French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[Rabid]

[troll bait : ON]

Thanks for that info, it's convinced me not to go to France. 'The French People' can go shove it.

Well, technically speaking, it is your absolute right, a right no one can deny you, and that anyone will happily allow you to take.

Heh. I called it way early on, you guys don't give a crap about the ethics or rights.

Well, I know that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge this, but, ethic being another word for moral, and moral being relative depending on the time's and space's coordinate when/where it is measured ; I guess we can safely say that you are absolutely right when you say that “[we] don't give a crap about the ethics or rights” if by that you are referring to your own set of moral rules.
I wrote an essay on that. If you want, I can traduce it to you. It could maybe stem some interesting debates...

Yeah, like the French did in Africa. And they sure kept to New Zealand's way of life when they blew up the Rainbow Warrior...

Eh ! Don't forget the time when we went all fallout-happy on you with all the nuclear tests. Or when we christianized Oceania. Or how we treated our Vietnameses pals when we had our boots on there heads. D'aaaw... What fun we had in these days... You can't do this anymore now without hearing such bad words as “embargo” or “casus belli”. *nodding head* What a pity...

[troll bait : OFF]


On a more serious note :
As a Sovereign Nation, we have the absolute right to rule how we wants things to go in our country. Because, despite all that can be said, we aren't violating the UN bill of Human Rights, or the UE texts on the matter. So, no one can deny us that right on legitimate ground based on International Laws.
If a country where to do so, and where going to take measures against us on that ground, then he would have to do at least the same things with virtually all the Arabic-Muslim countries (notice I said 'virtually', for good measure), including Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates... Such an attitude is of an 'holier-than-thou' kind, and is generally laughed at very hard in the parts of the world were people can do the difference between 'legitimate religious freedom' and 'degrading and proselyte religious political symbols disturbing public order'.

On the subject of cultural war :
Yes, this is a war, like it or not. And we have to fight to defend our values and what we find right and worth preserving into our culture, while integrating the Republican-compatible bits of the immigrants' culture into our own. Because, you know, the people we attack with such laws, are not the good citizens, that join the Republican Model and want to integrate. The ones that are targeted by such laws are the disrupting elements that are spreading Anti-Republican thoughts, behavior and propaganda into the most vulnerable area of our society to such an attack : the (economically) poor and (culturally and spiritually) distressed peoples of our banlieues.
This is why we are attacking them on that field that, like it or not, is the one of the place we want for women into our society. Because, refuse it if you want, deny the facts if you want, stay hidden into your illusions if you want, the real debate, for us French, is there. Not about religious faith, but about women rights and their place into society. And in fact that's not even a debate, it's a set of measure taken to defend what is already taken for granted.

The French Muslims (yes, I said French Muslims, not all Muslims in the world) says it best : The integral veil is not a part of the Prophet's teaching. They themselves say that the integral veil is a political instrument the radical islamists are using to negate women rights. Go talk to Mohammed in the banlieue about what he think on the subject of the integral veil, and you'll see his answer...

The integral veil being not considered as a religious sign of faith ; but as a political stance against the Republican Model, it can be legally outlawed, as it is Anti-Republican, and break the laws on Laïcité. [and yes, if you think that “Anti-Republican” here has the same flavor as “Counter-Revolutionaries”, you'll be right]

You aren't happy with that ? This doesn't fit into your world views ? Well, in that case, the best advice I can give you is to look in another direction and to just forget what could cause you to question your righteous worldviews.

The world isn't a nice place to live in generally speaking, and sometime, we have to take the bull by the horns if we want our plans to succeed. Even if it mean doing some unhappy peoples into the process. If we were to try to satisfy everyone each time we have to do something, we wouldn't do anything.
So live with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

To go a bit deeper on the subject of our culture, and how we defend it.

