So today there was an attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 people. I was in Paris a few months ago and noticed the tension in the city - there were armed soldiers (or policemen dressed up like soldiers in combat gear) outside of every train station and in the metro. It's kind of sad to see the amount of violence being caused by extremist Muslims in the country. Hopefully they catch the bastards who did this. And also, hopefully, this doesn't scare more people into silence.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably won't and all this is going to accomplish is the advancement of xenophobic parties in France, because what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It probably won't and all this is going to accomplish is the advancement of xenophobic parties in France, because what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
I agree. Especially when one of the guys killed had publicly stated (paraphrasing a translation) "I'd rather die standing up than live kneeling." I'm sure his statement will be repeated often in Paris now.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all, good old fashioned European racism. French people brought the Muslims in as cheap labor, and were never really interested in seeing them as real citizens or as equals.
Secondly, the Muslims themselves have created their own communities and resisted assimilation, holding on tight to even the most horrible parts of the old country culture.
There is fault on both sides here, but the sad truth is that while people claiming that America is going to be taken over by immigrants who refuse to join the culture is laughable, in places like France and Britain this claim is less laughable.
French people are rightly going to be looking at this issue, and at the kind of brainwashing, poor morality, and extremism that young Muslims are exposed to in their separated communities and what can be done to both defend against that and to try and prevent it in the future.
Sadly, in the short term, there is going to be more focus on the former then the latter, and innocent Muslims who just want to live a quiet peaceful life (both those who believe that their women shouldn't vote or drive a car and should stay in their burkha, and those who are civilized), are probably going to be the focus of some persecution.
It's a bad problem for both sides, and it has been building for a while now, but the issue has been building for decades and there sure as hell aren't going to be any easy solutions now.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
I don't think so either, but what's the better solution in this case? You have a group of people coming into your country who despise everything about who you are, the values you hold, and the culture you live in. When you have to live in constant fear of being executed for disagreeing with them, or having your family blown apart by one of their bombs, or having your business looted and destroyed because they don't like the religion you follow, it starts feeling less like immigration and more like an invasion.
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
Honestly, I think a good response is to assert that the French government is the law of the land, not Sharia. Thus the law banning full body covering. I'd like to see more intervention into the child and spousal abuse that happens under Sharia, stronger public education, and harsher condemnation of violence against women, to make sure the cycle of violence stops after one generation. It's sad that young men born and raised in France are being brainwashed into Islam like this.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd support parties that many might call xenophobic, so long as their message centered more around calling for all citizens and people in their country to give up the barbaric practices of whatever place they came from, and support the rights of women, freedom of religion, etc, and less on just hating immigrants.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
I don't think so either, but what's the better solution in this case? You have a group of people coming into your country who despise everything about who you are, the values you hold, and the culture you live in. When you have to live in constant fear of being executed for disagreeing with them, or having your family blown apart by one of their bombs, or having your business looted and destroyed because they don't like the religion you follow, it starts feeling less like immigration and more like an invasion.
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
Honestly, I think a good response is to assert that the French government is the law of the land, not Sharia. Thus the law banning full body covering. I'd like to see more intervention into the child and spousal abuse that happens under Sharia, stronger public education, and harsher condemnation of violence against women, to make sure the cycle of violence stops after one generation. It's sad that young men born and raised in France are being brainwashed into Islam like this.
I completely agree with this.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: There is fault on both sides here, but the sad truth is that while people claiming that America is going to be taken over by immigrants who refuse to join the culture is laughable, in places like France and Britain this claim is less laughable.
This unfortunately causes the problems caused by Islamic immigrants in Europe to either be ignored, underplayed, or dismissed as racism here in the U.S. Mostly because our right wing loves comparing the situations and pointing to the current violence and culture war going on in Europe as a "dire warning" of things to come if we don't change our ways, blah blah blah. (which is laughable) So this causes people who know that Latino immigrants don't pose such threats to falsely equate the situation in Europe to that in the U.S., and assume anyone who is concerned about immigration in Europe is a racist old coot.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's religious radicalization. You can do it with any made up fairy tale about the universe. Just bury it deep in a kid's head long before they have the capacity for independent rational thought and make sure they know who god says is the enemy and what acts god knows is punishable by death.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its going to be a constant cycle of increased racism, discrimination, and religious radicalization.
In Quebec a big issue that I think contributed to toppling the secular government of the Parti Quebecois was a proposed law that would ban "overt" religious symbols from public employees, which was very controversial; as (rightly in my opinion) is mostly affected Muslims and barely inconvenienced Christians and Catholics. Particularly when "cultural exceptions" were made for Christian iconography, such as the crucifix in the National Assembly.
