I disagree with the idea of a ban. As a society, we spend far too long obsessing over what women wear, and especially in this case since the security threat that comes from some Muslims is almost exclusively male.
The court upheld the ban because of the level of communication that occurs which is non-verbal and the effect having a covered face effects living together
As to the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, the Government referred to the need to ensure “respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society”, listing three values in that connection: respect for gender equality, respect for human dignity and respect for the minimum requirements of life in society (or of “living together”). While dismissing the arguments relating to the first two of those values, the Court accepted that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of “living together”. In that connection, it indicated that it took into account the State’s submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction. The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals
might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question. The Court was therefore able to accept that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face was perceived by the respondent State as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier.
An eminently sensible conclusion to make, you cannot communicate effectively if one or more parties have their face covered. If we want communities to be cohesive and work then this is the minimum one should expect.
Fact: you do not need to see a person's face in order to socialise with them.
You do if you are deaf and they don't say it is impossible only that concealing your face raises a barrier and makes it more difficult and has the potential to undermine the notion of living together and that seeing someones face is a fundamental aspect of social interaction that makes it easier - not that social interaction is impossible if you are blind or wearing a motorcycle helmet.
It might not list a set of social values but they clearly exist and they say the decision was based on the rights of others to exist in a state of socialisation and that open interpersonal relationships are at least in france an indispensable part of community life that makes living together easier.
The sole purpose of the ECtHR is to resolve claims made under the ECHR by applying the ECHR. It is not there as a higher court over national courts with regard to domestic or EU law or as court to resolve disputes about such laws. None of what they listed as their reasons are contained in the ECHR.
They should simply have stated they found the claim did not violate the claimiant's rights under clause 1 of article 9 or if it did they found the French law banning it to be in compliance with clause 2 of that right.
You do if you are deaf and they don't say it is impossible only that concealing your face raises a barrier and makes it more difficult and has the potential to undermine the notion of living together and that seeing someones face is a fundamental aspect of social interaction that makes it easier - not that social interaction is impossible if you are blind or wearing a motorcycle helmet.
My point was that for some people with the profound disability of blindness there isn't a fundamental barrier to socialising just becaue they cannot see faces.
Deaf people may use lip-reading or sign language.
There shouldn't be a fundamental law that people have the right to see other people's facial expressions! (Which is what this ruling essentially says).
My point was that for some people with the profound disability of blindness there isn't a fundamental barrier to socialising just becaue they cannot see faces.
how many places of work don't need to be able to identify their employees?
A fair number, such as corner shops and other small businesses which only employ a handful of people.
the problem with leaving it up to individual businesses is you make them stick their head above the parapet. tesco bans the burqa shock. and take on the legal fight.
Well, if it did become a huge problem, then the matter could be reconsidered.
Interesting ruling this. i would have bet pound to a penny that they would have gone the other way.
Why would it go the other way? It isn't intended to be religious discrimination, so why? Doesn't surprise me at all, I only wish I'd taken up your bet at 100/1 three years ago!
Why would it go the other way? It isn't intended to be religious discrimination, so why? Doesn't surprise me at all, I only wish I'd taken up your bet at 100/1 three years ago!
well it doesn't matter if it is intended to be religious discrimination does it.
However there are instances when it must not be worn as being able to see the person's face is important and the wearer must expect to remove it, appearing in court being an obvious example.
The key to this is discrimination or special privileges. The recent court case where the judge refused to let a woman cover her face for religious reasons is a good example.
Some left wing commentator pointed out that people are allowed to hide their face for security reasons, i.e. give evidence behind a screen etc. The point is, that is for security reasons and an option available to everyone. Another valid reason would be if people had sensitive skin to light, i.e. a medical reason.
Religion is not a valid reason. This is not a Muslim country so the majority of Muslims or their ancestors are recent immigrants. They or their ancestors made a conscious decision to emigrate here knowing our laws trump their religion.
In fact, doesn't Islam say that Muslims must adapt to the country they live in, if it is not Islamic?
Will this mean they will gravitate from France to England.
We will become the Islamic refuge in Europe.
I think Islamic face coverings should be banned in court, schools, hospitals, passport control, banks and considering the rest of us have to put up with CCTV, I am not sure why Muslim women are allowed to hide from the cameras.
It's the same as the Sikh's not having to wear crash helmets decision in the 1970's. Apart from setting a precedent, ever since the government has been afraid of facing down demands for special privileges from ethnic minorities.
