What should we make of France? [Archive]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th January 2010, 00:03

France is becoming well known for its policies against religious symbols in areas such as schools. Here is some more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_veil_controversy_in_France#Practical_conse quences

There is now a call to ban the headscarf entirely within France. What should leftists make of this decision? Is it a well-intended decision that will have no benefits? Is it a poor decision with poor benefits? Or is it a good decision on the part of France to do this? What are your thoughts?

I'm undecided. One of my political science classes briefly mentioned it, but the assumption there (a liberal assumption, though) was this is unacceptable behavior in violation of freedom of religion.

As for me, I'm what I would consider a bit of a "bad human being." At a certain level, seeing people with irrational beliefs get upset over ridiculous things entertains me. But I'd never support political policy based on my poor sensibilities. After all, most of these people are victims of circumstance. We want to protect and help society, and we want to help them. That is my view.

Is this ban helping France? Is it helping the world? Is it harming the women or helping them? How should we analyze the pros and cons of such a situation. I'm a little less opinionated than many leftists when it comes to preventing liberties - at least in the context of a pre-communist society. However, I'd also be interested in what to do about religious fundamentalism? (aside from such bans, or instead of such bans).

I'm a huge supporter of education. Who isn't? However, when it comes to religious ideologies, I think education fails some people. It fails adults who are legally free to avoid such education, including preventing children from accessing it. This is an issue, as far as I'm concerned. Are the adults a lost cause. Should we just ban homeschooling and enforce pro-diversity in schools?

As for someone wearing something over their head. I could care less. It's a bit sad, male or female, if they have a cool head/face, but I can develop perverted fantasies elsewhere. Maybe society dislikes headscarves because it makes it hard to objectify women? Just throwing that possibility out there. I'm not really a big supporter of that idea.

I also tend to prefer the stylish headscarves, but given the nature of the headscarf itself, those are pretty uncommon. I've kind of made a joke of this issue because religion is a joke. But the problems it creates are not a joke. And the unnecessary limitation of freedoms, if it is occurring, is certainly not a joke.

Any strong opinions on this one? Feel free to move this. I thought about learning, but I thought it's a rather specific topic. I thought about discrimination, but I'm not sure if it is discrimination (though maybe still appropriate for the general section). Hence, I ended up here.

danyboy27

28th January 2010, 00:38

the problem is not the measures by the governement, the problem is that no citizen voted for those, they where taken by the state without any form of consultation of its people.

Personally, if 51% of the french would have voted against headscarves i would consider it to be fair.

Those who decided the scarf ban where elites.

the issue is that those things where decided without any form of consultation of the people.

They should have made by a referendum.

Unfortunatly, this debate will be diverted by many leftist both in france and on that forum, accusing france of being xenophobic racist.

Instead of pushing the governement to listen the french people, many groups will come in defence of the islamist/religious folks, becoming their useful idiots,helping many radical to push their extremist agenda.

Its all about democracy.

whore

28th January 2010, 00:48

what should we make of france? how about a nice cheese?

oh wait.

anyway, fuck religion. i don't approve of the state at all, but i can't morn when it uses it's powers to fuck over religion.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th January 2010, 00:51

Personally, if 51% of the french would have voted against headscarves i would consider it to be fair.

Its all about democracy.

I'm under the impression that the majority of France would support the motion. Regardless, I have to disagree with your 51% viewpoint. If 51% support something unjust, it's not acceptable. I'm not advocating some sort of liberal protection for minorities. I'm sympathetic to 51% rule. I just wouldn't call it "fair." I wouldn't put the headscarf in the same category as other things, though. I'm talking about things like 51% supporting racism. And if this issue is more serious than I believe it is, it could also be an unjustified use of majority power.

danyboy27

28th January 2010, 02:43

I'm under the impression that the majority of France would support the motion. Regardless, I have to disagree with your 51% viewpoint. If 51% support something unjust, it's not acceptable. I'm not advocating some sort of liberal protection for minorities. I'm sympathetic to 51% rule. I just wouldn't call it "fair." I wouldn't put the headscarf in the same category as other things, though. I'm talking about things like 51% supporting racism. And if this issue is more serious than I believe it is, it could also be an unjustified use of majority power.

60% then.

ComradeMan

28th January 2010, 12:59

I am against the banning of the headscarf. I am not convinced that it is a religious symbol anyway. In the Southern Mediterranean many older women also wear headscarves too. Whether it is or it isn't it does not cause a problem. I have known plenty of Muslim women who did not wear headscarves but those who chose to do so did not really have any problems.

When it comes to the burqa or the veiled face, my opinion is slightly different. It is not a religious symbol and it creates problems. For example. in Italy it is an offense to cover your face in a public place with the exception of a motorbike helmet when riding- legally obligatory or the Venice carnival and at all times you must be prepared to reveal your face if asked to do so. I think a modicum of common sense needs to be applied.