First of all, we aren't imposing our culture on Africa right now, just our will and the barrel of our guns. And if they watch our TV program (if they do), it's only because the airing rights must be cheaper for them to buy than just creating their own content (which I bet isn't). But the most important part of these mass medias are African, with African stances, so, no, we aren't trying to force our views on them. Only our will. (not that this is necessarily better, but, eh ! That's just not the same thing). Though there is the “Francophonie” [google it if you don't know what it is]... But that hardly count as trying to impose our culture, and is more akin to promoting it... The difference is subtle, but the fact is that the countries involved don't see it as cultural imperialism but as a cultural heritage (from the colonization) and of our responsibility to promote the French Language wherever it is spoken.
In the other hand, the radical Islamist, them, ARE trying to impose there view on us, even if theses view are in negation of our very notions of Progress and Human Dignity.
So, we are justified in fighting such things on our soils, as much as the US would be justified to fight against people actually trying their best to install a retrograde Theocracy in the United States of America that would negate the very foundation on which this state was founded, it is to say Religious Freedom – by imposing a state religion (with everything that means) and breaking the separation between churches and state (allowing the clergy to legally have a voice in the operation of the State). Which is just what the Islamist we fight want to do in France.

So, do you understand our stance on the matter, now ? If not, I don't see how I can say things more clearly...

[Bakustra]

I understand your stance on the matter quite clearly. You have determined to make a stand, come hell or high water. Well, so did the Sicarii at Masada, but no mind. I still disagree with it on both practical and abstract grounds.

I think, to be honest, that treating this as a culture war exaggerates the problem to ludicrous grounds. I'm going to ask you something. Do you seriously believe, as you intimate in your post, that if niqabs were legal the Fifth Republic would collapse and become a repressive Islamic theocracy? From the less than 2000 women who wear the niqab? You concede that the vast majority of Muslims in France are supportive of the Republic. Frankly, a shrinking minority is only a threat if it already has entrenched power. The handful of niqab-wearing Muslims and their families do not. In other words, this is such a minor issue. That is why I object to it. It cuts off rights and dehumanizes a group with no readily apparent gain than the aesthetic preferences of the French majority.

Well, you might as well ban smarmy T-shirt slogans, too. Those are eyesores for many people. You could even argue that they contribute to cynicism and that nobody would wear one if it weren't for pressure by others. But then this comes down to a belief that certain branches of Islam are incompatible with French values. Well, that applies to Nazis and revolutionary Communists, but the US freely allows both groups to congregate and we haven't been overthrown by Fascists yet. This exaggerates wildly the dangers, and ignores the other options that are available.

Frankly, your little "troll bait" misses the point; it rings hollow for any recently imperial or colonial nation to insist on cultural relativism. So France doing so is ignoring a herd of elephants in the room.

[Big Phil]

So are you ever going to respond to my questions about moral relativism, or are you going to keep shrieking and projecting? You seem to be misreading what Rabid wrote, which is what hongi responded to: he specifically said that he feels his fellow French citizens don't care about the ethics, practicality, or justice of the ban. Not a difference of morality, but an irrelevance of morality. But go on, since you're drawing an amusing picture. Do you vote in national elections? If you do, then you're a hypocrite, since your vote matters little more than hongi's response, also. Your support for apathy, I suspect, only applies to other people, though. After all, got to get them nerds in line, right?

What questions are you referring to? I must have missed a response from you, and it's been a couple of weeks, so forgive me if this thread isn't exactly top of mind.

You missed the point that hongi was making yet again, which is that France doesn't follow the "When in Rome" principle, since they, you know, forced their culture down the throats of their colonies, continue to interfere heavily, and do shit like violate sovereignty. But perhaps the French way is to disregard other cultures as irrelevant, which would make your moral relativistic difference simply hysterical.

Why do the French need to follow the "when in Rome" principle? Is this some universal law I'm unaware of? Perhaps it's in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights that's been referenced in this thread? I thought it was pretty well known that the French think they're better than everyone and do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want, and however they want, and anyone who disagrees with them can fuck off. What does "when in Rome" have to do with the burka ban, in any case?

[Bakustra]

So are you ever going to respond to my questions about moral relativism, or are you going to keep shrieking and projecting? You seem to be misreading what Rabid wrote, which is what hongi responded to: he specifically said that he feels his fellow French citizens don't care about the ethics, practicality, or justice of the ban. Not a difference of morality, but an irrelevance of morality. But go on, since you're drawing an amusing picture. Do you vote in national elections? If you do, then you're a hypocrite, since your vote matters little more than hongi's response, also. Your support for apathy, I suspect, only applies to other people, though. After all, got to get them nerds in line, right?

