The first one should be. If an adult wants it done to himself, fine. Doing it to babies is abhorrent.
I agree, the hijab works as something no more sinister than a fashion accessory. Even if you’re not a Muslim, it’s a cute look.
As a general rule, you don’t get to declare what other people’s expressions mean to them.
Beyond that, there’s nothing *inherently *wrong with someone not wishing their face to be seen.
It surely couldn’t be a public safety issue everywhere, at all times–and as noted, the rules didn’t apply only to face-covering forms. It was clearly about the (presumed) content and basis of the expression–in short, prejudice.
A rule which genuinely governed only the forms of expression, for everyone equally, and only in circumstances where those could reasonably be understood to matter–covering the face with anything, inside a bank, would be a fine example–would be a different matter.
When you say this makes no sense to you, do you perhaps mean the the less idiotic sounding “I disagree”?
[QUOTE=Trinopus;18057147
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.
.[/QUOTE]
Well awesome. Never let your brain get in the way of your principles.
I have to say this very often on the Dope, but no country on earth gives its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any situation, or to freely express themselves in any way. Everywhere has to have some restrictions on both, even the US.
So essentially we’re all engaging in a double-standard, if we’re going to frame things that way.
But on the burka ban issue itself, I have no issue with various facilities requiring you to show your face. But just declaring you cannot wear a burka even if you’re just sat in the park, or whatever, crosses the line in my mind, and has an aspect of victimizing a religion.
If a certain religion wants to enforce an extremely sexist code of action and specifically isolating half their population from interacting with society, why should that be tolerated? Because it’s a religion rather than some other type of ideology?
A religion that allowed slavery would, I assume, be intolerable to everyone here. But a religion that doesn’t allow women to speak to men outside of their immediate family, requires them to completely hide themselves from recognition, is protected “freedom”. Doesn’t make sense to me.
I should clarify: deliberately victimizing a particular group, a minority, is something society shouldn’t tolerate.
I’m not saying there’s anything special about religion, and indeed I’d personally be very happy if tomorrow the whole world became atheist.
If a woman did not wish to wear a burka but felt forced to, then that’s different. But I assume we’re talking about people voluntarily wearing it here, otherwise this issue would be trivial.
Well the world ain’t becoming atheist tomorrow. So in the mean time we have to deal with it.
So what’s your point?
I don’t like burkas. A lot. What’s your point?
I find it more problematic when white men not of our religion tell us what we should do and think or do or decide what we want in the majority based not on any knoweldge of us or our religion, but on their prejudices and bigotry against our religion and us.
in my family no girl who wears the hidjab was forced, in fact many of us in the older generation do not like the idea, but it was a culture identification choice much in reaction against people like you, preaching when we find you ignorant and condescending to us.
Banning Muslim headwear and putting people in jail for tweeting support for the terrorists are attacks on free speech, and should be condemned.
It is upsetting to see that the French are not even aware of what free speech really means. They want to pick and choose. You have to take the bad with the good.
Now defend the burka. If you so please. For me the hijab is akin to requiring a long skirt. Little silly, maybe, but whatever. I don’t support banning that.
I guess looking back I might have seemed to equate the full veil/burka and the hijab. That wasn’t my intent. At that point I was just thinking about the forcing of either, or anything in between being bad.I hope my subsequent posts show my real intent.
I think you’re missing the point that you don’t just get to set some arbitrary standard of “Look, that’s covering so much, it’s ridiculous!”. If you want to set a law, there should be some principled reason.
The closest you have come to giving such a reason is implying that all women who wear such garments are doing so against their will. Since we’ve established that’s not the case, you currently have no argument whatsoever.
I agree with you about the current French laws, but once again it’s this American idea that freedom of speech means allowing all speech. It doesn’t mean that; in America, or anywhere else. There are lots of forms of speech that can be prosecuted in the US, some more so than other developed countries.
Pure hate speech should not be protected, IMO. If you want to share the opinion that white people are better than black people or whatever, fine. But holding up a sign with racial slurs on it, intending just to kick off violence, is no more sharing a meaningful opinion than running into a crowded room shouting “Fire! Fire!”
There is. It’s a manifestation of a cultural practice (the treatment of women) that France had politically decided it doesn’t like. We in the UK are beginning to take a dim view of female circumcision and forced marriages regardless of their status as cultural or religious practices among parts of the population and regardless of whether some women are happy undergoing the practice.
In terms of ‘free speech’ there’s a difference between speech intended to provoke violence against a minority and speech a minority has decided it’ll kill you for uttering so you better not say it if you know what’s bloody good for you.
You have the right to take offence, you do not have the right not to be offended. And you certainly don’t have the right to threaten violence on those who offend you. The Pope’s opinion not withstanding.
What is your point other than bigotry?
Well that’s where you’re wrong! Here on the internet I can indeed set arbitrary standards! But when it comes to burkas, I think we are far past any fuzzy line of “ooh, they’re covering too much”. It’s purpose is quite clearly to isolate a woman as much as possible. Is that actually a point of debate?