Belgium Bans the Burka

[Lord Jim]

Seems to me that the judge's position is completely reasonable...

[Big RR]

While it does, it also seems the compromise offered by the defense counsel, especially if the defendant stipulates to the identity, could resolve the issue satisfactorily. Courts routinely make such compromises on behalf of defendants, and that one makes sense.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I would think the judge himself (or herself) would need to see the defendent in person, not told from a second party. If the defendent wants to go into the judges chambers along with her lawyer, that would suffice.

Maybe get a female judge on the case, then reveal in private.

[Gob]

Maybe get a female judge on the case, then reveal in private.

Why though? Why should this woman's adherence to the Burka, which is not even mandated by her religion, put her above the processes of UK law?

[Big RR]

Gob--does UK law demand the judge see and identify the person, or does the judge just accept the representation of the parties that the person is who he/she says he/she is? In US courts, it's the latter (indeed, often a judge never sees the person before trial so seeing their face accomplishes little in the way of identifying them), and I see little to be gained by the judge viewing the person's face. So why not try to accommodate her beliefs? There are times when the cons against wearing a burka outweigh the pros, I just don't see this as one.

[Gob]

A judge and jury should be able to witness a persons reactions to evidence and accusations, otherwise why have the accused in court at all?

Having said that, I do not know what the legal requirements are.

[Big RR]

perhaps, but then that wasn't the judge's argument. If such an argument is made, it would be with considering, especially if the accused testifies.

[Gob]

A woman who refused to show her face in court for religious reasons has reached a compromise over the confirmation of her identity.

The 21-year-old from Hackney, London, had refused to remove her niqab and reveal her face in front of any man.

Judge Peter Murphy had said the interests of justice were paramount.

At Blackfriars Crown Court, the matter was resolved when the woman removed her veil for a female police officer who then verified it was the defendant.

The police officer had previously photographed the woman.

[Gob]

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil - the niqab.

A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression.

French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205).

The 2010 law came in under former conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy.

A breach of the ban can also mean a wearer having to undergo citizenship instruction.

France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2,000 women wear full veils.

[Gob]

Britain up next

London: Muslim women can be banned from wearing veils in schools, courts and other British institutions, David Cameron says.

The Prime Minister said he will give his backing to public authorities that put in place "proper and sensible" rules to ban women from wearing face veils.

The government is also preparing to announce a series of measures designed to stop British Muslims becoming radicalised and travelling to the Middle East to join terrorist groups like Islamic State.

As part of the plans, ministers will pledge to outlaw gender segregation in public buildings amid concerns that some Muslim organisations are forcing women to sit separately.


Education Secretary Nicky Morgan will on Tuesday announce plans to force schools to help stop teenagers travelling abroad to fight alongside jihadist groups such as IS.

Schools will be required to inform councils when pupils stop attending without any explanation and Muslim parents will be encouraged to carry out checks to ensure their children are not being radicalised.

Mr Cameron also announced that tens of thousands of Muslim women would face deportation unless they pass a series of English-language tests after coming to Britain on spouse visas.

The Prime Minister's comments about veils will reignite the row over whether British institutions should be able to stop women covering their faces for religious reasons in public places.

The Prime Minister refused to endorse a French-style blanket ban but made clear that individual organisations could choose to stop Muslim women wearing the veil.

In 2013, The Telegraph disclosed that more than a dozen NHS hospitals had instructed staff not to wear the niqab – a full veil which covers the face – while in contact with patients.

The same year, a London judge ordered a Muslim defendant to remove her veil, but asked politicians for clearer instructions on veils in court.
A number of Conservative MPs want the government to consider a full ban on the veil.


Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/u ... z3xeQh7Xp0

[Gob]

The German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, has called for a partial ban on the burka, a day after saying a full ban might not be constitutional.

He said the burka did not fit in with Germany's open society and showing the face was essential to social cohesion.

"We call on everyone to show their face," he said.

