they might as well just ban any newcomers from entering France for fear it would "threaten" the state.
They frequently do, if the authorities feel that the person in question is one that would have loyalties to an entity other than The Republic.
The basis of it is that religion in France has traditionally always been a source of oppression, or a tool of oppressors. As far as they see it, the Republic is the protector of freedom, but their definition of freedom doesn't necessarily include freedom of, or to practice, religion.
Again, not condoning this, just that this is my understanding of how religous politics in France works.
There's also some aspect of the Catholic Church traditionally being linked with France's former (and to some extent still existing) linguistic minorities, which initially helped resist assimilation of said minorities into the vision of France, and thus were a really convenient target for the early state to go after.
That being said, there has been some movement towards minority-specific schools (I know for sure in Iparralde, I'm not sure about some of the other linguistic minority territories) but these are primarily linguistic-minorities (that have some element of religious connection) as opposed to religious-minorities. Then again, it's hard to distinguish between a minority centred around the language as opposed to having components of many parts of identity.
This reminds me of the court case in Florida regarding Sultaana Freeman who sued the state of Florida due to their requiring her to remove her niqab for her driver's license photo. I applaud the state for making a good faith effort to respect her beliefs by offering her the opportunity to take a photo in a private room with a female photographer, but that was not acceptable to her. She ended up losing the case.
I think you can make a pretty solid argument for banning any item of clothing that completely covers your face. A specific ban is unnecessary.
I don't think you can do that and have it be consistent with other situations where certain attire is exempted for religious reasons.
I don't think any attire should be exempted for religious reasons. That's absurd.
OK, well, what's the benefit in banning any clothing that covers the face, and how should it be enforced?
japan on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
re, Archgath: There's something of a substantial difference though. That is a specific (and likely largely universal rule that's only enforced when they encounter specific issues) instance of a thing in which full face view is required for the driver's licence to even function. This law is seeking to apply to simply entering the building/presence of "hospitals, schools, government offices, and public transit" which is incredibly broad to begin with.
I think you can make a pretty solid argument for banning any item of clothing that completely covers your face. A specific ban is unnecessary.
I don't think you can do that and have it be consistent with other situations where certain attire is exempted for religious reasons.
I don't think any attire should be exempted for religious reasons. That's absurd.
OK, well, what's the benefit in banning any clothing that covers the face, and how should it be enforced?
my spacebar is broken so typing is deeply tedious. Probably won't post again. Benefits include ability to identify criminals, preventing people from disguising themselves from security cameras etc. There's no good reason to disguise your face in public, and religion isn't a "good reason" for anything. apologies for inability to carry on debate.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I'm not convinced. When you're talking about a law that has a direct consequence of specifically fucking over one or more minority groups, I reckon there has to be a pretty compelling benefit. In terms of security, I'd specifically need to be convinced that such a law would actually prevent anyone up to no good from covering their face anyway (criminals being notoriously poor at obeying laws), and that there are crimes occurring of sufficient severity and regularity to outweigh the downsides in terms of personal liberty.
On top of that, what do you include? Can a person wear a scarf on a cold day? Are sunglasses permitted? A heavy beard? All of those are pretty effective at obfuscating a person's facial features to the extent that it likely wouldn't be possible for an eyewitness to identify them afterwards.
EDIT: Also, if we're dumping the protection of religious practice from law, there is a lot of existing law that would have to be scrapped or re-written, and the backlash would be hideous.
japan on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I think being able to see other people's faces is important. And yes, I get that this goes against the traditionalist Islamic approach to female dress, but that's how it goes. Being able to see faces encourages people to be friendlier to those they recognize, cuts down on vectors for criminals to evade detection, etc.
There are definite upsides to having your citizens be visible to your other citizens.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
The religious basis of the face covering, at least to my knowledge, is such that it prohibits the woman from even revealing her face for a short time. Maybe if it were a woman security guard? I don't know. The real problem here is that it's a cultural thing that actively defies assimilation. So compromise is hard to come by.
I think you can make a pretty solid argument for banning any item of clothing that completely covers your face.
I'd like to hear that compelling argument at some point and see how it differs from a very compelling argument about banning pockets.
Both, ID and personal belongings are inspected in situations with suspicious behavior or where added security is needed. I can't see a single problem with covering one's face in public simply because you feel like it.
However, I would have a problem with a refusal to comply with unveiling for ID purposes(if the law permits it), be it for religious or any other reason.
Edit: Ok, just saw that you aren't posting again, so nevermind.
zeeny on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
The religious basis of the face covering, at least to my knowledge, is such that it prohibits the woman from even revealing her face for a short time. Maybe if it were a woman security guard? I don't know. The real problem here is that it's a cultural thing that actively defies assimilation. So compromise is hard to come by.