However, back to France, the banning of religious symbols is not something I support? What next? A crucifix, a kippah, a turban?

As usual the idiotic powers that be have got it wrong. The headscarf is not an issue and should not be an issue unless someone is forced against their will to wear it- this is in a sense covered by law already.

Logic/Reason 1: France: 0

But hell, part of me says who do they think they are that they can order people around and tell them how to live their lives? :cool:

Havet

28th January 2010, 16:37

I think that if france wants to be logically consequent, then they must ban bras as well.

Different body parts, same religious bullshit

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

30th January 2010, 02:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48&feature=related

Thought this was interesting. I'm not sure if he has a strong case, but I am somewhat sympathetic to his points. Just trying to stir up more controversy.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

30th January 2010, 02:55

60% then.

This isn't exactly what I meant. I'm saying that even if 99% of people agree to something, it doesn't make it justifiable to do that. Rousseau makes a point of this with his idea of a "General Will." People have to be acting for the right reasons. If they are not, any majority rule is not entitled to govern over a minority. This is one of many reasons the denial of equality in the United States is unjustified regardless of the fact that the majority may support it, especially in the case of gay rights.

Qwerty Dvorak

30th January 2010, 03:03

Have to say I think that video is rubbish. As is the ban.

Listen I get that you guys don't like religion. Whatever, feel free to not wear a burkha al you want. But think of what it is you're supporting. The state is telling women what they can and cannot wear, based one what? Bigotry, prejudice? Fear that all women who wear these burkhas will blow themselves up on a crowded bus? Freedom of religion is as important as freedom from religion in a democracy, and both should be protected by the law. People should be allowed to wear what they like for whatever reason they like. I might have a particular pair of socks which I wear to interviews and exams because I think they give me good luck. That too is an irrational belief. Is it therefore okay for the State to ban me from wearing those socks?

danyboy27

30th January 2010, 03:10

This isn't exactly what I meant. I'm saying that even if 99% of people agree to something, it doesn't make it justifiable to do that. Rousseau makes a point of this with his idea of a "General Will." People have to be acting for the right reasons. If they are not, any majority rule is not entitled to govern over a minority. This is one of many reasons the denial of equality in the United States is unjustified regardless of the fact that the majority may support it, especially in the case of gay rights.

You cant have a functionning society if the majority cant democraticly enforce laws on rousseau principles beccause right and wrong tend to be subjective.

for exemple, it might seem wrong if the population of a city put a vote to avoid jeovah witnesses to spread their religions around, but its even more wrong to let those folks spread their pyramid scheme religion and enslave thousand of peoples.

Revy

30th January 2010, 03:39

It's not a ban on headscarves. It's a ban on the burqa . The difference is the burqa covers the face. But still, the burqa should not be banned.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

30th January 2010, 20:01

You cant have a functionning society if the majority cant democraticly enforce laws on rousseau principles beccause right and wrong tend to be subjective.

for exemple, it might seem wrong if the population of a city put a vote to avoid jeovah witnesses to spread their religions around, but its even more wrong to let those folks spread their pyramid scheme religion and enslave thousand of peoples.

Right and wrong may or may not be subjective. However, the fact that people want to lead happy lives, for the most part, tends not to be. There are ways of organizing society to maximize the happiness of people. Doing things like persecuting harmless minorities is irrational. It fills the majority of the population with hate, a potential harmful emotion, and clearly harms the minority.

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 20:07

It's not a ban on headscarves. It's a ban on the burqa . The difference is the burqa covers the face. But still, the burqa should not be banned.

I have to disagree with you there for a number of reasons.

Unlike the headscarf the burqa does cause problems.

The burqa is not part of Islam contrary to popular belief. There is nothing in Islam that says a woman must wear a burqa.

The women who wear the burqa have usually been coerced into doing so by reactionary elements of their own society.

Religious freedom is all well and good as long as it does not create problems like this. What if people were to argue a case for sacrificing animals? What if people were to argue a case for female circumcision? What if people were to start enforcing blasphemy laws all over the place again? Hell, while we're at it why not bring back footbinding for women and castration for the boys of poor families to sing in choirs?

There has to be a line draw. The law of France is quite clear, France is a secular state and no ostentatious religious gear is to be worn or shown in public. It's tough, but it's the same for everyone.

The exclusion to this rule is of course someone who is a religious "worker" like an imam, rabbi or priest. I'm fine by that.

Havet

30th January 2010, 20:41

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 21:41

ComradeMan, let me take your post and adapt it to what I have said earlier, and then ask you your opinion to see if it sounds ridiculous or not.

The women who wear bras have usually been coerced into doing so by reactionary elements of their own society (the christian church, acting through the state)

Why is it okay for france to pass laws permitting christian religious prohibitions as well?

Well, quite frankly because it's complete historical nonsense to start with.

Brassieres existed in one form or another since the times of Ancient Egypt. The modern bra however has it's origins in the very late 19th/early 20th century.

