Should veils be banned in schools and public places ?

I get all that and a lot of me agrees with it. Some of me doesn't. As an atheist, I have little time for people who whinge about infringement of their pathetic little religious nonsenses. I'll never forget the time I cooked sausages in the frying pan or a Jewish bloke I had to share a house with in Cambridge. I'd washed it up perfectly but when he found out it had touched a sausage, he went apeshit. Still in some respects, it was his frying pan. I wouldn't have been keen if he'd cooked a pan full of spiders in mine, whether he had washed it or not.

Veils, turbans, ridiculous Jewish orthodox clothes - it's pretty much all the same tripe. But should they all be banned? I don't think so. I think you should be able to do what you want so long as it isn't doing any harm to anyone else.

But equally, I think that Britain doesn't stick up enough for its indigenous culture. It does nothing to protect it. The supposed multiculturalism of London is really a load of people living in little ghettos or pockets of their own culture. I won't forget asking for crumpets in a shop in the Walworth Road. The owner had 7 sorts of pitta bread and had no idea what a crumpet was. "Pumpkin?" "No, crumpets." I don't know how long he'd been in the UK, but he certainly hadn't bothered to find out what the locals liked to eat for breakfast. He probably grew up in the place. So is that all magically multicultural, or is it just a bit galling?

Would I have a compendium book published (as in Slough) in umpteen languages so that immigrants could find out all the benefits they are entitled to without going to the hassle of learning any English? No. If they can't be bothered to learn the native language, they shouldn't expect anything.

 

I doubt it. I saw what it did to my parents' critical faculties....

But I don't tend to read the Guardian either. When I pick up a paper in the UK, it is generally the Indy. It was the Times before Murdoch ruined it. Now there isn't a lot of choice. Strip out the Murdoch papers, the Red Tops, the Tory rags for the less intelligently endowed (Mail, Express), the Guardian often written with a left agenda (although there is some good stuff and it has the best layout), and the rampantly Tory Telegraph, and what have you got left?

I'm a member of the common sense, live and let live, beware of corporatism, conservative with a small "c", sceptical, pro culture, atheist mindset.
There aren't any parties or papers for that.

 

keeping it simple but yes I think they should.
when in rome...

 

Why don't they just go to where their religion pervails

 

This is an interesting subject, with no simple answer. The first question I have is this: if a Muslim woman chooses to cover her face, would this proposed legislation prevent her from doing so? I do not follow the Liberal Democrat’s logic that banning something improves personal choice. Clearly it does not, it reduces it. Be that as it may... This issue brings to mind a certain gentleman that some of you may have heard of, Fred Hill. Fred objected to the newly introduced helmet law back in the 1970's and into the early 1980's. His objection was based on the idea that it should be a matter of personal choice, but also because Sikhs were exempt from it due to having to wear a turban for religious reasons. Fred argued that it should be one rule for all and that if Sikhs didn't have to wear one neither should he. His stance was in no way racially motivated; he had been in the army with several Sikhs whilst serving as a dispatch-rider. This whole argument was instrumental in the establishment of the Motorcycle Action Group, who have been fighting for motorcyclists' rights ever since; opposing restrictive legislation from the UK and the EU. Fred was arrested 31 times (he refused to pay the fines that he got for not wearing a helmet and was locked up for contempt of court). He died of a heart-attack whilst in police custody, aged 74, in 1984. It all comes down to personal choice being balanced against the rights and best interests of the general populace. I don't see there being a simple answer: if a woman chooses to cover her face, especially for strongly held religious reasons, should the law be able to prevent her from doing so? A strong argument could probably be made that no, it should not. If, however, other people feel threatened or it causes problems of communication (as, for example, Pete1950 illustrates, when giving evidence in court) then a similarly strong argument could be made to support it. I can see this issue creating a great amount of argument from both sides and stirring up a good deal of racial tension. I seriously question the political motivation of the person proposing the legislation. Personally I think it is a cheap attempt to capture votes from the lower levels of tabloid readers. Call me cynical...

 

I think what you are referring to is trespass. If you are on private property without permission, you may be a trespasser. Most trespassers who are asked to leave do so fairly soon, having no reason to stay. Or they may be ejected, e.g. by bouncers. Or the police may be called - if there is a real dispute, police do not generally want to adjudicate who is or is not entitled to be on a property, but more often the position is obvious. Police are concerned to avoid a breach of the peace, mainly.

