes the general outdoors), and it is the way of their culture to decide so. They are completely free to practise literally every aspect of their religion (other than the other things our culture does not permit, such as stoning, etc). Faces in Western culture are very important for communication, and it's very unnerving to be talking to somebody you cannot identify in any way at all, and that can lead to some very hateful attitudes - perhaps what's going on with racism in the UK at the moment, among other things.

Freedom of expression should be kept at all costs in private life. People should be able to do and believe what they want on their own time. The problem is when you have to have a group of very different people in one place who wouldn't ordinarily socialise with each other, you have to start making compromises. Masks make people in Western society nervous because we connect them to crime (outside of the context of a costume party, anyway), and if they want to live in a Western country they should respect that.

But again, I still want clarification as to whether masks in general are also banned, because my argument will be very different if that is not the case.

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

But what happens when their religious practices don't fall into line with the culture which they are voluntarily subscribing to?

I mean, does this apply for every practice of every religion or are we just cherry-picking here?

I would have massive problems with this if it was an outright ban, but it's not - they feel there are valid reasons for not allowing the burka in public buildings (can someone clarify if this is just buildings or if it includes the general outdoors), and it is the way of their culture to decide so. They are completely free to practise literally every aspect of their religion (other than the other things our culture does not permit, such as stoning, etc). Faces in Western culture are very important for communication, and it's very unnerving to be talking to somebody you cannot identify in any way at all, and that can lead to some very hateful attitudes - perhaps what's going on with racism in the UK at the moment, among other things.

Freedom of expression should be kept at all costs in private life. People should be able to do and believe what they want on their own time. The problem is when you have to have a group of very different people in one place who wouldn't ordinarily socialise with each other, you have to start making compromises. Masks make people in Western society nervous because we connect them to crime (outside of the context of a costume party, anyway), and if they want to live in a Western country they should respect that.

But again, I still want clarification as to whether masks in general are also banned, because my argument will be very different if that is not the case.

France is a laic, liberal democracy. Laicity means there is no religious involvement in government and vice versa. France is also a pluralist society so it's really not a case of these women needing to fall into a cultural standard. France is supposed to cherish these differences (liberté, égalité, fraternité). Not enforce a single, homogenous culture.
If people want to wander around dressed in orange dungarees, again, that's their own call.


This is an effective outright ban Women are allowed wear it in private, in a car or in and around the mosque. That's about it. WOuld you not see this as very intrusive and draconian?
Regardless of how unnerving you may find it, that's your own call really. Someone might find it unnerving talking to someone who wears leather jackets but that's their own concerns and not something the State needs to be getting involved with.

They shouldn't have to accept this; we live in pluralistic, multicultural societies. To assume that there is one culture which should be abided by is ignorant of how diverse post-colonial countries like France and Belgium are.

Likewise, it bans all garments covering the face. Trick-or-treat in France is gonna suck now

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

France is a laic, liberal democracy. Laicity means there is no religious involvement in government and vice versa. France is also a pluralist society so it's really not a case of these women needing to fall into a cultural standard. France is supposed to cherish these differences (liberté, égalité, fraternité). Not enforce a single, homogenous culture.
If people want to wander around dressed in orange dungarees, again, that's their own call.


This is an effective outright ban Women are allowed wear it in private, in a car or in and around the mosque. That's about it. WOuld you not see this as very intrusive and draconian?
Regardless of how unnerving you may find it, that's your own call really. Someone might find it unnerving talking to someone who wears leather jackets but that's their own concerns and not something the State needs to be getting involved with.

They shouldn't have to accept this; we live in pluralistic, multicultural societies. To assume that there is one culture which should be abided by is ignorant of how diverse post-colonial countries like France and Belgium are.

Likewise, it bans all garments covering the face. Trick-or-treat in France is gonna suck now

Been doing some reading on wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") was passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on full-length face covering headgear, including masks, niqābs and other full-length veils covering the face in public.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2]

Honestly, it seems fairly equal to me - masks of any kind also seem to be banned, so they do want to be exempt from the rules. I think that's pretty unfair.

People don't complain about uniforms in public schools, or professional clothing in businesses. Theoretically you can use your argument to support full nudity in public. What it comes down to is there's a gigantic cultural difference between their culture and Western culture, and they are point-blank refusing to integrate. If they don't like how France does things, and if they are such a tiny minority, why live in France? Why not live somewhere that supports their way of life?

