|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 15 2016 04:01 Koorb wrote:
1) : As shown by the recent events in Corsica, burkini-clad women are likely to be accompanied by short-tempered male relatives who won't hesitate to resort to violence if passers-by merely look at their sisters/GF/whatever (up to and including the use of deadly weapons). So yes,there are public order concerns with muslim women wearing symbols of radical islam in France.
1) The burkini being a symbol of “radical islam” = uh? Surely you're aware that it doesn't even cover the face?
2) By that logic, as shown by less recent events in Corsica ( http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/04/30/97001-20160430FILWWW00031-une-salle-de-priere-musulmane-brulee-en-corse.php ), there are public order concerns with the very presence of Muslims in Corsica since some short-tempered, racist natives don't hesitate to resort to violence to tell them that they're not welcome here.
On August 15 2016 03:47 TheDwf wrote:
Nope. A significant part of the muslim population is on a crusade (well, on a jihad) against the very concept of secular, liberal republic. And the French society is increasingly fighting back, which rubs the regressive left the wrong way.
I find it funny that you fail to see that a “secular, liberal republic” is precisely there to make sure that people can use their freedom. Unfortunately, a combination of bigotry, colonial stereotypes and patriarchal injunctions will make sure that some harmless women will be attacked, banned from the public space and/or insulted in order to expiate some purely French obsessions. (Which, ironically, is exactly how religious fundamentalism proceeds...) Congratulations if you think that the French society won some kind of decisive fight by denying a few women the possibility to enjoy some summer day with her family and/or children. You're a true sentinelle de la République!
|
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse.
|
France266 Posts
On August 15 2016 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 03:36 Koorb wrote:On August 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:The mayor also drew the connection to extremism. http://www.thelocal.fr/20160812/french-mayor-bans-burqinis-in-riviera-beach"I don't have the time, nor the desire to stir up trouble. We have not banned the Muslim headscarf, the kippah, nor a crucifix , I have just banned something which is the symbol of Islamic extremism." And regarding the public order claim, has there really ever been disorder concerning this kind of attire in France? "Is the symbol of Islamic extremism" =/= "refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements (ISIS) which are at war with us" And yes there have been public order concerns with ostentatious display of orthodox muslim faith in France. The latest occurrence happened yesterday when tourists in Corsica where viciously attacked by the male relatives of veiled women (including the use of machetes and harpoon guns, and the beating of a pregnant woman) Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women? And hygiene reasons? Am I not allowed to wear a wetsuit and a bathing cap at a French beach? Because that's essentially what it is
Hey, you ask me if there were public order concerns related to the burkini in France, I give you an actual example of burkini-related violence, so that you understand that the decision of the court is not baseless. Women wearing orthodox islamic garments have been known to trigger violence toward non-muslims, directly and/or indirectly. There has also been many instances of niqab-clad women calling on their brothers/friends to assault police officers who were checking their ID...
As for the hygiene bit, you've got to understand it from a legal point of view: if a city rules that, on its coast, bathing in regular street clothing is forbidden because it poses a contamination risk to the marine ecosystem for example ; provided that the by-law is justified, then the 1905 law on church and state prevent the muslims from advocating that their beliefs trump the by-law. This is, as I understand it, the legal justification used by the mayor.
On August 15 2016 04:17 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 02:46 Koorb wrote:On August 14 2016 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really understand why but somehow the decision to ban burkini was accepted by the administrative tribunal of Nice - I was sure that it was going to be rejected. Maybe the state council will refute this. Either way, this is a clear indication that the current tolerance towards muslims is going down in France, now I don't know the specific of Nice so maybe the burkini was a real problem at the beach.
But considering the arguments used (that the burkini was some kind of indirect support for isis) it clearly shows that people are less tolerant. « No freedom for the enemies of freedom » © Louis Antoine de Saint-Just The decision of the court makes sense given how the ban was motivated by the city council. Great thing about that quote is that you can hardly apply it to reality, unless you have a really strict definition of freedom or want to end up with a self-destructive state. It is also based on a wonderful black/white world view where you're either an ennemy of freedom (whatever that means) or a "freedom supremacist".
You've got it completely upside-down. In Saint-Just's mind, the definition of freedom is as far as a black and white worldviews as possible. What the quote actually means is that any ideology or system of belief that seek to exist in a secular republic has to coexist peacefully within it, and accept that other ideologies benefit from the same liberty. In return for this acceptance, it earns the right to advocate an infinite range of opinions (under the law).
