Face coverings – were the French actually right?

[kilo]

kilo

Full Member

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.

Good point. A different perspective to the one I had when I wrote what I did, and from my reading, it could imply a moral and political stance to one at 180 degrees from my own. If I understand correctly, similar situations can lead to to misunderstandings in the term of populism and its supporters.

<and I only wrote the 2nd row of the quote above. The bit that starts :”Perhaps…”. The line above that starts: “France can” is the one that I was replying to.

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.

have you been on the absinthe today?

Herbal French sourced tea only 🙂

it’s having the same effect, check the label

If you ban face coverings how do you prosecute people for noncompliance if you can’t see their faces to identify them ?

or for people with very bushy facial hair.

If you can grow a beard then it could be argued that you’re hiding your real face by shaving it off.

faces are attached to heads….if we have no head as Douglas Harding suggested then face coverings are covering nothing…

Think I best had check the label on that tea….

….and turn your devices off. You’ve had enough misguided fun for one day

my local Tesco used to have a sign next to the entrance saying that crash helmets must be removed.

During covid, my bank had a sign up. “No entry allowed to anyone not wearing a face mask”

I found that hilarious.

I wouldn’t say it was misguided. In seriousness and to be clear about my stances, because I am worried I have given the wrong impression,  I am against any kind of prejudice or discrimination. I also believe in freedom and that people should be able to express themselves how they want: if that means wearing something then so be it. Where it may be forced on them by others/ their culture/ their religion etc. is tricky as how much of it is their choice.   What is also tricky is their country telling them they are not allowed to wear something: whether that be a balaclava when out in the local plaza, or their religious clothing on the beach. And the reasoning for controlling what they can or cannot wear is often mixed and we can’t be definitive about the reasoning: which i think we have proved today.

And to be even clearer: by ‘tricky’: I mean that I see valid arguments raised by the various sides in such debates, and the reasonings for such rulings are again not always crystal clear.

There is a view that a society/ religion discriminates against women by making them cover their faces. There is also a view that not allowing women to cover their faces due to their religion is also discrimination.  I’m fairly sure I’m not the only one that is not sure about what to agree with. I think this is repeatedly such a hot debate because of this.

No delivery riders wearing masks unless it’s cold please.

I am against any kind of prejudice or discrimination.

Cool, happy days then 🙂

(I am now on beer as opposed to french herbal tea which seems to be savage!)

Isn’t this what 60AA CJPOA 1994 is for?

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

I think a few people on this thread need to read a bit of Huxley, who wrote the second best future fi book ever written.

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”.

It’s a cold day?

It’s halloween?

Police have just started lobbing tear gas?

You’re “banned” from your right to legitimate protest?

It’s a cold day? bobble hat

It’s halloween? I’m not sure what 10 year old kids getting a sugar rush have to do with this? Anyone else with a mask on 31st October deserves to be arrested.

Police have just started lobbing tear gas? Because you asked them the time…..or?

You’re “banned” from your right to legitimate protest?  OK this is the absolute biggie. Yes. Yes. #Ever since the miners strike the right to protest has been eroded in the UK  and substantially illegalised in the last 2 years. What will be interesting is if any of these far right tossers involved in the Southport riots get a sentence approaching the JSO guys……… stopping a few hundred cars in a peaceful manner v setting a police van on fire, lobbing missiles at the same emergency workers who just hours earlier were dealing with murdered children.

If they get a few hours of community service I might be tempted to put on a mask myself.

I’m fairly sure that going around a city center in summer wearing a balaclava, would give the police sufficient grounds to stop an search you on the basis that you are in possession of “something which could be used to commit a crime”.  Seems reasonable to me that (because of the prevalence of CCTV) a face covering is now essential for criminals engaged in street crime.

I know that abuse of stop-and-search by police has been a big issue, but I would have little sympathy with people complaining that they are being repeatedly stopped and searched, “just because” they are wearing a balaclava (or similar).

People are 100% free to dress up like they are about to mug a granny, but equally should accept that in doing so, you are going to get treated like somebody who’s just about to mug a granny.  Not arrested….. but certainly searched.  See also:  walking around a housing estate at 2am carrying a stepladder and a crowbar.  Of course that’s not illegal, but the public would (and should) demand that the police have sufficient powers to make sure that person isn’t about to embark on a crime spree.

mugsys_m8Free Member
So freedom, but not freedom to do x. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It’s a fairly absolute thing freedom.

I would refer you back to pre-GCSE civics, but from your later posts I’m not convinced that you’re not absolutely hammered.

I best not wear that full face helmet and glossy goggles again…

What will be interesting is if any of these far right tossers involved in the Southport riots get a sentence approaching the JSO guys……

I think we both know that they won’t.

I’m fairly sure that going around a city center in summer wearing a balaclava, would give the police sufficient grounds to stop an search you on the basis that you are in possession of “something which could be used to commit a crime”

No right to protest, no right to privacy. What have we become?

Maybe they’ve got really bad acne?

It’s a cold day? bobble hat

Wear a bobble hat often to stop your face getting cold do you?