Think this is interesting:

The legislators provided that, once the law was declared constitutional, a six-month period for discussion and education of the affected public would follow before the law came into force. In a program overseen by the Muslim women-led Ni Putes Ni Soumises, NGO representatives and social workers conducted individual and group information meetings with women in towns and suburbs with large Muslim populations. The representatives reported instances of some women deciding to file complaints against their husbands once informed of their rights; of some others stating that they were waiting for the law to come into force so that it would compel their husbands to release them from wearing the veil; and of some others stopping the wearing of the facial veil outright after the information meetings. While no disturbances were reported during the personal meetings with the women who could be reached, the representatives reported instances of local Islamic clerics issuing fatwās against them, of being verbally harassed, of being threatened including with implied death threats, and in one case of being physically assaulted by men. In the last preparatory phase, larger meetings and public debates were organised.[27]
Before the entering into force of the law, French Interior minister Claude Guéant instructed the police to enforce the law "with tact and sensitivity", and that under no circumstances force could be used to remove veils in public, individuals should instead be invited to show their face to permit identification. Police unions said in a statement that the enforcement of the law would be "extremely difficult ... if not almost impossible".[28]

I don't see what's draconian about keeping in line with secularity, French culture, and not giving unfair exemptions. It seems quite a few of the women themselves are accepting of this. It only affects their rights if it affects their private lives also, and it very clearly doesn't. People have to make compromises in public situations - that's just the way the world works.

Lockstep

liah wrote: »

Been doing some reading on wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering


Honestly, it seems fairly equal to me - masks of any kind also seem to be banned, so they do want to be exempt from the rules. I think that's pretty unfair.

I really don't see how someone wanting to wear a mask for kicks is equal to someone who feels its their religious obligation to do so.

liah wrote: »

People don't complain about uniforms in public schools, or professional clothing in businesses. Theoretically you can use your argument to support full nudity in public. What it comes down to is there's a gigantic cultural difference between their culture and Western culture, and they are point-blank refusing to integrate. If they don't like how France does things, and if they are such a tiny minority, why live in France? Why not live somewhere that supports their way of life?

I actually do. If someone wants to wander around nude, again that's their own business. Likewise, I oppose school uniforms, whereas businesses are free to set their own clothing protocols.
Living in France doesn't mean supporting every single thing that France does. I live in Ireland and that doesn't mean I support the pothole-politics culture here. Likewise, it doesn't mean I support excessive drinking. But it's a multicultural society so there's room for my views and theirs.

liah wrote: »

Think this is interesting:
I don't see what's draconian about keeping in line with secularity, French culture, and not giving unfair exemptions. It seems quite a few of the women themselves are accepting of this. It only affects their rights if it affects their private lives also, and it very clearly doesn't. People have to make compromises in public situations - that's just the way the world works.

Once again, you're assuming that France has a singular homogenous culture when it is one composed of many different regions (norms in Alsace would differ from those of Brittany). Like most first world nations, it's full of different cultures and groups, which is as it should be.
You're also confusing secularity (such as banning public schools from requiring teacher led prayers) to secular-enforced ones (Such as schools banning kids from praying at all)



Your logic seems very strange here: are you saying that the government can ban what people can wear in public? Should the government ban us from wearing tracksuits on the street as some people view them as distasteful?
People's private lives *are* being affected here, unless you don't think that walking down the street counts as private?

Compromise doesn't mean abiding by whimsical and arbitrary government stipulations.

Chuck Stone

liah wrote: »

Why do you think everyone in films wears masks when they rob stuff?

This doesn't really make sense.

People don't leave the house with a balaclava on when they intend to commit a crime - that would be dumb.

Also, since when did random assaults become such a big problem? Moreover - when did random assaults by women wearing veils or even people masquerading as women wearing veils become a threat to civil society?

Does not compute.

token101

Denerick wrote: »

Government exists to protect minorities from the majority.

Eh isn't the point of government to represent the views of the majority? Isn't that democracy? The rule of majority? What about the French people who don't feel comfortable walking down the street seeing the veil? Don't they have the right to have their views? It's a Muslim tradition not a French tradition, and when over 99% of the French Parliament votes for something, it's a popular decision, thereby galvanising their democratic rights.

Denerick wrote: »

Most people are ill informed, ignorant and bigoted.

Are they? Have you spoken to 'most people'? Why are they bigoted exactly? Because they don't agree with you and your orange jumper theory? That's the most arrogant generalisation I've ever heard! Is Cameron bigoted when he says Multiculturalism has failed? Merkel? These are the heads of the biggest European democracies saying that tolerance has limits. How much hatred and intolerance of Western culture by Islam should Western culture tolerate? Are they not bigoted in their view?

Lockstep

token101 wrote: »

Eh isn't the point of government to represent the views of the majority? Isn't that democracy? The rule of majority? What about the French people who don't feel comfortable walking down the street seeing the veil? Don't they have the right to have their views? It's a Muslim tradition not a French tradition, and when over 99% of the French Parliament votes for something, it's a popular decision, thereby galvanising their democratic rights.

No, that's mob rule. As France is a liberal democracy it governs in the manner decided by the majority while guaranteeing the minority their rights and liberties.

What of the French people who don't feel comfy seeing blacks walking around free, should these people be taken into account?

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

I really don't see how someone wanting to wear a mask for kicks is equal to someone who feels its their religious obligation to do so.

But France doesn't subscribe to that religion, and it is against their principles if religious masks are allowed and regular ones are not. In the eyes of equality and secularity, a headcovering is a headcovering; the burka means nothing, symbolically, if you're not Muslim, and is a mask just like any other. A secular society does not promote religion in any way, particularly if it's just one in particular.

