Burkha ban has some unintended consequences

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... a-ban-law/

Shark costume mascot fined under Austria's 'burka ban' law

Justin Huggler
10 OCTOBER 2017 • 2:03PM
A new "burka ban" in Austria had unforeseen consequences for a man dressed in a comedy shark costume.

The man, who has not been named, has been fined €150 (£135) — because the shark mask technically contravened the ban, which forbids any form of facial covering in public.

He is not the only victim of police who appear to be somewhat overzealously interpreting the new law.

Others who have had a run in with police in recent days include a woman cyclist who wrapped her scarf around her face against the cold, and street musicians performing in animal masks.

The ban, which came into effect on October 1, was introduced because of concerns over burqas and Islamic full-face veils.

But the wording of the new law is more general, and applies to anything which covers the entire face.

The unfortunate man in the shark outfit was wearing it as part of a publicity drive for a new electronics shop in Vienna.

On top of the indignity of walking the streets in a shark suit, he also suffered a public dressing down from police.

“I’m only doing my job,” he reportedly said, but his protests fell on deaf ears.

“The shark was fined because he refused to take his mask off,” Daniel Fürst, a police spokesman, told Heute newspaper.

The man’s employers, a local public relations agency, have said they will pay the fine. “I had no idea the law was so extreme it covered mascots,” Eugen Prosquill, the managing director of the agency, said.

Those who have to wear facial coverings for work are supposed to be exempt, but that does not appear to have applied in this instance.

In another case, a young woman cyclist was ordered to remove her scarf after she wrapped it around her face against the autumn weather.

“It’s not cold, take it off,” a police officer reportedly told her. Authorities have since had to clarify that the law will not apply to those wearing Halloween costumes. Face masks that are considered part of Austrian traditional culture are exempt, but there has been debate over whether Halloween counts as an Austrian tradition.

There has been considerable debate over the ban, with issues of immigration and integration set to dominate Austrian elections at the weekend.

Earlier this year, an anti-immigrant group confused these bus seats for women wearing burkas.

I guess Lordi can never tour Austria then

[Dragon Angel]

Authorities have since had to clarify that the law will not apply to those wearing Halloween costumes. Face masks that are considered part of Austrian traditional culture are exempt, but there has been debate over whether Halloween counts as an Austrian tradition.

> Austrian traditional culture
> muh tradition FUCK HALLOWEEN

If banning burqas wasn't enough of a dog whistle, I wonder if this would be more audible...

In another case, a young woman cyclist was ordered to remove her scarf after she wrapped it around her face against the autumn weather.

“It’s not cold, take it off,” a police officer reportedly told her.

I guess it's Austrian tradition to tell women how to dress! Completely unlike the fundamentalists they're trying to legislate!

[Zixinus]

Yes, this was not at all an ill-thought-out law.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hey, at least they're enforcing the letter of the law somewhat even-handedly, rather than just using it on Muslims (even if that was the intent).

Still an illegitimate intrusion on individuals' right to free expression

[LaCroix]

I have heard under the hand talk that the police is doing it by the exact letter of law as a kind of protest against the ham-handedness of it, but that is just word of mouth from some people with loose connections to the police.

[mr friendly guy]

It occurs to me this could be a decent money making enterprise. Ok, my part of Australia has a reputation for police fining people go get money for the government so I might be projecting our situation onto Austria, but lets go with it for a moment. During winter I imagine lots of people would cover their face with a scarf, so lots of Euros for the government. I do plan to visit Austria one day, most probably in the summer then.

[wautd]

Hey, at least they're enforcing the letter of the law somewhat even-handedly, rather than just using it on Muslims (even if that was the intent).

Yup, if anything it's proof its not used for discrimination

Still an illegitimate intrusion on individuals' right to free expression

I don't know. The freedom of what to wear in public is not and never has been absolute.

[LaCroix]

To be fair, (In Austria) there was a ban on obscuring your face during political demonstrations for a long time, for usually the ones who were masked would be the ones to vandalize things. So it's not completely out of the blue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hey, at least they're enforcing the letter of the law somewhat even-handedly, rather than just using it on Muslims (even if that was the intent).

Yup, if anything it's proof its not used for discrimination

Oh, its intent was absolutely discriminatory, and the burden will fall predominantly on Muslims.

Just acknowledging that as stupid as going after shark costume guy is, at least the officers are enforcing the law evenly, not selectively.

I don't know. The freedom of what to wear in public is not and never has been absolute.

