a ban on all religious symbols in school? to put it bluntly, this really pisses me off. to me, this only promotes discrimination, and is an unfair and unrealistic pressing to conformity.
if i were a student in france i'd march right in with my yarmulke, my headscarf, my giant cross pendant, and anything else i could find. and prompty get expelled.
edited for spelling.
[ February 03, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
The French are stupid. Thats all I have to say.... yea..... stupid Frogs.....
Rhaegar
[ February 03, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anna, what is the general sentiment about this among the French public? To the American eye it generally seems unreasonably repressive, judging from both my own opinion and those of the other people I've talked to about this (who span a fairly broad range of political viewpoints).
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
This policy is the logical extrapolation of their previous socialist policies. Individualism is dangerous to them.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
OSC's latest "War Watch" column on the main page discusses the French policy, including his proposals for an appropriate response (if he lived in France).
quote:If America ever had such a revolting law as this one that's being considered right now in France, I would encourage my own children and all my friends' families as well to purchase scarves for the girls and yarmulkes for the boys.
It's the last part of the article. You have to wade through some commentary on the Dem presidential contenders first.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
So, are they going to be issuing gold stars for people to wear in the effort to enforce French secularism? Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Does anyone else think it's funny that Robespierre would comment on this?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
First of all - I think it's possible to discuss this issue calmly without resorting to name-calling and nationalistic slander. Calling the French "stupid frogs" is insulting, and you forget that we have several intelligent French jatraqueros in our midst.
Secondly, we had a rather good discussion on this point here before the issue had gone through parliament.
[ February 03, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Raeghar I don't exactly know the general feeling about this. A majority is in favor of this law, but not a big one anyway (about 56%). We discussed that before on this forum, and I will try to tell my point of view again : all this stroy did go too far. This was first a material problem (accidents with veils in machines in technology lessons, girls refusing to go to their sport lessons because they wear such a dress they can't run...) and that became an enormous and ridiculous story. But I have to add that I found OSC quite offensive and insulting towards all French and not only the ones in favor of this ridiculous law in War Watch. Try not to see us as one, agreeing with all that happens here, please. As I try to do when the American government takes decisions that do not please me.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Annie : you dubbled me on that one. I was offline to type.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(Comment: I think Rhaegar just feels compelled to live up to his screen name. )
Anna,
I agree that OSC went over the top on his rant about the French in general (it's not the first time he's done something like that in this column.), and I should have said something about it. Considering the number of people who don't seem to support the proposed law, it would seem that a campaign similar to the one that OSC described would be an effective one. And maybe help build some bridges in the process.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Well, not as big as that, but there is a campain like that. A lot of girl, muslim or not, started to wear a veil in school. Only thing is, there's not much publicy around that. I only know because there's a public school near my bus stop (the one I'm working for is Catholic, so...) and heard about that, so I asked around me and there are a lot of girls doing that in all France.
[ February 03, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does anyone else think it's funny that Robespierre would comment on this?
Why? This is totally consistent with his previous posts on individual liberty.
Of course, he probably thinks the schools shouldn't be government-run anyway, and then we wouldn't have this kind of problem at all.
Robes is one of the most ideologically consistent poster here, although I only agree with about half of what he says.
Dagonee
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*bangs forehead on desk*
Hello! French Revolution?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and to maintain my own consistency:
I think the policy is terribly wrong-headed in many ways. But calling people stupid about does not help the political discourse.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*stares up at the joke that went right over his head.
there, there, Jon Boy. I got it, for what comfort that gives.
(Still waiting for the next revolution...)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Slightly off subject, but does anyone else want to create a law that will not allow Annie and Anna from posting in the same thread?
Its freaking confusing for silly people like me.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled debate.
I think we can all agree that any generic bashing that needs to be done on this law needs to be against one nortoriously arrogant, ignorant, and stupid group of people--politicians.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Jon Boy, banging your head on your desk is out of character. Stop doing that.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Now congress will have to call them 'religiously repressive fries'.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Maybe Anna and I are the same person...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
From Robespierre's link:
quote: as his power increased, his popularity waned
Dude, you gotta be like the fifth most powerful Jatraquero. I'm up there too, so not an insult. I just thought it was funny.
Oh, and uh, at any rate I think the French would be totally "powerful" in Iraq.
[ February 03, 2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I don't know how you measure power, but I would be more modest than you in that ranking. As for popularity, I have written that off long ago.
As far as the French go, they may yet have some individualistic spark left in them, unless the 30 hour work week and 6 weeks of paid vacation has stomped it out.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
We work 35 hours a week, and it's just a theory for a lot of persons. By the way, I'm not the same person as Annie, and I like to post in the same threads because she's clever and knows a lot about France so I can discuss with her without being called Frog. Proof : AnnaAnnie . Also if we had avatars like on GRENME or Sakeriver, maybe it wouldn't be that confusing
[ February 04, 2004, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We work 35 hours a week
My mistake. The point being, your government dictates how you are to live your life. The US government does the same thing, only to a lesser degree.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote: The US government does the same thing, only to a lesser degree.
