|
New French style (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jake Benson |
If I'm forced to take off the mask part of my costume once inside a store in order to reveal my face ...even during Halloween, then a god damn Muslim better have her god damn face showing too.
That's all I gotta say. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
| ooooh jake's here, i can make my deposit now. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| Please deposit into my ass. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
| i just jerked off on a peanut butter cup. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by bARTovsky
Every country has its own policies, if you can't adapt to them then off back home. |
I love children’s logic too.
| quote: | Originally posted by bARTovsky
I lived with my family in an Islamic country for the better part of my life. No other religion was allowed to be displayed outside of the home. Not even in the way of lighting candles outside on Diwali (Hindu festival of lights). Didn't bother us. We adapted. |
And people like myself would like our western nations not to devolve into the kind of autocratic bollocks on exhibition in Islamic states. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
| i would like to be free to throw rocks at policemen in my new country. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I won’t speak for countries like turkey whose secularism is fairly delicate, but in advanced western countries like mine it is absurd to tell women they can’t wear what they like. |
Well, I doubt you'll find a country that permits anyone to wear whatever they want wherever they want, so it's always going to be a question of weighing the strength of the government interest in regulation against the burden it imposes on affected members of society. (which, it should be noted here is not just women; a man who wanted to wear a burqa would be equally frustrated under French law.)
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but here I don't think it's a particularly close case. Protecting women from being coerced into wearing a burqa is a legitimate and important government interest, and one that's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with a less intrusive form of regulation. On the other side of the scale, you have people's interest in being able to wear a burqa, which seems to me to be based on nothing more substantial than whim, caprice, or, worse, religious belief. Forgive me if I don't find the latter particularly weighty...
It seems to me that the objections to laws like the French burqa ban rest on a fundamental misconception of the nature of the issue. It seems to be taken for granted that what people choose to wear is their own personal business and doesn't affect anyone else. It would be great if that were true, and in the long run we should be trying to achieve that state of affairs; however, that is not an accurate characterization of the current situation.
Whether they intend to or not, every single person who wears a burqa because they "just want to" is harming all women who would prefer not to do so but who are being coerced into wearing one. The harm takes the form of making it harder for the government to identify the victims of coercion and provide them with an effective remedy. I don't see any reason why we should permit people to inflict that very real harm on fellow members of their society when the only justification for doing so is that it's their arbitrary personal preference or their irrational religious dogma.
I can imagine a situation where there's some more substantial justification: people might have a very good reason to want to wear, for example, eyeglasses. And that interest might very well be sufficient to outweigh some hypothetical government interest in prohibiting them. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Rather, what seems to be the case here is nothing more than people selfishly wanting to wear whatever they happen to want for whatever arbitrary reason, or for no reason at all, without regard for how it's going to affect other people in their society. And it seems to me that it's therefore a paradigmatic case for government intervention designed to protect otherwise defenseless individuals from suffering the consequences of other people's choices. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, I doubt you'll find a country that permits anyone to wear whatever they want wherever they want, |
Well of course not; I’m sure you realise I don’t support women wearing the garbage bag in public employment or where identity or security are important (banks or airports etc). But, if you’re walking down the street, minding your own business, DON’T have your swunt out, I don’t think it’s the state’s business in how you are attired.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but here I don't think it's a particularly close case. Protecting women from being coerced into wearing a burqa is a legitimate and important government interest, and one that's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with a less intrusive form of regulation. On the other side of the scale, you have people's interest in being able to wear a burqa, which seems to me to be based on nothing more substantial than whim, caprice, or, worse, religious belief. Forgive me if I don't find the latter particularly weighty... |
On a planet where many of our daily constraints are dictated to us by religious belief enshrined in law, I do not think focusing only on one particular religion and one particular form of dress is particularly logical. And what about other forms of social coercion? Who for instance, is protecting women from being coerced into eating disorders by money-grubbing fashionistas? Who is protecting women from being portrayed as sex objects by business interests? Ultimately we have to accept that people should be free to do such things, regardless of the fallout of such activities.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It seems to me that the objections to laws like the French burqa ban rest on a fundamental misconception of the nature of the issue. It seems to be taken for granted that what people choose to wear is their own personal business and doesn't affect anyone else. It would be great if that were true, and in the long run we should be trying to achieve that state of affairs; however, that is not an accurate characterization of the current situation.