Additionally things got worse when supporters of the law suffered from Foot-in-Mouth syndrome such as saying comments like "I'd fear for my life if a Muslim doctor was in the hospital with me."
Its one thing to not be able to see the face of a public employee but I don't see how anything else matters.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
False dichotomy is false. You have many groups, first of all, and a very, very small few among them who are violent murderers. There are not two groups in conflict here. There is the overwhelming majority of French, muslim and Catholic and other, and the tiny minority of murderers, who happen to have a huge microphone, because they're capable of murder. That's it. None of this "two groups" nonsense.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I want to understand how someone can rationalize and justify these acts to themselves.
This you will never understand, because the rationalizations are not particularly cogent, or coherent, and don't need to be. It is about rage, not about reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: False dichotomy is false. You have many groups, first of all, and a very, very small few among them who are violent murderers. There are not two groups in conflict here. There is the overwhelming majority of French, muslim and Catholic and other, and the tiny minority of murderers, who happen to have a huge microphone, because they're capable of murder. That's it. None of this "two groups" nonsense
\
Well, you do have two groups, and you just defined them in your own post. One group of murderers, and everyone else. My whole argument was against the "maybe if we just come to an understanding this will stop" argument - a lot of the harshest condemnation of this attack is coming from French Muslims. It has nothing to do with that, because the group that is doing the murdering (the extremist, sharia law, infidels must die group) doesn't give two shits about "understanding" or conflict resolution. It cares about Jihad.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oversimplification is overly simple. As with nearly any situation involving extremists, it's not enough to simply say that the fringe is representative only of itself, tied to no one else. There is also the broader group of more moderate members in any religion or ideology, and to what extent if any they support or keep silent towards the fringe.
In this case, I don't think it's unfair to point out that insofar as there is an overall Islamic stance on freedom of speech with respect to speech that criticizes Islam in general and Mohammed in particular, well support for such freedom is not remotely widespread.
Of course that's not a uniquely Muslim reality, but what I think might be a *present* reality is that theirs is the religion with the largest and most actively violent and international fringe. For a lot of reasons, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think establishing that people can be broken in two groups is oversimplification when applied to a specific point. I.e, me saying "well, you have left handed people and you have right handed people" isn't necessarily an oversimplification of humanity when applied to a discussion of, say, the ergonomics of a pair of scissors. It doesn't mean I don't recognize the existence of groups more granular than that, or defined along different terms.
Likewise, there are many, many different groups and ideologies at play here, many overlapping or variable depending on how you define them. And false dichotomies annoy me as well - I read an article saying that Charlie Hebdo "deserved" what they had coming, because they were a voice for far-right racist white privilege and part of the system of oppression in France. Because the author chose to frame the conflict in a paradigm of "evil white racist French vs. poor oppressed Muslim POC." (And chose to ignore that CH is leftist and not particularly Christian-friendly)
But I feel it's possible to make a simplified generalization - within a narrow context - without having to explain the bigger picture every time. It's partially laziness on my part, but also because I don't like getting lost in the weeds and losing sight of the point being made. So in this context - the possibility of coming to a peaceful compromise with murderous lunatics - I would argue that compromise is a *bad* idea, and the only moral response really is to reenforce the liberal, secular ideals upon which your society is built.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I want to understand how someone can rationalize and justify these acts to themselves.
This you will never understand, because the rationalizations are not particularly cogent, or coherent, and don't need to be. It is about rage, not about reason.
I was once flipping channels and came across a news station where a reporter was speaking with a Muslim who believed Sharia Law should be implemented in all Westernized nations and was attempting to explain why it should be with practical and rational reasons. The reporter did an absolutely atrocious job at pointing out all the flaws in his logic and after he made a *point* about how his freedom of speech should allow him to demand that the reporter cover herself from head to toe and that she should be obligated to do so because of religious discrimination and that it was infringing on his rights and blah blah blah and the reporter basically conceded the point and said something like "Well, I just don't agree that I should have to."
I was dying for someone intelligent to jump in and demolish everything he said, point by point.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This particular political question makes me miss Christopher Hitchens. He took aim more than once at the intersection of freedom of speech and religious extremism-other forms of oppression as well, in fact.
I was reminded powerfully of him when in much of the initial coverage on NPR on the way home that day, multiple commentators expressed concern with how targeted the satire against Islam was. Not that it excused anything of course, but wasn't it vaguely disgraceful and even racist (ha!) that they were so harsh on Muslims?
