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

[Pingfah]

I genuinely can't believe I'm on forum with people who support/advocate/cite holocaust deniers in this day and age.. That's the best examples of European illiberalim that they can come up with?..

...Genuinely saddened, shocking and disturbing...

As a person of principle (sadly lacking in this day and age) unless I read satisfactory response from Rage(whatever) and SubcommanderR on their positions, I shall leave forum.

Wow and I can't believe I am on a forum with someone so pathetically cliche that they went to the "you don't want to outlaw it, so you support it" card right out of the gate. That is not only not an original straw man it is the single knee-jerk strawman of someone who cant argue his position to exit out of a paper sack.

Freedom of speech is rooted in the principle that knowledge. society, and people are ever evolving and changing and the marketplace of ideas needs to be open to address that. I am glad you have such omniscience that you know beforehand which ideas are good and which ideas are bad that you don't need to condescend to engage with anyone who disagrees with you, but us mere mortals shall have to trudge along using our feeble tools of open enquiry and debate.

I'm guessing this reponse is not satisfactory

 

[Shaytan]

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

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?

It's Temis

My history on this topic is simple :

me : French secularism is [gnagnagna] because [historical background].
some...other person : no no no, this is all wrong, thios is not what freedom is.
me : this is our way, it works for us, we have a different culture, a different way to see freedom. It shouldn't be a problem.
other person : no no, you're still wrong because [1st I don't know what on their boring set of rules...ô why can't you see that the American way is the true answer]
me : ...whatever...

I had more interesting dicussions with some walls, I don't lose my time anymore on that.

 

[Sean Aaron]

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.

And yet you tolerate unlimited wiretapping and detention without charge - I fail to see the value of "free speech" when faced with that. We might not have a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech, but we also wouldn't face either of those things. Perhaps Americans are overly concerned with the wrong freedoms?

 

[Sean Aaron]

Though I acknowledge and abhor the crimes of my country, I don't fear a return of Jim Crow or native genocide in America. Why should a European fear a return of Nazism? Is it really that likely?

Are you serious? Did you not notice how the ENTIRE WORLD sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda? Or the way that many of the people holding hands against Israel in the "Israel-Palestine Debate" have no problems calling for Israel's destruction without so much as a shoulder shrug from their comrades? Don't kid yourself.

Permitting the use of hate speech is tantamount to legitimising it; moreso if you actively defend it's use. If you think the best way to deal with the KKK is via civil lawsuits knock yourself out. Myself I feel better about those kinds of organisations being banned and their membership actively rooted out and imprisoned.

 

[infinix]

I'm in favour of the burqa ban purely because they look ridiculous.

Hopefully popped collars will be next.

Are you serious? How do you feel about a Bindi?

 

[Myasishchev]

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.

And yet you tolerate unlimited wiretapping and detention without charge - I fail to see the value of "free speech" when faced with that. We might not have a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech, but we also wouldn't face either of those things. Perhaps Americans are overly concerned with the wrong freedoms?

That's utterly unrelated. Saying one thing is more important does not make something else unimportant. "You care about shelter? But what about our food?"

And you're in the United Kingdom, aka Panopticon One. C'mon.

Are you serious? Did you not notice how the ENTIRE WORLD sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda? Or the way that many of the people holding hands against Israel in the "Israel-Palestine Debate" have no problems calling for Israel's destruction without so much as a shoulder shrug from their comrades? Don't kid yourself.

It's not free speech's fault that some people hate Israel. Hell, arguably it's Israel's fault some people hate Israel. (For my part--and this is in reply to Subcommander R. as well--I've always thought the notion of "Israel" was a bad idea, but it's there now, and as long as it is, I consider any attack on Israel a physical attack on the West in general and America in specific--as I would any European country.) But they're not gonna stop being antisemites because you gagged them.

And Rwanda? What does that have to do with a political revanche of Nazism or the general topic of free speech? If you didn't care what happened in Rwanda, you're a Nazi? I'm confused. Shitty things happen in countries all over the world but the enlightened West cannot prevent all of them, and usually when we try we aren't even welcome.

The only relation I can see to the topic is the use of radio to incite violence. I'm not particularly convinced stronger anti-hate speech laws in Rwanda and Uganda would've stopped that genocide. But maybe a ban on machetes.

Permitting the use of hate speech is tantamount to legitimising it; moreso if you actively defend it's use. If you think the best way to deal with the KKK is via civil lawsuits knock yourself out. Myself I feel better about those kinds of organisations being banned and their membership actively rooted out and imprisoned.

I just can't understand the mindset where imprisoning political opponents--who may be committed to violent ideals but have committed no act of violence--can ever be justified. Even if you accept that they're irredeemable evil, there's a basic principle of proportionality, and that outright violates it. You're accepting state-sanctioned violence to stop words.

