Pat Condell

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

But it is applied specifically to one religion of which the vast majority of followers are law-abiding and are not suspected or known terrorists.

No it is applied to everyone.

That is a silly argument. If you want to rob or murder, the law will discriminate against you.

No...it is not "someone", it is the judiciary that interprets the law of the land unless you dont believe in the legal system.

Incorrect - I never said I wanted to rob or murder anyone. YOU are discriminating against me right now. Why would you say such terrible things about my religious beliefs? Bombism has harmed no one.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think so, I read they also prohibited carnival masks on the street.

I may be wrong, but I think the recent French law applies to wearing masks in public gatherings or protests. The earlier French law applied only to Burkhas in schools.

Originally Posted by classicman

Incorrect - I never said I wanted to rob or murder anyone. YOU are discriminating against me right now. Why would you say such terrible things about my religious beliefs? Bombism has harmed no one.

Sillier.

Courts interpret and discriminate.

If your "religion" is perceived as posing a threat to society then the courts will probably discriminate against you.

Islam is not a security threat to US or European social order...the threat is from those extremists within the religion who abuse it for their own illegitimate purposes.

added:
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of whom practice their religion peacefully.

[classicman]

Jean-François Copé, parliamentary leader of President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP group, said the 750 euro fine would apply to anyone whose face is "fully covered in public".

Mr Copé insists the law is based on public safety and sexual equality considerations and does not restrict religious practices.

"We spoke to religious and secular figures who all confirmed [the burka] was not a religious prescription. Wearing the full body veil is about extremists who want to test the republic," he said.

"The burka is a prison for women and has no place in the French Republic. But an ad hoc law would not have the anticipated effect," said their spokesman, Benoît Hamon.

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the veteran leader of the far-Right National Front, said a ban was unnecessary as it is already "forbidden to walk the streets and public spaces with a mask on".

Interior ministry figures suggest that around 2,000 women in France wear full Muslim dress in public.

France passed a law in 2004 banning students and staff from wearing "conspicuous" religious symbols in schools – including veils – to defend secularism.

In September a French mother was banned from wearing a full-body "burkini" bathing suit at her local swimming pool. She was told it contravened hygiene regulations but pledged to take her local council to court, saying the decision was political.

And look who is vehemently opposed to it...

In July, al-Qaeda leaders in north African issued a call to arms against France on an Islamic extremist website.

"We will seek dreadful revenge on France by all means at our disposal, for the honour of our daughters and sisters," they warned.

No surprise there

Some Muslims may consider the Burka "a prison" for women...so do I. There are also many Christians and Jews who oppose the more restrictive practices of their extreme orthodoxies.

The courts can also determine if any law has an adverse impact on one segment of society more than society as a whole. either intended or not.

Im not defending burkas. I think the practice is archaic. I am defending religious freedom as practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers who pose no security threat.

ps... Jean-Marie Le Pen (and the extremist National Front Party) is not someone I would ever quote or want to be associated with in any way...but thats just me.

[TheMercenary]

Mr Copé insists the law is based on public safety and sexual equality considerations and does not restrict religious practices.

"We spoke to religious and secular figures who all confirmed [the burka] was not a religious prescription. Wearing the full body veil is about extremists who want to test the republic," he said.

I suspect there is more to it than that but it makes good sense for the sake of security. The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...it makes good sense for the sake of security.

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman 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.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Redux

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?
.

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

It obscures facial recognition software, allows men to pose as women when their only goal is to evade capture, and prevents security video from recording them in accordance with the law.

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman 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.

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

As you pointed out, as long as you do it within the framework of the law, sure. Otherwise comply or go to jail. Pretty simple.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

... and underpants?

[perv]I would support that[/perv]

:p

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It obscures facial recognition software...

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

transvestite with oversized sunglasses. ban 'em

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Since 9/11 the rules in this country changed and they should have. We will lose some personal freedoms for the sake of security. That is just a new fact of life. Our inability to restrict certain freedoms is what got us into much of this mess in the first place.

9/11 happened do to an intelligence failure, furthermore, the lose of some of these freedoms haven't stopped other attacks such as the DC sniper or the underwear bomber.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman 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.

ok then it is solved. Intel informs us that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the war on terrorism.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

no need, neither of those hide the wearers face.

Originally Posted by Redux

So do oversized sunglasses.

Not true. Facial recognition software is VERY sophisticated.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

Not my problem. Sucks to be them. Security will trump any whine about rights; all the time, every time, everywhere.