But the moment an ideology starts to deny the right of others to exist and to be expressed, then it should be shunned and denounced. If this ideology (ie. islamism in our discussion) doesn't accept otherness, its freedoms must be revoked.
That's the meaning of Saint-Just's words.
On August 15 2016 04:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:01 Koorb wrote:
1) : As shown by the recent events in Corsica, burkini-clad women are likely to be accompanied by short-tempered male relatives who won't hesitate to resort to violence if passers-by merely look at their sisters/GF/whatever (up to and including the use of deadly weapons). So yes,there are public order concerns with muslim women wearing symbols of radical islam in France. 1) The burkini being a symbol of “radical islam” = uh? Surely you're aware that it doesn't even cover the face? 2) By that logic, as shown by less recent events in Corsica ( http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/04/30/97001-20160430FILWWW00031-une-salle-de-priere-musulmane-brulee-en-corse.php ), there are public order concerns with the very presence of Muslims in Corsica since some short-tempered, racist natives don't hesitate to resort to violence to tell them that they're not welcome here.
1) Yes, the burkini is a blatant, "in your face", symbol of wahhabi islamism. This is widely recognized, even in the muslim world.
2) Nonsense. I don't even see where you are headed with this.
On August 15 2016 04:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 03:47 TheDwf wrote:
Nope. A significant part of the muslim population is on a crusade (well, on a jihad) against the very concept of secular, liberal republic. And the French society is increasingly fighting back, which rubs the regressive left the wrong way. I find it funny that you fail to see that a “secular, liberal republic” is precisely there to make sure that people can use their freedom. Unfortunately, a combination of bigotry, colonial stereotypes and patriarchal injunctions will make sure that some harmless women will be attacked, banned from the public space and/or insulted in order to expiate some purely French obsessions. (Which, ironically, is exactly how religious fundamentalism proceeds...) Congratulations if you think that the French society won some kind of decisive fight by denying a few women the possibility to enjoy some summer day with her family and/or children. You're a true sentinelle de la République!
The French society wins a decisive fight everytime it makes clear to wahhabite and salafite pieces of shit that they won't shape our society like they do in most of the muslim world nowadays. And if a few misguided little soldier of islamism get deprived of their summer day in the process, so be it. These women weren't banned of the public space, they segregated themselves from the rest of us.
|
On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse.
You love me already ?
By the way what you wrote in the end is not completly stupid.
|
On August 15 2016 05:44 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 15 2016 03:36 Koorb wrote:On August 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:The mayor also drew the connection to extremism. http://www.thelocal.fr/20160812/french-mayor-bans-burqinis-in-riviera-beach"I don't have the time, nor the desire to stir up trouble. We have not banned the Muslim headscarf, the kippah, nor a crucifix , I have just banned something which is the symbol of Islamic extremism." And regarding the public order claim, has there really ever been disorder concerning this kind of attire in France? "Is the symbol of Islamic extremism" =/= "refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements (ISIS) which are at war with us" And yes there have been public order concerns with ostentatious display of orthodox muslim faith in France. The latest occurrence happened yesterday when tourists in Corsica where viciously attacked by the male relatives of veiled women (including the use of machetes and harpoon guns, and the beating of a pregnant woman) Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women? And hygiene reasons? Am I not allowed to wear a wetsuit and a bathing cap at a French beach? Because that's essentially what it is Hey, you ask me if there were public order concerns related to the burkini in France, I give you an actual example of burkini-related violence, so that you understand that the decision of the court is not baseless. Women wearing orthodox islamic garments have been known to trigger violence toward non-muslims, directly and/or indirectly. There has also been many instances of niqab-clad women calling on their brothers/friends to assault police officers who were checking their ID... As for the hygiene bit, you've got to understand it from a legal point of view: if a city rules that, on its coast, bathing in regular street clothing is forbidden because it poses a contamination risk to the marine ecosystem for example ; provided that the by-law is justified, then the 1905 law on church and state prevent the muslims from advocating that their beliefs trump the by-law. This is, as I understand it, the legal justification used by the mayor. Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:17 OtherWorld wrote:On August 15 2016 02:46 Koorb wrote:On August 14 2016 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really understand why but somehow the decision to ban burkini was accepted by the administrative tribunal of Nice - I was sure that it was going to be rejected. Maybe the state council will refute this. Either way, this is a clear indication that the current tolerance towards muslims is going down in France, now I don't know the specific of Nice so maybe the burkini was a real problem at the beach.