It’s halloween? I’m not sure what 10 year old kids getting a sugar rush have to do with this? Anyone else with a mask on 31st October deserves to be arrested.

Yeah but no.

No right to protest, no right to privacy. What have we become?

Dunno about that, the latter part anyway. Existing laws are good enough, balaclava just mincing about? Probably just an oddball. Balaclava on the periphery of a heated protest or such? Reasonable suspicion.

That’s the thing, as per seemingly everything these days, existing laws are usually fine and by being overly prescriptive you end up in a world where an air soft or replica gun has to be painted in such a way as to make it obvious it’s not an actual gun whilst a BB gun can look, for all intents and purposes, like a real pistol.

Maybe they’ve got really bad acne?

Or Gregory Porter fans ?

More importantly though… 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.

Would they? I don’t know. Could they? Absolutely, it would have to be at least possible because “true freedom” implies an absence of restriction from doing anything. As it stands we have laws (and religions) to attempt to protect the whole.

This is the “freedom of speech” argument, only arse-backwards. Right-wing gobshites like to cry “freedom of speech” alongside phrases like “I’m only saying what everyone is thinking” or “you can’t say anything any more because Woke” but the fact of the matter is that we do not have absolute freedom of speech. There are things you cannot say, inciting racial hatred (for example) is an offence. I’ll admit I haven’t given this a vast amount of analysis, but this seems to me to be a good thing. Absolute freedom of speech would likely get messy, fast.

by ‘tricky’: I mean that I see valid arguments raised by the various sides in such debates, and the reasonings for such rulings are again not always crystal clear.

There is a view that a society/ religion discriminates against women by making them cover their faces. There is also a view that not allowing women to cover their faces due to their religion is also discrimination. I’m fairly sure I’m not the only one that is not sure about what to agree with. I think this is repeatedly such a hot debate because of this.

Agreed.

I don’t think it’s an uncommon Western view that the various headgear worn by some Muslim women is a symptom of oppression, but if they are in fact wearing traditional clothing out of genuine choice then the Ban The Burka brigade is just displacing the problem; we’re going from a bunch of Asian men telling women what they aren’t allowed to do, to a bunch of white men telling women what they aren’t allowed to do. I don’t believe that’s justifiable.

I suppose it can cause other issues though, such as communication. It doesn’t affect me personally because I’m on the Autistic spectrum and spend my existence mostly not looking at people’s faces, but I believe that it’s important to “normal” people.

Moreover, my former neighbour – a Muslim woman, as it happens – is deaf, we never really had any issues communicating aside from her having a ‘deaf’ accent that takes a beat to tune into if you’re not accustomed to it. Up until Covid this is, where she asked me to take off my facemask (at a sensible distance) because it turned out that she lip-read. How much of an issue that poses in her interaction with her peers, I can only guess.

TL;DR – Simple questions often require complicated answers.  Once again.

winston Free Member

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

I think a few people on this thread need to read a bit of Huxley, who wrote the second best future fi book ever written.

Is your surname ‘Smith’?

“Is your surname ‘Smith’?”

…and that would be the best future fi book ever written!

From the BBC

The prime minister has just announced that a new national capability across police forces will be set up to tackle violent disorder.

This includes the wider deployment of facial recognition technology and criminal behaviour orders, he says.

Starmer makes the announcement after unrest across cities in the UK followed the stabbing attack in Southport.

We’ll bring you more details on this new capability as we get them.

Once again:

What the **** difference do you think this would make to someone who is intent on breaking the **** law?

Honestly, it’s not **** hard!

Wow, one more thing to add to the charge sheet which will be ignored anyway in favour of the bigger offences.

What the **** difference do you think this would make to someone who is intent on breaking the **** law?

Because the primary method of policing this sort of thing now seems to be to retrospectively ID people via their faces. Both from the original post, and now the PM’s latest speech. (overall, probably better than water cannons and rubber bullets)

I dont want to add another pointless charge to a long rap sheet, I want the police to be able to say “take that off and show your face, or get in the back of the van now”.

So they either piss off home, or if they do decide to continue with their law breaking they actually get to face the consequences which might stop them doing it again next riot.

Aye so they’re going to be more concerned about the mask than the bricks and wheelie bins being flung at them?

Are you slow? Like, actually?

Has anybody taken a moment to think about the Ninja and Egyptian Mummies in this? Two groups who completely rely on face covering for, not only their day jobs, but their very existence.

Amnesty International: Face Recognition

I don’t think it’s an uncommon Western view that the various headgear worn by some Muslim women is a symptom of oppression, but if they are in fact wearing traditional clothing out of genuine choice

Its not traditional clothing tho.  Its only been pushed by extremeists for the last few decades.  The traditional clothing in muslim countries is very varied and brightly coloured and never a full face cover.

the Burka is only a symbol of oppression and control.  Its a really tricky one IMO because its where opression and religious freedom meet

Absolutely tjagain.

I’ve bumped Sam Harris’s ‘Moral landscape’ towards the top of my reading list.

There is an old newsnight clip of him on Newsnight with Paxman etc. on You tube when the French law came in.