PDA

View Full Version : The issue of veil laws


Pilyk
September 24th, 2016, 05:48 AM
I just read this article and thought it was quite relevant on the question of the veil laws, which are very "in the fashion" these days. Feel free to react to it.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/211702/french-veil-berman

To sum up, the journalist is saying that kind of laws on attires aspire to inhibit and fight religious fanatics by reducing their visibility in society. He underlines the differences between the major parts of the French Muslims who lives according to the principles of the country they're living in and a minority who are in his opinion is a threat to the rest of the people.

I am quite agree that there was not such "problems of integration" before the 1990's, despite France has been one of the most cosmopolite countries in the world since the 1930's. Even after a lot of Muslims came with their own culture in the 1960's. There were no such cultural conflict at the time.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, the rise of radical Islamism cannot be stopped uniquely by vain tentative to make laws on clothing. If these women (or their families) do not want (them) to show there body, the risk is that they stay shut in and cut of the world, so it can be an even worst situation. I think education is worth to be considered as a potential answer on that complex issue.

Stronk Serb
September 24th, 2016, 08:05 AM
I agree with the law. Also those girls are required by law to go to school and go to hospitals when sick. I would personally let these radical elements die out in their self-imposed isolation than risk radicalizing the rest of the Muslim community.

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 09:06 AM
I would personally let these radical elements die out in their self-imposed isolation than risk radicalizing the rest of the Muslim community.
It is just the women who will be forced to remain indoors, so even if we agreed that radicalism is a highly infectious mental illness, you wouldn't be stopping its spread.

ThisBougieLife
September 24th, 2016, 11:03 AM
Yeah, maybe France shouldn't have colonized all those Muslim countries if they didn't want Muslims living in their own nation...the problem is, many of those immigrants first came to France in the '60s, now they've had several generations of Muslims in France who've lived in ghettos and been shut out of French society. That coupled with the Western-abetted turmoil in the Middle East combine to form the situation of French Muslim radicalism you see today (I don't mean to oversimplify it, but these are, I believe, the key elements in the issue). The "veil laws" meanwhile, only serve to strengthen that marginalization that many French Muslims feel. It will not help. It will only bolster the idea that Muslims are being discriminated against and it will help fuel the arguments of those who desire some reason to lash out at French society.

Stronk Serb
September 24th, 2016, 12:46 PM
It is just the women who will be forced to remain indoors, so even if we agreed that radicalism is a highly infectious mental illness, you wouldn't be stopping its spread.

Well, the parents would have to send their child to school unless they want it confiscated by the state for neglect. It's a win/win. First the child gets sent to school where she can be de-radicalized, second the child is going to be de-radicalized because of a lack of radical influences. Maybe work on cracking down on the radical imams. Isn't inciting of violence a crime in France? Here it is. I cannot just say in public that we must kill all Muslims/Christians/Jews/Serbs/Albanians/Croats etc. Mosques are public places of worship so you can easily modify or pass new legislation against it.

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 02:15 PM
Well, the parents would have to send their child to school unless they want it confiscated by the state for neglect.
Homeschool.

second the child is going to be de-radicalized because of a lack of radical influences[.]
Except at home.

candorgen
September 24th, 2016, 02:21 PM
To sum up, the journalist is saying that kind of laws on attires aspire to inhibit and fight religious fanatics by reducing their visibility in society. He underlines the differences between the major parts of the French Muslims who lives according to the principles of the country they're living in and a minority who are in his opinion is a threat to the rest of the people.

Suppressing certain religious faiths for which certain extremism happens with them, will only increase the risk of that extremism getting greater as a reactionary move.


I think education is worth to be considered as a potential answer on that complex issue.

Education is one good example that is not simplistic suppression, yes.


I agree with the law. Also those girls are required by law to go to school and go to hospitals when sick. I would personally let these radical elements die out in their self-imposed isolation than risk radicalizing the rest of the Muslim community.

Do you mean that women wearing burqas should be refused healthcare and education? (I know I could be getting this wrong so please correct me if so.)

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 24th, 2016, 04:07 PM
As much as I admire France for getting off it's butt and dealing with this obvious problem, banning clothing is not the right way to do it.