 

[Subcommander R.]

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



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?

It's Temis

My history on this topic is simple :

me : French secularism is [gnagnagna] because [historical background].
some...other person : no no no, this is all wrong, thios is not what freedom is.
me : this is our way, it works for us, we have a different culture, a different way to see freedom. It shouldn't be a problem.
other person : no no, you're still wrong because [1st I don't know what on their boring set of rules...ô why can't you see that the American way is the true answer]
me : ...whatever...

I had more interesting dicussions with some walls, I don't lose my time anymore on that.

I've heard the same philosophy echoed by many Europeans, and I do understand where you're coming from. But (devil's advocate) isn't that cultural imperialism to say 'this is right and your culture is wrong?'

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic. I'd like to think we aren't so different.

And yet you tolerate unlimited wiretapping and detention without charge - I fail to see the value of "free speech" when faced with that. We might not have a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech, but we also wouldn't face either of those things. Perhaps Americans are overly concerned with the wrong freedoms?

Not unlimited. And we don't tolerate indefinitely detaining our citizens. There's some question as to whether or not our legal protections apply to foreigners. Of course I'll readily admit there's room for improvement.

And really, I don't think we have any 'wrong freedoms.' I'm unwilling to abandon any of them.

Are you serious? Did you not notice how the ENTIRE WORLD sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda? Or the way that many of the people holding hands against Israel in the "Israel-Palestine Debate" have no problems calling for Israel's destruction without so much as a shoulder shrug from their comrades? Don't kid yourself.

Permitting the use of hate speech is tantamount to legitimising it; moreso if you actively defend it's use. If you think the best way to deal with the KKK is via civil lawsuits knock yourself out. Myself I feel better about those kinds of organisations being banned and their membership actively rooted out and imprisoned.

Where to start with this one?

The world sits on its hands over just about anything in Africa, which is a tragic shame. And, I presume from your comments you are a zionist so odds are this won't make you happy, the world's hands are tied at best over the persecution of Palestinians. 1,400 dead in a few weeks in Gaza. Hundreds of women and children, hospitals targeted, schools targeted, UN workers targeted, etc.

But Israel is untouchable, my country pays them billions of dollars a year and blocks the UN from even passing strongly worded resolutions of condemnation. And you wonder why people rely on that kind of rhetoric? Its because peaceful means have failed due to US meddling. But I'll admit thats an issue for another day.

I will say the very idea of 'hate speech' bothers me. I don't think you can censor speech because of the speaker's opinion. No matter how reprehensible their words are, silencing them reflects badly on us. You surely must admit that free speech is a right, but you must also admit that there is a definite slippery slope. If we bar one kind of speech we may soon bar another.

You can't criminalize what private citizens say on their own time in their own property. That should be simple and self-evident.

(For my part--and this is in reply to Subcommander R. as well--I've always thought the notion of "Israel" was a bad idea, but it's there now, and as long as it is, I consider any attack on Israel a physical attack on the West in general and America in specific--as I would any European country.)

For the most part I agree. If I could, I'd oppose the idea in the 1940s. It would have saved a lot of time and bloodshed. But I can't, so I'll argue for a reasonably fair solution along the 1967 borders that are internationally recognized. I certainly don't consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the west. Or on America. Israel is the tail wagging the dog, and the dog is America. I'd argue that many attacks on the US are due to our absurd level of support for Israel. Its become a litmus test to become president.

I see most of the attacks as regional tension, usually based on a specific incident. If you read the regional news carefully you'll see rocket attacks or airstikes usually correspond to something the other side has done. Israel just has a bad habit of reacting incredibly disproportionately every now and then. One kidnapping, flatten half of Beirut and invade your neighbor. 1 dead from a rocket attack, kill 1,400 people. And they get a free pass on it, its really no surprise so many people want them dead. I think we need to change that. And now in the interests of keeping on topic, I'm done with this and will stay on target.)

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't know if I should cheer this as a form of government mandated social equality or decry this as a form of cultural and religious discrimination.

Obviously treating women as second class citizens is not something to be tolerated. But many women wear the Burqa willingly and happily as a form of religious devotion.

If I walk around in public wearing a ski mask, I will be treated differently as well. You probably get fired when you wear a ski mask at your day job as well, I guess.

 

[Subcommander R.]

I don't know if I should cheer this as a form of government mandated social equality or decry this as a form of cultural and religious discrimination.

Obviously treating women as second class citizens is not something to be tolerated. But many women wear the Burqa willingly and happily as a form of religious devotion.

If I walk around in public wearing a ski mask, I will be treated differently as well. You probably get fired when you wear a ski mask at your day job as well, I guess.

Do you have a religious conviction to wear the ski mask? Does your culture make you embarrassed to have strangers looking at your face?

