European Court upholds French full veil ban

Sunnyisland

A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression.

French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205).

A breach of the ban can also mean a wearer having to undergo citizenship instruction.

France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2,000 women wear full veils.

Some face coverings, including motorbike helmets, are exempted from the French ban.

France was the first European country in modern times to ban public wearing of the full-face veil. Belgium adopted a similar ban in 2011.

In Spain, the city of Barcelona and some other towns have brought in similar bans, as have some towns in Italy.

No such general ban applies in the UK, but institutions have discretion to impose their own dress codes.

The French government argues that the ban has wide public support. The authorities see the full-face veil not only as an affront to French secular values but also as a potential security risk, as it conceals a person's identity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900


Do you think a ban in Ireland should follow suit ?

I do.

AdolfHipster

Thinly veiled "I dont like veils" thread.......wait what?

solomafioso

Oh another Muslim thread in AH. This should go well. :rolleyes:

I'm for this move, only because I'm against all religion(s). Each one is equally fcuked up.

Sunnyisland

AdolfHipster wrote: »

Thinly veiled "I dont like veils" thread.......wait what?

Don't mind veils at all, but I draw a line with the burka, IMO it's downgrading to women and can't get me head around the meaning of it.

comongethappy

This thread has been done so often.

keano_afc

Its good news though. Western society is not tolerated in most Arab countries so why should the opposite be the case in Europe.

c_man

realies wrote: »

Do you think a ban in Ireland should follow suit ?

No. I do think the burka and other religious originated restrictions imposed like that are retarded, but equally I don't wanna start banning certain clothing styles.

comongethappy

keano_afc wrote: »

Western society is not tolerated

Says who?

What can't I do in Cairo, that I can do here?

Nemeses

I think its fair.

From a law enforcement perspective, It's quite difficult to identify someone if they are "bound by Religion" to cover the face.


Its a tough game.

Sunnyisland

comongethappy wrote: »

This thread has been done so often.

Well this is the highest court in the EU,The Strasbourg judges' decision is final - there is no appeal against it.

And if people are not intrested in it don't post in it, it's no veil of my head...

iDave

Should it happen in Ireland? Yes
Will it? No

We still have blasphemy laws ffs

I'm fine with the headscarf, but the full face veil turns the woman wearing it into someone apart from the rest of society, as the ability to see someone's face is crucial when you're interacting with them.

Nemeses

iDave wrote: »

Should it happen in Ireland? Yes
Will it? No

We still have blasphemy laws ffs

blasphemy!!

AdolfHipster

We do have a propensity to overly accomodate different cultures/religions in this country and sometimes rightly so. But I agree with an early response that, most of our [not mine personally] religious liberties would not be reciprocated in some of these countries [Middle-east etc]

Also they look absolutely ridiculous - Dementor/Ringwraith hybrids.

Shakespeare's Sister

Shouldn't be banned at state level in my opinion, no. It's a form of clothing, nothing else. Even though I despise what it stands for, it is literally just a garment. If full coverage of the face is banned in private enterprises (and in government buildings) for practical's sake, fair enough.
This thing about "We can't do what we like in their countries so why should they do what they like in ours?" - the whole point is that we have freedom here, the hardline countries in question don't. And that's how it should stay.

I Heart Internet

realies wrote: »

Some face coverings, including motorbike helmets, are exempted from the French ban.

So will women who want to wear a face covering veil (or men that want to make them) just walk around with a motorbike helment instead?

I don't agree with some people's views here that, just becasue non-muslims are oppressed in some muslim countries (and some are, horribly), that we should make life difficult for muslims here - also many muslims are Irish citizens.

But there is certian sense to the French "no face coverings in public" ban.

Agent Smith

I'd Outlaw anyone covering their face at a public protest/demonstration

I Heart Internet

Agent Smith wrote: »

I'd Outlaw anyone covering their face at a public protest/demonstration

That's what I was thinking....