What questions are you referring to? I must have missed a response from you, and it's been a couple of weeks, so forgive me if this thread isn't exactly top of mind.

Please explain whether you believe that apartheid was right, or wrong, and whether it was right or wrong for nations to embargo South Africa over apartheid.

You missed the point that hongi was making yet again, which is that France doesn't follow the "When in Rome" principle, since they, you know, forced their culture down the throats of their colonies, continue to interfere heavily, and do shit like violate sovereignty. But perhaps the French way is to disregard other cultures as irrelevant, which would make your moral relativistic difference simply hysterical.

Why do the French need to follow the "when in Rome" principle? Is this some universal law I'm unaware of? Perhaps it's in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights that's been referenced in this thread? I thought it was pretty well known that the French think they're better than everyone and do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want, and however they want, and anyone who disagrees with them can fuck off. What does "when in Rome" have to do with the burka ban, in any case?

Because that's what Rabid was using as a defense for the ban. People living in France should abide by French rules. However, they do not do so, which makes said defense ring hollow. Did you read anything before jumping in to snipe? That's a bad habit there, buddy. A bad habit.

[Rabid]

I'm going to ask you something. Do you seriously believe, as you intimate in your post, that if niqabs were legal the Fifth Republic would collapse and become a repressive Islamic theocracy? From the less than 2000 women who wear the niqab?

The argument here is the one of the slippery slope :
Today we allow them to wear the niqab [even it was already forbidden by law as I said earlier ; this particular law is just a mediatic one, like it is common to create here - we have thousands of them] ; tomorrow we allow them to associate into community that can rule themselves without intervention from the State [wich is contrary to our model, should I say Ideal of integration] ; And one day we wake ourselves in a country were even the non-muslims girls are obliged to wear a veil (not an integral, just the standard islamic veil), even if they don't want to, just in order not to 'shock' the radical islamists that would have grown as a majority.
Highly unlikely you say ? Well, we don't want to take the risk. Call us racists if you want, it's your right ; I will not even try to fight what would be a really stupid move... Try just to remember than EVEN the majority of the moderate muslims are in favor of the niqab's interdiction. Interdiction that was in fact already in place before the law was voted, I have to recall you.

Frankly, a shrinking minority is only a threat if it already has entrenched power

Emphasis mine

The point, here, is to cut their possible supports. They are a minority, yes, but they AREN'T shrinking, it is far, far from the truth. In fact, they are dangerously growing in popularity.
We all know the roots of the problem, that the risk of contamination by extremist ideology come from precarious condition of living making people more receptive to them. That's why we have to improve the living condition of these people. That's another fight we'll have to win...
But, in the meantime, we have to cut their support, if not to definitively win, at least to gain time. What do you expect us to do about people who are in a logic of Holy War ? (the people we are talking about, the extremist fringe, are in this logic)

Do you think that we are just doing this in spite to the Muslims population of our country ? What do you think we are, Bosnia ?
WE are continuously fighting dangerous ideology. WE denounced Scientology for the hideous scam it is, and are taking step to ban it from our country (don't know where the procedure is now...). WE are watching and hunting down all the movement with Sectarian drifts, and each year we are dissoluting new movements of this type, incarcerating their leader, and making sure, by prevention, that no one is feeble enough to fall into their traps.
These radical Islamists ARE one of these Sectarian Movement, and this is WHY we are hunting them. They are benefiting from other peoples weaknesses, isolating them from society, turning them against it, radicalizing them, and even in some case recruiting them to fight the "Holy War". HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO REACT ? We just CAN'T allow that, by our cultural standards, on our soils. Love it or hate it, live with it.

But then this comes down to a belief that certain branches of Islam are incompatible with French values. Well, that applies to Nazis and revolutionary Communists, but the US freely allows both groups to congregate and we haven't been overthrown by Fascists yet.