But considering the arguments used (that the burkini was some kind of indirect support for isis) it clearly shows that people are less tolerant. « No freedom for the enemies of freedom » © Louis Antoine de Saint-Just The decision of the court makes sense given how the ban was motivated by the city council. Great thing about that quote is that you can hardly apply it to reality, unless you have a really strict definition of freedom or want to end up with a self-destructive state. It is also based on a wonderful black/white world view where you're either an ennemy of freedom (whatever that means) or a "freedom supremacist". You've got it completely upside-down. In Saint-Just's mind, the definition of freedom is as far as a black and white worldviews as possible. What the quote actually means is that any ideology or system of belief that seek to exist in a secular republic has to coexist peacefully within it, and accept that other ideologies benefit from the same liberty. In return for this acceptance, it earns the right to advocate an infinite range of opinions (under the law). But the moment an ideology starts to deny the right of others to exist and to be expressed, then it should be shunned and denounced. If this ideology (ie. islamism in our discussion) doesn't accept otherness, its freedoms must be revoked. That's the meaning of Saint-Just's words. Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:36 TheDwf wrote:On August 15 2016 04:01 Koorb wrote:
1) : As shown by the recent events in Corsica, burkini-clad women are likely to be accompanied by short-tempered male relatives who won't hesitate to resort to violence if passers-by merely look at their sisters/GF/whatever (up to and including the use of deadly weapons). So yes,there are public order concerns with muslim women wearing symbols of radical islam in France. 1) The burkini being a symbol of “radical islam” = uh? Surely you're aware that it doesn't even cover the face? 2) By that logic, as shown by less recent events in Corsica ( http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/04/30/97001-20160430FILWWW00031-une-salle-de-priere-musulmane-brulee-en-corse.php ), there are public order concerns with the very presence of Muslims in Corsica since some short-tempered, racist natives don't hesitate to resort to violence to tell them that they're not welcome here. 1) Yes, the burkini is a blatant, "in your face", symbol of wahhabi islamism. This is widely recognized, even in the muslim world. 2) Nonsense. I don't even see where you are headed with this. Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:36 TheDwf wrote:On August 15 2016 03:47 TheDwf wrote:
Nope. A significant part of the muslim population is on a crusade (well, on a jihad) against the very concept of secular, liberal republic. And the French society is increasingly fighting back, which rubs the regressive left the wrong way. I find it funny that you fail to see that a “secular, liberal republic” is precisely there to make sure that people can use their freedom. Unfortunately, a combination of bigotry, colonial stereotypes and patriarchal injunctions will make sure that some harmless women will be attacked, banned from the public space and/or insulted in order to expiate some purely French obsessions. (Which, ironically, is exactly how religious fundamentalism proceeds...) Congratulations if you think that the French society won some kind of decisive fight by denying a few women the possibility to enjoy some summer day with her family and/or children. You're a true sentinelle de la République! The French society wins a decisive fight everytime it makes clear to wahhabite and salafite pieces of shit that they won't shape our society like they do in most of the muslim world nowadays. And if a few misguided little soldier of islamism get deprived of their summer day in the process, so be it. These women weren't banned of the public space, they segregated themselves from the rest of us.
I agree with a lot of the things you wrote - wahhabism and salafism should be fought for sure - but we should also make sure that the muslim population as a whole does not believe that it is under attack. This kind of unilateral ban, a few weeks after the attack on Nice, really sounds like some kind of retribution, and I'm not really sure that it is constitutional (targetting specifically one religious bathing suit).
Also I don't know who wrote that, but the idea that there are no muslim party in french election is false. Where I live, there is one.
|
On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse.
Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level.
Also in this case of course a minority among minorities (burqini wearers) is used to 'discipline' all of the Muslim population just to enforce 'secularism' in the public sphere. That's just not how people want to live any more. They don't want to hide their identity when they leave their house.
|
On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level.
Do you know why you say that ? Because German's "weapon for culture" has been its religion (and its language too). It is through the church that germany unified its territory. France did it through law, through the language and through public education.
Anyway, you always need a way to culturally unify a country to a certain degree, it's the only way to preserve stable institutions.