 

[Shaytan]

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic. I'd like to think we aren't so different.

Some principles are the same, I agree but because of a different background we have, on some points, different ideas. For example, I'm not sure that after 4 years of occupation by the Nazi, you'd be very fond of little neo-nazi expressing their love for Hitler.
If you want another example : America is what happen when people who wanted to be free to believe in their god without fearing for their life create a society. France is what happen when little old humanists discuss the place of man in society while drinking wine.
This burqa law, logically, protect the human being, not the believer, because the human being is more important than the believer.

But we have something in common : the arrogance that our particular view of freedom and democracy should be universal It's fun to play with this idea on message boards and I'm the 1st to do it but in an open minded discussion, you have to be cleverer than that.

Oh shit, I'm explaining it again

 

[Subcommander R.]

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic. I'd like to think we aren't so different.

Some principles are the same, I agree but because of a different background we have, on some points, different ideas. For example, I'm not sure that after 4 years of occupation by the Nazi, you'd be very fond of little neo-nazi expressing their love for Hitler.
If you want another example : America is what happen when people who wanted to be free to believe in their god without fearing for their life create a society. France is what happen when little old humanists discuss the place of man in society while drinking wine.
This burqa law, logically, protect the human being, not the believer, because the human being is more important than the believer.

But we have something in common : the arrogance that our particular view of freedom and democracy should be universal It's fun to play with this idea on message boards and I'm the 1st to do it but in an open minded discussion, you have to be cleverer than that.

Oh shit, I'm explaining it again

lol

It really is quite fascinating. And undoubtedly you have a more personal view of both La Grande Guerre and its successor than we do. I think (slightly off-topic here) that US foreign policy and interventionism arose from only fighting one bloody war on our own soil (our civil war, which was nothing compared to the world wars), we don't have the same perspective on bloodshed.

I think the ultimate test of our freedom of speech is whether or not they would tolerate walking down the street waving an Al Qaeda banner and chanting 'death to America.' Often our standards waver based on outrage.

From the humanist standpoint though, I do ask whether or not dictating to the woman what she cannot wear is an affront to her own right to choose? If we remove religion from consideration entirely, then how do we rationalize banning a garment?

 

[Myasishchev]

Does the law actually expect to change Franco-Islamic social arrangements? The quaint costumes some Muslim women are cajoled into wearing (presumably using force is already covered by existing law) are only a token of the real problem.

It's attacking a symptom, instead of the cause. And, unfortunately, I'm not convinced the cause can be attacked by anything but time, education, and change. Nor am I convinced that measures such as this are anything but counterproductive, even on a practical level: they just underline an official hostility, instead of inculcating the awareness of individual freedom that is ultimately required for a true shift in how Franco-Muslims (and Muslims throughout the world) relate to one another and to those outside their group.

I understand the impulse. People who actively support veiling and Abrahamic patriarchal traditions creep me out, and I assume they're wifebeating savages. And we all want a magic bullet to stop people like that, but it doesn't exist.

Out of curiosity, some cursory, non-Francophone investigation indicates that desecrating the Tricolor or the la Marseillaise is a criminal offense. Is that true?

Edit: I just realized I said the the Marseillaise. : /

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic.

Which one? The First was pretty disastrous.

 

[Shaytan]

From the humanist standpoint though, I do ask whether or not dictating to the woman what she cannot wear is an affront to her own right to choose? If we remove religion from consideration entirely, then how do we rationalize banning a garment?

We don't remove religion from consideration, we remove it from public life, it's different.
The burqa is not a simple piece of cloth, it carries a lot of negative symbols associated with the oppression of a human being.

 

[Subcommander R.]

From the humanist standpoint though, I do ask whether or not dictating to the woman what she cannot wear is an affront to her own right to choose? If we remove religion from consideration entirely, then how do we rationalize banning a garment?

We don't remove religion from consideration, we remove it from public life, it's different.
The burqa is not a simple piece of cloth, it carries a lot of negative symbols associated with the oppression of a human being.

Perhaps, but does an association in public opinion trump the individual's choice?

And why the niqab as well? It seems to be too much of a blanket statement, and targeted against a very small group.

Can I ask what your personal opinion is?

Which one? The First was pretty disastrous.

They overlap in principles. And the First Republic's principles were sound, even if they took things too far.

Its all rooted in Enlightenment thought, the social contract, consent of the governed, etc.

 

[Shaytan]

they just underline an official hostility, instead of inculcating the awareness of individual freedom that is ultimately required for a true shift in how Franco-Muslims (and Muslims throughout the world) relate to one another and to those outside their group.

From what you write, you don't know a thing about this so called "hostility" It's always (not even often, always) overrated by medias, even our own medias. I even think that they cause more problems than anything.

