Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kulantan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:49 pm UTC

Ah, France (and the rest of Europe), where "human rights" have to be legislated into being because people would rather just do as they please.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby segmentation fault » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:25 pm UTC

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,"

maybe the way they are choosing to dress represents their identity? i dont know, just saying.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

The 'justification' for things like this is that federally banning the burqa protects women who don't want to wear it, but would be coerced into doing so by neighborhood gangs or their family.

While that's nice and all, you're also trampling all the people that want to wear it. I'd rather go with personal, possibly coerced choice than governmental, definitely coerced choice.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby PictureSarah » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:48 pm UTC

The problem is that either way, women are having the way that they dress decided by someone other than themselves, and trying to legislate it is making the problem very much aboutthe women, rather than the coercion. The male-dominated family structures that are oppressing these women is what needs to be addressed.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Diadem » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:The problem is that either way, women are having the way that they dress decided by someone other than themselves, and trying to legislate it is making the problem very much aboutthe women, rather than the coercion. The male-dominated family structures that are oppressing these women is what needs to be addressed.

That is true, of course. But how do you propose we do that?

Banning the burqa is of course fighting symptons, and not the real problem. But fighting symptoms is not always wrong. It probably is a lot easier to liberate women (or for women to liberate themselves) from a male-dominated family structure, if they are not completely isolated and cut off from all contact with the outside world.

Then again, it is a form of government intervention the private life of citizens. It does violate the fundamental freedom of people to chose how to live their own life. I can not conceive of anyone voluntarily wearing a burqa though, unless they are already so completely brainwashed they have no free will anymore in the first place.

I suppose it will not have a major effect either way. So it's probably not worth the effort. There must be more constructive things to spend lawmaker's time on.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Then again, it is a form of government intervention the private life of citizens. It does violate the fundamental freedom of people to chose how to live their own life. I can not conceive of anyone voluntarily wearing a burqa though, unless they are already so completely brainwashed they have no free will anymore in the first place.
You don't have to be brainwashed to like the burqa, any more than you have to be brainwashed to be a prude.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:59 pm UTC

"That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity."
The French idea of women's dignity was made clear with the invention of the bikini.

User avatar
Virtual_Aardvark
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:27 pm UTC
Location: The Final Frontier
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Virtual_Aardvark » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:17 pm UTC

People don't seem to realize that this won't stop Muslim women from wearing burqas, it will stop them from leaving their homes. This will actually force women into isolation and into even more servitude to men. Also, as bad as the reasons for burqas are, this is the denial of religious freedom. And a woman who has worn a burqa or other form of covering will NOT be comfortable with this change.
"imaginary gardens with real toads in them"
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:An actual cloud... full of lesbians.

User avatar
Velict
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: Icecrown Citadel

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Velict » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:26 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Then again, it is a form of government intervention the private life of citizens. It does violate the fundamental freedom of people to chose how to live their own life. I can not conceive of anyone voluntarily wearing a burqa though, unless they are already so completely brainwashed they have no free will anymore in the first place.


That's a rather patronizing attitude to take. Are you implying that anyone who voluntarily follows the tenets of Islam is brainwashed?

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Naurgul » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

We're talking about burqa specifically here. Are all Muslim women who don't completely conceal their face in public considered to not be following the tenets of Islam?
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

User avatar
Virtual_Aardvark
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:27 pm UTC
Location: The Final Frontier
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Virtual_Aardvark » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:38 pm UTC

There are many branches of Islam. The most orthodox tend to force it on women. But the in some of the conservative branches some women chose to wear a burqa and some wear a headscarf. You can't assume that every Muslim woman is brainwashed just because of the clothes she wears. Don't forget that despite the burqas Syria has a very lucrative sexy underwear business.
"imaginary gardens with real toads in them"
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:An actual cloud... full of lesbians.

User avatar
Velict
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: Icecrown Citadel

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Velict » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:40 pm UTC

Naurgul wrote:We're talking about burqa specifically here. Are all Muslim women who don't completely conceal their face in public considered to not be following the tenets of Islam?


So far as I am knowledgeable , women are required to dress "modestly" by the Qur'an. This sort of modest dress, quite obviously, is not restricted to the burqa, except amongst the most conservatives schools of Islamic thought. However, denying the right of wearing the burqa to followers of these Islamic traditions seems to be textbook religious oppression.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Telchar » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Virtual_Aardvark wrote: Don't forget that despite the burqas Syria has a very lucrative sexy underwear business.


