France to ban the burka?

[warpus]

Don't be ridiculous. People need to leave their homes, and keeping the women locked down isn't an option today.

That's what I was talking about earlier when I said that it would put a lot of women in a difficult situation.

They need to leave their homes from time to time - and if burkas are banned, they would not be able to.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why won't anyone address this? I think this is the crux of the matter that proves it has nothing to actually do with helping muslim women but is rather a thinly veiled assault on Muslims.

I agree. I think the police have the right to properly identify Muslim women by having them temporarily remove their burqas when the situation requires them to do so. But requiring people to change their basic religious beliefs because it may be a theoretical threat to the state, or even because it is perceived by some as emblematic of repressing women, is really nothing more than religious intolerance.

 

[bigdog5994]

i dont know and dont care if this has already been said but banning it is just as bad as requiring it

 

[Racsoviale]

to all non europeans: I would like to say that not every european is a rightwing xenophobic muslim hating douchebag.

sorry about being OT but i find it unfair that people like winner keeps portraying how the general consensus in europe is. emigration is a hot topic in europe yes, but just because the rightwingers shouts the loudest does'nt mean the rest of us agree. we are quite a lot who disagree with winners islamophobia and patroklos' islambashing.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am in favour of a Burka ban.

I only hope the President of France has the courage to go through with it.

 

[GinandTonic]

I am in favour of a Burka ban.

I only hope the President of France has the courage to go through with it.

You seem to be missing the point.

This cannot be enacted as a law without France abandoning the ECHR and therefore leaving the EU. This is not going to happen. Sarko knows this. This therefore is not an attempt by Sarko to pass the law or protect women.

Which leads us to the sad conclusion this is an attempt to forment hate and discord to bolster his political position. Which makes him lower than the Neo-Nazi's who at least believe, however misguidedly, that their actions could actually change their nations for the better. Sarko must be aware that his actions have no potential to change France for the better and a near certainty of both making things worse and playing well to the galleries.

 

[EnglishEdward]

You seem to be missing the point.

This cannot be enacted as a law without France abandoning the ECHR

Please find me the clause in the ECHR that provides a universal
right to anyone to travel anonymously in public and in disguise?

I don't think that there is any such right there. And I don't
think that the privacy provisions can be stretched that far.

 

[GinandTonic]

Please find me the clause in the ECHR that provides a universal
right to anyone to travel anonymously in public and in disguise?

I don't think that there is any such right there. And I don't
think that the privacy provisions can be stretched that far.

Bout page fiveish of the thread IIRC.

 

[Steph]

I think this is the crux of the matter that proves it has nothing to actually do with helping muslim women but is rather a thinly veiled assault on Muslims.

Well, we can only do thinly veiled, as heavy veiled would be forbidden by the new law.

 

[Steph]

Bout page fiveish of the thread IIRC.

You didn't interpret it correctly.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Bout page fiveish of the thread IIRC.

You referred to three articles on page 4

This is the most recent screen dump in English that I can find.


"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "


"Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


"Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."


I cannot see anything here that establishes
a general right to travel about in disguise.

Do you know of any relevant case law?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Let me explain my position.

I have some difficulty in seeing how the European Court could override a properly drafted member state law limiting or reasonably prohibiting the wearing of obfuscating clothing amounting to an effective disguise in public, in the context of supposedly protecting* Islamic women's right to wear the Burka without also overriding any laws on banning disguises for 300 million EU citizens.

Now disguises are very useful for criminals, e.g. bank robbers, muggers, policemen who murder bystanders etc, and so a general ban on disguises is justifiable for the protection of public order.


* I do not believe that the Burka protects Islamic women's rights.

 

[GinandTonic]

Under Article 9

Everyone has the right to freedom ... religion; this right includes freedom ... to manifest his religion...

If wearing the burka is a manifastion of religious belief is is bullitproof under article 17 unless -

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

So unless the ECHR rules - not the French court - that banning the burka is "necessary... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" such a prohibition would be incompatable with being a signatory and thus membership of the EU.

Article 10.

The freedom to dress as you choose is freedom of expression. To limit the it the ECHR must agree that the limitation is

necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Where the only possible defence of the proposed law would be "protection of the reputation or rights of others". Given the track record of the ECHR vis recent cases against far, far, far less authoritarian acts by the UK it would be almost inconceviable they would not find this disproportunate.

As to article 14 this is naked discrimination on the grounds of religion. Will christian widows and brides be legally prohibited from wearing their vales? Unless fairytale wedding dresses are also banned this law would be in breach of the convention. Unless the police are going to grab aging widows from the graveside this law would be in breach of the convention.

Edit -

Not that I'm saying these would all be supported by the court. My point is just that at a brief glance this proposal is clearly incompatable with the ECHR and someone would be able to find a defence against it fairly easily.

 

[Steph]

A Burqa doesn't allow identification of the wearer as it hides the face. Try to pass security check in an airport with that.