Allowing Sikh's to wear turbans to drive buses was a sensible compromise providing the turban was the companies colours and they wore a badge on it. When it comes to scooter though they had the option of not owning one. They could have bought a car, used the bus etc.
Giving ethnic groups special privileges because of their religion is always the wrong decision.
Comments
The court upheld the ban because of the level of communication that occurs which is non-verbal and the effect having a covered face effects living together
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_07_14_grandchamber.pdf
An eminently sensible conclusion to make, you cannot communicate effectively if one or more parties have their face covered. If we want communities to be cohesive and work then this is the minimum one should expect.
You do if you are deaf and they don't say it is impossible only that concealing your face raises a barrier and makes it more difficult and has the potential to undermine the notion of living together and that seeing someones face is a fundamental aspect of social interaction that makes it easier - not that social interaction is impossible if you are blind or wearing a motorcycle helmet.
so how do you know when someone is puzzled, happy, sad or angry when you have said something to them?
and, heres a task for you. next time you go out socialising, let us know how many people are wearing the veil, in all the pubs and clubs you visit.;-)
The sole purpose of the ECtHR is to resolve claims made under the ECHR by applying the ECHR. It is not there as a higher court over national courts with regard to domestic or EU law or as court to resolve disputes about such laws. None of what they listed as their reasons are contained in the ECHR.
They should simply have stated they found the claim did not violate the claimiant's rights under clause 1 of article 9 or if it did they found the French law banning it to be in compliance with clause 2 of that right.
Is this a reference to beer goggles and bag over head types ?
In order to say it isn't covered by the ECHR you would have to know what the freedoms and rights of others includes.
They appear to say people have the right to live in an openly social society and that seeing someones face is a fundamental aspect of doing so.
Pro-ban.
Then there's the right to know what someone prefers on their head.
That would be anti-ban.
I think being able to see someone's face in order to communicate with them doesn't come into it.
If the awkward conversation is a problem then I suppose ban - but I'd go for the right to know preference.
Anti-ban would be the social position to be in, I think.
My point was that for some people with the profound disability of blindness there isn't a fundamental barrier to socialising just becaue they cannot see faces.
Deaf people may use lip-reading or sign language.
There shouldn't be a fundamental law that people have the right to see other people's facial expressions! (Which is what this ruling essentially says).
Yeah well you cant be serious.
The human voice can be a truly expressive thing.
I doubt many of the women who choose to wear the veil visit nightclubs
I am deadly serious. I have a phazor gun on me right now. Perhaps you didn't notice it because you were so fixated on my face?
Sometimes!
If i was blind it wouldn't matter where i was looking.
Well, if it did become a huge problem, then the matter could be reconsidered.
I think, probably, they are still quite keen on ensuring they know who is behind the till.
Why would it go the other way? It isn't intended to be religious discrimination, so why? Doesn't surprise me at all, I only wish I'd taken up your bet at 100/1 three years ago!
They'd be unlikely to insist on their employees having photo ID though!
that is true but they are still going to want to know who they are, who turns up for work.
well it doesn't matter if it is intended to be religious discrimination does it.
it can, but then again, not everyone has the confidence to speak out. a facial expression also 'speaks volumes'.
Will this mean they will gravitate from France to England.
The key to this is discrimination or special privileges. The recent court case where the judge refused to let a woman cover her face for religious reasons is a good example.
Some left wing commentator pointed out that people are allowed to hide their face for security reasons, i.e. give evidence behind a screen etc. The point is, that is for security reasons and an option available to everyone. Another valid reason would be if people had sensitive skin to light, i.e. a medical reason.
Religion is not a valid reason. This is not a Muslim country so the majority of Muslims or their ancestors are recent immigrants. They or their ancestors made a conscious decision to emigrate here knowing our laws trump their religion.
In fact, doesn't Islam say that Muslims must adapt to the country they live in, if it is not Islamic?
We will become the Islamic refuge in Europe.
I think Islamic face coverings should be banned in court, schools, hospitals, passport control, banks and considering the rest of us have to put up with CCTV, I am not sure why Muslim women are allowed to hide from the cameras.
It's the same as the Sikh's not having to wear crash helmets decision in the 1970's. Apart from setting a precedent, ever since the government has been afraid of facing down demands for special privileges from ethnic minorities.
Allowing Sikh's to wear turbans to drive buses was a sensible compromise providing the turban was the companies colours and they wore a badge on it. When it comes to scooter though they had the option of not owning one. They could have bought a car, used the bus etc.
Giving ethnic groups special privileges because of their religion is always the wrong decision.