Do you believe that the government has a general right to tell the public how they should look (a form of self-expression)? If so, why?

To my mind, to restrict a major element of someone's religious beliefs and self-expression, the government must demonstrate a major, direct public safety interest in doing so, which cannot be satisfied by some less intrusive measure. If you want to try to do so, and think you can do so without sweeping attacks on Muslims as a group, then I'm all ears.

[wautd]

Oh, its intent was absolutely discriminatory, and the burden will fall predominantly on Muslims.

Discriminatory against Muslims who follow the salafi/wahhabi ideology? Sure

Do you believe that the government has a general right to tell the public how they should look (a form of self-expression)? If so, why?
To my mind, to restrict a major element of someone's religious beliefs and self-expression, the government must demonstrate a major, direct public safety interest in doing so, which cannot be satisfied by some less intrusive measure. If you want to try to do so, and think you can do so without sweeping attacks on Muslims as a group, then I'm all ears.

While I think there should be many freedoms, I don't think it should be absolute and there should be certain limitations. I'll take out my shoes before entering a mosque, because a mosque has to right to ask that. But the society has also the right to ask certain limitation on what to wear in public, and I think showing your face in 99% of the cases is perfectly reasonable (a lot of our communication happens via facial expresssion after all)

A nudist isn't allowed to walk naked in public whenever he wants to either, even though he'd be just self-expressing himself and isn't putting anyone in danger.

With regards to intolerant hate-ideologies (which I include wahhabism to) I don't feel we should be too tolerant against it. I wouldn't allow neonazi's walking around in the the Jewish quarter either, nor a group of KKK Klansmen putting on their robes in Brooklyn. Appeasement to fascism doesn't work.

[Simon_Jester]

I have heard under the hand talk that the police is doing it by the exact letter of law as a kind of protest against the ham-handedness of it, but that is just word of mouth from some people with loose connections to the police.

More power to them, honestly.

Stupid, oppressive laws that affect a small minority can last for years or decades unless all the judiciary and legal authorities involved act much better than normal. Stupid, oppressive laws that start inconveniencing random members of the majority on a widespread level? That's different.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, its intent was absolutely discriminatory, and the burden will fall predominantly on Muslims.

Discriminatory against Muslims who follow the salafi/wahhabi ideology? Sure

Okay, so just some sects of Islam.

I'm no fan of Wahhabism, to be sure, but as long as its adherents aren't acting on the parts of their faith that involve stoning people and so forth, they have the right to live their lives too. In a free society, we are supposed to regulate actions, not beliefs. So to justify a Burkha ban to me, you have to demonstrate that that particular action poses such a threat of harm as to justify a major intrusion into the lives and choices of individuals by the government. And while I have a hard time imagining why someone would voluntarily wear a Burkha... I also realize that some people will, and its not my right to force them to abandon a tenant of their religion that isn't actually injuring or endangering anyone, or else be shunned from society.

And if you're worried about the well-being of Muslim women... I fail to see how their circumstances will be improved if they can no longer leave the house at all without being arrested. Just saying.

Plus, of course, when they word the legislation in such a way as to avoid the appearance of discrimination, it ends up hitting other people for absurd reasons, as we see here.

I also note that between your last two posts, you have contradicted yourself somewhat on weather this legislation is discriminatory against Muslims.

Do you believe that the government has a general right to tell the public how they should look (a form of self-expression)? If so, why?
To my mind, to restrict a major element of someone's religious beliefs and self-expression, the government must demonstrate a major, direct public safety interest in doing so, which cannot be satisfied by some less intrusive measure. If you want to try to do so, and think you can do so without sweeping attacks on Muslims as a group, then I'm all ears.

While I think there should be many freedoms, I don't think it should be absolute and there should be certain limitations. I'll take out my shoes before entering a mosque, because a mosque has to right to ask that. But the society has also the right to ask certain limitation on what to wear in public, and I think showing your face in 99% of the cases is perfectly reasonable (a lot of our communication happens via facial expresssion after all)[/quote]

Do you think Halloween masks should be banned?

A nudist isn't allowed to walk naked in public whenever he wants to either, even though he'd be just self-expressing himself and isn't putting anyone in danger.

Though their are places where its allowed, like nude beaches. For that matter, here in Canada, its legal in at least some provinces for women to be topless in public IIRC, even if most women choose not to do it.

You could also argue that their is a health risk to public nudity, probably greater than for the Burkha, in terms of hygiene and so forth.

But, hell, you can make a pretty good argument that public nudism should be legal. I admit I'm uncomfortable with the idea, but my personal discomfort is not sufficient basis for legislation in a free society.

