Euro Court of Human Rights loses its ****ing mind over Niqabs

[Dinner]

And this-



Legal in France.

Technically the surgical mazk is only about one third of that outfit.

[regexcellent]

It was a response to regexcellent's simplicity

Yes, I get that some women are probably pressured into wearing it. I also get that this is no justification whatsoever for banning religious dress.

[kentonio]

Yes, I get that some women are probably pressured into wearing it.

No, not 'probably'. Some women are forced not pressured into wearing it, with their religion used as the excuse for insisting they hide their face from public view. Think about that for a minute, having the spend your life with your face covered because otherwise your family will tell you you've dishonoured them.

That's why many of us don't take it particularly seriously when some Muslim women come out and tell us it's all their own choice. Maybe in a tiny number of cases that is true, but for the large part it's a control forced onto women by their families and communities.

I also get that this is no justification whatsoever for banning religious dress.

**** religious dress if it's used as a tool for oppressing people.

[C0ckney]

**** religious dress if it's used as a tool for oppressing people.

i have some sympathy with this argument, but i think that banning clothing goes too far. taking away freedom to protect freedom is rarely a good strategy.

for something like infant circumcision, i support a ban, because we cannot say that anyone has the right to mutilate a child for religious reasons (if there is a medical reason then that's fine).

[kentonio]

i have some sympathy with this argument, but i think that banning clothing goes too far. taking away freedom to protect freedom is rarely a good strategy.

It's not an ideal solution, but I'm not sure what an ideal solution would actually be in this case. We've always been more pragmatic than America when it comes to social engineering vs freedom, and I don't think this is a massive thing to be honest, especially not if the alternative is to have women walking through the streets confined behind a veil and feeling alienated and ostracized from a society they are not permitted by their families to join.

for something like infant circumcision, i support a ban, because we cannot say that anyone has the right to mutilate a child for religious reasons (if there is a medical reason then that's fine).

Mental abuse is still a medical reason.

[Sava]

Technically the surgical mazk is only about one third of that outfit.

When a doctor says he/she is getting masked for surgery, do you think that means just the face mask?

[C0ckney]

It's not an ideal solution, but I'm not sure what an ideal solution would actually be in this case. We've always been more pragmatic than America when it comes to social engineering vs freedom, and I don't think this is a massive thing to be honest, especially not if the alternative is to have women walking through the streets confined behind a veil and feeling alienated and ostracized from a society they are not permitted by their families to join.

yes, it's a complicated problem. i used to think that the attractions of the western culture would draw in the young, or second generation immigrants and thus aid integration, and this does happen in many cases. however, there are strong social forces which resist this, and even some which reject western culture entirely, despite living in western societies, and clearly this causes problems for integration.

i don't believe though, that forcing people to dress a certain way, or to learn a language etc. is the answer.

Mental abuse is still a medical reason.

i don't understand what you mean here.

[kentonio]

i don't understand what you mean here.

I mean that if women are being forced into wearing these things and being treated in an oppressive way then that presumably does mental damage to the individual like any case of abuse would. That's also a medical concern in the same way that physical harm would be. We consider mental abuse to be a crime don't we?

[C0ckney]

oh ok. i was talking about circumcision there.

i think the issue of veils etc. is question of human rights, dignity and social integration, not of medicine.

[Dry]

Wear a surgical mask, crash-helmet or Mickey Mouse mask and you're fine. It's ludicrous.

As far as I remember:
- crash-hemet are allowed only when riding your bike. As soon as you are off your bike, you have to remove it. And if you are on your bike, but stopped by a police officer and he asks you to show your face, you have to comply.
- Carnival masks are only allowed during carnival period, or special activities. Again, outside those specific periods, they are not allowed.
- surgical masks, again, allowed only when the professional wearing it operates.
- Sport masks, only during the sportive activities.

So in all cases, those masks are allowed under special conditions.
And in all cases, a police officer may ask you to remove them, and you have to comply.

So, yes, one specific brand of one specific religion wants special treatment: Because of my belief system, I want the special freedom that nobody else have to hide my face whenever I want and no police officer may ever question that.
So, for me, either they allow everybody to hide his/her face, or nobody. Same law for everybody.

PS

It's only the nasty, sinful Niqabs that are banned!

Well, back in the times, carmelites used to wear a black veil when meeting people outside their order. My grand mother remembered veiled carmelites in the streets.
I don't know if they were forbidden to wear it or not, but they decided to forfeit that habit. And I know they were fobidden to drive wearing those huge carmelites hats... for safety reasons... yeah, no religious freedom to drive dangerously.

[Al B. Sure!]

Europe is a really strange place. America is so much freer.

[C0ckney]

they have different conceptions of freedom. (to be clear, i don't think either is free - but very few people really believe in freedom).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Europe is a really strange place. America is so much freer.

You have jaywalking laws. Marvel at our glorious freedom to cross the road wherever we damned well please.

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay so pedestrian traffic laws relate to actual bans on religious practice how?

[regexcellent]

No, not 'probably'. Some women are forced not pressured into wearing it, with their religion used as the excuse for insisting they hide their face from public view. Think about that for a minute, having the spend your life with your face covered because otherwise your family will tell you you've dishonoured them.

That's why many of us don't take it particularly seriously when some Muslim women come out and tell us it's all their own choice. Maybe in a tiny number of cases that is true, but for the large part it's a control forced onto women by their families and communities.



**** religious dress if it's used as a tool for oppressing people.

How do you manage to be wrong about ****ing everything? Even c0ckney has a better notion of freedom than you do, jesus christ.