h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

>I wonder: if there were a minority in this country who, culturally, didn't have the genital nudity taboo, and whose members started walking around with their genitals exposed - how tolerant would we be?<

That's covered by various laws already, in terms of it happening in public; though it's not technically illegal in itself eg we have naturist beaches in prescribed areas. But there has been a long standing cultural taboo against it, one which people decided needed to be covered by Laws, such as 'Breach of the Peace'

'..The most important law effecting naturists it that of 'Breach of the Peace'. This is very old law and anyone taken before a Court will be prosecuted under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361 - that's not a typing error, it is over 600 years old. It is still used everyday by police officers, no police officer could do his job effectively without it. 'To uphold the Queen`s Peace' is part of the oath taken by a police officer (before a Magistrate) on appointment...'

From,

http://www.difference-engine.co.uk/library/human-rights/naked/nude_law.html


I certainly would object, as I'm not in favour of people breaking the law as it is presently enforced, as public nudity is seen as likely to cause a breach of the peace..

As for covering the face, yes that also is seen as taboo, though I'd submit not so taboo as public nudity on the streets. But it's quite difficult to measure taboo; one way is whether or not is covered by law..hence my argument that time will tell whether or not the veil so comes to offend public decency or however it's put, that laws are necessary, or whether the plusses in terms of good community relations, and prevention of extremists hijacking the issue for their own purposes, are seen by society in general, to outweigh the sense of taboo about it.

Maybe 'Breach of the Peace' will come to be used for the veil?

I have often worn masks in the street when going to Fancy Dress parties and the like, never really got the impression people were upset or mortally offended.

Perhaps in SoRBs part of the coutnry it is more of a taboo than it is in the westcountry.

FB

And just to be clear I realise that if I went into a bank or something I would be asked to remove such things.

Just makeing the point that mask wearing whilst certainly not what people do every day is in a very different category, certainly down this neck of the woods, form exposing your genitals.

FB

Its a fantastic idea, if the end-result is further margenilasation of an already margenlised group. It'll help insure as a group they remain more insular and so can develop views further outside the 'mainstream'. It'll help consolidate the view that some have, of westurn governments and law, and certainly help ensure that those groups who want more firewood to develop their 'cause' have all the wood they need. It is, I think, what would, a little while ago, ahve been termed an example of 'non joined up government', as it contradicts a lot of which is suposidly ment to be happening alongside random killing of coloured folk, in terms of teh so-called 'war on terror'.
Can't even really see what the main 'stated' objective of it would be...

"time will tell whether or not the veil so comes to offend public decency or however it's put, that laws are necessary"

What?

The ENTIRE POINT of this conversation is that that is precisely where we're at, right now. France and Belgium have already passed such laws, and the UK is now preparing, at least, to do likewise. There's no "time will tell" about it.

"makeing the point that mask wearing whilst certainly not what people do every day..."

Whoah, hang on. In my neck of the woods, mask wearing certainly IS what certain people DO do, all day, every day, in the street, in the supermarket, everywhere. If that's not the case where you live, consider yourself lucky, and ponder whether your opinion of whether it's acceptable is based on ignorance of what it's like being surrounded by them.

<>

and this from a muslim

I think we've done most of this before, haven't we? It's already been established that the full veil can't be worn by teachers, NHS staff etc - the precedent has already been well and truly set. Tiggy clearly feels that anything he thinks "we" find culturally unacceptable should be made illegal. But there are good reasons for thinking that the revulsion he apparently feels for the full veil (and presumably hoodies and balaclavas) is more than a little idiosyncratic, as no-one else here seems to feel so strongly.

Personally I wouldn't go even as far as saying everything that we find culturally unacceptable should be illegal - that's a massively illiberal precedent to set. The move from "I don't like..." to "you are prohibited" is a huge one. I'd much prefer a legal system to be based on rationality and the promotion of benefits and the avoidance of harms. Otherwise we go back to doing things like outlawing homosexuality because "we" don't like it.

Chris - TUI or not, I thought it was a good post. But what Cameron was talking about, I think, was the elevation of Moat into some kind of "Fight Club" style anti-hero by people who never knew him but instead project their own issues onto him. I think for the people who knew him it's perfectly legitimate for them to mourn him. Without condoning his actions, it's hard to imagine that it was inevitable that he would do what he did, and therefore it's legitimate for those who knew him to grieve both for his death and for what he became.

" there are good reasons for thinking that the revulsion he apparently feels for the full veil (and presumably hoodies and balaclavas) is more than a little idiosyncratic, as no-one else here seems to feel so strongly"

Nice try. Except by "here", you can only mean the very, very limited and skewed readership of this website.

Meanwhile, in the REAL world:

http://www.indiatalkies.com/2010/07/67-percent-britons-burqa-ban.html

Can we lay to rest the stupid idea that I'm some sort of maverick for holding this view? Admittedly, in the extremely left-liberal skewed community of h2g2 I may be an exception - but newsflash, folks, not everyone thinks like you do. In supporting a proposed ban on masks, I'm not "a little idiosyncratic", I'm *demonstrably*, by reference to *evidence*, entirely in tune with a significant MAJORITY of opinion in the UK.

Or is a YouGov poll of over 2000 people "a little idiosyncratic"?

Note also that according to a previous poll for the Financial Times, which found "only" 57% of Britons wanted masks banned, this figure makes us the most tolerant nation in Europe. Every other country polled had a far higher proportion of people in favour of bans.

