Does Anyone Oppose This Bill?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/tory-mps-ban-burqa-bill-reaches-parliament

/// The bill states that "a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence." It adds that "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...to request that a person wearing a garment or other object intended to obscure the face remove such garment or object; or to require that a person refusing a request...leave the premises." ///

I look forward to the debate both on here and also in Parliament.

[jno]

I know of no such right, Zeuhl.

You are, or should be, within your rights to refuse to deal with someone in a private capacity, as long as it's not on grounds that have been outlawed (being homosexual, for instance). But the proposed offence covers even appearing in a public place.

[Zeuhl]

/Right? what Right is that?/

The right I have decided I have for civilised interaction with others

/How is it different to a telephone conversation? /

It's obvious jtp - that the telephone puts both parties on an equal level of interaction impairment

If forced to (in a shop or public building), I would politely decline to deal with someone who denied me the opportunity to see their face.

This is a collision of values and beliefs caused by people going out into the world whilst still applying cultural mores associated with the intention of keeping them hidden away at home and not interacting with people except in the most limited way eg doing the shopping

[jake-the-peg]

Oh I'm sorry Zeuhl I didn't realise you'd been empowered to decide what rights you do and don't have


//This is a collision of values and beliefs//

Well we agree on that

It's just you've decided that your values and beliefs take precidence and you shouldn't have to show tolerence to those of others

[Zeuhl]

/It's just you've decided that your values and beliefs take precidence and you shouldn't have to show tolerence to those of others /

Because for me they reflect the values and beliefs that have prevailed in Europe (and most human societies) for all of recorded time

Here's the thing jtp

it is fundamental for all human beings (even arabs) to 'read' facial expressions in their interactions with others

To remove that is an impairment

in our culture, the only people who cover their faces (other than for health or safety reasons) are Robbers and Highwaymen!

If one minority want to inflict that impairment in communication on others then I will be tolerant of their wish to do that - but I won't interact with them on that basis

any more than i would interact with people who insisted I put on a blindfold if I wanted to talk to them

[jno]

it is fundamental for all human beings (even arabs) to 'read' facial expressions in their interactions with others

Even today, Zeuhl? Nine out of ten of my transactions are done without any such readings, thanks to the internet. And if the tenth was with a woman in a burqa, I believe I could cope. It might just be different if I was purchasing Tower Bridge... but seriously, I just don't feel this need to see people's faces.

And as I said the proposed law goes far beyond mere interactions.

[pixie373]

I think you're right, zeuhl. I actually find it rude, because it implies blatantly that others (men, anyway) cannot control themselves. It's an exceptionally tactless message. Of course, my interpretation is most probably due to my culture and the way I've been brought up, that facial expression is a huge part of communication.

[Zeuhl]

/Even today, Zeuhl? Nine out of ten of my transactions are done without any such readings, thanks to the internet./

Mine too - but like the telephone argument, both parties are on an equal footing

And can you honestly say that such interactions aren't impaired and would not be improved if the nuances of non-verbal were available

What you're suggesting is worse than that; you are suggesting that one party should have access to those nuances and indicators and the other not.

Perhaps - if this is just a question of how someone 'dresses' we should ask ourselves if it would matter if (say) all the Law Enforcement officers we ever dealt with wore ski masks and tinted visors at all times (as the para military police do in some countries) so we could not see their faces?

Would that change how we felt about the Police?
Would it affect our interactions with them?
Would it change how we felt when we saw them on the street?

Or is deciding what police wear a trivial matter?

Better still - what about masks for judges, prosecutors and all Court officials?
We'd all be relaxed about that would we?

[Mamyalynne]

I am not at all political, but having read that one of the proponents of the Bill as outlined in the OP decided not to interview women constituents wearing the veil. His comment 'I wouldn't know they were who they said they were' - preferring them to communicate with him by letter.

I have thereby come to the conclusion he is not the brightest button in the box and find it hard to take seriously, in the main I oppose the Bill.

[THECORBYLOON]

Those that are against folk who wear a veil, how often have you had to have a conversation with a woman who was wearing a veil?

[pixie373]

Only once or twice, and i kept it as short as possible.

[THECORBYLOON]

Anyone else?

[pixie373]

Won't i do? :-)

[1ndex]

Other than for protection cover, hiding your face shows dishonest intentions. Even a burka shows the wearer cannot be trusted to be moral and loyal to her male keeper/s.

I support the bill

[ichkeria]

Don't tell the groom his veiled bride has dishonest intentions :-)

[pixie373]

She clearly does, or she would show her face. Why hide it until it's too late and he's married her?

[ichkeria]

and she'd actually be breaking the law if that Bill had ever been passed.
Which kind of emphasises the stupidity of it ...

[1ndex]

a veil is sheer and the face is visible

[jno]

with regard to masked police, Zeuhl, aren't you ignoring your own arguments about parties being on an equal footing? No, I wouldn't like hooded police, since they have powers over me I do not have over them. (They can for instance kill me with impunity.)

This just isn't the case with people I deal with, unless you assume women in burqas are out to murder you, a proposition for which there's little evidence. In a moderately stratified society you're never exactly equal with anyone; but the differences are trivial. I've never worried about missing nuances in others' facial expressions, nor that they can see mine. It's just not one of the worries of my life.

It sounds like Kevin and Perry: "She can wear a veil and I can't! It's So. Un. Fair."

I should stress that I don't spend my time in striking big financial deals with people I don't know, or psychoanalysing them, or drilling their teeth. You may do one of these, and I concede that seeing their faces might be useful in such cases and perhaps others. But not I think in most people's lives.

And I say again... this bill isn't about business. It's about being allowed out in public, anywhere, any time.

[Khandro]

jake; your 'tolerance' is becoming painful; you appear to be of that, what I call, "so what" generation, which has led your country into the mess it now finds itself.

[naomi24]

Actually, this makes me sick. People defend the right of women, who are often politically motivated, to choose to visibly separate themselves from society – but very few, it appears, give a hoot about those who have no choice in the matter. You think you’re liberal, but you’re not. You are, in effect, condoning the subjugation of women and you, just like the so-called ‘sisters’ who are fortunate enough to be able to choose, are doing those who have repression thrust upon them no favours whatsoever . Think about it!