It has everything to do with religion...which is why Sarkozy is now backing away from the outright ban in public which, btw, has not yet been enacted by the French parliament, because... it "would be unworkable and likely to backfire" and would "stigmatise Muslims and fall foul of constitutional guarantees in individual liberties."

And, instead, proposing a ban only on wearing veils in government buildings and on public transport.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6988737.ece

It would also most certainly fail a constitutional test in the US.

Facial recognition software has come a long way, but works best in passive situations with the cooperation of the individual. It is still relatively easy to fool the software in a large crowd if one wants to, including with sunglasses.

He is backing away for political reasons. Srsly. Is it enforceable - no, but is it something that "has everything to do with religion"? not in my mind - its purely a safety/security issue. On that you have not argued. Can I assume we agree on that point?
If they said a christian could not wear a cross or a Jew could not wear Kippah or Yarmulke, I would agree 100%. To me this is a completely different issue.

It would ABSOLUTELY fail here. There is no doubt. Still not the point we are discussing - please try and stay on track here.
What we have here is apparently rudimentary compared to that in the UK. I saw a show on it months ago. I was amazed at what they could so with simply a partial view of a persons face. Their database is massive. Talk about big brother... OMG.

ETA: perhaps it was Three-dimensional face recognition that the show was on. I am not positive.


Also, you never responded to this:

Seriously, are you surprised?

Srsly, are y'all srs?

Yes, we've had a very nice, calm & relatively intelligent discussion.

Good on you!

Or perhaps he is backing away because he determined it would fall foul of constitutional guarantees or that the "political" reason was that it stigmatise Muslims.

I honestly dont see how it is not a religious issue but a safety security issue when the first step in the process is for the French Parliament to adopt a non-binding resolution that would state that "full face-covering by women breached the Republic’s fundamental principles of sexual equality and secularism."

I agree the practice is sexist and, IMO, archaic. But it seems clear to me that the resolution is targeted at one religion's practice, with no mention of security or safety.

I thought I addressed that when I responded to Merc :

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman (or man, I would add) posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

Men AND women who are known terrorists (or who might have known connections/contacts with known terrorists based on intel) and who might be using this (or any) means ....should be tracked and targeted with all legal measures.

But I fail to see how that applies to a blanket ban...when there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of women who wear the veil are "known terrorists" or have that intent.

Then we agree - Political reasons. Why is it so hard for you to just say that. Sheesh!

Simply because that one religion wears them? Whats preventing the next Tim McVeigh from wearing one to move about freely and not be able to be tracked?

Please tell me how the heck we are going to do that if we CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES???

The politics of an emotional fear of one religion...OR the potential backlash...OR constitutional guarantees...OR because it is unworkable...sheesh!

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason.. sheesh!

By all legal means...electronic surveillance, human intel, etc.

Oye.

Now you didnt answer my question:

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution (evidently, the first step proposed in the Parliamentary process) does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason?

Here's another question.
How do you know that it was politics and not any of the other reasons states (backlash, constitutional guarantees, unworkable)..that went into Sarkosy's thought process that caused him to backtrack from the total ban?


It is simple for me...we should be very careful and proceed in a very deliberative manner before we start taking away guaranteed personal rights and liberties and never do so w/o compelling evidence or intel that it is absolutely required and that results cannot be achieved by any other means.

I don't know - neither do you.
My whole argument - THE POINT I thought we were discussing was the security issue. Remember I took the religious component out a long time ago.
Here's another question.
What type of backlash? Political perhaps? Constitutional _____ that too would fall under political to me. Unworkable - we already discussed and agreed upon.

Guaranteed personal rights and liberties . . . I don't see being completely covered in there anywhere. This simply seems like an agree to disagree issue, I guess. I personally think the safety and security of the millions is more important than the DESIRE of 2000. But hey, thats just me.
I am quite cognizant of the slippery slope this can rapidly become. But again, that wasn't the point.

(Ohh look at the time - I have to go to bombism service now - Hope I don't get arrested for exercising MY religion) :3eye:

Covering their faces is NOT a religious practice, it's a cultural practice. Please keep that straight. :eyebrow:

Add it to the list of "agree to disagree" along with torture. ;)

True.

Just as many Christian and Jewish practices are cultural and cannot be directly traced to biblical word.

uh, yeah.