which is somewhat against the recent trend. I do think though they made the right decision.
ETA: The court ruled that the ban "was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face".
A court statement said the ruling also "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."
And their wrong! At the time the law was passed French politicians were vocal in saying the opposite.
What is wrong with women wearing a veil if they choose? Is anyone hurt b y it?
The ECHR also found that France was entitled to insist on banning the veil as it interfered with the common sense of community. That's intriguing, I wonder if those who applaud the courts decision will accept that Muslim states have the same entitlement to insist on women, including visitors from the west, covering their hair or face.
Without going through the whole thread to see if this has already been posted, but what is the consensus about driving with the veil/face covering?
What about face recognition cameras? An English person is proved to be the driver of a speeding car, A Muslim women gets off because she can not be identified by the cameras. Pure discrimination.
What about face recognition cameras? An English person is proved to be the driver of a speeding car, A Muslim women gets off because she can not be identified by the cameras. Pure discrimination.
Well yes, hadn't looked at it from that point of view...
And their wrong! At the time the law was passed French politicians were vocal in saying the opposite.
What is wrong with women wearing a veil if they choose? Is anyone hurt b y it?
The ECHR also found that France was entitled to insist on banning the veil as it interfered with the common sense of community. That's intriguing, I wonder if those who applaud the courts decision will accept that Muslim states have the same entitlement to insist on women, including visitors from the west, covering their hair or face.
They could well be insulted by the cultural meaning and purpose of this dress.
Its not in any case islamic, merely local custom.
I would not go anywhere that insisted on this medieval attitude to women but that's as far as i'm concerned about it. However I would observe that its strange how some who come to this country choose to ignore and insult its local customs whilst I strongly suspect they would be offended if someone from here showed the same disregard when in those Muslim states.
And their wrong! At the time the law was passed French politicians were vocal in saying the opposite.
What is wrong with women wearing a veil if they choose? Is anyone hurt b y it?
The ECHR also found that France was entitled to insist on banning the veil as it interfered with the common sense of community. That's intriguing, I wonder if those who applaud the courts decision will accept that Muslim states have the same entitlement to insist on women, including visitors from the west, covering their hair or face.
Islamic states do insist that visiting western women cover their heads.
They could well be insulted by the cultural meaning and purpose of this dress.
Its not in any case islamic, merely local custom.
I would not go anywhere that insisted on this medieval attitude to women but that's as far as i'm concerned about it. However I would observe that its strange how some who come to this country choose to ignore and insult its local customs whilst I strongly suspect they would be offended if someone from here showed the same disregard when in those Muslim states.
.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.
I wonder if anything else could be established as barriers to "open interpersonal relationships" and "breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation".
And other have said, the ECHR used the exceptions listed in the Convention for once - interesting.
Tbh I'm rather in two minds on this one. I don't like people wandering around covered head to foot with only their eyes visible but on the other hand if they choose to then I'm not entirely convinced the state should pass a law saying they can't. I can think of other instances when I would prefer some people not to wearing what they are, is that a reason to ban it?
This decision by the ECtHR makes them look a tad contrary in their rulings and raises the issue they are not consistent or unbiased and political.
I do wonder what happens then for women in that circumstance ? Does the man, I assume, who made them wear it then just give up ? "Fair cop love, I know I said you couldnt pop to Lidl without covering up, now you can't I guess so off you pop".
I feel the same way. Looking unfriendly and unapproachable is not very nice, whether the face is veiled or not, but I can't see why it should be an actual crime.
The trouble with the veil isn't so much that it's a drawbridge that segregate communities it's how it passes judgement that is the problem.
If you were to wear a t-shirt with a slogan on it suggesting that black people were a subclass that weren't fit to even gaze upon you I'm pretty sure you'd have your collar quite rightly felt. That's exactly what the veil implies.
I'm not a fan of any religion so I'm not simply picking on muslims, but I struggle to think of any other garment or item associated with a faith that passes judgement on the non wearer like the veil does.
