European right courts rules in favor of France's burqua ban

[Mayer]

For it not to be a straw man, you'd have to find where somebody was arguing in favor of legal human sacrifices or witch burning. Until then, yeah, you substituted an easily-defeated (and patently ridiculous) point for the point that was actually made. I'd accept it being a false dichotomy, false analogy, or some other variant of a red herring...the one thing is isn't is logically consistent.

bollocks, for it being a straw man, i would have needed to misrepresent 2-D Ron's position which i didn't.
I've merely stated my personal conviction that human sacrifice and witch hunts are also expressions of religious traditions which should and would (if we were consistent) be defended under the so-called right of religious tradition.

Bull. There's always been a difference between allowing customs that don't cause harm and banning customs that do.

I very much think that forced veiling of the complete body is a harmful tradition, not only is it hostile towards the female gender but also shows a irrational disgust for the human body

[Phier]

So if I visit Newcastle, I must remove my shirt, whatever the weather, and paint myself orange?

I think only for special holidays, otherwise its pretty drab..



Santa hats though are ok in small doses.

[Denny Crane!]

I think only for special holidays, otherwise its pretty drab..



Santa hats though are ok in small doses.

I'll have you know Newcastle is a beautiful city not drab at all!

Russian weather is good honest!

[Symphony]

bollocks, for it being a straw man, i would have needed to misrepresent 2-D Ron's position which i didn't.

No? Asking if we should allow human sacrifice and witch burnings, in response to 2-D's statement that people have a right to religious freedoms, when it was clear that neither he nor anybody else was talking about anything that extreme, wasn't a misrepresentation?

...k

Like I said earlier in response to Denny, I acknowledge that it's not a precise, classically-defined straw man....it has elements of several different flavors of red herring. Looking back, maybe an appeal to the absurd is more precise. But it was absolutely a misrepresentation.

I've merely stated my personal conviction that human sacrifice and witch hunts are also expressions of religious traditions which should and would (if we were consistent) be defended under the so-called right of religious tradition.

....if you're willing to ignore the fact that "right of religious tradition" has been applied that way by exactly zero governments and expected by exactly zero remotely rational people in the history of ever, sure.

I very much think that forced veiling of the complete body is a harmful tradition, not only is it hostile towards the female gender but also shows a irrational disgust for the human body

See, that's the fun thing about religious observance...those who believe in that particular creed often think about it very differently than those who don't, and there aren't many useful secular absolutes that can be applied. The notion that this woman who chooses to observe this particular tradition shouldn't be allowed to, because you find it demeaning to her, is absurd.

I think the public safety angle is....arguable, at least; it's grounded in some compelling public interest. I think the "social interaction" angle is utterly incomprehensible to me, but apparently I'm just the provincial in this case. The angle that we should protect women who participate by choice from themselves is just asinine.

[Mayer]

No? Asking if we should allow human sacrifice and witch burnings, in response to 2-D's statement that people have a right to religious freedoms, when it was clear that neither he nor anybody else was talking about anything that extreme, wasn't a misrepresentation?

that's a subjective assessment, i find this very extreme too

See, that's the fun thing about religious observance...those who believe in that particular creed often think about it very differently than those who don't, and there aren't many useful secular absolutes that can be applied.

and i believe that secular absolutes like human dignity, gender equality, and the right to liberty and security of person from threats like religious superstition are useful.

[Gaidin]

I very much think that forced veiling of the complete body is a harmful tradition, not only is it hostile towards the female gender but also shows a irrational disgust for the human body

See, here's where you're pretty wrong. For this law France made a pretty damn successful argument for not hiding your identity in a public place period. No Burqua, no mask, no balaclava, nothing. And screw your argument to the contrary, religious or otherwise. Preventing the burqua is not about preventing a religious tradition that causes actual physical harm to the person it's being done to. Try to make a convincing argument that this tradition causes physical harm please. Ala the insane extreme that's been brought up in this thread already by someone other than me: human sacrifice(see post 98). God knows why that was the choice that was made as any prosecutor can just slap someone with murder and say 'screw religion' against anybody that tries it, but whatever, someone brought it up.

[Symphony]

and i believe that secular absolutes like human dignity, gender equality, and the right to liberty and security of person from threats like religious superstition are useful.