You're point, please ? Is it because you allow people to freely promote Hatred at your Home that we are supposed to do the same thing in our Home ?
This come down to the same level as saying "No one should ever dare apply Discipline on his childs ; For fear it can traumatize them" and all these laxists BS that are now making a generation of parents that can't hold their children, abandon their parental duty, and make childrens turn into delinquents. Sometime, even if you don't like it, you have to be firm if you don't want society to collapse, even it could seem unfair. Freedom is not not an absolute right. It is earned, only once you've proved you're mature enough to exercise it.

... And the people we are talking about aren't 'mature' in our society's sense.

Frankly, your little "troll bait" misses the point; it rings hollow for any recently imperial or colonial nation to insist on cultural relativism. So France doing so is ignoring a herd of elephants in the room.

As I said, this was just a Troll bait : Me being ludicrously smarmy in the first two part, and just plain cynical in the third.


-----------------------------------------------------

@ SancheztheWhaler : The "when in Rome" part is from me, some posts above.

I thought it was pretty well known that the French think they're better than everyone and do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want, and however they want, and anyone who disagrees with them can fuck off.

You said it best that I could ever have dreamed to say it, actually.
I'm just remembering something, though... Doesn't the same thing apply to the United States of America ? I'm not sure...

-----------------------------------------------------

However, they do not do so

You will now provide a proof, please, to your claim ; claim on which you base a great part of your argumentation.

[Rabid]

Please explain whether you believe that apartheid was right, or wrong, and whether it was right or wrong for nations to embargo South Africa over apartheid.

Ad Absurdum argument.


The South African Apartheid was a clear violation of Human Rights as written in the 'Declaration of the Humans Rights' of 1947, justifying an intervention of the United Nations as it is required by its Charter.

We are are banning a piece of tissue that is violating their dignity as a human being and that is a symbol of oppression.


What are you trying to do ? Do you want to reach the Godwin's point, or is it just that you don't want to properly think before you type something anymore ? Let me know, so I know if it is worth my time to answer your questions...

[Big Phil]

You said it best that I could ever have dreamed to say it, actually.
I'm just remembering something, though... Doesn't the same thing apply to the United States of America ? I'm not sure...

Pretty much; the difference is, Americans want to believe they have god (or justice) on their side; we like to be seen as the good guys, and we tend to wring our hands and feel guilty when we do things that make us seem like bad guys, unlike the French who don't seem to give a shit what others think. I prefer the French approach, myself... either fuck someone up or leave them alone, but if you fuck them up, don't feel bad about it... just convince yourself they had it coming to them.

[Bakustra]

Firstly, I will back up my claim. The DGSE bombed the Rainbow Warrior while it was in port in Auckland. This was in direct contravention of the concept of national sovereignty. France has spoken up about the concept of national sovereignty. Ergo, the French government was unwilling to apply the principles it requires its citizens to live by to its own actions. There you go.

See, the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. You don't have to allow extremists to live in separate communities. You do have other options than dehumanizing women in the name of women's rights. You don't have to pretend that opponents of this want to leave you open to the Mohammedan conquest. Further, they're never going to become a majority, barring mass suicide on the part of everybody else. Stop with the Eurabia paranoia. It's not funny, it's not clever, and it's never going to come true. Really, you literally cannot make a reasoned argument for this ban beyond appealing to some hypothetical collapse of the Fifth Republic and the rise of Islamic oppression. If that were true, then why hasn't the US fallen to neo-Nazism or to radical Islam, since we have far less of a national dress code?

So what if the vast majority of Muslims oppose the niqab? Good for them. But the vast majority of Christians are opposed to Satanists. Should the US ban Satanism? Do you see why that argument is flawed?

Now, I applaud the idea of economic relief for the banlieus and for the minority groups. But is this really necessary? Wouldn't it be better to fight radical ideas in such a way that they never even know that they're under attack?

Your responses seem to communicate the idea that France is the only nation on Earth where 2000 people can cause a governmental overthrow by wearing clothing. I have to ask how exactly it got into this state, and why your focus is on the people rather than the apparent fragility of the government.

