ECHR Upholds French Veil and Niqab Ban

1246714

Comments

  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    that is how i see it.

    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.
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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?
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John146 wrote: »
    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.
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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...
  • bspacebspace Posts: 14,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    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.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    that is true but they are still going to want to know who they are, who turns up for work.

    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!
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    it can, but then again, not everyone has the confidence to speak out. a facial expression also 'speaks volumes'.

    Unless they've recently had a stroke.
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Does this mean the dance of seven veils is prohibited in public?
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    mRebel wrote: »
    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.
  • Pat_SmithPat_Smith Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Blimey. An outbreak of sanity at he ECHR?

    Is this April 1st?
  • DinkyDoobieDinkyDoobie Posts: 17,786
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I guess there isnt much difference at all

    http://imgur.com/YGFihCn
  • bluewomble88bluewomble88 Posts: 2,860
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If a naturist isn't allowed to walk down the street naked, why is ok for anyone to walk there fully covered head to toe?
  • Pat_SmithPat_Smith Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If a naturist isn't allowed to walk down the street naked, why is ok for anyone to walk there fully covered head to toe?


    It's racism, doncha know.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    Islamic states do insist that visiting western women cover their heads.

    Indeed. So those who it's right that France forbids the veil think Islamic states insisting on it is ok, I presume.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bspace wrote: »
    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.

    In what way?
  • Regis MagnaeRegis Magnae Posts: 6,810
    Forum Member
    .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.
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    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.

    It's oppressive and often it's not a choice.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    Blimey. An outbreak of sanity at he ECHR?

    Perhaps not. Seemed a rather odd decision to me.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    academia wrote: »
    It's oppressive and often it's not a choice.

    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".
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    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?
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    rusty123 wrote: »
    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?
    Well, it's certainly not racist. Sexist perhaps.
  • ennuiennui Posts: 1,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Excellent news.

    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 .
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    I guess there isnt much difference at all

    http://imgur.com/YGFihCn

    do you know where that image came from?
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    Well, it's certainly not racist. Sexist perhaps.

    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.