So awesome.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Mega D
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Mega D » Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:46 pm UTC

France went through a very similar thing six or seven years ago when they decided to try banning head scarves in schools. Again, they made the same arguments about how it was a mark of subjugation of women, but it's hard not to be suspicious of the real intent. France has had strong anti-Muslim sentiments since well before it was cool, so to speak.

User avatar
Virtual_Aardvark
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:27 pm UTC
Location: The Final Frontier
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Virtual_Aardvark » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:24 pm UTC

We can't forget that most of the women wearing burqas are immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. France has a long history of anti-immigrant legislation and outright discrimination and harm.
"imaginary gardens with real toads in them"
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:An actual cloud... full of lesbians.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Velict wrote:
Naurgul wrote:We're talking about burqa specifically here. Are all Muslim women who don't completely conceal their face in public considered to not be following the tenets of Islam?

So far as I am knowledgeable , women are required to dress "modestly" by the Qur'an. This sort of modest dress, quite obviously, is not restricted to the burqa, except amongst the most conservatives schools of Islamic thought. However, denying the right of wearing the burqa to followers of these Islamic traditions seems to be textbook religious oppression.

The burqa and niqab don't have any religious justification (Qur'an or Hadith--it's possible to arrive at a ridiculously weak justification if you try hard enough, but nothing that's officially acknowledged). Though, they tend to be relatively more or less common depending on the region and culture you're in or from--ranging from rarely seen to extremely-rarely-seen. I've almost never seen it among South Asians, never seen it among Southeast Asians and non-Arab Africans, and rarely seen it among Persians, Arabs, and Afghanis.

I don't know if there's any religious justification in banning it, but there isn't any mandating it. The most conservative you could possibly get before getting into unprovable territory is on a hijab covering the hair and loose clothing (which is a separate issue--I have my own feelings on that, but it'd be tangential).

Anyway... on the issue itself... I actually agree with what Sarkozy said. But given who it's coming from, I don't buy his justification for it, and I find the prospect of banning it laughable. (Plus, I'd have to agree with Virtual_Aadvark's post on the likely outcome of such a law.) KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Diadem » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:14 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Diadem wrote:Then again, it is a form of government intervention the private life of citizens. It does violate the fundamental freedom of people to chose how to live their own life. I can not conceive of anyone voluntarily wearing a burqa though, unless they are already so completely brainwashed they have no free will anymore in the first place.
You don't have to be brainwashed to like the burqa, any more than you have to be brainwashed to be a prude.

Maybe that came out wrong.

I did not mean to say that there is no possible (non-brainwashed) reason to wear a Burqa. I said I could not conceive of one. I am not, however, claiming onniscience.

And I did make the point that it violates fundamental liberties. This seems to be the main objection against banning burqas. And it is a very good one.

Finally, while I believe combatting religious fundamentalism is a worthy goal, I feel there must be more effective ways to do that.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:06 am UTC

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.


The Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All wrote:Closed views of Islam:

3. Islam seen as inferior to the West – barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.

5. Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.


Hmm.

BBC News wrote:A group of a cross-party lawmakers is already calling for a special inquiry into whether Muslim women who wear the burka is undermining French secularism, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby in Paris says.


I think we really need an inquiry to the question seldom asked: is our children learning?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Velict
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: Icecrown Citadel

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Velict » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:15 am UTC

Kizyr wrote:The burqa and niqab don't have any religious justification (Qur'an or Hadith--it's possible to arrive at a ridiculously weak justification if you try hard enough, but nothing that's officially acknowledged). Though, they tend to be relatively more or less common depending on the region and culture you're in or from--ranging from rarely seen to extremely-rarely-seen. I've almost never seen it among South Asians, never seen it among Southeast Asians and non-Arab Africans, and rarely seen it among Persians, Arabs, and Afghanis.

I don't know if there's any religious justification in banning it, but there isn't any mandating it. The most conservative you could possibly get before getting into unprovable territory is on a hijab covering the hair and loose clothing (which is a separate issue--I have my own feelings on that, but it'd be tangential).

