Export thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14261921

Citing security reasons, the burqa and other forms of face covering garb are now illegal to wear in public places, such as parks and on the street.

"Anything which obscures identity" is the main point of the ban. Those who fail to comply will be fined nearly $200.

I've always taken anonymity as a right for granted. In the US you may use an alias for most transactions (travel, financial, and some other notable exceptions apply) as long as the purpose isn't to defraud or commit criminal activity. You can wear masks, alter your appearance, etc - and while you may raise suspicion, you are still free to do so as long as you aren't commiting criminal activity.

Belgium is not the first nation to ban this religious clothing - France has had a ban in place for some time now.

I don't know what to make of this - there are a lot of conflicting interests here, and of course I'm not aware of their culture so I can't imagine how they are taking this. I strongly suspect that something like this could only be enacted in the US during a time of war, similar to the patriot act - in other words we could have it now - but not during peacetime without a significant constitutional change.

Yeah... not a fan.

It is a culture of freedom for women in the "West." If you want to treat your woman like a piece of cattle, "WELL GO JOIN AL QAEDA YOU BASTARDS!"

There are plenty of Muslim Women in the world that don't wear the veil.

sixpackshaker said:

It is a culture of freedom for women in the "West." If you want to treat your woman like a piece of cattle, "WELL GO JOIN AL QAEDA YOU BASTARDS!"

There are plenty of Muslim Women in the world that don't wear the veil.

Click to expand...

On the flip side there are Muslim women in the west who choose (read: are not treated like cattle) to wear the veil as they feel it provides freedom from judgment.

I used to be of the mindset that this law was the right thing to do, but now I've gone far the other way: there is no way this should've been passed. As long as for security checks, passport photos, (basically Steinman's list of transactions where anonymity is not permitted) etc. they are willing to remove the veil, then it's not a problem.

Chad Sexington said:

I used to be of the mindset that this law was the right thing to do, but now I've gone far the other way: there is no way this should've been passed. As long as for security checks, passport photos, (basically Steinman's list of transactions where anonymity is not permitted) etc. they are willing to remove the veil, then it's not a problem.

Click to expand...

I think that has been a problem in some places so what do you do when they won't remove it for things like id's, etc.

Couldn't you legislate that? I'm not sure but I think here in Canada that's the law: for financial transactions, passports, police checks, you must take off the veil. Then you've got the security covered, but also respected the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. I think that's a decent compromise.

So you want to legislate laws that compromise the laws of the religion of Islam?*

*I'm being over the top here, but you get my point about the difficulty of this discussion...

sixpackshaker said:

There are plenty of Muslim Women in the world that don't wear the veil.

Click to expand...

That's like saying that there are plenty of christian women who don't attend Catholic Mass. The "Muslim" religion is as least as big in terms of different faiths as the "Christian" religion.

Just because there are Christain churches that don't observe the Catholic mass doesn't mean we can legislate that mass is prohibited, and that since there are other ways to observe a very different, but still christian, faith, then they will just have to settle for that.

I very strongly disagree with your rationalization that just because other women in their faith don't follow their same beliefs, then they don't need to either.

Either this law is ok, and the government can and should legislate religious observance in the name of national security with regards to identity, or the law is wrong in doing so.

Don't pretend that the law is not legislating religious observance.

Espy said:

So you want to legislate laws that compromise the laws of the religion of Islam?*

*I'm being over the top here, but you get my point about the difficulty of this discussion...

Click to expand...

No, I don't think I do, or at least I frame it differently. I want legislation that protects their right to practice their religion, while preventing the rights of the many being infringed upon by exempting the Muslim women with veils from certain obligations. In this way we all get the same treatment: day-to-day we can wear what we like, practice what customs we like, but when we fly, we have to show the gate agent, security guards, etc, our faces and passport; or when we open a bank account we show our photo ID (and matching face!), or ... etc.

I see the Belgian law as infringing on their religious rights and private rights, when a law with a narrower purview could satisfy the security requirements without compromising their religion or privacy.

I totally get what you are saying, it's just really hard to tell someone that, hey, that tenant of your faith that you hold so dearly? You are going to have to break it and sin in the eyes of your religion/God in order to get on this airplane.

I'm not saying you are wrong or that I don't agree with you, just that the discussion is not an easy one to compromise on. It would be nice to hear from a muslim who practiced this in their house how they view it/deal with it.

My understanding from the one Muslim family I know (and they don't observe this custom, but I assume they know more about it than me) is that it's not a sin, or even against the Islamic law, but rather that it really is (when not abused as a method of control) about freedom from judgment by men.

