A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 41

Christopher

I think you're missing a trick talking about the inherent suspiciousness of burqa wearing and skirting around the issue of what the practice and so many of its doctrinal ilk do for the psyches of the women who wear them.

If they choose to out of informed (sic) consent then I don't see what the problem is in the general public. If it's a matter of enforced tradition I'd rather get them out of it (and have them scrubbed and brought to my tent).


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 42

The Twiggster

"I don't beleive that wearing a mask in public is a taboo in the UK nearly to the degree you pretend."

"Pretend"? Assert. I'm not pretending that most people don't wear masks and that doing so is regarded as suspicious. I'm asserting it. You may disagree with my assertion, but don't suggest I'm deliberately making it up.

And if you don't believe it's a taboo, may I suggest a simple experiment? Try walking around with a black ski mask on that conceals all but your eyes all day. Do your shopping dressed that way. See how people treat you. If you feel or express ANY reluctance to do so, that might suggest the taboo is stronger than you... pretend.

Dogster, you appear to have missed a question. Allow me to repeat:

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


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 43

The Twiggster

Chris:

"I think you're [...] skirting around the issue of what the practice and so many of its doctrinal ilk do for the psyches of the women who wear them."

I think it's more that the majority in society don't give a monkey's what it does for the psyches of the people who wear them. Why would they?

"If they choose to out of informed (sic) consent then I don't see what the problem is in the general public."

Well bully for you. MOST of the general public DO see what the problem is, and furthermore don't give a monkey's whether they're doing so out of informed consent, patriarchal cultural influence, or a desire to look like a ninja. We just want them to stop, or, if they won't have the simple courtesy to do so out of consideration for the culture within which they choose to live, BE stopped.

On another point: I'm sure the cultural taboo against mask wearing is NOT as strong as that against nudity, inasmuch as there are limited situations in which both are accepted, but the limitations on nudity are a little stricter. Not MUCH stricter, though.

That said, I reiterate - I think the average educated English person would as soon walk round Sainsbury's naked as wearing a ninja outfit.

The big difference, and where the analogy falls down, is in the power relationship between the viewer and the viewed. Nudity conveys powerlessness. If you're naked, your status is reduced. Masks, however, are worn to give the wearer power - the power to move unidentified, to be unaccountable for their actions. Wearing a mask gives the wearer a forced increased power and status - they can see you but you can't see them. It's partly for that reason, I think, that polite western culture eschews them.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 44

Effers;England.


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

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. <tiggy

Where we're at as I see it is that a Tory back bencher is trying to bring in a private member's bill about it. I have no idea how much chance there is of the bill being passed. It may very well be like the periodic debate on bringing back hanging, and not be passed, despite what is often suggested about there being a large majority of the public wanting its return. MPs may decide that a law banning the veil shouldn't be brought in here for now, as feelings about the issue are not running high enough for the majority, even if a majority would prefer to see it made illegal.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 45

swl

Incidentally, Toybox just posted this on the "What news" thread -

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/07/19/114244.html


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 46

Otto Fisch ("Stop analysing Strava.... and cut your hedge")


Interesting to read that a majority want burkas banned - that's surprising. However, it's one poll, we don't know what question was asked, and we don't know on what grounds that respondents wanted the burka banned. And certainly I don't think that two thirds corresponds to a verdict that they're *so* contrary to *our* culture that they should be banned. Would a similar poll on allowing public nudity only get 67% opposition? I doubt it. I still think, Tiggy, that your view is unusual in its virulence.

But we still haven't got to the bottom of the basic liberal point about why anyone would think that we're entitled to impose (real or perceived) cultural norms through legislation for independent of benefits and harms. I agree that a fully rational evidence-based approach would lead to a very different policy on drugs, and indeed different laws on a whole variety of things, but I don't think a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach is very sensible. Isn't this just saying that "everyone else is being irrational, so I want my cultural prejudices enshrined in law too."

Incidentally, Damien Green has described a ban on burquas as "un-British" and has ruled it out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10674973


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 47

Christopher

Opinion polls are of course easily jaundiced by the tone of the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 48

Dogster

> Dogster, you appear to have missed a question.

I will answer the question, as it's a direct one, but actually the whole CCTV thing is fairly irrelevant, and swl nailed the reason why:

> The CCTV argument is specious too. The State has no right to see my face if I am just walking down the street.