With regards to intolerant hate-ideologies (which I include wahhabism to) I don't feel we should be too tolerant against it. I wouldn't allow neonazi's walking around in the the Jewish quarter either, nor a group of KKK Klansmen putting on their robes in Brooklyn.

Yeah, but a) the Burkha is not a symbol of hatred/threatening to a particular group in the same way that a Nazis or the Klan are, and b) you're talking about literally making it illegal for women who follow that belief to set foot outside their homes.

Appeasement to fascism doesn't work.

This is a non-argument, and a straw man. Its a very old, very over-used piece of fear-mongering, which works by falsely equating the target of one's hostility to Hitler, with the implicit conclusion that said target must be dealt with in the same way as Hitler's aggression-by armed force-and that nothing else will suffice. This rhetoric also serves as an implicit character attack on the other side, by invoking the popular image of Chamberlain as naïve/incompetent/cowardly.

The Burkha is not equivalent to Hitler rolling tanks into Austria/Chekoslovakia/Poland. And treating it as though it is is frankly a Right-wing dogwhistle, which serves to conjure ludicrous images of a "Muslim takeover" of Europe.

[wautd]

Do you think Halloween masks should be banned?

I think it's fine to make exceptions certain traditional festivities like carnival or halloween. It's just a few times a year

Yeah, but a) the Burkha is not a symbol of hatred/threatening to a particular group in the same way that a Nazis or the Klan are

To me it is a symbol of hatred against women. When I think about the burqa I think of the criminal Afghan taliban regime during the 90's because that's when I first saw it. I just have strong feelings against it and if I can I'll use my democratic right to vote against the burqa in public.

This is a non-argument, and a straw man. Its a very old, very over-used piece of fear-mongering, which works by falsely equating the target of one's hostility to Hitler, with the implicit conclusion that said target must be dealt with in the same way as Hitler's aggression-by armed force-and that nothing else will suffice. This rhetoric also serves as an implicit character attack on the other side, by invoking the popular image of Chamberlain as naïve/incompetent/cowardly.

The Burkha is not equivalent to Hitler rolling tanks into Austria/Chekoslovakia/Poland. And treating it as though it is is frankly a Right-wing dogwhistle, which serves to conjure ludicrous images of a "Muslim takeover" of Europe.

I just meant that Wahhabism is a fascist ideology. I don't see how making a compromise with it can't be anything but a step backwards for a free western society.

[Simon_Jester]

Wahhabism predates fascism; it's an 18th century ideology and not a 20th century one. It is very specifically based on ideas about religion, a divine plan for humanity, and rigorously following this plan while violently destroying anything that gets in the way of hte plan.

Whereas fascism is based much more on the idea of the "will of The People" for some abstract, salt-of-the-earth, "real workers doing authentic labor" concept of what "The People" means. Fascism tends to pour massive, disproportionate love and support behind a single leader, whereas Wahhabism tends NOT to focus on single leaders very strongly because it's not a personality-oriented cult, it's an Allah-oriented cult.

They are very different things, even though both are pro-tyranny.

This is a nitpick, but I like it when we preserve enough political literacy to tell the difference between things.

[loomer]

The fact that a law intended to effect a specific issue winds up being implemented in a way that also impacts largely unrelated issues is not, in any meaningful sense, proof that the law is not discriminatory in its intent. This is because law does not exist in a vacuum, no matter how badly planned, and where the express purpose of a law was to be discriminatory and it has been drafted in such a way as to bypass protections against such discrimination or with such recklessness and incompetence that it spills into largely unrelated areas does not alter its express purpose. Personally, I am no fan of the burqa, but I am also no fan of laws that intrude unnecessarily on religious freedoms, especially when they are imposed in the name of the Enlightenment of which religious freedoms were one of the most valuable developments.

This law, being intended to target the practice of the niqab and the burqa, is precisely such a law. As an aside though, I hope you don't have a compromised immune system if you're in Austria as it is now also against the law to wear a surgical mask or other breathing mask in a public place.

[AMX]

As an aside though, I hope you don't have a compromised immune system if you're in Austria as it is now also against the law to wear a surgical mask or other breathing mask in a public place.

Wrong. "Medical necessity" is explicitly excepted.

Work-related requirements as well, BTW - including mascots like the shark.

[loomer]

As an aside though, I hope you don't have a compromised immune system if you're in Austria as it is now also against the law to wear a surgical mask or other breathing mask in a public place.