I don't think that the religious proscription is necessarily insurmountable when faced with the alternative result of no veils whatsoever. I realize there is fundamentalism, but there's also fair amounts of religious compromising in terms of figuring out the extents to which one's beliefs can be practised in a theatre that's hostile to them.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
The religious basis of the face covering, at least to my knowledge, is such that it prohibits the woman from even revealing her face for a short time. Maybe if it were a woman security guard? I don't know. The real problem here is that it's a cultural thing that actively defies assimilation. So compromise is hard to come by.
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
Is the state going to start legislating the correct method of saying hello, the appropriate measures to shake one's hand, and the specific distance one should keep from one another in a conversation? I find it silly to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in shaping the social non-public sphere of individuals to such a micromanaging extent.
Banks are kind of a non-issue because there is no way any Sharia bank is going to institute a policy preventing its customers from entering the premises veiled.
I think being able to see other people's faces is important. And yes, I get that this goes against the traditionalist Islamic approach to female dress, but that's how it goes. Being able to see faces encourages people to be friendlier to those they recognize, cuts down on vectors for criminals to evade detection, etc.
There are definite upsides to having your citizens be visible to your other citizens.
I'm still missing where the government should have any right to fine or otherwise punish women for not being sufficiently "friendly".
I'm also wondering why covering one's face is inherently an unfriendly act worthy of being outlawed, but wearing other articles of clothing with (for example) obscene, antagonistic slogans on them wouldn't be.
Also, are there any actual examples of female criminals in Western nations evading detection by using traditional Islamic dress? Do you really think that a woman in a full face veil stands out less than a woman in modern Western dress?
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
That's bollocks.
I'm sorry, but it is. People meaningfully communicate in all sorts of ways that aren't face-to-face. I'll grant that it may give some people a bit of difficulty, but not nearly enough to warrant intrusion into people's lives in this way.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
The religious basis of the face covering, at least to my knowledge, is such that it prohibits the woman from even revealing her face for a short time. Maybe if it were a woman security guard? I don't know. The real problem here is that it's a cultural thing that actively defies assimilation. So compromise is hard to come by.
I don't think that the religious proscription is necessarily insurmountable when faced with the alternative result of no veils whatsoever. I realize there is fundamentalism, but there's also fair amounts of religious compromising in terms of figuring out the extents to which one's beliefs can be practised in a theatre that's hostile to them.
I don't know if you've been following the discussion so far, but reasonable levels of self-assimilation is apparently an assumption we're not allowed to make in this debate.
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
Is the state going to start legislating the correct method of saying hello, the appropriate measures to shake one's hand, and the specific distance one should keep from one another in a conversation? I find it silly to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in shaping the social non-public sphere of individuals to such a micromanaging extent.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
We've been moving back and forth between specific contexts and abstract discussion which your post seemed to fit in the latter.
What could be more liberating than telling people what to wear and how they should behave in public, Lawndart?
Let's not forget to make a law saying that you have to make eye-contact when talking to someone. After all, many cultures rarely make direct eye contact. But not the western culture. And since ours is the best, it's important that we legislate that behaviour, For Their Own Good.
We've been moving back and forth between specific contexts and abstract discussion which your post seemed to fit in the latter.
Isn't that the way all D&D threads go? Shifting back and forth between specific vs. abstract, eventually devolving into a mess of pedantry and cock jokes?
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
The religious basis of the face covering, at least to my knowledge, is such that it prohibits the woman from even revealing her face for a short time. Maybe if it were a woman security guard? I don't know. The real problem here is that it's a cultural thing that actively defies assimilation. So compromise is hard to come by.
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
There should also be a legally prescribed length allowed for bangs or any other hair that may hang across someone's face.
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
The problem is that what's being proposed is an inherently unreasonable law, with no clear purpose beyond "Fuck the Muslims with their weird customs".
There's also the fact that people are starting with different perspectives on what "the problem" actually is. Is it that the non-Muslim population are getting unnecessarily freaked out by veils? Is the veil itself indicative of some deeper problem (like domestic abuse, etc.)? And so on.
I personally, can't see an good outcome of enacting such legislation, and would have great difficulty thinking of any devil's advocate position to support it. I applaud you for trying, though.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
I was under the impression that pointing out how illogical and inconsistent those arguments were was a method of addressing them.
However, if you're suggesting that a ban on religious dress will spur assimilation, pretty much every single example of such bans in recent history suggests exactly the opposite.
I think you can make a pretty solid argument for banning any item of clothing that completely covers your face. A specific ban is unnecessary.
