Interesting

Whilst I agree with the principles of which the law was built around, Id also say that I think Muslims should be able to to wear clothing in accordance to their religious beliefs.
 
But the wearing of a full burkha isn't required under the rules of Islam.
The requirement is that women (females who have reached the age of puberty) wear items of clothing that cover the whole body, except for the face, hands, and feet, when they are in public or in the presence of least one adult man who is not her husband or close family member.
The wearing of a full face covering is a personal choice, not a religious necessity.
 
I'm surprised that the court upheld it, but then it looks like the wording of the French law being about noone being allowed to cover their face in public took out any religious element to it. I've no idea of the history, but wonder whether the law was primarily aimed at stopping the wearing of niqabs or whether that's just what brought it to the world's attention.
 
I agree with that Ruth, but could it be down to how each Muslim decides to interpret their Religious writings/rules. Where some see it as we would understand it, some others will always have a different interpretation.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
I agree with that Ruth, but could it be down to how each Muslim decides to interpret their Religious writings/rules. Where some see it as we would understand it, some others will always have a different interpretation.
Click to expand...

I agree. But a line has to be drawn. People cannot do whatever they wish and just invoke thier particular religion as justification IMO.
 
viv1969 said:
I agree. But a line has to be drawn. People cannot do whatever they wish and just invoke thier particular religion as justification IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but all Muslims (no matter what their interpretation), believe theirs is the correct interpretation, so who are we, as non Muslims, to tell them what is right.

Its a tricky one :D
 
I have to admit it makes me uncomfortable. Not so much because of the religious connotations (although I think there are worriers around that) but I do think you should have the simple freedom to choose what to wear. I'm sure the counter argument to that is going to be about you don't have the freedom to walk round naked.
 
So the law is not "expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". That makes it sound even more draconian.

So, for example, I couldn't pop over to Calais in the winter for my cheap fags and flick knives whilst wearing my favourite balaclava?
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Agreed, but all Muslims (no matter what their interpretation), believe theirs is the correct interpretation, so who are we, as non Muslims, to tell them what is right.

Its a tricky one :D
Click to expand...

Not that tricky Nick. Their own scriptures say it isn't necessary.
 
Spuff said:
So the law is not "expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". That makes it sound even more draconian.

So, for example, I couldn't pop over to Calais in the winter for my cheap fags and flick knives whilst wearing my favourite balaclava?
Click to expand...

You're going to be in trouble when you go skiing this winter. Those troublesome masks to keep your face warm
 
We should not have governments dictating what we are and are not allowed to wear. That's not what they are for.

If we accept something like that, what's next?


boyfalldown said:
I have to admit it makes me uncomfortable
Click to expand...
Hard luck. It's not illegal to make someone uncomfortable.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
Appreciated, so why do they wear them?

Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...
I fancy the Burqa is more a cultural requirement than a religious one.

Whilst I do not agree with the underlying reasons for using the Burqa, I do feel it should be a personal choice and not one that requires legislation to prohibit except in certain cirumstances ie the need to be identified
 
neil_g said:
religious thread is religious..

on topic, can we invoke a law about fat women wearing leggings?
Click to expand...


Lol made me chuckle.

Having spent some time in France since the law was in place (last was 2 weeks in Le Mans for the 24 hours and the test day) and you do see allot of women with there head covered but faces not, whom I assume are Muslim and obeying the law.

When I say allot I mean more than I see day to day in Sunny Staffordshire.

I think if that's the law of the country then that's what has to happen. Its no different then going to Saudi and a woman not being allowed out without a man with her etc. If we have to go to predominately Muslim country and obey there laws that have evolved from religious rules then any religion should have to obey the rules of the country they are in.

After all if I started worshiping Tonatiuh who demands human sacrifices (IIRC) and I demanded the right to commit ritual slaughter in my back garden (or in a public temple) I think people would have some objection.
I realize that's an extreme view of course and I mean that totally tongue in cheek.

As for what government saying how we can dress, why cant I have a hat on in my local supermarket or shopping centre, however due to special dispensation they can dress fully covered up?
Why cant I dress in my Ninja costume complete with face mask and take selfies outside starbucks without being asked to leave quietly by private security?

Personally if they want to dress that way I don't mind, as long as no one minds if I start doing cartwheels in a suspenders panties and a bra in the middle of the high street.
 
Last edited:
Right or wrong, this is an extremely important precedent that has been set by the ECHR.

I wonder which town / city / country in Europe will be next to implement such measures based on this ruling.
 
pocquet said:
When I say allot I mean...
Click to expand...

A lot?


pocquet said:
As for what government saying how we can dress, why cant I have a hat on in my local supermarket or shopping centre
Click to expand...

You can - there's no law stopping it, just the shop owner's rules (although I have never heard of that one)


pocquet said:
Why cant I dress in my Ninja costume complete with face mask and take selfies outside starbucks without being asked to leave quietly by private security?
Click to expand...

Again, no law stopping you and their security have no authority to stop you if you are outside.



Steve.
 
Last edited:
Hi Steve, Yep A Lot.. sorry :(

No your right there's no law but there's plenty of rules.

In allot of town centers and all supermarkets/shopping centers there are signs saying no hats etc. I was in Medowhall and had a hat on (it was hot outside and I burn very quickly) instead of carrying it around I kept it on.
Within 15mins I was asked to remove the hat and leave the building, while I was standing within a few Ft of a group of fully covered Muslims.