...and with fewer benefits, and without guaranteeing union protection, and they make you pay for your own healthcare...
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Union protection? You mean protection from unions, right?
They make you pay for your own healthcare? What is medicare? Should we also make people pay for their own houses and cars? What about hair-cuts?
[ February 04, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Not having your hair cut won't kill you. Not having a chimiotherapy when you need it will.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Not having a home can also kill you. Not having food can kill you. Not having a job can cause lack of the above and kill you that way.
Yet when the government tries to solve these problems, it makes them much much worse. The Soviet Union was an expiriment in government run economy, and it was a spectacular failure, I don't understand why you want such a calamity to befall the people of America.
And dangit anyhow, one Ann__ at a time!
[ February 04, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Robes, different country, different culture, different values. Let it lie. Not everyone considers income tax theft.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Robespierre : Learn to read an entire name and not only the beginning of it, or you will confund Raia and Rivka as well!
[ February 04, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wouldn't be the first time. Easy way to tell me and Raia apart: she's younger and much cuter. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Rivka:
quote: First of all - I think it's possible to discuss this issue calmly without resorting to name-calling and nationalistic slander. Calling the French "stupid frogs" is insulting, and you forget that we have several intelligent French jatraqueros in our midst.
True, but Rhaegar is a Bush-supporting "I'm-angry-at-the-French-for-disagreeing-with-us" sort of person. He is just misplacing anger at our two friendly French Hatrack members. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Nick, when referring to him, do you think we should use Rhaegar's screen name, in its entirety, out of respect? Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm not going to do that because it's not worth it to me. To be honest, I don't think you should either. I don't think he made the name thinking he was foolish when he joined Hatrack, and I don't think calling him a fool will help anybody.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:A majority is in favor of this law, but not a big one anyway (about 56%).
quote:Excerpt from a CNN Article: A poll published Wednesday, showed the majority of French people side with Chirac. The poll published in the Paris daily Le Parisien showed 69 percent favor a law banning the wearing of head scarves and other religious symbols.
When I first read an article which discussed this ban, I had trouble accepting that the article was real. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but the idea that France would pass an act which is so clearly discriminatory - in actuality if not in intent - was so outrageous to me that I simply couldn't believe it was really true. Whether the percentage of those in favor is 56% or 69% is immaterial; either percentage is too much. In fact, even a 25% backing would be too much! If a religion requires that its members wear a certain kind of dress, then a law forbidding the wearing of religious dress is clearly discriminatory against those religions. Perhaps some of the French people who are in favor of the law simply don't realize that certain kinds of religious dress are required, but even so, the fact that a majority of the French people are showing relgious discrimination is, to put it bluntly, frightening.
Furthermore, the excuse given for the ban is absurd. Secularism does not promote religous equality; it promotes a lack of religion altogether. France's goal of "secularism" is frighteningly close to the USSR's ban on all religions. No, France will never - in the current political climate and environment, at least - actually ban religion, but banning specific relgious "commandments" is just a scaled-down version of the same idea.
If the headscarves are dangerous in certain classes, that ban the students from those classes. If the girls cannot participate in certain gym activites due to their clothing, so be it! And how exactly are yarmulkas dangerous? Actually, they are dangerous in France today; they put their wearers in danger of being attacked - but a country has no right to try to do away with religious persecution by banning religion.
Personally, I believe that anyone religious enough to be affected by this law should be attending a private religious school in any case, but the government cannot require this without being guilty of religious discrimination.
Edited to fix quotes.
[ February 04, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
quote: (Comment: I think Rhaegar just feels compelled to live up to his screen name. )
Drat sndrake you found my secret, now oyu must die! *draws pickaxe*
Rhaegar
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Nick, you're right. It came out meaner than it sounded when I played it out a few times. Should have looked at it a bit more before I hit send.
I just get taken aback by simplistic name-calling. I disagree with lots of people here and vice-versa. The ones I like best are the ones who argue their positions without getting personal and nasty.
I'll try to live up to that myself.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I just find the word Frog as insult oddly amusing, thats all, and I just hope for a chance to use it, because well, its so absurd its funny, not because of what it means, but because someone was stupid enough to come up with it as an insult. I don't have any major problems with the French personally, I dont particularly like them, but I dont hate em, sorry for any offense given.
Rhaegar
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Personally, I believe that anyone religious enough to be affected by this law should be attending a private religious school in any case
When the government runs all the schools, hospitals, etc, there aren't many private places left.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:When the government runs all the schools, hospitals, etc, there aren't many private places left.
