Question about facial recognition and privacy in a post COVID-19 world.

[Tks]

'If your ruling has backing from them, and you're a part of the EU -- you could basically rest easy re-instituting gas chambers as execution methods if you so pleased.' Really?

Sure, they're what you would call one of the end-game courts where human rights issues get raised for final contest with respect to any EU Council member state.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

I suppose 'they' are at it again

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

Sure, they're what you would call one of the end-game courts where human rights issues get raised for final contest with respect to any EU Council member state.

So - you think that 'gas chambers' could be used 'as execution methods' in Europe because of the EU?

 

[Seraph]

This was not the direction I expected this thread to go...

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

This was not the direction I expected this thread to go...

It's 'them' again

 

[Seraph]

It's 'them' again

 

[Tks]

So - you think that 'gas chambers' could be used 'as execution methods' in Europe because of the EU?

Of course not, please read carefully what was said prior. It is to highlight how even the sorts of mask bans seen in France can simply resume enforcement once any absurdity from barring people from wearing masks due to the public health crisis we face today expires. The reason there won't be much budging on laws that have been penned, is it would be a headache undoing the hard stance France fought to enact on the issue. Such stance having the backing of the ECHU by being upheld after it was challenged -- isn't something you go on and just suddenly remove out of the legal books. And because there is such level of backing, there's really no need to change anything seeing as how judges will simply roll their eyes at anyone trying to bring up mask legislation in this current atmosphere. If there was any policy shift (beyond at best providing an exemption on medical masks most are wearing due to C-19) it would have been felt in the courts by now. Likewise, no considerable entity worthy of entertaining currently exists, that would dare to challenge such anti-mask laws on the basis of them being unreasonable due to C-19 recommendations, simply because such laws were enacted due to an ideal of "living together" (as the ruling which upheld the famous French ban).

You'd have to be Einstein God-tier to argue that somehow people shouldn't be allowed to wear masks due to "the law" of "living together" aspirations. Especially because it's in glaring contradiction that not wearing a mask these days almost certainly goes against the concept of "living together" with anyone if you were to get infected due to your non-mask use.

But I'd have to go either dig up using Google Translate, or employ a French translator that has access to public filings of anti-mask cases in the country to see how France itself is actually handling this whole ordeal in reality. But given the social implications of people trying to defeat this anti-mask law by using C-19, it stands to reason that won't be happening as the arguments on those ground lead to contradiction, or absurdities when pragmatics are part of the discussion.

The only reason I mentioned the ECHR, was to show that the laws themselves won't be changing much, since they have the backing of such a high court itself. At best you get an exemption after this dust settles a bit more (in the same way there is exemption for wearing motorcycle helmets). But if there was a ruling against the anti-mask laws of France back in 2014 when the ruling was upheld, then you could have perhaps seen an end to these laws after all this was over. But with the backing of this court, you could rest assured anything they uphold -- no one could appreciably challenge from within the country itself, and would need a domino effect of other member states raising concerns (but that only happens when rulings are more wide-reaching, and not for a single country on it's own).

 

[Putter]

I'm not sure, but is this whole thread (at least what it seems to have detoured off to) about the banning the hijab in France and a few other places? vs. the imposition of a mask mandate?

 

[Tks]

I'm not sure, but is this whole thread (at least what it seems to have detoured off to) about the banning the hijab in France and a few other places? vs. the imposition of a mask mandate?

TL;DR

OP was wondering if public health is taking precedent over mask legislation. I said yes, seeing as how no nation is enforcing something like a national ban on the face masks people wear due to C-19, even if there is legal precedent to easily do so.

 

[daftcombo]

@daftcombo
Do you think the ban on masks will ever be enforced again in France?

Not in a near future.

 

[HiFidFan]

The only thing dumber than some of these laws are the politicians that enact them. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Seraph]

The only thing dumber than some of these laws are the politicians that enact them. Makes perfect sense.

That's what I find worrying, "The law is the law" etc.