Hate and unconstitutional thinking taking over

We now have a ban on face coverings and it was put to good use in Portsmouth today as someone was arrested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn450jwvw9do

I'd quite like to see the wording of this as I wonder what will happen with women who wear hijab.

From what I have so far found online, it looks like it's not a blanket ban but will be used in specific circumstances such as demos.

B said:

I wonder what will happen with women who wear hijab.

Face covering is face covering. Sadly, in this time of history there cannot be a law that applies to some and not others, particularly on spurious 'religious grounds'. The same goes for carrying weapons. If Sikhs want to wear a kirpan, then it must be made of material that can do no harm. In 21st century society, law has to come before religious practice, just as human rights took over from the oppressive reigns of ancient kings. Religions and faith systems have to adapt, particularly  cult-like ones where women particularly are oppressed, their opinions discounted. This is something that, for example, the Taliban do not accept in their own lands, where medieval practices are forced on people - this is not true faith but religious 'practice' manipulated to oppress a minority. 

Many Muslim women chose to cover and are not forced into it at all, obviously there are extreme forms of Islam where it is enforced.

Do you include all faiths, including the Christians sects that want women to be kept out of politics and in the home, to have to submit to their husbands and never have an opinion?

Head and face coverings are ancient and I think we in the West are outliers in that we reserve head and face coverings either for winter, fashion purposes and ceremonial events like weddings.

Peronally I don't have a problem with covered faces, I can read all I need from the general body language and other clothing.

Could you expand on what you mean by '...just as human rights took over from the oppressive reigns of ancient kings.' please, particularly ancient, as I think our understanding of ancient maybe be different? 

I agree with Alexa in her time lines on what constitutes ancient.

The Magna Carta is always held up to be the brilliant thing confirming the rights of the free man. But you have to look at what "free man" really meant and as Alexa said it was far more about protecting the aristocracy from the monarchy than about the rights of ordinary people. Serfdom continued long after the Magna Carta, it was unchallenged until the Plague and that was only because there were not enough people left alive to work the estates of the aristocrats and church without better pay, or even any pay and conditions. Laws were passed trying to force people back into servitude, but as well as there not being enough people to work the land, there were no enough people left to enforce the law and it sort of settled into what because known as *** fuedalism.

The Peasants Revolt I don't know so much about, and from what I gather it was as much to do with organised crime and general anger at excess in both the aristocrats and the church as it was any sort of proto democracy, although one of the most famous sayings of the time was, 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?'

The Englsih Civil war wasn't a call for democracy either, it was as much about a crisis in how monarchy and the country was funded as as well as religious reforms or lack of them.

At the time the country was funded out of the kings pocket and treasury, all lands etc belonging directly to the monarch, tax was raised for specific purposes, such as wars, but asking parliament, who were supposed to assent but sometimes didn't. Charles I was a believer in absolute monarchy, didn't want to share his power and went against the customs of the country. He was also a closet Catholic and started to come out of the closet just before the Civil War began, it was one of the causes of it. Charles decided to bypass parliament and started fundung himself quite creatively, using the powers he did have full control over. Things boiled over with a toxic mix of economics, power and religion many people prefering a quite strict protestantism over the Church of England as set up by the Tudors and certainly more than they liked Catholicism. Cromwell didn't appear on the scene until the war had been going on for some time. Cromwell was just as absolutist as Charles I was, a bit like swapping Tzars for Stalin in Russia, but there was no plan for what would happen when he died. So Charles II was invited back and there were the beginings a of a cocnstitutional monarchy. 

I don't think constitutional monarchy as we have it today started then, I think it sort of evolved over the Georgian and Victorian periods, Queen Victoria was much more involved politically than her successors have been.

I agree with Alexa in her time lines on what constitutes ancient.

The Magna Carta is always held up to be the brilliant thing confirming the rights of the free man. But you have to look at what "free man" really meant and as Alexa said it was far more about protecting the aristocracy from the monarchy than about the rights of ordinary people. Serfdom continued long after the Magna Carta, it was unchallenged until the Plague and that was only because there were not enough people left alive to work the estates of the aristocrats and church without better pay, or even any pay and conditions. Laws were passed trying to force people back into servitude, but as well as there not being enough people to work the land, there were no enough people left to enforce the law and it sort of settled into what because known as *** fuedalism.

The Peasants Revolt I don't know so much about, and from what I gather it was as much to do with organised crime and general anger at excess in both the aristocrats and the church as it was any sort of proto democracy, although one of the most famous sayings of the time was, 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?'

The Englsih Civil war wasn't a call for democracy either, it was as much about a crisis in how monarchy and the country was funded as as well as religious reforms or lack of them.

At the time the country was funded out of the kings pocket and treasury, all lands etc belonging directly to the monarch, tax was raised for specific purposes, such as wars, but asking parliament, who were supposed to assent but sometimes didn't. Charles I was a believer in absolute monarchy, didn't want to share his power and went against the customs of the country. He was also a closet Catholic and started to come out of the closet just before the Civil War began, it was one of the causes of it. Charles decided to bypass parliament and started fundung himself quite creatively, using the powers he did have full control over. Things boiled over with a toxic mix of economics, power and religion many people prefering a quite strict protestantism over the Church of England as set up by the Tudors and certainly more than they liked Catholicism. Cromwell didn't appear on the scene until the war had been going on for some time. Cromwell was just as absolutist as Charles I was, a bit like swapping Tzars for Stalin in Russia, but there was no plan for what would happen when he died. So Charles II was invited back and there were the beginings a of a cocnstitutional monarchy. 

I don't think constitutional monarchy as we have it today started then, I think it sort of evolved over the Georgian and Victorian periods, Queen Victoria was much more involved politically than her successors have been.