In the Middle Ages it was exceptional for women to restrict or support their breasts, and if they did, they probably used something like a cloth binder, as evidence suggests in descriptions of the time. A widely quoted statement is that an edict of Strasbourg in the Holy Roman Empire, dated 1370 states, "No woman will support the bust by the disposition of a blouse or by tightened dress." However, an exact source has not been located. By the time of Charles VII of France (1403–1461), a gauze drape was used over the bust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_brassieres#The_emergence_of_the_bra_in_ the_19th_century

You might also consider that women are not beaten up or worse for the heinous sin of not wearing a bloody bra for crying out loud!!!

Nor are bras a potential security problem, unless there's something I really don't know about cleavage here? :D

Sorry to say but your point is based on a complete fallacy and therefore not valid at all for this discussion.

The burqa is not part of Islam, it is not even welcomed by progressive Islamic movements and in France the law is the same for everyone. France is a secular state and that's that.

Once again, a modicum of common sense is required here. There is a big difference between a head scarf and a burqa.

Havet

30th January 2010, 22:04

You might also consider that women are not beaten up or worse for the heinous sin of not wearing a bloody bra for crying out loud!!!

Well, it's illegal (http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/toplessness004.html) in many states of the USA.

What do you suppose happens to those who want to? That's right, the police shows up. And if they resist? They are probably fined or imprisoned. And if they fight? They get beaten up.

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 22:10

Well, it's illegal (http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/toplessness004.html) in many states of the USA.

What do you suppose happens to those who want to? That's right, the police shows up. And if they resist? They are probably fined or imprisoned. And if they fight? They get beaten up.

Who? Are you telling me it is illegal not to wear a bra in the US? How the hell would anyone know unless you were at the beach? Then it's an issue of being topless and nudity.

If that is the case in the US- well it says more about the US really and is not really relevant to France where the modern bra was developed.

Havet

30th January 2010, 22:36

Who? Are you telling me it is illegal not to wear a bra in the US? How the hell would anyone know unless you were at the beach? Then it's an issue of being topless and nudity.

Its illegal to be topless which means you're not wearing a bra. I even suspect just wearing underwear (a bra and panties) is illegal.

If that is the case in the US- well it says more about the US really and is not really relevant to France where the modern bra was developed.

We were not discussing countries, we were discussing ideas, concepts.

But if you want to turn this into a debate of countries, fine then (http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-is-france-over-new-laws-to-merde-on-your-parade/).

ComradeMan

30th January 2010, 23:38

Its illegal to be topless which means you're not wearing a bra. I even suspect just wearing underwear (a bra and panties) is illegal.

We were not discussing countries, we were discussing ideas, concepts.

But if you want to turn this into a debate of countries, fine then (http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-is-france-over-new-laws-to-merde-on-your-parade/).

Sorry but that's very poor legal logic here. It is illegal to be topless, i.e. naked in a public place, that does not mean you are forced by law to wear a bra. You could wear a t-shirt or whatever else. Secondly, that is about public laws of decency etc, not about religious garb.

As for countries, the original point was about the legality of the burqa in France, from whence you've jumped around all over the place from wild assertions about medieval catholicism to irrelevent state laws in the US- none of which are comparable to the burqa issue and serve only as a distraction from the main topic.

You case is thrown out of court along with your evidence! LOL!!!! ;)

Havet

31st January 2010, 12:14

Sorry but that's very poor legal logic here. It is illegal to be topless, i.e. naked in a public place, that does not mean you are forced by law to wear a bra. You could wear a t-shirt or whatever else.

t-shirt, bra, whatever. The point is that that body part is forbidden to appear naked.

Secondly, that is about public laws of decency etc, not about religious garb.

Who defines "laws of decency"? Are they objective? How? What makes you think that is wasn't religious garb which shaped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_religion#Christianity) those initial "laws of decency" in the first place?

As for countries, the original point was about the legality of the burqa in France, from whence you've jumped around all over the place from wild assertions about medieval catholicism to irrelevent state laws in the US- none of which are comparable to the burqa issue and serve only as a distraction from the main topic.

ComradeMan, in France there are also laws against how women can walk around, and i'm willing to bet that it was christianity who "lobbied" for those laws, amidst their influence with the State. It's the same thing, except for a different piece of clothing.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 13:53

t-shirt, bra, whatever. The point is that that body part is forbidden to appear naked.

Who defines "laws of decency"? Are they objective? How? What makes you think that is wasn't religious garb which shaped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_religion#Christianity) those initial "laws of decency" in the first place?

ComradeMan, in France there are also laws against how women can walk around, and i'm willing to bet that it was christianity who "lobbied" for those laws, amidst their influence with the State. It's the same thing, except for a different piece of clothing.

1. Point 1- well then it's complete the other end of the scale from the Burqa- in view of your position on nudity you should be against the burqa.

2. Laws are agreed by the legislative processes of the various governments and administrations. Whether social mores in the post-20th century are derived from religious laws and attitudes is a different matter.