My argument is simple. You object because you're afraid niqabs will cause oppressive Islamic governments. But the US hasn't fallen, Australia hasn't fallen, Japan did not convert en masse to Aum Shinrikyo, and a whole host of violent, hateful groups have failed to achieve their goals. Maybe, instead of sneering upon the great masses (and raving about how you need to beat children into behaving), you should recognize that they will see through a brick wall in time, and that radical Muslims are still people like anyone else, and religions don't really rot people's brains back to childhood.

Please explain whether you believe that apartheid was right, or wrong, and whether it was right or wrong for nations to embargo South Africa over apartheid.

Ad Absurdum argument.


The South African Apartheid was a clear violation of Human Rights as written in the 'Declaration of the Humans Rights' of 1947, justifying an intervention of the United Nations as it is required by its Charter.

We are are banning a piece of tissue that is violating their dignity as a human being and that is a symbol of oppression.


What are you trying to do ? Do you want to reach the Godwin's point, or is it just that you don't want to properly think before you type something anymore ? Let me know, so I know if it is worth my time to answer your questions...

See, good ol' Sanchez was arguing that the UN Declaration of Human Rights was worthless and irrelevant, and that is what I was responding to. But thank you for playing, m'sieur!

PS: How do you know that every niqabi woman feels that the niqab violates their dignity as a human being?

[Bakustra]

You said it best that I could ever have dreamed to say it, actually.
I'm just remembering something, though... Doesn't the same thing apply to the United States of America ? I'm not sure...

Pretty much; the difference is, Americans want to believe they have god (or justice) on their side; we like to be seen as the good guys, and we tend to wring our hands and feel guilty when we do things that make us seem like bad guys, unlike the French who don't seem to give a shit what others think. I prefer the French approach, myself... either fuck someone up or leave them alone, but if you fuck them up, don't feel bad about it... just convince yourself they had it coming to them.

What do you call your radical and amazing approach to morality?

[Rabid]

PS: How do you know that every niqabi woman feels that the niqab violates their dignity as a human being?

I will point you to all the sociological studies made on subject of Sects, how they function, and will more specifically point to you what is commonly know as "Stockholm Syndrome".

Short answer :
We know better than them.

What do you call your radical and amazing approach to morality?

I call it :
National Sovereignty baked by the UN Charter and sitting on its bed of sheets coming from the 'Declaration of Human Rights', cuvée 1947, accompanied by the French's constitution and legal system.

It is only available on French internal affairs, though. The others just have the right to taste our Realpolitik.

Should the US ban Satanism?

- Hello, and thanks for traveling with us in this Air France flight.

In France, Satanists movements, when they do develop Sectarian Drifts (french : "Dérives Sectaires") [and that hold true for ALL Sectarian movements], are generally dissolved, and in the most severe case, the most affected members are handed to psychiatric institutes.

Wouldn't it be better to fight radical ideas in such a way that they never even know that they're under attack ?

I am 100% agreeing with you on that particular point.
You see, and I excuse myself if this wasn't clear, I never advocated the fact that this law has been passed. Like I said, this was just a "coup médiatique", something our president used to augment is popularity with the far-right voters (who are voting for the "Front National").
What I said, the only thing I intended to say, was to explain why this is acceptable in France's political climate.

and raving about how you need to beat children into behaving

I don't said "beat your childrens real good", thank you. What I said is that never being permitted to raise your hand over your child, on the other hand, isn't good for a child mental development. See ? I took some spanking when I was a child, after making big mistakes, or after being way too much capricious. Has it made me a monster ? I think not. So aren't all the people who where given a spank being children. In the other hand, you now see childrens and teenagers who are a real pain in the asses, total jackass and generally "mal élevés" (google trad. : "Ill-bred"). Because limits where never settled and they feel they have every rights, that their every whims HAVE to be satisfied.
Do you know that the European Union, in the other hand, want to render illegal spanking ?...

