Originally posted by sh76ummm I find it not a little intimidating to counsel a lawyer on facets of law but the ban has not been overturned, its merely been put on hold until the courts decide the legality of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/
Congratulations to the French court system for, at least this once, protecting the rights of its citizens.
The ruling from the state council suspends a single decree against full-body swimsuits issued by the mayor in the southern resort of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice. But it is likely to set a precedent for other towns that have banned the swimwear on their beaches.
The state council ruled that the mayor did not have the right to issue a burkini ban – stating that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “proven risk” to public order. It believed that proven risk had not been demonstrated.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/frances-highest-court-suspends-burkini-ban-in-test-case
That will be 1200 pounds Sterling, legal fees please! 😛
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom the article you cited:
ummm I find it not a little intimidating to counsel a lawyer on facets of law but the ban has not been overturned, its merely been put on hold until the courts decide the legality of it.
The ruling from the state council suspends a single decree against full-body swimsuits issued by the mayor in the southern resort of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice. ...[text shortened]... rt-suspends-burkini-ban-in-test-case
That will be 1200 pounds Sterling, legal fees please! 😛
"The state council ruled that the mayor did not have the right to issue a burkini ban – stating that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “proven risk” to public order. It believed that proven risk had not been demonstrated."
While the ruling could be reversed, the court clearly demonstrated that it believed that the ban was a violation of individual rights.
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by sh76I don't think its been proven or disproven whether the ban is actually a violation of an individuals rights. It appears to hinge on a proven risk to public order and this is why the French courts have temporarily suspended the ban to test the case. Its difficult to see how wearing religious garb may be construed as effecting a risk to public order but in view of the recent events in France any association with Islam and its ideology may reasonably be subjected to scrutiny. Its interesting and early days yet, lets see what transpires. 😀
From the article you cited:
"The state council ruled that the mayor did not have the right to issue a burkini ban – stating that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “proven risk” to public order. It believed that proven risk had not been demonstrated."
While the ruling could be reversed, the court clearly demonstrated that it believed that the ban was a violation of individual rights.
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=== Its difficult to see how wearing religious garb may be construed as effecting a risk to public order ===
I don't think its been proven or disproven whether the ban is actually a violation of an individuals rights. It appears to hinge on a proven risk to public order and this is why the French courts have temporarily suspended the ban to test the case. Its difficult to see how wearing religious garb may be construed as effecting a risk to public order b ...[text shortened]... ably be subjected to scrutiny. Its interesting and early days yet, lets see what transpires. 😀
This, in your words, is the compelling case for the overturn of the ban.
Originally posted by sh76Easy there. . . . but in view of the recent events in France any association with Islam and its ideology may reasonably be subjected to scrutiny 😀
=== Its difficult to see how wearing religious garb may be construed as effecting a risk to public order ===
This, in your words, is the compelling case for the overturn of the ban.
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by sh76It's a proven risk to fashion and taste.
From the article you cited:
"The state council ruled that the mayor did not have the right to issue a burkini ban – stating that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “proven risk” to public order. It believed that proven risk had not been demonstrated."
While the ruling could be reversed, the court clearly demonstrated that it believed that the ban was a violation of individual rights.
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by sh76It doesn't seem to be much to celebrate about; the Court seems to have ruled based on Federalism issues. Based on what the French political leaders are saying, you can expect a national ban to be enacted shortly.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/
Congratulations to the French court system for, at least this once, protecting the rights of its citizens.
26 Aug 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe European Court of Human Rights upheld the French burqa and niqab ban in 2014.http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/01/world/europe/france-burqa-ban/
I see little reason to believe that they wouldn't uphold a national ban on burkinas based on that precedent. Euro courts don't take Natural Rights very seriously relying on the more squishy concept of "human rights",
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC: any association with Islam and its ideology may reasonably be subjected to scrutiny.
I don't think its been proven or disproven whether the ban is actually a violation of an individuals rights. It appears to hinge on a proven risk to public order and this is why the French courts have temporarily suspended the ban to test the case. Its difficult to see how wearing religious garb may be construed as effecting a risk to public order b ...[text shortened]... ably be subjected to scrutiny. Its interesting and early days yet, lets see what transpires. 😀
I don't suppose you see anything wrong with this statement which, in effect, endorses a Holy War against a segment of a nation's citizens merely because of the violent acts of a few. I'd call it "profiling" and/or "collective punishment" both of which are deeply offensive to any idea of freedom and limited government.