What laws in France about how women can walk around? Could you please state what you mean exactly and stop making unsubstantiated and vague references to things that derail the thread all the time! :cursing:

It's not the same thing at all, this is just picking up one minute detail and using it as an absolute- not a good line of thinking.

Getting back to nudity laws, have you never thought that keeping out of the cold may have inspired some of the requirements for clothes we now have too? A practical reason. Also, what would you say if you went into your bank to talk about your account and the manager was nude? What about your kids' school? Would you be happy about nude waiters serving you your hotdogs? LOL!!! Come on--- apply some common sense here too.

There is no way you can compare the burqa controversy in France which boils down to a public security problem and moreover the fact that women are coerced and bullied into covering up their faces because of some reactionary and medieval cultural (non-religious) belief and the fact that you can't go nude in some public places, the whole bra thing was irrelevant to.

Now what are these laws in France exactly......

Havet

31st January 2010, 17:55

1. Point 1- well then it's complete the other end of the scale from the Burqa- in view of your position on nudity you should be against the burqa.

I have not stated any position on nudity. I just explained that the case with being "topfull" and having a burka is the same thing - except in a different body part.

Governments say people shouldn't wear burkas, for whatever reason.

Governments say people shouldn't go around topless, for whatever reason.

The reason is irrelevant. The fact is that both body parts belong to the women who carry them, and are therefore NOT subject to government force, whether they are supported by a majority or not (read below for more detail on this explanation).

What laws in France about how women can walk around? Could you please state what you mean exactly and stop making unsubstantiated and vague references to things that derail the thread all the time! :cursing:

Sure, no need to start posting angry smiles (LOL!):

Example: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_Europe#France) are the ONLY places in france where women can go around topless (these are only beaches)

We can conclude that everywhere else it is illegal, like streets, cities, etc (i'm sorry that i'm not that fluent in french to find out the particular law prohibiting this)

Getting back to nudity laws, have you never thought that keeping out of the cold may have inspired some of the requirements for clothes we now have too? A practical reason.

Why is it required to force people into accepting these practical reasons if its that much common sense?

Also, what would you say if you went into your bank to talk about your account and the manager was nude?
What about your kids' school? Would you be happy about nude waiters serving you your hotdogs? LOL!!! Come on--- apply some common sense here too.

You're missing the point. People can have customary laws, in which they socially discriminate against others for not following them, WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE. In case of most countries, governments are used to apply such laws, USING FORCE. And I do not find the use of government force, at least in this case, legitimate.

There is no way you can compare the burqa controversy in France which boils down to a public security problem

What public security problem?

...and moreover the fact that women are coerced and bullied into covering up their faces because of some reactionary and medieval cultural (non-religious) belief and the fact that you can't go nude in some public places, the whole bra thing was irrelevant to.

Women are coerced and bullied into covering their breasts because of some reactionary and medieval cultural (which may be non-religious) belief.

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 19:17

I have not stated any position on nudity. I just explained that the case with being "topfull" and having a burka is the same thing - except in a different body part.

Not really the same then is it? That's like saying circumcision and ear piercing are the same just that they are different body parts and a slightly different operation.

Governments say people shouldn't wear burkas, for whatever reason.

Governments say people shouldn't go around topless, for whatever reason.

What kind of bizarre logic is that? You cannot ignore the reasons behind things and apply such one size fits all reasoning to this question.

The reason is irrelevant. The fact is that both body parts belong to the women who carry them, and are therefore NOT subject to government force, whether they are supported by a majority or not (read below for more detail on this explanation).

The problem is that the women who wear the burqa very often have no bloody choice about wearing them and are forced to do so because of medieval and reactionary male-dominated cultural practices- that I emphasise here, have nothing to do with Islam.

Sure, no need to start posting angry smiles (LOL!):
:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing: :tt2:

Example: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_Europe#France) are the ONLY places in france where women can go around topless (these are only beaches)

But that is the same in most countries! For goodness sake, see what the measure of the argument is....

We can conclude that everywhere else it is illegal, like streets, cities, etc (i'm sorry that i'm not that fluent in french to find out the particular law prohibiting this)

See the point above.

You're missing the point. People can have customary laws, in which they socially discriminate against others for not following them, WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE. In case of most countries, governments are used to apply such laws, USING FORCE. And I do not find the use of government force, at least in this case, legitimate.

So discrimination without force is justified.... hmmm... dodgy line of argument in my opinion.

What public security problem?

People having their faces covered stops them from being positively identified-- they could be witnesses in a crime, they could be recorded committing a crime too, in fact there have already been "burqa" crimes committed in Britain, I believe, by opportunistic criminals using the burqa as a perfect disguise. There are all kinds of reasons, but the main reason of course is that these women get beaten up if they don't want to and the law can do nothing very often.

Havet

31st January 2010, 19:45

Not really the same then is it? That's like saying circumcision and ear piercing are the same just that they are different body parts and a slightly different operation.