But that's another debate...

and that radical Muslims are still people like anyone else

100% true. With all their defaults.

you should recognize that they will see through a brick wall in time [...] and religions don't really rot people's brains back to childhood

[picture me laughing maniacally]

You haven't any idea on what "Fanaticism" mean, haven't you ? Haven't you read your 'Human Nature' courses recently ?

the French government was unwilling to apply the principles it requires its citizens to live by to its own actions

Just give me the name of ONE country which never did this, never.
That's part of the 'game', you know ?

... Welcome to our reality...

[I'm not apologizing, I'm just explaining]

[Big Phil]

You said it best that I could ever have dreamed to say it, actually.
I'm just remembering something, though... Doesn't the same thing apply to the United States of America ? I'm not sure...

Pretty much; the difference is, Americans want to believe they have god (or justice) on their side; we like to be seen as the good guys, and we tend to wring our hands and feel guilty when we do things that make us seem like bad guys, unlike the French who don't seem to give a shit what others think. I prefer the French approach, myself... either fuck someone up or leave them alone, but if you fuck them up, don't feel bad about it... just convince yourself they had it coming to them.

What do you call your radical and amazing approach to morality?

A red herring, but thanks for asking

[AniThyng]

PS: How do you know that every niqabi woman feels that the niqab violates their dignity as a human being?

I will point you to all the sociological studies made on subject of Sects, how they function, and will more specifically point to you what is commonly know as "Stockholm Syndrome".

Short answer :
We know better than them.

It seems clear from this posturing that the niqab dehumanizes alright - it dehumanizes them in the eyes of the males who "knows better than them", and not just the oppressive muslim males too, but the secular liberal ones who have concluded because they wear the niqab they are unworthy of consideration as people who can make their own choices!

[Bakustra]

Rabid, did you actually read my post? Ordinarily, I would just assume that somebody who juliennes a post is merely a clod, but it actually looks as though you took little sentences and responded only to them. That's pretty inconsiderate. See, let's take an example. I used Satanism as a religion that the majority of Americans would feel is incompatible with them culturally. I asked whether the US should therefore ban Satanists. You then declared that France bans Satanists if they develop "sectarian drifts", whatever that means when applied to Satanists, let alone somebody as fractious as Discordians. So I have to conclude that you didn't bother reading the post. The question, I will remind you, was about Satanists in general. So, should the US ban them, in your opinion?

Your points about the niqab bear only one response. So, according to you, French identity is dependent on white, Christian or atheist men telling non-white and white (26% of niqabi are converts) Muslim women what to wear, because Muslim men must be telling them what to wear. I'll leave it at that.

See, the thing is, you're saying that everybody else is in a glass house. I agree, to a greater or lesser extent. But you should really stop throwing goddamn stones, then. I mean, I'm not saying how great and principled the US is, and neither should you be saying the same about France, really.

So I bait you with child-beating and you respond with how these upstart whippersnappers need to be spanked a little, the Benelux bureaucrats want to ban spanking, ain't that a shame, and those kids really need to get off your lawn. You know, every generation has felt that about the next one. My parents rant about Generation X and how lazy they are, Gen Xers probably hate my g-g-generation (just because we get around), the Eisenhower Generation probably disliked the Boomers, and so on back to the beginning of history, or at least to the Sumerians. But that's getting too far off topic, probably.

Pretty much; the difference is, Americans want to believe they have god (or justice) on their side; we like to be seen as the good guys, and we tend to wring our hands and feel guilty when we do things that make us seem like bad guys, unlike the French who don't seem to give a shit what others think. I prefer the French approach, myself... either fuck someone up or leave them alone, but if you fuck them up, don't feel bad about it... just convince yourself they had it coming to them.

What do you call your radical and amazing approach to morality?

A red herring, but thanks for asking

Dude. Dude! You can't just throw something so amazing and pure out there and leave it nameless! Tell me, so that I may bask in the glory of its name and share it with people.

PS: How do you know that every niqabi woman feels that the niqab violates their dignity as a human being?

I will point you to all the sociological studies made on subject of Sects, how they function, and will more specifically point to you what is commonly know as "Stockholm Syndrome".

Short answer :
We know better than them.

It seems clear from this posturing that the niqab dehumanizes alright - it dehumanizes them in the eyes of the males who "knows better than them", and not just the oppressive muslim males too, but the secular liberal ones who have concluded because they wear the niqab they are unworthy of consideration as people who can make their own choices!