You'll notice I said private religious schools - and there are most definitely private religious schools in France. If France went so far as to refuse medical treatment to someone who was wearing a religious symbol and refused to remove it, I think that they would be sinking to levels fast approaching Communist Russia and Nazi Germany - or Vichy France, to use an even closer comparison.
You'll also notice that my post was strictly against the ban; I included my personal feelings about very religious people attending public schools in general simply because I believe that is an argument that some use in favor of the ban, and I wanted to point out that even if someone's personal belief is that highly religious people are better off attending their own religious schools, that is no justification for forcing people to make such a decision.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(As promised, I'm transferring posts from the temporary thread on the other side.)
Anna said:
quote: To Robespierre: The government is far from ruling all schools and hospitals. Point is, the private schools and hospitals are mostly Catholic. There are very few Muslim schools. And I think this would be the answer, yes. Because all of you react as if the law forbid the scarf any time. It is not the case, it will only be in public schools. It's still too much for me, but please take that in mind
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Anna, I think the concern about a ban on religious articles in a public school is twofold. Firstly, it is a public institution, paid for, I assume, by public funds? Why should my taxes (speaking as a theoretical French citizen) go to support an institution that this law ensures I cannot attend. (You may say that I can, if I choose to violate my religion's dictates. I say that is no choice.)
But the issue that concerns me more is the ATTITUDE that such a law implies. I had a lovely time in France, not far from Paris, the summer I was 16. I have many friends who are French, both online and IRL.
But I would not travel to France now. I would feel far too unsafe. That saddens me greatly.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I feel uneasy about what you said. Because I feel the current debate and law coming from the government, not from French People. Oh, maybe they agree (but can we trust what people said one day in the street when it was cold to a guy who asked them a bunch of questions?) but it wasn't a people initiative. Which makes a difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then where is the outrage from the people of France? Where are the people crying out, "This cannot be allowed to happen here!"?
And actually, this ban has little or nothing to do with my feeling unsafe. That has more to do with the rate of anti-semitic crimes in France in the past 2-3 years. In 2003, the rate of such occurrences went down in most of Europe -- except in France, where it rose, drastically.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I know. People don't really care. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly. And the apathy frightens me more than anything else.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
[ February 06, 2004, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Banning scarves and yarmulkes in public schools just sets of Holocaust klaxons in my head. That and the statistics rivka mentioned.
quote:You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
Does everyone? No. But there's a great deal of us that do, and loudly, too.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
And in France, we don't know you do : so how do you expect to know it if we fight ? Even our medias don't talk much about it !
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that is true, then frankly the common French people just don't watch American media. That's unsurprising, since Americans don't want French media, but my point is in response to your statement of basically, "Well, y'all do bad stuff too, and no one's complaining," is to ask: ARE even a vocal minority of French people upset about this law?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Oh yes.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
No, I think the people in America realize that when you commit a crime, you get punished, no matter what the color of your skin. We don't have race quotas on executions.
That is not a comparable situation to France's ballooning muslim population, some of which is overtly hostile to Jews.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I think it's indicative of the same sort of problem-we as a nation still have issues treating certain minority segments of our population unfairly, yes. I think that's clearly indicated by the disparate execution rates.
But I can at least say with conviction that America is heading in the right direction with regard to that problem. This latest law in France, to me, seems to indicate something much different.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I think that's clearly indicated by the disparate execution rates.
What does that indicate? Does it tell you who committs a disparate amount of crimes? Or does it expose the media driven stereotype that all of US law enforcment is out to get blacks?
If you could show that the rates of crime were different than the rates of execution, then there would be something to discuss.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm reasonably sure it has been shown that, proportionally, blacks in particular are more likely to be executed for similar crimes than whites are. I will look it up and be back.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, there are some pretty good studies that show the race of the victim has the greatest impact on whether a killer is executed, although the statistics are less clear than the studies purport them to be. Race of the defendant has a much smaller effect, although still significant.
The problem with the studies is that it is doubtful that they controlled (or even identified)all the non-race factors correctly. But the correlation is large enough that there probably is some bias in the sentencing.
But considering that the Supreme Court mandates discretion throughout the capital punishment trial process, the bias is very hard to identify, let alone root out.
Dagonee
Edit: The disparity means that a black person convicted of killing a white person has the statistically greatest chance of being executed. A white killing a white has the next greatest chance, a black killing a black the next, and a white killing a black the least. A person in the first category is about twice as likely as a person in the last category to be sentenced to death.
I do not have time to find the studies online, but my recollection is fairly fresh.
[ February 06, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I can't find much meaningful information on this topic. It seems as though government sites like Dept. of Justice doesn't like breaking down crimes committed by race.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can't say that the French people aren't reacting to this. You can't say they're complicitly agreeing - if you do, you haven't been following French news at all.