I see what you did there

Indeed many kids might be forced by their parents to endure a circumcision, but I could just as easily claim that "society's pressures of social integration between teens" force teens to get ear piercings.

What kind of bizarre logic is that? You cannot ignore the reasons behind things and apply such one size fits all reasoning to this question.

Just because there are diferent reasons doesn't hide the fact that the same entity - governemnt, the state - is the one that enforces such rules.

The problem is that the women who wear the burqa very often have no bloody choice about wearing them and are forced to do so because of medieval and reactionary male-dominated cultural practices- that I emphasise here, have nothing to do with Islam.

And what choice do women of France have except to cover their breasts, one way or another? Just as there are different ways to cover one's face (different styles of burkas), there are different ways to cover one's breasts.

Why the hell is it acceptable for men to go around without their faces covered and women not?

Why the hell is it acceptable for men to go around topless and women not?

Same thing, different body part.

But that is the same in most countries! For goodness sake, see what the measure of the argument is....

That just helps prove my point. Just because most countries have those laws doesn't make them legitimate or moral. That's an ad populum fallacy.

So discrimination without force is justified.... hmmm... dodgy line of argument in my opinion.

I don't think that morality is objective enough for someone to claim they should impose it on me. Aren't you a communist? Do you not believe in participatory decision making and democracy? What would you tell the majority if they, through their daily exchanges, decided that women should be allowed to go topless whenever they wanted to? "Oh sorry, that kind of decision should not be left to you" ?

People having their faces covered stops them from being positively identified-- they could be witnesses in a crime, they could be recorded committing a crime too, in fact there have already been "burqa" crimes committed in Britain, I believe, by opportunistic criminals using the burqa as a perfect disguise. There are all kinds of reasons, but the main reason of course is that these women get beaten up if they don't want to and the law can do nothing very often.

Are you going to use that excuse to destroy people's privacy?

"People having houses without cameras linked to government departments stops them from being positively prevented in case they try to plan a terrorist attack or plot a massive student shooting in some college. I believe that opportunistic criminals will use this household privacy crap to plot new kinds of crimes"

Who beats these women? What is stopping them from leaving their tradition like most western women? Their family? Why don't they leave their family then?

ComradeMan

31st January 2010, 21:19

Bene,

It's late and I have to be up early for my wage slavery... LOL!!! So, I'll keep this brief as Comrade Hayenmill has a talent for wandering all over the place with the argument.:D

Indeed many kids might be forced by their parents to endure a circumcision, but I could just as easily claim that "society's pressures of social integration between teens" force teens to get ear piercings.

No because the teen's had a choice, the circumcised infants did not. Peer pressure is not the same as coercion.

I don't think that morality is objective enough for someone to claim they should impose it on me. Aren't you a communist? Do you not believe in participatory decision making and democracy? What would you tell the majority if they, through their daily exchanges, decided that women should be allowed to go topless whenever they wanted to? "Oh sorry, that kind of decision should not be left to you"

Hey, I'm not complaining about going topless....:D But it's not relevant. At the same time you seem to be using an argument that contradicts the point about the burqas you were making and your whole high-horse about individual rights.
My opinion on the burqa is not based on what the consensus thinks but my own conscious evaluation of the issue and its effects on women's rights. In my opinion condoning the burqa is a slap in the face to feminism.

Are you going to use that excuse to destroy people's privacy?

Well that is a dangerous line of thought, laws should be in place to guarantee people's human rights and safeguard the vulnerable from forms of oppression- not to condone cowardlily the oppression of groups against their rights in the name of some misguided ideas about protecting people's privacy- which this issue is not about.

"People having houses without cameras linked to government departments stops them from being positively prevented in case they try to plan a terrorist attack or plot a massive student shooting in some college. I believe that opportunistic criminals will use this household privacy crap to plot new kinds of crimes"

Reductio ad absurdum.

Who beats these women? What is stopping them from leaving their tradition like most western women? Their family? Why don't they leave their family then?

I suggest you read the news a little more. There was a case recently in Italy of a girl that was killed by her father because she had an Italian boyfriend, and there has been a new case today of a similar vein- In Paris girls were being burned alive for refusing to abide by medieval laws and accept arranged marriages. They can't leave their families--- have you any idea? The burqa isn't just some fashion statement you know, it represents the oppression of women.

Why the hell is it acceptable for men to go around without their faces covered and women not?

Eh? That does not make sense. I think you mean Why is it acceptable for men to cover their faces and women not? In which case it isn't, at least in Italy. You are not allowed to cover your face in a public place as I have explained elsewhere.

Why the hell is it acceptable for men to go around topless and women not?

LOL!!! Well, there are lots of reasons for that. But why would it not be acceptable for men to walk around swinging their schlongs for all to see. Again, reduction ad absurdem arguments to avoid the point.

