Not in the slightest. This is not an abstract question, its a fundamental issue, that affects people the world over. A country where you risk your life everyday because of the religion your follow to is LESS FREE than one where you are free to worship (and show you religious affiliation) without fear violence, whether that violence is from the state directly or from an enraged mob of Christians/Muslims/Atheists.
No, but it does make it immoral.
That’s when the state needs to step in, as it did with abolition and the Civil Rights movement. In this situation, the individuals in question already have the power to make these decisions. That they do not make the decision you want them to make does not give you the right to make it for them.
And not every spouse who returns to an abusive husband will continue to be abused. Some will, though. And speaking of conflating possible future harm with actual harm, is that not precisely what you’re doing in your example of the smoking ban? You support that ban because some people might get cancer - that’s a possible future harm, not an actual harm. How is that different from preventing the possible future harm of a woman returning to an abusive husband?
And yet, it is still immoral. No matter how many times you choose the lesser of two evils, you will ever arrive at a good outcome.
Lastly, reintroducing a point I brought up earlier in this thread, how do you think this law should be prosecuted? A woman goes out in public in a burqa. The police apprehend her. What is their course of action? A fine? Odds are, the woman in this situation does not have access to her own funds. Jail? Strip her down in the street and send her on her way? How exactly do you think we should punish women for daring to be less liberated than their Western sisters?
Hard and fasts facts don’t crop up often in Great Debates, but when something by definition restricts the action that you can take, it necessarily impinges on your state of liberty. Repeating your opinion that it does not, fails to undermine the logic in the statement. It just means you haven’t understood the definition, or in this case conflated liberty with also being generally nice to other people, so that no one ends up dead at the hands of an enraged mob. Your example actually includes the limitation of personal liberty (burning witches) for the protection of others (the witch). Unencumbered libertarianism is not the panacea you hold it to be.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said it was less immoral. Not having the courage to choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t make you a better person, or have any application in the real world. Either you assume this position from naïve idealism or moral cowardice.
Some of the individuals have the power to make these decisions. Some do not. Some women return to abusive partners, and are re-abused. The state should act in these cases. Inaction is worse than being a hypocrite and taking action; it makes you a hypocrite and someone who did nothing about it.
Smoking always incurs actual harm, virtually instantaneously. The extent of that harm is unequal and sometimes difficult to quantify, but it always there in some form. Some people deny this harm occurs; some think people should be free to smoke in publically enclosed spaces. I weight the balance of harm and individual liberty differently.
Not good; less bad. Criticising someone for choosing the less damaging of two outcomes doesn’t amount to a valid criticism outside of absolutist idealism.
I obviously don’t wish to replace the harm done by wearing a burqua, by a greater punishment on those being made to wear it, which would be self-defeating. Besides this consideration, it is perhaps more of a practical issue than a moral one. I might suggest initially asking the wearer to replace the garment with an alternative such as a hijab, or otherwise, and if they so wish. There should also be some consideration as to offering them privacy whilst doing so, and obviously not enforced in the middle of a street. If they do not wish to, I would have the police inform them that will be repeatedly stopped by subsequent officers and asked to meet this request. Additionally a representative might perhaps talk with the husband, if it is suggested that they are directing the woman to wear the burqua. They could then explain the concept of the law, and that it is no longer permissible for his wife to be fully enshrouded in public, and that alternative Islamic dress which meets a legalistic interpretation of scripture is fully permissible, and is in fact prescribed,
If he refuses her exit of the home on these grounds, then there already laws available to deal with his actions. Cases of attempted forced repatriation would be be a grounds for asylum.
I wouldn’t necessarily introduce a fine at first, and hope that the above measures and legal precedent might encourage social change. If this was not effective, and given the example of the smoking ban in the UK which is largely universally respected despite the unlikelihood of facing a fine, then introducing this measure might be considered with a number of relevant safeguards.
ETA:
…and given the example of the smoking ban in the UK, which is largely universally respected despite the unlikelihood of facing a fine, hopefully it will be; then introducing this measure might be considered with a number of relevant safeguards.
I’d say the cowardly position is the one that demands the government abuse people to enforce their own moral code. At the very least, it says something about the strength of your convictions that you don’t think your ideas can carry themselves on their own strength, and need strong-arm tactics to propagate.
And you’re wrong about it being less moral. An abusive spouse is far easier to escape than an abusive state.
Neither can one excuse their own villainy by pointing to a worse villain.