The French are far better at political protest than we are. Protests are not something engaged in by those crazy few. There have been marches, there have been rallies - the day after the law was passed, thousands of girls wearing the French flag as a headscarf marched in protest -- and that even made American AP news. Plus, Anna told us earlier that there is a large number of girls, Muslim or not, wearing scarves to school in protest.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Fugu, you demonstrated the problem. No source material at all. I want to see some actual studies, with some numbers put to them. Such a study should include numbers from the entire country.
How about some statistics for crime in St.Louis? The city is over 50% black. I would like to know the statistics for the city, but I can't seem to find any hard numbers, only opinions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At least three of those links had some hard numbers and pretty direct references to studies:
Study reports are big business, its no surprise that they can't be found on the web. But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
It doesn't make any difference to me if they exist or not, if I cannot see them. I refuse to rely on someone else's interpretation of the data.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that the studies exist. Parse the sentences again. There's nothing else I could be talking about.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: No, that the studies exist. Parse the sentences again. There's nothing else I could be talking about.
Fugu, I really don't care to try and divine exactly what it is you are saying. State it plainly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robes, unless you have Lexis or Westlaw access, you're going to have to go to a law library to see the studies, since they're almost all in Law Reviews.
The studies can be divided into those that merely point to racial disparities, which have little probative value, and those that attempt to control for different factors that lead to the death penalty, whose quality varies widely.
For the definitive judicial analysis of such studies, see McCLESKEY v. KEMP, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). You don't get the study, but you get two very well-written discussions of it from both sides of the issue.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can think of another way to parse these two sentences?
quote:Study reports are big business, its no surprise that they can't be found on the web. But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
The "they" in the second sentence clearly refers to "Study reports". There's no other reasonable way to parse it. At all. You misread me, I did not misspeak.
This was partially in response to your statement
quote:Fugu, you demonstrated the problem. No source material at all.
I have amply demonstrated that there is source material. That you are not about to go out and get it due to the time and/or expense involved is not a failing of mine or of the studies.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
However, the articles in question do not contain any useful information.
quote: I have amply demonstrated that there is source material.
Then put some links to that source material on here, and we can see for ourselves, rather than relying on Joel Schwarz's interpretation of the data.
Again, please state what you are trying to say in this thread, what is your point?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh* Not everything is on the web, Robespierre. I shall quote here from some of the articles, which you apparently did not deign to read:
quote:The study, which he conducted with Sara Steen, a recent UW doctoral graduate and now an assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, was published in the American Sociological Review.
quote:SOURCE: SAMHSA. (1997). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1996, p. 19 Table 2D; Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1997). Sourceboo of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996. Tables 4.10 and 6.36; BJS. (1997). Prisoners in 1996. Table 13.
quote:A RAND Corporation study in 1983, however, unearthed some disturbing data.
quote: 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains.
quote:The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period.
quote:A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks.
quote:The report, "And Justice for Some," details a double standard that exists in nearly every state's juvenile justice system, including Washington's.
My point is that there's plenty of data out there on the subject, whatever it says. Your assertions about there being a lack of "source material" are unequivocally false.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Lack of source material available to me. I never said there were no studies at all on the issue.
So you don't have anything to add, save for your stand against my exasperation about not being able to find anything on the web?
[ February 06, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
* Pulls out Mackillians thumping stick (she didn't know I stole it from her)
This is not my field of interest, but I appreciate the desire to work with source material. It's available in a variety of formats. Enjoy!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you did notice the numbers and results referenced in some of the quotes I made? And those were just coincidental.
Here are some more:
quote:In the study, Bridges and Steen looked at a sample of 233 juvenile cases from three Washington counties. That study found minority youth, particularly blacks, were more likely to be detained, charged with a criminal offense, tried and sentenced to confinement than were white juveniles.
quote:First, the powder form of cocaine that is preferred by wealthier, usually white consumers, requires 100 times as much weight to trigger the same penalty as the crack form.
quote:In 1986, before mandatory minimums instituted the crack/powder sentencing disparity, the average sentence for blacks was 6% longer than the average sentence for whites. Four years later following the implementation of this law, the average sentence was 93% higher for blacks.
quote:A 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains. Twenty-five percent of whites, 18 percent of blacks, and 12 percent of Latinos got their sentences reduced through bargaining.
quote:The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period. The paper reported in December 1991 that a third of the white adults who were arrested, but had no prior record, were able to get felony charges against them reduced. Only a quarter of the African-Americans and Latinos with no priors were as successful in plea bargaining.
quote:Professor Johnson discovered that white jurors were more likely to find a black defendant guilty than a white defendant, even though the mock trials were based on the same crime and the same evidence.
