Should they ban nuns' apparel as well?
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER]
France and the Burka:
-
-
This law has now been passed by the french senate and will come into effect next year.
-
Burkas were so 2009[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER] -
Sash wrote:
The banning of burka does not violate the French precept of liberty, since it does not encroach the fundamental rights of any race, gender or social class.
Since when was liberty about race, gender or social class? Liberty is about what it says on the tin: Freedom to whatsoever one wishes without encroaching on that freedom of others. That includes clothing.
Sash wrote:
Instead, wearing a burka violates two of the three French fundamentals. When wears a hooded religious dress/symbol that 'marks' them as different from everyone the principle of equality (egalite) is violated.
Equality is not about some sort of superficial blanket clothing standard. Goths are markedly different from 'everyone' but it would be ludicrous to ban their style. Besides, your suggestion immediately establishes the need for some sort of authority figure to abitrarily decide what constitutes as 'marked' and 'everyone'. And that leads to discrimination.
In Islamic countries where the majority of women wear headscarves, is a woman prominently wearing a crucifix trampling on 'equality'?
Sash wrote:
Since a sense of brotherhood (or its equivalent - sisterhood) cannot develop between burqa wearers and the mainstream French women (because of the physical barrier imposed by the viel), it also ends up violating fraternite.
Let's ban sunglasses then. Or what about neckwarmers in cold weather? Again, any real sense of brotherhood can penetrate beneath superficial constructs to a deeper level.
Sash wrote:
Does it, really? Seeing how Islamic, Christian and Jewish radicalisation is sweeping in Anglo-Saxon countries, I think not.
I think you would be exaggerating.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
If the majority of the French want the burka banned then it is reasonable to ban it.
Security wise I agree that it is reasonable to ban it.
If a whole lot of people went around wearing ski masks and covered all their body with nondescript clothing such as theifs wear to avoid detection I suspect it would be banned, so banning the burka in that respect is not unreasonable at all.
There is always the fact that people have chosen to live in France, they are not obliged to, and France is not run by muslim law, so people have no specific right to wear the burka. Seeing as it can be a security risk and it makes many people feel uncomfortable and unsafe I think it is quite reasonable to ban it, in the same way that cigarrettes are gradually being banned from more and more places as they are a health risk and make people uncomfortable.
The only reason this is a bigger deal is because people hype up the religious aspects of it. Unfortunately it is that hyped aspect which has contributed to the reasonable feelings people have which have lead to it being banned, so those who complain by saying Muslims are being persecuted are not helping their cause in this respect if appears to me.
In short, why is it unreasonable for the government to choose to add this to the list of rights that one relinquishes in order to live in the French society?[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Jarndyce wrote:
If the majority of the French want the burka banned then it is reasonable to ban it.
No, it's not. Unless you think that the majority vote is always infallible.
Jarndyce wrote:
If a whole lot of people went around wearing ski masks and covered all their body with nondescript clothing such as theifs wear to avoid detection I suspect it would be banned, so banning the burka in that respect is not unreasonable at all.
Is there a whole lot of people going around wearing burkas to avoid detection? And I'm not talking about isolated incidents here, through which one could justify the ban of anything, I'm talking about a nationwide phenomenon.
Jarndyce wrote:
There is always the fact that people have chosen to live in France, they are not obliged to
Does this then permit governments to strip immigrants of their other rights?
Jarndyce wrote:
and France is not run by muslim law, so people have no specific right to wear the burka.
Muslim law has nothing to do with the right to wear the burka. In fact, extreme Muslim law would probably impose the burka. It's precisely because France is a secular country that is fair and should abound in rights such as clothing that it's senseless to ban it.
Jarndyce wrote:
Seeing as it can be a security risk and it makes many people feel uncomfortable and unsafe I think it is quite reasonable to ban it, in the same way that cigarrettes are gradually being banned from more and more places as they are a health risk and make people uncomfortable.
Just because you make people feel uncomfortable doesn't mean you should be stopped from what you're doing when it doesn't specifically encroach on your liberty. That's what liberty is all about.
At any rate, what about the Muslims in France who would feel uncomfortable and unsafe when the government takes action against their religion? Even if they're not burka wearers, it would still have a wider stigmatic(?) effect.
Jarndyce wrote:
The only reason this is a bigger deal is because people hype up the religious aspects of it. Unfortunately it is that hyped aspect which has contributed to the reasonable feelings people have which have lead to it being banned, so those who complain by saying Muslims are being persecuted are not helping their cause in this respect if appears to me.
I'm sorry, could you clarify what you're saying?
Jarndyce wrote:
In short, why is it unreasonable for the government to choose to add this to the list of rights that one relinquishes in order to live in the French society?
The whole point of a right is that you can't relinquish it.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
No, it's not. Unless you think that the majority vote is always infallible.
Haha, nothing like a flat denial. Then putting words into my mouth.
