Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

French Burqa Ban

13468919

Posts

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    I would. Private citizens have and should have every right to display both on their own private property.

    How about the folks who claim that homosexuals are all deviant pedophiles, and thus symbols of gay pride are in fact endorsing the sexual abuse of children? Should that logic be acceptable when deciding what types of free speech to criminalize?

    You're talking to the D&D board's leading anti-theist. Of course I'd be for criminalizing such dipshittery.

    Well, 2nd-leading anti-theist. Thanatos started this thread, after all.

    Well, at least your honest in your belief that the government should punish people for expressing beliefs that differ from yours, simply on the basis that you disagree with those beliefs. I'd say that "authoritarian" would be a far more apt description of that philosophy than "anti-theist" but I guess prunes sell better if you call 'em "dried plums" instead.

    Of course, repressive governmental action against specific religious faiths is at best counterproductive to the goal of secularizing society and at worst leads to both an increase in radicalized religious belief and a giant pile of dead bodies, but why let history get in the way of your grand designs?

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    And I strongly disagree because the institutions of a modern liberal state should ideally promote Majority Rule with Minority Rights. This specific issue tramples on the rights of individual women as well as a minority religion. I don't quite see how the same frame holds true for outlawing sex-selective abortions or dedicating funds to pamphleting. If the French government wanted to spend $Riviera on PSA's telling Muslim women to throw off the shackles of a veil and embrace French fashion I'd be perfectly fine with it. It does not. It uses the authority of the State to dictate acceptable wardrobes in a facially neutral language that happens to target a specific minority. That is horrible and an abuse of the legitimate function of how the State interacts with individuals.

    At risk of utterly breaking an analogy which I specifically avoided because analogizing hasn't really improved discourse in this thread, I daresay the closer element would be to the outlawing rather than to the pamphleting (trivia: it is, actually, illegal to conduct or have sex-selective abortions in many states in India).

    I'm not seeing how it might be acceptable to tell women what to do with their bodies in one case due to a perceived cultural fault but not acceptable in the other. Is it the minority aspect here that is the key difference?

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    So you'd agree with this quote?
    Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be
    anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

    I think that when we become dependent on absolutist statements in such gray contexts, I don't feel that answering those kinds of questions help anything.

    I'd also like to point out I've only supported the sentiment behind the burqa ban, not the specific ban itself. I personally think the ban is ridiculously exclusionary, and would like it either removed entirely or expanded to address many other extreme forms of religious expression.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Considering that the burqa is not part of the traditional hijab and was incorporated into certain sects of Islam as a means of maintaining the segregation and subordination of women, I really don't have a problem with banning them. Personally I find that less monstrous than maintaining a system which first teaches women that it is a sin to show their faces in public (the only religious justification given for wearing the burqa) and only then allows them to "decide" for themselves.
    We assume that women have the autonomy to decide even if they are biased by how they are raised. What you are arguing for would basically make the idea of freedom of speech meaningless as pretty much any thing can be justified as having only been allowed to decide after being raised in an environment where they are taught to think a certain way.

    This is ignoring that at least according to two French government reports, many of the women wearing the burqa are recent converts to Islam or are doing so to provoke society or family. This suggests a good portion willingly chose it as much as any person can be said to willingly choose anything.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    It's relieving to see so many comments about freedom of expression and individual liberty...

    I'm sure if the French Government really wanted to ban Burqas for any reason, all they would have to do is find a way to convince other legislators and some special interest groups that it is a public safety risk, security breach or a health concern. In the United States, that's how we get everything banned that we don't like. Keep those filthy gamblers out of the mall, fun is contagious and wrong.

    Do you have an actual point that you're trying to make that's relevant to this thread, or do you just have an axe to grind with the state of US politics that isn't really relevant?

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    It's relieving to see so many comments about freedom of expression and individual liberty...

    I'm sure if the French Government really wanted to ban Burqas for any reason, all they would have to do is find a way to convince other legislators and some special interest groups that it is a public safety risk, security breach or a health concern. In the United States, that's how we get everything banned that we don't like. Keep those filthy gamblers out of the mall, fun is contagious and wrong.

    ...they did ban Burqas. That's what this thread is about.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, at least your honest in your belief that the government should punish people for expressing beliefs that differ from yours, simply on the basis that you disagree with those beliefs.

    Your over-simplification of my position is purposefully dishonest. That's not helpful.


    My positions on religious expression aren't based in visceral feeling, they're based in factual observation and measurement of how fundamentalist practice is dangerous to its followers, their community, and the nation as a whole.

