Face coverings – were the French actually right?

In the Welsh riots thread, dyna-ti said

“Thats not how the police do it. These days its all vid and photographing, which they spend the next few months going through identifying who is who and who did what. Then the main offenders get a 5am wake up call by their door going in.”

And yet some of those in the background of the hilarious video of the guy getting it in the crotch have their face completely covered. Which would seemingly defeat this tactic.

Your standard city centre feral teenager uniform now includes a full face mask as well as a hoody and hat in summer heat. They arent doing it because they are ugly.

A few years ago there was outrage that the French were banning such things but it got dressed up as (ironically) anti Islamic, the “burkha ban”.

Also I am aware of the amusement that in 2020 lockdowns, it was simultaneously mandatory and illegal to cover your face in public in France.

Go and sit on the naughty step.

They arent doing it because they are ugly

Have you seen some of them?  ;o)

Go and sit on the naughty step

What I mean is, is there perhaps a way we* could somehow word a law to prevent thugs going round in masks acting with apparent impunity, whilst simultaneously allowing religious freedom to devout Mulsim women?

*you know, if we had a prime minister with legal experience or something…

Oh Lord.

Rioters have always covered their faces, not sure legislation will help in practice.

What I mean is, is there perhaps a way we* could somehow word a law to prevent thugs going round in masks acting with apparent impunity, whilst simultaneously allowing religious freedom to devout Mulsim women?

Sure:

It shall be forbidden, under penalty of law, to appear in public with one’s face obscured, except in cases where one’s religion forbids it, there is a medical reason, it is a very cold day, or for people with very bushy facial hair.

We allow turban wearers to ride motorbikes without helmets i believe? so i guess there is flexibility in the law to allow religious exceptions.. that being said, i would imagine most wearers would opt to don a helmet instead. That being said, I don’t think i have ever seen anyone ride a motorbike without helmet and just as turban

But yes, it shouldn’t be a thing for people to go out in balaclavas, etc, I’d be giving my lad a clip around the ear if i caught him like that

So you want a law to allow police to identify law breakers, non-compliance of which will be breaking the law.

Maybe think that through a bit, yeah?

What I mean is, is there perhaps a way we* could somehow word a law to prevent thugs going round in masks acting with apparent impunity, whilst simultaneously allowing religious freedom to devout Mulsim women?

I can see the Morganesque narrative now.  “They might be white skinhead blokes, but they could identify as Muslim women.”

Personally, having given this almost no thought whatsoever, religious privilege can get in the sea.  If it’s acceptable for Muslim women to choose to wear a niqab – and it almost certainly should be – then it should equally be acceptable for anyone else to wear one.

I’m not allowed to enter, for instance a bank, wearing a full-face helmet but I am if I’m wearing a burkha. Why does what it is make whether you can see my face or not more or less of a problem?

I thought he burka ban was a open display of religious symbolism ban?

No burkha, no cross, no kippah etc.

Happy to be corrected.

I’m not allowed to enter, for instance a bank, wearing a full-face helmet but I am if I’m wearing a burkha. Why does what it is make whether you can see my face or not more or less of a problem?

I don’t know if it’s still there, but my local Tesco used to have a sign next to the entrance saying that crash helmets must be removed.  It pissed me off every time I walked past it.

I thought he burka ban was a open display of religious symbolism ban?

I thought the burka ban was a open display of racism. [shrug emoji]

I’m not allowed to enter, for instance a bank, wearing a full-face helmet but I am if I’m wearing a burkha

I suspect a full-face helmet is more likely to be used in violent robbery of banks, tesco, etc than a burkha so asking one to remove it before entry stops alarm being unnecessary caused.

That being said, I don’t think i have ever seen anyone ride a motorbike without helmet and just as turban

We were chatting about this at work yesterday (slagging off the Motorcycle Action Group and their love of helmet- less riding) and then lo and behold i saw a guy on a scooter wearing a turban yesterday evening – first time in years.

