PDA

View Full Version : Facial coverings



Pages : [1] 2

Plutonium
30th May 2015, 09:43
A serious point of discussion. France introduced a ban on facial coverings in public places in 2010. While this covers any form of covering such as a balaclava, it chiefly affects the Muslim practice of requiring women to wear the burkha. The ban was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

I am in favour of a similar ban in the UK. However, it is opposed by many, mainly lefties, although I regard myself as being on the left also.

So my question to those who oppose a ban is this.

Why is this form of facial covering deemed unacceptable?

28520

... but this form is deemed acceptable?

28521

Any ideas? :juggle:

nicknotnicked
30th May 2015, 09:47
Three good reasons to ban it and believe me I could find a lot more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22811466


http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/11558650.Burka_wearing_armed_robbers_jailed_for___40_000_Phones_4U_raid/?action=complain&cid=13339353


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18678522

Memnoch
30th May 2015, 10:13
Why is this form of facial covering deemed unacceptable?

28520It's not the covering, it's what it represents: A uniform for primitive religious nutters who imply an intention to commit serious crimes while disguised.


... but this form is deemed acceptable?

28521It's only acceptable to people who are afraid of upsetting the thought police. It too represents something a civilized society should not want: Subjugation of women, an assumption that men can't control themselves, and in non-muslim countries a refusal to respect and integrate with the host culture.

Fork Me
30th May 2015, 10:16
Any ideas? :juggle:

Do you REALLY need to ask that question.

Besides, I don't believe I've seen anyone on here call for a ban on the KKK because they cover their faces.

Plutonium
30th May 2015, 10:43
It's not the covering, it's what it represents: A uniform for primitive religious nutters who imply an intention to commit serious crimes while disguised.

... the other photo is of the Ku Klux Klan.

Lord Ponsonby
30th May 2015, 10:50
Do you REALLY need to ask that question.

Besides, I don't believe I've seen anyone on here call for a ban on the KKK because they cover their faces.


I don't see any support on here for special clothes that threaten the security of others. Other than from you obviously.

Memnoch
30th May 2015, 11:28
... the other photo is of the Ku Klux Klan.True, the burka or whatever it's called has been used for criminal purposes, but I don't see that as its primary function. The KKK uniform is primarily to hide, the muslim uniform is primarily to say "Fuck you" to a host culture.

Dordie
30th May 2015, 12:13
I don't believe I've seen anyone on here call for a ban on the KKK because they cover their faces.

They are not among us....Filthy Muslims are.

Bill. MC
30th May 2015, 12:37
I am neither 'Leftie' or 'Rightie', but I am opposed to bans on all forms of clothing. IMO people should be entitled to wear anything that they want.

IMO the reason with there are bans on facial coverings is because Big Brother wants to watch us at all times.

Alice
30th May 2015, 12:59
I am neither 'Leftie' or 'Rightie', but I am opposed to bans on all forms of clothing. IMO people should be entitled to wear anything that they want.

IMO the reason with there are bans on facial coverings is because Big Brother wants to watch us at all times.

You're looking at it from a Big Brother POV, I'm looking at it from the angle that it's men wanting to control women and using religion to justify it. And for that reason alone I would support a ban on them.

Scrotnig
30th May 2015, 13:13
I'm against a ban.
I'd just like to see less Muslims here, and certainly less pandering to them by the authorities and by treacherous lefties.

Alice
30th May 2015, 17:11
This is yet another example of living in the dark ages. The only person who should choose what a woman wears is the woman herself and I really don't think many women would voluntarily choose to cover their faces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32932003

Chris Mitchell
30th May 2015, 17:14
I don't like the burkha for the reasons Alice has said, but I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't wear.

Dordie
30th May 2015, 17:25
I don't like the burkha for the reasons Alice has said, but I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't wear.

That's because you like prancing about Leicester in a skimpy leotard.