The French democratic system works on the basis of the majority vote. As such, if the majority of French citizens want a law passed chances are it will eventually be passed, and the sooner the better for politicians if people feel strongly about it. As such if the majority want something of this nature it is reasonable to ban it.
Esmo wrote:
Is there a whole lot of people going around wearing burkas to avoid detection? And I'm not talking about isolated incidents here, through which one could justify the ban of anything, I'm talking about a nationwide phenomenon.
I don't know one way or another! I'd assume not, but my response there was focussed on the points others made about the security aspects, I just chose an example which wasn't religiously loaded and contentious.
Esmo wrote:
Does this then permit governments to strip immigrants of their other rights?
Within the constitution the government has the power to pass laws as it sees fit. They may be justified or unjustified. I don't however see why wearing a piece of clothing such as the burka should be exempt from laws passed by a democratically accountable and elected body.
Esmo wrote:
Muslim law has nothing to do with the right to wear the burka. In fact, extreme Muslim law would probably impose the burka. It's precisely because France is a secular country that is fair and should abound in rights such as clothing that it's senseless to ban it.
It isn't senseless, people in this thread, and in the public debates in France have suggested many reasons why it makes sense to ban it. That isn't to say others haven't countered their arguments, but you have no grounds to arbitrarily declare it as senseless.
Esmo wrote:
Just because you make people feel uncomfortable doesn't mean you should be stopped from what you're doing when it doesn't specifically encroach on your liberty. That's what liberty is all about.
At any rate, what about the Muslims in France who would feel uncomfortable and unsafe when the government takes action against their religion? Even if they're not burka wearers, it would still have a wider stigmatic(?) effect.
That depends on whether the thing making you feel uncomfortable also happens to impinge your rights, such as they are. Smokers affect the rights of people who choose not to smoke, and who might feel that second hand smoke negatively affects their health.
Your second point has some merit, however as ever law is passed to appease the greatest number of people possible, and to have the greatest positive net affect, at least in principle. I'm sure smokers feel uncomfortable at times in Australia as they are unable to light up in under cover public areas.
Esmo wrote:
I'm sorry, could you clarify what you're saying?
I was trying to point out that this would not be such an issue if the piece of clothing was for instance, a ski mask, or something associated with a religious group.
I was observing that the fact that people are concerned about Muslims by stereotype (as unreasonable as that is) is not helped by the people who make a big fuss over the burka, it has since grown to be a symbol of the Islamic religion acting in ways which concern western people, and has promoted the very distrust which lead to it being banned in the first place.
Esmo wrote:
The whole point of a right is that you can't relinquish it.
In this case you could hardly be more incorrect. Do you truly believe that you have not relinquished any natural rights in order to live in your society?[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Jarndyce wrote:
Haha, nothing like a flat denial. Then putting words into my mouth.
The French democratic system works on the basis of the majority vote. As such, if the majority of French citizens want a law passed chances are it will eventually be passed, and the sooner the better for politicians if people feel strongly about it. As such if the majority want something of this nature it is reasonable to ban it.
Tyranny of the masses is opressive to the minority. A decision based on the majority vote isn't always reasonably justified.
The French ban on the burka is a fine example.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
Aannddyy wrote:
Tyranny of the masses is opressive to the minority. A decision based on the majority vote isn't always reasonably justified.
The French ban on the burka is a fine example.
I don't disagree that the rule of the majority is a bad thing, it is one of the greatest condemnations of democracy. If you don't like the outcomes of a system however, one needs to change the system, not complain about the outcomes.
Within the system however, this can be justified, even if we don't like the justification.[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Jarndyce wrote:
I don't disagree that the rule of the majority is a bad thing, it is one of the greatest condemnations of democracy. If you don't like the outcomes of a system however, one needs to change the system, not complain about the outcomes.
Within the system however, this can be justified, even if we don't like the justification.
Yes, complaints in a minorty go unheard as the majority rule. Avoiding this would involve completing changing the form of a government, or no government at all. The irony is that in a democracy, change is only brought upon by the majority.
I'd say the justification behind the banning of the burka isn't rock-solid at all. Far from it.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
Aannddyy wrote:
Yes, complaints in a minorty go unheard as the majority rule. Avoiding this would involve completing changing the form of a government, or no government at all. The irony is that in a democracy, change is only brought upon by the majority.
I'd say the justification behind the banning of the burka isn't rock-solid at all. Far from it.
I agree, I wasn't attempting to say it was completely justified, or even completely justifiable, I just appreciate the reasoning behind it, and as a complete outsider and non-muslim (and thereby one who is unaffected by it) support it.[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Jarndyce wrote:
I agree, I wasn't attempting to say it was completely justified, or even completely justifiable, I just appreciate the reasoning behind it, and as a complete outsider and non-muslim (and thereby one who is unaffected by it) support it.