    Kids in Michigan have new textbooks with Thomas Jefferson written out of history because Texas has a bunch of fundies on the board of education. My negative feelings regarding that phenomenon has no "basis in that disagree with those beliefs," it's that those beliefs are fucking harmful.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    It's relieving to see so many comments about freedom of expression and individual liberty...

    I'm sure if the French Government really wanted to ban Burqas for any reason, all they would have to do is find a way to convince other legislators and some special interest groups that it is a public safety risk, security breach or a health concern. In the United States, that's how we get everything banned that we don't like. Keep those filthy gamblers out of the mall, fun is contagious and wrong.

    ...they did ban Burqas. That's what this thread is about.

    When I first read CP's post, it read to me like he was talking about a ban specifically noted in language to be against burqas, rather than going about it in the round-about manner of banning face-coverings.

    Edit - And reading it again, I just realized I'm projecting that interpretation. derp

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than FORCING them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than forcing them to cover up their visage in fear of those rampaging assaulters known as men?

    Yes. Incredibly I just can't quite understand how forcing religious oppression on a woman would ever be equal to removing that religious oppression. (even if using "force" which actually more accurately is "a small fine".)

    Except that we are not banning the wearing of Burqas in all and only those cases where women are being forced to wear them, so your edit does not in even the slightest way reflect the reality of the law.

    OH GOODNESS ME!


    Do you just read only the last part of my post all the time or are you just unable to understand my pearls of wisdom?

    Did I say anything about the justness of this law? Did I express any fucking opinion on this law here? Was I actually even talking about this law outside of the added-on bit for great nuance?
    Trivially, preventing women from being chained to the stove to force them to cook 24/7 can be solved by banning women from cooking, and this would obviously be better for those particular women if it somehow unchained them from the stove. This is not a shatteringly insightful or deep point, but nor does it make banning cooking a good idea outside of a really really daft thought experiment. It's only a net win if you pretend women who want to cook and aren't chained to stoves don't exist.

    Several points:
    A.) You can admit you were wrong without adding several paragraphs with which I don't really disagree.
    3.) Please for the love of Atheismo stop pretending like I ever claimed this particular law was a good idea.
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    Instead of some bullshit about how this hurts those who just really want to wear a burqa you could instead point out that those who are forced to wear a burqa probably aren't going to be helped very much because they are probably in an environment where such a ban means just sitting at home. (This is a far more interesting problem with which I don't actually disagree.)

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    And I strongly disagree because the institutions of a modern liberal state should ideally promote Majority Rule with Minority Rights. This specific issue tramples on the rights of individual women as well as a minority religion. I don't quite see how the same frame holds true for outlawing sex-selective abortions or dedicating funds to pamphleting. If the French government wanted to spend $Riviera on PSA's telling Muslim women to throw off the shackles of a veil and embrace French fashion I'd be perfectly fine with it. It does not. It uses the authority of the State to dictate acceptable wardrobes in a facially neutral language that happens to target a specific minority. That is horrible and an abuse of the legitimate function of how the State interacts with individuals.

    At risk of utterly breaking an analogy which I specifically avoided because analogizing hasn't really improved discourse in this thread, I daresay the closer element would be to the outlawing rather than to the pamphleting (trivia: it is, actually, illegal to conduct or have sex-selective abortions in many states in India).

    I'm not seeing how it might be acceptable to tell women what to do with their bodies in one case due to a perceived cultural fault but not acceptable in the other. Is it the minority aspect here that is the key difference?

    That's a difficult question for me, however the advantages of having roughly equal numbers of men and women in the various age cohorts of a society are more readily apparent and less up to personal interpretation than the advantages of having no women being allowed to wear certain garments of clothing.

    I do think that outlawing gender selection as a stated reason for abortion is thus more acceptable a use of governmental power than establishing the anti-burqa (or pro-burqa) fashion police, but if push came to shove I'd also agree that other governmental programs to improve the conditions of women and alter cultural perceptions of female worth might be a less coercive and perhaps more effective way of reaching the same goal.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    sig.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Allowing honor killings is not compatible with a fully free liberal society--it requires that certain members be able to enforce their religious values on non-consenting others. That is why, in my first specification, I said we should allow as much religious freedom as is compatible with granting the same freedom to others. Face-coverings most certainly do not involve the same violation of that constraint that honor killings do.