Which would, of course, be a whole different ball of wax and at least philosophically defensible in that it is a blanket ban rather than viewpoint discrimination. Of course the law would still be primarily targeting Muslims and so I'd still consider it questionable, but at least it wouldn't be such a blatant abuse of the State against a minority akin to the Swiss minaret ban rather than making the whole country an architectural heritage district.
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
Is the state going to start legislating the correct method of saying hello, the appropriate measures to shake one's hand, and the specific distance one should keep from one another in a conversation? I find it silly to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in shaping the social non-public sphere of individuals to such a micromanaging extent.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
Are you referring to the headscarf ban here, or something different?
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
The problem is that what's being proposed is an inherently unreasonable law, with no clear purpose beyond "Fuck the Muslims with their weird customs".
There's also the fact that people are starting with different perspectives on what "the problem" actually is. Is it that the non-Muslim population are getting unnecessarily freaked out by veils? Is the veil itself indicative of some deeper problem (like domestic abuse, etc.)? And so on.
I personally, can't see an good outcome of enacting such legislation, and would have great difficulty thinking of any devil's advocate position to support it. I applaud you for trying, though.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
The problem is that what's being proposed is an inherently unreasonable law, with no clear purpose beyond "Fuck the Muslims with their weird customs".
There's also the fact that people are starting with different perspectives on what "the problem" actually is. Is it that the non-Muslim population are getting unnecessarily freaked out by veils? Is the veil itself indicative of some deeper problem (like domestic abuse, etc.)? And so on.
I personally, can't see an good outcome of enacting such legislation, and would have great difficulty thinking of any devil's advocate position to support it. I applaud you for trying, though.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
I can't fathom how someone can look at a complex social problem like that and conclude that the problem is a piece of clothing.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
Except that restricting the religious expression of a Muslim minority is exactly the wrong way to go about forcing or even encouraging cultural integration or assimilation.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
I was under the impression that pointing out how illogical and inconsistent those arguments were was a method of addressing them.
However, if you're suggesting that a ban on religious dress will spur assimilation, pretty much every single example of such bans in recent history suggests exactly the opposite.
This is absolutely correct. By banning the niqab you just force such behavior underground. By allowing it, we essentially continue on with the status quo, which is arguably not ideal or preferable. I am at a loss as to what, if any, is the right course of action.
Ok, so I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in here. I'm not a fan of legislating away freedoms of expression, but I also seem to be in the distinct minority here in thinking that there's got to be a reasonable way of approaching this.
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
The problem is that what's being proposed is an inherently unreasonable law, with no clear purpose beyond "Fuck the Muslims with their weird customs".
There's also the fact that people are starting with different perspectives on what "the problem" actually is. Is it that the non-Muslim population are getting unnecessarily freaked out by veils? Is the veil itself indicative of some deeper problem (like domestic abuse, etc.)? And so on.
I personally, can't see an good outcome of enacting such legislation, and would have great difficulty thinking of any devil's advocate position to support it. I applaud you for trying, though.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
I can't fathom how someone can look at a complex social problem like that and conclude that the problem is a piece of clothing.
It's a knee jerk reaction to one of the most visible symbols of Islam, also the fear mongering by some right wing elements of the media *cough*Daily Mail*coigh* has exacerbated the problem.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
Except that restricting the religious expression of a Muslim minority is exactly the wrong way to go about forcing or even encouraging cultural integration or assimilation.
I agree, state intervention in an issue as superficial as this is only going to make things worse.
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
Is the state going to start legislating the correct method of saying hello, the appropriate measures to shake one's hand, and the specific distance one should keep from one another in a conversation? I find it silly to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in shaping the social non-public sphere of individuals to such a micromanaging extent.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
Are you referring to the headscarf ban here, or something different?
I'm referring to public indecency laws, as it is an example of the government asserting legal authority to determine what does or does not constitute an acceptable form of public wear.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
Except that restricting the religious expression of a Muslim minority is exactly the wrong way to go about forcing or even encouraging cultural integration or assimilation.
I agree, state intervention in an issue as superficial as this is only going to make things worse.
It's odd too considering France's successful assimilation of their linguistic minorities was done through the education system rather than these kinds of superficial things.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
I was under the impression that pointing out how illogical and inconsistent those arguments were was a method of addressing them.
However, if you're suggesting that a ban on religious dress will spur assimilation, pretty much every single example of such bans in recent history suggests exactly the opposite.
This is absolutely correct. By banning the niqab you just force such behavior underground. By allowing it, we essentially continue on with the status quo, which is arguably not ideal or preferable. I am at a loss as to what, if any, is the right course of action.
