B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015, TSR UKIP
Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015

A
BILL
TO
Prohibit the use of face coverings in public places.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1) Definitions
(a) “Public place” in this bill includes any premises or place to which the public have or are permitted to have access at the material time, whether on payment or otherwise.
(b) “Public service” refers to any service provided to the public by or on behalf of any public agency or public enterprise of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature or in connection with public order or national security.
(c) “Public official” refers to a person engaged in, but not limited to, the provision of a public service.

2) Prohibition of face coverings
(1) Subject to the exemptions in subsection (2), an individual who wears or uses a garment or other object with the intent to obscure one’s face as the primary purpose of wearing or using said garment or object in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) An individual does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if the garment or other object is worn—
(a) pursuant to any legislative or regulatory provision;
(b) as a necessary part of any activity directly related to a person’s employment;
(c) for reasons of health or safety;
(d) for the purposes of a sporting activity;
(e) for the purposes of art, leisure or entertainment; or
(f) within the boundaries of a place of worship.

3) On private premises
(1) Where members of the public are licensed to access private premises for the purposes of the giving or receiving of goods or services, it shall not be an offence for the owner of such premises or his agents—
(a) to request that a person wearing a garment or other object intended to obscure the face remove such garment or object; or
(b) to require that a person refusing a request under subsection (a) leave the premises.

4) Public service
(1) A person—
(a) providing a public service in person to a member of the public; or
(b) receiving a public service in person from a public official; shall remove any garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face unless such garment or other object is reasonably required for reasons of health or safety.

5) Consequences of violation
Offenders shall be liable to mandatory community service and a maximum fine of—
(a) £500 on the first offence
(b) £2000 on the second offence
(2) Offenders shall be liable to community service, a maximum fine of £5000 and a maximum sentence of two years for each and every offence (from the second offence) thereafter.

6) Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Face Coverings Prohibition Act 2015.
(2) This Act comes into effect 30 days after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
How did I guess it was UKIP from the title...well, it is a kinda racist bill.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Aye. Though it's hard to tell without the notes that should have been included, full-body coverings are a safety risk.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Are UKIP actually serious?
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Absolutely ****ing not 😂
2
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Nay, why shouldn't people be allowed to cover their face if they see fit?
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
In any case this bill is flawed. What if Muslims began wearing burqas for 'entertainment purposes'? There's no way one could prove otherwise.
1
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Not at all
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
How did I guess it was UKIP from the title...well, it is a kinda racist bill.
Remind me, which race covers their faces?
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Actually, seeing the entertainment provision, this is basically a simple case of "ban the burqa", given that there isn't even a public safety element since most publicly dangerous elements are going to be for either 'work' or 'recreation'.
0
StolenPrivacy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Nay
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Actually, seeing the entertainment provision, this is basically a simple case of "ban the burqa", given that there isn't even a public safety element since most publicly dangerous elements are going to be for either 'work' or 'recreation'.
An exceptionally poor effort in attempting to hide the true meaning of the Bill.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
I propose an amendment to 2(2) - that a clause 'g' is to be added stating 'for religious purposes'.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I propose an amendment to 2(2) - that a clause 'g' is to be added stating 'for religious purposes'.
Which then means that this bill does nothing.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Which then means that this bill does nothing.
Precisely!
0
emiloujess
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Nay
0
Imperion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Waow...
0
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Nay, Nay and Nay again
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Life_peer)
Are you really okay with putting the interests of a distant hateful religion which uses facial coverings to manifest control and oppression over women above the interests of safety and local culture?

Would you be equally sympathetic towards people wearing balaclavas with sunglasses, including in shops and banks?
Yes, I am ok with allowing all citizens the free choice to cover their faces should they wish to do so. If you would talk to a few Muslim women, you will find that it is not seen as a system of control, but an exercise in free religious expression and modesty, as well as devotion to those that they love.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to wear my balaclava to the bank? It's nice and cosy,and I find it 'entertaining'.
1
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Some may find this surprising, but it's an aye to this from me. My main problem with people covering their faces is if someone were to commit a violent act towards another person, or indeed to steal something from a shop, whilst covering their face with a piece of clothing they would be much harder to identify. This isn't discriminatory, as I believe it isn't actually a religious requirement for Muslim women to wear the full face veil, and those who would otherwise do so can just wear a hijab instead.
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (103)
13.24%
I'm not sure (33)
4.24%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (241)
30.98%
I have already dropped out (19)
2.44%
I'm not a current university student (382)
49.1%

Watched Threads

View All