Western society has no cultural bias against covering one’s head so your objection and deliberate missing of the point that I am making has no merit. Nice try though.
Sure, and that is where this sort of discussion can actually get interesting. The question, perhaps, should be at what point observing traditional customs becomes harmful. For example, I am pretty sure that if we had a sudden influx of Spanish immigrants we would not be ok with them getting together and opening a bull-fighting arena. We have decided (well here in the USA at least) that this is unacceptably cruel.
If we are going to see things through the lens of “Culture X is more free than Culture Y” then perhaps we need to have as a goal that the more free culture changes the cultures that it encounters to be more like it rather than the other way around. At that point, when we take full ownership of the sentiment that we believe that we do things better, we can have a real discussion over how best to bring others into the fold. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for diversity I just think that it would be useful for us to decide how far it goes.
Regarding the nuns: I am very sure that the owners of this pool would not have allowed nuns in full habit to swim in the pool.
Any chance of you restating that in English?
Why does the objection have no merit? France now has a law preventing girls from wearing the headscarves to schools. This is a fact. It’s also a fact that there’s no basis for your attempt at dragging racism into this.
I think he’s saying that, because Western culture is free, people who immigrate into Western cultures have to change their customs in order to fit in, because, um, freedom. Free cultures shouldn’t have to accomodate less free cultures.
Yeah quite. I mean when has Western culture EVER had a had cultural bias against Judaism ? The very idea is ridculous :rolleyes:
The fact is cultural norms change, human rights are unaleinable and DO NOT (they are not always recognised, but the rights themselves do not change). Not too long ago publicly showing you adherence to Judaism WOULD have flown in the face of Western cultural bias. But FREE countries that respected the rights of Jews to worship would protect them from legislation the impinged on their rights, OPRESSIVE countries would allow that same legislation to pass. The “Cultural Bias” was the same in both contries (there were plenty of anti-semites in the US), but some allowed their citizen’s rights to be infringed some did not.
Maybe you’re right about the comparison and the result. I don’t think you are. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I look at it differently from a war and occupation though. That is too large of a comparison to draw. Besides, this is only done within France itself. Unless a woman-hating Muslim man is misogynist, or of the same mindset as Bin Laden, he would reluctantly agree that banning the burqa within their own territories is the sovereign right of the country of France.
I see it opposite from how you see it. This isn’t a forced action masquerading as liberation. This is France deciding that it doesnt want certain types of things in its own country.
I do not believe slavery would have ended by itself more easily had the government not banned it throughout the states. There were deep roots in about half the states and more shallow ones throughout the US even before it became a country. To stand up and say it is wrong sends much more of a powerful statement than if, eventually, white people decided they were going to grant blacks equality. Some might say the psychological impact would be minimal, but for blacks and abolitionists to take equal rights for themselves seems more empowering than if they had simply been given it.
Some women lucky enough to have such husbands already do that. And some do it for tradition, not realizing that it is a tradition of oppression towards them
Because spousal abuse does not cover burqas. I, and many French, believe it to be so, but it is of a more subtle malignancy that those who may oppose open abuse may not oppose this other sinister form
Perhaps they see it as not so black and white? If they go to a country that bans the burqa, they have plausible deniability.
“Sorry Mohammad, I’d love to wear one but you see it is banned.”
It gives them cover for something they dont want to do yet do not feel strong enough to openly oppose. Thats hardly silly or unprecedented
Then we’ll just have to differ. In this case, and this case specifically, I value equality more than freedom. I think that the ingrained mindset for the burqa is so strong in still too much of the Islamic world and its followers that an enforced equality to rid people of their complacency to this rule is much better in the long run than to wait it out and hope people change of their own accord
I mean that it is better to be against such forms of oppression than for it, and those who are pro-oppression come out losers in the end. Thus the French government and I are correct even though such a law is rife with complications.
Do you believe that in all cases? Burqas are not the only thing a civilized country has banned as far as religious practices go, and by stating your opposition to France’s law, maybe you tread too far into other, less gray issues. I won’t bring up other examples as a counter, yet, because I want to know if your belief is as ironclad as it seems. What if, as you put it, less practical matters come up? Then would it be alright to increase freedom by limiting it? Because as I’ve said, I believe its easier to change the French law than a thousand years of Islamic tradition
I don’t care about mainstreaming that religion. If that religion cannot be mainstreamed, then it deserves all the government restrictions it gets. If that radicalizes some members (and I say “some” because I believe most will make the change), then so be it. They can try to kill the French but I doubt France is going away anytime soon
We can do that, sure. But none is as effective as banning the burqa. Given how I feel about the supposed temporarily loss of freedom, I dont see increase education as an alternative, but rather as parallel to the burqa ban. All those things you suggest can be used at the same time WHILE women are not shackled by the unnecessary demands of their archaic traditions
Then either the unpopular minority will change because they’re forced to or they will be more openly abusing their wives, in which case it would be easier to single them out and throw them in jail, or whatever the punishment is for burqizing your wife
Besides, that is simply my belief. It may turn out that most Muslim men will refuse to follow the law, and thus the law would have a greater impact than I imagined. Its all speculation
I meant in the sense that I do not see these enlightened Muslims to have a significant effect. Maybe they will in the future, I don’t know. What I know is that in France at least, this law will overnight do more to change the status quo than what these freedom activists have done
Did you really not understand what I was saying or are you just baiting me?