...the problem is, many of those immigrants first came to France in the '60s, now they've had several generations of Muslims in France who've lived in ghettos and been shut out of French society.
It isn't like the Muslims are forced into the ghettos. They didn't want to integrate into French society, thus forming their own society within France but completely separate culturally. This is very similar across much of Europe. Self-imposed segregation, they haven't been shut out of France society, they've cut themselves out.

Porpoise101
September 24th, 2016, 10:04 PM
It isn't like the Muslims are forced into the ghettos.
what do I even say to this.. I honestly don't know where to start. I guess it will be with the fact that immigrant communities tend to group together. Usually, immigrants will move to an area to get work or flee some terrible thing. They will not be acclimated to society at first, so they move to an area which has connections to the motherland. This way they don't feel as homesick and they can live their lives better. In the US we call this 'Chinatown', 'Little Italy', 'Greektown', etc. Yet in the US, you don't see the Chinese or the Italians all huddled into a specialized ethnic neighborhood anymore. You do with some of the more recent groups (Mexicans, Assyrians, Bengalis), but groups that came before have integrated into American society. This is because those people have had the opportunities to rise up out of their urban environment and spread out into the rest of the country. In France, the descendant of the Algerian worker is not rich. They are not software engineers or lawyers. And to top it off, they don't get much political representation because their nation they were born and raised in doesn't recognize them as citizens. Along with whatever racism/classism that exists in the French society, this keeps them separate if not their economic condition.

Flapjack
September 24th, 2016, 10:07 PM
I love how those trying to take away the rights of women to dress however they want use 'freedom' as a defence.

Porpoise101
September 24th, 2016, 10:14 PM
I love how those trying to take away the rights of women to dress however they want use 'freedom' as a defence.

relevant quote from the article for you
It is true that, in France, people take their secularism a little further than Americans tend to do, and this is partly on historical grounds. In America, we worry about freedom of religion, but in France, where everyone remembers the Catholic past and the religious wars, people worry about freedom from religion. They do not want to be tyrannized by theological fanatics. The Islamist movement is, from this point of view, all too familiar to the French—one more clericalist current that wishes to imposes its theological doctrines on everyone else. And, in the face of the Islamist fanaticism, the French are grateful for their secularist traditions and laws.

Hopefully you can at least understand where they are coming from.

Stronk Serb
September 25th, 2016, 01:23 AM
Homeschool.


Except at home.

Make homeschooling illegal (for everyone). Sure about radicals at home but the child will see civilization in all it's beauty in school.

Suppressing certain religious faiths for which certain extremism happens with them, will only increase the risk of that extremism getting greater as a reactionary move.




Education is one good example that is not simplistic suppression, yes.




Do you mean that women wearing burqas should be refused healthcare and education? (I know I could be getting this wrong so please correct me if so.)

No. It mesnt that their parents are obliged by law to send them to schools and to the doctor when sick. Failure to do so warrants that the child gets taken by social services and the parents charged with neglect. In any way, the child has to go to school.

candorgen
September 25th, 2016, 05:35 PM
Make homeschooling illegal (for everyone). Sure about radicals at home but the child will see civilization in all it's beauty in school.

Alright.

I personally never saw civilization in all its beauty in school, but that's me making a side point.


No. It mesnt that their parents are obliged by law to send them to schools and to the doctor when sick. Failure to do so warrants that the child gets taken by social services and the parents charged with neglect. In any way, the child has to go to school.

Reasonable.

Stronk Serb
September 25th, 2016, 06:44 PM
Alright.

I personally never saw civilization in all its beauty in school, but that's me making a side point.




Reasonable.

Well, I do in history class. Sure it might not be the same for everyone, but the child should learn the basic principles of the country they live in, in this situation, France.

candorgen
September 25th, 2016, 07:06 PM
Well, I do in history class. Sure it might not be the same for everyone, but the child should learn the basic principles of the country they live in, in this situation, France.

Yes.

Flapjack
September 26th, 2016, 01:29 PM
How about we stop telling women how we should wear under the obvious fake claim that it is being done to 'free' them.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 26th, 2016, 04:45 PM
How about we stop telling women how we should wear under the obvious fake claim that it is being done to 'free' them.

How about we stop telling people to give up their guns, under the obvious fake claims that it will keep them 'safe'.