...except that none of those things are absolutes. They're important concepts, absolutely, and a liberal society should absolutely seek to secure them...but they're also variable. I define dignity differently than you do, and we both define it differently than this woman does, it would seem; she seems to have been seeking the dignity of appearing in public consistent with the beliefs she's chosen (unless, of course, we make the supposition that she's been threatened somehow into making that choice...it's documented that such happens sometimes, but we've zero evidence of it in this case). Because you don't agree with her definition of dignity, or what is or isn't a "superstition", you advocate taking it away from her for her own good.

That's why liberal societies should seek to protect those concepts you mentioned from being defined by other people except in the case of compelling public interest. Your opinions regarding the practice don't constitute a compelling public interest; they only represent your desire to impose your views of dignity, liberty, and harmful superstition on somebody else....rather like a proselytizing faith, no?

[Coalition]

Good, more people waking up to the new plague.

[Hmmm]

Looks like we're past that point where you're not even trying to defend your position in a meaningful manner, not that there is much to defend... It's quite telling from the fact that you're trying to personalize this a lot. What you need to realize is that you establish being right through the merits of your arguments not through repetitively claim being right over and over again. I fail to see you properly addressing my questions or arguments. You're doing your best to deflect them, and, you resorted to lying about what I argued.

Unofortunately, the ban remains to be in violation of basic human rights established by UN and EU.

First of all, I do not understand why you keep writing in such an aggressive fashion, then claim that I write in a personalized tone. Frankly, claiming that I am defending the undefendable when all the positive evidence points to the contrary is not much of an argument on your side - would you rather we go into a screaming contest wherein both sides keep claiming the other has not provided any arguments, like you are doing? How is that even remotely productive?

Second, did I lie about what you argued? Are you saying you never claimed this was in violation of the ECHR? Because I distinctly remember you posting this:

I take it you found no articles under freedom of expression? Such as these


European Convention on Human Rights


Care to explain how misogynistic attitudes in some Muslim societies relevant to the topic while at it?

Here you are clearly stating that it is in violation of article 10 of the ECHR. If you mean I lied about something else, kindly point to exactly what sort of lie this was, so I have the opportunity to answer it.

Third, I will make one last effort to explain this to you in a way which you might understand. If you disagree, I really don't care, as you are the one who has to live in denial. The thing about law is that you can't just run around and quote it thinking that you have somehow accomplished anything - law has to be interpreted with regards both to its wording and intention. The institution responsible for interpreting the ECHR is the ECourtHR, which is the highest court with regards to the conventions interpretation, higher even than the national Supreme Courts of the signatory states. This makes the ECourthHR in practice legally infallible - yes, infallible. They're the highest institution responsible for interpreting and applying the law, their opinion matters more than anybody else. Hence if the ECourthHR comes to the conclusion - through a Grand Chamber decision no less - that the French law is not in conflict with the ECHR and is in fact admitted by it (the convention), then the simple fact of the matter is that the French law could not possibly be in violation of the ECHR.

You can argue about the morality about it all you want - but you can't argue the legality, since the court came to its conclusion through the acceptable procedure, following the standards for doing so, and respecting the intention and purpose of the ECHR through the margin of appreciation and the limitations to the freedoms it provides. The reasoning behind this is clearly stated in the case itself, which is the only reasoning that actually matters - this is why I have been telling you to read it, since the case is the first-hand-source for the courts decision. Frankly, one would have to be exceptionally arrogant to argue with a straight face that 15 of the 17 judges present, among the best and most skilled lawyers in Europe by the way, who have worked specifically with legal questions of this type, are legally wrong - especially since you haven't presented a reason for it other than a misunderstanding of the argument, purposeful or not. Certainly you are allowed to have a dissenting opinion on the legality of the matter, but law is not opinion, and you have to understand this basic legal principle: the court decides, the parties have only to accept the verdic or appeal if there is a court to appeal to. It's part of the rule of law.

I know it is tempting to reach into your pocket of rhetoric - to claim that it is the merit of the argument that is important etc..., but this is not a debate - not to mention that your argumentation is the one without merit, as you have completely ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented the French defense as somehow banning unsocial behaviour and then have continued to insist on this position despite being repeatedly informed of the actual meaning of said defense. This is me explaining to you why your statement about this being violation with the ECHR is wrong, and for this I need no other argument than the fact that the court came to this conclusion, because once the court does so, it becomes a legally undeniable fact. Prior to the verdict, one could have argued the merit of one side or the other, but at this point the verdict has been given and we have our answer. That's what legal argumentation is, trying to convince the court and arguing about what would and what wouldn't hold up in court. In our case we know what held up. I did not say myself that, had I been a judge, I would have come to this conclusion. Neither did I say that, had the court yet to take a stance on the matter, your arguments would not have been important. I said that since the court has decided on the matter, it was a fair ruling considering they used the law in the correct manner, hence the matter is decided. Over. Evidently, and by the authority of their office, the court decided that the margin of appreciation and interpersonal socialization>freedom to cover your face. It's as objective an answer to "does this violate the ECHR" as you can get, and you were wrong plain and simple.