Rioters have always covered their faces

Indeed nd they can be arrested for rioting, choosing to do it later is. tactical decision not down to a lack of appropriate legislation.

Perhaps the Helmets thing is so that the security guard can bash you over the head if you start acting like a bad’un?

I say ban all organised religion first and then we can deal with face coverings later

I say ban all organised religion first and then we can deal with face coverings later

But disorganized religion is ok?

Southport isn’t in Wales btw.

Ermmmmm…….I can only speak for me….but the burkha: france situation was not primarily about a wish to control the population by ensuring their faces were visible and therefore detectable by video detection etc.

it’s not necessarily an open display of racism either…..nor an open display of religious symbolism ban.

“So you want a law to allow police to identify law breakers, non-compliance of which will be breaking the law.

Maybe think that through a bit, yeah?”

Or maybe not allowing face coverings, especially masks might make it easier for the cops to arrest or caution those not actually in the act of lobbing a petrol bomb at the emergency services. These kind of laws tend to be about giving the police the wherewithal to stop, question, caution and potentially remove from the situation those who are likely to be involved or have been already involved.

If you are wearing a face mask (as distinctly opposed to a religious garment) adjacent to a riot or outside a bank/convenience store then there is a pretty high chance you are up to no good. Having a written down statute that allows a cop to nab you with no grey area even if you are innocent and guilty of nothing worse than wearing a face mask means more lawbreakers caught no?  They can always let them off with a caution if its just about the latest tiktok craze

Maybe think that through a bit, yeah?

Agree, in addition we need polite signage.

A few years ago there was outrage that the French were banning such things but it got dressed up as (ironically) anti Islamic, the “burkha ban”.

TBH I think there was a pretty explicitly Anti-Islamic element to it however dismissive you might want to be about it. Islamic face coverings and the associated suspicions people have were voiced as part of the French debate. The same sort of rhetoric has been repeated in the UK notably by Right leaning politicians (including former PMs).

I kind of look at it the other way; every law abiding citizen has rights to privacy and/or freedom of expression, etc. which I think could reasonably be argued to include having the right to cover your face in order to protect your identity or as part of your religious beliefs.

Of course if you cover your face whilst committing an offence, obviously that is specifically to prevent identification, but I mean in that scenario an individual is already openly breaking a law, what’s some extra minor law breaking with a mask when you’re already looting a telly or city centre Machete waving? it’s hardly like criminals have only just realised they can cover their faces when robbing or murdering people is it?

Do you really believe that making face coverings an offence on their own, acts as a deterrent to the sort of scrotes that currently do it as a matter of course while wazzing about on a Surron, nicking phones, couriering drugs and generally being little shits?

Making covering your face a specific offence effectively pre-supposes an individual is planning to commit a crime. So yes you do end up pre-emptively labelling Muslim women and/or legitimate protestors who (perhaps quite reasonably) don’t trust the police or state or anyone else with a covered face but no actual criminal intent, as criminals despite them not actually doing anything criminal.

So who are such restrictions really for?

I think they’re more of a political gesture to appease to the “Hang ’em & Flogg ’em” types, than any meaningful measure to improve lam enforcement or detection. a bit of DM Froth to get Divorced Dads and angry Uncles more worked up…

I’m not allowed to enter, for instance a bank, wearing a full-face helmet but I am if I’m wearing a burkha. Why does what it is make whether you can see my face or not more or less of a problem?

A bank is a business, they can have whatever rules they like on their premises, in public places I don’t see why you should be compelled to show your face at all times, just to cover the edge cases…

Ermmmmm…….I can only speak for me….but the burkha: france situation was not primarily about a wish to control the population by ensuring their faces were visible and therefore detectable by video detection etc.

it’s not necessarily an open display of racism either…..nor an open display of religious symbolism ban.

Lots of things it wasn’t, OK, cool.  What was it, then?

If you are wearing a face mask (as distinctly opposed to a religious garment) adjacent to a riot or outside a bank/convenience store then there is a pretty high chance you are up to no good. Having a written down statute that allows a cop to nab you with no grey area even if you are innocent and guilty of nothing worse than wearing a face mask means more lawbreakers caught no?

