Can you ban people from a shop or workplace for covering their face?

[Berberis]

And we can fix that lack of choice by enforcing our rules. Make them expose their face. Then we've given them back the freedom.

 

Oh. Wait.

 

Are you free to wear this in the street? Or to go naked? No.

 

I also remember a very heated discussion on here where people discussed the right of non muslims to depict Mohammed. I don't remember you standing up for the freedoms then Cyclone. I wonder why? I also remember being told I would be dealt with Man to Man by one of the vocal muslim posters at the time (Tab1) who has disappeared or has a new SF account these days. All because I said I have the right to wear this. I don't remember you being so forthright with your opposition to what was a Muslim threatening violence for doing what you describe as a freedom. Why was that?

 

The Burka is NOT a requirement for ANY religion. It is a cultural demand made by a small sect from Saudi Arabia. Just like FGM, should we protect this also Cyclone?

[Waldo]

The niqab or burka is in the main worn by a very, very few teeny tiny little Asian women, whose covered faces are hardly a threat to anyone's security. Do you imagine they are snarling at you under there? Does this make you afraid? Any real threat from anyone is not a face covering but a concealed weapon. Should we all strip to our undercrackers in order to get served? As to those who feel 'uncomfortable' when seeing someone wearing the niqab - I suggest they develop a bit of resilience. Also I expect that most of these niqab wearing women would remove it if involved in a long conversation with a lip reader. Personally I think it a nonsense for women to cover themselves but I like to live and let live. This is a non-problem people, get a grip - life is too short.

 

I would have thought it's more an issue of a person concealing their identity; especially in sensitive places, banks etc.

 

I don't think religious people should be singled out for special treatments (either for or against them); what a person privately believes, is (or should be) a non-problem non-issue when it comes to deciding what we can and cannot do, based on how that impacts on us all as a society.

[Janus]

The concept of being able to see someones face should apply to all in this climate

 

I feel that would be fair and very sensible.

[Cyclone]

Are you free to wear this in the street? Or to go naked? No.

 

I also remember a very heated discussion on here where people discussed the right of non muslims to depict Mohammed. I don't remember you standing up for the freedoms then Cyclone. I wonder why?

Perhaps I missed that thread.

I think everyone should be free to make fun of Muhhamed and anyone else that they like.

I also remember being told I would be dealt with Man to Man by one of the vocal muslim posters at the time (Tab1) who has disappeared or has a new SF account these days. All because I said I have the right to wear this. I don't remember you being so forthright with your opposition to what was a Muslim threatening violence for doing what you describe as a freedom. Why was that?

Again, perhaps I wasn't following you around and posting on that thread.

I'd certainly stand up for your right to wear it, hell, I'd wear one as well and let him try and stop us!

 

The Burka is NOT a requirement for ANY religion. It is a cultural demand made by a small sect from Saudi Arabia. Just like FGM, should we protect this also Cyclone?

No, no one (you included) should be able to impose things on someone else, which is what FGM is, and what you want to do by stopping people wearing what they like.

Do you not see the double standard? You want to "improve freedom" for people by taking away their freedom. Ironic, hypocritical, you choose.

 

Edit - you are actually free to wear a KKK clan costume if you like. You're not free to go naked, which I think is ridiculous. It's a hang up from our Victorian prudery. We shouldn't dictate what people can or cannot wear, the weather in this country will mostly ensure that people go around clothed.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 20:47 ----------

 

I feel that would be fair and very sensible.

 

It's easy to agree when it happens to fit in with exactly how you want to live anyway isn't it.

[exxon]

Interestingly Lewis Hamilton was refused entrance at Wimbledon Centre Court Royal Box, which resulted in him missing Sunday's men's final.

 

He was turned away for not wearing a jacket, tie and shoes, having arrived in a bright floral shirt and a hat.

 

So it seems if it is your gig you can set the dress code you require.

[Cyclone]

Hasn't that been clear throughout the thread, with talk of pubs and night clubs that have dress codes?

[bethanywalke]

I completely agree that when it comes to sensitive places such as banks and airports, complete covering of the face makes me worried, especially in recent time. I don't think anyone should be forced to do something they don't believe in, but I also do think that any sort of face covering is an easy way to use deceive your appearance.

[999tigger]

The answer is it depends and it is judged on a case by case basis.

You may face a challenge that it is discriminatory based on someones religion.

Most of the examples given are discretionary policies that have not been legally challenged.

You have to look at the reason you are banning it and it needs to be proportionate.

[Sidla]

They DO have the right not to serve vegetarians

Although the fact is that a vegetarian is unlikely to be ordering a burger.

Of course they do. They also have the right not to serve black people, or fat people, or gay people. Or any normal Joe for that matter. The point I'm trying to make is, why should it matter? Why should they discriminate against anyone?

[sgtkate]

Perhaps I missed that thread.

I think everyone should be free to make fun of Muhhamed and anyone else that they like.

Again, perhaps I wasn't following you around and posting on that thread.

I'd certainly stand up for your right to wear it, hell, I'd wear one as well and let him try and stop us!

No, no one (you included) should be able to impose things on someone else, which is what FGM is, and what you want to do by stopping people wearing what they like.

Do you not see the double standard? You want to "improve freedom" for people by taking away their freedom. Ironic, hypocritical, you choose.

 

Edit - you are actually free to wear a KKK clan costume if you like. You're not free to go naked, which I think is ridiculous. It's a hang up from our Victorian prudery. We shouldn't dictate what people can or cannot wear, the weather in this country will mostly ensure that people go around clothed.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 20:47 ----------

 

 

It's easy to agree when it happens to fit in with exactly how you want to live anyway isn't it.

 

How on earth have you compared genital mutilation with wearing something that covers your face? Sorry, you were replying to someone else! That's a pretty big jump there. People can wear what they like in private property but when you get out on to the street there are certain rules and customs. Whether we like it or not in western culture being able to see someone's face is an important part of social interaction and daily life. My post was specifically about motorbike helmets and how they made me feel when I worked in a petrol station. So lets start with that as it's hopefully less contentious than a niqab. Do you think store owners have a right to refuse entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet?