Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[CorporalCaptain]

The first statement is inflammatory, and personally I'm against the death penalty, but given that the death penalty is legal here in the U.S., there is the problem of how the death penalty can be discussed in civil society. How does one "make recommendations" as to who will receive it?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

With respect that is crap. The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights.

They sure seem like they are, banning Booberry dresses in France, and swastikas in video games. That's completely rational and necessary to maintain societal order. Except it's not: it's state-sanctioned enmity with Islam and petty self-flagellation over the crimes of people mostly long dead, respectively.

But really, that highlights the problem: in a democracy, or any human system, discerning people are not necessarily or even often the ones who achieve power. Thus when discerning people do have the temporary advantage, they frame laws defending the minority from the majority which are then made very difficult for the majority to change.

If you don't have a fundamental law that recognizes the freedom of Nazis to march, there is no fundamental law that recognizes anyone else's freedom to do so, either. All you have is a privilege, revocable at any time by an adversarial legislature, not a right.

Beyond that, silencing any speech or merely expressive conduct is so deeply offensive to human dignity that no government should have the power to do it. It's as basic to liberty as the presumption of innocence or the right to take part in the political process.

Yup.

The French law is just the dominant culture trying to oppress a minority culture it finds threatening. All the gabble about women's rights is a hypocritical smokescreen.

Most nations don't have enough commitment to individual freedom to overcome their fears in order to make good on that commitment. Democracies like to yak about human rights and freedom, but when it comes right down to it, they're as scared of true freedom as any dictatorship.

 

[Myasishchev]

Yet I fear I preach to the choir.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah, this place skews fairly libertarian, with very few exceptions, who tend to get steamrollered in threads like these:

As one of the applications of French secularism. But several "discussions" I had here about that proved that's a difficult concept to explain to foreigners.

I genuinely wish you would. As one of the few citizens of the country/laws being debated here...

No, I've done that several times before, I'm not going to do that again.

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear. It's no wonder that you've given up trying to convince people who can easily see through the hypocrisy.

 

[infinix]

Can I draw a parallel from what the French gov't is doing to how the US gov't forced the Mormon church to abandon their practice of polygamy? Would that also be a case of the dominant culture trying to oppress a minority culture?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You may, and it might.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear.

You are the last one that should talk about imperialism.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear.

You are the last one that should talk about imperialism.

The Dominion is not imperialistic! It is for the good of all!

The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights.

Oooooh no, "they" aren't. Who's "they"? The dominant power structure, that's who. You start letting "them" define what is legitimate protest and what is not, you're on the slippery slope.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Can I draw a parallel from what the French gov't is doing to how the US gov't forced the Mormon church to abandon their practice of polygamy? Would that also be a case of the dominant culture trying to oppress a minority culture?

That raises the question of why the government is sticking its nose in marriage to begin with.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Y'all, there is a quote malfunction being passed around like the flu upthread.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

Those are both clearly criminal actions. So a bit of a straw man argument. Personally, I find the first argument you presented - I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion- although not criminal/illegal - is offensive and counter to principals of free speech. No section of society, whatever their 'moral' outlook, should be "lined up against a wall and shot". Replace 'paedophiles' with any religious/racial/minority/marginalised group. Protected opinion? Good god Any media outlet in most of Europe would regard such comment as offensive and abhorrent, if not techically illegal.

It's offensive, yes, but then if other people don't like it, they have a right to call that person out on it and use their own First Amendment rights to make the other person look like an asshole or idiot.

There's a saying in the US that says, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." In other words, you can do whatever you want until you violate or threaten to violate that person's physical integrity. You can be an asshole or ignoramus all day until you threaten someone.

 

[lurok]

Yeah, this place skews fairly libertarian, with very few exceptions, who tend to get steamrollered in threads like these:

I genuinely wish you would. As one of the few citizens of the country/laws being debated here...

No, I've done that several times before, I'm not going to do that again.

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear. It's no wonder that you've given up trying to convince people who can easily see through the hypocrisy.

Those last sentences don't even come close to making sense...but I may have missed some prior history with Shaytan?

 

[lurok]

In other words, you can do whatever you want until you violate or threaten to violate that person's physical integrity. You can be an asshole or ignoramus all day until you threaten someone.

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

It wasn't "taking them out" but rather "lining them up", as if under a governmentally ordered execution by firing squad.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

As soon as you say you want to do that to a certain person, or tell others to commit a violent act against a specific person, yes. But if you make a general statement about a group like the "all pedophiles should be lined up and shot" statement, then it's not. It may be inflammatory, and it may be morally unacceptable, but the government has no right to intervene. If, however, you got the sex offender list and started making threatening notes/calls to the people on it, or taking violent action, then you'd be over the line.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear. It's no wonder that you've given up trying to convince people who can easily see through the hypocrisy.

Those last sentences don't even come close to making sense...but I may have missed some prior history with Shaytan?

Beside her being French? Not really. But I guess you may have missed some prior history with Temis...

 

[lurok]

That's because French secularism is a BS cover for cultural imperialism driven by fear. It's no wonder that you've given up trying to convince people who can easily see through the hypocrisy.

Those last sentences don't even come close to making sense...but I may have missed some prior history with Shaytan?

Beside her being French? Not really. But I guess you may have missed some prior history with Temis...

thanks

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, is Temis hanging out in the past after the Dominion's surrender? Is she, like, on some secret mission to rub out Cochrane, or something?

 

[Myasishchev]

In other words, you can do whatever you want until you violate or threaten to violate that person's physical integrity. You can be an asshole or ignoramus all day until you threaten someone.

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

Should does not mean the same thing as shall.

 

[lurok]

In other words, you can do whatever you want until you violate or threaten to violate that person's physical integrity. You can be an asshole or ignoramus all day until you threaten someone.

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

Should does not mean the same thing as shall.

I'm sorry, but where does should or shall even figure in above quotes?

edit: So as I understand as of this moment, we have debate that doesn't seem to include TrekBBS member(s) from country of origin of debate (for whatever reason can't divine).