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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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.
    It is someone's choice to go to dark places at night, but it is unavoidable to be in public, which means there are people who pose a security threat (those who use face coverings). Also, you can still see someone's face to some extent at night, but you do not see it completely if a face covering like the burqa or the niqab is used.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    But they can unintentionally in the case of CCTV footage, as was my point with hats.
    How so? They do not have brims that could block the view of the face from CCTV cameras.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How so? They do not have rims that could block the view of the face from CCTV cameras.
    Look you can have all the rims you like, I don't see how that's relevant.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Look you can have all the rims you like, I don't see how that's relevant.
    Sorry, I meant hat brims, not rims.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    It is someone's choice to go to dark places at night, but it is unavoidable to be in public, which means there are people who pose a security threat (those who use face coverings). Also, you can still see someone's face to some extent at night, but you do not see it completely if a face covering like the burqa or the niqab is used.
    IT is avoidable in public: you don't go to Luton, or Bradford, or wherever else.
    And are you now suggesting that anybody who covers their face beyond the parameters of the bill is necessarily a security threat. So does that mean that if somebody pulled their scarf up over their face in the winter it means they have a bomb or a gun, not that they're cold?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    IT is avoidable in public: you don't go to Luton, or Bradford, or wherever else.
    And are you now suggesting that anybody who covers their face beyond the parameters of the bill is necessarily a security threat. So does that mean that if somebody pulled their scarf up over their face in the winter it means they have a bomb or a gun, not that they're cold?
    It is not avoidable to see someone using a face covering in public. Even if you go live in the middle of nowhere like the Shetland Islands, a criminal may still use a face covering to make it more difficult for them to be identified.

    I never said that anybody who uses a face covering is necessarily a security threat. I said that if you use a face covering, you make it extremely difficult for people to identify who a criminal is. Imagine two people with the roughly the same height and body shape, and are wearing the same face covering walk into a store. One is a thief and the other one is just a normal person going on with their life. If they both use face coverings, people would not be able to tell which one person the thief is. Moreover, face coverings mean that police cannot be on the lookout for people who look like a criminal caught committing a crime on CCTV, as they do not know what the perpetrator looks like. If the primary purpose of using a scarf is not to obscure one's face, it is not a violation under the text of this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    It is not avoidable to see someone using a face covering in public. Even if you go live in the middle of nowhere like the Shetland Islands, a criminal may still use a face covering to make it more difficult for them to be identified.
    The bill is making face coverings illegal, however, people are not currently criminals for covering their face. I'm of the few that actually believe in the rule of Law, and that one is innocent until proven guilty. I will also always be weary of anyone that seeks to take away my individual liberty for the sake of "security", where the security threat is virtually non existent. What's next? ID cards?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    It is not avoidable to see someone using a face covering in public. Even if you go live in the middle of nowhere like the Shetland Islands, a criminal may still use a face covering to make it more difficult for them to be identified.