Anyway... on the issue itself... I actually agree with what Sarkozy said. But given who it's coming from, I don't buy his justification for it, and I find the prospect of banning it laughable. (Plus, I'd have to agree with Virtual_Aadvark's post on the likely outcome of such a law.) KF


Ignoring the aspect of whether or not Islam in any of its various forms mandates wearing the burqa, can we agree that denying Muslims the right to wear a burqa is religious persecution? Imagine for a moment that Congress - being the evil bloodsucking vampires we all know they are- forbid anyone from owning crucifixes. They appear to have a valid reason to do so - owning a crucifix undermines our government- and yet, they are on a fundamental level denying basic freedoms to Christians. No Christian denomination mandates that its followers own a crucifix, but it's still an object of undeniable religious significance.

Well, the burqa is also an object of religious significance.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4751
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby poxic » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:20 am UTC

A crucifix is not equivalent to a burqa. One is a religious symbol that is hung on a wall. or otherwise displayed in a public or private location. The other is a restrictive garment that some women are expected to wear in public, with or against their will.

That said, I can't agree with the idea of banning burqas. It could well lead to as much harm as help, as Virtual_Aardvark pointed out. I don't like the idea of burqas, but I'm from a culture that allows me (and possibly denies me) different freedoms than the ones that generated the burqa. If I'd been born into a culture that expected me to wear that garment, what would I think of it? I can't imagine a reasonable answer, since it seems so alien to me.

I don't have an answer to the whole question posed by burqas. If I did, it would likely involve all the same things that have already been tried: education, propaganda, charity, policy. I'm not any more intelligent or educated than those who have already tried to tackle these things, so I won't assume that I'd do better.
A man who is 'ill-adjusted' to the world is always on the verge of finding himself. One who is adjusted to the world never finds himself, but gets to be a cabinet minister.
- Hermann Hesse, novelist, poet, Nobel laureate (2 Jul 1877-1962)

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Sharlos » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:19 am UTC

A crusifix is something a lot of christians wear around their neck in public, it is easily comparable.

Should women be forced to wear burquas? No. Should they be forbidden to wear one? Not unless the french are fine with religious persecution.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4751
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby poxic » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:39 am UTC

Still not the same. There is no religious practise that forces a woman to wear a crucifix or else face ostracism. The closest Christianity might come is the requirement for women to wear only skirts/dresses, never trousers, enforced at one point (no idea if it has changed) by a few strict religious colleges. That's still not quite it, though, since wearing a skirt does not automatically label a woman as a fundamentalist Christian. Nor does wearing a crucifix -- it is occasionally worn as a fashion item, and sometimes by more mainstream Christians.

The kinda-Christian West might not have a good parallel for the burqa. I can make a somewhat facetious comparison: women in most parts of the West are not allowed to go topless, except in very few places where it is tolerated (and inside private homes). I would love to go topless, sometimes, when it's warm outside and I'd like to stay cool (and because it sometimes feels quite nice to let the girls feel the breeze). I don't, though, because I don't want to be arrested. Is this wrong, when men are allowed to do the same at almost any time? Probably, but change will not come quickly to something as ingrained as this practise is. Even if the laws were changed overnight, everywhere near me, I would still be stared at (and not in a friendly way) most of the time. Change is slow and aggravating, and it has to come from within: within a person, within a culture. Anything else is usually rejected, often causing more trouble than was intended.

Still don't have an answer.
A man who is 'ill-adjusted' to the world is always on the verge of finding himself. One who is adjusted to the world never finds himself, but gets to be a cabinet minister.
- Hermann Hesse, novelist, poet, Nobel laureate (2 Jul 1877-1962)

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Naurgul » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:57 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:A crusifix is something a lot of christians wear around their neck in public, it is easily comparable.

Should women be forced to wear burquas? No. Should they be forbidden to wear one? Not unless the french are fine with religious persecution.

I don't think you can be so absolute. You're assuming that the law is just an attack on Islam and the "human rights" issue is only pretence. On the other hand, I don't think it's completely irrelevant. The banning could be viewed as analogous to affirmative action: You ban them for a while to break the taboo, like you could enforce a law saying "50% of all directors in every company should be women" for a while to combat sexism. So, just labelling the whole affair "religious prosecution" and saying case closed is quite oversimplifying, in my opinion. If a religious practice is in conflict with something important, like a human right, I don't think we should block any laws to address that on the grounds that it would be "religious prosecution". I personally don't like the crusifix analogy because it fails to present a seemingly valid reason to ban it. If a group of devout Christians interpreted a piece of the Bible to mean that they should bang their heads against a wall every full moon, I wouldn't be too quick to blame the government if they tried to ban the practice.

