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:
    Nice to see UKIP's self-styled "libertarian" phase is over.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it would be infringing on the liberties of meat eaters and making them eat a diet they don't want to so it woudl be discriminatory. The point of laws against robbing banks is that it infringes on another's rights not to be stolen from. A person who has the right to wear what they want but not to see everyone's face (or to put it a different way make anyone they want remove their clothes) and the number of people who misuse the burqua are a tiny percentage. If you wanted to do something more productive and woudl cut down on such crime you should.
    1) requires some sort of 'barcode' to be visible on the burqua which identifies it uniquely.
    2) require all people once they reach the age of 18 to submit DNA to a government database.
    I could potentially support those measures but not thsi bill.
    Aph and DMcGovern both of you have an incorrect interpretation of the term discrimination, check the legal use of the term. The Equality Act 2010 agrees with my use of the term discrimination, not the interpretation both of you are using. Banning all facial covering in public does not fall foul of any types of discrimination set out in the Equality Act 2010, they are; direct discrimination by perception, direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination by association, and harassment. If direct discrimination was extended to cover the burqa, the escape clause would be objective justification; banning full-face coverings does does not fall foul of any discrimination laws.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aph and DMcGovern both of you have an incorrect interpretation of the term discrimination, check the legal use of the term. The Equality Act 2010 agrees with my use of of the term discrimination, not the interpretation both of you are using. Banning all facial covering in public does not fall foul of any types of discrimination set out in the Equality Act 2010, they are; direct discrimination by perception, direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination by association, and harassment. If direct discrimination was extended to cover the burqa, the escape clause would be objective justification, banning the burqa would not fall foul of any discrimination laws.
    Are you seriously arguing that because a law isn't illegal it's perfect ok? Because with the law that is a bit of a mute point don't you think?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    I find it strange to see feminists condoning the burqa. I can't really think of a more oppressive outfit.
    "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God."
    "Women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

    This is from the Koran, and it says that women should not wear men's clothing, or wear jewellery, just to dress plain.

    Oh no, wait....

    oops.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    I'm Abstaining

    I do not hold any extreme right wing views Nor am I'm I racist however I wonder how many of you have seen this ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg0GqRAxGwc ) I am a little concerned about what I just watched ( please watch its only 10 mins ) it is revelant in case your wondering
    The figures are wrong for France.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am saying banning all face coverings is not discrimination under any definition used in law; some laws are discriminatory, for example, age discrimination and voting, but most are not, for example, banning the sale of high-powered lasers does not discriminate against people who want one. Banning full-face coverings does not discriminate against people want to be in public with a fully covered face.
    It infringes on religious freedoms of one group in particular because a tiny, tiny amount of people are misusing that freedom. We have a lot of Catholic priests abusing young children which often doesn't get reported so why don't you ban Catholics from being near and having children because they clearly present a clear and immediate danger to them?

    Thsi bill is clearly an islamophobic attack discuses as something else.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aph and DMcGovern both of you have an incorrect interpretation of the term discrimination, check the legal use of the term. The Equality Act 2010 agrees with my use of the term discrimination, not the interpretation both of you are using. Banning all facial covering in public does not fall foul of any types of discrimination set out in the Equality Act 2010, they are; direct discrimination by perception, direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination by association, and harassment. If direct discrimination was extended to cover the burqa, the escape clause would be objective justification, banning the burqa would not fall foul of any discrimination laws.
    Pretty sure there's no case for saying, legally speaking, it discriminates, but it still does in fact discriminate because the legislation will affect one group of people overwhelmingly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    The figures are wrong for France.
    Ok , out of interest how do you know ? And what is your view on it ? Do you think it will happen ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Ok , out of interest how do you know ? And what is your view on it ? Do you think it will happen ?
    As far as I know, in France "white" women also make 2 babies on average, and Muslim women don't make 8 babies, I would have noticed that. I'm honestly more worried by the rising number of converts, since they tend to be even more backwards than the rest (probably to show that they don't fake it).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God."
    "Women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

    This is from the Koran, and it says that women should not wear men's clothing, or wear jewellery, just to dress plain.

    Oh no, wait....

    oops.
    You know, I equally despise the Bible and the Koran. I am also happy to see that Christianity is dying in Western Europe, but I am sad to see it being replaced by Islam.

    If only the radical left wingers were fighting Islam as much as they did against the Church...

    I have seen it France as well, with Trotskyist parties supporting Islamic candidates for elections. I don't understand such a renouncement. I find it as strange as if UKIP were suddenly appointing Romanian candidates.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    You know, I equally despise the Bible and the Koran. I am also happy to see that Christianity is dying in Western Europe, but I am sad to see it being replaced by Islam.

    If only the radical left wingers were fighting Islam as much as they did against the Church...

    I have seen it France as well, with Trotskyist parties supporting Islamic candidates for elections. I don't understand such a renouncement. I find it as strange as if UKIP were suddenly appointing Romanian candidates.
    Left wingers don't all 'fight the church'. In fact, I'm a churchgoer. I seriously doubt that somehow everyone's suddenly going to become Muslim. People are in fact becoming more secular rather than more religious because they hate the 'dictatorship' qualities of religion.

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    As I have said before, if a criminal uses a face covering, it is a lot more difficult to identify him/her after they have committed a crime, so I would rather ban face coverings if they potentially pose such a large threat. You never know which person using the face covering poses a threat and which one does not.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aph and DMcGovern both of you have an incorrect interpretation of the term discrimination, check the legal use of the term. The Equality Act 2010 agrees with my use of the term discrimination, not the interpretation both of you are using. Banning all facial covering in public does not fall foul of any types of discrimination set out in the Equality Act 2010, they are; direct discrimination by perception, direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination by association, and harassment. If direct discrimination was extended to cover the burqa, the escape clause would be objective justification, banning the burqa would not fall foul of any discrimination laws.
    Oh, no, my definition doesn't correspond exactly with the Equality Act 2010's term of direct discrimination.
    :sigh:

    What's interesting is that you've skipped over the part which mentions indirect discrimination.
    "The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. This means you can take action in the civil courts.Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others. The Equality Act says it puts you at a particular disadvantage."

    Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Actsays it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it. They would need objective justification: to be able to prove this in court, if necessary.

    Whereas here there isn't a strong argument for it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    I rate this so much.....
    Offline

    3
    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.
    Someone wearing the KKK costume, Nazi suit, or nothing at all is not a threat as well, but I still don't want to see him with these attires in the streets.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    Someone wearing the KKK costume, Nazi suit, or nothing at all is not a threat as well, but I still don't want to see him with these attires in the streets.
    Technically it is, since those people are usually arrested for inciting racial hatred, public exposure etc.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    Someone wearing the KKK costume, Nazi suit, or nothing at all is not a threat as well, but I still don't want to see him with these attires in the streets.
    Then propose an amendment to ban that too, actually, whilst at it propose an amendment that the state mandates exactly what one wears.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then propose an amendment to ban that too, actually, whilst at it propose an amendment that the state mandates exactly what one wears.
    I did that once, well I think it was a law that legally forced everyone to be nude at all times. It was (quite rightly) defeated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    You can't really compare an item of clothing which has barely any usage outside of religious group to an item of clothing which is used by the military, police forces, paramilitary groups and is inextricably linked with illegal activities.
    It doesn't matter, face coverings prevent CCTV identification, and as such could quite easily be used when committing a crime.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I don't believe the right to privacy in this manner should apply in public places.
 
 
 
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 like carrot cake?

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.