Once Again.... If You Don't Like France...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Then by all means let me unwrap my vapid reply

The difference between the two is that murder is the crime, whereas the mask is one of the things which facilitates the crime. Murder has very specific negative consequences, somebody dies. Wearing a mask does not. It might make a heist (marginally) easier and it might make oppressing your wife (marginally) easier, but in both cases it is peripheral to the actual crime, so banning it is less likely to affect the likelyhood of someone committing said crime very much. THAT is why we need a law for murder but not for niqabs.

I think you're misinterpreting my point, which is that simply because a law doesn't eliminate a crime -- i.e., it isn't 100% efficacious -- that doesn't mean the law is useless.

A better analogy than murder would be gun control, from the perspective that owning a gun does not, of itself, have a negative outcome. It can however lead to a negative outcome and certainly facilitates murder. But even then its a poor comparison because of the alternatives available.

The $64 question: are you against gun control laws?

If we are going to try to control an actual crime (be it bank robbery or murder) by regulating things which make it easier (face coverings or guns) one would have to consider how required the secondary thing is to the actual crime. Having a gun makes it MUCH easier to kill someone so its quite impactful. The wearing of a niqab however is not really going to make much difference to a crim planning a heist as he has many other options. A large pair of sunglasses, a hoodie and a fake mustache / beard would conceal him perfectly adequately and could be worn from home or indeed donned on the street quite easily.



Reckon you could pick this guy out from a lineup?

This is a fair point.

Here's a fun question for you. How many crimes have been committed, in the country where you live (not in iraq which is a completely different scenario), by people wearing niqabs to conceal their identity? Because if that is a significant figure, AND you don't think that the above is an effective disguise, then I'll grant you that a ban would make a significant impact on crime.

---

They're not prevalent here in America, but they do happen. However, I'm not in support of banning only niqabs. I think that facial identity should be made plain when entering a place of business; I am not for singling out religious garments in the position. Nor am I in support of banning them in the wider public arena; only in places of business, be it financial or governmental.

Let's turn this around: do you think a person has a right to privacy in the public sphere? If so, why?

Kind of a wide question, it depends entirely on which bit of the public sphere. For EG, in the NHS, we all have to wear name badges, and that seems fair. But here on a web forum we don't expect to tell people who we are. And that seems fair to.

I had assumed that the context of the question would be understood to be in real life, not on-line. Forgive my not making that clear for you.

I would say the question is back asswards. Why should anyone have a right to invade your privacy? And the answer to that depends on the context.

I'd take issue with your unquestioned premise that your right to privacy follows you everywhere you go. Case law here in America makes clear that citizens have no expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps that's the case where you live, I'm not sure. But as I pointed out upthread, I agree with the American jurisprudence on the topic, because to me it's clearly unreasonable to expect the rest of the city to walk around a sex act on the sidewalk, or other private event.

Insofar as less-obvious examples are concerned, it seems clear that, say, in the Florida driver's license case, the state was granted (rightfully, in my opinion) the right to establish identity when issuing and checking driver's licenses.

I suppose, in short, I'm asking why you think your right to privacy in terms of your facial identity trumps the public's ability to identify -- for instance -- after the fact the perpetrator of a crime?

I don't ever want to be stopped by a policeman and told that too much of my face is being covered up and for security reasons he's going to require me to show myself, not just to him, to satisfy himself of who I am, but in general.

If he's doing it as a random spot-check and there are no laws about masking one's face in effect, I would agree with you completely. If he's checking your identity because you match the description put out on an APB, I'd think that your "right" to not show your face in public, such as it is, would likely not be upheld in court.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The KKK members didn't cover their faces when they marched in Washington, D.C. so why should muslim women cover their faces when they go out in public? http://www.shorpy.com/node/5572?size=_original#caption

[Mudhammam]

After hearing all sides and being unable to adequately defend my position, I accept the arguments of those supporting the ban. Part of my change of heart occurred at work yesterday. The guy I work with (he's slightly mentally disabled and I basically go to his house to babysit) told me how he scared one of his neighbors at his apartment complex the other night by putting on his Scream costume, including mask, and popping out from behind the front door when she was coming back in from a smoke. I told him this was not a wise thing to do. Then when I was there, he wanted to wear it outside to show off to some neighborhood kids. It made me a bit uncomfortable, putting myself in the shoes of his neighbors or other bystanders, and I found myself almost wishing I could say, "You can't do that! It's illegal!"

I came to the conclusion that for public safety, a ban of all facial coverings is probably the most common sense solution to preventing such a problem as I felt yesterday, considering that there really are a number of people who would conceal themselves to do random people harm rather than just pull off a silly prank. It's a sad commentary on society and so, unlike those celebrating France's law, I begrudgingly accept its logic because I'm still uncomfortable with the complete erosion of privacy which, considering the surveillance and facial recognition technologies police forces now utilize, this law further cements.

[Polaris]

You really are a fucking asshole.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nigeri...ns-122439/

Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram has killed scores of worshipers and burned down four churches in a major attack on Christians in Kwada and Kautikari villages in Nigeria.

"They killed dozens of people and burned houses after attacking worshipers," survivor Mallam Yahi told The Associated Press on Sunday after escaping to Chibok.

I guess in your opinion they locked themselves inside the fucking church and committed suicide?

So by your failed logic, just because the GOP states it is Constitutional to restrict the rights of minorities and the poor, then the Constitution must support it simply because they said so.