Whether they intend to or not, every single person who wears a burqa because they "just want to" is harming all women who would prefer not to do so but who are being coerced into wearing one. The harm takes the form of making it harder for the government to identify the victims of coercion and provide them with an effective remedy. I don't see any reason why we should permit people to inflict that very real harm on fellow members of their society when the only justification for doing so is that it's their arbitrary personal preference or their irrational religious dogma. |
As above; You can’t hold garbage-bagged muslim women responsible for the activities of the men who coerce their wives or children into garbage bags. Sure, it makes it difficult for the government to respond in such instances, but since when has the government cared about religious interference? The examples of legislated coercion born out of religious belief are many and varied and I don’t find governments taking issue with one particular example, that occurs at the individual level, to be particularly credible. When is someone going to let me open a licensed premises after 12am on Good Friday?
There are so many activities that affect those around us which are controlled, but not prohibited.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I can imagine a situation where there's some more substantial justification: people might have a very good reason to want to wear, for example, eyeglasses. And that interest might very well be sufficient to outweigh some hypothetical government interest in prohibiting them. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Rather, what seems to be the case here is nothing more than people selfishly wanting to wear whatever they happen to want for whatever arbitrary reason, or for no reason at all, without regard for how it's going to affect other people in their society. And it seems to me that it's therefore a paradigmatic case for government intervention designed to protect otherwise defenseless individuals from suffering the consequences of other people's choices. |
Wow, when did you visit the Wizard tin man?? :D
I err on the side of personal freedom in this case. It is not the freely garbage-bag-wearing women that are being selfish or affecting the lives of other women, it is the men in those relationships that are doing so, or perhaps the culture at large. Using your logic why not just ban islam, or whichever culture is demanding their women hide themselves (the garbage bag being more a cultural rather than religious issue, at least according to the Islamic scholar I was watching on SBS last week). Surely it is islam and men to blame for the garbage bag, not the women who freely choose to wear it, just like its not the model’s fault that bulimic teenagers exist. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
On a planet where many of our daily constraints are dictated to us by religious belief enshrined in law, I do not think focusing only on one particular religion and one particular form of dress is particularly logical. And what about other forms of social coercion? Who for instance, is protecting women from being coerced into eating disorders by money-grubbing fashionistas? Who is protecting women from being portrayed as sex objects by business interests? Ultimately we have to accept that people should be free to do such things, regardless of the fallout of such activities.
As above; You can’t hold garbage-bagged muslim women responsible for the activities of the men who coerce their wives or children into garbage bags. Sure, it makes it difficult for the government to respond in such instances, but since when has the government cared about religious interference? The examples of legislated coercion born out of religious belief are many and varied and I don’t find governments taking issue with one particular example, that occurs at the individual level, to be particularly credible. When is someone going to let me open a licensed premises after 12am on Good Friday?
There are so many activities that affect those around us which are controlled, but not prohibited. |
Well, it's absolutely true that there are lots of other forms of coercion that we should potentially concern ourselves with. But surely it doesn't follow that we should just throw up our hands and not bother trying to address the adverse consequences of any of them merely because we cannot prevent all of them.
As a preliminary matter, we might think that certain modes of social coercion are more harmful than others. So for instance we might worry that women who refuse to wear a burqa could be subject to physical violence, whereas it's somewhat less likely that "money grubbing fashionistas" will swoop in by helicopter to throttle a woman who they feel doesn't measure up. On the other hand, we might think that the adverse health consequences of eating disorders are a more serious concern than the social and psychological impact of being forced to wear a burqa against one's will. I take no stance here which of these problems is more serious, but merely note that it's not a given that they're equally deserving of government intervention.
At the same time, the extent to which government regulation can actually redress the harm sought to be prevented may vary between different contexts, as might the availability of less restrictive alternative modes of regulation, and so might the substantiality of the burden on society created by the regulation.
So, it seems to me that the merits of any particular regulation intended to address a particular instance of coercion are necessarily a function of the peculiar facts applicable to that particular problem and proposed solution. In short, whether we should regulate in one context is an entirely separate question from whether we ought to do so, and if so, how we ought to do so in another context.
