Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[Sector 7]

I realize that I speak from an American perspective, but I do not approve of wearing a mask in public. The last thing I want to see at the bank is someone wearing a mask... same for many other public areas. Wear any outrageous costume you wish [we have trekkies wearing costumes in public], however, I draw the line at facial obscurity by wearing a ski mask, presidential Halloween mask or a ceremonial/religious full-face covering.

 

[RobertVA]

Some parts of the US have laws that could be applied to women covering their faces. They would certainly apply to someone in a parade with a sheet over their head, especially if that sheet is white. Those laws were passed in response to a bunch of racists that developed a habit of terrorizing families in the middle of the night while wearing pillow cases with eye holes to conceal their identities.

Operators of facilities like banks and convenience stores have been allowed to restrict people from wearing identity concealing garments while on their premises. That sometimes includes items like sunglasses, hooded winter garments (with the hood covering the head) and brimmed hats.

I suspect any government restriction on garments/accessories that cover part of the body other than the face would face greater legal challenges.

Virginia once had laws restricting retail sales on Sundays. Even in places like groceries and pharmacies goods like hardware, sporting goods, small appliances and clothing had to be blocked off and unavailable for sale. Eventually those laws were struck down as an "establishment" of religion.

 

[scotpens]

. . . I'm against government regulation in cases like these where there's no obvious reason like Germany's concealment prohibition which was introduced to be able to track and identify criminals (but to my knowledge isn't enforced with Burqa wearing women) but it is a tool of oppression but does a government have the mandate to induce cultural change via laws?

In this case i don't think so..

What about Turkey? When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk used the force of law to transform Turkey into a modern, secular nation-state — even to the point of requiring state employees to don Western-style clothing, and strongly encouraging others to do likewise — it was accepted and generally regarded as a good thing by the Turkish people.

I cannot say I object to any of those things myself. One of many things I prefer about Europe to the United States. I don't see allowing Nazis the right to march through communities as something to boast about.

The fact that Nazis can have a parade in Skokie, Illinois, is what makes it possible for LGBT activists to hold a rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

QFT.

Some parts of the US have laws that could be applied to women covering their faces. They would certainly apply to someone in a parade with a sheet over their head, especially if that sheet is white.

Can you cite any specific federal or state laws against simply wearing Klan robes and hoods in public? I”m not aware of any such laws.

 

[Sean Aaron]

The fact that Nazis can have a parade in Skokie, Illinois, is what makes it possible for LGBT activists to hold a rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

With respect that is crap. The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights. Unfortunately the orangemen over here are able to walk a fine line and have marches in their hundreds every year, but the public officials are at least not stupid enough to let them march through Catholic areas of Glasgow.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

We have a belief in the United States that the government should not be in the business of discerning between what beliefs deserve public expression and what do not, and that's just a about period, end of story. Whether it's practical to distinguish good causes from bad causes, or people preaching hatred or brotherly and sisterly love, is completely beside the point. Once the government has the power to silence any group, there is a risk that the power can be abused. That's the way we see it, and that's not going to change for a long, long time here, if ever.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights.

Everyone has the right to speak, no matter what views they hold.

To put it another way: If Nazis are denied their right to march *today*, then what group can be denied their rights next? Slippery slope, don't you know.

 

[Sean Aaron]

The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights.

Everyone has the right to speak, no matter what views they hold.

To put it another way: If Nazis are denied their right to march *today*, then what group can be denied their rights next? Slippery slope, don't you know.

I can't say I've ever been a believer in slippery slopes. I don't see anything wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not and then using legislation to enforce it and I think we all know very well that even the country with the worldwide patent on FREEDOM(tm) isn't the land of do-as-you-please.

 

[Trekker4747]

Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

It's a government policy forcing people to behave and/or dress a certain way. I'll tell you exactly what you should think about it.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I don't see anything wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not and then using legislation to enforce it and I think we all know very well that even the country with the worldwide patent on FREEDOM(tm) isn't the land of do-as-you-please.

Oh, I can see a problem if the state's view doesn't conform pretty closely to mine. I wouldn't have been at all happy to live under the Third Reich's view of what is permissible.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't see anything wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not and then using legislation to enforce it and I think we all know very well that even the country with the worldwide patent on FREEDOM(tm) isn't the land of do-as-you-please.

There's nothing wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not for itself.