Is it then your position that it is not condescending to “tolerate” other cultures and to not expect them to change to meet the norms of dominant or majority culture? Also, are you attempting in some backhanded way to imply that I am a racist?
That’s fine, except that in a couple of sentences you’ll be bringing in the U.S. Civil War as a comparison.
I disagree because that’s simply not realistic. People here like that kind of legalistic line-drawing, but most people don’t give a crap about things like sovereignty. They see that France is banning them from practicing their version of their religion, and they see that as a violation of their rights. That’s about all there is to it.
Which you were justifying based on the liberation of these women.
I think burqas are repressive, but I don’t think they are comparable to slavery - by definition you can’t willingly be a slave - and if you don’t mind I’d rather not get bogged down in the details of the comparison.
No, it’s not condescending, it’s respectful of other people’s rights. Insisting people change to meet the norms of a larger culture is generally intolerant.
What? No. You brought race into this and I ridiculed the comparison. End of story.
The comparison was with slavery and oppression, which is exactly what this burqa law is targeting (ok maybe not so much slavery). Such a direct comparison is less cumbersome than a dissertation of “freedom” and its effects across a wide swath of dissimilar territories
Well I care about it, which may be why I think they’ll care about it.
“France wants liberated women in its country and not allow such evils to fester under its protection” is somehow wrong/mistaken? I see nothing wrong with my justification or the reasons for the law
The degree of oppression is not comparable but the type is. Its oppression, plain and simple, and the degree of its severity only tells us how hard and how long it must be fought
Here is where I am going with this. As a citizen of the USA, when I travel to other cultures or live in them (and I have done both) the standard that I am held to is that I am expected to change my behavior to the best of my ability to meet the established norms of the culture that I am visiting. I am sure that this is with mixed results, but the point is that the effort is made.
I believe that a true mark of respect is to hold others to the same standard that you hold yourself (aren’t we taught that double standards are to be avoided?). Therefore, while I am all up in there with the individual freedom and would never consider for one second attempting to force someone to behave one way or another I do suggest that a complete unwillingness to conform to the predominant standards of the culture in which you live is inherently disrespectful. When in Rome and all that doncha know.
I was describing your attitude, not comparing the difficulties of banning a garment with the difficulties of invading a country. And yes, it’s the same attitude, because you’re displaying a belief that if you force people to adopt your version of freedom, they will appreciate it. You seem to believe you know what these people want, but I am not sure you do.
This proves exactly nothing. You are positing that these men are barbaric Islamic wifebeaters care, but care about the sovereignty of France, and I think that’s a trifle unrealistic.
Who made France the arbiter of what makes a woman liberated?
The sad truth is that in a free society, not everybody chooses what you might call the maximum level of freedom. You can see examples of this in all religious groups. Forcing them to adopt practices that you consider liberated does not grant them more freedom; it takes away their ability to make choices in their own lives.
A woman hater and a misogynist? Both at once? That does seem unlikely!
Well, now hang on a second. I dislike the burqa because it’s a symbol of oppression. But the burqa itself, absent any coercion or threat of violence from another person, isn’t oppressive. There’s nothing inherently oppressive about wearing a veil and heavy clothes, if the person is freely choosing to do so. The logic behind this law is that the women who are wearing burqas are doing so because they’re forced to do so by their husbands or fathers. If you’re contending that this is not the case, on what Earthly basis do you defend banning this item of clothing? If no one is forcing women to wear burqas, how is wearing a burqa oppressive?
“Well, Fatima, I guess that means you’re not going to France.”