What about a woman going to school to get a child. How can the teachers identify the woman and be sure it is the mother and not someone not allowed to take the child?

Therefore, the burqa can be seen as detrimental to public safety.

The burqa can also be against moral (women right).

There's plenty of grounds for lawyers here.

Beside, the ban of the veil in school is effective, and France is still a member of EU.

 

[EnglishEdward]

As to article 14 this is naked discrimination on the grounds of religion.

Not at all. I support the right of Sikks to wear turbans and Christians to wear
discrete crosses. If Islamic women want to cover their hair and legs that is OK.
It is islamic men falsely claiming religion for Burkas/Chidas to establish feudalism.

Will christian widows and brides be legally prohibited from wearing their vales? Unless fairytale wedding dresses are also banned this law would be in breach of the convention.

In general and certainly in terms of the wearing full opaque veils about town all year
long, then if a member state introduces such a law, then yes that should be banned.

There are occasions when clothing that obfuscates the face and prevents recognition
can be justified. For instance motorcyclists wear helmets; in extreme weathers,
welders wear face masks; if suffering from damage or certain skin conditions where
there is no toleration to sunlight, and perhaps on special occasions when stepping
across the pavement from a wedding car to the church for a funeral or a wedding.

Many countries have invested a substantive amount of money in installing CCTV to
reduce crime in public places. So a general right to such disguise undermines law.

And my point about there being no obvious general right to wear disguises remains.

 

[Formaldehyde]

A Burqa doesn't allow identification of the wearer as it hides the face. Try to pass security check in an airport with that.

Don't they now require that the woman remove it in the presence of female officers so she can be properly identified?

What about a woman going to school to get a child. How can the teachers identify the woman and be sure it is the mother and not someone not allowed to take the child?

This happens a lot? If it is indeed a real problem and the school authorities think she may be an impostor, I would think the same policy should hold true. I seriously doubt the woman would object since it affects the security of her own children.

There is no obligation among Muslim females to be covered in the presence of other females. They typically remove their burqas under such conditions. It is only among males where it is discouraged or forbidden to be without one.

 

[Yeekim]

Ban them.
I would go as far as saying that anyone who thinks his wives and daughters should wear potato sacks should best be repatriated into Saudi Arabia, but I realize that decades of irresponsible immigration policy may have rendered this implausible.

 

[GinandTonic]

Last thing first -

Beside, the ban of the veil in school is effective, and France is still a member of EU.

Institutions having a dress code is completely irrelivant to the state inforcing a law about what dress a private citizen can wear anywhere. This does not represent any kind of precident. If institutional dress-code could be extended to private citizens then the french state would be within it's authority to mandate that men wear speedo's at all times. I mean that's the rule in state run swimming pools so...

A Burqa doesn't allow identification of the wearer as it hides the face.

Sure, so long as balaclavas, wedding dresses, mourning dresses, shaded motorcycle helmets, halloween masks, father christmass outfits and fancy dress was banned there would be no incompatability with the convention.

What about a woman going to school to get a child. How can the teachers identify the woman and be sure it is the mother and not someone not allowed to take the child?

The state would be completely within their rights to direct their employees to refuse to surrender their wards without verification of identity. Completely different from making the wearing of a piece of clothing a crime, but sure seems like a good move.

The burqa can also be against moral (women right).

Now this is the crux of it.

Under article IIRC 17 the defending of the rights granted does not allow the limitation of the rights granted under another article. Each article defines that rights may be limited in it's defence. So for the law to be compatable it does not have to proove itself in one article, but has to prove itself compatable with every article.

So it is necessary for the court to deem that that laws limitation of the manifistation of religion is necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and that it's limitation on the freedom of expression is necessary for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and that this law in no way was discriminatory against muslims.

 

[innonimatu]

So unless the ECHR rules - not the French court - that banning the burka is "necessary... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" such a prohibition would be incompatable with being a signatory and thus membership of the EU.

So what? The ECHR cannot do anything about it, except complain and refer it to the judiciary of the country in question. If France (both its government and its judiciary) chose to ignore a ruling by the ECHR you can rest assured that it would not be kicked out of the EU. The ECHR would simply be "reformed" (for appearance's sake).

It wouldn't even get to that stage.

 

[GinandTonic]

So what? The ECHR cannot do anything about it, except complain and refer it to the judiciary of the country in question. If France (both its government and its judiciary) chose to ignore a ruling by the ECHR you can rest assured that it would not be kicked out of the EU. The ECHR would simply be "reformed" (for appearance's sake).

It wouldn't even get to that stage.

Well the ECHR's reform would have to be signed off by every signatory which would be a big project. In the mean time every muslim woman in Europe (every person in europe if a defence was found under freedom of expression) would be entitled to financial conpensation from the French state.

Just looks to me that this is more about grandstanding to the neo-nazi's than any real attempt to pass the law.