Whining about it won't change this basic legal fact one bit. There is a difference between de lege ferenda (how the law should be) and de lege lata (how the law is), you can argue all you want about how you think the ECHR should work, but it does not change how it works. A lawyer (and the conventions you cited are law) applies the law as it is, not as s/he thinks it should be. The fact is that the entire subject of your argument has been "is this to protect the rights of others? no!" - that is it, that is what you said and since then you have refused to accept anything else because you don't want to accept anything else. So, to reiterate: the ones who decide if this is in violation of the ECHR are the ECourtHR, not the involved parties and certainly not third parties.

Let us also not forget that this is what the law was - it is not a burqa ban, it is a law forbidding covering of the face in a public space. This is why I don't understand your panties-argument with Danny Crane, because burqas are not outlawed. Using them to cover your face in public is. Similarly, using panties is not outlawed. Using them to cover your face in public is.

Nor is it a law that bans people being unsocial, as I've explained multiple times. This is about interpersonal interaction, id est when you actually interact with someone directly and in a public space, you are not allowed to hide behind a face-covering attire. It is considered an important part of French society. The measures were proportional, as the penalties carried are limited, the law is not directed against any religious group directly, and the ECourtHR has to respect the margin of appreciation - giving the state a degree of freedom for designing its laws without going full "this is in violation of human rights"-mode. This was done much in the same spirit as one would have banned SS uniforms or other Nazi insiginia - which I would assume you find to be entirely ok, no? It is exactly the same reasoning used to ban hate-speech and other behaviour which is considered contrary to basic and core tenets of the banning society. Literally every other poster seems to have understood this. One other poster objected, but he did so on the basis of whether it truly is such a fundamental part of French society or if they just made it up, not by misunderstanding the entire argument and characterising it as an "anti-unsocial law, beeeeh this can be used to ban people from not making eye-contact think of the introverts!!1!".

With regards to your other two sources of Human Rights, the UN and the EU - both have yet to be decided in a court of law, but I would assume that since the ECourtHR has come to the conclusion that it is not in violation, the other two institutions, and especially the EU, are likely to follow suit if such a matter would ever be brought to court. Simply put the law is not currently on your side, and claiming that it is just because you want it to be does not lend you any more merit. You can continue to insist on fallacious statements, does not make it true.

Do you think the ban is unjustified? That's good for you, you can argue for that all you want. But dont come into this thread and throw around fallacious accusations of it being in violation of the ECHR, desperately trying to find merit to your argument, when we all know it isn't. By the end of the day, you're wrong, period. There really isn't anything else to say that hasn't already been explained repeatedly to you now. You can continue throwing around your cute little accusations of me "personalizing the issue" and "hiding behind the court" or whatever, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, you'll have to learn to live with that and I can go back to enjoy my vacation as opposed to try to explain a legal verdict to someone who doesn't want to understand it.

[PointOfViewGun]

First of all, I do not understand why you keep writing in such an aggressive fashion, then claim that I write in a personalized tone. Frankly, claiming that I am defending the undefendable when all the positive evidence points to the contrary is not much of an argument on your side - would you rather we go into a screaming contest wherein both sides keep claiming the other has not provided any arguments, like you are doing? How is that even remotely productive?

Second, did I lie about what you argued? Are you saying you never claimed this was in violation of the ECHR? Because I distinctly remember you posting this:

Here you are clearly stating that it is in violation of article 10 of the ECHR. If you mean I lied about something else, kindly point to exactly what sort of lie this was, so I have the opportunity to answer it.