PS: Darn, I feel like a troll now, because I was forced to defend a position I don't really like myself (see poxic's last post, second paragraph). Oh well.
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

User avatar
Chainer
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:49 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Chainer » Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:21 am UTC

Virtual_Aardvark wrote:People don't seem to realize that this won't stop Muslim women from wearing burqas, it will stop them from leaving their homes. This will actually force women into isolation and into even more servitude to men.


This. Regardless of whether banning burqas would be an invasion of religious freedom or not, it wouldn't come any closer to achieving its purpose, i.e., alleviating oppression towards Muslim women. It simply isn't how religious fundamentalists think: a Muslim woman who's been taught from a very young age to wear a burqa at all times while outside, and whose husband is given the task of enforcing this, isn't simply going to react to burqas getting banned by saying, "Oh well, that's okay, I guess I can't wear that outside anymore, huh? Too bad." No, quite the opposite- since burqas can no longer be worn outside under penalty of law, and they MUST be worn by women outside under penalty of God (in the view of fundamentalists, at least), the only viable solution is for women to stay indoors at all times.

Then, since banning burqas won't help Muslim women, and there's a good chance of it being construed as oppressing a religion, enacting such legislature makes no good logical sense.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Plasma Man » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:37 am UTC

I want to be able to choose what clothes I wear. I don't see why anyone should be denied that choice.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby psyck0 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:58 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Ah, France (and the rest of Europe), where "human rights" have to be legislated into being because people would rather just do as they please.

Which is worse than other countries that don't even bother legislating them, but just oppress whatever minority they feel like on religious or ethnic grounds?

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Naurgul » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

But don't you see? America is the land of utopian anarchic-libertarianism. They don't have laws or a penal system at all! Know why? They don't need them. They have no need for institutionalised rules or the threat of punishment because people behave selflessly by themselves to promote the common good! Unlike those filthy Europeons that need laws and police to enforce even the most basic of human rights. What a bunch of savages! /sarcasm

Sorry for making fun of you, aleflamedyud, but I think you brought this on yourself. :|
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:02 pm UTC

Naurgul wrote:But don't you see? America is the land of utopian anarchic-libertarianism. They don't have laws or a penal system at all! Know why? They don't need them. They have no need for institutionalised rules or the threat of punishment because people behave selflessly by themselves to promote the common good! Unlike those filthy Europeons that need laws and police to enforce even the most basic of human rights. What a bunch of savages! /sarcasm

Sorry for making fun of you, aleflamedyud, but I think you brought this on yourself. :|

No, I really didn't. There's a fundamental difference between legislating a human-rights code to make sure that everyone can exercise their humans rights as they wish and forcing people to exercise their human rights as a part of religious persecution.

Human rights aren't a behavior code; they're the opposite. They tell you what you've got a right to do if you want. They most definitely do not mandate behavior.

Imagine for a moment that Congress - being the evil bloodsucking vampires we all know they are- forbid anyone from owning crucifixes.

This burqa thing is totally different. You could still keep Congressvampires away with a Shield of David or a copy of the Constitution.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Velict
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: Icecrown Citadel

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Velict » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

Alefamedyyd is correct here. Civil rights define what the government can't make you do, not what they can.

User avatar
PhoenixRider
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:38 pm UTC
Location: Canada, Alberta

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby PhoenixRider » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:38 am UTC

This entire thing is ridiculous. Sarcozy is a damn retard if he actually believes what comes from his mouth.

Lycur
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:06 pm UTC
Location: Nutopia

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lycur » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:15 am UTC

Although I think this particular law is a bad idea, it's not, contrary to the opinions of many posters so far, actually (nessecarily) overt muslim persecution. France has well established cultural values insisting on both a secular society and gender equality. It's entirely possible for legislators to see the burqa as being a threat to either or both of those values of an extent great enough to violate, in this relatively small way, the cultural value attached to freedom of choice - I wouldn't agree, but that doesn't make the view bigoted.