The proposal would prevent anyone from wearing the veil in schools, universities, nurseries, public offices or while driving.

It requires parliamentary approval to become law.

[RayThom]

The German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, has called for a partial ban on the burka, a day after saying a full ban might not be constitutional.

I'm thinking a partial ban might not be constitutional, either. Is an inch opening too little, is four too much? It's OK in the Square but not the Post Office?

Truthfully, I'm not a big fan of this Mid-Eastern Muslim fashion and it makes me a bit uncomfortable but I feel the western world needs to suck it up and accept it for what it is.

Locally I know of a group of Muslim women who wear the burqa when they feel the need to make a public statement -- township meetings, etc. However, and more often, they don modern western garb when they venture out into the community in general -- food shopping and the like.

[Scooter]

My take has always been twofold. One, you can't promote liberty by outlawing the ability to choose. Two, a burka wearer will stand a better chance of learning and adapting to Western values if she can get out into society and experience how things are done here, than if she isolates herself at home for wont of "appropriate" covering for public spaces.

[Econoline]

[rubato]

Some areas have laws against wearing masks in public except on halloween. Others have different boundaries placed on when masks are not permitted. I don't think there is a constitutional right to conceal your identity when in public and I can't think of a compelling argument that there is a moral right to do so.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws

United States

In many US states, there are anti-mask laws.[1]

Anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century when states and municipalities passed them as to inhibit the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.[2][better source needed]
In current times, masked political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous—a collective group of online hackers with strong political beliefs who consistently wear Guy Fawkes masks—have been targeted with anti-masking laws.[3][4][5][6]

Canada

After several high profile protests, the Canadian Parliament introduced Bill C-309, which bans the wearing of masks during a riot or other unlawful assembly.[7][8] The bill became law on June 19, 2013.[9] Those convicted of it face up to 10 years in prison.[10]
Canada's Criminal code, Section 351(2), also covers "Disguise with Intent", whereby "Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years". With some exceptions, an indictable offence in Canada is one that is subject to a fine of greater than $5,000 or imprisonment of more than six months.

Europe
Austria

In Austria since 2002 masking ban on demonstrations under § 9 of the Assembly Law (Versammlungsgesetz). Violation of the ban need not be prosecuted if the mask does not threaten public order and security. Violation of the ban entails, according to § 19a.b of the Law, imprisonment up to six months, repeated offenses one year or a fine.

Denmark

Wearing masks during assemblies in a public place is illegal in Denmark.[11] The Danish penal code (Straffeloven) § 134 b, which was inserted with effect from 3 June 2000,[12] makes the violation punishable by a fine or up to six months imprisonment. Part 2 of § 134 b further criminalizes the possession of effects which must be viewed as intended to be used for masking in an assembly. The §134 b, part 3, exempts from penalty masking which is done to protect one's face against the weather.

France

The French ban on face covering is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.

Germany

Since 1985, according to § 17a Abs. 2 Versammlungsgesetz you may not disguise your identity in public meetings such as demonstrations so the police are able to identify you. This violation can be fined with imprisonment up to one year.[13]

Norway

According to § 11, part 5 of the police statute (politiloven) from 1995, it's prohibited to be masked during an event taking place in public. Exempted from the prohibition are participants in theatre, mascaraed or similar. In accordance with § 30 of the same law; violation is punishable by a fine or up to three months imprisonment.[14]
Russia

According to the Law № 54-ФЗ

it is prohibited to wear masks and any other means of hiding identity during public events;
the organizer of an event must require all the people taking part not to use any means of hiding identity.

Spain

According to the November 2013 Citizens’ Security Law (Ley mordaza), demonstration protesters who cover their faces may be fined up to €30,000.[15]
Sweden

According to the Law on the Prohibition of masking in some cases,[16] it is prohibited for participants in the demonstration to fully or partially cover the face in a way that complicates identification. This prohibition applies only if there are disturbances of public order at demonstrations, or if there is an immediate danger of such disturbances. The ban does not apply to the covering of the face for religious reasons. It also does not apply to the extent participants (under 2 Ch. 7 a § Order Act) authorized to fully or partially cover the face.

