AIBU to think face coverings in public should be banned?

The thing is you do not know and no one should have to present their medical information to prove they are entitled to wear a mask. You wouldn’t even know where to draw the line conditions wise. What entitles someone to wear one. I’m not currently entitled to a Covid booster for example but I still choose to wear a mask in indoor spaces.

The problem is the antisocial behaviour.
That’s what needs addressing.
Being photographed or CCTV isn’t a deterrent. It never has been.

How on earth would you police people wearing a face covering. If you were able to police that, you wouldn’t need the ban.

The proliferation of masks and balaclavas has led to increased crime and anti social behaviour.

No, it is the other way round. People don't go out and commit crimes just because they can procure a mask.

Criminals have always worn face coverings. We need to look to other reasosns for the growth in ASB (see above and TokTok craze) and shoplifting behaviours. There wasn't some halcyon time when armed robbers didn't disguise their identity.

How exactly would preventing a woman wearing the niqab from leaving the house help prevent yobs pulling down a balaclava to rob a shop?

People can't be identified in sunglasses and a baseball cap - would you ban these too?

What's needed is more funding for the police, not pointless restrictions on the general public.

I haven't abandoned anything. I think you have lost track of who you are arguing with, and why!

I have consistently been arguing from this position. If you look at all of my contributions to this thread it has been from the position of disability.

I am immunocompromised. I have been assaulted for wearing a mask.

Banning me from wearing a mask means I am effectively banned from public transport, shops and the workplace. I have said this over and over and over.

As I have said, repeatedly, no one has made any credible suggestions about how "medical exemptions" to a face covering ban would work in practice. Saying medical exemptions are "up to lawmakers" is hardly a useful contribution, and is not reassuring to those of us that are raising concerns.

(I have also said that I don't like women being made to wear face coverings for religious reasons, but that the state forcing them to remove them is just as bad. But I am not going to get bogged down with that because (1) plenty other people are arguing that position, as I have also noted in previous posts, and (2) my main interest in this topic is my own ability to access services and the workplace.)

So you’ve abandoned your women need to be ‘free’ to wear a symbol of oppression of women and are focussing in on the topic of people needing to wear masks for medical purposes which no one has suggested should be banned.

As I said before it is not my or pps responsibility to come up with workable exemptions to allow medical use, that is for the governments law writers to work out. They have to draft laws that have the desired effect without unintended consequences all the time so you’ll be fine.

But every time I walk into Tesco o prove I’m not the man who beat up the security guard last week and got banned, when I go into a soft play I prove imnot the paedophile who the staff has been warned about.

Everytime someone wears a veil they are signalling that it is ok to put more onerous conditions on women, that its is women’s responsibiliy to control men’s actions.

There are existing laws to prosecute criminal gangs. That the police don’t bother investigating these crimes seems a much bigger issue to me than whether ordinary citizens and women especially (!) should be policed on their freedom of choice of headwear.

Unless of course this is a racist post thinly disguised as faux concern? 🤔

Using loyalty cards or not in the supermarket is not relevant to a discussion about banning face coverings to address the issue of antisocial behaviour and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Opting in to use your loyalty card to scan your own shop doesn't constitute needing to show ID to access a supermarket.

In the context of immunosuppression/immunocompromise a medical grade mask, or "face covering" if you insist, is indeed a medical device. Which you are suggesting should be banned because it hides the wearer's face.

No one has come up with a credible explanation for how "medical exceptions" might work in practice.

In practice, an indiscriminate "face coverings" ban will ban disabled people who need these medical devices.

Yes. Religious reasons are the least of my concerns when it comes to face masks, it’s the gangs and crowds who like to intimidate society, who steal, it’s like the scum uniform, wearing full black with a face mask.

Seeing religious full body, face coverings makes me deeply uncomfortable, I don’t think any woman should have to wear a full body covering barely showing their eyes. It’s very repressive.

None of this is relevant to a discussion about whether banning religious dress or medical devices is a reasonable response to antisocial behaviour by gangs of youths in balaclavas.

Allowing people to hide their faces in public as it stops them being easily identified is quite a big feature of this discussion, I’m not sure why you are now claiming it is irrelevant?

I don’t think anyone has suggested banning ‘medical devices’ though.

That just sounds like conspiracy theory rubbish.

I have never once been asked for ID to enter a supermarket in London. In the past two months I've been in Aldi, Lidl, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, M&S food, plus the express/local versions.

You can swipe your nectar card at the Sainsbury's entrance if you want to use the self scanning gadget. It is not compulsory for entry. I think at my nearest Asda you can do the same if you put your phone number into the device, but it's been a long time since I bothered.

Obviously loyalty scheme use means data is collected. One can opt into that for the discounts, or opt out if concerned about privacy. No one is banned from the supermarket for not wanting to use a loyalty card. (For now. Who knows what will be the rules in future!)

None of this is relevant to a discussion about whether banning religious dress or medical devices is a reasonable response to antisocial behaviour by gangs of youths in balaclavas.

So how does the young non English speaking bride make enough trusted connections (while being physically isolated behind a veil) to help her report this illegal coercive control?

Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean we should allow further barriers to reporting. It amazes me that you presumably think that you’re being kind while arguing in favour of something used widely as a tool of oppression for women.

Oh that’s strange, my dd couldn’t get into a Sainsbury’s without tapping her loyalty card.

Many shops and supermarkets are phasing out cash altogether, making all transactions traceable. Are you sure you just haven’t noticed the erosion of our privacy? Try watching the series Hunted to understand what the authorities regularly use already to track our movements.

Maybe you could recommend some id/tracking free shopping spots?