Havet

1st February 2010, 17:35

No because the teen's had a choice, the circumcised infants did not. Peer pressure is not the same as coercion.

What choice? There is no other choice in some cases except being discriminated. I could almost take your argument and use it to justify that wage slavery doesn't exist, because the workers "have a choice" between going to work or starving...

My opinion on the burqa is not based on what the consensus thinks but my own conscious evaluation of the issue and its effects on women's rights. In my opinion condoning the burqa is a slap in the face to feminism.

I don't like the burqa as well, but I don't think it up to the State to forbid these kinds of activities (because it has a tendency to want more power). it should be up to intersubjective majoritarian consensus, and i'm certain that in a lot of places the practice of wearing burqas would disappear completely.

Reductio ad absurdem.

And? Its not a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), if thats what you were thinking. Its a formal argument. its quite common in mathmatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction#In_mathematics), actually (taking a proposition and proving it is wrong by reducing it to an absurd aka contradiction).

I suggest you read the news a little more. There was a case recently in Italy of a girl that was killed by her father because she had an Italian boyfriend, and there has been a new case today of a similar vein- In Paris girls were being burned alive for refusing to abide by medieval laws and accept arranged marriages. They can't leave their families--- have you any idea? The burqa isn't just some fashion statement you know, it represents the oppression of women.

What about those organizations that help women with domestic violence; can't they get involved in these kinds of things as well?

Eh? That does not make sense. I think you mean Why is it acceptable for men to cover their faces and women not? In which case it isn't, at least in Italy. You are not allowed to cover your face in a public place as I have explained elsewhere.

The point I was trying to make is that it is indeed irrational to go around with a burqa covering a woman's face.

LOL!!! Well, there are lots of reasons for that. But why would it not be acceptable for men to walk around swinging their schlongs for all to see. Again, reduction ad absurdem arguments to avoid the point.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments do not avoid the point; they show how contradictory its basic premises are. I would have no problems with men and women being free to walk around naked in public places, but there would be every non-governmental incentive for them to NOT do so.

There is a difference between imposing laws top down and allowing spontaneous bottom-up rules to emerge.

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 20:11

What choice? There is no other choice in some cases except being discriminated. I could almost take your argument and use it to justify that wage slavery doesn't exist, because the workers "have a choice" between going to work or starving...

Come off it, more reduction ad absurdem. Despite the fact that you were talking about teens. By the way, there are laws which prevent discrimination in the workplace too. The wage slavery argument has nothing to do with this, stop shifting the goalposts on the argument.

I don't like the burqa as well, but I don't think it up to the State to forbid these kinds of activities (because it has a tendency to want more power). it should be up to intersubjective majoritarian consensus, and i'm certain that in a lot of places the practice of wearing burqas would disappear completely.

So we should stand by and passively condone the oppression of women? The "majoritarian" consensus is against the burqa. You can stand by and just wait passively for things to go by their own way? Issues have to be confronted and dealt with, if a girl in a school in England can't wear a "religious chastity" ring then the same goes for the burqa- which is not even religious.

And? Its not a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), if thats what you were thinking. Its a formal argument. its quite common in mathmatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction#In_mathematics), actually (taking a proposition and proving it is wrong by reducing it to an absurd aka contradiction).

This is not an argument about maths but about law and rights. It's a common tactic to apply so-called mathematical arguments as some kind of validification of the point- well it's valid for maths, but not in this debate. By the way, this is a logic argument in the strictest sense. Again, you are on difficult ground here if you use the logic argument in order to support your position...

The law forbids face covering for all = the burqa is banned.ù
The law forbids visibile/ostentatious displays of "religious" symbols= the burqa is banned.
Now if you question that law then it is a different matter- but in point of law the burqa is out.

What about those organizations that help women with domestic violence; can't they get involved in these kinds of things as well?

Yeah, yeah and what about them? That does not change this issue. You know perfectly well that those organisations exist inasmuch as you know perfectly well that immigrant women, in tight-knit societies, perhaps with a limited command of French (in this case) and dependent on their families and communities might have great difficulty in actually making recourse to those said organisations.

The point I was trying to make is that it is indeed irrational to go around with a burqa covering a woman's face.

Right, so we appear to agree on one point- albeit not obvious from you initial postings. Irrationality is not to be condoned by the "state" in the same way intelligent design should not be taught in schools as it is unscientific.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments do not avoid the point; they show how contradictory its basic premises are. I would have no problems with men and women being free to walk around naked in public places, but there would be every non-governmental incentive for them to NOT do so.

No, sorry- reductio ad absurdum arguments are flawed logic when they fall into the category of general rule fallacies.

There is a difference between imposing laws top down and allowing spontaneous bottom-up rules to emerge.

Yeah, but the current issue is not about that and also the spontaneous bottom-up rules from this particular group of marginalised and oppressed women are not going to emerge are they?

Havet

1st February 2010, 21:12

By the way, there are laws which prevent discrimination in the workplace too.

