Support NeoGAF

[Occam]

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public.

The court ruled that the restriction sought to guarantee social cohesion, the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others" and that it was "necessary in a democratic society", a statement said.

Belgium banned the wearing of the full-face veil under a June 2011 law. It prohibits appearing in public "with a face masked or hidden, in whole or in part, in such a way as to be unidentifiable".

Violations can result in fines and up to seven days in jail.

France was the first European country to ban the niqab in April 2011.

The European Court of Human Rights had already ruled on a challenge to the French law in 2014 when it also rejected arguments that the restriction breached religious freedom and individual human rights.

More details: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-face-veil-legal-european-court-human-rights/

8 March, 1979, days after the Islamic dictatorship was established in Iran, 100,000 (educated) women spontaneously took to the streets to protest compulsory religious clothing (hijab). It was the first and only time.
The best way to keep women docile is to indoctrinate them from a young age and to deny them education, which is what has been successfully practiced in Iran ever since.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...00000-iranian-women-protested-the-head-scarf/

 

[jelly]

Good, I don't think it's right in any society.

 

[Kayhan]

Excellent news. This is the niqab.

 

[carda114]

Good, I don't think it's right in any society.

This guy doesn't get it.

 

[Occam]

Good, I don't think it's right in any society.

This guy gets it.

 

[Engell]

This is only to prepare people for the new iPhone 8
Apple needs that facial data

Spoiler

also I'm ok with this ruling

 

[Alpende]

Can't say I'm against this ruling.

 

[jiiikoo]

This is only to prepare people for the new iPhone 8
Apple needs that facial data

Lol.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Good. The full face veil shit is stupid and should be ridiculed all the way.

 

[Blue Lou]

The decision is in full here but it's in French.

 

[Rumblebones]

I hate niqabs but I don't agree with outlawing them.

 

[NewDust]

This guy doesn't get it.

Surely there are some women who truly think they wear this because of religious ideas, but in the end it is because oppression against women is so ingrained they don't even question it.

 

[Occam]

Surely there are some women who truly think they wear this because of religious ideas, but in the end it is because oppression against women is so ingrained they don't even question it.

People in totalitarian societies are often brainwashed into believing they are free.

If the veil isn't sexist, then why don't muslim men wear one?

 

[Alienfan]

Excellent news. This is the niqab.

That's just depressing. Although I feel like this ban will only hurt those that wear the Niqab and not their human trash husbands, they just won't be allowed to leave the house, destroying the little freedom they had. Hopefully the long term sees fewer people wearing Niqabs

 

[axb2013]

As a Muslim, I am ok with this court's decision, I just hope women won't be pressured to keep breaking the law by their families. If you are willing to uproot your family and move it halfway across the world yet stubbornly insist on archaic traditions that may not even have root in the religion but stem from primitive desire to control women, you are a hypocrite.

 

[Chuckie]

I'm always terribly conflicted concerning this topic.

On the one hand I think the full-face veil is ridiculous, oppressive and doesn't belong in any society.
On the other hand I wonder what happens to the women who wear these? Do they stay indoors now as a result of the ban?

Also is it prevalent enough to warrant a ban?

 

[gutter_trash]

 

[daxy]

The decision is in full here but it's in French.

English press releases detailing the decision:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5788361-7361157
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5788319-7361101

These are in fact two judgements, Dakir v. Belgium as well as Belcacemi and Oussar v. Belgium, issued simultaneously on the same subject.

 

[Matt]

Well that's unfortunate.

 

[Heckler456]

That's just depressing. Although I feel like this ban will only hurt those that wear the Niqab and not their human trash husbands, they just won't be allowed to leave the house, destroying the little freedom they had. Hopefully the long term sees fewer people wearing Niqabs

I think it'll obviously be a net benefit to these women, but regardless of that, the situation you brought up where men will just not allow their wives to leave the house will probably also happen.

That being said though, most of the time, these women are housewives I would presume. Who's gonna take the kids to school? Or go grocery shopping? Or whatever else? I think that for a lot of these men who make their wives wear this type of veil, they're doing it because it's basically no skin off their back. Once it starts inconveniencing them, I think a significant percentage will get around to joining us in the modern age.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Ah, shame they gave into this. Not surprised though.

This guy gets it.

With all due respect, considering your reductive post history about Islam and religion, I don't think you're in any position to dictate 'who gets it' and who doesn't.

 

[Palette Swap]

Generally speaking, I don't think it's right to walk around in public masking your face, which is what the law states.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Generally speaking, I don't think it's right to walk around in public masking your face, which is what the law states.