I thought this, and even started writing something very similar on this thread.  Having an explicit law allows the police to finger your collar without having to jump through hoops.

Then I thought, if you’ve got a bandana in one hand and a half brick in a sock in the other, the face covering isn’t the damning evidence here.  I wear a bandana (OK, a Buff) occasionally, it keeps my hair out of my eyes and isn’t as sweaty as a hat when it’s sunny.  Carrying petrol bombs, not so much.

“European judges declare that preservation of a certain idea of ‘living together’ was legitimate aim of French authorities.” – Guardian 1 July 2014. 

That said, I empathise with my local adopted department capital of Grenoble in its defiance of the ban in its public swimming pools!

If you are standing 20 yards back from the front line of a protest, you havent committed an offence. Standing around outside maccies with your 15 year old friends, not an offence. Riding your ebike around the town centre, not an offence.

All things I am happy for people to have the freedom to do. Cover your face to do so, though, and thats a pretty clear indicator that you are intending to imminently commit a crime (and that by covering their face they are more likely to get away with it). Similar to “going equipped” or “brandishing an improvised weapon”.

So freedom, but not freedom to do x. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It’s a fairly absolute thing freedom.

I thought the burka ban was a open display of racism. [shrug emoji]

Well clearly, and i should have made it clear.

Also i did some digging

I got my wires crossed, the overt signs of religion law is in schools.

All things I am happy for people to have the freedom to do. Cover your face to do so, though, and thats a pretty clear indicator that you are intending to imminently commit a crime (and that by covering their face they are more likely to get away with it). Similar to “going equipped” or “brandishing an improvised weapon”.

Clear indication?
What if it’s just a very cold day while you’re out on your E-bike? There’s a hundred perfectly innocent “What If?” scenarios, for all the “Clear Indication” of malicious intent. Defending barristers will have a whale of a time…

I suppose you can have these sort of laws, so long as you accept that we are getting into the territory of “Pre-Crime” and are therefore OK with prosecuting people for stuff they “might have done” rather than providing evidence for acts they “actually did“.

If we’re going down that road, how long before a conviction for “looking like a Wrongun“, “Being a bit scruffy” or “excessive side-eye” is a realistic prospect?

And where does the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” sit in all of this?

The whole thing hinges on Police officer’s interpretation of someone’s intent, rather that an observation of a clear crime being committed or supporting evidence produced? Of course Police would never get such things wrong surely…

The whole thing hinges on Police officer’s interpretation of someone’s intent, rather that an observation of a clear crime being committed or supporting evidence produced? Of course Police would never get such things wrong surely…

I keep coming back to knife laws.

One could argue that you’re carrying a pocketknife in order to eat an apple, or extract boy scouts from horses’ hooves or something.  But the presence of the law means that it doesn’t generally matter why, you can be arrested under “if x then y” regardless of any evidence of actual wrongdoing.

I’m not sure as I’m a fan of laws which penalise ‘normal’ people but are ignored by those for whom it should really apply to.  Like, a penknife is a useful tool to have and I’d rather carry a small locking knife than risk a blade snapping shut on my fingers.  My grandad carried one everywhere, it saw daily use and he hardly ever stabbed anyone.

But, and it’s a big but and I cannot lie, it empowers the police to do something about those you often see on TV described as “known to the police.”  Is that a good thing?  Probably, if we assume a degree of discretion and evaluation from the police.  Kids might “look a bit scruffy” but the police generally aren’t daft, they can tell the difference between a gang of lads with balaclavas and a bloke with a hat.  If I have a knife, I’m carrying a fishing rod and wearing waders, it’s far more likely that I’m going fishing than about to muck in to a riot.

Would I want to rely on that though?  That’s a tough question.

“But, and it’s a big but and I cannot lie”

Nice.

I can’t see the link between knives and face coverings. Knives can hurt or kill so it’s right there are some laws about them. A face covering cannot do those things.

