It's official -the niqab is not "religious" dress ....

[Saracen]

Indeed. I just disagree with the notion of a 'right to see your face' or the idea that seeing the face is some necessary principle or part of French society - or anywhere. I think wasabi had it right. For example, a lot of people would advocate for the friendships that they have forged online. Some/many would say that they have better friends online or at distance than 'face to face'. I don't see how the French, or anyone else, can attempt to legislate that people have to show/cannot hide their faces. Despite what the actual legislation may say, this is clearly a reaction against the values of certain types of muslim culture.

If that is the case then perhaps the scariest part of all this is where legislators draft nonsense to justify passing something they dislike.

"reaction against ..."?

Well, there's two sides to that, isn't there?

What the court seems to be saying is that French culture (in common with just about all of Western countries) seeing the face is part of the "established concensus" of how interpersonal relationships work. In other words, French culture includes seeing faces. So, fine, one interpretation of part of Muslim culture is hiding women's faces. But it's incompatible with that "established culture" of France.

So, here's the thing.

When Westerners visit Islamic countries, non-muslims are expected to abide by basic Islamic principles and laws. And fine. If people aren't prepared to abide by those principles, don't go to Islamic countries.

But why the hell should French culture take second place to Islamic culture, in France?

After all, tolerance of others doesn't mean giving up your own way of life. And in a case where showing your face and not showing your face are mutually exclusive, we can't have both. It's either/or. So just maybe that section of Muslims that want the niqab need to respect French culture, and understand they don't live in an Islamic country, but a secular one.

France is not Muslim. In terms of state, and laws, it's not even religious. It's secular.

And the judgement made clear that the ban was not being upheld against religious clothing, or for that matter, religious anything, and that wasn't what the law it upheld said either. It was about covering your face .... unless specified exceptions applied, like the motorbike helmet. So it would apply, for instance, to a Christian man wearing a balaclava (face covered) but not to a Muslim woman wearing a hijab (face not covered, but "religious" apparel.

The long and the short of it is that the French ban seeks to enforce that minimum standard, and the ECHR upheld that, meaning that Islamic women wanting to wear the niqab don't have the right to ignore French cultural standards. When in Rome ....

[wasabi]

But they did it the right way, they passed a law against all face coverings, except the few exceptions, rather than trying to ban specific garments.

Disagree. it is a dishonest mealy-mouthed fudge that attempts to talk around the issue. They made a law removing the right to privacy or personal clothing choice for all. What they should have done was take on those patriarchs forcing demeaning subjugating clothing on their wives and daughters. But oops, no talking about the elephant.

[Biscuit]

"reaction against ..."?

Well, there's two sides to that, isn't there?

What the court seems to be saying is that French culture (in common with just about all of Western countries) seeing the face is part of the "established concensus" of how interpersonal relationships work. In other words, French culture includes seeing faces. So, fine, one interpretation of part of Muslim culture is hiding women's faces. But it's incompatible with that "established culture" of France.

So, here's the thing.

When Westerners visit Islamic countries, non-muslims are expected to abide by basic Islamic principles and laws. And fine. If people aren't prepared to abide by those principles, don't go to Islamic countries.

But why the hell should French culture take second place to Islamic culture, in France?

After all, tolerance of others doesn't mean giving up your own way of life. And in a case where showing your face and not showing your face are mutually exclusive, we can't have both. It's either/or. So just maybe that section of Muslims that want the niqab need to respect French culture, and understand they don't live in an Islamic country, but a secular one.

France is not Muslim. In terms of state, and laws, it's not even religious. It's secular.

And the judgement made clear that the ban was not being upheld against relugious clothing, or for that matter, religious anything, and that wasn't what the law it upheld said either. It was about covering your face .... unless specified exceptions applied, like the motorbike helmet. So it would apply, for instance, to a Christian man wearing a balaclava (face covered) but not to a Muslim woman wearing a hijab (face not covered, but "religious" apparel.

The long and the short of it is that the French ban seeks to enforce that minimum standard, and the ECHR upheld that, meaning that Islamic women wanting to wear the niqab don't have the right to ignore French cultural standards. When in Rome ....

I'm glad you pointed this out.

With my work I have opportunities to work all over the world. For example, I'm going to south Korea in a few weeks.
I deliberately refuse opportunities to go to middle eastern countries because I don't agree with some of the elements of their culture and law.
I know its obviously not this simple for a country which has a large element of a certain religion in its society, but in some ways it just has to be this simple . If you are not allowed to do something you feel is to do with your religion or culture, live somewhere that you are.

[DeludedGuy]

I have not heard of a single reason for covering up that is not misogynist.

