http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13050445

Quote :

"France issues first fine for woman in Islamic veil A woman in a veil outside a French police station Women can be taken to a police station if they refuse to remove their veils. French police say they have issued their first penalty to a woman for covering her face with an Islamic veil. The woman was stopped in a shopping centre in Paris on Monday evening - the same day that a law banning face coverings in public came into force. Police said they gave the 27-year-old woman a ticket that requires her to pay a 150-euro (£133) fine or register for citizenship classes within a month. France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban the Muslim face veil. Under the law, any woman - French or foreign - walking on the street or in a park in France and wearing a face-concealing veil such as the niqab or burka can be stopped by police and given a fine. People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years. Continue reading the main story Exceptions to ban on public face covering * 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 Source: Radio France International Two veiled women were briefly detained earlier on Monday - though police said it was not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest and refusing to move on, and they were later released. Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street - if necessary they should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification. The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality. The ban on face coverings - which does not explicitly mention Islamic veils, but exempts various other forms - has angered some Muslims and libertarians."

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : -]

9/16/2011 10:30:28 AM

Shall we complain about the speeding tickets we get?

It's against the law to speed.

We get pulled over for speeding.

9/16/2011 10:31:39 AM

What?

This is totally screwed up. Imagine the government fining you for wearing a cross or yamaka.

9/16/2011 10:47:42 AM

If the cross or yarmulke covered your face and prevent anyone from identifying you, I'd see the argument. I ain't saying I agree with the law, but a cross or a little hat isn't the same as a face veil.

9/16/2011 11:01:45 AM

I don't agree with the law.

But it is the law, and I agree with following the law.

(BTW...that's why the Western World has elections.)

9/16/2011 11:35:42 AM

Doesn't seem like an entirely new thing, but ok.

I think the concept of publicly banning religious garb is demeaning and anti-religious freedom, even though I am of the opinion that Islamic laws and customs are even more demeaning and anti-Western and anti-liberal in many ways than the strictest Orthodox Jewish practices, which are pretty silly themselves.

The question is, if a system is meant to subvert the entire Western concept of liberty, should we leave it be in the tradition of tolerance, or make exceptions? It's a slippery slope.

9/16/2011 12:13:22 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with the law. But it is the law, and I agree with following the law."

I really, really hope that you're joking with this. Obligatory Godwin's law: In Nazi Germany, the law said that you had to report Jews so that the government could move them to a concentration camp. Do you agree with people's decision to turn in Jews, and do you disagree with the people that intentionally hid Jews?

Legality and morality are two different realms. In many cases, the law is immoral, and you should oppose the law and the enforcement of them in those instances.

These laws are wrong. While Islam (and most other major religions) have been a major hindrance to human progress, laws prohibiting certain articles of clothing violate basic liberty.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2011 12:31:11 PM

Quote :

"If the cross or yarmulke covered your face and prevent anyone from identifying you, I'd see the argument. I ain't saying I agree with the law, but a cross or a little hat isn't the same as a face veil."

What right should anyone have to identify you anyway? Sure it might make identifying the person who commits a crime harder if face coverings are legal (I can't believe there's even a discussion about that concept by the way) but it's the same argument that applies to most bans on items that criminals use: The criminals are already breaking the law, so banning their tool isn't going to stop them.

9/16/2011 12:32:22 PM

This is a poorly implemented law.

Is it to subvert clandestine operations in open public?

Quote :

"Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street - if necessary they should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification."

Or to preserve government ordained social equality?

Quote :

"The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality."

Two separate problems, each of which has better solutions than this law.

9/16/2011 12:34:46 PM

Quote :

"What right should anyone have to identify you anyway?"

None. I agree wholeheartedly. I think we should be able to walk around wearing ski masks if we prefer. Fortunately in America you can. Well, you'll probably be harassed by the police when some busybody says they think you're going to rob them, but at least you won't get fined or jailed.

Quote :

" Sure it might make identifying the person who commits a crime harder if face coverings are legal (I can't believe there's even a discussion about that concept by the way) but it's the same argument that applies to most bans on items that criminals use: The criminals are already breaking the law, so banning their tool isn't going to stop them. "

You're essentially trying to argue that laws don't work. The existence of criminals doesn't prove that laws don't work. They modify most rational peoples' behaviors. There just happen to be sociopaths that don't give a shit. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

It's a stupid law, and maybe I don't fully understand the context of Muslim immigration and conflict in France, but I don't think the French are passing this law just to tell the Muslims to fuck off. They feel it is a legitimate security threat. I'm not particularly moved by whether anyone thinks the veil or cross or head cover is sacred or magical.

9/16/2011 12:41:52 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with the law. But it is the law, and I agree with following the law."

turrible point of view

9/16/2011 2:07:49 PM

Quote :

"Police said they gave the 27-year-old woman a ticket that requires her to pay a 150-euro (£133) fine or register for citizenship classes within a month."

So... it's a Muslim tax.

Quote :

"Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face"

If that passed over here they'd be able to raise a small fortune by ticketing women for wearing those huuuuuuuuuuuge 80s era Elton John sunglasses.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2011 2:22:03 PM

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I'm not allowed to hide my face in public because I MIGHT commit a crime? Fuck that horse shit.

9/16/2011 3:31:05 PM

We are talking about France here. Is the presumption of innocence the same there?

9/16/2011 3:35:03 PM

wow. as much as I don't care for islam (well, any religion really, but especially islam) this is horribly wrong.

9/16/2011 3:38:08 PM

Quote :

"You're essentially trying to argue that laws don't work. "

Not quite. I'm arguing that laws against objects (as opposed to actual crimes) don't work. The AWB had no effect on the usage of assault weapons in crime. Laws against drugs do not appear to have had any effect on slowing drug consumption in this country. Prohibition was a monumental failure. Similarly, despite plenty of laws to the contrary in southern states, sex toys, cohabitation, homosexual relationships and anal sex prove as popular as ever. It's also the reason that no matter how many constitutional amendments the republicans try to push, "Teh Gays" are going to keep coming and they will win in the long run, because being gay, and living as you want to live with another consenting adult, is not and should not be a crime.

The reason for this is simple, laws against actual crime (murder, rape, theft etc) are easily seen as violations of every social contract. They need a minimal police force and presence to enforce because most people can see and understand how those actions violate the rights of another innocent person and are happy to oblige the law. By comparison laws against objects and non-crimes are not easily seen as violations of any social contract and most people if they thought about them for a few minutes would reasonably begin to question their need. These laws require heavy handed government action and a lot of fear tactics to enforce, hence why you have no knock SWAT raids for pot growers, the ALE and boondoggles like operation GunWalker.

These sorts of laws also tend to generate massive underground black markets and organizations, in large part because the people who want them aren't sociopaths (as are those who want murder and rape), they're just regular every day people who want to enjoy something that shouldn't be a crime but is. They create a demand, and that demand will be filled, regardless of the laws.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM. Reason : dfjh]

9/16/2011 5:23:57 PM

I'm for their law, the man is going to have a hard time watching out for us sheep if anyone can walk around hiding their face. I'm sorry but plenty of muslims get by just fine hiding the hair and neck so if the frogs want faces by george let them have faces.

9/16/2011 9:54:28 PM