If you have a right to something, such as a right set out in the ECHR, what that means is that if there is some law or regulation which conflicts, or violates, or is incompatible with that right, the law or regulation can be challenged in the courts.

 

The Veil and Burqa is a piece of clothing designed by madmen who's primary purpose is for subjugation of women.

It's time that any reasonable thinking person expresses their disgust and refuses to tolerate the wearing of them.

FFS.

 

So, if its for religious 'choice' and devout identity reasons, why not support female circumcision? Its the same isnt it?

 

The EHCR is an interesting one Pete. Several people challenged the use of speed cameras in the UK based on the EHCR ruling that no person can be convicted purely on self-incriminating evidence. Presumably this rule is to prevent the use of confessions gained by the use of deception or torture. UK law however, as it stands, requires the registered keeper of a vehicle photographed by a speed camera to provide the name of the person driving at the time. If the person driving is actually the registered keeper then it could be (and was) argued that the evidence produced in court is entirely self-incriminating. I'm not sure if the European Court did not agree or if the UK government chose to ignore the rule, but the whole argument seems to have disappeared... Apologies for going slightly "off-thread"...

 

I disagree with this. It postulates a world in which Christians live in Christian countries, Muslims live in Muslim countries, and never the twain shall meet. I would rather live in a world, or at least a country, where people of any religion or none can get along together, where different views are tolerated, and where no one religious group gets exempted from the same laws which apply to everybody else.

 

Good point. Maybe some men who insist on "their" women wearing burkas also have their girls butchered. Are there credible figures available that say how many women in the UK currently wear a burka and how many girls have been circumcised ?

 

The speed cameras self-incrimination case was about thresholds. The driver is indeed required to self-incriminate, but the penalty in such cases is so small it falls below the threshold level at which Article 6 is engaged. If the fine were say £1,000 then Art. 6 would engage, and the automatic procedure would not be permitted. [Article 6 is the one about requirements for a fair trial, independent judge, etc.]

 

It is a lot easier to see if a woman is wearing a face mask than to see if she has been genitally mutilated.

 

can I ask a question about this then, maybe a slight detour off thread. If say it was enough speeding a ban wold apply, which would therefore lead to loss of job etc etc, wood this be classed as sufficient penalty to trigger Art 6?

 

I agree with this but also feel that When In Rome as Phill said should always apply. There was a chap from Qatar on the radio over the weekend, he is one of the main people behind their successful World Cup bid. He clearly stated that while they are inviting the world to Qatar to watch the world cup Qatari rules must be observed so no public affection etc. Same thing in Dubai, please visit and spend your money but with strict local laws in place. Surely it is not too much to ask the same ? I appreciate that the discussion is not about tourists but relatively recently arrived immigrants & converts. The burka is currently not against the law but if it is made illegal along with balaclavas, clown masks or anything lese then the law is for us all.
Personally I am against the burka as I cant agree with the feminist cries to let women choose on this topic. I have spent a lot of time in various Islamic countries and there is no doubt that women are second class citizens.

 

You seem to be postulating a situation where you have had four successive automatic camera penalties, resulting in four small fines and an accumulation of points leading to disqualification; and you appealing all the way up to ECtHR in Strasbourg on the basis that the procedures obliging you to incriminate yourself (four times), whilst individually below the threshold to engage Art 6, all taken together have consequences above the threshold; and that the resulting driving ban violated your Art 6 rights, and should be reversed. Good luck with that one. It is arguable, in theory, but quite difficult to make a real case out of I would think.

 

I get really tired of people constantly banging on about their rights to do anything that suits them but always seem to forget that there is something needed to balance to those rights if society is to work. That something is conveniently forgotten, it’s called responsibility!


So, I have the right to free speech but I should also use that right responsibly and not use it to cause needless offence. I have the right to use my motorbike/car/cycle/legs on the roads but I have a responsibility to not put anyone else at undue risk. Muslims have the right to wear whatever they like on their heads but they have a responsibility to fit into society and not cause concern in people they interact with.


If I’m talking to someone I do expect to see all of their face (as they can see mine) so that the communication is complete i.e. I can see their facial expressions which form a large part of any face-to-face communications. Actually I take this a stage further and don’t really like talking to people who think they look cool when hiding behind dark glasses as this also puts up a one way barrier to the conversation.