Obviously in some cases it is done out of oppression, but not always. Removing womens choices in how they dress is never moving women forward.

I’m not overly convinced by the claim that some women wear these face coverings in a feminist way but ok. Voluntarily adopting a mode of dress used throughout the world as a means of oppressing millions of women seems insensitive at best.

I guess the bigger question is, is it ok for some women to be oppressed and forced to wear face coverings in order for other women to exercise freedom of choice to wear face coverings?

If we take away the option of face coverings like they have done in some European countries, it has a minor limitation on freedom of choice for some but a major impact in reducing the oppression of others, even in the unlikely scenario that they are the minority.

Which group are more important? And why do so many people argue in favour of such a powerful international symbol of the oppression of women? I’m sure the vast majority of women in Afghanistan would LOVE to be allowed to step outside the house on their own and see unimpeded through both eyes and feel the wind in their hair and the sun on their face. Is there no sympathy for them?

I see it more as Western society removing a tool of oppression of women.

Wearing a headscarf to signify devotion - fine. But covering the whole face and body for the “sexualised” reason - not acceptable. Children should not be covered up to protect them from a man’s gaze. They’re children! And what about older women? I can tell you no one is ogling me.

Some women are definitely coerced into wearing face coverings
And that is already illegal, coercive control comes under domestic abuse rules. Why do we need a new law that takes the option away from all when the scenario you mentioned is already illegal?

"We don't live in a society that needs identification at all times.

We pretty much do. Especially in places like London where you can’t get into even some supermarkets without proving your id."

What nonsense. I've lived in London for 40 years and have not even once been asked for my ID when going to the supermarket (whilst wearing a mask).

(And it has been far too long since I've been asked to prove my age when buying wine!)

Injuries in children have been cleverly concealed by 'Western' clothing. In the case of baby p bruising was concealed by chocolate smears. Parents who want to hide abuse will find ways to do it irregardless of what their children wear. I grew up in a very Conservative Christian home and we were always expected to dress very modestly. There are many other ways to spot abuse of children and those were missed in that particular case. Home schooling is more of a concern than use of hijab.

It's not hyperbole, and it has not been addressed.

I currently work. If I am unable to get to work or participate in the workplace I will need to claim benefits. This is not hypothetical.

(See also my previous posts about having already been assaulted on the bus for the "crime" of sitting quietly wearing a mask. Some people get very angry about other people getting on with their lives and taking measures to maintain their health.)

No one has made any kind of suggestion for how disabled people who need to wear a mask may access public services when there is a face covering ban.

Someone suggested there should be "medical exemptions" but no one has any credible suggestions for how this will work.

One poster suggested state issued masks, which is frankly sinister. It has not worked well in the past when one group of people is required to be publicly labelled...

Unless there is a sensible suggestion for how disabled people can be accommodated a face covering ban will not do anything other than exclude disabled people (and those that care for them and/or live with them).

Of course, we could just allow people to wear medical grade masks if they need them, without all the nonsense about "medical exemptions". This is the current status quo.

I think this is over simplified. I work with a number of young women who chose to wear niqab. All are living independently, all are in education and none are impacted by community pressure as the majority in their social circle wear hijab at most. They look at it as taking away any pressure to look a certain way, they feel they aren't reduced to their appearance or over sexualised as women and they feel it strengthens their faith. All are pretty feminist leaning and left countries of origin to escape extremism and oppression of women. They fully support their friends who no longer wear any covering at all.

Obviously in some cases it is done out of oppression, but not always. Removing womens choices in how they dress is never moving women forward.

I can't tell you why all these women chose to wear it because I haven't talk to all these women to ask them, have you?

Some women are definitely coerced into wearing face coverings. The previously mentioned rules created by some men force it. Thing is, you can’t tell which ones they are.

We don't live in a society that needs identification at all times.

We pretty much do. Especially in places like London where you can’t get into even some supermarkets without proving your id.

Do you really want a society where the goverment control how women dress? Does that really sound less oppressive to women?

We already do. There are laws on public decency. We also need to be able to spot abusive behaviour and being made to wear a niqab is just another way of isolating women.

Do you have any concern for the young non English speaking brides trafficked over here and further isolated by face coverings where everyone turns a blind eye and congratulated themselves on how ‘progressive’ and ‘open minded’ they are?

You completely ignore my concerns about disabled people being excluded because of your views on religious dress.

Correction. My views on face coverings .

I was talking about the criminal/social aspects, I believe other PPs have made workable suggestion around disability provision - obviously I don’t want people who need to wear a mask for specific health reasons to suffer but that is not my problem to solve. That is a problem for the legions of legal experts employed by the government.

that there is all this handwringing about being able to identify criminals on CCTV. If I were running a shop I would want the police to attend and arrest thieves/vandals - not try and track them down later on CCTV...

But until we get to this wonderful state where we have an abundance of policeman doing their job, surely a Face ID on cctv is better than nothing? If a group of criminals are determined to wear their masks or as sometimes happens, they utilise niqabs to conceal their faces, then they will stand out and be far easier to track and bar from entry if there aren’t lots of others around in masks, balaclavas (according to PPs this suddenly seems like a popular fashion item for non criminals) or niqabs.

How will you fund the benefit bill for those of us currently in the work place but who will not be able to get there or participate safely if we are unable to wear a mask on the bus?

Your unnecessary hyperbole has been addressed.

No, I pointed out that it should not be accepted for young children to wear hijabs, especially in school because if the safeguarding issue it creates. As per the terrible murder of Sara Sharif, her hijab was reportedly used to cover some injuries.

It is divisive and there have also been reports of bullying of non hijab wearing Muslim children in higher population Muslim areas.