News0 min ago
Who Lent The Echr A Book On Common Sense?
34 Answers
http://
Finally they get one right!
Finally they get one right!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Yes, I know, NJ but the wearing of it would have to cause harassment, alarm or distress. If there were no complainant I wouldn't be arrested.
Some women choose to wear the veil. Taking that freedom from them could provide them with a political axe to grind.
Those that are forced to will simply be confined to the home and be in a worse position than they are now. That can't be a desired outcome of any UK law. Or there will be a way round it, such as wearing a hijab with a surgical mask because of 'allergies' or to avoid infections. Such masks are commonly used in cities with very high pollution levels.
Some women choose to wear the veil. Taking that freedom from them could provide them with a political axe to grind.
Those that are forced to will simply be confined to the home and be in a worse position than they are now. That can't be a desired outcome of any UK law. Or there will be a way round it, such as wearing a hijab with a surgical mask because of 'allergies' or to avoid infections. Such masks are commonly used in cities with very high pollution levels.
hc being an old fella, I recollect the old Public Order Act 1936 which was specifically enacted to prevent Oswald Mosley's Black Shirts from wearing their er black shirts.
Improved by NJ's new Public Order Act, and it was said at the time,
that the old provisions had been carried over.
I dont remember any headline of 'It's OK boys, put on your brown shirts and come out of the sewers' ..... bit of a long headline I know.....
Improved by NJ's new Public Order Act, and it was said at the time,
that the old provisions had been carried over.
I dont remember any headline of 'It's OK boys, put on your brown shirts and come out of the sewers' ..... bit of a long headline I know.....
I'm not particularly fussed about what effect such a ban would have on Muslim women, hc. If they are so oppressed that they cannot leave home without having their faces masked up that's a cross they will have to bear and a problem that, quite frankly, they themselves need to address.
The desired outcome for me is all public places in the UK being free of people walking about in garments that provide just a slit for their the eyes. It is unnecessary, offensive, intimidating, divisive, can conceal identities for nefarious reasons and, above all else, it frightens the horses.
The desired outcome for me is all public places in the UK being free of people walking about in garments that provide just a slit for their the eyes. It is unnecessary, offensive, intimidating, divisive, can conceal identities for nefarious reasons and, above all else, it frightens the horses.
Strange you should mention it, naomi.
I composed the post in the normal way and read it through before submission. It did occur to me that the phrase may be picked upon. But then I though that I would use the phrase in almost any other context when such a meaning was intended, so why not here? My days of treading on eggshells to avoid using what I consider are perfectly acceptable words and phrases in order to avoid causing offence are, I'm afraid, coming to a close.
Lots of things offend me. In particular I'm offended to think that I cannot be trusted to keep my hands off Muslim women to such a degree that they have to go about cloaked and masked up. But I just have to put up with it.
I composed the post in the normal way and read it through before submission. It did occur to me that the phrase may be picked upon. But then I though that I would use the phrase in almost any other context when such a meaning was intended, so why not here? My days of treading on eggshells to avoid using what I consider are perfectly acceptable words and phrases in order to avoid causing offence are, I'm afraid, coming to a close.
Lots of things offend me. In particular I'm offended to think that I cannot be trusted to keep my hands off Muslim women to such a degree that they have to go about cloaked and masked up. But I just have to put up with it.
You're quite correct Graham, you would not be prosecuted in the circumstances you describe. There are specific exemptions provided in the French law and these include:
- Motorcycle helmets
- Face masks for health reasons
- Face covering for sporting or professional activities
- Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
- Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions
I've read the entire ruling and it makes interesting reading. The issue of whether the law discriminates against one particular religion (not race) was discussed and it was determined that it did not. Also, this paragraph is particularly interesting:
"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."
In other words, the court understands that a lot of people may not like to see women roaming around masked up for no good reason.
I don't think there's any point in beating about the bush. The French undoubtedly introduced this law specifically to prevent Muslim women going about in public wearing masks. It saw such practices as an affront to French values and believed that many French people felt the same. I admire them for that. They are taking on board the views expressed by many of the electorate and are acting to facilitate those views. That’s what governments are supposed to do and they should be free to do so without interference from outside institutions. It no different to people wanting to roam around naked. They don't particularly harm anybody but most societies have decided that it would be better all round if they kept some clothes on.
Seventeen judges decided the legality of the French law and I believe all but two agreed that it was lawful. This is despite the appellant citing four articles of the ECHR that she believed had been transgressed. Let's hope that is the end of the matter but let's hope even more that the UK government sees fit to introduce a similar law here. But since our government has not got the courage even to ban the wearing of such garments in criminal courts, let alone in all public places, I won't hold my breath.
- Motorcycle helmets
- Face masks for health reasons
- Face covering for sporting or professional activities
- Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
- Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions
I've read the entire ruling and it makes interesting reading. The issue of whether the law discriminates against one particular religion (not race) was discussed and it was determined that it did not. Also, this paragraph is particularly interesting:
"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."
In other words, the court understands that a lot of people may not like to see women roaming around masked up for no good reason.
I don't think there's any point in beating about the bush. The French undoubtedly introduced this law specifically to prevent Muslim women going about in public wearing masks. It saw such practices as an affront to French values and believed that many French people felt the same. I admire them for that. They are taking on board the views expressed by many of the electorate and are acting to facilitate those views. That’s what governments are supposed to do and they should be free to do so without interference from outside institutions. It no different to people wanting to roam around naked. They don't particularly harm anybody but most societies have decided that it would be better all round if they kept some clothes on.
Seventeen judges decided the legality of the French law and I believe all but two agreed that it was lawful. This is despite the appellant citing four articles of the ECHR that she believed had been transgressed. Let's hope that is the end of the matter but let's hope even more that the UK government sees fit to introduce a similar law here. But since our government has not got the courage even to ban the wearing of such garments in criminal courts, let alone in all public places, I won't hold my breath.
Yes they have got it right. Banning the burka is a kindness, not racism, says the DT.
http://
http://
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Home & Garden5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
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.