|
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 18 2016 02:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with the skeptics of anti-burqa laws. The goal might be lofty but this just screams unintended consequences.
Passing laws forcing the marginalized members of a demographic to change their behavior will always fail to achieve the desired result. It is about as smart as punishing children for not reporting that they were being neglected.
|
On August 18 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 00:06 xM(Z wrote:
you call it fashion.
the problem here is that the change comes from outside/it's perceived as coming from outside; if it would've came from inside no one would give a fuck.
this whole islam thing set up as: they came here to change us so obviously it'll get resisted/fought over.
(ps: my opinion is that OtherWorld has no idea how the world works and just wants to buy it a Coke and WhiteDog is blinded by his idealized and perfect rainbow: black/white/brown/yellow, black/white/brown/yellow; he has this thing, it's like a fetish for that perfect cocktail of ... people.
yes there's an us and a them and it starts from us the family vs them the neighbors then it just goes up in size(dimension, proportion, magnitude, extent etc), value and ideology bounded). What I believe deeply is that ideas are performative in the sense that they create representations and, through them, structure your daily life, your feelings, your way of understanding reality. "Us" and "them" is a retroactive reality that exist merely because we collectively consider that having or not quality X is somehow a relevant distinction to make. So yeah I am an idealist.
i'd call you an insanitist. the distinction matters because quality X would make one have better results in his area of expertise. (would you not consider a worthy distinction if one with quality X saves 100 people more than one without it?; and i'm not talking here about bragging rights based on numbers, but about (future)decision making scenarios. if you have 1000 people to save, you need to first send in those with that quality X until you ran out of them else you're looking at criminal negligence.
it's as if you want human beings to be ideologically communists but practically, pragmatic capitalists; you want the distinction to exist(and be exploited) practically, but to be ignored ideologically.
qagrnweigunwersiges. that's not a solution for anything, it's schizophrenia.
|
On August 18 2016 02:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Probably not, if anything the law is going to be ignored or husbands are going to lock their women up. This is about as effective as drug prohibition
Some sociological investigation was done about women who wear the niqab in France. The majority of them isn't even married, so there's no husband to lock them up in the first place. When they're given a voice—something that people naturally didn't even bother to do—they say that they wear it on their own, freely, and sometimes against the will of their husband when they have one. It's actually hilarious to see the contrast between common prejudices (desocialized women coerced by domestic tyrants, or “islamist” activists trying to undermine the Republic) and reality/their own words.
|
Can you wear burqas in French schools and universities? If not, then how do they justify not wearing burqas in school but wearing them on the beach?
|
a school is a public institution where attendance is often compulsory, a beach is either private or public property where you spend your free time. That's a pretty clear distinction to me.
I also think keeping all religious symbols out of schools goes too far, but given that communication is a fairly important part of education here the burqa ban at least makes some sense.
|
On August 18 2016 02:51 Sent. wrote:
Can you wear burqas in French schools and universities? If not, then how do they justify not wearing burqas in school but wearing them on the beach?
You can't wear burqas or niqabs in schools or universities. If you refer to the burkini controversy, it's not the same garment (it doesn't cover the face, so it doesn't fall within the scope of the “anti-burqa” law).
On August 18 2016 02:59 Nyxisto wrote:
I also think keeping all religious symbols out of schools goes too far, but given that communication is a fairly important part of education here the burqa ban at least makes some sense.
The 2004 law banned the hijab from schools, the burqa was already forbidden.
|
I have really mixed feelings about it. I can see how the ban on this kind of clothing is attractive as a tool against women being pressured into wearing it - it's actually pretty similar to all the parts of the law where you are legally prohibited from doing something disadvantageous to you out of fear that you would not do voluntarily (look at labor law for example). But I not only can't see it working, but am just outraged by the idea that we are telling people what to look like.
Then again, if you look in a broader picture, you can see how absurdly hypocritical it is from us to criticize their clothing, when we still live in a society when you are legally bound to cover certain parts of your body in public and the vast majority of people don't blink an eye about it.
|
Can you wear burqas on the beach? Burqas, not burkinis
I'm asking because I'm curious how do orthodox muslims justify not wearing burqas in schools if they see it as a sin.
|
On August 18 2016 03:19 Sent. wrote:
Can you wear burqas on the beach? Burqas, not burkinis
Nope, you can't cover your face in the public space (with some exceptions of course).
|
anonymity in the public sphere ought to be a right, with the exception of demonstration/political events or whatever. Don't really see what the justification is for generally prohibiting your face being covered.
|
On August 18 2016 03:29 Nyxisto wrote:
anonymity in the public sphere ought to be a right, with the exception of demonstration/political events or whatever. Don't really see what the justification is for generally prohibiting your face being covered.