Such remarks were mostly unchallenged, and more often agreed with. As for me? The religions or groups that are most adamant that they ought never be criticized are the ones I am happy to see most mocked and challenged. I will admit to an added layer of antagonism for those who demand a freedom from criticism, but also claim to know what God wants for them and for me and to speak in the name of the divine.
No. You get your holiest figure lampooned, because frankly it's worthwhile to expose your beliefs to ridicule and challenge.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... multiple commentators expressed concern with how targeted the satire against Islam was. Not that it excused anything of course, but wasn't it vaguely disgraceful and even racist (ha!) that they were so harsh on Muslims? ...
Frankly, this annoyed me a lot too.
First, two wrongs don't make a right. Accepting for the sake of argument that there is "too much" satire of Muslims (I don't agree), there are actually *two* solutions. One is to have less satire of Muslims and one is to have a lot more satire of other religious groups. Many more commentators seem more comfortable with the former while completely ignoring the latter.
Second, I don't buy the idea that satire needs to be even-handed. Some ideas are more wrong and inherently need more mocking than other ideas.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Targeted satire where I think things get understandable if it were legit defamation and hate speech, like the propaganda that Mohammed was a pedophile or was originally catholic etc.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Targeted satire where I think things get understandable if it were legit defamation and hate speech, like the propaganda that Mohammed was a pedophile or was originally catholic etc.
How are either of those "legit defamation" or hate speech? What exactly are you saying here?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Other than that, the situation in France is complicated. Historically, most Arab immigrants were coming from North Africa, which France owned until a few decades ago. After "decolonization," French soldiers left, and most (not all) French citizens had already left a decade before when crap started to hit the fan. But hundreds of thousands of Arabs made it out of North Africa and into France at a time when France WANTED integration of the two lands.
Many of them, in Paris' case settled into a ring of suburban ghettos around the city, where youth unemployment is very, very high, and tensions are higher. It's why riots break out occasionally.
We shouldn't be totally surprised that this is happening in France. They dug themselves a pretty deep hole for over a century. Xenophobia is what the Algerians had when the French showed up at the shores of the Med, and they were right to be wary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
quote:The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Wait, what?
quote:which isn't hurting anyone
Seriously dude?
Aside from heat exhaustion deaths, catching on fire while cooking, migraines, Osteomalacia and other illnesses caused by severe vitamin D deficiency, skin disorders, respiratory problems... there's the huge issue of violence being committed against women for not being "properly covered" by Muslim men. Anything from beatings, throwing acid on their face, rape, mutilation, and murder, all justified by Sharia law.
Which is exactly why civilized countries need to limit the impact of Sharia law whenever possible. I can't believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but honestly you saying that burqas "don't hurt anyone" is incredibly ignorant.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, the gunmen have now been killed by the French police. There was another attack on a kosher grocery store that resulted in a hostage situation, with 4 hostages murdered before the police were able to stop it. All in all, not a good week for France. I'm kind of disappointed the attackers weren't captured alive, as I would have preferred to see them face justice in a courtroom and face the mundane reality of life in prison (or suicide) rather than a glorious death that will make them into martyrs. But I can understand that the police didn't want to take unnecessary risks (to themselves or civilians) trying to capture them.
posted
Frankly, I wouldn't struggle too much to link this to France's treatment of immigrants.
While this is true, let's face it. They got the same shi*t over there that we got here. If it were just a matter of racism toward immigrants, we'd have Chinese, Indian, and Latino terrorists running rampant across North America and Europe.
You really need active conflict in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq in order to get what we're calling radical or extremist Muslims launching terrorist attacks around the world, whether it be Sydney, Ottawa, Paris, or Kunming.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
quote:The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Wait, what?
quote:which isn't hurting anyone
Seriously dude?
Aside from heat exhaustion deaths, catching on fire while cooking, migraines, Osteomalacia and other illnesses caused by severe vitamin D deficiency, skin disorders, respiratory problems... there's the huge issue of violence being committed against women for not being "properly covered" by Muslim men. Anything from beatings, throwing acid on their face, rape, mutilation, and murder, all justified by Sharia law.
Which is exactly why civilized countries need to limit the impact of Sharia law whenever possible. I can't believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but honestly you saying that burqas "don't hurt anyone" is incredibly ignorant.
I don't really think you're arguing against my actual argument.