So? There are incentives in a free society with equality of opportunity for that discrimination in the workplace to disappear, but that would be going into the realm of politics.

The wage slavery argument has nothing to do with this, stop shifting the goalposts on the argument.

Workers have the "choice" to work or to starve to death
Teens have the "choice" to be circumcised or get beaten the shit out of them.
Teens have the "choice" to get a piercing or be discriminated against (sure its not as radical as death, but still counts as a "choice", does it not?)

So we should stand by and passively condone the oppression of women?

That's not what I said.

The "majoritarian" consensus is against the burqa. You can stand by and just wait passively for things to go by their own way?

Who said majoritarian consensus is "passive"? If the majoritarian consensus is against the burqa, why are you worrying so much? People will just discriminate against those who condone it, by refusing to do business with them, etc.

Issues have to be confronted and dealt with, if a girl in a school in England can't wear a "religious chastity" ring then the same goes for the burqa- which is not even religious.

Fine. What about clothing and style in schools in England? It was not long ago that many schools in England had mandatory clothing and hairstyles. Should the pupils also be forced into accepting these rules just because the State says so?

Do you not understand that by centralizing decisions and power to the State it will naturally want to expand its power?

well it's valid for maths, but not in this debate.

Its also used in logical arguments in philosophy:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/494815/reductio-ad-absurdum

http://www.increasebrainpower.com/reductio-ad-absurdum.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Reductio_ad_absurdum

How many links is it going to take to convince you that this form of logical argument is valid, if used correctly?

The law forbids face covering for all = the burqa is banned.ù
The law forbids visibile/ostentatious displays of "religious" symbols= the burqa is banned.

Now if you question that law then it is a different matter- but in point of law the burqa is out.

I certainly question those laws. I also do not follow why the second proposition is necessarily true given that you said that the burqa is not a religious symbol, therefore its use does not constitute a "visible/ostentatious display of a religious symbol"

Yeah, yeah and what about them? That does not change this issue. You know perfectly well that those organisations exist inasmuch as you know perfectly well that immigrant women, in tight-knit societies, perhaps with a limited command of French (in this case) and dependent on their families and communities might have great difficulty in actually making recourse to those said organisations.

Start new institutions then, making them more available to the public. Organize with people, make it a subject of public discussion through open forums, etc.

No, sorry- reductio ad absurdum arguments are flawed logic when they fall into the category of general rule fallacies.

By all means, show me where do reductio ad absurdum arguments are fallacies. Here's the complete list of fallacies. Feel free to browse through them:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

Yeah, but the current issue is not about that and also the spontaneous bottom-up rules from this particular group of marginalised and oppressed women are not going to emerge are they?

I just gave examples above of how one can "bring them up" by voluntary cooperation with others.

-------

By the way, it should be worth noting that I am enjoying this discussion, and I hope that you are too. Don't get angry if you think I am wrong; show me I am wrong, and I will show you are wrong too if I have reasons to believe so. Let's keep our minds open to possible errors we have commited in order to improve our beliefs

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 22:50

Look Hayenmill, stop going off on tangents.

The argument is about the burqa, whether it be a religious symbol, quasi-religious symbol or not religious symbol, whether it cause a social problem and whether is be a symbol of female oppression- this is the matter at hand and whether France is right to stake a stance. This is not about a general evaluation of workers rights but a single and particular issue.

This is the "legal" case. Throwing up hypothetical if's and maybe's and what about's and turning things into a pseudo-philosophical debate is no use to anyone.

Now, my points are:-

Legal:-

1. The burqa is not a religious symbol and does not fall under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion so the same laws that apply to everyone else apply to the burqa and if people don't like that's tough.

2. If the burqa is to be considered a religious symbol, well then France has a law that makes it illegal to display ostentatious symbols of religion that everyone else seems to abide by. The law has to be the same for everyone.

Ideological:-
3. No one in their right mind on the left should support female oppression as represented by the burqa inasmuch as other heinous practices such as female circumcision or footbinding would not be tolerated whatever their so-called religious or cultural origin. No one in the progressive movement of Islam supports the burqa either.

PS I am never angry, even if it does get heated- that's how we do it around where I'm from... capisci? :D

Havet

1st February 2010, 23:28

1. The burqa is not a religious symbol and does not fall under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion so the same laws that apply to everyone else apply to the burqa and if people don't like that's tough.

The love it or leave it card is a statement, not an argument.

2. If the burqa is to be considered a religious symbol, well then France has a law that makes it illegal to display ostentatious symbols of religion that everyone else seems to abide by. The law has to be the same for everyone.

Just because it has a law doesn't mean it's a good law.

3. No one in their right mind on the left should support female oppression as represented by the burqa inasmuch as other heinous practices such as female circumcision or footbinding would not be tolerated whatever their so-called religious or cultural origin. No one in the progressive movement of Islam supports the burqa either.