"I'd much prefer a legal system to be based on rationality and the promotion of benefits and the avoidance of harms."

We'd all prefer that. It will never, ever happen, because if you based policy on rational assessment of evidence of benefit and harm, most Class A drugs would have to be legalised immediately.

While we live in a democracy, i.e. while the right to govern the country is decided by a popularity contest rather than by rational assessment of qualifications, then the only policies which will be enacted are those which make the enactors popular.

And right now, banning Muslims from wearing masks is undeniably popular. (Not on h2g2 - in the Real World.)

"Otherwise we go back to doing things like outlawing homosexuality because "we" don't like it."

Interesting point. Who didn't like it? And what didn't they like? Society as a whole clearly tolerated homosexuals - one could, for instance, easily list dozens of successful entertainers who, while "officially" closeted, were about as "out" as one could be. It never seemed to harm their careers, so long as they maintained the fiction that they were just "flamboyant" or whatever. Many politicians were privately as gay as a box of frogs, while publicly espousing family values. I don't know the answer to this, but why did the UK ever make homosexuality illegal in the first place? Was it the work of a single person or group?

That demonstrates people think the Burqa should be banned but not that this is this frothing at the mouth aversion to masks you seem to be suggesting.

It may well be that if the question refered generically to masks of all kind including childrens fancy dress etc the exact same number owuld call for a ban.

I personally doubt it.

FB

"Can we lay to rest the stupid idea that I'm some sort of maverick for holding this view?"

No, appears to be the answer to that one.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw

Thanks Otto - it's a shame that Cameron's statement wasn't as nuanced as that interpretation.

Can we also ban Steven Berkoff?

> there is one class of person only who go routinely masked - criminals... Welders and ice hockey players ROUTINELY wear their masks - not just while they're welding or playing ice hockey!... How could I have forgotten all those welding masks and ice hockey masks I see people wearing in the supermarket every time I go there?

It's so true! Unlike all those other mask wearers, criminals DO routinely wear their masks when they're not working. It's very helpful of them, it makes it so much easier for the police to identify them when they do their shopping with their balaclava on.

> It's hard to respond to this without coming across as insulting...

And I'm sure you tried your very, very hardest to do so!

> However - in general, glasses, beards and makeup are NOT specifically designed and worn with the express intention to conceal facial features

You clearly don't understand the purpose of makeup.

> Certainly it's possible to do so - but it's far from the norm.

I wouldn't have thought that sort of argument would have much traction with you. After all, it's far from the norm for muslims to use face coverings to engage in suspicious behaviour. The point is, beards and glasses (dark ones in particular) CAN be used to defeat facial recognition, either by humans or machines, and so they WILL be.

> Also, and it pains me to have to state this, as facial recognition technology improves - and it DEFINITELY will - all the above techniques will become less effective.

Aww, it's sweet that you have faith in something, even if it is faith in one of the least effective biometrics. Incidentally, I have an interesting business proposition for you, selling this excellent joint pain remedy I've developed from an oil derived from chinese water snakes. I've got several scientific studies showing its effectiveness. Post a message on my PS if you're interested.

And 92% called for lower income taxes.


As I understand it, although many people are interpreting this as a Burka Ban it is actually a ban against all unnecessary face coverings in the public sphere. Which covers things like the rioters in Belfast wearing masks whilst shooting at the police or anarchists rioting in Trafalgar Square or hippies objecting to money at G8 conferences. In fact it may mean that the Police could be able to force all protesters to reveal their faces for identification purposes at marches and rallies (as they do to the EDL at present but curiously, not the UAF).

It's not about banning some dalek costume. It's a further erosion of civil rights.

I can't actually find the text of the Bill, but I see it had it's first reading nearly three weeks ago, tovery little publicity. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/facecoveringsregulation.html

"it's far from the norm for muslims to use face coverings to engage in suspicious behaviour"

Incorrect, given that walking around with your face covered is, as we've established, in and of itself suspicious behaviour in western culture. That is the whole point. Why do you keep missing it?

Two observations on your attempt at ridiculing my assertion that facial recognition technology will improve:

1. Is it really your assertion that facial recognition technology will NOT improve? On what do you base this assertion?

2. I prefer a pain remedy derived from the bark of trees. Perhaps you consider that as ridiculous as the idea such a thing could be derived from snakes.

"Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?"

But the "facts" you point to are related to something else, that people object specifically to the burqa.

Another parralel conversation that has been going on is around the relative level of taboo of wearing masks in the UK period. You compared it to public nudity. I don't beleive that wearing a mask in public is a taboo in the UK nearly to the degree oyu pretend.

And the *evidence* you have given for this is for something else, a poll about the Burqa specifically.

FB

Me: "it's far from the norm for muslims to use face coverings to engage in suspicious behaviour"

Tiggy: "Incorrect, given that walking around with your face covered is, as we've established, in and of itself suspicious behaviour in western culture. That is the whole point. Why do you keep missing it?"

Yes, it's suspicious BECAUSE it's suspicious. Perhaps I should have said "illegal behaviour"?

Loving the presumption of "as we've established" btw. Where exactly did we do that? Was it because criminals routinely do their shopping wearing balaclavas?

UK TO BAN UNCOVERED FRENCHMEN

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2919&Itemid=81

Immigration minister, Damian Green, said: "It's very difficult to interact with a Frenchman when you can see his whole face.