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
|
On August 15 2016 06:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level. Do you know why you say that ? Because German's "weapon for culture" has been its religion (and its language too). It is through the church that germany unified its territory. France did it through law, through the language and through public education. Anyway, you always need a way to culturally unify a country to a certain degree, it's the only way to preserve stable institutions.
france looking more and more divised on a cultural plan is what seems the more worrying in the future, nowadays you even have asians asking for racial injustice, i have never seen that
the fact that a lot of people don't consider themselves french before being muslim bouddhist or whatever say a lot
|
On August 15 2016 06:37 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 06:34 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level. Do you know why you say that ? Because German's "weapon for culture" has been its religion (and its language too). It is through the church that germany unified its territory. France did it through law, through the language and through public education. Anyway, you always need a way to culturally unify a country to a certain degree, it's the only way to preserve stable institutions. france looking more and more divised on a cultural plan is what seems the more worrying in the future, nowadays you even have asians asking for racial injustice, i have never seen that the fact that a lot of people don't consider themselves french before being muslim bouddhist or whatever say a lot
Yeah but I think it's all very small minorities shouting louder than anyone else. The vast majority is french, feel french, want to be french - even in the shittiest neighborhoods.
Don't lose hope 
|
I don't think this kind of anti-communitarianism can survive today. People want to express their religion, sexual identities and so on not only in their private homes but also in public as long as you're not directly hurting anybody else. Minorities don't trust 'the system' to work for them. It's why Bernie lost every minority vote in the US. They don't want grant solutions and to control 'the system' or whatever. They've been on the receiving end for a little too long.
|
On August 15 2016 06:44 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think this kind of anti-communitarianism can survive today. People want to express their religion, sexual identities and so on not only in their private homes but also in public as long as you're not directly hurting anybody else. Minorities don't trust 'the system' to work for them. It's why Bernie lost every minority vote in the US. They don't want grant solutions and to control 'the system' or whatever. They've been on the receiving end for a little too long.
Yeah but you know this anti communautarism was actually a blessing for many people coming from the minorities. James Baldwin, who came from the US, argued that in France nobody considered him to be a black first and foremost, but an american writter. Same for Nina Simone, same for Richard Whirt. And today you have some black writters from the US who continue to come to France because they are not considered to be "black" before everything else but writters - even if the situation is not exactly similar to the sixties.
I think the communautarism, at the other side of the spectrum, is not a long term solution, as people are inevitably identified with the "minority" or the "race" they are part of - and thus they lose the freedom to define themselves as they want, as individuals. It's a cyclical process, there's no real long term solution.
Hey, you ask me if there were public order concerns related to the burkini in France, I give you an actual example of burkini-related violence, so that you understand that the decision of the court is not baseless. Women wearing orthodox islamic garments have been known to trigger violence toward non-muslims, directly and/or indirectly. There has also been many instances of niqab-clad women calling on their brothers/friends to assault police officers who were checking their ID...
What the hell, I just heard what happened in Corse.
|
On August 15 2016 05:44 Koorb wrote:
1) Yes, the burkini is a blatant, "in your face", symbol of wahhabi islamism. This is widely recognized, even in the muslim world.
2) Nonsense. I don't even see where you are headed with this.
1) Must be why it was created by some stylist in Australia so that some women could work at the beach. Skin-tight garments which don't hide the face and allow you to go to a mixed location with lots of semi-naked people around doesn't sound like the very symbol of wahhabism.
2) Just applied your logic to a similar situation, which indeed resulted in nonsense—we agree on that.
The French society wins a decisive fight everytime it makes clear to wahhabite and salafite pieces of shit that they won't shape our society like they do in most of the muslim world nowadays. And if a few misguided little soldier of islamism get deprived of their summer day in the process, so be it. These women weren't banned of the public space, they segregated themselves from the rest of us.
“Little soldiers of islamism” … So typical of this paranoid panic moral which sees pretty much any Muslim stuff as the insidious activity of some dormant agents “among us”; guess another interior enemy had to fill the gap when the USSR collapsed, eh? The way you dehumanize those women and assume they automatically have some kind of evil political agenda is pretty scary.
“They segregated themselves from the rest of us”: sure, that's why they wear specific clothes to feel comfortable enough to go to the beach with other people around. Because they actually don't want to be with said other people. It all makes sense!
And to fight wahhabism, instead of banning burkinis on a few beaches, you stop cooperation with Saudi Arabia, you stop selling them weapons which are then used to massacre Yemenis, you stop decorating their officials, … Of course relevant measures actually cost something (billions actually, hence why corrupt politicians won't take them), as opposed to the free good old method of using an already discriminated minority as a scapegoat.
|
On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level. Also in this case of course a minority among minorities (burqini wearers) is used to 'discipline' all of the Muslim population just to enforce 'secularism' in the public sphere. That's just not how people want to live any more. They don't want to hide their identity when they leave their house.