I actually do. If someone wants to wander around nude, again that's their own business. Likewise, I oppose school uniforms, whereas businesses are free to set their own clothing protocols.

But again, the government isn't demanding control over their private business, which is what religion is in a secular country. They're asking for adaptation in public life to their culture. It's like asking someone who's moving to France to learn French and them simply refusing and expecting everyone to just somehow go with it. People need to make some effort to adapt to different cultures - if the majority in France believes that it is against their culture to allow face coverings, then they are entitled to make that decision and the tiny minority of those who want face coverings are going to have to adapt, just like the rest of us do with laws we don't agree with until there's a significant enough majority to justify a change.

If I lived in Saudi Arabia or a heavily religious, oppressive country, I would have to accept that it is their culture and adapt to that, and that I would be in the tiny minority and to expect my wishes to be observed above those of the people who have built the culture in which I chose to live is just beyond arrogant. Who am I to say what is right for their country? Who am I to say that I should be given privilege based on my beliefs that fly in the face of the system that's already in place and has been in place for a long time?

Living in France doesn't mean supporting every single thing that France does. I live in Ireland and that doesn't mean I support the pothole-politics culture here. Likewise, it doesn't mean I support excessive drinking. But it's a multicultural society so there's room for my views and theirs.

I'm not saying it does, it's impossible to find a country to suit every aspect of your lifestyle, compromises must always be made. This is simply one of those compromises.

Once again, you're assuming that France has a singular homogenous culture when it is one composed of many different regions (norms in Alsace would differ from those of Brittany). Like most first world nations, it's full of different cultures and groups, which is as it should be.
You're also confusing secularity (such as banning public schools from requiring teacher led prayers) to secular-enforced ones (Such as schools banning kids from praying at all)

Secularity is the acceptance of all things equally. Wanting the burka to be exempt from the banning of masks flies in the face of equality. I'm not sure how that's saying it's a singular homogeneous culture, in fact, it's very inclusive and fair to all cultures - I'm saying, that's simply how their government works, and that Western culture typically does not involve head-coverings for reasons other than crime or costume parties. Can you think of a significant-sized Western religious or other group that uses head-coverings? It's hardly saying the country is homogeneous to state that it's uncommon in Western culture or to make observations about how Western people communicate. Just because there's correlations doesn't mean they're all the same, they just have commonalities.

Your logic seems very strange here: are you saying that the government can ban what people can wear in public? Should the government ban us from wearing tracksuits on the street as some people view them as distasteful?
People's private lives *are* being affected here, unless you don't think that walking down the street counts as private?

Compromise doesn't mean abiding by whimsical and arbitrary government stipulations.

No, because I don't see this as a clothing issue, I see this as an identification issue. It's not the same as banning track suits, it's not the same as banning nudity, it's not the same as banning jumpers, it's not the same as banning shirts with offensive logos, etc.

None of these things have nearly as much impact on human interaction as masks do. Reading people's faces is a vital part of communication. Identifying others is a vital part of socialization. None of these things can be exploited when worn conventionally for purposes of crime. None of these leave people confused about who they're speaking to. It's simply not a fair comparison.

I do not agree with banning them on the street, but I can very easily see the logic in banning them in buildings, in the interests of both secularity and security. The government is not in the position to allow them exemptions if they profess secular values.

liah

Lockstep wrote: »

No, that's mob rule. As France is a liberal democracy it governs in the manner decided by the majority while guaranteeing the minority their rights and liberties.

What of the French people who don't feel comfy seeing blacks walking around free, should these people be taken into account?

Doesn't your second quote completely cancel out your first quote? Does that mean France should support racists, since they're a minority and France's system protects the rights and liberties of the minorities?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This doesn't really make sense.

People don't leave the house with a balaclava on when they intend to commit a crime - that would be dumb.

Also, since when did random assaults become such a big problem? Moreover - when did random assaults by women wearing veils or even people masquerading as women wearing veils become a threat to civil society?

Does not compute.

..How doesn't it make sense? The reason people don masks is to obscure their identity. That's pretty basic stuff. It's the reason why in a lot of places, masks are banned in buildings, because they obscure identity. This is no different, it just has the word 'religion' attached to it and that's the only reason this is such a big deal. No fuss was made about freedom of expression when just masks in general were disallowed, because it makes sense in the interests of security.

token101

Lockstep wrote: »

No, that's mob rule. As France is a liberal democracy it governs in the manner decided by the majority while guaranteeing the minority their rights and liberties.

What of the French people who don't feel comfy seeing blacks walking around free, should these people be taken into account?

Yeah there's a massive correlation there. 'Blacks walking free' and the veil ban. Well you've won that round. :rolleyes:

If we want to take your way of argument and take things to ridiculous extremes to prove one another wrong, do I have the right to start my own cult tomorrow and make up arbitrary rules like walking around naked in the streets? If we all live in a 'liberal democracy' then I have to don't I?

Or maybe common sense prevails, and a majority of people see that it's a completely ridiculous idea, totally out of kilter with the society in which I live, and say 'no, sorry you can't do that'. Just like the veil.