Australian Politics Forum - French senate approves burqa ban.

Jaykaye_09

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 583
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #60 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:43am

Doesn't the French ideal of laïcité refer intended absence of religion in government - quiet simply the separation of state from church? It also implies that the government will not influence the religious affairs of others.

Subsequently, as the government runs public schools, they are fully entitled to ban religious symbols as they have done. Though this itself raises questions on the interpretation of laïcité - as does the "burqa ban".

However, nowhere does the law introduced in 1905 (defining the separation of church and state) say anything about religious practice in public settings (this according to the political scientist who helped draft the French law banning the display of religious symbols in schools).

Regardless, it's a far more complex issue than some on here like to make it out to be.

My view is that a burqa ban serves no real benefit. No doubt, there are some who use it as a tool of oppression against women. Conversely, there are those women who wear it by choice, seeing it as a symbol of religious piety. My fear is that a ban would see the abuse of women (in the form of such dress) manifest itself in more sinister, hidden ways - while those wearing it by choice, would simply be having their freedom to practice their faith somewhat limited.

Might I add, I understand that some may rightly see it as a security issue (an exaggeration perhaps, but one that is difficult to counter). However, as many have stated, wouldn't it simply make more sense to include the burqa amongst those other items that are already (or should be) restricted in and/or around certain institutions for security purposes?

Back to top

If I don't respond to a post directed toward me, it's probably because I've gone offline, not because I'm rude.&&&&Or maybe I don't like you. In which case, sod off. Ta.

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #61 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:58pm

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:21pm:

They can frown all they want.

As a kid I went round town in a KKK outfit a few times. No-one ever complained. If I had lynched a few black people they might have, but that is not the same thing.

I don't know whether a 3' 6" little kid wearing his play suit around town is the same thing.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

aussiefree2ride

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3538

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #62 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:06pm

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:43am:

Doesn't the French ideal of laïcité refer intended absence of religion in government - quiet simply the separation of state from church? It also implies that the government will not influence the religious affairs of others.

Subsequently, as the government runs public schools, they are fully entitled to ban religious symbols as they have done. Though this itself raises questions on the interpretation of laïcité - as does the "burqa ban".

However, nowhere does the law introduced in 1905 (defining the separation of church and state) say anything about religious practice in public settings (this according to the political scientist who helped draft the French law banning the display of religious symbols in schools).

Regardless, it's a far more complex issue than some on here like to make it out to be.

My view is that a burqa ban serves no real benefit. No doubt, there are some who use it as a tool of oppression against women. Conversely, there are those women who wear it by choice, seeing it as a symbol of religious piety. My fear is that a ban would see the abuse of women (in the form of such dress) manifest itself in more sinister, hidden ways - while those wearing it by choice, would simply be having their freedom to practice their faith somewhat limited.

Might I add, I understand that some may rightly see it as a security issue (an exaggeration perhaps, but one that is difficult to counter). However, as many have stated, wouldn't it simply make more sense to include the burqa amongst those other items that are already (or should be) restricted in and/or around certain institutions for security purposes?

JK, I don`t believe this ban to be an act of religious suppression, simply a demand for common courtesy. I believe the burga is an anti social statement that has no place in an open and free society.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49475
At my desk.

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #63 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:59pm

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:43am:

Doesn't the French ideal of laïcité refer intended absence of religion in government - quiet simply the separation of state from church? It also implies that the government will not influence the religious affairs of others.

Subsequently, as the government runs public schools, they are fully entitled to ban religious symbols as they have done. Though this itself raises questions on the interpretation of laïcité - as does the "burqa ban".

However, nowhere does the law introduced in 1905 (defining the separation of church and state) say anything about religious practice in public settings (this according to the political scientist who helped draft the French law banning the display of religious symbols in schools).

Regardless, it's a far more complex issue than some on here like to make it out to be.

My view is that a burqa ban serves no real benefit. No doubt, there are some who use it as a tool of oppression against women. Conversely, there are those women who wear it by choice, seeing it as a symbol of religious piety. My fear is that a ban would see the abuse of women (in the form of such dress) manifest itself in more sinister, hidden ways - while those wearing it by choice, would simply be having their freedom to practice their faith somewhat limited.