    I never said that anybody who uses a face covering is necessarily a security threat. I said that if you use a face covering, you make it extremely difficult for people to identify who a criminal is. Imagine two people with the roughly the same height and body shape, and are wearing the same face covering walk into a store. One is a thief and the other one is just a normal person going on with their life. If they both use face coverings, people would not be able to tell which one person the thief is. Moreover, face coverings mean that police cannot be on the lookout for people who look like a criminal caught committing a crime on CCTV, as they do not know what the perpetrator looks like. If the primary purpose of using a scarf is not to obscure one's face, it is not a violation under the text of this bill.
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    It is someone's choice to go to dark places at night, but it is unavoidable to be in public, which means there are people who pose a security threat (those who use face coverings). Also, you can still see someone's face to some extent at night, but you do not see it completely if a face covering like the burqa or the niqab is used.
    Hmmm
    And no provision is made for the primary purpose not being to obscure in this way, surely if hats are being banned then scarfs need banning too, just in case they obscure. Oh, and hoods on coats, they obscure quite well without intention.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hmmm
    And no provision is made for the primary purpose not being to obscure in this way, surely if hats are being banned then scarfs need banning too, just in case they obscure. Oh, and hoods on coats, they obscure quite well without intention.
    He doesn't want to ban those though, he wants to ban the burqa.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    He doesn't want to ban those though, he wants to ban the burqa.
    and hats
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    and hats
    The only hats I'd like to ban are flatcaps, the mines are shut now, there's no excuse to be wearing them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    The bill is making face coverings illegal, however, people are not currently criminals for covering their face. I'm of the few that actually believe in the rule of Law, and that one is innocent until proven guilty. I will also always be weary of anyone that seeks to take away my individual liberty for the sake of "security", where the security threat is virtually non existent. What's next? ID cards?
    I never said that people who cover their face are necessarily criminals. I believe in the rule of Law as well, and this bill does not oppose that, as using a face covering is grounds for reasonable suspicion under this bill. There should be certain limitations to one's individual liberty for the sake of security, since if there is a lack of security, it would be easier for terrorists to take control of territory and impose Sharia law, which violates one's individual liberty in itself. It is not the case that a security threat is non-existent. If someone walks into a bank wearing a balaclava and commits a crime, it is difficult to identify the perpetrator, which is an incentive for more criminals to commit crimes if they know that their chance of being identified is low, so there is a major security threat that this bill addresses. I am not opposed to the idea of ID cards per se, as they are a good way to identify overstayers quickly without having to ring up the Home Office every time the police or immigration services need to check whether someone is here legally or not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I never said that people who cover their face are necessarily criminals. I believe in the rule of Law as well, and this bill does not oppose that, as using a face covering is grounds for reasonable suspicion under this bill. There should be certain limitations to one's individual liberty for the sake of security, since if there is a lack of security, it would be easier for terrorists to take control of territory and impose Sharia law, which violates one's individual liberty in itself. It is not the case that a security threat is non-existent. If someone walks into a bank wearing a balaclava and commits a crime, it is difficult to identify the perpetrator, which is an incentive for more criminals to commit crimes if they know that their chance of being identified is low, so there is a major security threat that this bill addresses. I am not opposed to the idea of ID cards per se, as they are a good way to identify overstayers quickly without having to ring up the Home Office every time the police or immigration services need to check whether someone is here legally or not.
    There are some certain things that I'd like to pick up on here. A face covering isn't grounds for reasonable suspicion at the moment, as you've said, your aim to make a face covering grounds for reasonable suspicion. "If there is a lack of security", well there isn't, you're actively seeking to make a face covering a lack of security. Here's an idea, if you want less crime then why not put some more police on the streets?

    Also, for the record, your rhetoric regarding terrorists and sharia law does nothing but highlight the real reasoning behind this bill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hmmm
    And no provision is made for the primary purpose not being to obscure in this way, surely if hats are being banned then scarfs need banning too, just in case they obscure. Oh, and hoods on coats, they obscure quite well without intention.
    There is a difference between people who may pose a security threat and people who are a security threat. People who use a face covering pose a security threat (as you do not know if they are obscuring their face so they can get away with a crime), but may not be a threat to security themselves.

    If you would read the bill carefully, only items where the primary purpose of their use is to obscure one's face are listed as face coverings. And I never said that I am banning all hats everywhere. I only said that I can consider a ban on 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. As for hoods and coats, unless the primary purpose of the wearer is to use these items to obscure the wearer's face, they are not face coverings.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    There are some certain things that I'd like to pick up on here. A face covering isn't grounds for reasonable suspicion at the moment, as you've said, your aim to make a face covering grounds for reasonable suspicion. "If there is a lack of security", well there isn't, you're actively seeking to make a face covering a lack of security. Here's an idea, if you want less crime then why not put some more police on the streets?

    Also, for the record, your rhetoric regarding terrorists and sharia law does nothing but highlight the real reasoning behind this bill.
    I know face coverings are not grounds for reasonable suspicion at the moment, but I, and many other people believe that they should be grounds for reasonable suspicion, hence I wrote this bill. And there is a great lack of security posed by a face covering, as I have explained before. I may also consider writing a bill to put more police on the streets, as that can not only create a safer environment, but also create many jobs. However, it is difficult for police to identify criminals if they wear face coverings, as I have explained earlier.