Mr Fred
30th May 2015, 22:24
28522

28523

Mr Fred
30th May 2015, 22:26
This is yet another example of living in the dark ages. The only person who should choose what a woman wears is the woman herself and I really don't think many women would voluntarily choose to cover their faces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32932003

Get a woman to try walking down any high street wearing a bikini bottom only.
Sorry, what was that about only women should choose?

Alice
30th May 2015, 23:33
Get a woman to try walking down any high street wearing a bikini bottom only.
Sorry, what was that about only women should choose?

What is your point, Fred? Because it seems to me as though you are trying to suggest that women are incapable of choosing for themselves.

Dordie
31st May 2015, 00:31
What is your point, Fred? Because it seems to me as though you are trying to suggest that women are incapable of choosing for themselves.

To muslims women are good for one thing, lying on their backs and spreading their legs.

Bill. MC
31st May 2015, 01:42
You're looking at it from a Big Brother POV, I'm looking at it from the angle that it's men wanting to control women and using religion to justify it. And for that reason alone I would support a ban on them.

Yeah IMO its uncool for chicks to be forced into wearing things, Yet on the other hand it is IMO uncool for ANYONE to be forced into not wearing what they want.

Durgemeister
31st May 2015, 02:03
Three good reasons to ban it and believe me I could find a lot more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22811466


http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/11558650.Burka_wearing_armed_robbers_jailed_for___40_000_Phones_4U_raid/?action=complain&cid=13339353


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18678522

The French - thanks to their Imperial past - have perhaps a bigger percentage of Muslims in the country than us, plus the same access to Strasbourg, yet were able to enact a comprehensive ban.

If you walk into a bank/shop/supermarket/petrol station... basically anywhere with a crash helmet on, they will keep their finger over the panic button, and get security/management to deal with them. It is a basic thing that Helmet wearers are hiding their identity if they are in such places...

... not even Dave and his bleeding-heart brigade have the balls to do anything about it, nor will they ever do... scared of upsetting someone that might buy a house/flat in London, to leave it, and not let anyone live in it.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 06:36
28522

28523

These men clearly have an irony deficit. As I said in the OP, the French ban on facial coverings includes all kinds of coverings, including balaclavas.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 06:38
I'd just like to see less Muslims here

That ain't going to happen, Scrot. Even if we banned all immigration of Muslims to the UK today, there are millions who are legally here, and who were born here. And their birth rate is far higher than that of the indigenous population. They on course to hitting 10% of the population, very soon.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 09:17
Do you REALLY need to ask that question.

Sorry I didn't ask for your permission first.


Besides, I don't believe I've seen anyone on here call for a ban on the KKK because they cover their faces.

I haven't seen anyone here call for a ban on the KKK, for whatever reason, so what's your point? I suspect that if I walked down the road in a KKK outfit, it would attract negative attention and I would be stopped by the police and asked what I was doing. However, a woman can dress in a dreary black burkha and robes from head to toe, basically, as Mem said, saying "fuck you" to the host culture, and nothing is done about it.

Dordie
31st May 2015, 09:22
Wearing a burkha should be made an offence with a large fine and imprisonment if it is not paid within a stipulated period of time......with a ticket to ride upon release.

Memnoch
31st May 2015, 10:49
All the chat about KKK is a bit of a red herring: A balaclava, a ninja outfit, a motorcycle helmet (when not on a motorcycle), a Ronald Reagan mask... any kind of face covering would attract negative attention, probably suspicion, possibly arrest, but we're supposed to make an exception for muslims simply because they're muslims?

I don't see Forker arguing in favour of KKK hoods. :rolleyes:

Joe 90
31st May 2015, 12:34
These men clearly have an irony deficit.

28525

Fork Me
31st May 2015, 13:45
I don't see Forker arguing in favour of KKK hoods. :rolleyes:

Where have you seen me arguing in favour of Burkhas?

I've merely said I don't agree with them being banned in response to people saying they feel they should...

...and you talk of red herrings?

Memnoch
31st May 2015, 13:52
Where have you seen me arguing in favour of Burkhas?

I've merely said I don't agree with them being banned in response to people saying they feel they should...