Look, if we’re talking about a situation in which a man feels that he has the right to demand that a woman wear a full, head-to-toe covering, including a veil, he’s also going to feel he has the right to tell her which countries she can and cannot visit. Banning the burqa in France isn’t going to get more Muslim women going there, it’s going to get less, because in the countries where women are required to wear burqas, the women don’t have the right or the resources to pick up and move to another country on their own initiative. And if the patriarch in their lives feels that they must wear a burqa at all times, then they’re certainly not going to allow them to go to a country where they’re forbidden by law from wearing a burqa, are they? There are, of course, going to be some women who defy the laws and customs of their country and try to get out on their own, and there are going to be some women who are fortunate enough that the man in their life doesn’t agree with the burqa, and is okay with the woman moving to a country where she doesn’t have to wear one. But in both of these cases, they don’t need a ban on the burqa to want to move to France, they just need the right to decide not to wear one. Which they already have.
Except you’re not valuing equality. You’re favoring a law that specifically treats Muslim women as less able and capable then European women of making up their own minds.
The vast, vast majority of the Muslim world does not wear burqas. It’s found pretty much exclusively in a few countries in the Arabian peninsula.
Being against the burqa ban does not mean one is pro-burqa. It means that one is against stupid, short sighted laws that do more harm than good.
Dude, look at what you just wrote. It’s not a matter of it being “alright,” it’s a matter of it being impossible. You can’t increase something by limiting it.
That’s funny. Up 'til now, you’ve been explicitly arguing just the opposite.
There is no punishment for “burqizing” your wife, even under this proposed new law. The punishment is for wearing a burqa, not for being related to someone who wears a burqa. Which, incidentally, you never addressed from my last post: how do you defend arresting the women, the ostensible victim in this situation, for wearing a burqa?
Sure. And in every respect, it will be a change for the worse. Keep in mind that, in those countries that require the burqa, women are routinely murdered by their own families for behaving in ways they consider immodest. If you really think that these people are just going to say, “Well, if that’s what the law says, I guess we have to give it up,” then you are being astoundingly naive. No woman who is being forced to wear a burqa now is going to stop wearing a burqa because of this law. They are either going to deliberatly flout the law, or they are going to be removed from society entirely, either through housebound seclusion, or a return to their nation of origin.
No, I am genuinely unable to parse that sentence.
I agree. And the standard of behavior in the US is that people are free to practice their religion however they see fit, provided they are not harming other people. You seem to have a problem with this standard. Perhaps you would be better suited living somewhere else, where your notions of conformity are more widely accepted. Saudi Arabia may be a good fit for you.
You’re expected to follow the laws and use their money. I don’t think you’re expected to change the way you dress or observe your religion, if any.
I’m holding everybody to the same standard: I don’t want to be told how to dress, and I don’t want to tell other people how to dress. I don’t want to be told how to practice my religion, and I don’t want to tell other people how to practice their religions. The burqa is an outdated, controlling and sexist custom, but that doesn’t mean I am required to think nobody else should be able to wear it if they want to.
In other words, you’re talking from the position of a privileged and dominant culture and saying it’s only polite that other people act like you when they are around you. Color me unimpressed with that reasoning. It is not “disrespectful” to you if others don’t choose your way of life. If your culture is so liberated, frankly, it should be able to deal with some disrespect.
This is a complete non sequitur, if I travel to Thailand I wouldn’t dream of saying something rude about their royal family, as that is taboo (and illegal) there. That doesn’t mean that it is acceptable in free country for it to be illegal to criticize the rulers, and the fact that Thailand has such a law makes Thailand LESS FREE and MORE OPRESSIVE. Of course they have every right to have a oppressive law of that kind on their books, but that makes it no more just or correct.
Additionally as numerous people have pointed out the “Burquini” woman WAS NOT AN IMMIGRANT!
Yeah, see this still seems like you are just baiting and being rude and agressive. Anyway, all good stuff to know.
Yeah, life’s tough. Wear a helmet. You going to answer the question, or what?
You may have noticed that I am not actually talking about immigrants as such. I am very deliberately framing things it terms of majority vs. minority cultural groups. When different cultures encounter each other, both of them will change. This is inevitable. The interesting question to me becomes how much change is acceptable in the name of acceptance and cultural sensitivity. Like at some point do we begin to erode or undermine the very things in our culture that make it “more free” (as we seem to be suggesting). I am not claiming to know where the line for this is.
Would I be ok with a sub-culture practicing foot-binding? Genital mutilation? Well, no. Not really. So, I don’t know, to my admittedly western eye the burka is a visible symbol of systemic oppression and somewhere on that spectrum. I am really uncomfortable with it. None of which means that I want to run out and codify that with law. Because that would be worse in the long run than with having visibly oppressed people in our midst.
Sumptuary laws are as old as civilization. All states have them, including the US. Many are based on notions of ‘decency’, and of course the burka is a prime example of this, it being considered by some Muslims indecent for a strange male to view a woman’s face.
By banning the burka France is saying to Muslims that they may not impose their own sumptuary laws in France by insisting that Muslim women wear a burka. Only the state should have the power to frame such laws.