PBS newhour aired an interesting interview exploring the limits of free speech and whether France applies a double standard when it comes to speech by Muslims. One of the guests, a French (non-Muslim) journalist, mentioned that French Muslims may potentially see such a double standard. On the one hand, France vigorously protects the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish materials that are offensive to Muslims; on the other hand, it banned the wearing of face-covering headgear, which, although not strictly targeted at a specific religion, was seen by many as directed towards Muslims, particularly Muslim women wearing Niqabs.
I understand (and support) France’s interest in maintaining free speech, offensive or not. And while I have no opinions on the wearing of niqabs, the ban on face-covering headgear does seem like a bit of a double standard. So, is the French outcry for free speech following the Charlie Hebdo shooting hypocritical in light of its prohibition of the freedom of expression by its Muslim residents?
Niqabs and burqas are not “speech”. Whether the ban was appropriate or not is a different question, but it’s really completely unrelated to the support of a free press, which is what Charlie Hebdo was about. A free press is a foundational democratic principle, what you wear on your head is not.
Sure they are. Not literally speech, but a chosen personal expression, which is what “free speech” means in the broad sense. All artwork is speech, for example.
I disagree. Speech includes, as others noted, varied forms of expression. In the US, at least, clothing, including the wearing of armbands, is protected speech under the First Amendment. A person’s choice of clothing, if based on religious beliefs, should rightly be considered a form of speech.
I’m not sure if this was directed at me. I don’t think religion should get extra compensation for freedom of expression purposes. But I believe religion should not get less compensation for freedom of expression either (even if I’m an atheist).
The idea that women should be so modest as to not let their hair/face show, generally doesn’t come from a committee of women deciding proper boundaries. So it gets a little problematic when girls are ordered to “choose” the veil or hijab and then we must respect their “choice”. Yes i am well aware there’s some some strong Muslim women who defend the practice, I just don’t buy that they are the majority.
The “freedom of religion” argument is the one that may be operative here, granted. Otherwise the only “speech” message in the burqa and such is “I do not wish my face to be seen”, a right which would be happily asserted by any bank robber, and which the French considered a public safety issue. Whether they had ulterior motives in doing this, I cannot say. Personally I’m torn on this; I think it’s an overreaction – though in no way comparable to freedom of the press, but OTOH I consider the “freedom of religion” argument to be a crock that is the source of many problems, like its use to protect parents who refuse to get their child immunized or given a blood transfusion, or someone’s asserted “religious” right to carry a ceremonial (but very real and lethal) dagger in public and where weapons are prohibited.
That’s ridiculous. The problem with that argument is what I referred to elsewhere as “invidious equality”, the illusion of equality rather than the reality. That problem being that I may have a lot of money and you may not, and the consequence being that my free speech rights plus a few tens of millions of dollars will entitle me to buy the politician of my choice to enact the legislation of my choice and make it the law of the land, whereas your free speech rights will entitle you to complain about it to random strangers on the street corner.
There are all kinds of religious practices that children are forced to engage in, and yet no one feels the need to swoop down and save them. No one asks the baby boy if he wants his foreskin snipped, or whether he wants to wear one of these these or sport these. Should these practices be banned too?
Lots of women all over the world happily choose to wear hijabs. There’s nothing inherently oppressive about them, and they can be quite lovely.
Oh. :o The trouble is, many actually believe literally what you said – for instance, five of the current justices of the Supreme Court. John Roberts even helpfully pointed out how silly it was to believe that money could possibly have a corrupting influence in politics. :rolleyes:
Well you can’t really ask the baby boy, can you? And it’s a religious practice only in some religions; more broadly, it’s more of a pseudo-medical ritual. There’s lots of opposition to it now.
No. You’re trying to make a silly generalization in the form of “things that certain religions/cultures put on their heads that most of us don’t”. I couldn’t care less what someone puts on their head, and neither should anyone else, unless it intrudes on issues affecting the public interest. If someone insists on wearing a burqa that obscures their face during immigration screening or when giving court testimony (yes, they’ve tried to assert their “religious rights” in doing just that!) then it should be disallowed. If someone wants to wear a turban, fine. But if he wants to wear a turban to the exclusion of the prescribed police officer’s uniform, or claims that it exempts him from motorcycle helmet laws, then too bad.
If I understand correctly the hijab is just a head scarf. The other items discussed were essentially face masks or entire body masks. There’s no reason other than bigotry to prohibit hijabs.
Which surely would be **more **reason not to do it ? It’s not like baby can’t get circumcised later in life, should that strike his fancy.
And yet we attacked both. The burqa ban is general (i.e. you just can’t wear them in public, at all, ever), while the hijab ban is ostensibly more limited : you can’t wear it in school whether you’re a teacher or a student, and you can’t wear it if you’re a civil servant working in a public building. In public debates we said it was a laity thing that applies to “all visible signs of religion”… but kippahs and crucifixes naturally aren’t visible signs of religion. No they aren’t lalalala can’t hear you.
Oh, and if you’re fired from your private job for wearing a hijab, well, sucks to be you - despite France having a very robust job protection system, that would be one exception. You’re still free to sue of course, but you’ll likely be told to get fucked.
FWIW, I do. I believe that money – okay, paid advertising – falls under freedom of speech.
I hate the influence of paid advertising on our political system! I despise it like poison. But…I just can’t accept limiting it. I fear a government that will tell a publisher, “No, you may not print this man’s advertisement,” even though both parties freely have agreed to the commercial exchange.
It’s our own damn fault that we pay any attention to political ads. But banning them isn’t the right answer.