That one has some particularly relevant results which show racial bias is greatly reduced by having even slightly mixed juries.
quote:In a 1999 survey of studies on discrimination in the justice system, researcher Christopher Stone found that much of the disparity in sentencing could be traced to differences in arrest charges and prior records of those convicted. He concluded: “There is no evidence of disparity that stretches across the justice system as a whole . . . . But studies of individual jurisdictions and specific parts of the court process do find some evidence of race bias in a significant number of cases.”
quote:Stone considered drug offences separately. Some federal mandatory sentences have come under fire for discriminating against minorities. Critics point to different sentences mandated for crack cocaine, a drug popular in poor minority communities, and powder cocaine, a drug used in wealthier communities. Under federal law, dealing five grams of crack cocaine gets a first offender a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. To receive a similar mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in powder cocaine, an offender must possess 500 grams. Stone stated: “Whatever one believes about the rationality of the decision to create special, harsher penalties for crack cocaine, the concentration of these sentences on black defendants is striking.”
States often have similar disparities in drug sentencing laws. In a 1996 study of California drug sentencing laws, researchers found that possession of crack cocaine and heroin, more commonly used by minorities, carried stiffer penalties than possession of methamphetamines, more commonly used by whites.
quote:A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death.
quote:Black youths are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, even when they are charged with the same crimes and have never been in detention before. Those charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile institutions. And on average, when they are prosecuted as adults and sent to prison, they stay there 61 days longer than whites convicted of the same crime.
quote:But yesterday's report, sponsored by the Justice Department and six of the country's leading foundations, showed the problem is nationwide.
Among the findings:
In every crime category, a substantially greater percentage of black youths were detained than white youths.
White youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days, but blacks are locked up an average of 254 days and Hispanics are jailed an average of 305 days.
Black youths are much more likely than white youths to be sent to adult court, even when charged with the same offenses.
Nationally, 7,400 youths were sent to adult prisons in 1997. Three-quarters were minorities.
Isn't the complete lack of numbers and results amazing? How on earth are we supposed to talk about the issue. And if you want the original data in full, you have to go to the source like everybody else.
Yes, I am rather pissed off at your tendency to not bother reading links provided in response to your complaints.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
Personally, I think this has to do more with economic status than with skin color. A rich black man (O.J. Simpson?) can get off with less, much like a rich white man.
However, since in our country there are more economically disadvantaged blacks than there are whites, it makes statistics seem that it is a racial thing.
my 2 cents Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Farmgirl -- its worth noting that a number of the statistics I cited above are controlled for economic status.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: In the study, Bridges and Steen looked at a sample of 233 juvenile cases
What study? Who funded the study? When was it done? Where can I find a copy of the study?
quote: First, the powder form of cocaine that is preferred by wealthier, usually white consumers, requires 100 times as much weight to trigger the same penalty as the crack form.
Hmm, I don't recall of anyone ever being executed for the possesion of crack. How is this relevant? No drugs of any kind should be illegal.
quote: the average sentence for blacks was 6% longer than the average sentence for whites. Four years later following the implementation of this law, the average sentence was 93% higher for blacks.
Interesting, what's the source? What law are they talking about? Does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Who funded the study? Where was it done?
quote: A 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains. Twenty-five percent of whites, 18 percent of blacks, and 12 percent of Latinos got their sentences reduced through bargaining.
What does this imply? Does it have anything to do with death penalties?
quote: “There is no evidence of disparity that stretches across the justice system as a whole..."
Sounds interesting, how was this conclusion reached? Does it apply to death penalty cases?
quote: A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death.
Does this mean that whites are protecting their own? Who was on these juries? Does the nature of the crime have any impact on the case? Were these cases particularly brutal?
quote: Black youths are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, even when they are charged with the same crimes and have never been in detention before. Those charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile institutions. And on average, when they are prosecuted as adults and sent to prison, they stay there 61 days longer than whites convicted of the same crime.
Says who?
quote: you have to go to the source like everybody else.
If you find one, I promise you that I will. Sndrake has a good link. Perhaps there are some on the net after all fugu, you just have to look hard for them.
quote: I am rather pissed off at your tendency to not bother reading links
I read your links, and I told you why they are pointless. Make your case or pipe down. The real reason that you are pissed off is because you can't let me say anything without contradicting it. No matter where I post, or about what, you are there to dutifuly disagree. What's your beef?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Farmgirl -- its worth noting that a number of the statistics I cited above are controlled for economic status.
They are? How can we know this? Do you have the source material available? How exactly did they take this into account? Did they mix rural and urban statistics?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So Robespierre, when faced with actual statistics that contradict his opinion, will take refuge behind the shield of forcing the person providing the statistics to do literally hours of research to answer some of his questions.
