Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
As far as I can tell there is no law about having your face covered in a bank.
In Bill 309 it bans face coverings in a riot and this appears to not include any caveats for Burkas.
So this whole discussion is likely moot.
However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.
If there is 1 Burka robbery vs millions of ski mask robberies (no idea what the real numbers are) you'd absolutely be justified in ignoring the burka robberies until it became an issue. You evaluate the risk of each situation independently and react accordingly.
Now if your crafting a law the law similar to banning face masks in a riot is a good model as it only criminalizes criminal behaviour. So in the same way that committing a crime with a weapon carries a higher penalty you could (and there might already be a law like this) increase the penalty for committing a crime with your face obscured.
However it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate face coverings on a case by case basis looking to accommodate rather than exclude.
|
I think we probably agree on this, and our anti masking laws as you say, do not have caveats for burkas. Disguise with intent IS a separate law that will carry extra charges for those involved in criminal activity while having their face covered.
Quote:
|
However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.
|
I'm not sure I agree with this however. Either your face is covered or it isn't. The anti masking laws do not cover specific types of headwear as I'm sure the intent is the issue. Or am I'm misunderstanding your meaning here?
The issue at the bank with sunglasses or headwear HAS to be company policy. Not sure why I have to show my face to the nice lady I've known for years otherwise. Smile for the camera?