For instance, marijuana being illegal in the states is pretty damn stupid and clearly in direct contradiction to the cultural value of freedom of choice, but there's no strong reason to conclude that it was banned to persecute Rastafarians.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby psyck0 » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:39 am UTC

Ale, while your second post was very clear and I agree with it, your first post was extraordinarily vague and misleading. I got the impression you were criticising human rights legislation in general (eg. no hate crimes legislation, which is simply an enforcement of human rights.)

Also, that wasn't a dig at the US, which does have some human rights legislation.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:07 am UTC

Velict wrote:
Kizyr wrote:The burqa and niqab don't have any religious justification (Qur'an or Hadith--it's possible to arrive at a ridiculously weak justification if you try hard enough, but nothing that's officially acknowledged). Though, they tend to be relatively more or less common depending on the region and culture you're in or from--ranging from rarely seen to extremely-rarely-seen. I've almost never seen it among South Asians, never seen it among Southeast Asians and non-Arab Africans, and rarely seen it among Persians, Arabs, and Afghanis.

I don't know if there's any religious justification in banning it, but there isn't any mandating it. The most conservative you could possibly get before getting into unprovable territory is on a hijab covering the hair and loose clothing (which is a separate issue--I have my own feelings on that, but it'd be tangential).

Anyway... on the issue itself... I actually agree with what Sarkozy said. But given who it's coming from, I don't buy his justification for it, and I find the prospect of banning it laughable. (Plus, I'd have to agree with Virtual_Aadvark's post on the likely outcome of such a law.) KF


Ignoring the aspect of whether or not Islam in any of its various forms mandates wearing the burqa, can we agree that denying Muslims the right to wear a burqa is religious persecution? Imagine for a moment that Congress - being the evil bloodsucking vampires we all know they are- forbid anyone from owning crucifixes. They appear to have a valid reason to do so - owning a crucifix undermines our government- and yet, they are on a fundamental level denying basic freedoms to Christians. No Christian denomination mandates that its followers own a crucifix, but it's still an object of undeniable religious significance.

Well, the burqa is also an object of religious significance.


Well, the Koran also prescribes death for certain offenses, and yet nobody is crying about religious freedom when the country has laws against murder.

Religion doesn't give you free license to engage in destructive behavior.

And this is what burqas are all about. Of course most women will be convinced by their smooth-talking male peers that this clothing is a sign of religious identity. It's easier to swallow that rather than the "Women are devils that tempt men into unholy actions" spiel that truly fuels the reason for this clothing.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby The Reaper » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:10 am UTC

Lycur wrote:For instance, marijuana being illegal in the states is pretty damn stupid and clearly in direct contradiction to the cultural value of freedom of choice, but there's no strong reason to conclude that it was banned to persecute Rastafarians.
Of course not. It was banned because of the Mexicans.

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby i » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:15 am UTC

As dumb as I thought my multicultural classes were, I do recall one applicable lesson, which I will sum up.

Minorities: They're not children, and they don't need to be told what's good for them.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:27 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Religion doesn't give you free license to engage in destructive behavior.

That right is inherent, so in a way you're correct, religion does not give you that right, you already have it. It's important to point out a difference, though. Murder and assault are behaviors which directly harm another individual. My decision to wear a burqa, or eat Burqa King, does not directly harm anyone other than myself. Religion does not grant any rights, but we already have the right to juggle knives, or wear a clown suit, no matter how "destructive" you find these behaviors to be.

The Reaper wrote:
Lycur wrote:For instance, marijuana being illegal in the states is pretty damn stupid and clearly in direct contradiction to the cultural value of freedom of choice, but there's no strong reason to conclude that it was banned to persecute Rastafarians.
Of course not. It was banned because of the Mexicans.

Historical Accuracy Win! Lycur, your point still stands, but that was probably not the best example. Regardless of the intention of the law, however, it is still stupid and oppressive.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

This thread is making me realize what the more significant result of Sarkozy's statements is... They spread the perception that the burqa is common or prevalent, or that it's typically encouraged by Muslim society. All of which are false assumptions, but in a debate over this subject*, they get repeated (or presumed) often enough to spread.

* I'm not referring to the debate on this thread specifically, but the subject in general. This thread hasn't been free of such assumptions, though. (EDIT: Screw it. This thread has had the same prevalence of such assumptions as the general debate on the subject, if not more.)