Doesn't seem to be the main reason why they banned it though.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Once it starts inconveniencing them, I think a significant percentage will get around to joining us in the modern age.

Definitely. The "religious" justification only holds up when it suits the men.

 

[Aiii]

Doesn't seem to be the main reason why they banned it though.

This is already banned (at least in my country), but religion gets special treatment, of course.

 

[bionic77]

It is hard to justify anyone covering their entire face in a free and open society.

I don't know how many people do this in Belgium or any other country or what damage it is causing for this to come to a court of human rights, but I have talked to two women who dress like this and it made me and wife a little uncomfortable.

Not because of the religion or because we thought the woman was being treated badly, it was just very weird talking to someone when you could not see their face.

 

[AAK]

Whatever, it's easy to circumvent. They can just replace the niqab with a surgical mask and the function is retained.

 

[NumberThree]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

 

[Visualante2]

I think with the rise of facial recognition technology and surveilance that masking yourself in public becoming more and more reasonable.

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

You'll just need to apply for permission from the police before wearing anything like that in public. Same with peaceful protests wearing guy fawkes masks.

 

[Heckler456]

Doesn't seem to be the main reason why they banned it though.

Their reasoning was seemingly foremost to protect the women that have to wear it, but also for "social cohesion", which is a totally legitimate reason. Those veils only serve to make socialization outside of islamic circles much more difficult, and indirectly make the women even more dependent on their husbands. Regardless though, I'm sure the "you're not supposed to be out in public with your face covered up" was part of the reasoning too.

You don't think it's those full-face veils are a cheap ploy to domineer women by limiting their freedom?

 

[Chuckie]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

Wondering about that as well.

You also have 'carnaval' every year in the Netherlands, where people dress up and wear masks. Are they still allowed to do that?

Oh and I am not equating wearing a full-face veil for religious reasons and a 3-day a year party...I am just wondering about the legal technicalities.

 

[BlackLagoon]

Huh, I have asthma and cold air can really ravage my lungs. So during the winter I often wear a mask that warms up the air before I breath it in. It covers the lower part of my face, to just over my nose. I guess I have added "protection" because I'm white, though I do occasionally worry that it might become an issue.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Whatever, it's easy to circumvent. They can just replace the niqab with a surgical mask and the function is retained.

"It's not religious, I'm just worried about air pollution"

 

[cromofo]

I applaud this. No place in the modern society.

 

[Captain Smoker]

I'm ok with this.

Niqab and Burka are bullshit in my opinion.


I don't like the other headscarfs either, but these two are ridiculous.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Whatever, it's easy to circumvent. They can just replace the niqab with a surgical mask and the function is retained.

Except you can't cover your face already. This ruling was against the religious exception that existed. Equality looks like oppression when you are privileged indeed

 

[Khaz]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

No, masks worn at a parade or mandated by work are allowed

Art. 563bis. Seront punis d'une amende de quinze euros à vingt-cinq euros (lire : de 120 à 200 euros) et d'un emprisonnement d'un jour à sept jours ou d'une de ces peines seulement, ceux qui, sauf dispositions légales contraires, se présentent dans les lieux accessibles au public le visage masqué ou dissimulé en tout ou en partie, de manière telle qu'ils ne soient pas identifiables.

Toutefois, ne sont pas visés par l'alinéa 1er, ceux qui circulent dans les lieux accessibles au public le visage masqué ou dissimulé en tout ou en partie de manière telle qu'ils ne soient pas indentifiables et ce, en vertu de règlements de travail ou d'une ordonnance de police à l'occasion de manifestations festives. »

Art. 563bis. A fine of between fifteen euro and twenty-five euro (read: from € 120 to € 200) and imprisonment from one day to seven days or one of these penalties shall be punishable only if, In the places accessible to the public, the masked or concealed face, in whole or in part, in such a way that they are not identifiable.

However, in the case of persons who move in public places the face that is concealed or concealed in whole or in part in such a way that they are not identifiable under the terms of employment regulations Or a police order for festive events. "

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I'm okay with this. I have absolutely now problems with Hijabs which leave the face clear btw.

 

[daxy]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

The judgment is not about just any article of clothing covering one's face; if you read the case notes you see that it addresses forms of religious expression that require one covering one's face. The ban was a broad one, but there are exceptions for specific contexts in Belgium, and the court was asked to interpret its violations primarily with respect to articles 8, 9 and 14 of the convention, i.e. discrimination, respect for private and family life, freedom of thought and religion, as the matter was brought to the ECHR by Muslim applicants because they considered that wearing religious articles should not be included in such a ban.

