|
French journalist about to die for WHAT?? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
its not about that at all. its about freedom of expression in one of the most secular countries in Europe and the natural conflict it has with one of the most parochial religions of the world. |
I'm not particularly fond of dress codes in general, but this isn't any more of a freedom of expression issue than nazi graffiti on tombstones. The right to free expression does not entail the right to express yourself using whatever medium you see fit. In this case, children (who aren't normally given the right to freedom of expression, anyway) are prohibited from wearing particular articles of clothing while at school which have been deemed to interfere with the optimal execution of school procedures and objectives. They are still free to express their views through a variety of other means or at other, more appropriate, times. That's more than they're entitled to under U.S. law, and French law as well I would assume. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
no, it is about freedom of expression.:rolleyes:
they are obviously not free to express it.:rolleyes:
therein, the conflict with an alleged victim of the oppression:rolleyes:
preach the frikken law to the journalists who are facing murder:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no, it is about freedom of expression.:rolleyes:
they are obviously not free to express it.:rolleyes:
therein, the conflict with an alleged victim of the oppression:rolleyes:
preach the frikken law to the journalists who are facing murder:rolleyes: |
No, it isn't about freedom of expression, and it won't be no matter how many emoticons you add to your entirely worthless posts. I'm sure you think that France should reconstruct their legal code around potentially saving a couple of journalists. After all, that's what Bush does when Americans are taken hostage, right?
Yep, I'm sure you'd be happy to shred the constitution on make-believe freedom of expression issues. Do you happen to work in the white flag industry? |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If the muslims don't want to be French, what are they doing in France? |
Don’t be a retard, if you have nothing useful to say, then stay out of it please.
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
The problem is that the girls REFUSE to do sport like normal pupils, not because they hate sport, but because the "religion" forbid that, and the Republic can't accept to be behind the religion.
Edit : when you see a girl who has an headscarve, you think :"Ow, that's a normal girl" or "Ow, it's a muslim" ? |
I’d think this is a normal girl which have a Muslim religion, unless you’re a racist and won’t accept things, you wont think like me no.(Not saying you are but I don’t see the point in the question)
This problem shouldn't be the cause to ban something that represent religion and culture, you affect other people with it as well, and it’s just stupid and immature by the French government.
This will make people refuse more and be more radical if you know, and when they do something you will probably all go like, oh look filthy Muslims doing it again :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm not particularly fond of dress codes in general, but this isn't any more of a freedom of expression issue than nazi graffiti on tombstones. The right to free expression does not entail the right to express yourself using whatever medium you see fit. In this case, children (who aren't normally given the right to freedom of expression, anyway) are prohibited from wearing particular articles of clothing while at school which have been deemed to interfere with the optimal execution of school procedures and objectives. They are still free to express their views through a variety of other means or at other, more appropriate, times. That's more than they're entitled to under U.S. law, and French law as well I would assume. |
Ok an answer that we can discuss this, acting like a nazi, hurts people, it brings up bad memories and reminds about the past, but however headdresses don’t do , so what’s the big deal please explain? Oh ya they don’t wants sport :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no, it is about freedom of expression.:rolleyes:
they are obviously not free to express it.:rolleyes:
therein, the conflict with an alleged victim of the oppression:rolleyes:
preach the frikken law to the journalists who are facing murder:rolleyes: |
Never thought I’d agree with you someday in this lifetime :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, it isn't about freedom of expression, and it won't be no matter how many emoticons you add to your entirely worthless posts. I'm sure you think that France should reconstruct their legal code around potentially saving a couple of journalists. After all, that's what Bush does when Americans are taken hostage, right?
Yep, I'm sure you'd be happy to shred the constitution on make-believe freedom of expression issues. Do you happen to work in the white flag industry? |
Glad to see what kind off nature you have, since it; is only 2 lifes and who cares they can be missed right? I bet if that was your dad you would be crying in your bed, like the kids of them maybe and wifes, and why mention Bush? As long as he has not to fight or his family, get paid fat, has great house and money and everything, why the should he care who dies and who not? We all know that by know right? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, it isn't about freedom of expression, and it won't be no matter how many emoticons you add to your entirely worthless posts. I'm sure you think that France should reconstruct their legal code around potentially saving a couple of journalists. After all, that's what Bush does when Americans are taken hostage, right?
Yep, I'm sure you'd be happy to shred the constitution on make-believe freedom of expression issues. Do you happen to work in the white flag industry? |
no, you are way off base about what you are sure about. IMO its my fault
iff i haven't explained myself well enough for you to understand, i apologize.
| quote: | no, it is about freedom of expression.
they are obviously not free to express it.
therein, the conflict with an alleged victim of the oppression |
these statements are fact. you and i can not change them. in addition, i personnally don't want to change the first two but the third is a different story. i do want to point out the pointless conflict using this thread.