I never said France should be enforcing or allowing all aspects of Sharia Law.
And come on, in that fire example she was wearing a hijab. Are we going to make just regular scarves illegal too?
I'd also add that, if the burkha itself is what's harming you, that's probably still not a good enough reason to ban it, not given the standards we tend to use for banning harmful things. Cigarettes exist for the purpose of converting plants into toxic chemicals for your body, but we don't make them illegal. Hell, French people smoke way more than we do.
And if your other argument is that we need to make something illegal because of its SECONDARY effects, then geez, we need to make a crap ton of stuff illegal, including drawing the Prophet, because while drawing it won't kill you directly, there's apparently a strong change it will kill you with secondary effects, to say nothing of the riots and other problems.
quote:I don't really think you're arguing against my actual argument.
I never said France should be enforcing or allowing all aspects of Sharia Law.
I actually think I am. The Burqa is one of the more oppressive, brutal public enforcements of Sharia, and your assertation that it's completely harmless is absolutely absurd. And I think you realized this too, since you changed your tune radically with this post.
quote:I'd also add that, if the burkha itself is what's harming you, that's probably still not a good enough reason to ban it, not given the standards we tend to use for banning harmful things. Cigarettes exist for the purpose of converting plants into toxic chemicals for your body, but we don't make them illegal. Hell, French people smoke way more than we do.
Yeah, except smoking isn't considered a mandatory duty for muslim women. Muslim women aren't threatened with beatings or mutilations or murder for not smoking two packs a day. Muslim women aren't brainwashed from an early age that they're inherently sindful, and the only way to please God and avoid tempting good Muslim men with their evil bodies is by lighting up. Your comparison is completely absurd, and I don't know if you're just ignorant or being obstinate.
What you're not grasping here is allowing the public wearing of burqas - an expression of "personal freedom" as you call it - is perpetuating and enforcing a system of oppression and abuse more terrible than you can probably imagine. I've seen it. I've seen a school that was bombed because they dared educate women, met a 6 year old girl with her legs blown off because she could read and write. Seen women murdered for going out alone and being raped by another man, seen the haunted look in these women's eyes - when I could see them at all. We had to start using Female Engagement Teams to talk to Muslim women for fear that they would be beaten for speaking to a man outside of their family.
You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so. And really, this sort of willful ignorance, the belief that the wives and daughters of extremist Muslim men are just hunky dory with covering themselves from head to toe and cutting themselves off from society - and hey this is just an expression of religious freedom just like wearing a cruxifix right? - is dangerous and stupid. France did the right thing is banning it, and I hope they continue to combat Sharia in the years to come.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually think I am. The Burqa is one of the more oppressive, brutal public enforcements of Sharia, and your assertation that it's completely harmless is absolutely absurd. And I think you realized this too, since you changed your tune radically with this post.
I don't think I've changed my position radically. I will say though that the "isn't hurting anyone" comment, with regards to the burkha and the niqab, was incorrect. I don't necessarily think the same applies to the hijab, which is just a scarf. Granted, an elaborate scarf that covers your head, but a scarf all the same, clearly not outlawed for its primary effects.
As for the rest?
Look that's all terrible, obviously. You're insane if you think I'm in favor of any of those enforcement methods under Islamic Law.
If we apply the same logic to why you'd like to outlaw the physical parts of a thing that has many many damaging primary and secondary effects, then you have to outlaw a huge amount of other things too. Guns? Illegal. Drugs? Illegal. Alcohol? Illegal. The list goes on.
You're picking something that's just going to make these women suffer in many other ways. You've driven them out of the public sphere and into their homes - the very place you say is MOST dangerous for them but now they feel they cannot leave. And for those who still venture into public, many now feel uncomfortable.
You aren't solving the problem. You're just making yourself feel better about it at their expense.
So what's the next step? Is the French equivalent of Family Services going to remove women from any home of which they suspect oppressive Islamic activity is happening? Because the veil ban is a teeny tiny bandaid in the grand scheme of what you're trying to undo. One that might do more damage than good for many women.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Look that's all terrible, obviously. You're insane if you think I'm in favor of any of those enforcement methods under Islamic Law.
Of course I don't think you're in favor of it. The problem in this case is that not banning it is giving it tacit approval. If you think of it as two Venn diagrams, all the space that isn't covered by French law is filled in by Sharia, which is why the French have been pretty good about making and enforcing these rules - it's about denying another legal system from gaining power or influence.
quote:If we apply the same logic to why you'd like to outlaw the physical parts of a thing that has many many damaging primary and secondary effects, then you have to outlaw a huge amount of other things too. Guns? Illegal. Drugs? Illegal. Alcohol? Illegal. The list goes on.