In the USA, we have made such a determination, in the First Amendment to our Constituion. There are limitations, but the freedoms of expression we recognize are quite broad.

Other countries that follow democratic principles make determinations that are appropriate for themselves. I can't speak for any other American here, but I am not arguing for the inherent superiority of our position.

However, our position is our position as it applies to us, and as I said, the likelihood of it changing anytime in the foreseeable future is nil. In our country, we have deemed more restrictive arrangements to be inappropriate for us. I'm very comfortable with this level of expressive freedom, despite the fact that we have to put up with the opinions of nutjobs blaring from megaphones.

 

[bluedana]

The fact that Nazis can have a parade in Skokie, Illinois, is what makes it possible for LGBT activists to hold a rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

With respect that is crap. The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights. Unfortunately the orangemen over here are able to walk a fine line and have marches in their hundreds every year, but the public officials are at least not stupid enough to let them march through Catholic areas of Glasgow.

With respect, perhaps you should educate yourself about the over two hundred years of First Amendment jurisprudence before you dismiss it.

I don't see anything wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not and then using legislation to enforce it

Which works very well, as long as "society" is on your side. As in, stifling the minority opinion using the weight of the state.

and I think we all know very well that even the country with the worldwide patent on FREEDOM(tm) isn't the land of do-as-you-please.

Again, educate yourself. Of course the law regulates speech with respect to time, place, and manner. But the First Amendment protects content.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

It's a government policy forcing people to behave and/or dress a certain way. I'll tell you exactly what you should think about it.

Well, good to know you behave exactly in the same way the entity you are criticizing in the very same post.

 

[Sean Aaron]

With respect, perhaps you should educate yourself about the over two hundred years of First Amendment jurisprudence before you dismiss it.

I was born and bred in the United States and I'm well aware of the Constitution and the First Amendment; doesn't change the fact that I don't believe in a near-unconditional right to freedom of speech or expression.

 

[lurok]

With great freedom of expression comes great responsibility

The one thing that's always confused me about the freedom of expression argument is that it seems there are all kinds of laws that proscribe what people can say or do. Obscenity, racism, public nudity, etc. Not sure about US, but certainly exist in many European countries. So how is this different ? Personally I believe it's a privilege, part of the contract with society, and not an inalienable right to do as one pleases (in public anyway; behind closed doors is another matter ).

 

[infinix]

Again, educate yourself. Of course the law regulates speech with respect to time, place, and manner. But the First Amendment protects content.

I'm fairly certain that there are some very specific regulation on content as well. If you voice desire to assassinate the president, if you provide specific instructions on robbing a bank, if you give out detailed plans on building a bomb, etc... the chances are you will be flagged by the FBI and someone will be watching you very closely if not knocking down your door. Legally.

First Amendment protection stops at violating the interests of the State, and the interests of the State has been expanding little by little over the years as people find ways to exploit the First Amendment.

 

[bigdaddy]

No one in France is forced to wear one, mostly no one. The laws in Feance are so insane, this is why no one likes France. I wonder how France isn't attacked more, they are the most hateful, or just plain stupid, country.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Oh, I can see a problem if the state's view doesn't conform pretty closely to mine. I wouldn't have been at all happy to live under the Third Reich's view of what is permissible.

True, thankfully I don't have that problem here.

 

[JiNX-01]

It's simply absurd. In a first world democracy no one is being forced to dress any one particular way. Except for this where the law forces them. I consider it intrusive and unfair.

I can't imagine that Muslim women living in France only recently began wearing burqas and/or niqabs. Which suggests to me that the French passed these laws out of religious bigotry in a bid to demean all Muslims in response to the extremism of a few.

And if Muslim women are being compelled through the use or threat of violence to wear a burqa, you punish the abuser. You don't punish the women. If they are wearing the burqa out of modesty and/or as an expression of their religious beliefs, they certainly should not be arrested or fined.

 

[Trekker4747]

Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

It's a government policy forcing people to behave and/or dress a certain way. I'll tell you exactly what you should think about it.

Well, good to know you behave exactly in the same way the entity you are criticizing in the very same post.

To be fair he said he didn't know what to think about it so I told him. But different than a person knowing or wanting to wear something -whatever the reason- being told it's illegal to wear it.

 

[Shaytan]

You don't know what to think ?
Easy, do what most of the French people do : don't care