Banning is definitely a bad idea.
Probably a better idea would be shops/police/security being able to request they be removed, or ejected from the site.
Improves security, while allowing normal wearing of them in public.

As it's a cultural thing, there is no reason why it should not be removed.
It's like being asked to not go into a shop topless during the summer.

Iknorite?

I was worried there was going to be some hella capslock screaming going on from page one.

And there was some, but from the right point of view.

The gun thing is a bit much. Mostly the image needs more explanation, as those are a lot of dudes, and they don't look like cops, who are forbidden from enforcing this law by physical means anyways. Also, the Telegraph reports that citizen's arrests and vigilantism are not permitted with this law.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/french-veil-ban-woman-niqab-fined
This lady would disagree, as she refused to remove her veil, even temporarily, until she was arrested.

Also, I found the specific wording of the law. The words "women," "Muslim" and "veil" are never mentioned in the law. It applies to all garments which cover the eyes, although scarfs, hats, helmets, and sunglasses are excluded. Additionally, this only applies in public and not on festifals such as weddings and Halloween, so, no, costume parties aren't illegal.

It is also worth noting that moderate Muslim leaders in France and elsewhere agree that Islam does not require women to cover their faces. I've said it once before, and I'll say it again. The Burqa and Niqab are only mandated by Islamic sects that prevent a woman from owning property, working, choosing her husband, rejecting sexual advances, and driving, among other things.

I guess what I'm getting at is that while this seems strange and discriminatory, when you look at France's history and current demographics, as well as current Islamic doctrine, the law makes more sense. I'm still not if favour of it, but it's a bit more complicated than would appear.

Why are you bothering to mention extremist sects? Freedom of religion applies to everyone.

Where he says "extremeist sects" input "Religious groups that infringe upon human rights and reduce quality of living for many people" in this case the abuse that the women in these sects (note that these women are not necesarily a voluntary part of these sects) that is justified by the religion that these extreme sects practise. This is tied in by this statement:

See, not so unrelated.

Edit: And religious freedom is only in relation to yourself, not others.

Source is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html
-The Daily Mail, whilst not being the most high-brow of newspapers, is certainly not a gossip mag
-She was not carrying a gun, so that is likely a shadow
-Those are plainclothes policeman
-It was at a protest, meaning media would have been covering it anyway
-In a protest, it is generally a good idea to have a high ratio of policeman to people being arrested, to avoid interference

Religions don't divide neatly into sects or denominations. I strongly doubt that the burqa and niqab are exclusive to specific sects. While those sects may be the only ones that mandate it, other sects may have it as optional and individuals may hold a set of beliefs that does not fit into any specific sect.
EDIT: Your statement is that 100% of niqab wearers are oppressed women. Statements of that nature are near impossible to prove and very easy to disprove.

Not quite. I said the only sects that mandate a full face covering are oppressive. Just because person A wears a Burqa doesn't mean they belong to one of these sects, but at this point it's no longer a matter of being mandated by their religion, rather, they have options under their religion which would not disobey the law.

Look at it this way: My hypothetical religion says I have to sacrifice a goat, or, alternately give money to the poor. If the gov't makes sacrificing goats illegal, they haven't prevented me from following me religion, they've just reduced my options.

Again, I'm against this law, and everything I'm saying is defending an unethical policy. I'm just saying that this is why I think the french did it, and why it's not as simple as it would appear.
Also, the stuff I could have read could be completely wrong, so i reserve the right to be miles off target on anything here.

Blargh, I meant to put the word implies in there somewhere. The statement implies it, but yeah.
And I understand and appreciate what you're doing; only if people are willing to raise points on both sides of the argument is any meaningful discussion really possible.

The devil's advocate, I do believe.

I'm on the fence here.

If I were to walk around town with a balaclava on i'd probably be stopped by someone sooner or later. The burqas are essentially just that. I'm not even allowed to wear a hat inside some shops for security reasons. I think it's perfectly understandable that people would view these things as potential threats.

While all out banning it is obviously going to call problems, I think it is a step in the right direction. Maybe a leap too far, in fact.
If you go to some countries you are expected to follow certain laws. For example, i'm English and if I were to go to america and get hit by a car, I couldn't demand free health care just because that's how it works in my home country.

Perhaps here in Britain our (shitty) government will be a bit less radical. I'm certainly not a fan of muslims but i'm also not a biggot either. Some sort of comprimise should be agreed on.

In what way are you 'not a fan of muslims'?

This made me literally laugh out loud. You're a diamond, boyo. Never change.

oh god dannyboy thank you for the ♥♥♥♥ laugh

no but seriously you apparently are younger than I have fingers

please get a whole lot better at talking or leave the debate

When I said "i'm not a fan" I didn't mean I hate or even dislike them. I'm also not pro-muslim.

Is that so diffucult to grasp? Someone doesn't have an opinion that is the opposite or is your own?! Holy ♥♥♥♥!