Women who wear burkhas in public in France will be fined

[Plain Talker]

Like with passports, there is no problem with a woman who wears a niqaab or a burqa, publicly, being allowed to uncover her face in private, to confirm her identity, as per the method used in Airports and border control. (Which, incidentally works just fine)

 

I don't see a problem either, with asking all persons wearing identity concealing garments to uncover their faces so long as they remain within a public place (airport and the like). Note that's any identity concealing garment, nothing to do with religious persuasion.

 

Then, precisely what is the problem?

[boyfriday]

Sorry but no idea how this one works. All these people dressed from head to foot in black with just eye slits - how can you tell one from another in order to identify if a particular one has committed a crime? "Yes officer - I was mugged by someone dressed all in black wearing a burka who was about average height and average build from what I could tell - though they could have been wearing heels to make them taller and lots of clothing underneath to hide their shape ..."

 

Not really much chance of picking one from a line-up.

 

Im not aware of burka clad muggers being a major social problem, when it becomes one then it becomes appropriate that the state acts upon it.

 

Your hypothetical victim could well have said "yes officer I was mugged by someone wearing a motorcycle helmet/balaclava/gorilla suit" it isnt a criminal offence to wear any of these items.

Many of our institutions have dress codes. The Tesco is banning women wearing pyjamas - which is okay - but woe to those who dare deny access to someone wearing a burka. Equality in law. Hah!

Dress codes have nothing to do with the law, if an institution decides to implement a dress code that is a matter for them and their customers, not HM Government.

 

If Tesco forbid people wearing burkas it would impact on their bottom line, because quite simply fair minded people who saw it as an infringement on personal freedoms would cease to shop there.

Edited February 2, 2010 by boyfriday

[Plain Talker]

Plenty of burqa-wearing female martyrs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yemen. And a corresponding body count of innocents in the hundreds, if not thousands. Lastly in Iraq, 41 dead yesterday if I remember right. Should we just wait for our first 'local', or be pro-active about it?

 

Pro active?

Don't make me laugh.

 

Criminalising the innocent for something that may be 0.0001% of the population ( 50 -100 extremist idiots who might commit such crimes out of a population of 50-60 million) is ridiculous.

 

There was a film about this sort of thing... it was called Minority Report. (remember it?)

[L00b]

Then, precisely what is the problem?

Precisely, there isn't any. As I understand things (still very debated), the current proposal is to forbid it in public venues (effectively, requiring wearers to uncover their heads in townhalls, civil service offices, bus/train stations, airports...), not in the street or 'outright everywhere'.

Criminalising the innocent for <...>

It's only 'criminalising the innocent' (in relation to an infinitesimal risk, statistically), to the same extent as denying me to travel by air if I don't accept to show my private bits to same nameless/faceless Group4 employee sub-contracted out by HMCustoms. But hey ho, cultural exception and all that... Edited February 2, 2010 by L00b

[L00b]

But it isnt illegal to wear a motorcycle helmet in a public place is it? The French are seeking to criminalise the wearing of the burka, however no such prohibition on motorcycle helmets exist.

Not illegal in the sense that there is no legal text about the issue (surprisingly!), but effectively prohibited, in that access to just about any civil service office (and many public venues such as banks, commercial centers, and the like) is conditional upon removal of one's helmet. You don't take it off = you don't get in (or get pulled up/taken out by security, either/or). That's been the case since the mid-90s (certainly in those administrations I've worked in and/or visited).

[Kthebean]

Not illegal in the sense that there is no legal text about the issue (surprisingly!), but effectively prohibited, in that access to just about any civil service office (and many public venues such as banks, commercial centers, and the like) is conditional upon removal of one's helmet. You don't take it off = you don't get in (or get pulled up/taken out by security, either/or). That's been the case since the mid-90s (certainly in those administrations I've worked in and/or visited).

 

Its a little different from the title of this thread then.

 

"Women who wear burqas in public to be fined" is not the same as "Women who refuse to reveal their face to be denied entrance to banks, civil service offices etc (which are not public venues but private property, by the way). That, I'd be all for, including the removal of any kind of face covering at customs.

[boyfriday]

Not illegal in the sense that there is no legal text about the issue (surprisingly!), but effectively prohibited, in that access to just about any civil service office (and many public venues such as banks, commercial centers, and the like) is conditional upon removal of one's helmet.

But we're not talking about 'effectively prohibited', the issue is really whether the state should be involved in what people choose to wear and what reasons they would propose to justify it.

 

Incidentally, I've seen couriers delivering parcels to businesses, bank, shops without removing their helmets.

 

You don't take it off = you don't get in (or get pulled up/taken out by security, either/or). That's been the case since the mid-90s (certainly in those administrations I've worked in and/or visited).

 

Again, thus far it's a matter for the individual organisations, not the law-it's the criminalising of the burka which I object to.

[L00b]

Its a little different from the title of this thread then. "Women who wear burqas in public to be fined".

Considering the law in question hasn't even been debated in Parliament (Assemblée), nor voted in or out, nor enacted, the title is a bit misleading, then

is not the same as "Women who refuse to reveal their face to be denied entrance to banks, civil service offices etc (which are not public venues but private property, by the way). That, I'd be all for, including the removal of any kind of face covering at customs

Indeed, which is the way the debate is currently swinging (much authority recently brought about by a corresponding Italian law, enacted circa 1975, on the back of a different form of "terrorism" at the time I believe (red brigades and mafia hits)).

But we're not talking about 'effectively prohibited', the issue is really whether the state should be involved in what people choose to wear and what reasons they would propose to justify it.

See above. MPs (députés) across the board are fully cognisant of the fact that a 'blanket ban' (in terms of location, i.e. prohibiting even in the street) is untenable and impractical. Edited February 2, 2010 by L00b

[Kthebean]

Well I'm unaware of what the need for new legislation is then. As far as I'm aware, banks, civil service offices and other private premises can already refuse people the right to enter for any reason?

[boyfriday]

See above. MPs (députés) across the board are fully cognisant of the fact that a 'blanket ban' (in terms of location, i.e. prohibiting even in the street) is untenable and impractical.

 

Sorry L00b, I was really referring to the OP and posters views on it, rather than the possibility of the ban in France being legislated and on what terms.