Thomas Eshuis wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Not sure how I feel about this one. I appreciate the sentiment, but the method encroches on civil liberties.

As long as it bans all face covering things, including these:

As much as I would LOVE to ban anyone wearing that, this is kind of on point with my argument. Religious covering or not, wearing face coverings is acceptable especially when weather is involved.

If you are banning face coverings, you either must ban ALL face coverings otherwise you are simply living under a government that chooses cultural norms for you and society. I would rather government not be making these personal decisions for me.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Not sure how I feel about this one. I appreciate the sentiment, but the method encroches on civil liberties.

As long as it bans all face covering things, including these:

As much as I would LOVE to ban anyone wearing that, this is kind of on point with my argument. Religious covering or not, wearing face coverings is acceptable especially when weather is involved.

If you are banning face coverings, you either must ban ALL face coverings otherwise you are simply living under a government that chooses cultural norms for you and society. I would rather government not be making these personal decisions for me.

This law only covers inside situations, so I don't see how the weather argument applies.
And yes, it does cover, coverings of the face, in general.

For fucks sake, how many times does it have to be said?

I do not think we do all want to live together. What is us and them, kaffir, barbarian about? Why do people set up religious schools, have small group laws, concept of unclean?

Maybe even within religions, rules for example about women's behaviour may be understood as attempts to differentiate men and women.

Maybe a starting question about an action that causes controversy should be how does this help or hinder us living together peacefully, and stuff that doesn't is then treated as a breech of the peace.

That is perhaps why there are voices that the so-called multiculturalism failed.

That there are societies with cultures from largely monolithic to quite diverse is known. Seems, and it was said in this thread also iirc, something along the lines: If they want to live here it must be by our rules. that its notion many can understand. Especially since some places, more or less associated with Islam, do have quite strict rules even for visitors and are often seen as backwards and intolerant perhaps even dangerous.

Then the question is, how intolerant we want to be. Of course, there is price to pay. But .. I don't want to see minarets because from root of all evil to aesthetically unpleasing is not too tolerant from where I sit. It subject to debate. We are having one though the one over veil seems to be for the time being over.

Live together can have many forms. From live and let live to dictate of majority.

Note the two entrances. And I believe the minarets are recent additions.

Is having two entrances a breech of the peace?

I don't know. It's your, rather vague, concept that you introduced into this thread.
The law that's in the OP, isn't about some vague notion of breaching the peace, it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.

Ostensibly, but if that were true, such laws would have been passed a long time ago. Balaclavas and motorcycle helmets didn't seem to bother anyone before, so why now? The answer is of course that they don't. Clearly this is about muslimy veils.

Seabass wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.

Ostensibly, but if that were true, such laws would have been passed a long time ago. Balaclavas and motorcycle helmets didn't seem to bother anyone before, so why now? The answer is of course that they don't. Clearly this is about muslimy veils.

I was unaware of your expertise vis a vis Dutch legal history.
But you seemed to have forgotten the fact that similar laws have been introduced multiple times in the past and law actually need to be voted on.
So it's not as simple as 'some people want better indentification laws = such laws are passed', nor is it the first time such a law is introduced.
In fact mayors are already allowed, as part of calling a state of emergency, to ban the wearing of balaclavas and similar face-coverings for the duration of the SoE.
http://www.burgemeesters.nl/bevoegdheden/manifestaties
This law makes it a national, permanent ban, rather than an emergency measure.

And yes the whole Nikab discussion has influenced this decision, but that's no different than an increase in machine gun murders might influence the debate on gun law, or the increase in private drone-ownership might affect laws concerning the use of remote-controlled flying vehicles.

Seabass wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.

Ostensibly, but if that were true, such laws would have been passed a long time ago. Balaclavas and motorcycle helmets didn't seem to bother anyone before, so why now? The answer is of course that they don't. Clearly this is about muslimy veils.

Can't have those Muslims hiding their faces now, they might be plotting terrorist acts under there

Those who urge the wearing of veils for cultural or religious reasons might make a better case if the men wore them too. Otherwise people might get the wrong idea-that women who are wearing veils are compelled or cajoled into doing so, and that veil-wearing is a manifestation of sexism and the degradation of women as slaves by those cultures. The fact that some veil-wearing women are exhibiting Stockholm syndrome by complying with requirements set by men is totally false, because all their men wear veils also in a gesture of solidarity with the women.
At least in all veil-wearing cultures, the veil will be a catholic sign of oppression and not just oppression targeted at the females in the culture.