Third, I will make one last effort to explain this to you in a way which you might understand. If you disagree, I really don't care, as you are the one who has to live in denial. The thing about law is that you can't just run around and quote it thinking that you have somehow accomplished anything - law has to be interpreted with regards both to its wording and intention. The institution responsible for interpreting the ECHR is the ECourtHR, which is the highest court with regards to the conventions interpretation, higher even than the national Supreme Courts of the signatory states. This makes the ECourthHR in practice legally infallible - yes, infallible. They're the highest institution responsible for interpreting and applying the law, their opinion matters more than anybody else. Hence if the ECourthHR comes to the conclusion - through a Grand Chamber decision no less - that the French law is not in conflict with the ECHR and is in fact admitted by it (the convention), then the simple fact of the matter is that the French law could not possibly be in violation of the ECHR.

You can argue about the morality about it all you want - but you can't argue the legality, since the court came to its conclusion through the acceptable procedure, following the standards for doing so, and respecting the intention and purpose of the ECHR through the margin of appreciation and the limitations to the freedoms it provides. The reasoning behind this is clearly stated in the case itself, which is the only reasoning that actually matters - this is why I have been telling you to read it, since the case is the first-hand-source for the courts decision. Frankly, one would have to be exceptionally arrogant to argue with a straight face that 15 of the 17 judges present, among the best and most skilled lawyers in Europe by the way, who have worked specifically with legal questions of this type, are legally wrong - especially since you haven't presented a reason for it other than a misunderstanding of the argument, purposeful or not. Certainly you are allowed to have a dissenting opinion on the legality of the matter, but law is not opinion, and you have to understand this basic legal principle: the court decides, the parties have only to accept the verdic or appeal if there is a court to appeal to. It's part of the rule of law.

I know it is tempting to reach into your pocket of rhetoric - to claim that it is the merit of the argument that is important etc..., but this is not a debate - not to mention that your argumentation is the one without merit, as you have completely ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented the French defense as somehow banning unsocial behaviour and then have continued to insist on this position despite being repeatedly informed of the actual meaning of said defense. This is me explaining to you why your statement about this being violation with the ECHR is wrong, and for this I need no other argument than the fact that the court came to this conclusion, because once the court does so, it becomes a legally undeniable fact. Prior to the verdict, one could have argued the merit of one side or the other, but at this point the verdict has been given and we have our answer. That's what legal argumentation is, trying to convince the court and arguing about what would and what wouldn't hold up in court. In our case we know what held up. I did not say myself that, had I been a judge, I would have come to this conclusion. Neither did I say that, had the court yet to take a stance on the matter, your arguments would not have been important. I said that since the court has decided on the matter, it was a fair ruling considering they used the law in the correct manner, hence the matter is decided. Over. Evidently, and by the authority of their office, the court decided that the margin of appreciation and interpersonal socialization>freedom to cover your face. It's as objective an answer to "does this violate the ECHR" as you can get, and you were wrong plain and simple.

Whining about it won't change this basic legal fact one bit. There is a difference between de lege ferenda (how the law should be) and de lege lata (how the law is), you can argue all you want about how you think the ECHR should work, but it does not change how it works. A lawyer (and the conventions you cited are law) applies the law as it is, not as s/he thinks it should be. The fact is that the entire subject of your argument has been "is this to protect the rights of others? no!" - that is it, that is what you said and since then you have refused to accept anything else because you don't want to accept anything else. So, to reiterate: the ones who decide if this is in violation of the ECHR are the ECourtHR, not the involved parties and certainly not third parties.

Let us also not forget that this is what the law was - it is not a burqa ban, it is a law forbidding covering of the face in a public space. This is why I don't understand your panties-argument with Danny Crane, because burqas are not outlawed. Using them to cover your face in public is. Similarly, using panties is not outlawed. Using them to cover your face in public is.

Nor is it a law that bans people being unsocial, as I've explained multiple times. This is about interpersonal interaction, id est when you actually interact with someone directly and in a public space, you are not allowed to hide behind a face-covering attire. It is considered an important part of French society. The measures were proportional, as the penalties carried are limited, the law is not directed against any religious group directly, and the ECourtHR has to respect the margin of appreciation - giving the state a degree of freedom for designing its laws without going full "this is in violation of human rights"-mode. This was done much in the same spirit as one would have banned SS uniforms or other Nazi insiginia - which I would assume you find to be entirely ok, no? It is exactly the same reasoning used to ban hate-speech and other behaviour which is considered contrary to basic and core tenets of the banning society. Literally every other poster seems to have understood this. One other poster objected, but he did so on the basis of whether it truly is such a fundamental part of French society or if they just made it up, not by misunderstanding the entire argument and characterising it as an "anti-unsocial law, beeeeh this can be used to ban people from not making eye-contact think of the introverts!!1!".

