POLITICS: Blair Cracking Down on British 'Hoodies'

Does this ban muslim headdresses also?

Originally posted by Crash
Does this ban muslim headdresses also?

There was no mention of that in the original article, but I would think if they banned baseball hats they would have to ban any hat or head covering that had a brim or would cover the face.

If they did not ban all head covering, you would get reverse discrimination lawsuits. You know what they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Why should they be left out? I am sure there are young girls who are equally violent, no

Like I said before, the original shopping center (mall for our American cousins) that banned hoodies and caps made an exception for religous head gear such as muslim womens hejabs.

Its descriminatory but the ban itself is descriminatory to start with so its to be expected.

Originally posted by subz
Like I said before, the original shopping center (mall for our American cousins) that banned hoodies and caps made an exception for religous head gear such as muslim womens hejabs.

Its descriminatory but the ban itself is descriminatory to start with so its to be expected.

If that is the case and I were one of the hoodies, I would be screaming reverse discrimantion big time

Its a private property, they can do what they want

Its when our elected officials start bandying the idea around that we can really start voicing our opinions on the matter. But, like mentioned earlier, it has about zero chance of getting through parliament. I own a hoody, are they going to compensate me for its cost if I cannot legally wear it? Will there be a hoody-buy-back scheme? I'd rather wear it, not pay the fine and become a political prisoner over something so ridiculous as to embarras the British government

Originally posted by subz
Its a private property, they can do what they want

So let me get this right what you are saying is they cannot sue the center owners?

Private property or not they are serving the public, that is assuming the UK has the same human rights laws that we have here.

Discrimination is discrimination is it not?

[edit on 6/1/2005 by shots]

No, its the same as dress codes at nightclubs and bars. Any private property has the right to impose a dress code as condition of entry. If it was public property that is a different matter, they would be open for discrimination lawsuits.

Originally posted by subz
No, its the same as dress codes at nightclubs and bars. Any private property has the right to impose a dress code as condition of entry. If it was public property that is a different matter, they would be open for discrimination lawsuits.

Just what is the differance here. Shopping centers/malls are open to the public are they not. You make it sound like if a guy/girl wears a T-shirt in the UK with lets say has a Logo for Ford, Mg Rover, Mac Trucks or (insert your own logo here) and the owner does not like the logo they can refuse them service on that one point alone? Or how about the Texan with his stetson(sp) hat, or cowboy boots can they refuse him? How about the girls that wear open toed shoes, can they refuse them service also.

How about the girls in mini-skirts or tub tops, can they refuse to serve them?

Keep in mind we are talking a shopping center here not a private club where they can require a formal attire.

May be the laws are different in the UK but over here, I know darned well you need more then just their type of dress attire as a reason for refusing service.

im a security guard in a shopping mall.

Im sad to say but despite the PC brigade saying never listen to stereotypes sadly sterotypes are for the most part true.

Ive been spat at kicked sworn at assaulted bu these so called 'chavs' and the amount of times weve had to defend ourselves from these thugs carrying knives and weapons is getting very bad. i shelled out for a 200 pound anti stab vest a few months back its getting bad.

I dont agree that we should ban hooded tops or baseball caps, but ask them to lower their hoods while in center. Its just an extention of the crash helmet rule, no crash helmets it obscures the face.

Its like sunglasses. you cant see the eyes and its very anti social.

Yes, here in the states, a shop owner reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE. Once you are uninvited from a private establishment, EVEN THOUGH it serves the public, you are then trespassing.

Consider this example.

Homeless guy walks into a 7/11, smelling bad. Shop owner says "GET OUT, you're driving away customers!" Homeless guy doesn't leave. Shop owner calls the cops and they come and tell him to leave the property immediately. He doesn't. He goes to jail.

Can he sue the shop owner? No.
(EDIT: I should say, "Does he have grounds to sue the shop owner? No.)

I think that your confusion is arising from American employment discrimination laws. Most states are right-to-work states, where you can be hired and fired for any or no reason as long as the employer is an EEOE. Anyways, not to get too far off track, but employment discrimination has nothing to do with refusing service to people.

Zip

[edit on 6/1/2005 by Zipdot]

Agreed.

In the UK its called 'implied licence to enter' its up to the Shopping Center manager/store manager who they want in.

We can close the center is we want and all go down the pub! The public aint got a say because its PRIVATE property.

When bluewater shopping mall here in the UK announced the hoodie ban the few weeks that followed saw a 23% INCREASE in trade.

Because people felt safe.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Yes, here in the states, a shop owner reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE. Once you are uninvited from a private establishment, EVEN THOUGH it serves the public, you are then trespassing.

Consider this example.

Homeless guy walks into a 7/11, smelling bad. Shop owner says "GET OUT, you're driving away customers!" Homeless guy doesn't leave. Shop owner calls the cops and they come and tell him to leave the property immediately. He doesn't. He goes to jail.

Can he sue the shop owner? No.
(EDIT: I should say, "Does he have grounds to sue the shop owner? No.)

You are taking this to the extreme by adding in the homeless here Zip. We are asking can they refuse service simply based on the kind of attire they are wearing.

Lets say Molly Putz walks into a store has plenty of money to spend, can they throw her out of the store simply because she is wearing toeless shoes or a tube top? Answer no they cannot. They do not have a legitimate reason for refusing to serve her.Can she sue, you bet she can.

