terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Not to turn this into a discussion of the niqab ban, but I have never understood how France could claim they are a democratic, enlightened society where all are welcomed and then impose such a law. The argument that 'if you don't like, then move' is all well and good, but I thought of France as more progressive than Saudi Arabia and the like where women are forced to wear certain items of clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to turn this into a discussion of the niqab ban, but I have never understood how France could claim they are a democratic, enlightened society where all are welcomed and then impose such a law. The argument that 'if you don't like, then move' is all well and good, but I thought of France as more progressive than Saudi Arabia and the like where women are forced to wear certain items of clothes.

+1.

[Anonymous]

250,000 undocumented immigrants arrived on italys shores this past year , mostly from Syria, n Africa. Italy has no capacity and processes them and passes them onwards. Most want to get to UK which is apparently the golden ticket. Many have compelling stories - but do societies have the ability to absorb huge populations with their own ways, cultures, laws, expectations without any kind of process to everyone's satisfaction? Whose ways have the right to continue to exist? What happens as new voting blocs get created? Does it sound like what is happening in US? Personally I think every western country should operate with a rational immigration policy, making allowance for humanitarian immigration - i.e. refugees -- but with conditions - is integrate to our ways. I have zero issue with France banning niwab. France has a long history of women's rights - there is something fundamental appalling about a portable isolation device-- and also safety concerns. These gunmen were masked. What's to stop the next group from donning niquab? In America we tend to the other extreme - to each his own - but we are a different sort of place. Frances laws fit with their history and the set of considerations they are facing. French Muslims in.sure can peaceable work to overturn them. Soon they may have the votes.

[Anonymous]

To be clear, the niqab ban is not on headscarves per se, but it is a ban on face coverings like the niqab and burqa. The reasons given often relate to security (like our ban on shouting "fire" in a theater), also France's tradition of using facial expressions to communicate. Also, it has been argued that the niqab is not necessarily a religious duty under Islam, because the Quranic verses would seem to refer to covering the hair and/or chest, but they don't clearly mention the face.

PP is right that Saudi Arabia imposes a strict dress code on non-Muslim women, combined with harsh penalties. Not sure where Muslima is on that (she doesn't like KSA, but the ability of Muslims to do whatever they want always seems to be sticking point with her). However, I would never want to hold up KSA's lack of liberties as an excuse for western countries to do the same.

It's estimated that a few thousand woman in France would wear a face covering, out of millions of Muslims there. The rights of these women shouldn't easily be discounted. To me, however, their small numbers don't necessarily support Muslima's developing contention, that the attacks are the fault of French society.

[Anonymous]

P.S. I should add that French law also bans other religious symbols in public, such as crosses, yarmulkes, and Sikh turbans. Public schools can't have crosses on the walls, and teachers are supposed to be neutral about religion.

[Anonymous]

Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, the niqab ban is not on headscarves per se, but it is a ban on face coverings like the niqab and burqa. The reasons given often relate to security (like our ban on shouting "fire" in a theater), also France's tradition of using facial expressions to communicate. Also, it has been argued that the niqab is not necessarily a religious duty under Islam, because the Quranic verses would seem to refer to covering the hair and/or chest, but they don't clearly mention the face.

Since this is the second time in this thread I've seen a poster claim that "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is banned in the US, it is probably worth clarifying that the Supreme Court case that made such a ruling was overturned. So, while I don't recommend it, you can legally shout fire in a crowded theatre.

[Anonymous]

Interesting...but im thinking if someone were injured as a result you might have liability?

[Anonymous]

France enshrined secularism in the enlightenment - this should not be a shock to anyone who.moves there. Just as it should not be a shock to.me that I would be forced to change my lifestyle.in distasteful ways if I moved to Saudi. It can be argued which countrys laws more.impinge on individual freedoms, and at least France has mechanism for peaceable.protest, unlike Saudi where women drivers are in terrorism court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

Cultural relativism.

[Anonymous]

I think it was Denmark that created a citizenship test a few years back that emphasized their values, like nude bathing, and everyone freaked out. Seems a good idea for all country's for me. If you can't stomach a country on the outset and seeks its immediate adaptation to you, and have all kinds of grievances (reminds me of la raza "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us) - then dont go!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

Cultural relativism.

Think about how these guys treat women back home, but we are having American women soldiers defer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting...but im thinking if someone were injured as a result you might have liability?

Yes. There's a difference between prior restraint of speech under the federal Constitution and liability under state law for reckless behavior.

[Anonymous]

Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

[Anonymous]

Another shooting -- this time, south of Paris -- by an armed man dressed in black. No clear connection with yesterday's. One dead, one wounded.