Might I add, I understand that some may rightly see it as a security issue (an exaggeration perhaps, but one that is difficult to counter). However, as many have stated, wouldn't it simply make more sense to include the burqa amongst those other items that are already (or should be) restricted in and/or around certain institutions for security purposes?

JK, I don`t believe this ban to be an act of religious suppression, simply a demand for common courtesy. I believe the burga is an anti social statement that has no place in an open and free society.

By that logic you could ban any religious practice merely by 'reinterpretting' it to not be a religious act and declaring that it is instead a statement that you find offensive. It goes against the most basic principles of personal freedom. The statement that is actually being made is not offensive at all. The offense is all in your mind.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Jaykaye_09

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 583
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #64 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:32am

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

JK, I don`t believe this ban to be an act of religious suppression, simply a demand for common courtesy. I believe the burga is an anti social statement that has no place in an open and free society.

Not sure I entirely agree. Certainly, I can understand that some might take issue with a burqa, possibly finding it discourteous, both in its overt symbolism and its concealment of the wearer.

I would be lying if I said I felt entirely comfortable when in direct contact with those wearing it.

Having said that, people's ideas of courtesy vary greatly. I find it somewhat bothersome, and to a degree discourteous, to have people knock on my door (at often inconvenient times) in an attempt to 'preach' their brand of faith. But of course, I wouldn't suggest the government impose any sort of restriction on that.

Indeed, I think that in the case of the burqa, for the government to impose a ban for that reason, would be a step too far.

Back to top

If I don't respond to a post directed toward me, it's probably because I've gone offline, not because I'm rude.&&&&Or maybe I don't like you. In which case, sod off. Ta.

IP Logged

aussiefree2ride

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3538

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #65 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 7:38am

Religion aside, the growing reliance on CC TV as a crime deterrent and crime solving mechanism should be enough to justify a ban of feature concealing garments.

I ride bikes & wear a full face helmet. I won`t talk to anyone with the helmet on, too creepy. Always take the helmet off to talk to people, they always ask me to put it back on again.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #66 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 4:35pm

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

You are the one who misunderstands it Soren.

Quote:

secularity = no overt religious symbol in public life unless it is part of the 'job' (priest, mufti, rabbi).

Laicite, secularism, in France means the exclusion of canon law, or any clerical, priestly privilege in shaping the public sphere and laws. So, for example, while bishops could sit in the House of Lords in Westminster, there is no way a bishop can be elected to sit in the French Assembly or the Senate.

The French Church can make dress rules for inside the churches but not for the street. Similarly, there can be no religious determination for Muslims, men or women, on what to wear outside the mosque. The hijab (complete hair covering) and the niqab (face covering) and the burqa (face and eye covering) are clothes worn because of religious requirements, therefore they are now banned in the public sphere. They are not banned in mosques or in private spaces.

The fez is not banned because it is not a religious but a cultural item. Same for kaftans.

If only Muslim girls were contented with wearing a headscarfe or cap with bunny ears, they could start a fashion wave and spread the love and harmony.

What do they insist on instead? This:

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #67 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 12:53am

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 7:38am:

Religion aside, the growing reliance on CC TV as a crime deterrent and crime solving mechanism should be enough to justify a ban of feature concealing garments.

I ride bikes & wear a full face helmet. I won`t talk to anyone with the helmet on, too creepy. Always take the helmet off to talk to people, they always ask me to put it back on again.

lol.

I agree that it is a security "principle", but I go much further than that, I say it is a cultural imperative, of our society, to be able to confront both friends, and strangers, FACE TO FACE, and I feel no shame, or embarrassment in requiring people who visit our country to respect that norm.

All those who want to champion freedom of choice can start in Islamic countries, and when they get the result that non muslims can wear what they want, drink what they want, and say what they want, in those places, then they can come back here and start lecturing me about principles of freedom.

I am not jesus, and I don't turn the other cheek, and I don't put the right to indulge personal quirks of foreign customs above the accepted standards of my own culture, in my own country.

I do not like meeting people in masks, and I do not want masked people demanding the right to conceal their faces from me, because some seventh century arab understandably feared that his neighbour may steal and rape his women if he saw their faces, because he did it, he assumed everyone else would as well.
THAT is not our society, and we never ever want it to be.