I appreciate your opinion, I was just arguing against majority rule.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
I enjoy arguing about political systems actually. Hobbes ideas about a single *un*constitutionally bound monarch have some appeal to me, but despite my study on the subject I've yet to see any great thinker propose a system which is infalliable, and which anyone ever really wholly agrees with!
As Churchill famously said though:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried"
Edit: My apologies OP, I've gone and strayed off the topic, thanks Andy :P[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Discussing political philosophies is better to do with people you aren't familar with. If a political debate arises with people I know, I walk away. Too often it ends up in an uncivilised argument. :p[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Sometimes, but I have one friend who I love to debate it with. It just depends on who they are and how well you know them!
[CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
[/COLOR][/CENTER] -
Jarndyce wrote:
Haha, nothing like a flat denial. Then putting words into my mouth.
The French democratic system works on the basis of the majority vote. As such, if the majority of French citizens want a law passed chances are it will eventually be passed, and the sooner the better for politicians if people feel strongly about it. As such if the majority want something of this nature it is reasonable to ban it.
There are some things in life worth flatly denying.
But you've confused me. Do you or do you not think that a majority vote for something renders it 'right' and justifiable?
Jarndyce wrote:
I don't know one way or another! I'd assume not, but my response there was focussed on the points others made about the security aspects, I just chose an example which wasn't religiously loaded and contentious.
Ah, but the frequency was a key factor in your point. The reason we don't ban ski masks is because they have not manifested themselves as a tangible and common threat to security, even though they have the potential to be. Likewise, it would only be reasonable to ban burkas on security grounds once they have jumped through this hoop of reasonable threat.
Jarndyce wrote:
I don't however see why wearing a piece of clothing such as the burka should be exempt from laws passed by a democratically accountable and elected body.
Because its accountability does not allow it to trample over simple rights such as that to wear what you like.
Jarndyce wrote:
It isn't senseless, people in this thread, and in the public debates in France have suggested many reasons why it makes sense to ban it. That isn't to say others haven't countered their arguments, but you have no grounds to arbitrarily declare it as senseless.
By 'senseless', I didn't mean 'devoid of any proposed justification'. I was simply saying that, by my own reasoning, there was no sense in the ban. If we criticise each other on sheer voicing of opinion, then there can't be any debate.
Jarndyce wrote:
I was observing that the fact that people are concerned about Muslims by stereotype (as unreasonable as that is) is not helped by the people who make a big fuss over the burka, it has since grown to be a symbol of the Islamic religion acting in ways which concern western people, and has promoted the very distrust which lead to it being banned in the first place.
But is it not arguable that these concerns amongst western people are themselves unfounded if the west were only to examine their values in a different light?
Jarndyce wrote:
In this case you could hardly be more incorrect. Do you truly believe that you have not relinquished any natural rights in order to live in your society?
That would depend on what natural rights I could find on your list.
And I meant that you can't justifiably relinquish a right. Under a dictatorship plenty of rights can be relinquished but that doesn't mean it's right or that the rights stop being rights that ought to be fought for.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
The only thing I've came to a decision about since reading these posts, is that with however many people there are in the world now, there are far, far too many variables to give unlimited liberty.
Fair play to the French. The burka may not be a security issue itself, but the people abusing them most certainly can be. I'll use the balaclava as an example. It's designed to keep the head and face warm in cold climates, but is now used more for hiding the identity of the wearer. Regardless of what something is designed for, if it becomes a public security issue, then it should be dealth with, regardless of whether or not it affects a few peoples' liberties. As I just said, there are far too many different beliefs and ideologies in the world to be able to grant everyone their liberties, as they often clash with cultral differences.
The burka has no cultral link to France, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to ban it.[CENTER][SIZE=1]
[/SIZE][/CENTER] -
BlockHead2111 wrote:
I'll use the balaclava as an example. It's designed to keep the head and face warm in cold climates, but is now used more for hiding the identity of the wearer.
At that point of when abuse tips over there might be an argument for banning an item of clothing, but that is simply not the case with the burka.
Another point, where is the French balaclava ban? There is more to the intentions of French legislators than security...
BlockHead2111 wrote:
Regardless of what something is designed for, if it becomes a public security issue, then it should be dealth with, regardless of whether or not it affects a few peoples' liberties.
But then things can become ridiculous. I could ban sunglasses and facial hair on the basis that they can act as a security issue.
BlockHead2111 wrote:
As I just said, there are far too many different beliefs and ideologies in the world to be able to grant everyone their liberties, as they often clash with cultral differences.
Why should the majority of society's behaviour necessarily dictate on how the minority should behave?
BlockHead2111 wrote:
The burka has no cultral link to France, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to ban it.
Whilst not against it per se, I'm always wary of government attempts to control culture. Culture is such a multifarious that an attempt to control it can be withering.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER]
-
Share