That said, it would not be unreasonable to expect that people who do things that could be regarded as suspicious would be subject to greater than average scrutiny by authorities.
|
On August 18 2016 03:29 Nyxisto wrote:
anonymity in the public sphere ought to be a right, with the exception of demonstration/political events or whatever. Don't really see what the justification is for generally prohibiting your face being covered.
From memory the justifications were “the dignity of women”, fighting against fundamentalism and security concerns.
|
On August 18 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:29 Nyxisto wrote:
anonymity in the public sphere ought to be a right, with the exception of demonstration/political events or whatever. Don't really see what the justification is for generally prohibiting your face being covered. That said, it would not be unreasonable to expect that people who do things that could be regarded as suspicious would be subject to greater than average scrutiny by authorities.
If you're talking about individuals acting suspicious, sure. Racial/geographical/religious profiling on the other hand is really screwed up. "guilty by statistics" isn't supposed to be a thing.
|
On August 18 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 18 2016 00:06 xM(Z wrote:
you call it fashion.
the problem here is that the change comes from outside/it's perceived as coming from outside; if it would've came from inside no one would give a fuck.
this whole islam thing set up as: they came here to change us so obviously it'll get resisted/fought over.
(ps: my opinion is that OtherWorld has no idea how the world works and just wants to buy it a Coke and WhiteDog is blinded by his idealized and perfect rainbow: black/white/brown/yellow, black/white/brown/yellow; he has this thing, it's like a fetish for that perfect cocktail of ... people.
yes there's an us and a them and it starts from us the family vs them the neighbors then it just goes up in size(dimension, proportion, magnitude, extent etc), value and ideology bounded). What I believe deeply is that ideas are performative in the sense that they create representations and, through them, structure your daily life, your feelings, your way of understanding reality. "Us" and "them" is a retroactive reality that exist merely because we collectively consider that having or not quality X is somehow a relevant distinction to make. So yeah I am an idealist. i'd call you an insanitist. the distinction matters because quality X would make one have better results in his area of expertise. (would you not consider a worthy distinction if one with quality X saves 100 people more than one without it?; and i'm not talking here about bragging rights based on numbers, but about (future)decision making scenarios. if you have 1000 people to save, you need to first send in those with that quality X until you ran out of them else you're looking at criminal negligence. it's as if you want human beings to be ideologically communists but practically, pragmatic capitalists; you want the distinction to exist(and be exploited) practically, but to be ignored ideologically. qagrnweigunwersiges. that's not a solution for anything, it's schizophrenia.
By quality I was not talking about something that you can objectify (like the quality to save someone) but rather an identity or a representation that necessarily stress on one aspect of reality, propose a certain perspective. There are many ways to describe conflict in a society : "the jews take all the money" is one way to explain the world, "capitalism is based on the exploitation of the workers" is another. The only actual objectified reality is that inequality exist, private property too, that people live in poverty / unemployment, etc. And anyway, to quote Spinoza, "there is no inherent power of the true idea" so self identification and self bias oftentime just outpower any kind of objectified truth.
When the society identify people, in their daily life, to their race, rather than their place in the production, it has direct effect on the way they behave and fight politically : whatever the interests that a black and a white worker have in common, if all they can do is see the reality through their racial eyes, then they will never mobilize together. If we all accept the idea that muslim and non muslim are two strictly different groups with vastly different behaviors, then any kind of collective mobilization is impossible - at least that's what I gathered from my own experiences.