Or how about Joe the Garbage man who walks into a Mickee D's to buy his lunch, can they refuse to serve him because he smells, no they cannot they do not have a legitimate reason, because he has the funds to purchase the product. Can he sue, you bet he can.

My point is you cannot sue based on looks alone, you have to have a ligitimate reason.



[edit on 6/1/2005 by shots]

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

www.legalzoom.com...

In the 1960's, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

Same source as above

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where its policy was to only seat two people of the opposite sex in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

Again I used the same source

So as you can see zip you are dead wrong

[edit on 6/1/2005 by shots]

of any place of public accommodation

Shots, you are talking about discrimination in public accommodation. Anything that is public (government owned) has to be open to everyone and discrmination based on anything (including attire) is not acceptable.

The Bluewater Shopping Center is not a public owned building. Its open to the public but its a private owned property. They can deny access to whomever they want, when ever they want. Much the same as you can deny access to your home to whomever you want, when ever you want. You cannot be sued for discrimination if you deny access to your home to some one.

The rest of your Unruh Civil Rights Act quotes are local Californian Law, not British law. It maybe unlawful in California but not here. The other quote also stated that

There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In the Bluewater Shopping Center case there is a legitimate business reason to ban attire that covers your face. They havent been able to get video evidence of these gangs robbing people due to their hoods. Any Californian court would side with Bluewater Shopping Center in any court action citing the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

[edit on 1/6/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

of any place of public accommodation

Shots, you are talking about discrimination in public accommodation. Anything that is public (government owned) has to be open to everyone and discrmination based on anything (including attire) is not acceptable.

Yes that one section related to public accomodation but you apprently read only the part you want to read.

What about this

In addition to protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

or this

quote: In the 1960's, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

The Bluewater Shopping Center is not a public owned building. Its open to the public but its a private owned property.

Makes no diferance most restruants and pubs are privately owned buildings also.

Shots, this is not discrimination...

...on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin

And the rest of your post deals directly (and solely) with California state law.

I am far from dead wrong and I will bring more to the table when I get home from work.

Zip

The Bluewater Shopping Center is not a public owned building. Its open to the public but its a private owned property. They can deny access to whomever they want, when ever they want. Much the same as you can deny access to your home to whomever you want, when ever you want. You cannot be sued for discrimination if you deny access to your home to some one

Hmmm...... I think that is mostly true, however, there still has to be a resoning behind it. I know of a case here in the UK, where a gentleman refused to wear shirt and tie to work (he wanted to wear smart casual), which was the dress code for all males, but the female employess where allowed to wear more or less what they wanted (smart casual).

A case was brought to court after his employer disciplined him, where they argued it was up to them to set the dress code, but I believe he won as it was discriminating against him on the basis of sex.

You could argue it was their company and their building, so if they wanted they could make their staff dress as giant chickens, but only if they made ALL dress as chickens.

My point is this, if they are banning hoodies and caps, then by definition to avoid discrimination (on basis of age, limiting freedom of expression, right of assembly, freedom of speech....the human rights violations are numerous) they should ban:

Anyone with any hat.
Anyone with any kind of hood, even if it is a raincoat.
Anyone with any kind of head covering, including religious symbols (ie Headscarves, turbans, skull caps).
Anyone with anything that obscures the face, be it sunglasses, a mask or facepaint on a small child, or a scarf.

If you do not apply the rules across the board, then they are open to interpretation and therefore discimination.

I mean, you could have a perfectly behaved child in a hoodie and cap who gets discriminated against whilst a middle aged gentleman in a flat cap and Mac or a Muslim woman could go round causing all types of trouble.

[edit on 1/6/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Anyone with any hat.
Anyone with any kind of hood, even if it is a raincoat.
Anyone with any kind of head covering, including religious symbols (ie Headscarves, turbans, skull caps).
Anyone with anything that obscures the face, be it sunglasses, a mask or facepaint on a small child, or a scarf.

Nope. They're not saying "no baseball caps for men" or "no baseball caps for Muslims," they're saying "no baseball caps."

They're not saying "no hoodies for black people" or "no hoodies for Germans," they are saying "no hoodies."

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT MUSLIM???" Well, he's not wearing a baseball cap, is he? No baseball caps.

Zip

What they are saying as the reasoning is that you cannot identify them in the camera's. They're not just banning caps for the sake of it, they have to have a reason.

If that is the case, then, as illustrated in my post above, ANYONE wearing ANYTHING that covers you face or head should remove it, otherwise that is discriminating against a particular group (which is not allowed under the Human Rights Act and other anti-discimination laws).

You missed my point.

[edit on 1/6/05 by stumason]

To add: these bans aren't targetting particular age groups, they aren't targetting specific races, sexes, economic backgrounds, etc. Anybody can be a "hoodlum."

They are targetting whoever wears this gear that is associated with violence and criminality.

All of a sudden, they are saying "to get into our shopping center, you cannot wear this certain clothing, and we don't care whatever the hell else you have going on in your life or what country or planet you are from."

Discrimination requires categories of people. Take away the categories of people and there's no discrimination. All categories of people wear hoodies and baseball caps, and therefore no specific categories of people wear hoodies and baseball caps.

Zip


[edit on 6/1/2005 by Zipdot]