Wrong. "Medical necessity" is explicitly excepted.

Work-related requirements as well, BTW - including mascots like the shark.

I trust the purported exemptions about as far as I can throw them, given that the mascot has been fined for a work-related requirement and multiple cyclists have been erroneously stopped.

[AMX]

Except that the shark wasn't fined.
The company that hired him, and subsequently complained about him to the police so they would get more news coverage... they will probably get a fine.

The cyclists may have been stopped erroneously, or not - depends on the weather ("medical reasons") and possibly on whether they were "doing sports" (that's the last point in the list of exceptions).

[loomer]

Can you provide a source stating that the shark wasn't fined?

[Civil War Man]

And while I have a hard time imagining why someone would voluntarily wear a Burkha... I also realize that some people will, and its not my right to force them to abandon a tenant of their religion that isn't actually injuring or endangering anyone, or else be shunned from society.

Just as an anecdote regarding this, I grew up near a naval base that had a JAG school. During the first Gulf War, we had several officers from allied countries who attended classes there, and my mother befriended the wife of a Saudi officer. This Saudi woman wore a burka whenever she went outdoors or when anyone male who was not a member of her family visited the condo where they were staying. I learned later on that her husband did not require this, and actually told her that she did not have to wear it while they were in the States if she did not want to, but she was incredibly devout and felt uncomfortable not wearing it. She did see some humor in it, though, since she told my mom that Americans dress like children (young girls are not required to wear a veil).

Dressing that way was a major part of her religious and cultural identity, and she chose to dress that way even when it was not required. As far as I'm concerned, forcing someone like her to not wear a veil is just as oppressive and controlling as forcing a burka on someone who does not want to wear one.

[AMX]

Can you provide a source stating that the shark wasn't fined?

German only, I'm afraid.
http://wien.orf.at/news/stories/2872439/

Noch geprüft wird der Fall des - medial um die Welt gegangenen - beamtshandelten Hais. Ein Promoter im Haikostüm bewarb eine Geschäftseröffnung, die Polizei musste auf Aufforderung einschreiten. Wie sich herausstellte, soll es sich beim „Aufforderer“ aber um die PR-Agentur gehandelt haben, die den Auftritt organisiert hatte. „Das Verfahren ist noch offen, vom Ausgang her ist beides möglich“, sagte Reinthaler dazu - eine Einstellung ebenso wie eine Strafe (für die „Hintermänner“, nicht den „Hai“).

Still being investigated, a fine is possible but not for the shark.

edit: further up in that same article:

Der algerisch-französische Geschäftsmann Rachid Nekkaz, der alle Strafen nach dem "Burkaverbot" bezahlen will, wurde mit dem bisher einzigen Organmandat belegt. Er war als Aktivist auf dem Minoritenplatz aufgetreten und hat dafür ein Strafmandat über 50 Euro erhalten.

Only one person has actually been fined so far: Rachid Nekkaz, who broke the law on purpose as an act of protest.

[loomer]

Huh. Well, consider my statement withdrawn. Wonder where the miscommunication that's seen most English reporting on the issue state there had been a fine came from.

[AMX]

OK, now this sounds like the sort of stealth activism LaCroix mentioned:
http://wien.orf.at/news/stories/2873263/
The police interrupted the filming of a government PR video to check whether the parliament's mascot was allowed to wear his bunny head.

[mr friendly guy]

google translates says this about the article

Police use against parliamentary mascots

The anti-facial coverage law or burqa ban in Austria ensures ever more odd outgrowths. Now it was also the mascot of the parliament that passed the law.

At a film shoot in front of the House on the occasion of the Parliament's open day on 26 October, according to the Tyrolean daily newspaper, a police operation against Hasen Lesko occurred. For film recordings on behalf of the Democratic Chamber, children were on the road with the parliament mascot on 9 October before the Parliament building on the Ring.

It was about "artistic professional practice"
A preoccupation of the police broke the scene, the actor behind the light blue hare Lesko with his long, cuddly ears and big eyes had to show his true face. There was no punishment, the Viennese police told the "Tiroler Tageszeitung". According to Parliament, permission was not required for the recordings because it was not on public land, but on Parliament's.

In the end, the parties found that this was "artistic professional practice" and did not violate the Anti-Face-Covering Act. Since the entry into force of the Anti-Face-Covering Act on October 1, there have been close to 30 appeals under the new regulation in Vienna. Only a handful of them concerned women with Muslim facial veil - more to this in disguise prohibition: 30 Amtshandlungen.