Exactly. This says my point loud and clear.

[Chaotic Neutral]

So why is the veil treated differently than the caps Jewish wear? Why is ok to infringe on one religion but not the other?

[loomer]

Good question. What about the wigs and headscarves orthodox Jewish women are expected to wear as well?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Hey, I don't want to interrupt anyone comparing Muslims to kidnappers brainwashing their women to enjoy a certain kind of cloth, but I keep hearing about all those Muslim nations that force their women by law to wear the Burqa or the niqab. There's so many of them, I can't blame anyone for worrying that soon such a mentality might come to their country under the guise of Sharia Law.

Wait, nevermind, there's two of them. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only countries in the world that actually restrict what women wear in that manner. But hey, that still represents a substantial portion of the Muslim world. wait, no, there's about ~60 other Muslim-majority states in the world. So two countries out of 60 that actually are majority-Muslim actually force women to wear the veil, but I'm sure that France is right up the Muslim Hivemind's list of targets.

[Rabid]

It seems clear from this posturing that the niqab dehumanizes alright - it dehumanizes them in the eyes of the males who "knows better than them", and not just the oppressive muslim males too, but the secular liberal ones who have concluded because they wear the niqab they are unworthy of consideration as people who can make their own choices!

Yes, it is because it dehumanize women, something that we find properly unacceptable, that we are banning it. You got it all right.

---

Rabid, did you actually read my post? Ordinarily, I would just assume that somebody who juliennes a post is merely a clod, but it actually looks as though you took little sentences and responded only to them. That's pretty inconsiderate. See, let's take an example. I used Satanism as a religion that the majority of Americans would feel is incompatible with them culturally. I asked whether the US should therefore ban Satanists. You then declared that France bans Satanists if they develop "sectarian drifts", whatever that means when applied to Satanists, let alone somebody as fractious as Discordians. So I have to conclude that you didn't bother reading the post. The question, I will remind you, was about Satanists in general. So, should the US ban them, in your opinion?

Yes, I read it, from beginning to end, and I quoted only the most significant parts, the ones on which I wanted to answer. I wasn't going to quote every paragraph... Meh. I'll quote everything, so.

On the subject of the Satanist, I will NOT tell you what the US have to do, because it is just what I'm trying to tell since the beginning :
I'm not going to tell you what to do in your house, so get off my lawn. You want to criticize, fine, I'm open, we are open. But in the end, we live here, not you, and we know what feels the best for us. That's called democracy, with all its inherent flaws, but democracy still.

Your points about the niqab bear only one response. So, according to you, French identity is dependent on white, Christian or atheist men telling non-white and white (26% of niqabi are converts) Muslim women what to wear, because Muslim men must be telling them what to wear. I'll leave it at that.

So why is the veil treated differently than the caps Jewish wear? Why is ok to infringe on one religion but not the other?

Good question. What about the wigs and headscarves orthodox Jewish women are expected to wear as well?

The wear that clearly negate ones individuality to reduce it to merely the status of an object are banned. The others are tolerated, as long as it is not considered as an act of proselytism. For instance, Islamic veil, Jewish orthodox outfits or Christian crosses, for example, are forbidden into public school, middle school, high school or university. People have to stop wearing them as soon as they enter the premises

See, the thing is, you're saying that everybody else is in a glass house. I agree, to a greater or lesser extent. But you should really stop throwing goddamn stones, then. I mean, I'm not saying how great and principled the US is, and neither should you be saying the same about France, really.

Have you read my other posts in this forum ? No, I'm not 'full of it' concerning France. Here we aren't talking about I don't know what that could fit with what you just said ; I'm talking about fighting a practice contrary to the Spirit of the Republic, to our ideals of 'Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité'. As hard as people in the US can fight for the First Amendment, we fight here for our Citizens and their Freedom. What I'm telling to you may seem purely abstract to you, because we are in fact restricting a Liberty here, you'll think, but for us it is very real.
If I may use an Ad Absurdum argument, it's not because I own a gun that I have the right to impose my will unto others. If I do that, then, the Governement will be justified to prohibit me from carrying a firearm anymore.
Here we are facing a clear abuse of religious freedom that goes against the very foundation of the Republic. So, even if it can be fishy at time, we have to take measure.
And I will say it one more time : I'm not in favor of this particular Law, as it was unnecesary - the legal element to forbid it being already present in the legal corpus.