When they do that, he will question everything as though we are in a court of law, accepting no single statistic unless a dozen background questions about it are answered to his satisfaction.
What a joke you are, Robespierre. I don't know why anyone tries to convince you of anything you don't already believe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
All those question are answered in the articles, oddly enough (actually some of them aren't, but most of them are, so the point is illustrated). Which you read, and thus know, right? Of course, that makes me wonder why you're asking those questions.
As for them being controlled for economic situation, I am capable of reading. For instance, in the mock trials the situations were exactly the same except for the race of the defendants. Several of the remarks on the juvenile studies specifically mention the youths were from very similar economic backgrounds. That sort of thing.
No, I have specifically agreed with you on some things before, notably economic in nature.
I am not jumping on you, you have been jumping on me. Read this and the courts thread. Who started each confrontation? In the courts thread you jumped on a comment by me. In this thread you ignored data I provided (and are still ignoring it as is obvious by your ignorant questions about some of the quotes I cited to illustrate the presence of data) and then proceeded to accuse me of saying things I didn't by misreading, either deliberately or incompetently, what I said when I disproved your assertion that there was "no source material at all".
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Rakeesh, you have been part of this discussion before, and you know that I don't put up with hear-say evidence. You are just as jaded and confrontational about these issues as I am.
quote: I don't know why anyone tries to convince you of anything you don't already believe.
I don't know either, Rak.
quote: No, I have specifically agreed with you on some things before, notably economic in nature.
I have no idea what "thing" that would be. It certainly wasn't interest or banking.
Look, I jumped on you in the judical thread because this antagonism between us was coming to a head. Usually, I will jump into a conversation where I have a clearly stated opinion and basis for my opinion. You tend to come in and snipe at me, without really having anything to say. At least this is my perception of it.
Now it has boiled over into whatever this thing is here. I don't want to have a nemesis here. People who disagree with me, good. People who dislike how I write, fine. But most of these people are speaking from a certain point of view that is knowable to others. I don't know how to deal with you, and that tends to make me more aggressive. Just tell me where you're coming from on this, and I will try to calm down and listen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Farmgirl,
Even controlled for economic circumstances, the racial disparity appears in these studies.
But you're right - economic class has an even bigger impact on findings of guilt and sentencing than race does.
Much bigger. It's not just the quality of the lawyer - it's access to independent forensic experts, possibility for psychiatric experts, the ability to file lots of motions that require prosecutor response. All this is compounded by the fact that a credible defense team makes the prosecutor more willing to really deal, and a budget-constrained defense team is more likely to push a less advantageous deal on its client.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The problem, Robes, is that the original studies are probably not available online. If you really do care and want to read them you're going to have to go to a library and will likely have to order them. Then, since you said you don't trust anyone else's treatment of the stats, you're going to have to contact the authors and ask for the raw data (if it's not included) and do your own in-depth study on it. If that's what you want to do, you have my whole-hearted respect and admiration. But don't ask fugu to do it for you or claim that he's making unfounded claims when he is unwilling to do it for you.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote: They make you pay for your own healthcare? What is medicare?
Since you don't use Medicare yet, I understand that you don't understand the system. First of all, do you know what that "medicare" deduction (coming out of your paycheck) is for? Secondly, monthly payments for medicare insurance are taken out of one's Social Security check each month.
quote: Even if you commit the same crime and have the same record, a white offender is almost 50 percent more likely to get a withhold than you are. Some folks say that's not a function of racism but of socioeconomics. Meaning that whites are more often able to afford private attorneys, less likely to have to rely on some overburdened public defender.
There are two answers to that. One: socioeconomics can't be disconnected from racism where black people are concerned; the disparity in black and white accumulated wealth is hardly an accident. And two: The Herald report shows that, even when you adjust for type of attorney, African-American defendants are still much less likely to receive withholds.
Did you know that 40% of statistics are made up on the spot?
So, um yeah.... about France...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So. To yank this thread back on topic, and to tie it in with the Jackson nipple of doom thread, if these people were in a religion advocating for less clothes of some kind, would you all still be as supportive?
Let's say that we can pull up studies which show that muslim girls raised in traditional households are, say, 50% less likely to graduate from college and 50% more likely to get beaten by their husbands?
The reason that I am mentioning these things is that I think that many people aren't really making an attempt at logical argument here. How we dress and speak is already regulated in America and France. Why should Muslims be any different? Why should religion be any different?
If you look at religious thought and speech as just another kind of speech, and if, as was implied very strongly in the Jackson nipple of doom thread, society has the right to regulate behavior, whether or not any kind of observable, provable effects can be demonstrated as reason for regulation, then who gives a rat's ass about these girls? Why is their fashion display so much more important than Jackson's?