    And declaring a woman to be your property is not compatible with a free liberal democratic society either, which is what the Burqa's purpose is / has been for many muslims. Honor killings are cut from that same cloth; the girl or woman is told, as knuckledragger just elaborated, that they 'do as they wish' but that there will be nothing that won't happen to them if they show their faces in public or otherwise deviate from the wishes of the father or husband.

    The clothing is just a symptom of the problem, though, so passing a law abolishing it is wrong-headed in many different ways. You seem to be toying with the idea that people could be encouraged to hang onto a superstition that promotes second-class citizenship for women and also to fully integrate themselves into a liberal society.

    That won't work (for obvious reasons).

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, we're talking about a relatively fringe-issue (female circumcision not being all that common) but I think taking a stance is very important. Maybe we don't all have to go with the french solution of hating anything religious (though food for thought, right?) but I also don't think you have to bend to every insane demand religious folk give you.

    I agree.

    "Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

    A.K.A,

    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

    In what way is allowing women to wear what they wish threatening the foundation of the Republic?

    I'm confused. Wasn't I talking about female circumcision?

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    And I strongly disagree because the institutions of a modern liberal state should ideally promote Majority Rule with Minority Rights. This specific issue tramples on the rights of individual women as well as a minority religion. I don't quite see how the same frame holds true for outlawing sex-selective abortions or dedicating funds to pamphleting. If the French government wanted to spend $Riviera on PSA's telling Muslim women to throw off the shackles of a veil and embrace French fashion I'd be perfectly fine with it. It does not. It uses the authority of the State to dictate acceptable wardrobes in a facially neutral language that happens to target a specific minority. That is horrible and an abuse of the legitimate function of how the State interacts with individuals.

    At risk of utterly breaking an analogy which I specifically avoided because analogizing hasn't really improved discourse in this thread, I daresay the closer element would be to the outlawing rather than to the pamphleting (trivia: it is, actually, illegal to conduct or have sex-selective abortions in many states in India).

    I'm not seeing how it might be acceptable to tell women what to do with their bodies in one case due to a perceived cultural fault but not acceptable in the other. Is it the minority aspect here that is the key difference?

    That's a difficult question for me, however the advantages of having roughly equal numbers of men and women in the various age cohorts of a society are more readily apparent and less up to personal interpretation than the advantages of having no women being allowed to wear certain garments of clothing.

    I do think that outlawing gender selection as a stated reason for abortion is thus more acceptable a use of governmental power than establishing the anti-burqa (or pro-burqa) fashion police, but if push came to shove I'd also agree that other governmental programs to improve the conditions of women and alter cultural perceptions of female worth might be a less coercive and perhaps more effective way of reaching the same goal.

    Yeah, I picked it as an example because its justification is pretty hard to contest, and I wanted to argue the principle behind the legitimacy of state action rather than the finer points of how equivalent a given analogy might be to burqas (see: first few pages of this thread).

    The point isn't about the pragmatic merits of prohibiting burqas, which I freely concede are largely imaginary; I am arguing for the right of the state to enforce restrictions in principle.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    So you'd agree with this quote?
    Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be
    anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

    I think that when we become dependent on absolutist statements in such gray contexts, I don't feel that answering those kinds of questions help anything.
    How about the folks who claim that homosexuals are all deviant pedophiles, and thus symbols of gay pride are in fact endorsing the sexual abuse of children? Should that logic be acceptable when deciding what types of free speech to criminalize?

    Of course I'd be for criminalizing such dipshittery.

    Not seeing the grey here.

    Nor am I seeing how upholding a woman's right to choose her clothing or an asshole's right to say assholish things threatens the foundation of the Republic. We have become progressively more lenient when it comes to freedom of speech. As I had mentioned before, imminent lawlessness is now the legal standard which is even more restrictive on government action than the previous 'clear and present danger' or 'fire in a crowded theatre' standards. Yet today our politics and government are the healthiest they've ever been in our history. How am I wrong? How are we at some new existential threat because some people are wearing headscarves outside of winter? Bear in mind that I'm not talking about if there are needs for immigrant outreach and assimilation into the broader mainstream as that does not get addressed by banning particular forms of clothing.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Chaos PunkChaos Punk Registered User
    edited April 2011
    We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    It's relieving to see so many comments about freedom of expression and individual liberty...

    I'm sure if the French Government really wanted to ban Burqas for any reason, all they would have to do is find a way to convince other legislators and some special interest groups that it is a public safety risk, security breach or a health concern. In the United States, that's how we get everything banned that we don't like. Keep those filthy gamblers out of the mall, fun is contagious and wrong.

    ...they did ban Burqas. That's what this thread is about.