[ik9000]

But they did it the right way, they passed a law against all face coverings, except the few exceptions, rather than trying to ban specific garments.

Does that mean cyclists can't wear face masks? What about Firemen? How far does this law go? My dentists wears a face mask - should she remove it? What about builders/car workshop painters/carpenters at saw mills? Or skiiers in the French Alps?

[Biscuit]

Does that mean cyclists can't wear face masks? What about Firemen? How far does this law go? My dentists wears a face mask - should she remove it? What about builders/car workshop painters/carpenters at saw mills? Or skiiers in the French Alps?

All temporary masks worn for the purpose of protection, not items of clothing worn for fashion/culture/religion with no occupational purpose.

Its unlikely you are going to walk around the streets after a hard day in the office putting out house fires, still wearing your helmet.

Remember, this is about the usage of the garments in public.

[ik9000]

brides gettings married and people in mourning a la Queen Victoria?

[DeludedGuy]

brides gettings married and people in mourning a la Queen Victoria?

Is that supposed to be a like for like comparison?

[narz]

Disagree. it is a dishonest mealy-mouthed fudge that attempts to talk around the issue. They made a law removing the right to privacy or personal clothing choice for all. What they should have done was take on those patriarchs forcing demeaning subjugating clothing on their wives and daughters. But oops, no talking about the elephant.

Is the problem that big it needs to be addressed specifically? I would say no, the majority (especially in western countries) are wearing it out of free will.

Just to add its nothing to do with social interaction, if an individual does not want to interact and socialise with others, they won't, face hidden or not.

[Biscuit]

brides gettings married and people in mourning a la Queen Victoria?

Your examples seem to be lacking genuine context.
Think about it, If someone rocks up to a supermarket or strolls around a city centre wearing an item of clothing which does not fit the task at hand, its going to (rightly) raise a few eyebrows, and i would understand if the police stopped said person and asked them a few questions. If they deem that said person is suitably suspicious for wearing their 'outfit' then perhaps they would take that person in for further questioning, perhaps they would just ask them to remove it whilst in public.
If someone is genuinely part of a funeral/wedding, its fairly unlikely that they will be in a general public encounter, by them self, with a face covering garment. If they were, the above statement still applies.

The garment in question is one that these people will wear every moment they are out of their own home under pretense that its to do with religion and culture.

The link between these two is incredibly tenuous.

[csgohan4]

society dictates what is socially acceptable, in this case a non islamaic country saying no to the Niqab.

HOwever in the UAE this is the norm.

[Saracen]

Does that mean cyclists can't wear face masks?

Nope, that's okay, because it's part of a sport.

What about Firemen? How far does this law go? My dentists wears a face mask - should she remove it? What about builders/car workshop painters/carpenters at saw mills?

Nope, they're okay, as it's for professional purposes.

Or skiiers in the French Alps?

Again, sport.

Someone mentioned brides. As I understand it, that's acceptable, because it's specifically for a religious/traditional event/ceremony .... though there is a provision whereby it could become an issue if the religious leader required it to be removed and the wearer refused.

[opel80uk]

What about if I was wearing sunglasses and a scarf covering the bottom half of my face?

[Saracen]

Is the problem that big it needs to be addressed specifically? I would say no, the majority (especially in western countries) are wearing it out of free will.

Just to add its nothing to do with social interaction, if an individual does not want to interact and socialise with others, they won't, face hidden or not.

That's not the point. Not at all.

It's that SOCIETY'S norms, long-established, "existing concensus" is that social interaction, in that society, expects to be able to see the face. If an individual doesn't wish to interact, they were, and still are, perfectly entitled to not do so. That is the basis ob which the ECHR rejected the claim that it conflicted with the right of the individual to cover their face (unless the exceptions in the law apply).

And it's worth bearing in mind that this is the judgement of a court of 17 trans-European judges, from 17 countries.

[Saracen]

I have not heard of a single reason for covering up that is not misogynist.

Well, the right of the individual to do as they wish?

The problem is, in this case, the right of the individual lost out to the rights of society's "established concensus". Rightly so, IMHO.

[Saracen]

All temporary masks worn for the purpose of protection, not items of clothing worn for fashion/culture/religion with no occupational purpose.

Its unlikely you are going to walk around the streets after a hard day in the office putting out house fires, still wearing your helmet.

Remember, this is about the usage of the garments in public.

In public places. That includes on private property where the publuc have free, if conditional, access .... which would include retail premises during opening hours, dentist's surgeries, etc. It's the same sort of definition of public places that applies to private property to which the publuc has conditional and/or part-time access under the UK smoking ban, like pubs, restaurants, etc.