In addition, we are talking about what the legislation should be NOW, not what it might be like in 20 to 30 years time when facial recognition technology might have improved substantially. At the moment, it is so poor as to be not worth talking about at all.

Incidentally, can I take it as read from your non-response to my earlier comments that we're agreed that criminals do not routinely wear masks and that therefore your comparison to muslim women wearing the burqa is fundamentally wrong? I don't know how many masked criminals you see in your daily life, but the only masked individuals I see on a regular basis are tourists with surgical face masks. The whole issue of what the cultural associations of mask wearing are is in any case irrelevant. As I said last time we discussed it: cultural mores change.

But to get back to the question (which although irrelevant to the discussion here is of some technical interest):

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

The answer is no, facial recognition technology will certainly improve. However, it will continue to be a weak biometric for several obvious reasons, namely that both the 2D (colour and texture) and 3D structure of someone's face can change substantially, both naturally and artificially. Given that, the problem is underspecified. There cannot be an accurate mapping from the space of 2D/3D properties of someone's face to the space of identities that is invariant to the natural and artificial transformations of that space. Facial recognition technology can be useful in situations where neither high false positive rates nor high false negative rates are problematic, and where changes in facial structure are unlikely. For example, tracking people moving through a shop for marketing analysis would be an excellent application as there is (a) no incentive for people to beat the system, (b) their face is unlikely to change in the course of a single shopping trip (unless they go to get their hair cut or something like that), and (c) the cost of false positives and negatives is low. On the other hand, using facial recognition to search for criminals using CCTV, or using it to establish identity: neither of these are ever likely to be very useful because they are easily defeated both intentionally and non-intentionally, there is a strong incentive to do so, and the cost of false positives and negatives is high.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 49

Xanatic

There was also a poltical party in Denmark that talked about wanting to ban the burka. Interestingly it was spearheaded by one of the leading muslim politicians. It seems to have gone quiet again.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 50

badger party tony party green party

Tiggy I agree with your point that a sizeable amount of the British public wnat this ban or burqas. A sizeable chunk of the British public also want the right to set fire to suspected paedophiles, a bank holiday for St Georges Day and "foriegners" turfed out of homes they have every legal right to occupy.

Lets just qualify what a lot of people think as being pointless, illegal and often down right nasty.

Now Im no lover of religion or its paraphenalia. Just like Im no fan of lank greasy fringes that hang down over emo kids' faces, people in mirrored aviator shades or men with huge bushy beards containing the remnanats of their lunch.

Im not finished...gaudy plastered on make-up, people who hang their heads and constantly avoid eye contact.

Ever been to a wedding and seen those taboo breaking bitches who insist on flouncing about in veils...oh hang onsmiley - doh


Taboos are a falacious argument should we outlaw people who conceal their identity by disgusing their gender there are taboos that some people hold against that sort of thing. Just as some look down on people who wear so much fake tan that they appear to be from a hnic group different than the one they actually are. I, personally, have a massive taboo against vanity inspired cosmetic surgery. The first three things the people will probably say about a person they are looking for is their age, gender and ethnic group.


The simple fact in the real world where I live is that on the whole people in this country have been stirred into an unfocussed rage against all things Muslim and that the politicians who specialise in playing to the "Disgusted of Tunbridge-Wells" are using this as an issue to beat muslims with and curry favour with the mob.

Absolutely shameful.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 51

The Twiggster

"Taboos are a falacious argument "

= indigenous culture is worthless and should ALWAYS be sublimated to whatever different behaviours immigrants choose to bring with them. Multiculturalism means every culture is equally valid - except the one that was here first and for a thousand years (give or take) before the massive influx of immigrants which started after world war 2.

Whatever.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 52

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

What indinious culture is this of which you speak: I've heard that arguement before, and never as yet have I seen a single set of beliefs or practises which defines this so-called indegiouness culture, as of course its balls and has never existed.

As to the question of people argueing this from teh point that they're unable to talk to people or interact with them when their wearing a vail, I suggest they learn how to do so, as its a piece of pissh; having not seen anyones face for over ten years I can from my experiance say I've never had any trubble talking to any of the thousands of people I must have talked to in the last decade, all of whom had no face.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 53

badger party tony party green party

Come on then let's roll back the years. Women who got to pubs without their husband = prostitute, because that was the default view because of old taboos about women being independent. I presume you still tug your forelok to your social betters and stand when you hear the national anthem too.

Get a bleeding grip man.