With regards to your other two sources of Human Rights, the UN and the EU - both have yet to be decided in a court of law, but I would assume that since the ECourtHR has come to the conclusion that it is not in violation, the other two institutions, and especially the EU, are likely to follow suit if such a matter would ever be brought to court. Simply put the law is not currently on your side, and claiming that it is just because you want it to be does not lend you any more merit. You can continue to insist on fallacious statements, does not make it true.

Do you think the ban is unjustified? That's good for you, you can argue for that all you want. But dont come into this thread and throw around fallacious accusations of it being in violation of the ECHR, desperately trying to find merit to your argument, when we all know it isn't. By the end of the day, you're wrong, period. There really isn't anything else to say that hasn't already been explained repeatedly to you now. You can continue throwing around your cute little accusations of me "personalizing the issue" and "hiding behind the court" or whatever, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, you'll have to learn to live with that and I can go back to enjoy my vacation as opposed to try to explain a legal verdict to someone who doesn't want to understand it.

Well, it's clear that you're not changing your conduct to provide a sensible response. I see no new argument but reiteration of the same failed arguments that I responded to before. I have no intention to repeat myself as you ignored the arguments that responded to these points before, and, you likely will again as you demonstrate in this post so well. You can refer yourself to my previous posts.

I will merely point some of your lies about my posts. You even used them in this post as well. I never claimed that you provided no arguments. It would be strange of me to do that while also calling your arguments weak. You also talk in many parts as if I provided no reasoning for my claims, which I actually did, to make false claims about my argumentation. Moreover, I never rejected your claims just because I didn't like them as you suggested. It's also something made up to claim that my understanding of the limitations are based on a fallacious perception. So, please don't lie about what I argued to compensate for the bad merits of your own arguments.

As I said, the ban remains to be in violation of the basic human rights of EU and UN. Thankfully, the Sun doesn't start to revolve around the Earth if a court said so.

[Hmmm]

Well, it's clear that you're not changing your conduct to provide a sensible response. I see no new argument but reiteration of the same failed arguments that I responded to before. I have no intention to repeat myself as you ignored the arguments that responded to these points before, and, you likely will again as you demonstrate in this post so well. You can refer yourself to my previous posts.

Sigh, not this again. You know what? I could not care less if you have no interest in understanding basic legal principles - if you are so hellbent on being frustrated with the world, go ahead. Ignore everything that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. You are wrong, plain and simple, and honestly I think you know yourself that you are wrong, which is probably why you finish your post, not by claiming that it is in violation of the ECHR, but of EU and UN law. Or did you think that I would not notice? Keep in mind, btw, that EU and UN law has nothing to do with the OP, which was referencing the ECHR.

I will merely point some of your lies about my posts. You even used them in this post as well. I never claimed that you provided no arguments. It would be strange of me to do that while also calling your arguments weak. You also talk in many parts as if I provided no reasoning for my claims, which I actually did, to make false claims about my argumentation. Moreover, I never rejected your claims just because I didn't like them as you suggested. It's also something made up to claim that my understanding of the limitations are based on a fallacious perception. So, please don't lie about what I argued to compensate for the bad merits of your own arguments.

Tsk tsk, this is not much of an argument. I would have expected you to quote me, not throw around accusations so I have to look for them myself.

:

Now, stop deflecting, and answer; why can't we ban any unsocial behaviors under this verdict?

If I am trying to deflect the issue, I can't very well be using arguments, can I? Especially not since apparently, I according to you have not provided an answer. Mind you, it is not that you claim that I provided a bad answer, you claim that I did not provide one at all, hence the "and answer" rather than "give a real/good/reasonable answer". I also find it border-line hysterical that you are quoting the very first part of my post as if it representative of the entire thing, purposefully misunderstanding that it was a figure of speech. If you had bothered to read the rest, you would have noticed that I mention your claims as my arguments being "weak" or "lacking merit".

The reason I claimed that you provided no reasoning, if I did at all, is not because I meant to say that you provide no personal opinion on why you want things to be different. It is because I categorically refuse to acknowledge the nonsense you provided as reason. I mean, seriously, "might as well ban all unsocial behavior"? No, as I stated: this "reasoning" is nothing other than a purposeful misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the Courts arguments, as they never stated that they are banning un/antisocial behavior, and as anyone who had actually bothered to read the case would have understood. But you never did read the case, did you? Why was that again, because the interwebz reasoning was not "totally logical"? Isn't that all the more reason to consult the primary source?

