B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015 (Second Reading), TSR UKIP
Face Coverings Prohibition Bill
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.
(d) “Extreme weather conditions” include snowstorms, a UV index of 8 or above, and orange or red warning of rain according to the Met Office.
(e) “Permit” in the context of this bill refers to a document provided by the police to allow filming with a face covering in a public place.
(i) A permit will only be given by the police if written evidence confirming the need for the use of face coverings in filming is provided by a third-party, including but not limited to the administration of an educational institution or a film production company.

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 filming that is approved with a permit from the police;
(f) within the boundaries of a place of worship; or
(g) under extreme weather conditions.

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
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Changes?
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Why did you bother taking this to second reading?
2
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Nay
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Good ol' laziness not stating changes

Almost certainly nay either way, then again, I guess some people do enjoy time wasting making changes to this
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Nay, because it seems that you've just narrowed it down even further to only include the burka, and I maintain that it's islamophobic.

Not only that, but at a time such as this, where we could very easily face a terrorist threat at any moment, when tensions between the muslim communities are as tense as they are now, that such a bill even being debated is at the detriment of the UK and I deplore UKIP for bringing it to another reading.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Tell me the changes and I'll tell you whether it has my support.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy.






Nay.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Ha! Naaaaaay!
0
Moleman1996
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
No. I support the principle that an individual should be allowed to demand the removal of a face covering (not a headscarf) on their property, or to make it a condition of employment.

However to ban this outright in public and make it a crime goes against all of the principles of freedom of expression.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
You actually put this to second reading? I look forward to this going to vote so I can celebrate when it gets annihilated.

It's a Nay, in case you didn't realise. It is shameful to use the excuse of security to try to put an essentially islamophobic bill through the house. If this didn't include religious clothing, although I still wouldn't support it, I could at least understand it.
0
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nay, because it seems that you've just narrowed it down even further to only include the burka, and I maintain that it's islamophobic.
Would you apply the same logic to a Bill abolishing Sunday trading hours?

Also, how is it Islamophobic if the burka is not actually a tenet of the Islamic faith?
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Would you apply the same logic to a Bill abolishing Sunday trading hours?
Sunday trading hours is immensely different. It 1) implies that every consumer or business owner in the country is christian and 2) is outdated in the fact that many people, christians included, still shop on a sunday
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
I'm surpirsed by some members' lack of acknowledgement of the consequences this would cause the nation's security. At any other point this would bill would only limit civil liberties, but at this point, when there are such tensions and the west should be standing side-by-side with muslims, this is simply asking for an attack on our soil. So once again, an absolutely deplorably bill.
0
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Sunday trading hours is immensely different. It 1) implies that every consumer or business owner in the country is christian and 2) is outdated in the fact that many people, christians included, still shop on a sunday
Many Christians would nonetheless claim that it is an attack upon their religion.
0
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I'm surpirsed by some members' lack of acknowledgement of the consequences this would cause the nation's security. At any other point this would bill would only limit civil liberties, but at this point, when there are such tensions and the west should be standing side-by-side with muslims, this is simply asking for an attack on our soil. So once again, an absolutely deplorably bill.
Even if you disagree with the Bill, this is appeasement. You can't let the prospect of barbarians attacking you influence law-making or the state's actions.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Many Christians would nonetheless claim that it is an attack upon their religion.
They are free not to trade on a sunday should they wish, this is not an attack on their religion.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Even if you disagree with the Bill, this is appeasement. You can't let the prospect of barbarians attacking you influence law-making or the state's actions.
Seeing the situation at hand, this is a time where we should be showing that there is no divide between the west and Islam. Nothing to do with ISIS, though infringing religious freedoms in this manner will indeed put us even further at risk. It's so obvious, it's barely worth mentioning
0
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nay, because it seems that you've just narrowed it down even further to only include the burka, and I maintain that it's islamophobic.

Not only that, but at a time such as this, where we could very easily face a terrorist threat at any moment, when tensions between the muslim communities are as tense as they are now, that such a bill even being debated is at the detriment of the UK and I deplore UKIP for bringing it to another reading.
On what basis do you think it's islamophobic, out of interest?
0
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by James Milibanter)
They are free not to trade on a sunday should they wish, this is not an attack on their religion.
Women who wear the burka would be free to wear it on private property if this Bill succeeded, so I don't see your point? Many Christians would be forced to work on a Sunday or risk losing their jobs, especially those working in retail.

Also, how is it Islamophobic if the burka is not actually a tenet of the Islamic faith?
0
X
new posts
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

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (161)
17.5%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (81)
8.8%
No I am happy with my course choice (547)
59.46%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (131)
14.24%

Watched Threads

View All