It may not be illegal but the message it gives off sails pretty close to the wind as far as I'm concerned. I'd go as far to say that the wearers don't want to integrate - don't want to be apart of a wider community and don't give a stuff about western culture, otherwise they'd probably choose not to wear it - and tha's the bottom line. They choose to wear it. It's not compulsory and by doing so I think they are effectively being openly racist - which is illegal isn't it?
It may not be illegal but the message it gives off sails pretty close to the wind as far as I'm concerned. I'd go as far to say that the wearers don't want to integrate - don't want to be apart of a wider community and don't give a stuff about western culture, otherwise they'd probably choose not to wear it - and tha's the bottom line. They choose to wear it. It's not compulsory and by doing so I think they are effectively being openly racist - which is illegal isn't it?
As for any possibility of it happening here, quite simply it wouldn't. There would be too much trouble. Rioting on the streets etc.
IF they riot against European Human Rights they are clearly unfit to remain in Europe. Repatriate them all to the new promised Caliphate of theirs, invoice William Hague's sheik friends to cover the deportation costs .
Since viewing what was blatant coaching of women to wear the face covering on an Islamic TV channel, I can't say I really believe it is always the free will of the women involved, no doubt similar occurs on websites, radio channels, podcasts also.
Racism may not technically be the correct word but when you look at the definition of racism...
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
...and think in terms of religion as opposed to race (which overlap significantly depending on where you're from) I struggle to see the difference.
Comments
And their wrong! At the time the law was passed French politicians were vocal in saying the opposite.
What is wrong with women wearing a veil if they choose? Is anyone hurt b y it?
The ECHR also found that France was entitled to insist on banning the veil as it interfered with the common sense of community. That's intriguing, I wonder if those who applaud the courts decision will accept that Muslim states have the same entitlement to insist on women, including visitors from the west, covering their hair or face.
What about face recognition cameras? An English person is proved to be the driver of a speeding car, A Muslim women gets off because she can not be identified by the cameras. Pure discrimination.
Well yes, hadn't looked at it from that point of view...
They could well be insulted by the cultural meaning and purpose of this dress.
Its not in any case islamic, merely local custom.
I would not go anywhere that insisted on this medieval attitude to women but that's as far as i'm concerned about it. However I would observe that its strange how some who come to this country choose to ignore and insult its local customs whilst I strongly suspect they would be offended if someone from here showed the same disregard when in those Muslim states.
I think if you only emply a handful of people, you would know who turns up for work, even if it's a burqa wearer!
Unless they've recently had a stroke.
Is this April 1st?
http://imgur.com/YGFihCn
It's racism, doncha know.
Indeed. So those who it's right that France forbids the veil think Islamic states insisting on it is ok, I presume.
In what way?
I wonder if anything else could be established as barriers to "open interpersonal relationships" and "breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation".
And other have said, the ECHR used the exceptions listed in the Convention for once - interesting.
It's oppressive and often it's not a choice.
Perhaps not. Seemed a rather odd decision to me.
I do wonder what happens then for women in that circumstance ? Does the man, I assume, who made them wear it then just give up ? "Fair cop love, I know I said you couldnt pop to Lidl without covering up, now you can't I guess so off you pop".
The trouble with the veil isn't so much that it's a drawbridge that segregate communities it's how it passes judgement that is the problem.
If you were to wear a t-shirt with a slogan on it suggesting that black people were a subclass that weren't fit to even gaze upon you I'm pretty sure you'd have your collar quite rightly felt. That's exactly what the veil implies.
I'm not a fan of any religion so I'm not simply picking on muslims, but I struggle to think of any other garment or item associated with a faith that passes judgement on the non wearer like the veil does.
It may not be illegal but the message it gives off sails pretty close to the wind as far as I'm concerned. I'd go as far to say that the wearers don't want to integrate - don't want to be apart of a wider community and don't give a stuff about western culture, otherwise they'd probably choose not to wear it - and tha's the bottom line. They choose to wear it. It's not compulsory and by doing so I think they are effectively being openly racist - which is illegal isn't it?
do you know where that image came from?
Racism may not technically be the correct word but when you look at the definition of racism...
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
...and think in terms of religion as opposed to race (which overlap significantly depending on where you're from) I struggle to see the difference.
Isn't sexism pretty much illegal also?