As I said, the ban remains to be in violation of the basic human rights of EU and UN. Thankfully, the Sun doesn't start to revolve around the Earth if a court said so.

Funny how you try to discredit me using extremely dishonest arguments. Wether we live in a heliocentric or geocentric world is not up to a court to decide (and before you answer, yes, I understand you will claim to be sarcastic, even though you are likely also employing reductio ad absurdum in one variation or another). It is also completely irrelevant to the point at hand, which is wether or not this law is against the ECHR. Which is entirely up to a court to decide, said court being the ECourtHR. Seeing as how the ruling was extremely clear, there is nothing else that I should have to provide. Furthermore, it is again not up to you to decide if it is in violation of UN or EU law. You say it is. I say it isn't. Until a court decides, we can't know. But since the ECourtHR came to a clear conclusion, it is likely any other court would follow its lead.

Anyway, to answer the OP - I find this ruling lawful enough. I would say that the ECourtHRs reasoning could have been clearer and more in depth, especially with regards to what sort of "French way of life/culture" they choose to stand behind, but to say that it is unlawful is obviously fallacious, since it - obviously - is not. The discussion at hand, as presented by the OP, had to do with the relevant courts ruling, the ECourtHR, and not wether this is in violation of UN or EU law, but I would like to point out that both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contain exceptions that are equivalent to article 10.2 of the ECHR (article 29.2 in the UN, and article 52.2 of the EU). Hence it is extremely likely that, should this even be brought to court, the ruling in the relevant courts would remain largely the same there as well. To claim that this is violation of human rights when there has only been one verdict, and said verdict clearly states that it isn't, is simply not true.

[Facupay]

No right is absolute and no right is above others, they all need to be defended in the best way possible. Freedom of religion has limits, for example I cannot sacrifice someone to please my gods (extreme example I know). France and the court have decided that the security of its society needs a bit more of protection and that is achieved in detriment of a little less of freedom: the ancient debate.

And I don't see any discrimination as it's not only targeted to Burqas but to all sorts of stuff that covers the face. No problem with proportionality in my opionion either.

Harsh but fair, dura lex sed lex.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sigh, not this again. You know what? I could not care less if you have no interest in understanding basic legal principles - if you are so hellbent on being frustrated with the world, go ahead. Ignore everything that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. You are wrong, plain and simple, and honestly I think you know yourself that you are wrong, which is probably why you finish your post, not by claiming that it is in violation of the ECHR, but of EU and UN law. Or did you think that I would not notice? Keep in mind, btw, that EU and UN law has nothing to do with the OP, which was referencing the ECHR.

Tsk tsk, this is not much of an argument. I would have expected you to quote me, not throw around accusations so I have to look for them myself.

If I am trying to deflect the issue, I can't very well be using arguments, can I? Especially not since apparently, I according to you have not provided an answer. Mind you, it is not that you claim that I provided a bad answer, you claim that I did not provide one at all, hence the "and answer" rather than "give a real/good/reasonable answer". I also find it border-line hysterical that you are quoting the very first part of my post as if it representative of the entire thing, purposefully misunderstanding that it was a figure of speech. If you had bothered to read the rest, you would have noticed that I mention your claims as my arguments being "weak" or "lacking merit".

The reason I claimed that you provided no reasoning, if I did at all, is not because I meant to say that you provide no personal opinion on why you want things to be different. It is because I categorically refuse to acknowledge the nonsense you provided as reason. I mean, seriously, "might as well ban all unsocial behavior"? No, as I stated: this "reasoning" is nothing other than a purposeful misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the Courts arguments, as they never stated that they are banning un/antisocial behavior, and as anyone who had actually bothered to read the case would have understood. But you never did read the case, did you? Why was that again, because the interwebz reasoning was not "totally logical"? Isn't that all the more reason to consult the primary source?

Funny how you try to discredit me using extremely dishonest arguments. Wether we live in a heliocentric or geocentric world is not up to a court to decide (and before you answer, yes, I understand you will claim to be sarcastic, even though you are likely also employing reductio ad absurdum in one variation or another). It is also completely irrelevant to the point at hand, which is wether or not this law is against the ECHR. Which is entirely up to a court to decide, said court being the ECourtHR. Seeing as how the ruling was extremely clear, there is nothing else that I should have to provide. Furthermore, it is again not up to you to decide if it is in violation of UN or EU law. You say it is. I say it isn't. Until a court decides, we can't know. But since the ECourtHR came to a clear conclusion, it is likely any other court would follow its lead.