Religion is not a sacred cow. Schools in France and in the US require their students to wear uniforms, or at the very least to conform to some dress code, to leave their individuality at the door. Indeed, many supporters of uniforms go into orgiastic fits of delight in spitting on issues like self esteem which might raise an individual's sense of individuality and devotion to themselves over group, but these same people love the idea of uniforms because it teaches children about 'the real world' and discipline and not standing out. If this is important, then religious symbols are just another form of expression to be regulated. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The issue here isn't about freedom of religion. The issue is about individual and group needs versus national needs and the needs of social convention. It makes no sense to support display of religious iconography, which has no bearing on how students do in school, over any other public display which students find important. If you support uniforms in school and social conformity in dress, then you should support it for religious groups, as well.
(Edited for clarity.)
[ February 06, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I didn't know that yamulkas were now not allowed in schools in France and America. If they are also banned, then so should the girls' head scarves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yamulkas are certainly allowed in schools in America. And in France, both were banned in the same law.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Religion is not a sacred cow.
Actually, I need a smiley that is laughing so hard, milk is coming out of its nose. Anyway. Pre 9/11 scarf wearing was a worrying symbol of allegiance to fundamentalist/extremists. (I'm basing this on Nine Parts of Desire by G. Brooks) But post 9/11 it is viewed as solidarity with Islam. We who do the viewing may be wrong about that.
If it is found that hats of any kind increase whatever social problem (actually, all hats were banned from my junior high because, the principal said "They cause fights") and all hats are banned, that is fine. But when religiously symbolic hats are singled out, that is not fine. That is the state interfering with religion. At least that would be the case in the US. "Separation of church and state" is a paraphrase of what the bill of rights actually says, and is not a sacred cow unto itself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Storm Saxon said: Religion is not a sacred cow.
Yes, it is, at least in America. Neither the state nor federal government may hinder the free exercise of religion. Obviously, we don’t let people commit murder in the name of religion. The standard used as to whether a specific regulation can permissibly hinder a religious practice is a “compelling state interest.” Such regulations must also be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet the interest and to restrict religious expression as little as possible.
For better or worse, practice of religion has been given higher protection than any other non-expressive behavior in this country; the protection is integrated into the fundamental structures of our governments.
Your argument ignores the fact that important things can differ in their importance – it sets up a false dichotomy.
It is possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, but not important enough to infringe on religious practice.
Dagonee
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Yamulkas are certainly allowed in schools in America. And in France, both were banned in the same law.
Then, how is this not about suppressing religious observance?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yes, it is, at least in America. Neither the state nor federal government may hinder the free exercise of religion. Obviously, we don’t let people commit murder in the name of religion. The standard used as to whether a specific regulation can permissibly hinder a religious practice is a “compelling state interest.” Such regulations must also be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet the interest and to restrict religious expression as little as possible.
For better or worse, practice of religion has been given higher protection than any other non-expressive behavior in this country; the protection is integrated into the fundamental structures of our governments.
While certainly freedom of religion is an important ideal, as you admit, it can be regulated. Very famously and specifically, it is already regulated in schools.
I'll tell you what, though. I'll tack an 'to me' on the end of where you quote me.
Now, rather than appealing to American constitutional authority instead of replying to my points, I'd appreciate it if you replied to my argument. Please note that I don't care about what the law says. Let's argue on a 'what should be' level. edit: We should anyway since the thread topic is about what's going on in France.
quote: Your argument ignores the fact that important things can differ in their importance – it sets up a false dichotomy.
No idea what you're saying here. I mean, I know, but I'm not sure which part of my argument does this.
quote: It is possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, but not important enough to infringe on religious practice.
O.K. I'm sure it is. What's your point? It's possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, and that a sense of national, or local, community supersedes the religious community and ideas.
[ February 06, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine - at "the what should be level", the government should not require people to choose between following their faith and receiving universal public benefits.
It's that simple.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then, how is this not about suppressing religious observance?
It is about supressing religious observance.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Annie, did you knwo that 63 % of people are ready to believe anything if you give a percentage? It goes up to 87% if you give two. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Oh, and as I said on the other thread, it's not only about religion. It's about feminism too. A lot of people here - I didn't said I agree so don't shout on me - see a head scarf as a symbol of the oppression of women. That's why they are with the government on that point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's about feminism too. A lot of people here - I didn't said I agree so don't shout on me - see a head scarf as a symbol of the oppression of women.
But of course, the law bans all large religious displays on the person. So it either is all about religion, or whoever drafted the law supports limiting religious expression of all to promote their feminist ideals without discriminating against muslims.
I'm not sure which I find more appalling.
Dagonee
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I guess they couldn't make a law just against head scarf. But they would have liked to. It was the bigger problem anyway, and the reason why a law is voted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's interesting that limiting personal choice is seen as a legitimate means to promote feminism.