Unfortunately, there really isn't a right answer, historically.
A people has to want to assimilate before they will. And really, the women that are actually being negatively impacted by the tradition would still be after the ban, they'd just be removed from whatever societal mechanism were there to help them as well.
Think about the polygamists in Utah, for a good example of what happens when you legislate against something that members of your populace hold as a religious tenet. In that case, though, at least the church itself changed its tune, meaning that the more mainstream members had an easier time fully integrating into the larger society. There's no way of knowing or even expecting that to happen in this case, since for moderate Islam the necessity of the niqab has already been largely removed.
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
Except that restricting the religious expression of a Muslim minority is exactly the wrong way to go about forcing or even encouraging cultural integration or assimilation.
I agree, state intervention in an issue as superficial as this is only going to make things worse.
It's odd too considering France's successful assimilation of their linguistic minorities was done through the education system rather than these kinds of superficial things.
I didn't know this factoid. If they have had proven success in the past, then it just torpedoes any other supposedly secular reasons they have for the new law.
Posts
There's also some aspect of the Catholic Church traditionally being linked with France's former (and to some extent still existing) linguistic minorities, which initially helped resist assimilation of said minorities into the vision of France, and thus were a really convenient target for the early state to go after.
That being said, there has been some movement towards minority-specific schools (I know for sure in Iparralde, I'm not sure about some of the other linguistic minority territories) but these are primarily linguistic-minorities (that have some element of religious connection) as opposed to religious-minorities. Then again, it's hard to distinguish between a minority centred around the language as opposed to having components of many parts of identity.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I don't think any attire should be exempted for religious reasons. That's absurd.
OK, well, what's the benefit in banning any clothing that covers the face, and how should it be enforced?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
my spacebar is broken so typing is deeply tedious. Probably won't post again. Benefits include ability to identify criminals, preventing people from disguising themselves from security cameras etc. There's no good reason to disguise your face in public, and religion isn't a "good reason" for anything. apologies for inability to carry on debate.
So you're in favor of banning Halloween masks?
I think the the government punishing people for not being "culturally friendly" enough is a much bigger civic downside than the supposed benefits.
I can see making exceptions for banks and government offices, but just walking around the streets? I know it's a hip militant atheist thing to wish that freedom of religious expression didn't exist, but it's always easier to encourage the government to repress freedoms you don't indulge in.
I'm not convinced. When you're talking about a law that has a direct consequence of specifically fucking over one or more minority groups, I reckon there has to be a pretty compelling benefit. In terms of security, I'd specifically need to be convinced that such a law would actually prevent anyone up to no good from covering their face anyway (criminals being notoriously poor at obeying laws), and that there are crimes occurring of sufficient severity and regularity to outweigh the downsides in terms of personal liberty.
On top of that, what do you include? Can a person wear a scarf on a cold day? Are sunglasses permitted? A heavy beard? All of those are pretty effective at obfuscating a person's facial features to the extent that it likely wouldn't be possible for an eyewitness to identify them afterwards.
EDIT: Also, if we're dumping the protection of religious practice from law, there is a lot of existing law that would have to be scrapped or re-written, and the backlash would be hideous.
I don't even see why there necessarily needs to be an exception for banks and government offices. If the point is to be able to identify people to receive services (ala drivers licence photos) that I would imagine a more politically palatable (to the minority in question) approach would be to still allow the veil inside the building but just require that one shows one face when confirming ID. It confirms the ID (which is the functional aspect of the ban) while still allowing the veil to be worn.
Edit: This is of course arguing in the abstract, since France's particular contextual situation requires some baseline assumption changes in policy goals.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
There are definite upsides to having your citizens be visible to your other citizens.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'd like to hear that compelling argument at some point and see how it differs from a very compelling argument about banning pockets.
Both, ID and personal belongings are inspected in situations with suspicious behavior or where added security is needed. I can't see a single problem with covering one's face in public simply because you feel like it.
However, I would have a problem with a refusal to comply with unveiling for ID purposes(if the law permits it), be it for religious or any other reason.
Edit: Ok, just saw that you aren't posting again, so nevermind.
I don't think that the religious proscription is necessarily insurmountable when faced with the alternative result of no veils whatsoever. I realize there is fundamentalism, but there's also fair amounts of religious compromising in terms of figuring out the extents to which one's beliefs can be practised in a theatre that's hostile to them.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
One could possibly argue that seeing one's face is a crucial facet of interpersonal communication and relationships in Western culture.