I'm not saying at all that "there's no problem except for language problems", nor that there are no direct conflict between muslim and non muslim - I've already said that there specific topics where the occidental muslims need to clearly move (apostate, how they see non muslims and women, etc.). I'm saying conflicts and oppositions can be resolved by different form of organization / identification to a group, and if you systematically identify people to their religion (or their race), they will resolve their problems through religious organization / identification. Not really sure I'm really making sense here, but I can give a clear exemple if you want.
|
On August 17 2016 22:04 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 21:21 OtherWorld wrote:
[...]But why fight the ideology itself, ie "coercitive measures being taken against islamism", as you put it? Did the existence of the ETA (829 deaths) justify the establishment of coercitive measures against the idea of Basque independence? Does the existence of Buddhist Terrorism in Sri Lanka or Thailand justify coercitive measures against the politicized Buddhist ideology? Does the presence of casseurs in many demonstrations mean that the principles behind these demonstrations are bad? [...] Well, the existence of ETA did lead to harsh coercitive measures being taken against the whole independence movement, both in France and in Spain. And ETA was ultimately stamped out, and left with no other alternative than to disarm. Yay for coercitive measures?
Coercitive measures were taken only against the terrorist group itself and its proven supports in civil society (ie political parties, newspapers and radios affiliated with said party). Not against Basque individuals on the vague basis that "surely if they wear this, they must be disguting soldiers undercover !". As you can notice, this war on ETA didn't lead to a weakening of the support for Basque culture and independence among Basque people ; because it was, justly, targeted on ETA and not on the nationalist ideology behind it.
And besides, as others have pointed out, coercitive measures in general have very low efficiency when you look at facts. And, while they can be effective for small things, they're useless when the problem runs deeper - American Prohibition era is the classical example of that.
Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 21:21 OtherWorld wrote:
We both agree that a hardline islamist vision of the world is not what we want. But I think it is much more efficient not to take coercitive measures against it, because it will only make it stronger : look at the way the FN rose to proeminence in 2012 (or at Dieudonné vs Valls, or at literally everything) and you'll see that martyrdom is a powerful tool, and that the more an entity can pretend to be the victim, the more they'll gain traction and approval. I strongly disagree that "martyrdom" is a factor in rise of the FN. Their appeal comes from their unorthodox stance in issues such as immigration, modern French society, our relationship with Europe and our place in the concert of nations. Especially since the mainstream parties are quite out of touch with the electorate on this topics. If martyrdom was such a game-changer, then the FN would have been much stronger during the late 80's and the 90's, when it was getting a much much harder time in the media and in the mainstream political discourse.
Martyrdom may be too strong a word because of its religious origin, but victimization of the FN definitely helped it. Just look at how they spent their time complaining about the "bad treatment" of the medias in 2012, while in fact the medias were helping them, and everyone was like "urr durr evil medias gangbanging FN". Or how they complain about having so few seats in Parliament while they have 30% of the national vote (which, don't get me wrong, is a legit complaint). And, even worse, victimization is a pillar of the current FN ideology (and of mainstream populist parties all around Europe) : anti-White racism, oppression of the popular voice by the "UMPS" establishment, oppression of poor France by the dictatorial European Union, oppression of poor "French minorities" (homosexuals, women, etc) by barbaric Muslim culture (whatever that is), worship of Jeanne d'Arc, who's not a symbol of conquest and domination but of resistance against outsiders, etc. As for the "old" FN, it was never that successful because its core ideas were disconnected from your average voter's realities : monarchist/anti-republican stance, strong antisemitism, defense and nostalgia of French colonialism, despise of any policy remotely socialist, etc. It was straight out of 1935.
And even if you disagree, the point stands : victimization helps the "victim" in acquiring credibility and legitimacy. Look at Dieudonné vs Valls ! That shit could have been handled with discretion and no one would have batted an eye, but our dear Sarkozy wannabe fucked up once more.
Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 21:21 OtherWorld wrote:
No, as long as you're not actually trampling upon others' freedom, "supporting radical islamism" by doing things such as wearing a burkini should not be considered as a crime or a bad behavior. We don't care what the ideology preaches as much as what factually happens. The two are intertwined, and you can't fight the latter without adressing the former. A cleric preaching hate will beget actual violence. See Anjem Choudary in the UK for example: he never lifted a finger against anyone, he was just a preacher. But how many influencable young men took his word for it and went to Syria? At least a hundred, according to the police! How many crimes were committed over there because of him? Same reasoning works for our niqab/burka/burkini owners. They may not seem toxic for society at the first glance, but just think of the social pressure they apply on fellow young muslim women who are basically reminded that they are impudic for not wearing these garments! Just think of how children will be led to think that the female body is shameful, and must be hidden...