Culture (whatever you might call it) is always changing and only a fool or racist would believe that there was some thousand year stasis overturned by the Windrush generation, multiculturalism and PC.

Or perhaps you prefer to live some kind of Amish electric blues, Christmas tree-less coffee and tea free culture of a thousand years ago life.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 54

The Twiggster


You're so right, 2legs. Everyone *else* in the world has culture, with proud cultural traditions like mutilating the genitals of children, amputating the limbs of petty thieves and stoning people to death for have sex.

We here in Britain don't have ANY culture, and furthermore never have had.

Wherever does this self-loathing come from, I wonder?

Oh, and it's spelled "indigenous", btw.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 55

The Twiggster

"having sex", obviously.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 56

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

As Isaid. tell me what this culture is then I'll pay attention. You can't as there is no common culture; if it did exist, its long ago gone, thankBob,. well?


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 57

Otto Fisch ("Stop analysing Strava.... and cut your hedge")


"We" in the UK do have a separate distinguishable shared culture and shared history and traditions. The fact that it's complex and difficult to define and may not apply to everyone equally is no doubt true of other cultures too. I put "we" in inverted commas, because although "I" feel part of "us", I am in fact the grandchild of immigrants on both sides of my family.

UK culture and traditions - an indicative, non-exclusive, non-final list:

1. An obsession with social class
2. Softly spoken, polite, understated, reserved
3. Liberal democratic values, including free speech
4. Support for the underdog - a strong dislike of bullying
5. Strong Christian heritage with broadly secular values
6. A deep suspicion of ideologues and demagogues
7. Obsessed by the weather
8. Insular and crap at learning foreign languages
9. Post-empire superiority complex
10. The sheer importance of our complex humour - irony, understatement, sarcasm, satire
11. A love of gardens and animals
12. Football, cricket, rugby.

We *do* have a culture, it's just very hard to see it when you live in it, because it's not immediately obvious from the inside. A New Zealander once pointed out to me that our ability to tell someone's social class by the supermarket they shop at is pretty weird from an outsider's point of view. It's a great mistake to say that we have no culture - of course we do, albeit one that's hard to define exactly.

What I'm puzzled by is this notion that our culture is somehow being "sublimated" or under threat by immigration or social change. I just don't see that... the majority population... us... still have things pretty much exactly all our own way, with pretty much everything arranged for the convenience of the majority. It's an obvious point to make that we are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants.

More to the point, I'm struggling to think of any *real* examples (tabloid nonsense "attack on Christmas" stories are false, incidentally) of ways in which our culture is under threat, or in which "we" always give way. It's rather the other way round, and in many cases quite rightly.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 58

Effers;England.


Yes Otto, I'd broadly agree with your list, but I think most of those things I asociate with Britishness rather than Englishness. I've made the point elsewhere that I think England was colonised by 'Britain' every bit as much as far flung places. I can identitfy with those things you mention and like many of them. But for me there's something ancient and English principally to do with landscape and ruralness. 3 out of 4 of my grandparents came from a strongly rural tradition, and probably going back even a few generations were all pretty much peasant stock. My way of relating to that is through my personal love of nature and English literature, and poetry. My early childhood was growing up in the countryside.

Wars have been a huge factor in our history, and both English and British history is very much about war and defeating enemies in Europe and resisting invasion. I remember at school having it drummed into us that we should be proud not to have been invaded since 1066. Though there does also seem to be a traditon of tolerance as well. The Hugenots were welcomed, and in literature Shakespeare deals with the complexities of both agression, bloody mindedness, and quite so called 'liberal' ideas eg 'Prick us, do we not bleed?'

Yeah it's hugely complicated, but speaking personally I'm able to both feel a strong though probably partly Romantic idea about England and our past, and pride and fascination with our history, of artists and scientists, and an enjoyment of living amongst people of other cultural traditions. No self loathing on my part for English culture history and achievements. And I'm certainly no bleeding hearted liberal if I think people are behaving in a way that is anti social and contemptuous of their neighbours, whatever their race maybe. But the veil issue for me really is a relatively minor issue, probably because compared with other things it hardly affects me.


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 59

Taff Agent of kaos


smiley - ant???

was that last post a dose on Empire??smiley - winkeye

smiley - bat


Basic freedoms (ukish centric)

Post 60

Effers;England.


Oh I've been known on ocassion to singalong to 'Land of Hope and Glory' when watching the last night of the Proms smiley - blushsmiley - winkeye


Key: Complain about this post