    As I have stated before, two reasons for this bill include: security, and upholding British culture and making sure people who come here assimilate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I know face coverings are not grounds for reasonable suspicion at the moment, but I, and many other people believe that they should be grounds for reasonable suspicion, hence I wrote this bill. And there is a great lack of security posed by a face covering, as I have explained before. I may also consider writing a bill to put more police on the streets, as that can not only create a safer environment, but also create many jobs. However, it is difficult for police to identify criminals if they wear face coverings, as I have explained earlier.
    You do seem to understand the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. This bill implies that those who wear face coverings pose a threat to security, I'd like you to prove it with facts and evidence, nothing anecdotal.

    As I have stated before, two reasons for this bill include: security, and upholding British culture and making sure people who come here assimilate.
    So you also think the burqa is a threat to British Culture? I'm sorry but I always figured that british culture was that of tolerance and unionism. If anything I think that you're a threat to british culture and will soon be putting forward a bill to ban islamophobia and any form of ethnic nationalism.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Genuinely thought you guys were misspelling 'kipper' for a bit and I was preparing to strongly object to a ban on the national favourite smoked fish treat.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You do seem to understand the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. This bill implies that those who wear face coverings pose a threat to security, I'd like you to prove it with facts and evidence, nothing anecdotal.

    So you also think the burqa is a threat to British Culture? I'm sorry but I always figured that british culture was that of tolerance and unionism. If anything I think that you're a threat to british culture and will soon be putting forward a bill to ban islamophobia and any form of ethnic nationalism.
    Here are some examples of burqas being used to commit crimes:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/420...shop-assistant
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8667330.stm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arry-raid.html

    Here is an example of a person who used the burqa to escape the police:
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...terror-suspect

    And here is an unfortunate case of a woman who committed a crime, but avoided jail time because her the camera only showed her in a face covering, but not her face.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/musl...-1226078884650

    There is no Islamophobia or ethnic nationalism in this bill or from what I have said. Yes, I do think that the burqa goes against the values of British culture. I feel that tolerance and unionism are elements of British culture in that we welcome migrants from different backgrounds (see? no ethnic nationalism here), but they need to assimilate, and burqas are a sign of a failure of assimilation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would also like to point out that according a ComRes poll for Channel 4 News, 55% of Brits surveyed want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places similar to the laws in France, ‘because full face veils made them feel uneasy and unsure how to relate to the wearer.' Eighty percent of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, while 58% want to see all head coverings abolished in these institutions … 75% of Brits said they were ‘unsure how to relate’ to women wearing the full face veil and niqab – which leaves just the eyes visible. People also admitted to feeling ‘uneasy’, ‘nervous’ and ‘threatened’ by the full face veil.”

    I am therefore representing the majority of British people in this bill. Unfortunately, the elite political class are out of touch with the people, so they fail to deliver a ban on face coverings as the majority of British people want. It is only a few RL Conservative backbenchers who actual bother to try to represent the views of most people in this regard.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I would also like to point out that according a ComRes poll for Channel 4 News, 55% of Brits surveyed want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places similar to the laws in France, ‘because full face veils made them feel uneasy and unsure how to relate to the wearer.' Eighty percent of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, while 58% want to see all head coverings abolished in these institutions … 75% of Brits said they were ‘unsure how to relate’ to women wearing the full face veil and niqab – which leaves just the eyes visible. People also admitted to feeling ‘uneasy’, ‘nervous’ and ‘threatened’ by the full face veil.”

    I am therefore representing the majority of British people in this bill. Unfortunately, the elite political class are out of touch with the people, so they fail to deliver a ban on face coverings as the majority of British people want. It is only a few RL Conservative backbenchers who actual bother to try to represent the views of most people in this regard.
    That's why I believe in representative democracy, a codified constitution and human rights enshrined in law rather than the kangaroo court of "direct democracy". People feeling "uneasy" about something is not an excuse to deny other people their freedoms. I don't give a damn, to be frank, if a bunch of white people feel uneasy around Muslim women, or black people, or if a load of straights feel uneasy about people being openly queer. That's no reason to implement discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality, deny black people equality or stop people expressing their beliefs. In fact, that sounds a lot like the kind of fundamentlism you're apparently so afraid of.
 
 
 
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.