It is no objection then, to a particular regulation, that we have declined to regulate in another context. In the first place, it does nothing to suggest that the error is the regulation in one context rather than the failure to do so in the other. And, more importantly, the two questions are quite analytically distinct, so the separate issue of the merits of some other regulation is surely nothing more than a red herring which can only detract from the thoughtful consideration of the particular matter at issue.
| quote: | Wow, when did you visit the Wizard tin man?? :D
I err on the side of personal freedom in this case. It is not the freely garbage-bag-wearing women that are being selfish or affecting the lives of other women, it is the men in those relationships that are doing so, or perhaps the culture at large. Using your logic why not just ban islam, or whichever culture is demanding their women hide themselves (the garbage bag being more a cultural rather than religious issue, at least according to the Islamic scholar I was watching on SBS last week). Surely it is islam and men to blame for the garbage bag, not the women who freely choose to wear it, just like its not the model’s fault that for bulimic teenagers. |
Well, I for one would have no problem with banning Islam, or any other religion for that matter. But just because as a political matter we can't quite get there yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't push as far in that direction as we can. (although I would note that France is doing quite an admirable job in that respect with regard to Scientology in particular)
I also think it's a bit of a complex cause fallacy to suggest that men who are directly participating in coercion are solely to blame for the resulting harm. To be sure, they are primarily to blame, but I think it goes too far to say that those whose actions enable those men to more easily get away with their crimes are not making an important contribution to the resulting harm. And if they don't have any good reason to be engaging in the activities that make that contribution to the resulting harm in the first place, then it's hard for me to understand why I should feel bad for them if their government tells them to stop doing it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, it's absolutely true that there are lots of other forms of coercion that we should potentially concern ourselves with. But surely it doesn't follow that we should just throw up our hands and not bother trying to address the adverse consequences of any of them merely because we cannot prevent all of them. |
True, but some level of consistency would be welcome because I find the supporting arguments to be fairly similar, and in this context at least, would perhaps lessen my concerns regarding double standards and selective emphasis.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
As a preliminary matter, we might think that certain modes of social coercion are more harmful than others. So for instance we might worry that women who refuse to wear a burqa could be subject to physical violence, whereas it's somewhat less likely that "money grubbing fashionistas" will swoop in by helicopter to throttle a woman who they feel doesn't measure up. On the other hand, we might think that the adverse health consequences of eating disorders are a more serious concern than the social and psychological impact of being forced to wear a burqa against one's will. I take no stance here which of these problems is more serious, but merely note that it's not a given that they're equally deserving of government intervention. |
Well yeah, but obviously government intervention is not automatically justified just because some form of coercion is perceived to exist.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
At the same time, the extent to which government regulation can actually redress the harm sought to be prevented may vary between different contexts, as might the availability of less restrictive alternative modes of regulation, and so might the substantiality of the burden on society created by the regulation.
So, it seems to me that the merits of any particular regulation intended to address a particular instance of coercion are necessarily a function of the peculiar facts applicable to that particular problem and proposed solution. In short, whether we should regulate in one context is an entirely separate question from whether we ought to do so, and if so, how we ought to do so in another context. |
Definitely, which is why it would be absurd to regulate the free choices of businesses or women that have a detrimental effect on third parties, as far as my examples go.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It is no objection then, to a particular regulation, that we have declined to regulate in another context. In the first place, it does nothing to suggest that the error is the regulation in one context rather than the failure to do so in the other. And, more importantly, the two questions are quite analytically distinct, so the separate issue of the merits of some other regulation is surely nothing more than a red herring which can only detract from the thoughtful consideration of the particular matter at issue. |
Duly noted. I was merely attempting to show that social coercion, in and of itself, is not enough to justify government intervention, particularly in contexts where such intervention prohibits the free choices of third parties who are not imo directly related to that coercion.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, I for one would have no problem with banning Islam, or any other religion for that matter. But just because as a political matter we can't quite get there yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't push as far in that direction as we can. (although I would note that France is doing quite an admirable job in that respect with regard to Scientology in particular) |
Hehe, kudos to europe’s moves on scientology absolutely. I’m surprised that you favour banning established religion though, if only because it would surely fall into the problematic regulatory framework you alluded to above, even were it politically feasible.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I also think it's a bit of a complex cause fallacy to suggest that men who are directly participating in coercion are solely to blame for the resulting harm. To be sure, they are primarily to blame, but I think it goes too far to say that those whose actions enable those men to more easily get away with their crimes are not making an important contribution to the resulting harm. |
I disagree that it’s a bit of a fallacy, because these women are not required for the coercion to occur, they just make said coercion harder to spot. But you’re right, this probably does mean that these women are contributing to the harm, albeit to a fairly minor degree. Unfortunately for the coerced I think its just another example of freedom of choice having negative impacts on other people, but not enough to justify the curtailing of that freedom. And we haven’t even touched on the subject of personal responsibility with regards to the coerced women, who surely must take some blame for being muslim and marrying complete tards!
