jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (10 posts)

France:The new law says it is illegal to hide the face in the public space.

  1. ptosis profile image72
    ptosisposted 7 years ago

    France:The new law says it is illegal to hide the face in the public space.

    What if it is bloody cold that day and you don't want to get sick? Is this tyranny of the majority? Mob Rule? Although the law does not mention “women,” ‘’Muslim” and “veil” - is it not discriminatory if enforced unevenly?  ...... If a law - no matter how PC worded it is -  is aimed at only a percentage of population -  is not that law a perversion of the very ideal of freedom and equality that France says it is trying to uphold?


  2. Chouji-Von-Lycan profile image57
    Chouji-Von-Lycanposted 7 years ago

    when i first read this, i thought, well this is good, hiding your face means you have something to hide, and it personally freaks me out when people cover their faces, but yes, if it's cold then it does some what cause a problem

  3. dashingscorpio profile image86
    dashingscorpioposted 7 years ago

    I would imagine the law does not affect one's dress outdoors but when someone comes indoors they want (everyone) to be uncovered. I know in many states you aren't allowed to wear a halloween mask or disguise into a bank to conduct transactions.
    Naturally the reason is due to security.

    Understandably this may be a sensitive issue if you dress a certain way because of your religion or culture.
    However every nation has the right to draft it's own rule of law.
    If I were to go to France I would be obligated to follow (their laws) whether I agreed with them or not.

    My other option would be never to go there or possibly try and persuade others not to go as well. Depending on how strongly I felt about it I might petition my country to withdraw it's investments and financial dealings with the country....etc

    However in the big scheme of things having an uncovered face  inside of public buildings is a very small sacrafice to improve security. I'd take that over being frisked or x-rayed any day of the week!

    (Sadly 9-11 changed the world forever.)
    Personally I miss being able to see a loved one off at their gate in the airport or being at the arrival gate waiting for them to deboard the plane. None the less I've learned to accept the fact that those days are gone forever.

    Therefore I drop people off at the curb and when I travel myself I carry travel size 3oz liquids in a sandwich baggie, remove my belt, my shoes, watch, cell phone, have my bags riffled through, walk through x-ray machines and whatever ever else I'm required to do. I don't take it personally because everyone has to go through the same thing and it's all in the name of the greater good. Unfortunately "some our freedoms" have been stripped away in order for us to maintain the bulk of our freedoms.

  4. peterxdunn profile image60
    peterxdunnposted 7 years ago

    I personally do not like to see women walking round in burkhas.

    But that is because I am a very curious person and I like watching other people, even total strangers, and especially women. Not being able to see them prevents me from speculating about them and wondering what their life is like. Are they happy - are they sad etc. One game I used to play was giving people - who I'd never met - a name. Then eaves-dropping on their conversations to see if I was right.

    So I do not like the burkha. But, then again, it is not for me to say what these women can and cannot wear. It is their life - not mine or yours.

    It is not even right for the majority to dictate what a minority can wear. This is democracy in reverse.

    What we we are seeing is a slow process of demonization. Politicians in Europe and America are feigning tolerance toward Islam because they need to keep countries like Saudi Arabia sweet and the oil flowing. While they openly declare that they are not anti-Islamic they are bemoaning the fact that Muslim minorities have not integrated themselves into the life of their adopted host nations. This is causes alienization and breeds fundamentalism.

    What we in the West need to be aware of is that - if these politicians get their way - there will be all out war between Christians and Muslims. Millions will die and fortunes will be made. And the survivors will live under marshal law forevermore.

  5. ptosis profile image72
    ptosisposted 7 years ago

    Are you not especially concerned at the recent rise of intolerance, xenophobia and racism directed at migrants and their communities?

    The law has nothing to do with security in a airport or being inside a courtroom. Public means inside & out - everywhere.

    The law is about  "the preservation of 'French values'  - akin to the North Korea edict that women are to wear traditional Korean attire as source of national pride. How is this ban any different that Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice?


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-l … 1/apr/12/2 ,

  6. onegoodwoman profile image76
    onegoodwomanposted 7 years ago

    It does not say not to wear a hat, cap, scarf........................

    it says not to hide your identity as a mode of everyday dress.

    If you do not want to be seen, do not go into the PUBLIC arena.

    Let us discuss, WHAT has pushed the liberal French to this point........

    Duh, only a small percentage of the poplulation are wearing burkhas.

  7. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
    Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 years ago

    I don't particularly like the idea of dictating to people what they wear in public - it goes against principles of freedom of expression. However there are I think 3 strong reasons why covering the face (I'm not so bothered about head scarves) are to be at least very strongly discouraged;

    1) It defeats the point of CCTV. Like them or loathe them, CCTV cameras are there for a purpose in public places, and if people start covering their faces with hoods or veils, it makes it harder to uphold the law.
    2) Facial expressions - next to speech - are the primary way inwhich we communicate with each other, identifying people, their emotions and intentions. Society would become very disfunctional if we all covered up and could no longer see each others' faces.
    3) As I understand it, the specific reason for the Muslim veil is to do with removing temptation from men, who it's felt might look upon the face of a woman and judge her by her appearance or have unsuitable thoughts about her? If so, that is downright insulting to men.

    I would on balance dislike the banning of the covering of faces in public, though we don't have any free expression qualms about banning other dress codes in public (nakedness being the obvious example) and I certainly have no problem with the idea of veils and hoods and masks being banned by employers in the workplace, or by owners of private premises.

  8. justom profile image69
    justomposted 7 years ago

    It's a bit silly don't you think. There's a sign at the place I bank that says I have to remove my hat and sunglasses when entering. I don't think so, don't treat us all like criminals because a few are!

  9. Tusitala Tom profile image65
    Tusitala Tomposted 7 years ago

    Sounds like a good idea to me.   Why should we be afraid to show our faces?    And as far as it being too cold...Sounds like rubbish to me.   Except in the Antarctic in a blizzard the human face can take it.

  10. KNOWLEDGESEEKER79 profile image60
    KNOWLEDGESEEKER79posted 7 years ago