ED209 wrote:For fucks sake, how many times does it have to be said?

Well to be fair, the article did harp on quite hard and heavy about this being a "Veil" ban with a brief mention of its broader scope towards the end, as well the title of this thread, so it's understandable that there be a little bit of confusion.

Both the article and thread title were meant to be provocative, and quite possibly the law as well.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Those who urge the wearing of veils for cultural or religious reasons might make a better case if the men wore them too. Otherwise people might get the wrong idea-that women who are wearing veils are compelled or cajoled into doing so, and that veil-wearing is a manifestation of sexism and the degradation of women as slaves by those cultures. The fact that some veil-wearing women are exhibiting Stockholm syndrome by complying with requirements set by men is totally false, because all their men wear veils also in a gesture of solidarity with the women.
At least in all veil-wearing cultures, the veil will be a catholic sign of oppression and not just oppression targeted at the females in the culture.

People can be compelled or cajoled into doing anything. Therefore, let's ban everything, just in case.

The question everyone should be asking is, "Was this law necessary"? If it isn't to force cultural norms on the population, i.e. it is not a "face veil ban" specifically as the thread and the article would suggest, what serious problems is it resolving that requires the loss of civil liberties?

It's resolving the problem that bigots are made to feel uncomfortable when Muslamic women cover their faces.

Whether you think that's a problem worth losing civil liberties over is going to depend on how sympathetic you are to bigotry.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:The question everyone should be asking is, "Was this law necessary"? If it isn't to force cultural norms on the population, i.e. it is not a "face veil ban" specifically as the thread and the article would suggest, what serious problems is it resolving that requires the loss of civil liberties?

As mentioned, several times, to prevent people from hiding their face and thus their identity in public spaces.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:The question everyone should be asking is, "Was this law necessary"? If it isn't to force cultural norms on the population, i.e. it is not a "face veil ban" specifically as the thread and the article would suggest, what serious problems is it resolving that requires the loss of civil liberties?

It is to force cultural norms. That much is clear from the ECHR ruling. The cultural norm in Europe seems to be having your face uncovered. Wanna live here? Uncover or fuck off. Living together .. by our rules.

Seabass wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.

Ostensibly, but if that were true, such laws would have been passed a long time ago. Balaclavas and motorcycle helmets didn't seem to bother anyone before, so why now? The answer is of course that they don't. Clearly this is about muslimy veils.

Yep. It wasn't a problem when face coverings were associated with non-Muslim stuff (and when such matters did come up they won't nowhere until Muslims were central to the discussion.)

I fucking HATE face coverings (some of my dislike is rational but I'm sure some of it is just irrational kneejerky stuff) but I can't get behind illegalising them under most circumstances and I certainly don't buy that the fact these bans are being enacted now has nothing to do with largely Muslim people wearing them.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Those who urge the wearing of veils for cultural or religious reasons might make a better case if the men wore them too. Otherwise people might get the wrong idea-that women who are wearing veils are compelled or cajoled into doing so, and that veil-wearing is a manifestation of sexism and the degradation of women as slaves by those cultures. The fact that some veil-wearing women are exhibiting Stockholm syndrome by complying with requirements set by men is totally false, because all their men wear veils also in a gesture of solidarity with the women.
At least in all veil-wearing cultures, the veil will be a catholic sign of oppression and not just oppression targeted at the females in the culture.

People can be compelled or cajoled into doing anything. Therefore, let's ban everything, just in case.

that was not my argument.

If men wore them is hypothetical, without tradition and pretty much just an idea to toy with.

I wonder, do other men have requirements for women and/or the other way around? How do we know its not possible some women shave in private parts for example because they are displaying Stockholm syndrome by complying with requirements set by men? Well, because nobody ponders about such nonsense. Or perhaps some women hold their men hostage when they let them open doors or bring flowers. Who knows eh?

As it was said many times. In France in particular - and this will not be much different - we talk about several hundreds, couple of thousand women at most. If we really cared about their well being we could just investigate. Instead we investigate fuck all. No wonder since our goal is to protect our values in the first place. Our soil, our nation, our culture, our people. It is valid notion but lets not pretend this is about making the world a better place. Better place for us.

Read the fucking ruling, the press release.