Small government being a myth peddled to biddable simpletons whenever a dash of populism is required to flavour the political brew.
Muslims have nothing to worry about. This law is a temporary annoyance and nothing more. With the ever changing demographics in Europe that project an inevitable growing Muslim population, they can easily overturn this law sometime in the not too far off future.
France about to ban the twitter Now, they've gone too far! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...oning_twitter_and_facebook_on_news_shows.html
One apparently breaks an officer's nose & causes a mini-riot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?=0sgUZmyjZEc&feature=relmfu u In the same city, two police officers are stabbed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfq6Fl1_WEc
Not France or the burka, but merchants in Brooklyn want to impose clothing restrictions on their female customers: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/it_vey_out_of_line_tyoxysXr7gEso2O5HN5zeM What will NYC do? Nothing? Try to revoke some business licenses?
The sign in front of the store has four regulations (No shorts, no bare feet, no sleeveless, and no low neckline). Only one of them would apply specifically to women, and, given NYC, even that could be a unisex rule. Unless the rules are being applied unfairly, they're imposing the same restrictions on anyone who walks into the store, regardless of gender.
Big business trying to keep the people down. This discriminates against poor people! (and surfer people).
thats a private business . The burka ban is the government telling people what they can and cannot wear.
Canada trying to determine whether to permit niqabs on witnesses: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/20/pol-supreme-court-niqab-ruling.html Since it's not a religious mandate, it seems odd to me, that a judge would have to determine whether a witness's incorrect belief that it is required, is genuine. Perhaps all the victim has accomplished, is to delay the prosecution of her relatives by 4 years, and counting.
Some believe that it's a religious mandate. I personally don't, but I got no truck with people covering up more than they have to, if that's what they freely choose to do. Here, vulnerable witnesses can give evidence behind a screen or via CCTV, so I don't see how it hinders the defendant's case. The defendants already know who she is so there's no issue about identification. On what grounds would they object to her wearing the niqab?
Belief and practice are too diferent things. Carried to the extreme: some Muslims believe they can murder their own children, to preserve family honor. It's hapened in Canada. Defense attorneys want the right to see, and to have the jury see, facial expressions of any witness. Common, constitutional & statutory laws permit the confrontation of witnesses. Confrontation has been interpreted as face-to-face questions & answers in open court. The dictionary definition has been accepted: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confrontation "Face-to-face", not face-to-mask"
I actually struggle to see what that has to do with anything - that's not based on religion but culture and personality. Plenty of non-Muslim people in the UK have murdered their own children for various reasons they genuinely believed. One case was just a few weeks ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19787459
There is no religious justification for honour killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Religion With the burka, there's a valid difference of opinion amongst our scholars on whether it is mandatory or not. A person can therefore claim that they are wearing it as part of their religious beliefs, and that they consider it mandatory, and they could be correct according to our belief system. With honour killings the scholars are unanimous that it is not a part of Islam. An individual has no right on his own to carry out a hudud punishment. Hudud punishment is the exclusive responsibility of the sovereign/authorities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud
You want people in masks testifying against you? Why require witnesses at all? Just a sworn declaration should be enough to convict you, eh?