My thinking is that most who wear Burqas in the West do so for the same reason most people in the United States vote for a particular political party; they are born into a tradition and retroactively defend those traditions with rationale when they become old enough to do so. The justification for the forcible assimilation of minorities offered by WhiteDog, that the French State is the product of a tradition, and this tradition, which most people consciously subscribe to as the Republican myth, can also be defended without believing in that myth, on the grounds that upholding this tradition is merely the state defending its own ideological foundations, and is inherently justified as a raison d'etat, this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition.
The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members. In Germany, it seems terribly similar to the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft, and the comparison is worth thinking about. Hitler, after all, except for a few caveats and reservations, was more or less an admirer of the French Revolution.
|
this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition.
False, try again.
One one hand you have a faith and a set of custom, on the other you have a set of institutions geared towards the resolution of political conflicts (that actually built itself partly against the domination of the church and the ideology it defended), and you present the two as equivalent.
Not to mention the fact that you don't know much about the muslim population in France ; a little tips for you : the burka is not part of the "culture" of the muslim people who come from tunisia or algeria.
People don't defend the republic, the laïcité and its institutions because of some obscure feeling or desire to respect the "tradition", but because they believe it to be the most efficient way to preserve individual freedom.
|
On August 15 2016 07:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote + this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition. False, try again. One one hand you have a faith and a set of custom, on the other you have a set of institutions geared towards the resolution of political conflict, and you present the two as equivalent. Not to mention the fact that you don't know much about the muslim population in France ; a little tips for you : the burka is not part of the "culture" of the muslim people who come from tunisia or algeria.
One of the wonderful features of this post is the weird sense of condescension we get from the author, who thinks that apart from himself, everyone else lives in a mental well. Algerians and Tunisians live in substantial numbers in Germany, and everyone has a fairly good idea of how they dress. We are not talking about the people who have nothing to do with the controversy at hand. We are speaking specifically of those Muslim women who do wear Burqas.
How else do we explain this weird red herring post, apart from some pathological need to score points?
Going to the one part of your post which does carry substance, you are basically rephrasing the rationale which I have attributed to you. That is to say, the justification of the State interest lies within the inherent rationale of the state as such, i.e. peace via ideological domination. The part of the argument which applies equally to the French State and the Muslim traditionalist is the part which relates specifically to the defense of identity via tradition. Therefore you have picked an argument over something that you agree with. Well done.
|
On August 15 2016 07:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 07:32 WhiteDog wrote: this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition. False, try again. One one hand you have a faith and a set of custom, on the other you have a set of institutions geared towards the resolution of political conflict, and you present the two as equivalent. Not to mention the fact that you don't know much about the muslim population in France ; a little tips for you : the burka is not part of the "culture" of the muslim people who come from tunisia or algeria. One of the wonderful features of this post is the weird sense of condescension we get from the author, who thinks that apart from himself, everyone else lives in a mental well. Algerians and Tunisians live in substantial numbers in Germany, and everyone has a fairly good idea of how they dress. We are not talking about the people who have nothing to do with the controversy at hand. We are speaking specifically of those Muslim women who do wear Burqas. How else do we explain this weird red herring post, apart from some weird pathological need to score points? Going to the one part of your post which does carry substance, you are basically rephrasing the rationale which I have attributed to you. That is to say, the justification of the State interest lies within the inherent rationale of the state as such, i.e. peace via ideological domination. The part of the argument which applies equally to the French State and the Muslim traditionalist is the part which relates specifically to the defense of identity via tradition. Therefore you have picked an argument over something that you agree with. Well done.
Difference between you and me is I knew algeria twenty years ago, and saw how it changed. Something Rousseau didn't explained you, and something you cannot see by just watching some random algerian on the street.
The point is, they don't wear burka out of some attachment to traditions of the past like you implied.