France can hide behind lots of cultural baggage to ban religious stuff, thankfully we can’t. There are plenty of police powers enabling them to harass youth/minorities without needing a face covering law as well. I too find them disconcerting but I find a lot of things youthful people wear disconcerting and don’t feel the need to have laws about them.

France can hide behind lots of cultural baggage to ban religious stuff,

Perhaps the sad thing is that the UK that it has lost it’s culture (al baggage).

I keep coming back to knife laws.

Oh God, not bloody pocket knives again, the main difference is that there are at least some criteria set on what is “Legal to carry” even if the other bit “having a good reason” for non-compliant bladed implements is a bit too wooly for middleaged men that can’t peel an apple without a sword.

I’ll give you this, a face covering in certain situations might well be a reasonable basis for a stop and search; an officer could cite their suspicion that an individual was concealing their identity in order to commit a crime, frame that as reasonable grounds to stop and search someone, of course if they don’t find anything more like a knife or drugs or ID they may still have to let them go.

But the mere wearing of a face covering should not be an offence in it’s own right, that is just lazy law making from people that don’t think things through…

So freedom, but not freedom to do x. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It’s a fairly absolute thing freedom.

Few societies have true “freedom.” The ones that do, we’d consider savages.

I can’t see the link between knives and face coverings. Knives can hurt or kill so it’s right there are some laws about them. A face covering cannot do those things.

True (well, mostly), but you’ve missed the context. Plenty of things can hurt or kill, perfectly legal to walk around with a glass Coke bottle but a swift interface with a stone wall and there’s the potential to give someone a really bad day. Someone with a balaclava in their pocket in July, it can’t kill someone but it must surely raise questions.

Few societies have true “freedom.” The ones that do, we’d consider savages.

Yes, that’s sad isn’t it, that we both seem to  agree that there are few societies that have true freedom.

You may (or may not) well consider the ones that do as savages. I certainly don’t.

It seems to ME that ‘progress’ has robbed us of our freedom.

the main difference is that there are at least some criteria set on what is “Legal to carry”
…
a face covering in certain situations might well be a reasonable basis for a stop and search; an officer could cite their suspicion that an individual was concealing their identity in order to commit a crime

This is literally the parallel.  Do we legislate what is and isn’t legal to carry based on “what if”?

You’re a copper, you happen across four lads in the street, individually, heading in the vague direction of an altercation.  One has a Swiss Army Knife, one is swigging from a bottle of WKD, one has a balaclava, one has a can of petrol.  Which of those if any to you question further and potentially detain?

But the mere wearing of a face covering should not be an offence in it’s own right, that is just lazy law making from people that don’t think things through…

Thank goodness that’s never happened before.

there are few societies that have true freedom.

You may (or may not) well consider the ones that do as savages. I certainly don’t.

True freedom would allow you bludgeon your neighbour to death with a soup ladle because he looked at your wife in a suspicious manner.

I would posit that whether that’s a good thing or not may be at best a discussion point rather than an absolute.

mugsys_m8

France can hide behind lots of cultural baggage to ban religious stuff,

Perhaps the sad thing is that the UK that it has lost it’s culture (al baggage).

That sounds like the sort of shite rioters at southport would come out with.

I don’t have a wife. If I did you probably wouldn’t know her, so you wouldn’t be able to judge whether it was a good thing or not that I may have bludgeoned her to death with a soup ladle (you also assume I have access to a  soup ladel, and that my wife, that may or may not exist, would be able to be killed by a soup ladel by myself).

More importantly though that whilst you’re projecting your thoughts/ assumptions/ realities etc. onto me, who you know possibly ( I don’t know for sure….) very little about is the fact, more on topic,  is that there is an implication that with freedom, all moral codes would go out of the window. Do you think that would be the case? I don’t think it would.

Probably wise to leave the fact that there is possibly no such thing as free will (according to several suitably informed people) for another day.

In the spirit of honesty, I’m feeling playful today, so please accept my seemingly randomness as just that!