I think muslims would get on much better if they drop their demands for special treatment, drop the masks, and smile at people.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: French senate approves burqa ban. Reply #68 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 2:13am Yeah. It's up to us to demand of our politicians an end to detrimental tolerance. ..All is forgiven Pauline.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49475
At my desk.

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #69 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 11:05am

Quote:

Laicite, secularism, in France means the exclusion of canon law, or any clerical, priestly privilege in shaping the public sphere and laws. So, for example, while bishops could sit in the House of Lords in Westminster, there is no way a bishop can be elected to sit in the French Assembly or the Senate.

The French Church can make dress rules for inside the churches but not for the street. Similarly, there can be no religious determination for Muslims, men or women, on what to wear outside the mosque. The hijab (complete hair covering) and the niqab (face covering) and the burqa (face and eye covering) are clothes worn because of religious requirements, therefore they are now banned in the public sphere. They are not banned in mosques or in private spaces.

You are nnot making any sense Soren. Banning clerical privelidge would mean not allowing a preist to hold a seat by virtue of the fact that he is a priest. It would not prevent him from holding the seat via democratic means.

Likewise, just because the church cannot legally control what people where off their property does not mean that people cannot freely choose to where religious garments. You tun secularity on it's head, by implying that because the church can't force people to do something in public, the government must force them to do the opposite. You confuse the separation of government and religion with the government dictating religious choices. The concept of secularit draws a clear line in the sand. Your upside down concept does the opposite and could be used to justify anything, including a complete ban on religion.

Quote:

I agree that it is a security "principle", but I go much further than that, I say it is a cultural imperative, of our society, to be able to confront both friends, and strangers, FACE TO FACE, and I feel no shame, or embarrassment in requiring people who visit our country to respect that norm.

We never had that norm before. You are inventing it for Muslims.

Quote:

All those who want to champion freedom of choice can start in Islamic countries

No Mozz. Freedom starts at home. If you want to live in a country where the government interferes with fundamental religious rights, it is you who needs to experience the consequences, not me. It is not rational to argue that we must deny ourselves basic freedoms because backwards people on the other side of the planet do it too.

Quote:

I am not jesus, and I don't turn the other cheek, and I don't put the right to indulge personal quirks of foreign customs above the accepted standards of my own culture, in my own country.

But Mozz, you do not understand our standards. Our standards are based on personal freedom, live and let live etc. It is you who wants to replace this with personal quirks, and the sudden fear of a woman covering her face is a perfect example of such a quirk. It is you who demands special treatment.

Quote:

I do not like meeting people in masks

It is a long standing tradition in our culture to organise elaborate social events where people do exactly that. Your supposed 'cultural norms' are a reed bending to the current of popular fear, which you can and do chop and change to justify any absurd and unnecessary government interference with our personal choices. Try as you might, you cannot come up with any rational justification for this, other than that you personally dislike the choices others make. You are not different from the Muslim who denies a woman the right to choose what to wear because he thinks he knows what is best for everyone else.

Quote:

because some seventh century arab understandably feared that his neighbour

Projecting motives onto others is a favourite tactic of those who wish to deny people basic freedoms but have no rational justification for doing so.

Quote:

I think muslims would get on much better if they drop their demands for special treatment

Mozz, it is you who demands special treatment, by demanding that other people dress a certain way so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

aussiefree2ride

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3538

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #70 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 12:44pm

Quote:

I think muslims would get on much better if they drop their demands for special treatment

Mozz, it is you who demands special treatment, by demanding that other people dress a certain way so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. [/quote]

Can`t agree FD, these people are demanding a massive social back step. This is the height of arrogance and inconsiderate, self absorbed ignorance. Quite frankly, I don`t want people like this in my country, that`s my vote.

Back to top

IP Logged

aussiefree2ride

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3538

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #71 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 12:48pm

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:59pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:43am:

Doesn't the French ideal of laïcité refer intended absence of religion in government - quiet simply the separation of state from church? It also implies that the government will not influence the religious affairs of others.

Subsequently, as the government runs public schools, they are fully entitled to ban religious symbols as they have done. Though this itself raises questions on the interpretation of laïcité - as does the "burqa ban".