And no we do not agree. I don't believe the republic to be an ideology similarly to a religion or a political belief. Its first and foremost a set of institutions ; it's more of a church than a religion if you prefer.
|
On August 15 2016 07:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 07:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 15 2016 07:32 WhiteDog wrote: this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition. False, try again. One one hand you have a faith and a set of custom, on the other you have a set of institutions geared towards the resolution of political conflict, and you present the two as equivalent. Not to mention the fact that you don't know much about the muslim population in France ; a little tips for you : the burka is not part of the "culture" of the muslim people who come from tunisia or algeria. One of the wonderful features of this post is the weird sense of condescension we get from the author, who thinks that apart from himself, everyone else lives in a mental well. Algerians and Tunisians live in substantial numbers in Germany, and everyone has a fairly good idea of how they dress. We are not talking about the people who have nothing to do with the controversy at hand. We are speaking specifically of those Muslim women who do wear Burqas. How else do we explain this weird red herring post, apart from some weird pathological need to score points? Going to the one part of your post which does carry substance, you are basically rephrasing the rationale which I have attributed to you. That is to say, the justification of the State interest lies within the inherent rationale of the state as such, i.e. peace via ideological domination. The part of the argument which applies equally to the French State and the Muslim traditionalist is the part which relates specifically to the defense of identity via tradition. Therefore you have picked an argument over something that you agree with. Well done. Difference between you and me is I knew algeria twenty years ago, and saw how it changed. Something Rousseau didn't explained you, and something you cannot see by just watching some random algerian on the street.
Yes, and unlike you I saw the dull monotony of the Russian steppes, the moonpocked surreality of the Icelandic tundra, and everything else that belongs to my personal experience. Notice how I am not desperately trying to find fault with you on any of those subjects, over statements you did not make. If you want to share the benefit of your unique experiences, we are all listening. But do not claim that I am wrong when the problem is simply that you cannot read.
|
On August 15 2016 07:53 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 07:46 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 07:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 15 2016 07:32 WhiteDog wrote: this same argument justifies the Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition. False, try again. One one hand you have a faith and a set of custom, on the other you have a set of institutions geared towards the resolution of political conflict, and you present the two as equivalent. Not to mention the fact that you don't know much about the muslim population in France ; a little tips for you : the burka is not part of the "culture" of the muslim people who come from tunisia or algeria. One of the wonderful features of this post is the weird sense of condescension we get from the author, who thinks that apart from himself, everyone else lives in a mental well. Algerians and Tunisians live in substantial numbers in Germany, and everyone has a fairly good idea of how they dress. We are not talking about the people who have nothing to do with the controversy at hand. We are speaking specifically of those Muslim women who do wear Burqas. How else do we explain this weird red herring post, apart from some weird pathological need to score points? Going to the one part of your post which does carry substance, you are basically rephrasing the rationale which I have attributed to you. That is to say, the justification of the State interest lies within the inherent rationale of the state as such, i.e. peace via ideological domination. The part of the argument which applies equally to the French State and the Muslim traditionalist is the part which relates specifically to the defense of identity via tradition. Therefore you have picked an argument over something that you agree with. Well done. Difference between you and me is I knew algeria twenty years ago, and saw how it changed. Something Rousseau didn't explained you, and something you cannot see by just watching some random algerian on the street. Yes, and unlike you I saw the dull monotony of the Russian steppes, the moonpocked surreality of the Icelandic tundra, and everything else that belongs to my personal experience. Notice how I am not desperately trying to find fault with you on any of those subjects, over statements you did not make. If you want to share the benefit of your unique experiences, we are all listening. But do not claim that I am wrong when the problem is simply that you cannot read.
You wrote "Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition."
What I'm telling you is that the burka or the burkini are not part of the traditions of the french muslims (who are originated from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco mostly) ; it is a very new arrival, that is not specific to France. From where I stand, it is the burka that is a foreign imposition.
|
And no we do not agree. I don't believe the republic to be an ideology similarly to a religion or a political belief. Its first and foremost a set of institutions ; it's more of a church than a religion if you prefer.
Every modern state which has a constitution with a preamble states the intellectual defense of its existence within that preamble. And whether the legal constitution is the alpha or the omega is irrelevant, for the conflicts being discussed in the Burkini ban law are highly related to a political belief about the relationship of minority communities to general society; therefore if you believe that ideology is something detached from the nature of The Republic, then any discussion of The Republic is irrelevant as such, in the context of this debate. If on the other hand, one voluntarily brings questions of national character into this debate, as you have done, then the the ideological character of the state is de facto acknowledged by its very inclusion in the argument.
|
You wrote "Muslim community defending their own traditions in defiance of foreign imposition."
What I'm telling you is that the burka or the burkini are not part of the traditions of the french muslims (who are originated from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco mostly) ; it is a very new arrival, that is not specific to France. From where I stand, it is the burka that is a foreign imposition.
Yes, I should have written a Muslim community, rather than the Muslim community, however any iota of common sense would have made that translation voluntarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