Yeah, no. The first case is someone explicitely calling for hainous acts to be commited, and this shouldn't be allowed - although, if we want to do things properly, we still have a good many hainous prophets of the far-right (or should we call it the "very far right", now that the FN is increasingly getting closer to traditional right-wing parties? How long will the FN be the popular pick among GUD members? I don't know) to put in jail.
The second case is not targeting one of your liberty or freedom, be it directly or indirectly. You are, however, denying liberties based on vague evidence (basically "it's bad because social pressure"), since the effect on young children of women wearing "radical islamic clothing" is far from proven. On the contrary, the Nazi example shows us not only that children who lived all their childhood being brainwashed had little difficulty to build a new, democratic, country that is today Europe's most advanced and wealthy big country, but also - and more interestingly - that a real liberalization, be it of morals or of politics, is only possible when done from the inside. Indeed, the efforts of the Allied powers to denazify Germany in the immediate aftermath of WWII proved mostly useless when met with reality, and it's only the subsequent generation, that was old enough to become politically aware in the late 50s/early 60s, that launched the real denazification and thus the liberalization of Germany's morals. Meanwhile, when the Allies tried "hardcore" or "coercitive" denazification on anyone who wasn't a very high Nazi official or a major war criminal, they met a lack of cooperation that was very telling.
We can fight, harshly, against the violence that is the result of extreme ideologies, whatever they are and whatever their inspirations are. We cannot realistically fight these ideologies themselves through coercition and social or physical violence. Unless your plan is to put all Muslims in extermination camps, which would, surely enough, destroy Islamist ideologies of all kinds, change in the way Muslims believers choose to live their faith can only come from themselves - and that is perfectly natural : what would you say if our politicians exerced coercitive measures against Christians who have an unfavourable opinion of abortion or gay marriage?
Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 21:21 OtherWorld wrote:
Now don't get me wrong : I'm not saying that a Lacoste polo is the same thing as a burkini. I'm saying, though, that the underlying mechanism for wearing either are fundamentally the same - assuming the individual chose to wear it freely, of course - , though they (greatly) differ in the intensity of their expression. And I'm saying that yes, most of the time you'll "segregate yourself" (since you see it that way ; I personally consider that segregation can only come from those who segregate, not from those who are subject to said segregation) by wearing what you wear. Why do people choose to wear quality clothes, if not to differenciate themselves from the masses in the street? Why do people chose to wear bling-bling stuff, if not to make sure they appear as rich to everyone? Etc I agree that the mechanism is more or less the same, but its outcome will be radically different depending on which societal end it is applied to. There's a reason why totalitarian regimes always come with a specific visual identity for their clothing, from the brown shirts to the salafi beards : it erases the sense of individuality for its members, and it turns anyone who's not adhering to the movement into an other, into an enemy.
The brown shirts were not a totalitarian uniform, in the sense that they were worn by members of the SA only, and you can be goddamn sure that SA members were proud of wearing it, it wasn't forced upon them. The good example would be the Jews' star in Nazi Germany and conquered countries. And if you want to go down that road, why isn't the traditional business suit that is often mandatory for office workers, be it implicitely or explicitely, also a totalitarian uniform?
I think you're reading too much into the significance of "salafi clothing" ; it is certainly not promoting the individual above society, for sure, but that's just of sign of heavy emphasis on public order - funnily enough, the very thing parangons of coercitive anti-Muslim measures fight for - over individuality. It's just another part of the several things radicalist societies are built upon, and I don't think that justifies making war to it - especially if you factor the various facts that coercitive measures are ineffective, that you're blatantly abusing l'Etat de Droit and basic civil liberties, and that you won't win anyways.
|
On August 18 2016 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:On August 18 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 18 2016 00:06 xM(Z wrote:
you call it fashion.
the problem here is that the change comes from outside/it's perceived as coming from outside; if it would've came from inside no one would give a fuck.
this whole islam thing set up as: they came here to change us so obviously it'll get resisted/fought over.