Anyways laws and rules are different racial and religious diversity is a good thing as long as people use common sense and have respect to the people around them.

I will admit though, one of the funniest thing I have ever seen was a trip to Alton Towers with my GF hot as hell I had factor 50 on and I burnt in the end. We saw 5 or 6 Muslim women in full dress taking pictures of each other. I couldn't help think whats the point, do they have to remember they were 4th from the right?
 
ACW said:
Right or wrong, this is an extremely important precedent that has been set by the ECHR.

I wonder which town / city / country in Europe will be next to implement such measures based on this ruling.
Click to expand...


Errr many eu countries already have similar laws. & although not in the eu a ban on headscarves in public buildings has been part of the Turkish constitution from the beginning
 
boyfalldown said:
Errr many eu countries already have similar laws. & although not in the eu a ban on headscarves in public buildings has been part of the Turkish constitution from the beginning
Click to expand...

I know, my point / question was: I wonder who the next country to act on this will be.
 
boyfalldown said:
I don't see your point? Surely those countries are already acting?
Click to expand...

Yes, but without the assurance that such laws would withstand scrutiny by the ECHR. This is the first big 'ban in public spaces' test case.

Whilst Leyla Şahin v. Turkey was similar as the courts upheld the ban, it referred to the wearing of head-scarves in educational institutions only.

This case is different, and this case is important.

Many countries will err on the side of caution when implementing new laws, so not to face the 'wrath' *cough* of the ECHR; it wouldn't surprise me if such countries were waiting for confirmation of the courts stance on the matter before implementing such laws themselves.
 
To honest I don't really care what anybody want to wear its up to them,would I like the same law here ? we'll I much rather our police tackle foul mouth young ladies if you can call them that,that seem to walk the street drunk or on drugs with their bloody dogs that they never seem to have on a lead,shouting and swearing dragging their poor kids behind them.

:(
 
I'm very happy about this. Don't like this hiding ones face in public at all, it doesn't aid communication. Much more workable to just have a blanket ban opposed to not do it here, but can do it there.

If they want to hide their face they can do it in the privacy of their own home.

It is a shame that a ban was necessary however refusal to apply common sense, like in shots and other service industries, they've brought this on themselves

Just my 2p
 
simonblue said:
To honest I don't really care what anybody want to wear its up to them,would I like the same law here ? we'll I much rather our police tackle foul mouth young ladies if you can call them that,that seem to walk the street drunk or on drugs with their bloody dogs that they never seem to have on a lead,shouting and swearing dragging their poor kids behind them.

:(
Click to expand...

And leave the foul mouthed agressive young men to "get on with it" unhindered? :LOL:
 
dejongj said:
If they want to hide their face they can do it in the privacy of their own home.
Click to expand...

I would much rather have the right to hide my face if I wanted to - although I'm not going to.

Micro managing the population down to this level of detail is not what government is for.

If someone wants to hide their face and you don't like it - hard luck.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I would much rather have the right to hide my face if I wanted to - although I'm not going to.

Micro managing the population down to this level of detail is not what government is for.

If someone wants to hide their face and you don't like it - hard luck.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I was always in that camp. Unfortunately the real world isn't that straight forward. I want to know who I'm dealing with, and I also want to have the right to serve who I want, and if they don't want to identify themselves than I'm ok with that if I don't have to serve them. As I say, if those who do that didn't play silly buggers there wouldn't have been a need for a ban.
 
Steve Smith said:
If someone wants to hide their face and you don't like it - hard luck.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Unless you live in france.....and Australia, I believe.
So far :)
 
dejongj said:
I want to know who I'm dealing with, and I also want to have the right to serve who I want, and if they don't want to identify themselves than I'm ok with that if I don't have to serve them.
Click to expand...

That's your choice and you can do that without any law being passed.

Equally, it's someone else's right not to be identifiable in public. I'm sure there won't be a ban on wigs, glasses and fake moustaches.


Steve.
 
I am all for wearing what u like but there is a security risk too. Why should a motorcyclist have to remove helmet before going into a bank but hijab is fine? Common sense says u allow both or none.
 
cambsno said:
I am all for wearing what u like but there is a security risk too. Why should a motorcyclist have to remove helmet before going into a bank but hijab is fine? Common sense says u allow both or none.
Click to expand...

Again, that is decided by the owner of the business and does not need a law to enforce it.


Steve.
 
I suspect it has a lot to do with France's determined secularism, a legacy of 1789, as well as its constitutionally enforced separation of state and religion.
 
dejongj said:
I was always in that camp. Unfortunately the real world isn't that straight forward. I want to know who I'm dealing with, and I also want to have the right to serve who I want, and if they don't want to identify themselves than I'm ok with that if I don't have to serve them. As I say, if those who do that didn't play silly buggers there wouldn't have been a need for a ban.
Click to expand...

Well, you would be OK in France, but I lbet if you refused to serve someone on the grounds that they were wearing a niqab you would have have a letter from a "human rights" solicitor on your mat in short order. Remember the fuss about Jack Straw. Personally I'm with the French on this.
 
simon ess said:
I suspect it has a lot to do with France's determined secularism, a legacy of 1789, as well as its constitutionally enforced separation of state and religion.
Click to expand...

As it should be in my opinion.
Nor does religion have any place in schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top