Also, keep in mind that I am, in fact, criticizing you for taking the more damaging of two options, as the law you are so enamored with will almost certainly make things worse for the women in question. If you want to talk about naive idealism, “Let’s make a law about it! That’ll fix anything!” certainly takes the cake.
On the one hand, I’m tempted to ask what the moral difference is between a law that doesn’t actually do anything, and not having a law at all. On the other hand, I’m interested in learning what new and innovative ways the police will find to abuse what amounts to a legal license to publicly harass an unpopular minority.
Another interesting legal puzzle. How do you tell the difference between a woman voluntarily returning to her home country, and one being forced to return by her husband? Best to simply not allow Muslim women to leave the country. No sense in taking any chances that one of them might be being abused in some way, after all.
Preventing the more harmful outcome is not cowardly, it is pragmatic. If it is an ‘abuse’ of government to prevent harm and enforce a moral code, then we are clearly never going to come to a moral understanding of one another, or what sensible governance entails. Cowardly is refusing to stop the lesser of two evils when you have the opportunity.
If by abusive spouse you mean ‘someone who does serious physical and/or psychological harm’, and by abusive state you mean ‘a state which prevents harm by a marginal infraction as to what you would otherwise be culturally, not religiously, enforced to wear’, then I think I’ll go along with the abusive government.
It’s not a mutually exclusive case of villainy. The comparison isn’t credible.
You have misunderstood my sentiment if you believe I am enamoured with the legal option. It should however, be considered on its own merit rather than rejected outright for fear of being labelled a hypocrite. Equally I do not, nor have in any of my above posts stated that I believe it will fix everything. That is a misrepresentation of my position. But I believe that if a law can be enacted that will be of benefit in promoting this social change and in preventing harm, it should be considered.
The presence of the law itself can be a force for social change, even if the conditions of enforcement are not harsh or particularly practical to police and implement. This has been demonstrated with the smoking ban in the UK. If police officers abuse the law for the purposes of harassment, then they should be appropriately disciplined.
It would be possible to interview the woman independently, and where she knows that she has the legal backing to remain, she will be more likely to voice her situation honestly. Preventing Muslim women from returning to their country of origin is again, not something I am advocating. I can’t really foresee this situation arising frequently, since if we assume a case where the husband is enforcing the burqua in an abusive context, returning his wife to her country of origin would remove her from his direct control and potential abuse.
The logic simply does not follow. Liberty has always include protection of minority’s rights. Its not my “opinion” that the modern US is “more free” as it, on the whole, protects its minorities from wholesale slaughter by their neighbors, where as the Sudan is “less free” because it does not.
That is a fact, the Sudan IS less free, not more, by any sane definition of the term “free”, for that very reason (among others, including sentencing a woman for 40 lashes for wearing trousers, but apparently that would be a-ok on your part, as she had the temerity to go against “cultural bias” and deserves everything she gets). If you are seriously arguing otherwise then I suggest you go move there, rather than have you delicate sensibilties offended by a country like the US where women get to choose if they want to wear a burqa or trousers.
So you are prepared to tolerate a certain level of infraction of your own person free will in order to protect the rights of others. This is what the law being proposed here entails.
Yes, clearly I’m fully in support of lashing women who dare challenge sartorial orthodoxy, even if she had the temerity to flout a possible ban on the burqua in public space. In the same manner I wish to burn all Catholics. At this rate I should be buying stocks in straw and straw derivatives.
If you had read my previous comments you might be made aware that I am suggesting that a marginal and scripturally supported case for limiting this dress, should be considered on the basis that it can prevent more harm than it causes. I may be a relativist, but not all cultural practices should be given equal grounds in law, where they cause harm.
I’m glad I could persuade you to come around to my point of view. For our next debate, may I suggest “duck season” versus “rabbit season?”
And claiming that my only objection to this law is fear of being labeled a hypocrite is a misrepresentation of mine. My primary objection to this law is that it will have the opposite result of that intended - that it will increase the suffering and oppression of these women, not lessen it. The fact that it’s a morally unconscionable violation of their most basic civil liberties is icing on the cake, as it were.
Just to be clear, these are the same women who are too weak willed and simple minded to be trusted with dressing themselves, correct? I’m not sure why you’d trust the answers they’d give you in this situation, when you are so set against letting them speak for themselves when it comes to the burqa.