Velict wrote:Ignoring the aspect of whether or not Islam in any of its various forms mandates wearing the burqa, can we agree that denying Muslims the right to wear a burqa is religious persecution? Imagine for a moment that Congress - being the evil bloodsucking vampires we all know they are- forbid anyone from owning crucifixes. They appear to have a valid reason to do so - owning a crucifix undermines our government- and yet, they are on a fundamental level denying basic freedoms to Christians. No Christian denomination mandates that its followers own a crucifix, but it's still an object of undeniable religious significance.

You raise a good point. I admit that, rightly or wrongly, the burqa can be seen as an object of religious significance. That Sarkozy is pursuing this issue in the name of secularism means that he (albeit incorrectly) sees it the same way (of course even if he weren't doing this in the name of secularism it'd still be wrong--more on that later).

To give a better analogy (that'd also tie back to my initial point)... If a Sikh gets killed because someone thinks he's a Muslim, that's still a hate crime against both Sikhs and Muslims. It doesn't matter if the person was mistaken in their presumption; their intent was still to kill someone because he thought (rightly or wrongly) that the target was Muslim. Additionally, I know that discrimination against Sikhs, or many other religious minorities, is directly analogous to discrimination against my own religion.

Similarly (although with much less severity), it doesn't matter in this case whether or not the burqa is of religious significance; because of Sarkozy's intentions, it's still an issue of religious intolerance. The reason why I'm bringing this up, however, is because every time this subject comes up, the assumption that the burqa is required or even common among Muslims gets passed around as if it's true.

Heisenberg wrote:It's important to point out a difference, though. Murder and assault are behaviors which directly harm another individual. My decision to wear a burqa, or eat Burqa King, does not directly harm anyone other than myself. Religion does not grant any rights, but we already have the right to juggle knives, or wear a clown suit, no matter how "destructive" you find these behaviors to be.

Extremely important distinction...

Considering the garment is worn by so few people anyway, it's not going to have any profound effect on women's rights. So what it boils down to, irrespective of the religious nature, is that the government, under the faulty premise of protecting people's rights, wants to legislate what you can and cannot wear.

To continue along that distinction, though, I think it'd be reasonable not to allow the burqa (or even niqab) not to be worn in public schools, since it could legitimately pose a hindrance to interaction with teachers and other students. I still have a serious issue with the hijab ban, since that does not pose the same hindrance. But banning it altogether in public when there's no necessity of face-to-face interaction with someone makes no sense. KF
Last edited by Kizyr on Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Religion doesn't give you free license to engage in destructive behavior.

That right is inherent, so in a way you're correct, religion does not give you that right, you already have it. It's important to point out a difference, though. Murder and assault are behaviors which directly harm another individual. My decision to wear a burqa, or eat Burqa King, does not directly harm anyone other than myself. Religion does not grant any rights, but we already have the right to juggle knives, or wear a clown suit, no matter how "destructive" you find these behaviors to be.


And wearing a Burqa isn't the effect of psychological bullying? These women have only their communities to rely on, most of them even are financially dependent. And the compelling reason to make them wear Burqas is some BS about not being the object of desire outside of their husbands. Basically a notion of women as property.

Oh, but the woman who rebels is now made to believe that she rebels against god. And what happens to those who rebel against god? They're turned away from their communities or killed by the very communities, and in the end they go to hell.

And you think telling someone to do something or else they'll face eternal torture after death isn't the most malignant method of coercion?

Don't tell me it was women who came up with these clothing guidelines. We all know Islam is an incredibly patriarchal institution that has a bunch of arrogant, often chauvinistic men deciding what is better for women. Not very different from certain branches of Christianity, of course.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:And wearing a Burqa isn't the effect of psychological bullying?

Not always. You're assuming that all women who dress modestly do so because they are coerced by men. This is demonstrably false.
Lucrece wrote:And you think telling someone to do something or else they'll face eternal torture after death isn't the most malignant method of coercion?

First, you're assuming it's deceptive. Second, you're assuming it's false. Even with these assumptions, why on Earth would you arrest women for wearing a burqa, instead of arresting the men who are coercing them? The government's role is to protect these women, not persecute them, and certainly not forbid them from going outside.

This is like trying to fight domestic violence by outlawing makeup.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, Deva, Pfhorrest, Zamfir and 19 guests