Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have the feeling I have entered a kind of asylum tbh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You're both forgetting that it's a choice for women to wear the burqa.
    Not all women.

    There is no greater infringement of civil liberties than the state dictating what people can and can't wear.
    Which it does already. There has never been a society, that I know of, where people have been free to wear whatever they want.

    If a woman feel empowered from wearing the burqa then she has every right to wear it, as it's her own personal liberty to do so. Forcing someone to show their face when they might not want to is just as bad as forcing them to cover up when they might not want to imo.
    In many people's view, the downsides of the burqa in public outweigh some non-existent notion that people are free to wear whatever they want.

    I'm against sexism, homophobia, racism and whatever else whether it be coming from women, gays or black people.
    Then I am not sure how you can say the face veil is not a symbolism of misogyny given its history and the purpose for which it was made, regardless of whether a few women feel it purely makes them feel empowered.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    "no greater infringement of civil liberties", really?

    Even voting, free speech, freedom of the press, fair trial, etc. pass after the right to wear a full veil for you?
    haha, I meant to say "do", I got caught up in the context. Nice to see you managed to disregard all my points though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Not all women.
    These women are not helped by the outlaw of the burqa, their help lies through other means.

    Which it does already. There has never been a society, that I know of, where people have been free to wear whatever they want.
    As long as one's clothing do not infringe the liberties of others then yes, they should be able to wear what they like.

    In many people's view, the downsides of the burqa in public outweigh some non-existent notion that people are free to wear whatever they want.
    Someone covering their face through their own volition has no infringements on the liberties of others, they should be free to wear it if that's their choice.

    Then I am not sure how you can say the face veil is not a symbolism of misogyny given its history and the purpose for which it was made, regardless of whether a few women feel it purely makes them feel empowered.
    Historically yes, it was a symbol of oppression, however like the N-word, it's taken the opposite effect for many. There are some against the n-word and there are some against the burqa, but neither infringe on anybody's liberties and it should be their liberty to say, do, wear what they like.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    How many women? Have you taken a study?

    Regardless of the intention of a few women, the garment was originally made for, and intended as, a symbol of male domination and misogyny. A golliwog doesn't suddenly become acceptable because people who display them claim not to be racist; it's the history and ongoing symbolism of the thing that makes it racist.

    I don't know how someone who claims to be socialist, liberal, feminist, etc. can act as an apologist for such a blatant symbol of misogyny.
    Just because something was originally made for something doesn't mean it is still the case; the swastika was originally a peace symbol, do you now condone it's use as a Nazi symbol because originally it was a good thing?

    P.s. here I am going to assume you do not condone naziism

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I also don't know which person walking down the street is a threat, does that mean that people shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street. How about I don't know who at all is a threat, therefore everybody should be executed.
    If a normal person walking down the street commits a crime, you would be able to identify them, but if somebody using a face covering commits a crime, you would not be able to provide the perpetrator's facial features and CCTV cameras would not be able to capture the face of the criminal. Criminals are empowered by face coverings, and will feel more comfortable committing crimes, as they can make it very difficult for police to identify them if they use a face covering.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If a normal person walking down the street commits a crime, you would be able to identify them, but if somebody using a face covering commits a crime, you would not be able to provide the perpetrator's facial features and CCTV cameras would not be able to capture the face of the criminal. Criminals are empowered by face coverings, and will feel more comfortable committing crimes, as they can make it very difficult for police to identify them if they use a face covering.
    That is not limited to face coverings though, it's hard to identify criminals who wear hats too, ban hats?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Oddly, I can agree with some of this. We should be prohibiting face coverings in a general sense, perhaps it will allow more people's faces to be caught on CCTV. Although wouldn't alot of Chelsea fans be arrested?

    As for the religious aspect, I support people in wearing hijabs who do so of their own volition, however I think the use of the hijab over the niqab (?) is preferable.

    I echo the point about working in the public sector,

    Further down the line, I would like to see all religious connotations banned from schools as well. Children shouldn't be forced to wear them either.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    That is not limited to face coverings though, it's hard to identify criminals who wear hats too, ban hats?
    Hats do not obscure one's face to the same extent that a face covering does.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Hats do not obscure one's face to the same extent that a face covering does.
    No, but someone wearing a hat can sufficiently obscure their face enough to the same extent.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If a normal person walking down the street commits a crime, you would be able to identify them, but if somebody using a face covering commits a crime, you would not be able to provide the perpetrator's facial features and CCTV cameras would not be able to capture the face of the criminal. Criminals are empowered by face coverings, and will feel more comfortable committing crimes, as they can make it very difficult for police to identify them if they use a face covering.
    And what happens when somebody walks down the street wearing a balaclava, people are suspicious. Surely we should also enforce a curfew, it's generally quite hard to see somebody's face when it's dark too, so I guess we had better stop people potentially committing crimes at night.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Hats do not obscure one's face to the same extent that a face covering does.
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    No, but someone wearing a hat can sufficiently obscure their face enough to the same extent.
    I have a beanie that I can pull down to my chin. That would certainly look sinister approaching you rapidly in the night.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I must say I'm not only shocked to see such a bill, but disguisted by some of the comments I have read. It's both ludacris and hypocritical, I'm not arguing that a minority of Muslim women are not forced to wear the burqa, but how can the answer to that be to ban and force even those who wear out of choice not to. It takes away peoples liberty to wear what they choose rather then giving it to them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    No, but someone wearing a hat can sufficiently obscure their face enough to the same extent.
    If someone wears a hat so it obscures their face, they are using a face covering, which is prohibited under this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If someone wears a hat so it obscures their face, they are using a face covering, which is prohibited under this bill.
    So we're just outright banning hats too just in case they unintentionally obscure one's face from a CCTV camera?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If someone wears a hat so it obscures their face, they are using a face covering, which is prohibited under this bill.
    No, my point was that hats have the potential to hide someone's face from CCTV, does that make hats banned too?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So we're just outright banning hats too just in case they unintentionally obscure one's face from a CCTV camera?
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    No, my point was that hats have the potential to hide someone's face from CCTV, does that make hats banned too?
    Sure, I can ban the wearing of hats with large brims indoors if they have the potential to obscure one's face, as long as they are not subject to the exemptions listed in the bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Sure, I can ban the wearing of hats with large rims indoors if they have the potential to obscure one's face, as long as they are not subject to the exemptions listed in the bill.
    You don't need a large rim, and this means we can further extend our "things UKIP has tried to ban" list, why not include Kippahs and turbans to be on the safe side?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You don't need a large rim, and this means we can further extend our "things UKIP has tried to ban" list, why not include Kippahs and turbans to be on the safe side?
    Kippahs and turbans do not obscure one's face.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Kippahs and turbans do not obscure one's face.
    But they can unintentionally in the case of CCTV footage, as was my point with hats.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 21, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.