Is the state going to start legislating the correct method of saying hello, the appropriate measures to shake one's hand, and the specific distance one should keep from one another in a conversation? I find it silly to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in shaping the social non-public sphere of individuals to such a micromanaging extent.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I'm still missing where the government should have any right to fine or otherwise punish women for not being sufficiently "friendly".
I'm also wondering why covering one's face is inherently an unfriendly act worthy of being outlawed, but wearing other articles of clothing with (for example) obscene, antagonistic slogans on them wouldn't be.
Also, are there any actual examples of female criminals in Western nations evading detection by using traditional Islamic dress? Do you really think that a woman in a full face veil stands out less than a woman in modern Western dress?
That's bollocks.
I'm sorry, but it is. People meaningfully communicate in all sorts of ways that aren't face-to-face. I'll grant that it may give some people a bit of difficulty, but not nearly enough to warrant intrusion into people's lives in this way.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Slippery slope, and the government already restricts some clothing in the public sphere. I doubt that the reasons for the niqab ban are purely secular (in fact, I am convinced that the majority of the impetus behind it is the result of anti-islamic/anti-immigrant sentiment), but there are valid public reasons, not just for security, to require people to show their face (assimilation being the prominent one, from what I gather). I am still on the fence as to whether or not I agree with those reasons or the logic behind them, but they should be addressed.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Let's not forget to make a law saying that you have to make eye-contact when talking to someone. After all, many cultures rarely make direct eye contact. But not the western culture. And since ours is the best, it's important that we legislate that behaviour, For Their Own Good.
Isn't that the way all D&D threads go? Shifting back and forth between specific vs. abstract, eventually devolving into a mess of pedantry and cock jokes?
So, I'm out. I honestly never should have stepped in in the first place, I guess. I just figured a place with debate in the name could use some differing opinions.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You did good Zed, I appreciated it.
There should also be a legally prescribed length allowed for bangs or any other hair that may hang across someone's face.
The problem is that what's being proposed is an inherently unreasonable law, with no clear purpose beyond "Fuck the Muslims with their weird customs".
There's also the fact that people are starting with different perspectives on what "the problem" actually is. Is it that the non-Muslim population are getting unnecessarily freaked out by veils? Is the veil itself indicative of some deeper problem (like domestic abuse, etc.)? And so on.
I personally, can't see an good outcome of enacting such legislation, and would have great difficulty thinking of any devil's advocate position to support it. I applaud you for trying, though.
I was under the impression that pointing out how illogical and inconsistent those arguments were was a method of addressing them.
However, if you're suggesting that a ban on religious dress will spur assimilation, pretty much every single example of such bans in recent history suggests exactly the opposite.
Which would, of course, be a whole different ball of wax and at least philosophically defensible in that it is a blanket ban rather than viewpoint discrimination. Of course the law would still be primarily targeting Muslims and so I'd still consider it questionable, but at least it wouldn't be such a blatant abuse of the State against a minority akin to the Swiss minaret ban rather than making the whole country an architectural heritage district.
Are you referring to the headscarf ban here, or something different?
The point of the law is to force integration of Muslims which, rightly or wrongly, is percived to be a problem in France and some other parts of Western Europe like the UK.
I can't fathom how someone can look at a complex social problem like that and conclude that the problem is a piece of clothing.
Except that restricting the religious expression of a Muslim minority is exactly the wrong way to go about forcing or even encouraging cultural integration or assimilation.
This is absolutely correct. By banning the niqab you just force such behavior underground. By allowing it, we essentially continue on with the status quo, which is arguably not ideal or preferable. I am at a loss as to what, if any, is the right course of action.
It's a knee jerk reaction to one of the most visible symbols of Islam, also the fear mongering by some right wing elements of the media *cough*Daily Mail*coigh* has exacerbated the problem.
I agree, state intervention in an issue as superficial as this is only going to make things worse.
I'm referring to public indecency laws, as it is an example of the government asserting legal authority to determine what does or does not constitute an acceptable form of public wear.
It's odd too considering France's successful assimilation of their linguistic minorities was done through the education system rather than these kinds of superficial things.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
A people has to want to assimilate before they will. And really, the women that are actually being negatively impacted by the tradition would still be after the ban, they'd just be removed from whatever societal mechanism were there to help them as well.
Think about the polygamists in Utah, for a good example of what happens when you legislate against something that members of your populace hold as a religious tenet. In that case, though, at least the church itself changed its tune, meaning that the more mainstream members had an easier time fully integrating into the larger society. There's no way of knowing or even expecting that to happen in this case, since for moderate Islam the necessity of the niqab has already been largely removed.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I didn't know this factoid. If they have had proven success in the past, then it just torpedoes any other supposedly secular reasons they have for the new law.