...and you talk of red herrings?Yeah right, like you would happily co-exist with the KKK without a word of complaint. Simple fact is you've never seen KKK walking down your street in silly masks, and if they did they'd be arrested. And if you tell me you would not object to that I won't believe you.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 13:53
Where have you seen me arguing in favour of Burkhas?

I've merely said I don't agree with them being banned in response to people saying they feel they should...

...and you talk of red herrings?

The ban would not simply be on burkhas, but on all facial coverings in public places, unless required for safety or health reasons, eg motorcycle helmets (but only when actually riding the motorcycle).

Fork Me
31st May 2015, 16:22
Yeah right, like you would happily co-exist with the KKK without a word of complaint. Simple fact is you've never seen KKK walking down your street in silly masks, and if they did they'd be arrested. And if you tell me you would not object to that I won't believe you.

Given that you've already pointed out that the reason for that is not the mask itself, but the reason for it, you have negated your own argument....

Fork Me
31st May 2015, 16:24
The ban would not simply be on burkhas, but on all facial coverings in public places, unless required for safety or health reasons, eg motorcycle helmets (but only when actually riding the motorcycle).

I see, so it would also apply to brides on their wedding day, and fancy dress costumes?

You really haven't thought this through have you?

Bill. MC
31st May 2015, 16:36
I see, so it would also apply to brides on their wedding day, and fancy dress costumes?

At least these particular facial coverings are transparent.

You really haven't thought this through have you?

Fork Me
31st May 2015, 18:01
Doesn't look very transparent to me:

28528

Memnoch
31st May 2015, 18:42
you have negated your own argument....No I haven't. And neither have you.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 20:29
I see, so it would also apply to brides on their wedding day, and fancy dress costumes?

You really haven't thought this through have you?

How many brides wear a veil these days? In any case, the ban applies to public places. While a church is a place of public religious worship, it would not be a 'public place' for the purpose of the law. The law certainly wouldn't apply to somebody holding a fancy dress party in their home.

I don't know how exactly the French law is worded, but I haven't heard of any brides being prevented by the law, from wearing a veil at their wedding.

Plutonium
31st May 2015, 20:29
Doesn't look very transparent to me:

28528

Yes, I see lots of kids walking down the street, wearing one of those.

Memnoch
31st May 2015, 20:48
Yes, I see lots of kids walking down the street, wearing one of those.You are in error. They are brides on their way to be wed.

Mr Fred
31st May 2015, 22:16
I haven't heard of any brides being prevented by the law, from wearing a veil at their wedding.

I love it when irony whooooooshes over the head of a fool.
Even after this post, it's highly unlikely he'll have a clue why his post was ironic.

Joe 90
31st May 2015, 22:57
Even after this post, it's highly unlikely he'll have a clue why his post was ironic.

To be fair, it's highly unlikely he'll even care. When it comes to your insights and observations, people rarely do.

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 08:19
Yes, I see lots of kids walking down the street, wearing one of those.

Under your plan, they would be banned from wearing it on the way to a fancy dress party, or while trick or treating...

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 08:30
Under your plan, they would be banned from wearing it on the way to a fancy dress party, or while trick or treating...

If you can find any examples in France, since the ban was introduced, of anyone being prevented from wearing facial coverings such as fancy dress or bridal veils, please do furnish them here.

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 08:50
If you can find any examples in France, since the ban was introduced, of anyone being prevented from wearing facial coverings such as fancy dress or bridal veils, please do furnish them here.

Under UK law, the letter of the law is what counts, not what may or may not have happened in France.

HTH

Cynic
1st June 2015, 09:01
Under UK law, the letter of the law is what counts, not what may or may not have happened in France.

HTH

That's the difference between the UK and the rest of Europe; come across a kid in fancy-dress, we will enforce the law, the French would shrug their shoulders and say "so what".

To quote a senior EU (non-Brit) official I talk to frequently, "Why do you Brits always insist on making things difficult for yourselves?"

