I like to think of myself as a libertarian but unfortunately some groups see that as a weakness to be exploited and wouldn't give me the liberties that I would give them. But then as Benjamin Franklin said 'those that are prepared to sacrifice freedoms for security will end up with neither'. I am genuinely perplexed on this one.
OK. But should I be given the same privilege ? However given that the first answer was No then the answer to my follow up question should also be No ?
No, I think the judge was wrong, and very obviously wrong, in that instance. When a witness is giving evidence it is extremely important that the court (judge, jury, magistrate or whatever) be able to observe the demeanour of the witness. For a witness to conceal their face is outrageous, in my view, and damages justice. It makes no difference what the alleged reason for the face mask is, since anyone can allege any reason. And yes, presumably you can demand the same privilege, should you wish to, for any reason you choose to make up.
I'm not. I do not see any conflict at all. No-one in the UK has ever had any right to insist on wearing a face mask in court, or in school, or in a bank or a shop or an airport. There is no such right in English law, nor in the ECHR. This whole farrago of nonsense is an attempt by a few religious extremists to invent a wholly new "right" and have it override long-established real rights of other citizens. Their motives are not at all obscure.
If you walk into a bank wearing a facemask and find yourself very rapidly detained, try arguing that you have a 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a facemask. You may have a right to own a gun with a licence, but that does not give you a 'right' to walk into a bank carrying the gun. Banks and bank employees have a genuine right to be protected from threats and robberies, and anyone who walks into a bank wearing a facemask and/or carrying a gun is violating that right. Aren't they?
Of course not. Whether you do or do not have a right to do something is not the same question as whether there is or is not a law against you doing it. When you walk down the street, that is not against the law. But you might be breaking any number of laws at the same time.
Remind me, is a commerce (like a shop) bound to serve you if open for business, or can it refuse you on (a) reasonable grounds (b) any grounds it chooses to invent? I except racial discrimination here, as that would surely be covered by its specific law. As a shop is private premises, can it impose its own rules (you must take of helmet to be served at a service station, you can't wear a mask in a bank) or not?
If you open a shop, hotel, or other business open to the public, you as the shopkeeper can certainly refuse to serve (or admit) a potential customer on the reasonable grounds that they are threatening, disruptive, filthy, likely to steal, etc. Or you can close down and refuse to serve anybody. What you cannot do is refuse to serve specific defined categories of people on unreasonable grounds (Notice in window: NO DOGS, NO IRISH, NO BLACKS, NO GAYS). It would be wrong (i.e. challengeable in law) to have a policy of NO MUSLIMS. I can see no legal reason why you could not say NO FACEMASKS. Smart pubs often say NO WORKING CLOTHES. If you set up a private exclusive members-only club, you can define the membership however you like - club only for one-legged ex-policemen who were born in Yorkshire, anyone?
So is it discriminatory to refuse to serve "bikers" in a pub? i.e., anyone who came there by motorbike? I was once refused a drink on these ground in a pub on the Wirral. I asked him if he would serve me if I went home and came back in my car. Yes, he said. Needless to say, I didn't feel like going back in any conveyance, or even on foot. Can you just have a blanket refusal policy for motorcyclists?
In private I have absolutely no problem with them wearing what they want, good luck to them. what I do have a problem with is people/religious sections expecting everybody else to dance to their tune and conform so that they don't feel like they're operating outside of the 'guidelines' set out in that religion. in other words I'm sick of people saying this offends or that offends, I'm entitled to this and that, my beliefs are this and so you must provide etc etc its all just going too far. Point number 2 you make Glid, the part about UK's brilliance is its tolerance? I'm afraid for once I have to disagree with you on that one mate for me that's exactly whats draining our country of its strength and its backbone. im sick of how bloody PC our country has become. I just think its time to make a stand and simply say NO. The rules are the rules, everybody else has to live by them and if you don't like them you're welcome to leave.
This is an interesting statement. If effect what it means is saying 'there is no law against it' doesn't give you the right to do it, or does it ? If a shopkeeper asks you to leave for being scruffy and you refuse what can he do about it ? If he manhandles you then that is an assault on you (?). What mechanism exists for him to exercise his right. What is the legal definition of a 'right' ?