Just to be clear, I do believe that France is in the wrong on this. While they are taking a stand on the obvious threat of Islamic terrorism, banning clothing does infringe on free expression. However, I do feel that countries which limit free speech, like the UK, are not any better than France when it comes to this. The only difference is that the UK is enforcing free expression restrictions in the name of the great god Equality, while France is enforcing free expression restrictions in the name of protecting it's citizens.

ThisBougieLife
September 26th, 2016, 10:17 PM
Equality

protecting it's citizens.

Both of which could be equally specious.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 26th, 2016, 10:35 PM
Both of which could be equally specious.

I'm not denying that, as I said earlier I don't support restricting free expression for reasons such as security and offensiveness.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 01:23 AM
How about we stop telling people to give up their guns, under the obvious fake claims that it will keep them 'safe'
Yesssss reply to my post with something completely off topic to take the debate in another direction... no one saw that coming xD

I will post the post here so people know what I am talking about :P
How about we stop telling women how we should wear under the obvious fake claim that it is being done to 'free' them.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 27th, 2016, 08:02 AM
Yesssss reply to my post with something completely off topic to take the debate in another direction... no one saw that coming xD

I will post the post here so people know what I am talking about :P

As I said before, multiple times, I do not support the French ban. I agree with you. If you actually cared about having a legitimate debate you might have realized it by now. Anyways, you once again ignored my statement about free speech. Do you think the UK laws restricting anti-Islam and offensive speech is any better than the French law? I've asked this multiple times on this and other threads yet I've never gotten a response from you.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 10:58 AM
I've never gotten a response from you.
I am sorry if I have, just do what I do and spam me until I respond xD
o you think the UK laws restricting anti-Islam and offensive speech is any better than the French law?
Gimme an example of where you think it crosses the line :)

I have stated before that I think the limit to free speech is when you are enticing violence and I assume that is what you have a problem with?

Uniquemind
September 29th, 2016, 02:46 AM
I have a problem to varying degrees with all faiths or thoughts that need the practice of ritual to take an abstract mental thing, translating it into a 3D thing which is then tangible to the senses allowing for criticism because it is detectable making it debatable on a superficial level, an endless source of drama.

It's also where symbology gets dark and has flaws, like how the swastika (or anything resembling it) hasn't been reclaimed to mean it's original peaceful meaning from eastern religion. (It's rotated someodd degrees and inverted, yet human eyes-brain won't notice the literal difference).

My point is this: If you believe something as strongly as one claims one shall not need physical objects or ritual celebrations to reenforce one's security in the faith or demonstrate loyalty to it.

Instead everyday living with others should define both pragmatic peaceful foundation and practice of this faith.

candorgen
September 30th, 2016, 04:59 PM
My point is this: If you believe something as strongly as one claims one shall not need physical objects or ritual celebrations to reenforce one's security in the faith or demonstrate loyalty to it.

On point. I'm glad that someone else has thought about this. It appears odd that many people of whatever religion continuously keep metaphorically grabbing onto their faith as though it's going to wane if they don't. Sure, perhaps it is an aspect of human psychological nature, but if one claims to be using non-emotive arguments as well then they could try to reconcile them with their faith.


Instead everyday living with others should define both pragmatic peaceful foundation and practice of this faith.

The immediate present is of ultimate importance, yes.

Uniquemind
September 30th, 2016, 07:50 PM
On point. I'm glad that someone else has thought about this. It appears odd that many people of whatever religion continuously keep metaphorically grabbing onto their faith as though it's going to wane if they don't. Sure, perhaps it is an aspect of human psychological nature, but if one claims to be using non-emotive arguments as well then they could try to reconcile them with their faith.




The immediate present is of ultimate importance, yes.

They do it because it's were they are in their personal stage of growth and also if you're in Western society some lines of scripture that are pretty strict about instilling fear of dropping the ball with your faith. In that same vein that's why a lot of Christians are like overzealous in recruiting people to the faith, because those lines of scripture make them feel, even subconsciously, that their standing with God is tied to "saving" others.

candorgen
September 30th, 2016, 08:08 PM
They do it because it's were they are in their personal stage of growth and also if you're in Western society some lines of scripture that are pretty strict about instilling fear of dropping the ball with your faith. In that same vein that's why a lot of Christians are like overzealous in recruiting people to the faith, because those lines of scripture make them feel, even subconsciously, that their standing with God is tied to "saving" others.

Sure, yes.