What about people covering their faces with hat and scarf on a very, very cold day? I guess common sense is needed....but then it might just appear that this is a blatant "anti-muslim-veil" law.

Robbo

In this thread, people confusing the ECtHR, the CJEU, the EU and possibly UEFA.

We are truly ****ty Europeans.

hatrickpatrick

People should be free to wear anything they want, from covering nothing to covering everything. My choice of clothing doesn't harm any third party in any way, ergo it cannot be morally wrong.

iba

Nemeses wrote: »

I think its fair.

From a law enforcement perspective, It's quite difficult to identify someone if they are "bound by Religion" to cover the face.


Its a tough game.

Islam does not bind someone to wear a veil - it is a cultural thing only.

P_1

Its gas when you think about it.

You must cover some parts of your body but you're not allowed to cover another. Whatever happened to letting people wear whatever they want (or don't want) to?

solomafioso

Agent Smith wrote: »

I'd Outlaw anyone covering their face at a public protest/demonstration

What about wearing a 3d printed mask of someone else's face!

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20140508-fool-surveillance-cameras-by-wearing-a-3d-printed-mask-of-this-artist-face.html

conorhal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's what I was thinking....

What about people covering their faces with hat and scarf on a very, very cold day? I guess common sense is needed....but then it might just appear that this is a blatant "anti-muslim-veil" law.

It’s not an anti Muslim law, it’s an anti-misogyny law. Just because it's practiced by a minority is no reason to permit it, otherwise you might as well defent FGM also.
The burka is a walking prison designed to remove women from the public sphere, even when they are in the public sphere.
It's the misogynistic application of a dress code to one gender designed to enforce a standard of modesty that men are not required to meet, and limits their ability to communicate (given that a full 60% of communication is non verbal).

Pave Point come in for a lot of criticism around here (and rightly so), but I have to say that their stance on supporting the end to an exemption that allows under age girls to marry was a rare instance in which they should be applauded for a stance that recognized that not every cultural norm of a minority is defensible.
Since the vast majority of Muslims in France do not wear the veil, they should have been out supporting the ban and telling the extremists to cop on.

iba

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People should be free to wear anything they want, from covering nothing to covering everything. My choice of clothing doesn't harm any third party in any way, ergo it cannot be morally wrong.

Your missing the point.

In western society, the covering of a woman's face is considered subjugating to that woman.

In western society, the majority we abhor the subjugation of women.

Also, not all these women wear the veil/burka/hijab by choice, their husbands/relatives/society compel them to wear it.

Regards

hatrickpatrick

conorhal wrote: »

It’s not an anti Muslim law, it’s an anti-misogyny law.

So telling a woman she can't wear what she chooses to wear is anti misogynist?
This is exactly why myself and feminism parted ways long ago.

Shakespeare's Sister

iba wrote: »

Your missing the point.

In western society, the covering of a woman's face is considered subjugating to that woman.

In western society, the majority we abhor the subjugation of women.

Also, not all these women wear the veil/burka/hijab by choice, their husbands/relatives/society compel them to wear it.

Regards

But it would still be the banning of a mere item of clothing, and women actually do choose to wear it. Probably Stockholm syndrome and all that, but still, if they choose, they choose.
It would be paradoxical in the extreme to ban something in order to show how we're defending freedom.

I Heart Internet

conorhal wrote: »

It’s not an anti Muslim law, it’s an anti-misogyny law.

I am talking about the perception of the law amongst muslims, nothing more. You can say it's an anti-misogyny law, but some people won't accept that. Like some German politicians claimed that a public health law outlawing infant (male) circumcision was just that - a public health law. Berlin's (justifiably) anxious Jewish community didn't see it that way.

Perception is key here, as is sensitive policing.....if the French don't want to ignite a summer of rioting.

hatrickpatrick

iba wrote: »

Your missing the point.

In western society, the covering of a woman's face is considered subjugating to that woman.

In western society, the majority we abhor the subjugation of women.

It shouldn't be about what society thinks, it should be about what the individual in question thinks.