With regard to Article 9 of the Convention, the State should thus, in principle, be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether and to what extent a limitation of the right to manifest one's religion or beliefs was ”necessary".

In the present case, the Belgian State had intended in adopting the contested provisions to respond to a practice that the State deemed incompatible, in Belgian society, with the ground rules of social communication and, more broadly, with the creation of the human relationships that were essential to life in society. The State was seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals that was, in its view, essential to the functioning of a democratic society. From this perspective, and similarly to the situation which had previously arisen in France (S.A.S. v. France), it seemed that the question whether or not it should be permitted to wear the full-face veil in public places constituted a choice of society. Furthermore, while it was true that the scope of the ban was broad, because all places accessible to the public were concerned, the contested provisions did not affect the freedom to wear in public any garment or item of clothing – with or without a religious connotation – which did not have the effect of concealing the face.

 

[Palette Swap]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

No. The law made provisions for work related conditions and officially sanctioned festive events.

 

[Kralamoonard]

You don't think it's those full-face veils are a cheap ploy to domineer women by limiting their freedom?

No, I don't, and in fact, ironically, this ban just limits their freedom even more. It's sad that when people see this they automatically assume the case is always being forced upon them by their husbands, when in many cases it's the opposite and they choose to wear it out of their own choice.

So no, I think it's the ban that limits their freedom (not by them choosing them to wear it which is what happens in most cases -- at least in the West -- but people always like to assume the worst).

Not that it doesn't happen mind you, but if we're going to base rulings on minority of examples, well then I can think of plenty of laws that need changing.

This is already banned (at least in my country), but religion gets special treatment, of course.

Religion gets special treatment? You do realise what thread you just posted this in?

People in totalitarian societies are often brainwashed into believing they are free.

If the veil isn't sexist, then why don't muslim men wear one?

I think it's pretty sexist for me to say that a woman who decides to wear a niqab is oppressed and unable to come to her own decision on the matter.

 

[NumberThree]

No, masks worn at a parade or mandated by work are allowed

Cheers (all), makes sense.

If I understand this right anyone organizing an event where people are expected to dress up like this can apply for a permission and people don't need to do it individually.

 

[Aiii]

Wondering about that as well.

You also have 'carnaval' every year in the Netherlands, where people dress up and wear masks. Are they still allowed to do that?

Oh and I am not equating wearing a full-face veil for religious reasons and a 3-day a year party...I am just wondering about the legal technicalities.

There would obviously be exceptions in such a law for things like Carnaval, Sinterklaas, Koningsdag, where wearing costumes are to be expected.

In Holland's "boerkawet" the law only applies to public spaces like City Hall and Public School's, anyways.

Religion gets special treatment? You do realise what thread you just posted this in?

I'm not from Belgium.

 

[Clefargle]

So technically something like this:

is also banned?

I mean, this is a small price to pay for security and equality. I'm ok with mascot suits being banned in public spaces. Maybe let someone wear it if it's their job or at a convention, but there is no right to walk around disguised in a free society. It's just not part of free societies

 

[Occam]

Ah, shame they gave into this. Not surprised though.



With all due respect, considering your reductive post history about Islam and religion, I don't think you're in any position to dictate 'who gets it' and who doesn't.

What?

 

[Somnid]

So what do they expect to happen?

A) They'll throw away their tightly held religious tradition and become free
B) They stop going outside

 

[Alx]

Wondering about that as well.

You also have 'carnaval' every year in the Netherlands, where people dress up and wear masks. Are they still allowed to do that?.

IIRC the French law (and probably Belgian too) is very specific about it, and Carnaval is explicitly stated as an exception when people are allowed to cover their face.

So what do they expect to happen?

A) They'll throw away their tightly held religious tradition and become free
B) They stop going outside

From what I can see in France, the law is neither respected nor enforced anyway. There aren't many women wearing the niqab to begin with, but you can see just as many now than before the law.

 

[Oddish1]

This doesn't sit well with me at all.

 

[Ahasverus]

Good. Women should be free. ib4 "they should be free of wearing the veil". Well, no, they wear it because they've been raised to feel shame of themselves.

 

[Kthulhu]

So what do they expect to happen?

A) They'll throw away their tightly held religious tradition and become free
B) They stop going outside

The article says that one of the women involved with this case has been staying home.