French law, secularism aside (which again i can't do anything about)i fear for the journalists. Islamic extremist are the focus of my frustration and has always been. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
Ok an answer that we can discuss this, acting like a nazi, hurts people, it brings up bad memories and reminds about the past, but however headdresses don’t do , so what’s the big deal please explain? Oh ya they don’t wants sport :rolleyes: |
Well apparently the French disagree that headdresses don't do , or they wouldn't have banned them. I don't agree with the French so I can't tell you what their reasoning is. The publicly funded and elected government, however, has a legal right to regulate dress codes for students attending a public schools. Is it the ethically correct thing to do? Probably not, but this policy is the direct result of the democratic process. Unless you're prepared to challenge France's right to democratic sovereignty, there isn't really anything you can do other than voice your disagreement: and unless you can back up your disagreement with something more substantial than the usual multiculturalist propaganda, I wouldn't expect the French majority or anyone else to take your opinion seriously.
| quote: | | Glad to see what kind off nature you have, since it; is only 2 lifes and who cares they can be missed right? I bet if that was your dad you would be crying in your bed, like the kids of them maybe and wifes, and why mention Bush? As long as he has not to fight or his family, get paid fat, has great house and money and everything, why the should he care who dies and who not? We all know that by know right? |
Well one reason I might mention Bush is that, as stupid as he can sometimes be, he's obviously light years ahead of you in the department of understanding how to deal with threats or terrorism. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of human behavior or animal behavior for that matter you would know that when you reward a behavior, that behavior increases in prevalence. If hostage-taking and threats of violence are rewarded by acquiescence to the demands of such terrorists, those behaviors will become more prevalent. Thus, even if you were to save the lives of the two hostages - which is no certainty even if you do to submit to the demands - you would likely be putting tens of thousands or more potential hostages in even greater danger in the future. Thus even your fallacious appeals to pity prove worthless when you examine the long-term consequences of either decision. Do I empathize with the plight of the hostage journalists? Yes, I certainly do. However, I don't allow it to override my rational faculties to such an extent as to be willing to jeopardize the future safety of a greater number of innocents just for a chance at saving those lives. To do so would be neither effective nor humanistic, it would merely be stupid. I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to think beyond the immediate consequences and look at the long term impact of policy decisions such as these. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no, it is about freedom of expression.
they are obviously not free to express it.
therein, the conflict with an alleged victim of the oppression |
Ok. There is a degree to which these statements are true. If "freedom of expression" means the right to express whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, then this law is certainly opposed to freedom of expression.
However, there isn't a country in the world which allows this type of free-for-all expression. "Obsecene" expression and designated "protest zones" come to mind when I think about the state of free expression in the Untied States. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
Glad to see what kind off nature you have, since it; is only 2 lifes and who cares they can be missed right? I bet if that was your dad you would be crying in your bed, like the kids of them maybe and wifes |
Hate to be the one to bring this to your attention, but the crying families of these two journalists should be crying over how stupid and proud the two must be. It is a fairly well-known fact that Iraq is not - I repeat, *not* - a stable country devoid of risk for those westerners who choose to work there. As the two are journalists I have a very hard time seeing how they could be oblivious of this fact before going there. If they are killed it is at the hand of a gang of psychoes, nno doubt, but the responsibility for the fate of the relatives are most surely equally shared between the psychoes and the journalists. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Ok. There is a degree to which these statements are true. If "freedom of expression" means the right to express whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, then this law is certainly opposed to freedom of expression.
However, there isn't a country in the world which allows this type of free-for-all expression. "Obsecene" expression and designated "protest zones" come to mind when I think about the state of free expression in the Untied States. |
agreed |
|
|
| maxxyme |
You debate on what stupid was the french government with voting this law, but in Turkey, it's also forbidden to wear religious signs at school, and nobody argues against this.
And IMHO Turkey has a greater percentage of muslims that France. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
Don’t be a retard, if you have nothing useful to say, then stay out of it please. |
I fail to see what is retarded about that statement. Nobody is forcing those muslims to live in France, and if they decided to imigrate, they should accept local values and customs. If they don't want to do that, they can go back home or to another country that will allow them to wear scarves. There are so many countries out their, each with its own laws and customs, so it shouldn't be hard for people to find the one they prefer. I guess the problem is that those radical muslims in France want to have at the same time french high income and good social security, while still retaining old tribal customs and fundamentalist tyrannical family ties. Fortunately, things don't work that way.
Aside from that, that ban is only effective in schools, not in everyday life. State schools are secular institutions in which religion should take no place. Wearing obvious religious symbols, especially by the teachers, is against that notion of secularism, and is therefore logical that personal religious views be banned from being expressed in schools. This law does not apply to head scarves only, it applies to all visible religious insignia, being christian, muslim, jewish, or whatever. Besides, many schools in other countries have their own dressing codes. You can either accept them or, well, move to another country. It's not like the french government is forcing those kids to be atheists or to do horrible things, they are just not allowed to publically share their parents' religious views in school. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
Does'nt it come down to the country's values vs. the individual's values.
Religion is not the cause of war, greed is, please understand that. Yes some people have gone to war for religion but it was all about getting more wealth aka greed. |
|
|
|
|
