…but enough about tattoos.
So you see it as French women trapped in an abusive relationship with someone who will hits them if they don’t obey. Okay. That happens.
This solution then is to punish the victim.
It’s not the abuser in that scenario that gets picked up by the police. What you’re claiming is that it’s a good solution to the problem of domestic violence to arrest the person being beaten while doing absolutely nothing to the one who is hitting them.
Then those who feel they are forced to wear one can take it off and leave. There is no law against divorce in France. How is it different than any other situation involving an abusive spouse?
And if their husband is already willing to beat his wife if she doesn’t dress exactly how he want, why is he suddenly going to change his mind if it mean her getting arrested? Or is the more likely that he’s now going to forbid her to leave the house period? This “solution” to ending isolation seems designed to only enforce a stricter form of isolation on people.
I also have a hard time accepting that it’s perfectly okay to punish 99% of a group who voluntarily choose to dress in one fashion because 1% of them feel they were forced to wear it. Why wouldn’t the better way be to give that 1% options that include not wearing one?
Yes, it’s bad if any are forced into wearing it. Absolutely nobody here disagrees with that. What you don’t seem to get is that punishing the victim and then doing nothing to prevent them from receving continued abuse seems like an incredibly bad way to “help” them.
Furthermore you are punishing a group of French women who are wearing one entirely voluntarily. How many innocent people is it okay to arrest to insure you helped one person? At what point do the rights of those innocents you’ve been arresting outway the benefit to that one person?
Okay, but what if they don’t want to talk to you? There is no obligation for them to talk to everyone the meet. You don’t even need a veil to close yourself off in a public space.
Simple question: Would you support a ban of MP3 players on buses and trains? People wear those to keep from interacting with others. It’s intended as a clear single that you should not come up and talk to them. You’d be okay with banning those as well because they close people off from society, yes?
[QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Aw, gee, I hope not. I am a history teacher. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same as Hitler and Poland. But the “Jewish question” wasn’t new. Look at Prussia, Mecklenburg, Spain, or France and la question juive. Jews didn’t assimilate. Jews subtracted from the dominant culture, or so people feared. Judaism was incompatible with a secular government. ja ja ja We’ve been hearing this since the 1700s.
A North African Jew isn’t uncomfortable in France solely because of Muslim attitude. You’re fooling yourself if you think so.
Some of the Islamophobic commentary does sound eerily similar to anti-Jewish sentiment. There’s no “unfamiliar with history” in that. Dare I say it’s ignorant to *not *recognize it.
That law was simply redundant by repeating (more specifically) what is stated in the First Amendment. It hasn’t reduced the rights of anybody.
You know what’s antisocial is posting on an internet message board. Time to shut 'er down fellas.
I’d say it’s really the same thing. The only twist is, there is a different “Other” to be feared and hated, now that it is “unacceptable” to keep the so called “Jewish question” going. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of The Other. “We” have simply chosen a different target, a different Other, haven’t “we”.
Sure it has. It’s reduced the rights of anyone who wants to draft a contract under Sharia and have it enforced.
There are a handful of cases every year where young girls are sent to relatives in the country of origin to undergo Female circumcision. The young girls are very valuable in trade as they carry a French passport and money is made in arranged marriages whether the young girl likes it or not.
There are already laws against the above, but it’s not easy to enforce when the young women are either unaware or are guarded by their own family.
The French revolution was not only against the King but also against the oppression of the Catholic church. There was a principle of secularism which ensured that there was a freedom of idea and expression. The revolution also ensured the equality of women. Seen in this context, I can understand how a French person might consider the burqa as a symbol of oppression which contradicts the revolutionary principles.
But you may be right. It could be that the French are just using the Principles of the Republic as an excuse to forward their own xenophobic and anti-Muslim agenda.
I’m not French, so can’t really speak for them. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was trying to see it from a French perspective.
That
//thumbs up
Yeah, you chose a different target. I mean we. I mean…they did! I mean! Dang it! Target changed. Operation Combat Islam is a go go. 
I swear, that chute has been nothing but trouble ever since the Board of Trustees had it installed.
Frenchfolk may indeed see secularism as a guiding principle for their society, and that’s fine. But it is misrepresentation to present secularism as equivalent to or necessarily linked to “freedom of idea and expression.” They are distinct ideals. In this case the secularist ideal is in opposition to freedom of expression.
You know I can’t help but feel it can’t only be xenophobia and anti-Islam. Why is it that Americans seem to think there is only one side or another. Reminds me of Bush’s “Either you’re with us or against us”. No middle ground, but it does explain a government of only two parties, both of which are so similarly corrupt that there is no real difference. France has at least five major parties in parliament and a few others.
I can’t imagine a government with so many parties would pass an anti-burqa law based purely on xenophobia and anti-Islam. You have to ask, “how did they come to that conclusion”?
As I said, some are very likely anti-Islam, some are probably even xenophobes, but surely there are some feminists who find the burqa offensive. Not to mention the reaction to the terrorist fundamental extremist activities such as terrorism.
I really don’t think there is a black and white on this issue. It is entirely gray.
Like I said, I’m not French so I can’t represent. Just cursed with an open mind.
Well remember, the French under Robespierre actively burnt churches while during the Paris Commune, the Archbishop of Paris was martyred.
[quote=“CitizenPained, post:123, topic:577994”]
Fine, but it’s just ridiculous to not question the wisdom of islamic migration to Europe because groups have previously been discriminated against. These are traditional societies and they are quite right to question whether it is in their best interests. Also, as I highlighted above, jews didn’t hold values so at odds with what are now liberal democracies. Look at attitude surveys: and the rising anti-semitic & homophobicviolence.
I agreed with everything you said up to this.
Yes, I’m sure that plenty support the ban for reasons other than intolerance. But those reasons are not necessarily any better. The onus is on them to present their reasoning and make the argument.
It’s possible for lots of people, intelligent people, to take a position that’s pretty indefensible (e.g. opposing gay marriage)
I agree. It’s not really an issue of anti-Islam as mush as anti-extremism.
The burqa certainly represents extremism.
I had drinks with a French friend of mine this evening. He has never been anti-Islam. But he was supportive of the ban. He did say that it was the extremism that the burqa represents that he was against. I know him well enough to know he isn’t anti-Islam, nor is he xenophobic, so his support of the ban is obviously not that. He was against extremism. Anyway that’s what he told me.
Islamophobia and bigotry isn’t restricted to political affiliation. Jewish history would be a great example. (I’m not trying to Jew-rail every thread here - it just seems to be the obvious answer.)
If you want to move away from religion, just look at people with disabilities. Deaf have been discriminated against for the last…forever. There are groups who actively want to see sign languages (natural languages of the deaf) die out.
Anti-extremism is another word for fundamentalist Islam. It becomes anti-Islam when you forbid practices that have no negative effect on you.
Hmm. Extremist Jews aren’t extremist Jews. They’re Orthodox Jews. Should we ban women from dressing a certain way or make Orthodox men shake the hands of women who aren’t their relatives or spouses? Should we ban Kashrut supervision in factories? Prohibit synagogues from being within 10 blocks for Ground Zero?
Do we prohibit Focus on the Family from publishing their newsletters? Should we force Christians into pre-marital sex? Put hamburgers on the plate of every Hindu in France?
Are you saying that the values of Muslims are at odd with liberal democracies?
What makes one democracy more liberal than another?
Are you talking about ‘liberal’ domestic policy, such as welfare, same-sex marriage, abortion, public education…?
Explain. What values of Muslims are at odd with* liberal democracies*?