And you're flipping on your argument The first time you said I was compromising our laws to Islamic law and now you're saying I'm making Muslims compromise to our law! The truth is that if they choose to live in our country, yes, they will have to compromise to our social laws, norms and needs. If you'd like the benefits of living in Canada, the USA, UK, etc, there may be a cost. I don't think I'm compromising our laws at all, at most I'm asking our citizens to accept they have different customs. And yeah, I'm asking them to compromise, and if they feel I'm asking them to compromise too much, then perhaps this isn't the country for them. I don't mean that as a "one of us or GTFO" but rather a "We respect your customs up to where they rub shoulders with our own laws".

And I don't mean to pretend the argument is easy or compromise is always acceptable, just that this is how I, in my limited worldly knowledge, see the maximum benefit for all parties being available. We're more than happy to have you in our society, as long as you can respect that being part of our society means certain rules must be obeyed. For instance (stienman can correct/chastise me/send me to Siberia if I'm mistaken) I believe the biggest impediment to Utah's statehood was the prevalence of bigamy, and that the LDS adopted the prohibition on plural marriage to expedite the goal of joining the US in the late 1800s. It wasn't that anyone wanted to tread on someone's belief in God's law, but that to be accepted into the larger American society, a compromise had to be made. This benefited, I hope, both sides of the equation.

stienman said:

I've always taken anonymity as a right for granted. In the US you may use an alias for most transactions (travel, financial, and some other notable exceptions apply) as long as the purpose isn't to defraud or commit criminal activity. You can wear masks, alter your appearance, etc - and while you may raise suspicion, you are still free to do so as long as you aren't commiting criminal activity.

Click to expand...

You dawg, we herd you liek Georgia, so we enacted an Anti-Masks Law so you can hear about anonimity not being guaranteed by the federal goverment.

O.C.G.A. 16-11-38 (2010)
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.

(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;

(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;

(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or

(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

Click to expand...

Huh! No exception for religious garb. Of course, it isn't a problem until an officer arrests someone for violating it, and then the court challenge is likely to go poorly for the law.

It's the lemonade stand all over again!

Security issues aside:

Slavery and spousal abuse is obviously illegal because in the west freedom and equality are cornerstones of our political philosophy. If a woman is forced to wear a veil/burka then it falls into one of those categories.

Otherwise it is simply a choice, and fuck me if I can find a reason that we should forbid someone a choice. Don't project your own culture onto others if you don't want them to do the same. That's why the extremists who criticise our culture are wrong, because we ALLOW them to express their culture. When we start doing the same thing we validate them, moreover we go against the very core of our philosophy that defines the veil as a choice.

I don't understand how any western country could fuck up their own political philosophy this bad.

stienman said:

Huh! No exception for religious garb. Of course, it isn't a problem until an officer arrests someone for violating it, and then the court challenge is likely to go poorly for the law.

It's the lemonade stand all over again!

Click to expand...

They tried to strike the Anti-Mask law off Georgia once already, the KKK did. It got all the way to the supreme court, which was all like "lol no." There's a reason this law is in the books, and there's a reason religion is not an exception to it.

Edit: I've looked up more info (I only knew about this GA law due to the anti-scientology stuff two years ago, didn't want to get arrested for herp-derping), and North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia (by God) have similar laws, without a provision for religious headgear (except in special holidays).

Aren't there anti-face-cover laws in a lot of States/municipalities, though exact wording and statute limitations differ?

SpecialKO said:

Aren't there anti-face-cover laws in a lot of States/municipalities, though exact wording and statute limitations differ?

Click to expand...

Most U.S. states that do, to my knowledge, make it a crime to cover one's face while doing something illegal, or to actively avoid being identified by the authorities. The veil wouldn't fall under such provisions (unless you decide to rob a bank wearing a burka), so they're not relevant.

No idea about individual municipalities, though.

These damn laws always get in the way of my favorite hobby. Wearing ski masks to the bank.
Added at: 20:58
Nixon masks work well too, if the weather is simply too hot.

Boy, Wisconsin weather would be a bear in the winter without a ski mask or balaclava.

Ravenpoe said:

These damn laws always get in the way of my favorite hobby. Wearing ski masks to the bank.
Added at: 20:58
Nixon masks work well too, if the weather is simply too hot.

Click to expand...

...mask, hood, or device...

Click to expand...

Doesn't mention make-up, so just wear evil clown make-up instead!

Just went to the bank today. Noticed, again, the sign requesting that hats, hoods, masks, etc be removed "For the safety of all our customers".

Heh.