---

@ Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba: You can consider it as some some of Cultural pre-emptive strike. I guess...

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wait, nevermind, there's two of them. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only countries in the world that actually restrict what women wear in that manner. But hey, that still represents a substantial portion of the Muslim world. wait, no, there's about ~60 other Muslim-majority states in the world. So two countries out of 60 that actually are majority-Muslim actually force women to wear the veil, but I'm sure that France is right up the Muslim Hivemind's list of targets.

I think many people think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are more important than some other Muslim majority countries because they are at the core of the religion, specifically the religion was born in the area which is now the KSA and two of their most holiest places are there. Iran on the other hand is pretty much the core area of modern Shia Islam as the inheritor of the puritanically minded Safavid dynasty traditions with many Shia holy places either in Iran or in Iraq.

Now, I'm not saying that this reasoning is necessarily sound, but it does explain why many people think that the strict Islamic dress code for women in those countries is more important than if it was in Morocco and Bangladesh, for example. I do think that the idea does hold some merit, because those are the two countries that radical Sunni and Shia muslims are most likely to follow.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Is it, though? The majority of French Muslims are of North African heritage. The majority of English Muslims are of Pakistani/Indian extraction. And the same goes for Germany and the Turks. Most of them aren't really carrying the religious and cultural baggage of the Gulf; hell, the Iranian minority in Germany, as far as I know, is widely considered to be a model immigrant community.

It's true Saudi Arabia has more or less the most radical theology of the Muslim world. But that the most radical Islamists are most likely to follow the most radical imams is really just a tautology, isn't it?

[Rabid]

Is it, though? The majority of French Muslims are of North African heritage. The majority of English Muslims are of Pakistani/Indian extraction. And the same goes for Germany and the Turks. Most of them aren't really carrying the religious and cultural baggage of the Gulf; hell, the Iranian minority in Germany, as far as I know, is widely considered to be a model immigrant community.

It's true Saudi Arabia has more or less the most radical theology of the Muslim world. But that the most radical Islamists are most likely to follow the most radical imams is really just a tautology, isn't it?

Yes, and this is in fact why the measure is aimed not toward the Muslims as a whole, but toward those whose radical leanings are thought as unacceptable by French standards.

[AniThyng]

It seems clear from this posturing that the niqab dehumanizes alright - it dehumanizes them in the eyes of the males who "knows better than them", and not just the oppressive muslim males too, but the secular liberal ones who have concluded because they wear the niqab they are unworthy of consideration as people who can make their own choices!

Yes, it is because it dehumanize women, something that we find properly unacceptable, that we are banning it. You got it all right.

Miss the point much? You consider them to be dehumanized and victims *because* they wear the niqab, and dismiss the possibility of them making the choice to do so by bringing up Stokholm Syndrom and dismissing their ability to make that choice with "we know better [then them]". I agree it's true that it is part of the point of a niqab in some ways, but you go forth and facilitate that by already dismissing the woman inside as not worthy of equal consideration regardless.

I mean, we can all see how it's retarded when conservatives bring up the issue of "peer pressure" "forcing" women to dress "revealingly" like "whores" or "sluts", and they also invoke the "women can't think for themselves how to dress" and that they "know better", and here we are doing the same thing in the other direction?

[Rabid]

I mean, we can all see how it's retarded when conservatives bring up the issue of "peer pressure" "forcing" women to dress "revealingly" like "whores" or "sluts", and they also invoke the "women can't think for themselves how to dress" and that they "know better", and here we are doing the same thing in the other direction?

Basically, the answer is yes. French are, generally speaking, what we can call "Laïcité bigots". I know I am one.

[Thanas]

Just a general warning against dogpiling at this point. Rabid already has three or four people arguing with him, no need to add more.