(ps: my opinion is that OtherWorld has no idea how the world works and just wants to buy it a Coke and WhiteDog is blinded by his idealized and perfect rainbow: black/white/brown/yellow, black/white/brown/yellow; he has this thing, it's like a fetish for that perfect cocktail of ... people.
yes there's an us and a them and it starts from us the family vs them the neighbors then it just goes up in size(dimension, proportion, magnitude, extent etc), value and ideology bounded). What I believe deeply is that ideas are performative in the sense that they create representations and, through them, structure your daily life, your feelings, your way of understanding reality. "Us" and "them" is a retroactive reality that exist merely because we collectively consider that having or not quality X is somehow a relevant distinction to make. So yeah I am an idealist. i'd call you an insanitist. the distinction matters because quality X would make one have better results in his area of expertise. (would you not consider a worthy distinction if one with quality X saves 100 people more than one without it?; and i'm not talking here about bragging rights based on numbers, but about (future)decision making scenarios. if you have 1000 people to save, you need to first send in those with that quality X until you ran out of them else you're looking at criminal negligence. it's as if you want human beings to be ideologically communists but practically, pragmatic capitalists; you want the distinction to exist(and be exploited) practically, but to be ignored ideologically. qagrnweigunwersiges. that's not a solution for anything, it's schizophrenia. By quality I was not talking about something that you can objectify (like the quality to save someone) but rather an identity or a representation that necessarily stress on one aspect of reality, propose a certain perspective. There are many ways to describe conflict in a society : "the jews take all the money" is one way to explain the world, "capitalism is based on the exploitation of the workers" is another. The only actual objectified reality is that inequality exist, private property too, that people live in poverty / unemployment, etc. And anyway, to quote Spinoza, "there is no inherent power of the true idea " so self identification and self bias oftentime just outpower any kind of objectified truth. When the society identify people, in their daily life, to their race, rather than their place in the production, it has direct effect on the way they behave and fight politically : whatever the interests that a black and a white worker have in common, if all they can do is see the reality through their racial eyes, then they will never mobilize together. If we all accept the idea that muslim and non muslim are two strictly different groups with vastly different behaviors, then any kind of collective mobilization is impossible - at least that's what I gathered from my own experiences. I'm not saying at all that "there's no problem except for language problems", nor that there are no direct conflict between muslim and non muslim. I'm saying conflicts and oppositions can be resolved by different form of organization / identification to a group, and if you systematically identify people to their religion (or their race), they will resolve their problems through religious organization / identification. Not really sure I'm really making sense here, but I can give a clear exemple if you want.
That's very true. If you keep pointing the finger to a given group based on a characteristic, this group will identify more and more as holding this characteristic, and will eventually point the finger at the rest of society. And then you have a growing conflict on your hands.
|
Yes but it goes both ways, we also need to fight communautarism, segregation, inequalities and some general ideas that have very bad effect on politics.
|
On August 18 2016 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm saying conflicts and oppositions can be resolved by different form of organization / identification to a group, and if you systematically identify people to their religion (or their race), they will resolve their problems through religious organization / identification. Not really sure I'm really making sense here, but I can give a clear exemple if you want.
What's wrong with solving your problems through a religious institution if you're a religious person, after all that's what religious institutions exist for. If it works it works I guess. People who got shafted by public institutions like the state often look for alternative one's and not all of them are illegitimate.
|
On August 18 2016 05:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm saying conflicts and oppositions can be resolved by different form of organization / identification to a group, and if you systematically identify people to their religion (or their race), they will resolve their problems through religious organization / identification. Not really sure I'm really making sense here, but I can give a clear exemple if you want. What's wrong with solving your problems through a religious institution if you're a religious person, after all that's what religious institutions exist for. If it works it works I guess. People who got shafted by public institutions like the state often look for alternative one's and not all of them are illegitimate.
In France we resolved a few problem "the religious way" : on that fated event called the Saint-Barthelemy.
If you think a doctrine that consider itself as revealed and unified truth is actually a good way for a diverse group of people to live together ... Well.
What religions want is submission.
|
That's a pretty dishonest generalization of how religious institutions function. Not every church and mosque teaches totalitarian stuff or submits you to some occult ideology. Especially for immigrants and the poor they're a fairly important social institution that often do more for them than anybody else. You're taking a purely privileged point of view. Do you think some immigrant kid that has been mistreated by the police on a weekly basis is going to look to the state or his mosque for conflict resolution? Those people have the exact opposite experience that you are describing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