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 12:20
Under UK law, the letter of the law is what counts, not what may or may not have happened in France.

Cop-out.

Your argument is that, under a ban on facial coverings in public, brides would not be allowed to wear veils, and partygoers would not be allowed to wear fancy dress (assuming such dress covers their faces). I asked to provide a single example of either thing happening in France, since the ban on facial coverings was introduced there. As I suspected, you can't.

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 12:46
Cop-out.

You stated what you wanted the law to be. I merely pointed out people that would be affected under YOUR proposal that most people would agree shouldn't be.


Your argument is that, under a ban on facial coverings in public, brides would not be allowed to wear veils, and partygoers would not be allowed to wear fancy dress (assuming such dress covers their faces). I asked to provide a single example of either thing happening in France, since the ban on facial coverings was introduced there. As I suspected, you can't.

Nor do I need to, because it isn't relevant. I was referring to YOUR proposal, not the current French law.

ronniex
1st June 2015, 14:16
I don't like the burkha for the reasons Alice has said, but I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't wear.

Not even handkerchiefs worn round the lower part of the face upon entering a bank?

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 15:27
You stated what you wanted the law to be. I merely pointed out people that would be affected under YOUR proposal that most people would agree shouldn't be.

Nor do I need to, because it isn't relevant. I was referring to YOUR proposal, not the current French law.

All along I have been advocating a law in the UK which is the same as the French ban on facial coverings in public, so you don't really have a point.

Chris Mitchell
1st June 2015, 16:28
Not even handkerchiefs worn round the lower part of the face upon entering a bank?

I don't have a problem with banks not admitting customers who cover their faces. That's not the same thing as making something illegal.

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 17:34
All along I have been advocating a law in the UK which is the same as the French ban on facial coverings in public, so you don't really have a point.

Oh, I think you'll find I do.

Besides, I largely agree with Chris, I don't want the government dictating what people can or cannot wear.

Reg Perrin
1st June 2015, 17:57
Shut the fuck up, the lot of ya.

Alice
1st June 2015, 20:06
Shut the fuck up, the lot of ya.

No, you shut the fuck up, Reginald.

Chris Mitchell
1st June 2015, 20:10
Shut the fuck up, the lot of ya.

Yes dad.

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 20:15
Oh, I think you'll find I do.

OK, then point me to a single example of a bride in France, prevented from wearing a veil at her wedding, or anyone in France prevented from wearing fancy dress at a party, since 2010. I won't hold my breath.


Besides, I largely agree with Chris, I don't want the government dictating what people can or cannot wear.

The law already does dictate what people can wear. I can't walk down the street naked. Neither could I walk down the street wearing a KKK outfit, without attracting the attention of the police and others.

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 20:16
Shut the fuck up, the lot of ya.

Why should we?

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 20:30
OK, then point me to a single example of a bride in France, prevented from wearing a veil at her wedding, or anyone in France prevented from wearing fancy dress at a party, since 2010. I won't hold my breath.

I've already told you why that's irrelevant.

Are you REALLY as stupid as you make out?

Plutonium
1st June 2015, 20:39
I've already told you why that's irrelevant.

Where? Or does it just exist in your own mind?

Fork Me
1st June 2015, 21:15
Where? Or does it just exist in your own mind?

Again, I advise you to actually READ posts.

If you did that, then you would know.

Wading through treacle...

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 08:11
Wading through treacle...

Yes, that's exactly what arguing with you feels like.

What I have advocated is a ban on facial coverings in public. It would be the same as the French law, and would apply to all facial coverings.

Obviously there would be reasonable exceptions, for example for motorcyclists wearing crash helmets while riding their motorcycles.

In answer to your objection that it would stop brides wearing a veil at their wedding or somebody in fancy dress (assuming it covered their faces which is not necessarily the case) would be prevented from going to a party; I asked you to point to a single example of this happening in France. You can't, but rather than admit this you just start stomping around in a huff. You are pathetic.

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 08:12
Where? Or does it just exist in your own mind?

Evidently it does.