Also, not all these women wear the veil/burka/hijab by choice, their husbands/relatives/society compel them to wear it.

Regards

So the lesser of two evils when some are force and some do it by choice is to ban it?
Should we ban marriage because some marriages are forced?

conorhal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I am talking about the perception of the law amongst muslims, nothing more. You can say it's an anti-misogyny law, but some people won't accept that. Like some German politicians claimed that a public health law outlawing infant (male) circumcision was just that - a public health law. Berlin's (justifiably) anxious Jewish community didn't see it that way.

Perception is key here, as is sensitive policing.....if the French don't want to ignite a summer of rioting.

There is no perspective in which the Niquab or burka could be construed as anything but mysogny there is no other application for it. Personally I wouldn't ban circumcision because in terms of the impact on a person, it's negligable in comparison to a veil which just disrupts a persons existance.

Shakespeare's Sister

Wha? Circumcision of infants should be banned outright in my opinion - it's physical harm!

I Heart Internet

conorhal wrote: »

There is no perspective in which the Niquab or burka could be construed as anything but mysogny there is no other application for it. Personally I wouldn't ban circumcision because in terms of the impact on a person, it's negligable in comparison to a veil which just disrupts a persons existance.

The above is all your subjective opinioin though. A young muslim woman may find the Niquab or burka entirely convenient and suitable for her life choices.

Anyway, I'm not hear to defend woman covering their faces. I'm just pointing out that this new law should be implemented with some sensibility and common sense.

PLUG71

It should be about respecting the country you live in and the laws that go with it!!

If certain groups of people dont like it tough.

I would'nt go to another country and try to change it for my own religious reasons.

All this bowing and scrapping to suit certain groups is a joke!:mad:

Nodin

keano_afc wrote: »

Its good news though. Western society is not tolerated in most Arab countries so why should the opposite be the case in Europe.

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets base what we let people do on what others let people do....it makes perfect sense!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since when are muslims nessecarily Arabs?

I Heart Internet

Magaggie wrote: »

Wha? Circumcision should be banned outright in my opinion - it's physical harm!

Tell that to all Jewish and most muslim people - and anyone who either needs one for medical reasons or choses one (it does happen) for cosmetic reasons.

P_1

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Tell that to all Jewish and most muslim people - and anyone who either needs one for medical reasons or choses one (it does happen) for cosmetic reasons.

IMO circumcision should be a matter of personal choice. If somebody wishes to have it done then fire ahead (it's their body and by getting it done they're not causing harm to another), however parents should not have the right to have their child circumcised as the child has no input on the decision.

The Diabolical Monocle

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So will women who want to wear a face covering veil (or men that want to make them) just walk around with a motorbike helment instead?

I don't agree with some people's views here that, just becasue non-muslims are oppressed in some muslim countries (and some are, horribly), that we should make life difficult for muslims here - also many muslims are Irish citizens.

But there is certian sense to the French "no face coverings in public" ban.

France is right. Ban them.

You can't wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank, post office, or generally anywhere commercial.

Motorcycle helmets serve a safety necessity. Burkas serve only to make women into a piece of property.

Take a public vote.


If there can be a female burka then there can be a male burka, if you're allowed to wear a crucifix pendant at work you should be allowed to wear a burka at work.

If there can be a work burka then there can be a work balaclava.
Taxi drivers are workers.

They have the human right to wear balaclavas.

... or gimp masks.

To deny a taxi driver the right to wear his gimp mask is fascism.

Nodin

Agent Smith wrote: »

I'd Outlaw anyone covering their face at a public protest/demonstration

Yeah, so the state can videotape their faces for the records, as is the habit nowadays.

Privileged White Male

conorhal wrote: »

There is no perspective in which the Niquab or burka could be construed as anything but mysogny there is no other application for it. Personally I wouldn't ban circumcision because in terms of the impact on a person, it's negligable in comparison to a veil which just disrupts a persons existance.

You might think having your dick mutilated has a negligible impact, I would disagree.