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
And if they don't have any good reason to be engaging in the activities that make that contribution to the resulting harm in the first place, then it's hard for me to understand why I should feel bad for them if their government tells them to stop doing it. |
I dunno, I consider the free choice to wear what one likes to be a reasonably “good reason” in and of itself. As an irrelevant aside, how much of the US constitution would we have to re-write if the outcome of people exercising their rights became more important than the rights themselves?
I do find it interesting though that this topic has you in favour of more regulation, and me in favour of less. It’s opposites day! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
Okay, by request, here's my $0.02.
First, I think we need to get away from couching this as a religion thing. Both the burqa and the niqab are customary forms of dress from nomadic Arabian tribes that pre-date Islam. The Qu'ran does state that women (and men) must dress modestly, but other then reference to covering their bosoms with their scarf (what we would now commonly refer to as a hijab) there is very little definition of what constitutes modesty. One could argue that since both the niqab and burqa were known to Muhammad (they are mentioned in the description of some women in the area and The Prophet's wives wore garments believed to be similar) he would have specifically mentioned them as constituting dressing modestly if it were intended to be required dress. To argue that this total covering is a religious requirement really only applies if the person in question is one of Muhammad's wives; all of whom I believe are presently dead.
Make no mistake, both of these clothing items are cultural customs. Granted, some believe they are required by religion; however, this is really only a recent development and largely restricted to the Salafis. The custom grew in popularity during the recent period of European colonialism, as a protest against same. In large part it continues as that; a political statement and cultural marker. Regardless of any theological support that may or may not exist for the garments they clearly have meaning to those that wear them.
I refuse to accept that in a free society it is permissable to dictate how one may express themselves in either a cultural or political sense provided that said expression does not infringe on the rights of others. So what do I mean here... if one chooses to wear these garments it should be permissable with the exception of situations in which the ability to identify a person is a matter of security for more people then the individual in question or the ability to identify the person at that given moment is intrinsic to anther person's rights. Good example; a woman in Ontario was recently forced to remove her niqab in order to give testimony in a rape trial (she was the victim). I believe it was just for her to be forced to remove the veil, as it is intrinsic to the defendant's right to face his accusor and right to a fair trial. Short of instances like these, voting, and security checks I fail to see any reason how a free and democratic society would not be acting directly against their own values by denying someone the right to dress as they choose.
I know that some will raise the argument that some women are being forced to wear these garments and I acknowledge that is likely true. Those advancing those arguments should also acknowlowledge that the majority of women who wear these garments choose to of their own free will. Of course you may not agree with the socialization that led them to believe covering themselves is appropriate, or that their choice may be influenced by deference to their husbands (who may support the custom), or that it is an expression of their cultural identity and desire to retain same; however, it is their choice and should be of no concern to the wider society except as stated earlier. So then the argument becomes that in order to protect those that are forced to wear them we must disallow the custom all together. Granted that would be one solution; however, it's an unreasonable restriction on freedoms in my view. There are many, many things that people are subjected to against their will, most of which people would never even consider outlawing. The niqab and the burqa are easy targets because they are an extreme minority that are viewed negatively by the majority. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Okay, by request, here's my $0.02.
First, I think we need to get away from couching this as a religion thing. Both the burqa and the niqab are customary forms of dress from nomadic Arabian tribes that pre-date Islam. The Qu'ran does state that women (and men) must dress modestly, but other then reference to covering their bosoms with their scarf (what we would now commonly refer to as a hijab) there is very little definition of what constitutes modesty. One could argue that since both the niqab and burqa were known to Muhammad (they are mentioned in the description of some women in the area and The Prophet's wives wore garments believed to be similar) he would have specifically mentioned them as constituting dressing modestly if it were intended to be required dress. To argue that this total covering is a religious requirement really only applies if the person in question is on of Muhammad's wives; all of whom I believe are presently dead.
Make no mistake, both of these clothing items are cultural customs. Granted, some believe they are required by religion; however, this is really only a recent development and largely restricted to the Salafis. The custom grew in popularity during the recent period of European colonialism, as a protest against same. In large part it continues as that; a political statement and cultural marker. Regardless of any theological support that may or may not exist for the garments they clearly have meaning to those that wear them.
|
Not enough people know this, not even the ones that actually wear it due to religious reasons. More should know about it but the world is too politically correct and precious these days to get into those sorts of discussions freely and openly.
This is where the problem lies. Everyone has a different view of what it signifies. If everyone had your knowledge about this and a similar view, we wouldn't have any issues but that's never going to happen. |
|
|
|
|