Fork Me
2nd June 2015, 09:15
In answer to your objection that it would stop brides wearing a veil at their wedding or somebody in fancy dress (assuming it covered their faces which is not necessarily the case) would be prevented from going to a party; I asked you to point to a single example of this happening in France. You can't, but rather than admit this you just start stomping around in a huff. You are pathetic.

The French legal system is not the same as the British legal system, as I have already explained. The British system works to the letter of the law more than the French one, so whether or not it has happened in France is irrelevant.

Why is that so difficult for you to work out? You're the one who claims to have had legal training.

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 09:53
The French legal system is not the same as the British legal system

Yes, I know that. The law would obviously have to be drafted to take that into account.


as I have already explained. The British system works to the letter of the law more than the French one, so whether or not it has happened in France is irrelevant.

Not really true. In this country, police have wide discretion to decide how to deal with people who may not be completely within the letter of the law. Sometimes the CPS decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute somebody.

If you take the case of FGM, it's illegal in both countries, but there have been barely a handful of prosecutions for it in the UK, but over 100 in France. So which country is acting more within "the letter of the law"?

I have already said that the law would have reasonable exceptions. Those would include any coverings for religious purposes within a place of religious worship, so it would cover the very rare examples (these days) of a bride wearing a (transparent) veil. It would also have an exception for people covering themselves for the purposes of a public celebration such as a carnival (for example, see my recent carnival pictures). A licence could specifically be given for that purpose.

Most fancy dress does not conceal the person's identity; if it does, the partygoers could change into it, or put on the facial covering, at the party.

However, the law would target people wearing facial coverings such as balaclavas in a demonstration, and anyone wearing facial coverings, including burkhas, while going about their daily business.

Your argument is extremely weak.

Fork Me
2nd June 2015, 11:01
Not really true.

Yes, really true.


In this country, police have wide discretion to decide how to deal with people who may not be completely within the letter of the law. Sometimes the CPS decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute somebody.

Yes, but the police often abuse that and use minor infractions as an excuse to arrest someone. The fact that a few days later the CPS decide not to press charges doesn';t get those days back.

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 11:23
Yes, really true.

So now you're an expert on French law. I don't suppose you have any evidence for this assertion? Thort not.


Yes, but the police often abuse that and use minor infractions as an excuse to arrest someone. The fact that a few days later the CPS decide not to press charges doesn';t get those days back.

There are many different reasons why the CPS may decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute someone. That's just one.

As an example, during the Satanic Verses controversy, many Muslim protesters held signs saying "Death to Rushdie". That is incitement to murder, but no charges were brought because it was deemed "not in the public interest". Since 7/7, the powers that be have toughened their stance on that.

Fork Me
2nd June 2015, 12:33
There are many different reasons why the CPS may decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute someone. That's just one.


So what? I wasn't complaining about the CPS part, it was the original arrest and police abusing their powers that was the important point. This law would give them even more opportunity to do so.

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 12:38
So what? I wasn't complaining about the CPS part, it was the original arrest and police abusing their powers that was the important point. This law would give them even more opportunity to do so.

Police would only be able to arrest somebody who had a facial covering which was not exempt under the law. HTH.

Fork Me
2nd June 2015, 13:11
Police would only be able to arrest somebody who had a facial covering which was not exempt under the law. HTH.

Which, under the law you proposed, they would be...

Plutonium
2nd June 2015, 17:19
Which, under the law you proposed, they would be...

Would be what?

Fork Me
2nd June 2015, 17:39
Would be what?

Are you totally incapable of following a thread?

BTW, that was a rhetorical question...

..."rhetorical question" means it's being used to make a point, and answer is not required...

Plutonium
3rd June 2015, 08:18
Are you totally incapable of following a thread?

No, your last post was ambiguous. I asked for clarification. This was not forthcoming. I assume this is your way of getting out of the discussion to avoid further thrashing.

Lord Ponsonby
3rd June 2015, 09:25
This could be a 'point to where I said that' moment...