Again, you're missing the entire point here. It's not about the fact that it's dangerous. It's that it's dangerous and that these women are being coerced into doing it. If you want a similar Christian example, look at snake handling: there were churches in the U.S. that used to practice holding venomous snakes as part of their religious services. (based on an apocryphal segment of the gospel of Mark) Most states where this was practiced (correctly, IMO) banned this practice and arrested people for attempting it after a couple people were killed by it. The thing is, though, wearing burqas has killed far more women than juggling snakes has. And certainly made their day-to-day lives far worse.
quote:You're picking something that's just going to make these women suffer in many other ways. You've driven them out of the public sphere and into their homes - the very place you say is MOST dangerous for them but now they feel they cannot leave. And for those who still venture into public, many now feel uncomfortable.
You aren't solving the problem. You're just making yourself feel better about it at their expense.
This is a bad argument and you know it.
1) Why arrest someone for publicly beating his wife? If you make public wife beating illegal, it'll just cause more problems at home. Hopefully you know why this logic is problematic. You have to confront the problem whenever possible. But in this situation, burqas are usually only worn outside of the home, so it's ending an absolutely massive problem.
2) They'll still have to leave the home. As a matter of fact, they still *do* leave their home This has been the law in France for some time now, it's not like we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. To be frank, most of these men can't afford not to have their wives and daughters running errands. And the amount of "discomfort" they may feel is not nearly as uncomfortable of wearing a stifling black tent that restricts their breathing, causes skin disorders, makes it dangerous for them to drive, and causes a much higher risk of heat stroke and illness in general.
3)No, it is solving a problem. It's saved and/or improved the lives of thousands of French women since it's been implemented. I don't think it's there to make me feel better, it's there to make *them* feel better.
quote:So what's the next step? Is the French equivalent of Family Services going to remove women from any home of which they suspect oppressive Islamic activity is happening?
If there's evidence that abuse is occurring then yes, absolutely they should! (And do!) Being Islamic doesn't make beating your wife or daughter or sister any more ok.
quote:Because the veil ban is a teeny tiny bandaid in the grand scheme of what you're trying to undo.
Again, this is a logically fallacy. First, it's actually a pretty significant change. It publicly refutes the power and influence of Sharia. It says that you are under the protection and authority of the government of France, not Allah. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
Second, to quote Cloud Atlas, "What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?" I know that's rather melodramatic (which is perhaps the best 1-word description of Cloud Atlas, along with maybe incomprehensible), but the point is that even a small change for good is still worth it.
quote:One that might do more damage than good for many women.
How exactly? The ban has been in place since 2010, how has it done more damage than good for French women in these past 5 years? Because this is the same argument that was used against integration, for example. That it would do more damage than good for black kids to be integrated with whites in schools, because of bullying, mistreatment by teachers, etc. That separate bathrooms, separate schools, separate seats of buses was there for the *protection* of blacks. You and I both know this argument is a load of crap.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what would make life better for thousands of LGBT people? Banning Christian homophobia. It leads to drug use, mental illness, beatings, rape, and suicide.
Reverse Russia's law and outlaw propaganda denigrating or dehumanizing people based on their orientation or gender presentation. It would publicly refute the power and influence of Christianity thought. Christian homophobia killed far more people than burqas and snake-handling combined. This change would tell LGBT people that they're under the protection and authority of the government, not God. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: You know what would make life better for thousands of LGBT people? Banning Christian homophobia. It leads to drug use, mental illness, beatings, rape, and suicide.
Reverse Russia's law and outlaw propaganda denigrating or dehumanizing people based on their orientation or gender presentation. It would publicly refute the power and influence of Christianity thought. Christian homophobia killed far more people than burqas and snake-handling combined. This change would tell LGBT people that they're under the protection and authority of the government, not God. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
If you're talking about, say, making it illegal for parents to force their kids to go through "pray the gay away" camps and so forth, then you have an analogous situation and I agree they should be banned.
If you're talking about just Christian homophobia in general where said homophobes *aren't* literally forcing dramatic lifestyle choices on people on a day to day basis, then you're just being absurd. I'm not arguing for banning Islam here, even extremist Islam. Just banning some of the things they do which are immoral and harmful.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Second order effects. Sermon to parents to kids. Not to mention some of the reasons you gave for supporting the burqa ban aren't being done by family members, but people engaged in "morality" policing.