However, nowhere does the law introduced in 1905 (defining the separation of church and state) say anything about religious practice in public settings (this according to the political scientist who helped draft the French law banning the display of religious symbols in schools).

Regardless, it's a far more complex issue than some on here like to make it out to be.

My view is that a burqa ban serves no real benefit. No doubt, there are some who use it as a tool of oppression against women. Conversely, there are those women who wear it by choice, seeing it as a symbol of religious piety. My fear is that a ban would see the abuse of women (in the form of such dress) manifest itself in more sinister, hidden ways - while those wearing it by choice, would simply be having their freedom to practice their faith somewhat limited.

Might I add, I understand that some may rightly see it as a security issue (an exaggeration perhaps, but one that is difficult to counter). However, as many have stated, wouldn't it simply make more sense to include the burqa amongst those other items that are already (or should be) restricted in and/or around certain institutions for security purposes?

JK, I don`t believe this ban to be an act of religious suppression, simply a demand for common courtesy. I believe the burga is an anti social statement that has no place in an open and free society.

By that logic you could ban any religious practice merely by 'reinterpretting' it to not be a religious act and declaring that it is instead a statement that you find offensive. It goes against the most basic principles of personal freedom. The statement that is actually being made is not offensive at all. The offense is all in your mind.

People creeping around with their faces masked is offensive to me, and many others. it`s not a requirement of the religion of piece either, although the treatment of the infidel with contempt is.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49475
At my desk.

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #72 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 2:04pm

Quote:

Can`t agree FD, these people are demanding a massive social back step.

No they aren't. You are. They currently have the freedom to choose what to wear. You are suggesting we go back to the dark ages where the government dictates to people what they can wear.

Quote:

This is the height of arrogance and inconsiderate, self absorbed ignorance.

That bit I agrree with you on.

Quote:

People creeping around with their faces masked is offensive to me, and many others.

Yet you only complained about it when Muslims started doing it. Even when the KKK was doing it no-one suggested banning face masks as a response. But a pious woman has you trembling in your boots.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #73 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 2:48pm

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 11:05am:

Quote:

Laicite, secularism, in France means the exclusion of canon law, or any clerical, priestly privilege in shaping the public sphere and laws. So, for example, while bishops could sit in the House of Lords in Westminster, there is no way a bishop can be elected to sit in the French Assembly or the Senate.

The French Church can make dress rules for inside the churches but not for the street. Similarly, there can be no religious determination for Muslims, men or women, on what to wear outside the mosque. The hijab (complete hair covering) and the niqab (face covering) and the burqa (face and eye covering) are clothes worn because of religious requirements, therefore they are now banned in the public sphere. They are not banned in mosques or in private spaces.

You are nnot making any sense Soren.

Don't be a dill with such grim determination, FD. I am talking about how things are in France. Here's the beginning of an article on the BBC it, in English. It applies to you:

The French concept of laïcité is often difficult to understand for foreigners, in part because the word itself is not easy to translate. As it signifies the strict separation of Church and State, the closest approximation in English is secularism. However, that does not fully convey the importance of laïcité in France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663

All the usual online encyclopedias also discuss the particular anti-clerical characteristics of French laicite. Be a pet and try to think outside Queensland for a little...

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: French senate approves burqa ban.
Reply #74 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 2:55pm

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 11:05am:

It is a long standing tradition in our culture to organise elaborate social events where people do exactly that. Your supposed 'cultural norms' are a reed bending to the current of popular fear, which you can and do chop and change to justify any absurd and unnecessary government interference with our personal choices. Try as you might, you cannot come up with any rational justification for this, other than that you personally dislike the choices others make. You are not different from the Muslim who denies a woman the right to choose what to wear because he thinks he knows what is best for everyone else.

Nonsense. A very simple justification is that your 'elaborate social events' are not taking place on the street, the shop, the office. The public space is NOT to be appropriated by any particular ideology.

Secular rights are not unlimited. SO freedom to wear what you like is limited.
Religious freedom is not unlimited. SO what you can wear for religious reasons is limited.

There is no justification or compelling reason for covering your face in public as a matter of course. Neither human rights justifications nor religious freedom justifications. None.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 8:02pm by Soren »

IP Logged