I can’t see why not. Surely, the damage caused by wearing a burqa in France pales in comparison to the damage caused by being a woman in Saudi Arabia. If the former is reason enough to abrogate these women’s civil rights, surely the latter demands equal (if not stronger) measures?
In this particular scenario, I see it as being more an issue with fathers, than with husbands.
You say ‘morally unconscionable violation of their most basic civil liberties’, I say potato.
I think the one thing we can possibly agree on by this point, is that we’re not going to settle the argument based on an abstract discussion of the possible outcomes of this law. You’re probably correct that it won’t make the necessary legal hurdles to be enacted, but if it does I’ll be interested to see the effects, and fully prepared to renege on my position if it is shown to do greater harm than good.
There is no “strawman” about it, the argument is exactly the same as yours. You say “to prevent harm to a certain number of individuals, another group would be limited in law to the extent of their actions within public space”, where the “harm” in question is the hideous fate of being forced to see a woman in a piece of clothing you find offensive. Exactly the SAME WORDS could be used to justify punishing Lubna Hussein for wearing trousers.
You believe women should be punished for the clothes they choose to wear in public, so does the regime in Sudan. In countries that respect the rights of their citizens however women should have the right to wear trousers or a burqa in public without risk of arrest and prosecution.
[RIGHT]Wikipedia[/RIGHT]
I have never stated that the harm in question was my being forced to see woman wearing an item of clothing I find offensive.
Exactly the same words could not be used to justify the punishment meted out on Lubna Hussein. Wearing trousers is not, in any meaningful sense, harmful to the wearer and does provide a moral pressure on others to do so. Limiting someone to the extent of their actions is not the same as physically punishing them for transgressing those limits. Regardless of how you decide to construe this phrase, I have also made it very clear that a punishment greater that the harm done by the garment itself would be self-defeating. I am also not a proponent of corporal punishment, or have suggested anything comparable here.
I have not advocated arrest and criminal charges. The matter could be appropriately dealt with in civil cases.
Sudan and the USA both have laws that require certain standards of dress to be worn in public, with significantly harsher penalties than I would be willing to support, or am suggesting. Links are available to specific state statutes on indecent exposure are available here. Doubtless, you would support the case that the USA ‘respect[s] the rights of [its] citizens’.
Yes it could. The regime in Sudan considers it “harmful” to wear trousers, you consider it "harmful’ to wear a burqa. Lets make it simpler, suppose for the sake of argument Mrs Hussein was actually wearing a Trouser-suit/Burqa “onesie”. She gets arrested and prosecuted in Sudan for wearing this neat combo in public, then flies to France and is again arrested and prosecuted for wearing that same article of clothing in public. How is the former a violation of her rights, but the latter not ?
A pair of trousers and a burqa are exert EXACTLY the same about of “moral pressure”, that is none at all, they are sewn together sections of fabric with no inherent morals. Likewise both can be “harmful” in different circumstances, every tried wearing thick wool pants in 110+ degree heat ?
That’s news to me. Seeing as the point of this thread is proposed CRIMINAL STATUTE in France.
So you’d have the right to sue anyone you see wearing clothes you disagree with (burqa, kippah, beanee, green-bay packers jersey), bankrupting them and their families, and seize their assets ? Sounds pretty fair to me :rolleyes:
The Sudan government considers it morally harmful, on a scripturally suspect basis. I consider it practically and demonstrably harmful in reality. I have repeatedly stated, and made it clear that I am aware that this law would curtail the rights of an individual, in the same manner that smoking in public has been affected.
One garment is a scripturally (and mistakenly) conceived requirement as part of a moral doctrine to prevent the corruption of men, supposedly derived from the direct word of God. The other is a pair of trousers. If you wish to contend that the former has no inherent moral association, then I’d favour the weight of evidence against you.
No I’ve never tried wearing thick wool trousers in >43[sup]o[/sup]C heat. Yes, the incurred dehydration is arguably ‘harmful’. It is not a moral incitement to others to dress similarly, or comparable to the harm and social alienation of the burqua. No sensible legal authority would enforce its necessity, or allow a husband or relative to do so.
I apologise for my ignorance of the French legal approach being considered, and legal systems in general. I would suggest following the legal precedence of the aforementioned smoking ban, as a relatively trivial, non-arrestable offence. No I do not wish to advocate bankrupting anyone or seizing their assets, and as previously stated, do not wish to incur more harm than caused.
Thankfully I had the foresight to buy into straw derivatives, so I’m off to enjoy my earnings, and possibly update my woollen suit.