    When I first read CP's post, it read to me like he was talking about a ban specifically noted in language to be against burqas, rather than going about it in the round-about manner of banning face-coverings.

    Edit - And reading it again, I just realized I'm projecting that interpretation. derp

    CP is being a Libertarian all up ins and actually backing you guys.

    Of course he doesn't let that get in the way of blaming you liberals for banning gambling in the mall or something.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, at least your honest in your belief that the government should punish people for expressing beliefs that differ from yours, simply on the basis that you disagree with those beliefs.

    Your over-simplification of my position is purposefully dishonest. That's not helpful.

    My positions on religious expression aren't based in visceral feeling, they're based in factual observation and measurement of how fundamentalist practice is dangerous to its followers, their community, and the nation as a whole.

    Kids in Michigan have new textbooks with Thomas Jefferson written out of history because Texas has a bunch of fundies on the board of education. My negative feelings regarding that phenomenon has no "basis in that disagree with those beliefs," it's that those beliefs are fucking harmful.

    Conflating all religious belief with fundamentalism puts you well into, if not well beyond, the realm of being purposefully dishonest. Claiming that governmental sanction against a specific group should be based on assigning the guilt for the behavior of the most extreme members of that group to the entire group as a collective whole is monumentally unjust.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    People have a right to use those to!

    And the rest of us have the right to stare, glare and ask "So... what's with the obvious 'I am a giant bigot' sign?" and tell them the ideas represented by those symbols are inappropriate and wrong.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor am I seeing how upholding a woman's right to choose her clothing or an asshole's right to say assholish things threatens the foundation of the Republic.

    In this very specific case, the gravity of the former's motivation is in no real way interchangeable with the latter.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pressure is not the same as being forced to.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8568000/8568024.stm
    According to official figures there are just 1900 women who wear the burka in France. Most of them are young and a quarter are converts.

    But a report from the French intelligence services put this figure much lower at 367, out of an estimated population of five million Muslims, the largest in Europe.
    A quarter are willing converts to Islam so any decision to wear the veil can't be blamed on how they were raised.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    Considering that the burqa is not part of the traditional hijab and was incorporated into certain sects of Islam as a means of maintaining the segregation and subordination of women, I really don't have a problem with banning them. Personally I find that less monstrous than maintaining a system which first teaches women that it is a sin to show their faces in public (the only religious justification given for wearing the burqa) and only then allows them to "decide" for themselves.
    We assume that women have the autonomy to decide even if they are biased by how they are raised. What you are arguing for would basically make the idea of freedom of speech meaningless as pretty much any thing can be justified as having only been allowed to decide after being raised in an environment where they are taught to think a certain way.
    It's not a matter of saying they must be raised a certain way; it is about preventing their abuse...unless you are going to argue that it is anything but abusive to teach women that it is evil to show their faces in public.
    This is ignoring that at least according to two French government reports, many of the women wearing the burqa are recent converts to Islam or are doing so to provoke society or family. This suggests a good portion willingly chose it as much as any person can be said to willingly choose anything.
    If the practice predates Islam, is not required by the Islamic texts and is not being done for reasons of religious observance, how does this equate to infringing on their religious freedoms?

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    For my part it was when we got into the "its ok because I'm right" garbage.

    sig.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    Pressure is not the same as being forced to.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8568000/8568024.stm
    According to official figures there are just 1900 women who wear the burka in France. Most of them are young and a quarter are converts.

    But a report from the French intelligence services put this figure much lower at 367, out of an estimated population of five million Muslims, the largest in Europe.
    A quarter are willing converts to Islam so any decision to wear the veil can't be blamed on how they were raised.

    No, but 'willing' takes on a new connotation within certain contexts. I might be 'willing' to convert to Christianity if I were fleeing my country's regime and wound-up in a ghetto where anyone who does not convert mysteriously disappears overnight.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    And I strongly disagree because the institutions of a modern liberal state should ideally promote Majority Rule with Minority Rights. This specific issue tramples on the rights of individual women as well as a minority religion. I don't quite see how the same frame holds true for outlawing sex-selective abortions or dedicating funds to pamphleting. If the French government wanted to spend $Riviera on PSA's telling Muslim women to throw off the shackles of a veil and embrace French fashion I'd be perfectly fine with it. It does not. It uses the authority of the State to dictate acceptable wardrobes in a facially neutral language that happens to target a specific minority. That is horrible and an abuse of the legitimate function of how the State interacts with individuals.