Nobody is supporting female oppression. But you're going to end up with more social tensions by imposing up-down laws which may lead to big problems.

PS I am never angry, even if it does get heated- that's how we do it around where I'm from... capisci? :D

Good to know:)

ComradeMan

1st February 2010, 23:34

The love it or leave it card is a statement, not an argument.

No, it's a way of saying deal with it. We either have a society in which we make sacrifices and agree on laws that allow us to leave in peace together or we all become individualists and go and live in the mountains.:D

Just because it has a law doesn't mean it's a good law.

Nope, and just because it is a law doesn't mean it's a bad one either.

Nobody is supporting female oppression. But you're going to end up with more social tensions by imposing up-down laws which may lead to big problems.

No, by supporting an outward expression of female oppression such as the burqa you then do condone it in my opinion- even if it's in the typical cowardly western way of "washing our hands" of the problem... there was another guy who famously washed his hands.....:)

ryacku

1st February 2010, 23:36

I have to disagree with you there for a number of reasons.

Unlike the headscarf the burqa does cause problems.

The burqa is not part of Islam contrary to popular belief. There is nothing in Islam that says a woman must wear a burqa.

The women who wear the burqa have usually been coerced into doing so by reactionary elements of their own society.

Religious freedom is all well and good as long as it does not create problems like this. What if people were to argue a case for sacrificing animals? What if people were to argue a case for female circumcision? What if people were to start enforcing blasphemy laws all over the place again? Hell, while we're at it why not bring back footbinding for women and castration for the boys of poor families to sing in choirs?

There has to be a line draw. The law of France is quite clear, France is a secular state and no ostentatious religious gear is to be worn or shown in public. It's tough, but it's the same for everyone.

The exclusion to this rule is of course someone who is a religious "worker" like an imam, rabbi or priest. I'm fine by that.

It's a cultural tradition within Islam itself.

ComradeMan

2nd February 2010, 00:11

It's a cultural tradition within Islam itself.

Well I asked my Muslim friends about this and they told me it isn't, they said it's a purely traditional thing from certain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact they told me that women don't even have to wear the veil according to Islam. This seems to be supported by the literature on the subject.

Saying that something is a cultural tradition within something else makes it sticky. What about female circumcision then?

Qwerty Dvorak

9th February 2010, 20:18

Saying that something is a cultural tradition within something else makes it sticky. What about female circumcision then?
It causes immense harm to the woman and therefore is nothing at all like wearing a burka?

ComradeMan

9th February 2010, 20:37

It causes immense harm to the woman and therefore is nothing at all like wearing a burka?

The women who are coerced into wearing a burka face immense physical harm if they refuse, the net result is potentially the same.

ComradeOm

18th February 2010, 18:13

France is becoming well known for its policies against religious symbols in areas such as schoolsThis made me smile. The French state has been "well known" for its hostile attitudes to religion almost since the Revolution (on and off). This current controversy is pretty tame to the fierce anti-Church programmes of the Combes ministry just over a century ago

And that is the all-important context of this matter. One of the characteristics that the French Republic defines itself by is secularism - a strict separation between religion and the state. This current issue is less a matter of women's rights or Islamophobia than a discussion as to the values that underpin the French state. Clearly a number of people have come to the conclusion (one I agree with) that the wearing of the burqa is incompatible with these values

The obvious reason as to why, for example, there are no laws forbidding the wearing of bras in France is that bras are not a religious symbol

(A)(_|

18th February 2010, 18:57

I was applying for a visa the other day in the Canadian embassy, and I met this woman who needed some help with her paper work who was wearing a burqa. I kept wondering how on earth this woman was going to be checked in an airport. She has basically produced a "religiously" sound reason to have herself a concealed identity within society. I do not agree with the ban, however if a woman, or a guy for that matter decides to cover up his face, he should not be permitted certain privileges that others in society are granted, such as plane travel or anything else that constitutes the need for the existence of an identity.

The values of the French people shouldn't justify that others be prevented their rights to the wearing of whichever garments they pleased. I should be able to walk around in the street naked for that matter, however I should know that if I were to be ridiculed from society, it would not be my fault but simply the burden of living in a regressive and intolerant society, such as with the cases of rape, nobody should be held accountable to his social sufferings because he is, in essence, exercising conducts in the sphere of his rights.

Girl A

18th February 2010, 19:01

As much as I oppose the patriarchal nature of religion, it seems ridiculous to force women not to wear something. It's the opposite of liberation. Women who are being forced to wear this clothing (and some woman choose to of their own accord) will be unable to leave their homes if we decide to make things illegal. This just smacks of West Knows Best paternalism and chauvinism, and neither of these things are good.

EDIT: They are discussing banning headscarves in general? This seems very much about anti-Islam sentiment. Some sects of Christianity and Judaism also have female adherents who cover their hair. I'd oppose it if it was an out and out ban for any religion, but will this extend to them or is this just about Muslim women?

ComradeMan

18th February 2010, 20:18