Either the girls are forced to wear scarves or not. If not, then it's not feminist to limit their choice of what to where. If they are forced to where them, then these girls are most at risk for being totally withdrawn from public school and further marginalized as women.
It makes no sense as a feminest proposal.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> So it either is all about religion, or whoever drafted the law supports limiting religious expression of all to promote their feminist ideals without discriminating against muslims. <<
I'd say it's about religion. France is a strongly secular state.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The people of France have decided that their schools should be secular.
The community has a right to set standards for dress.
With these two facts in mind, it's clear that the Muslim girls don't really have a leg to stand on.
[ February 07, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How does someone wearing a peice of religious headgear make the schools non-secular?
A yamulka's not OK, but a baseball cap for a soccer team is?
Add a cross to the cap and now it's not?
Make the cross part of the logo for a band and it's OK again?
The schools don't require uniforms - they ban clothing based on its meaning to the wearer. There's no way to say this policy reflects individual liberty.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Dagonee has a point. In banning crosses, head-scarves etc. how do they enforce such things without people arguing that "It's just a decoration/fashion." When does religion end and 'just wearing it' start? When is a cross merely two long thing rectangles laid on top of one another?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, how can people claim a statue of the 10 Commandments at a court isn't just decoration?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not trying to claim the 10 Comandments were just decoration. However, courts have upheld public display of paintings where the comandments were a part of a larger, non-religious scene.
My point was that the only way to enforce the French law is to deliberately try to limit religious expression - there's no way to couch the law as merely regulating students' dress without admitting that it is targetted at religious expression.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ha - Ha.
The US backs Isreal unrelentlessly.
The US Invades two Muslim countries and ousts their leaders.
The US Hunts down Al Queda members, forcing them to flea and hide in the mountains.
The French just ban religious clothing in public schools, including feminine head scarves.
Yet the French rocket up to almost equal status to the US on the Al-Queda hit parade.
We welcome France into the cross hairs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, if opposition to Al Qaeda makes someone heroic -- as many conservative commentators have claimed -- does that mean that French school officials are now heroes?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No - it means they're picking on children who just want to express their religious beliefs.
I'm sure pissing on the Sacred Mosque in Mecca would be elicit a strong response from Al Qaeda. That wouldn't be heroic either.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, so, just to clarify: opposition to Al Qaeda is only noble if it's done in appropriate ways and for appropriate reasons? Because, y'know, Ann Coulter might find that a treasonous statement. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Effective opposition is noble.
Wagging your fingers at them and saying "nyah nyah nyah" at them is just silly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And what makes opposition effective, exactly? Does a previously ineffective opposition BECOME noble if it suddenly starts working?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, you should really stop trying to explain what conservatives think or believe. You're really not very good at it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am merely pointing out that many conservatives have made the argument that our opposition to Al Qaeda -- and the details thereof -- are morally exempt from questioning, as the mere act of opposition is itself noble. Ann Coulter and John Lileks, in particular, have both said that liberals are outright treasonous for questioning the methods of the president's struggle against this organization, because -- as Lileks says in one of his most recent articles -- any opposition to an evil force is a noble one.
If this is not the case, and merely being opposed to evil does not in fact make someone heroic, merely dissenting to the forms of that opposition does not make someone ignoble -- contrary, again, to the claims of several popular conservative pundits.
I don't expect YOU to be a big fan of Coulter, but I know there ARE fans of Coulter out here -- and, consequently, I'm glad to see a conservative helping me make my argument against her views.
[ February 25, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've always interpreted those columns slightly differently - that the enemy is such that certain measures that may not be justifiable in other circumstances are justifiable against al Qeada. Certainly that's a debatable point, but it's quite different than saying that anything is justifiable. But I don't regularly read either one, so I might have missed the ones you're talking about.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, are you saying that ALL devout, scarf-wearing Muslims support al Qaeda?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. But, surely, not all Afghani fighters opposing our invasion of that country supported Al Qaeda, either. Yet, oddly, suggesting otherwise is considered unpatriotic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, now I understand your analogy. I never much cared for Coulter, or agreed with her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yet, oddly, suggesting otherwise is considered unpatriotic.
Can you point to some examples of this, please?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You can probably quickly search on Ornery alone, Dag. Or read Treason. No hurry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I keep hearing that, but no one has ever pointed out a quote that says anything is justified to fight terrorism.
For example, I'm sure they wouldn't want to boost the capital gains tax back up to fund it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I was offline to type.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Actually, I need a smiley that is laughing so hard, milk is coming out of its nose. Anyway. Pre 9/11 scarf wearing was a worrying symbol of allegiance to fundamentalist/extremists. (I'm basing this on Nine Parts of Desire by G. Brooks) But post 9/11 it is viewed as solidarity with Islam. We who do the viewing may be wrong about that.