Switzerland

In the cantons of Basel-Stadt (1990), Zurich (1995), Bern (1999), Lucerne (2004), Thurgau (2004), Solothurn (2006) and St. Gallen (2009), there are laws banning use of masks.

Ukraine

Several days after Berkut riot police clashed with Euromaidan protesters, Verkhovna Rada enacted law 721-VII banning wearing masks, helmets or camouflage clothing by people taking part in a gathering, assembly, demonstration, protest, rally or other mass event. Fines for violating are monetary up to about $400 or administrative arrest up to 15 days.[17] The law was repealed in January 2014.[18][19][20]

United Kingdom

During the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests one of the temporary policies discussed in the COBRA meeting was to ban the covering of the face during the riots. Generally only enforced in areas in a riot stage, none were arrested solely for wearing masks, only ordered to take them off. However, many arrested who committed other crimes, such as looting and attacking police officers, were charged with failing to adhere to the mask ban as well as all the other infringements when placed before the court.[citation needed]

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I wear a balaclava when riding my snowmobile (under a helmet).
And depending on how cold it is, I wear it when riding my motocycle as I wear an open face helmet.
But I do take it off when I am not riding.

[Big RR]

rubato--

I don't think there is a constitutional right to conceal your identity when in public

The courts would generally disagree, with many ruling that dress is a form of speech and is protected. Even so, one can regulate speech under strict circumstances, and the laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state objectives. And any such must be applied even handedly, and not just against unpopular dress, such as moslems' use of face coverings.

[rubato]

rubato--

I don't think there is a constitutional right to conceal your identity when in public

The courts would generally disagree, with many ruling that dress is a form of speech and is protected. Even so, one can regulate speech under strict circumstances, and the laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state objectives. And any such must be applied even handedly, and not just against unpopular dress, such as moslems' use of face coverings.

Dress is a form of speech and it is protected generally, banal and true, but I have seen no ruling by courts which support your contention "The courts would generally disagree" that people can mask their identities in public. Perhaps you can find some? I have shown very many instances where this is not true.


There is certainly a compelling state interest that persons are identifiable as themselves when acting in the community. How else does society connect the actions of individuals with the legal, moral and economic accountability for same?


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I will check if I get a chance, but my recollection is that the courts, even if they uphold a statute against covering one's face in public have generally been decided based on the wearing of a mask with an express intent to conceal one's identity (like in the KKK cases), ruling that there is a compelling governmental interest in regulating such behavior. Such intent would not be present in in the wearing of religious garb including face coverings or wearing a ski mask on a cold winter day; nor would it necessarily prevent someone from wearing a Trump mask at an anti-Trump rally to make a political statement. And that's the point, you may not be able, under some circumstances, to use a mask to conceal your identity; but in other circumstances you may be able to wear a mask inspite of the fact that it conceals your identity.

[Gob]

SOFIA (AFP) – Bulgaria’s parliament approved on Friday legislation outlawing face-covering Islamic veils in public, joining a small number of EU countries as debate rages across Europe about religious freedoms.

The law “bans wearing in public clothing that partially or completely covers the face”, referring to the burqa or the more common niqab.

Infringements carry fines of 200 leva (103 euros, $114), rising to 1,500 leva for repeated offences.

Bulgaria’s mostly centuries-old Muslim community, dating back to conversions during Ottoman times, makes up around 13 percent of the population, mostly in the Turkish minority.

Muslim women in Bulgaria have generally worn just a simple scarf to cover their hair.

But recently there has been a small rise in the number of women wearing the niqab among ultra-conservative Muslim communities of the Roma minority.

The often impoverished and marginalised Roma make up just under 10 percent of Bulgaria’s population, around a third of whom are Muslim. Several Bulgarian towns had already banned the niqab at local level.