What about making it illegal to force kids to go to church? Some churches are as toxic as those camps. And those homophobes usually are forcing dramatic "lifestyle" choices on a day to day basis. "Christian" parents drove Leelah Alcorn to suicide with their attempts to force her to adhere their lifestyle choices.
I'm going in a twisty direction with this argument. On a idealist level, sure ban the **** out of objectionable religious practices (Christianity should go up against the wall frst, being the majority religion). On a pragmatic level, it can't help privileging the majority at the expense of the minority. Christian homophobia is intended as an absurd counter-example because it would be politically impossible. Further, it widens the acceptable justifications for legal action which would greatly expend the government's ability to control the private lives of individuals.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
But wow, the line you're drawing there is vapor thin. If you really play out the logic you used for Islamic teachings, then Christianity gets a pretty big hit as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
But wow, the line you're drawing there is vapor thin. If you really play out the logic you used for Islamic teachings, then Christianity gets a pretty big hit as well.
I think it's a pretty big line, and I think that it's crossed when you force someone to do something harmful for religious reasons. Yes, that includes parents who refuse to take their kids to the doctor because Jesus will make them better.
I'll admit the gray area comes into play with the psychological vs. physical abuse area. A dad who beats his son black and blue for being gay? I think we can both agree that should be illegal. A dad who yells at his son and demeans and verbally abuses him? Well yes, actually "verbal assault" *is* illegal in a lot of places, and he could be jailed for doing so. But it's harder to define.
I think it comes with pushing into a certain area of someone's psyche. I.e, the kind of things they do at these pray the gay away camps - sleep deprivation, extreme verbal abuse, mind games, and sometimes even physical abuse - are pretty horrendous and can severely damage a child psychologically. Listening to a pastor drone on and on about how homosexuality is an abomination before God is more background noise. It may cause legitimate problems for the child (up to and including suicide), but it's not a direct, deliberate attack on the child.
But that's all secondary. The thing is, forcing a girl or a woman to wear a burqa (which is physically dangerous) *is* physical abuse. It doesn't really fall into that gray area.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
quote:Pupils at the Madani Girls School in East London, some as young as 11, are all required to wear the burka or a full-face veil and long black coat at all times outside the premises. No choice at all.
Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
Honestly, there are so many articles out there talking about the oppressive nature of the burqa - many written by Muslim women who have been subjected to it - that comparing it to Jewish head covering is a little absurd. How many Jewish women wear their head coverings out of fear of being beating by their husband, father or brother if they don't?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This would be the religion which includes statements of gender equality as a traditional morning blessing praising God for not being made a woman, gentile, or slave, yes?
As for outright abuse, physical or psychological I would hesitate to go so far as to apply that across the board. As for systemic misogyny taught as being literally built into the university by God's will?
Well, Orthodox Judaism is perhaps not a good point to take a stand in support that this doesn't happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, half a page up, being taught that women's bodies were bad things was heinous oppression. But when it's christians teaching gays are evil, it's just "background noise."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I certainly don't think Orthodox Judaism is free of overt or systematic sexism, if that's what you're getting at, nor am I hunky dory with the gender inequality that's built into it. I just don't think the two situations are analogous.
NobleHunter: What's your point here, exactly?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Funny, half a page up, being taught that women's bodies were bad things was heinous oppression. But when it's christians teaching gays are evil, it's just "background noise."
Stop being disingenuous, you know the difference. You cross the line when you force a woman to cover her body because it's bad. And you cross the line when you force your kid to subjected to sleep deprivation and brainwashing to make him "not gay." At any point did I say Muslim Imams should be jailed for preaching that women's bodies are evil? No? Then stop being a jackass.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends if I'm wearing my radical hat or not.
If yes, I'm saying that supporting the burqa ban means supporting policing all sorts of religious expression that would effectively drive it from the public sphere and, ideally, wipe out anything but the blandest of low church episcopalians. If Church anything more than an excuse to show off your butter tarts and nanimo bars, up against the wall you go!
If not, then I'm pointing out the same logic as the burqa ban would allow for the expansion of government authority into regulating all sorts of expression and allow for significant invasion into people's private lives. Given that our society recognizes free expression of religion as one of the cornerstones of a free society, abridging it (particularly in such an uneven fashion) seems like a really terrible idea. And unless you want to argue that no muslim women have agency, even in a secular western society, then a burqa ban does abridge the freedom of religious expression.
What are weekly sermons if not brainwashing?
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