    At risk of utterly breaking an analogy which I specifically avoided because analogizing hasn't really improved discourse in this thread, I daresay the closer element would be to the outlawing rather than to the pamphleting (trivia: it is, actually, illegal to conduct or have sex-selective abortions in many states in India).

    I'm not seeing how it might be acceptable to tell women what to do with their bodies in one case due to a perceived cultural fault but not acceptable in the other. Is it the minority aspect here that is the key difference?

    And I just don't see how the contexts are similarly applicable. I don't believe nor am I arguing for individual liberty uber alles as the basis for my disagreement with the burqa ban or similar. I agree with you that the State has a legitimate role in creating laws that abridge individual rights/liberties under certain circumstances. My argument is that the State has to cross over a pretty high bar in order to justify restrictions and so forth. I also believe that this requirement should be on a sliding scale depending upon the subject. Issues of free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion should force any attempt at curtailing them to be excessively high because it doesn't really infringe upon anyone else's rights (you do not have the right to not be offended) and because of my conviction that an open marketplace of ideas is necessary for a democracy to thrive.

    To complicate matters more and make even worse analogies that aren't really analogous: There is no library large enough nor with a budget big enough to contain the entirety of published works. This means that they have to decide on what to collect and what to keep out and balance it with the principle of open access to the world's knowledge. The difference between selection and censorship is very fine. It is also extremely important.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I may have missed it but did anyone actually explain how this was supposed to actually address oppression among muslim immigrants in france?

    sig.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor am I seeing how upholding a woman's right to choose her clothing or an asshole's right to say assholish things threatens the foundation of the Republic.

    In this very specific case, the gravity of the former's motivation is in no real way interchangeable with the latter.

    Expound upon this please.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    It's not a matter of saying they must be raised a certain way; it is about preventing their abuse...unless you are going to argue that it is anything but abusive to teach women that it is evil to show their faces in public.
    If they choose to believe it of their own free will, I don't see why we should outlaw it. If a Christian woman decides that her God desires her not to use any birth control and be subservient to her husband as the Catholic Church and many other denominations say, I fully support her right to believe and act on it.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

    Religion is not coercion. If you want to occupy some rhetorical position in which it's taken as accepted fact that all religious women who want to wear a veil are victims of religion and need to be liberated from that, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    It'd be a symbol of oppression, but not hate.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    Considering that the burqa is not part of the traditional hijab and was incorporated into certain sects of Islam as a means of maintaining the segregation and subordination of women, I really don't have a problem with banning them. Personally I find that less monstrous than maintaining a system which first teaches women that it is a sin to show their faces in public (the only religious justification given for wearing the burqa) and only then allows them to "decide" for themselves.
    We assume that women have the autonomy to decide even if they are biased by how they are raised. What you are arguing for would basically make the idea of freedom of speech meaningless as pretty much any thing can be justified as having only been allowed to decide after being raised in an environment where they are taught to think a certain way.
    It's not a matter of saying they must be raised a certain way; it is about preventing their abuse...unless you are going to argue that it is anything but abusive to teach women that it is evil to show their faces in public.

    And the obvious solution to address this very real concern is clearly not education, outreach, public policy driving integration with other socio-economic and ethnic groups, promoting or assisting with assimilation, or anything else.

    It's banning a piece of clothing.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor am I seeing how upholding a woman's right to choose her clothing or an asshole's right to say assholish things threatens the foundation of the Republic.

    In this very specific case, the gravity of the former's motivation is in no real way interchangeable with the latter.

    Expound upon this please.

    The instigation of the burqa (nay, the overwhelming volume of all personal religious expression) has originations outside the decision-making process of the bearer/wearer.

    This isn't the same thing as the personal liberties in play in saying something stupid or offensive. The former can be treated as an expression of personal freedom, but odds are extremely likely that act has a foundation in projected misogyny from that person's family, significant other, and/or community.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    That's more or less what I was gearing up to say next. Not everyone who dons a symbol is necessarily a part of that message, though. Like I wear a crucifix around my neck, but I don't identify with Catholicism and Christianity.

    Why do you wear a crucifix as jewelry, out of curiosity? I never understood that practice.

    Is it out of ignorance for what the device was / is used for?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    It'd be a symbol of oppression, but not hate.

    Again, this law covers all clothing that covers the face, not just the burqa.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Chaos PunkChaos Punk Registered User
    edited April 2011
    So is the liberal opposition to burqa bans really that much different in reasoning than the position held by libertarians?

    We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
13468919
Sign In or Register to comment.