Anyway, to answer the OP - I find this ruling lawful enough. I would say that the ECourtHRs reasoning could have been clearer and more in depth, especially with regards to what sort of "French way of life/culture" they choose to stand behind, but to say that it is unlawful is obviously fallacious, since it - obviously - is not. The discussion at hand, as presented by the OP, had to do with the relevant courts ruling, the ECourtHR, and not wether this is in violation of UN or EU law, but I would like to point out that both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contain exceptions that are equivalent to article 10.2 of the ECHR (article 29.2 in the UN, and article 52.2 of the EU). Hence it is extremely likely that, should this even be brought to court, the ruling in the relevant courts would remain largely the same there as well. To claim that this is violation of human rights when there has only been one verdict, and said verdict clearly states that it isn't, is simply not true.

Now you're using wordplay? That's new. I'll give you that. I assumed you wouldn't have trouble in figuring out what parts of your posts I was referring to so I didn't felt the need to baby spoon them. My bad.

You can easily deflect an issue and still provide arguments. You can answer a question with irrelevant arguments, for example. Whether I meant to say that you didn't provide any response at all to my question is simply a wordplay, a pathetic one at that since I even explicitly pointed it out back then that you did gave me a response but didn't answer the question.

I did quote the entirety of your post. If there is some other part of your already rather long post of yours that i invisible to me or other, please let us know.

Other than these, I see nothing new here. You can continue to refer to my previous posts. Have a good day.

No right is absolute and no right is above others, they all need to be defended in the best way possible. Freedom of religion has limits, for example I cannot sacrifice someone to please my gods (extreme example I know). France and the court have decided that the security of its society needs a bit more of protection and that is achieved in detriment of a little less of freedom: the ancient debate.

And I don't see any discrimination as it's not only targeted to Burqas but to all sorts of stuff that covers the face. No problem with proportionality in my opionion either.

Harsh but fair, dura lex sed lex.

Humor me. How does this furthers security of French soceity?

[Denny Crane!]

Setekh claims it is against European Human rights law.

ECHR who translates and sets precedents for what is human rights law disagrees.

Lolkay tell us more seer Setekh.

[Symphony]

No right is absolute and no right is above others, they all need to be defended in the best way possible. Freedom of religion has limits, for example I cannot sacrifice someone to please my gods (extreme example I know). France and the court have decided that the security of its society needs a bit more of protection and that is achieved in detriment of a little less of freedom: the ancient debate.

Except that the bulk of the decision talked about France's desire for pluralism and social interaction, not public safety. That's the part that's hard for some folks to swallow.

[Gaidin]

Except that the bulk of the decision talked about France's desire for pluralism and social interaction, not public safety. That's the part that's hard for some folks to swallow.

Who cares what example Facupay named. France made a successful argument, period, and the court sided with them, based on public safety, social interaction, or otherwise.

[Facupay]

Except that the bulk of the decision talked about France's desire for pluralism and social interaction, not public safety. That's the part that's hard for some folks to swallow.

Well they apparently also banned even motorcycle helmets when not on a bike. Seems kinda dumb arguing with that.

I can see the merit in public safety, pluralism and integration seems very far-fetched though. Maybe they thought that if their main argument was security it would look like an orwellian measure.

[Denny Crane!]

OK lets face it all hands up who isn't for the rule of law? Who doesn't agree with the courts system etc?

Then tell me about rights and where they come from.

[Gaidin]

OK lets face it all hands up who isn't for the rule of law? Who doesn't agree with the courts system etc?

Then tell me about rights and where they come from.

Let's send a few to Somalia ca. 2000 and see what they think. Bottom line every damn country is going to have a law or hundred I don't like. Especially the ones that have been there a good long while. If they can maintain some fundamentals I'll have a good chance of staying pretty happy.

[Denny Crane!]

Let's send a few to Somalia ca. 2000 and see what they think. Bottom line every damn country is going to have a law or hundred I don't like. Especially the ones that have been there a good long while. If they can maintain some fundamentals I'll have a good chance of staying pretty happy.

It is also if you don't agree with the courts decisions where on earth do these supposed rights come from? It isn't like we are born with them, you can't touch them, it's a social legal construct.