Shakespeare's Sister

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Tell that to all Jewish and most muslim people

Will do. It's physical harm.

and anyone who either needs one for medical reasons

Disputed. But they should be able to choose to have it done of their own accord rather than it being forced on them when they are babies.

Shakespeare's Sister

PLUG71 wrote: »

All this bowing and scrapping to suit certain groups is a joke!:mad:

It's not bowing and scraping, it's this country allowing freedom rather than prohibiting freedom like in Saudi Arabia.

P_1

Magaggie wrote: »

Will do. It's physical harm.

So is a Prince Albert but if an adult wants to do it to their body then it's nobody's right to tell them not to.

Disputed. But they should be able to choose to have it done of their own accord rather than it being forced on them when they are babies.

I'm in full agreement with you on that.

Privileged White Male

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Tell that to all Jewish and most muslim people - and anyone who either needs one for medical reasons or choses one (it does happen) for cosmetic reasons.

They shouldn't be allowed mutil- sorry circumcise their boys because of 'muh religion'.

I Heart Internet

Magaggie wrote: »

Will do. It's physical harm..

The jury is still out as to whether it prevents other potential problems later in life.

Magaggie wrote: »

Disputed.

I had a circumcision for medical reasons. It helped me. My doctors were not in any doubt as to the merits of the proceedure and told me it should have been done years ago (as a child).

The Diabolical Monocle

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The jury is still out as to whether it prevents other potential problems later in life.

If the jurys out why mention it.

I Heart Internet

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

If the jurys out why mention it.

Because it's useful to consider all information in a debate.

conorhal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The above is all your subjective opinioin though. A young muslim woman may find the Niquab or burka entirely convenient and suitable for her life choices.

Anyway, I'm not hear to defend woman covering their faces. I'm just pointing out that this new law should be implemented with some sensibility and common sense.

From where I stand that young muslim woman's opinion is a subjective opinion, one not supported by the majority of Muslims in France. You or she may consider it a personal choice but that does not negate the fact that there is a societal weight behind that choice.
There is then a wider question here about the extent to which people should be free to isolate them from wider society. The same could be said of the Travellers, at what point do we say it is not permissable to exempt yourself from societal norms on the grounds of ethnicity?

As the EHCR points out the covering of the face puts a barrier between the wearer and society and prevents communication which is what it is designed to do. Countries are entitled to ban things that militate against the good order of society and seek to undermine the values of society. Remember covering your face is not mandated by Islam so they are not being prevented from practicing their religion merely for politicizing it.

conorhal

Privileged White Male wrote: »

You might think having your dick mutilated has a negligible impact, I would disagree.

Well I was circumsised as a child (for medical rather then religious reasons) and while you're entitled to disagree, but I can absolutely assure that in comparison to having to cover myself from head to toe in public for life, the impact on my life is negligible, but really it's a different argument for another thread.

P_1

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

If the jurys out why mention it.

It's not too dissimilar to people having preventative mastectomies if medical tests show that they're at risk of developing breast cancer.

Now I'm going to get a bit graphic here so I'll try to keep it as clinical as I can. Having a tight foreskin can cause all sorts of medical problems for quite a few males and circumcision is one method of preventing these. Now personally I think that some countries (America in particular) use circumcision as a lazy way of preventing these problems from developing but to quite a few males it can be a very helpful medical procedure to undergo.

PLUG71

Magaggie wrote: »

It's not bowing and scraping, it's this country allowing freedom rather than prohibiting freedom like in Saudi Arabia.

Give people an inch and they will take a mile and all the pc brigade make it so easy.

Before anybody starts, i'm not a racist!!

Just fed up with all the bs that surrounds people not living in their own country who are trying to change how their host country is set up.

Shakespeare's Sister

PLUG71 wrote: »

Just fed up with all the bs that surrounds people not living in their own country who are trying to change how their host country is set up.

Not noticing any difference myself. Any cultural practices that harm others should obviously be banned. Muslims not drinking alcohol/not eating pork has no impact on me.