Out of curiosity, some cursory, non-Francophone investigation indicates that desecrating the Tricolor or the la Marseillaise is a criminal offense. Is that true?

Sorry, I'm always amused by the use of the word crime in the anglophone world. When I think crime, I think murder or something at this level at least.

Yeah, there is a law, at least for the flag, not sure for the anthem. I'm not sure someone gives really a shit about it. If no one see you or if those who see you are not offended, nobody will care that there is a law

BTW, I've read several things on a Houellebecq affair in this thread. To be clear : you have the right to say whatever you want but the people who feel offended by what you say have also the right to complain. That's what the muslims associations did. After that, it's up to the justice to decide if there is a real offense or not.

 

[Myasishchev]

I dunno, it's in Article 433-5-1 of the Code Penal and punishable by imprisonment. There's nothing in the Common Law world but a crime that can get you imprisoned (with the important exception of civil contempt of court). I could understand that part ("six mois d'emprisonnement" is not hard to translate ).

But I wasn't sure about its extent (it appears to be largely targeted at preventing riots at soccer games), or its interaction with the decret du 5 thermidor, I mean 23 juillet, of 2010, which apparently places further restrictions on drapeau-et-hymn disrespect. Specifically, <<2° Pour l'auteur de tels faits [the desecration of a flag], même commis dans un lieu privé, de diffuser ou faire diffuser l'enregistrement d'images relatives à leur commission.>> My understanding of that provision is that you can't film someone pissing on a tricolor in your house, and put it on YouTube. I could be totally wrong, because I know little about French law or what a "decret" even is except it probably means "decree." And presumably the American, European Union, or Bourbon flags remain fair game.

So far the only people convicted have been people who, as I understand it, stole the flags in the first place. Still, pretty questionable. Although there are assholes in America who would do their best to keep me from burning the stars and stripes. On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone being put out by insulting the "Star Spangled Banner".

 

[Shaytan]

Perhaps, but does an association in public opinion trump the individual's choice?

And why the niqab as well? It seems to be too much of a blanket statement, and targeted against a very small group.

Can I ask what your personal opinion is?

You will have to elaborate because I'm not sure to understand what you want to know exactly (but maybe I'm a little tired...I often misunderstand English when I'm tired).

I dunno, it's in Article 433-5-1 of the Code Penal and punishable by imprisonment. There's nothing in the Common Law world but a crime that can get you imprisoned (with the important exception of civil contempt of court). I could understand that part ("six mois d'emprisonnement" is not hard to translate ).

A law that could...not sure that's a law that will get you imprisoned. You'd have a fine, certainly, if they catch you. And they will catch if they try and if they see you, that's another story (you Americans like a lot laws, we usually don't give a shit about laws, I find this discussion silly, serious ).

Although there are assholes in America who would do their best to keep me from burning the stars and stripes.On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone being put out by insulting the "Star Spangled Banner".

Good for you (translation : don't care).

 

[Subcommander R.]

Perhaps, but does an association in public opinion trump the individual's choice?

And why the niqab as well? It seems to be too much of a blanket statement, and targeted against a very small group.

Can I ask what your personal opinion is?

You will have to elaborate because I'm not sure to understand what you want to know exactly (but maybe I'm a little tired...I often misunderstand English when I'm tired).

Que pensez vous de la loi?

(My French isn't very good, but I hope it helps a little)

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/04/11/31317/hijab1.jpg?t=20110411085754

Le niqab est interdit aussi, porquoi? Un petit groupe seulement est distingué, mais pas assez petit.

 

[Shaytan]

Que pensez vous de la loi?

(My French isn't very good, but I hope it helps a little)

It's ok But that was not really a problem of translation

You are asking the wrong person, I'm very anti religious and everything against religions is good for me

Le niqab est interdit aussi, porquoi? Un petit groupe seulement est distingué, mais pas assez petit.

This one is not clear but I guess that you wan't to know why only full face veil is banned. Because it reprensents an extremist view of islam, because from all the form of veil, those are the only one that obviously are meant to keep away the woman from the society.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Que pensez vous de la loi?

(My French isn't very good, but I hope it helps a little)

It's ok But that was not really a problem of translation

You are asking the wrong person, I'm very anti religious and everything against religions is good for me

Le niqab est interdit aussi, porquoi? Un petit groupe seulement est distingué, mais pas assez petit.

This one is not clear but I guess that you wan't to know why only full face veil is banned. Because it reprensents an extremist view of islam, because from all the form of veil, those are the only one that obviously are meant to keep away the woman from the society.

Would it be better to give them all a choice in what to wear? Or at least allow the niqab instead of the burqa? A compromise?

You got my intent pretty well. And it is good that you recognize your own bias. Very honest.