Donate SIGN UP

Does Anyone Oppose This Bill?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 11:47 Sun 08th Sep 2013 | News
164 Answers
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/tory-mps-ban-burqa-bill-reaches-parliament

/// The bill states that "a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence." It adds that "where members of the public are licensed to access private premises for the purposes of the giving or receiving of goods or services, it shall not be an offence for the owner...to request that a person wearing a garment or other object intended to obscure the face remove such garment or object; or to require that a person refusing a request...leave the premises." ///

I look forward to the debate both on here and also in Parliament.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 164rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While I can see the reasoning behind this, there are many reasons for wanting to obscure one's face and most of them should not be illegal.

Gets my Vote.
Question Author
woofgang

/// While I can see the reasoning behind this, there are many reasons for wanting to obscure one's face and most of them should not be illegal. ///

Can you point out some examples please?
Yes, that makes sense to me
-- answer removed --
Somebody with severe facial deformities, such as removal of nose and eye socket due to cancer may prefer to keep one's face covered in public.
Question Author
hc4361

Well that is obvious, but woofgang said there were many but failed to give all the examples.
Anyone wearing a crash helmet, walking toward or away from a motorbike would be guilty of an offence.
Ignore that since it would not be the primary reason.
Then again, there is no requirement to wear a helmet when not riding a motorbike so it could be argued either way.
It would get my vote.
It wouldn't get mine. Imagine a modest young Muslin woman who hitherto had been wearing the veil. She might well become a recluse and refuse to leave her home if she felt she was being forced to flaunt herself in front of all and sundry.
Oh Sandyroe, showing her face is hardly 'flaunting' as the rest of her from neck to ankles would be well covered up.
Such behaviour may not be 'flaunting' to the eye of a decadent Westerner but others have higher standards.
Security guards carrying cash to/from banks etc wear full face helmets.
i support it (didn't it work in france )
The Bill allows an exemption " (e) for the purposes of art, leisure or entertainment" as walking is a leisure activity, a woman wearing a veil would be able to carry on walking down the street.
I think it's a good idea!
Higher standards?
Different standards.
I hope you never look a female in the face, otherwise double standards.
That exemption wouldn't apply to walking - a veil is not essential equipment for that particular leisure activity

1 to 20 of 164rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Does Anyone Oppose This Bill?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.