French lawmakers overwhelmingly back veil ban

[RussSchultz]

But it's an overreaction. You're banning things that aren't even a problem. You could argue with the same logic that to stop drunk driving we should just not let anyone drive a car.

I don't think the analogy fits. Typically, drunk driving is banned. Driving isn't; being drunk isn't; but mixing the two is.

We have (generally) decided that the benefit of keeping the roads safe from drunk drivers is worth the loss of freedom of action while driving.

In a similar way, one way of looking at religious symbols in school is, school isn't banned, religion isn't banned, but the mixing of the two is...because the benefit of a learning environment free from disruption is worth the loss of freedom of expression in school.

Of course, you seem to think that it isn't worth the loss of freedom. Or, on a sliding scale, that a yarmulke or scarf, or cross are not disruptive enough to warrant the loss of freedom.

I can see that line of reasoning, too, though I question what happens when some other religious symbol comes along that is even more disruptive. One way is to simply ban all forms of religous expression in school because its tangential to the purpose of school--which is learning.

Its all a balancing act of benefit vs. loss of rights.

 

[Rodéric]

Well, I don't see a problem with that either, especially not in private churches as it's up to the church to decide who's welcome. Or if a burqa makes identification impossible. Such organisatorical measures at local level are ok if it would otherwise be disturbing in some way. But I don't think it's right to make it a law. I can see the merit of demanding someone to stop if he carries a 3 meter wodden cross to school saying it's just him expressing his views. But if he just have a 1cm metal cross hanging around his neck, then it's not causing any problem, and shouldn't be stopped.

That's just what the law targets, big visible symbols are to removed, small one remains.
Religion is just personal, you don't need to tell everyone around what you believe in, just do believe.


-* quick question *-
-Who in here have ever read the bible or the coran ?
-Who in here can prove that the back veil effectively comes from the coran and isn't an arab culture symbol instead ?

 

[Simon F]

-Who in here have ever read the bible ..

I got as far as "X begat Y, Y begat Z" and gave up... i.e. not very far.

 

[RussSchultz]

-Who in here have ever read the bible or the coran ?
-Who in here can prove that the back veil effectively comes from the coran and isn't an arab culture symbol instead ?

I have read the Bible, though likely not from cover to cover. I've certainly read most of it, though skipped over parts (like Simon mentioned all the begatting, or the thoroughly incomprehensible Revelations).

Admittedly, I haven't spent the time to read the Koran, though I probably should.

I'm a bit of a ancient cultures enthusiast, and religion is always part of that.

 

[akira888]

The veil is not an Arabic invention but a Persian (who are an Indo-European, not Semetic, people) one. In was introduced in the 6th century BC (1300 years before the advent of Mohammedanism) during the reign of Cyrus the "Great."

 

[RussSchultz]

The veil is not an Arabic invention but a Persian (who are an Indo-European, not Semetic, people) one. In was introduced in the 6th century BC (1300 years before the advent of Mohammedanism) during the reign of Cyrus the "Great."

I don't think that's any indication as to whether the veil is religious or cultural.

Assuming the author of the Koran codified the veil, its clearly a religious requirement, regardless of who may have worn the veil ahead of time.

 

[Humus]

I don't think the analogy fits. Typically, drunk driving is banned. Driving isn't; being drunk isn't; but mixing the two is.

We have (generally) decided that the benefit of keeping the roads safe from drunk drivers is worth the loss of freedom of action while driving.

In a similar way, one way of looking at religious symbols in school is, school isn't banned, religion isn't banned, but the mixing of the two is...because the benefit of a learning environment free from disruption is worth the loss of freedom of expression in school.

Of course, you seem to think that it isn't worth the loss of freedom. Or, on a sliding scale, that a yarmulke or scarf, or cross are not disruptive enough to warrant the loss of freedom.

I can see that line of reasoning, too, though I question what happens when some other religious symbol comes along that is even more disruptive. One way is to simply ban all forms of religous expression in school because its tangential to the purpose of school--which is learning.

Its all a balancing act of benefit vs. loss of rights.

Well, I'm fine with the idea that things that are disruptive can be banned, though I think it's an overreaction to ban everything, rather than the specific things that are causing problems. A scarf or a cross doesn't hurt anyone, in fact I believe that it's a good thing, since it encourages discussion and understanding. A burqa however can be problematic due to identification problems and problems taking part in the education behind the thing. So banning a burqa could be motivated, but I still think that decision should be on the local level and applied only where there would be a problem.

And I think the most important perspective on the french law is that the intent isn't organisational. As Chirac have explained, it's to protect france's state of a secular country, not to deal with disturbing elements.

 

[Humus]

That's just what the law targets, big visible symbols are to removed, small one remains.
Religion is just personal, you don't need to tell everyone around what you believe in, just do believe.

Visibility isn't a problem and size is only a problem in extreme cases. Neither a scarf or a cross should be causing any problems.

Religion need not be a personal thing. If you're going to argue along that line, then why not ban political attributes too? After all, you don't need to tell everyone around that you're liberal (or whatever), just be it. And hey, while we're at it, why not keep your musical preferences to yourself too. It's a personal thing, so why should you walk around with a t-shirt with Bonjovi printed on it?

Keeping your religion to yourself just fuels fundamentalism. When you don't mix and match with other people's views and opinions you're not going to get a balanced view.

-* quick question *-
-Who in here have ever read the bible or the coran ?
-Who in here can prove that the back veil effectively comes from the coran and isn't an arab culture symbol instead ?

I've read both the bible and the quran, though memory is short.

 

[horvendile]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned before.

Apparently a majority of muslim women in France support the ban. A common motif is that most girls who wear scarfs (scarfs in a broad sense) in schools indeed do it voluntarily - but not as you might initially interpret "voluntarily". Girls not wearing scarfs get nasty things yelled at them and are seen as light-footed, while those who wear scarfs are encouraged and get, in lack of a better word, respect. So while technically the scarf is a free choice one should remember the actual situation of these young girls - because it is young girls, and I think it's a bit naive to just refer to freedom of choice and religious freedom. Unfortunately the situation isn't quite as simple as that.

BTW, the 9 Feb. issue of Time had two, er, editorials (probably not quite the right word) on this, pro et contra.

 

[oi]

One of the basic rights is the right to your life. You are free to have a religion or opinion in which you think someone else deserve to die. But you have no right to kill somebody. Rights only extend so far as they doesn't interfer with other people's rights.

Yes, that's why I said that you're only free as long as you stay within the limits of the system.

But anyway, since we're discussing democracy here and I know that you're advocating capitalism and liberalism, lets say that the following scenario occurs:

I'm working at a privatly owned company, and I tell my boss (the owner of the company) that she's an incompetent retard who should sell herself on the street rather than trying to run a company, and that I wish that someone would cut her head off and send it to her children as a gift. Now, would that person have the right to fire me? I'm only voicing my opinion here, but it is her company afterall.

I really have no clue what the rights of an owner is, but I'm hoping that someone will answer that they do have the right to fire the person, because then I can continue my argument and make it a bit more relevant to the original topic

 

[Humus]

Well, I'll give you the answer you want then ... as much as you have the right to hire whoever you want, as much right do you have to fire someone.

 

[oi]

Splendid! So, you don't actually have the right to work at a privatly owned company. But why do people then debate about the fact when certain companies chose to hire men instead of women? The person in question didn't have the right to work there in the first place, since it is a privilege to be hired afterall. At least here in Sweden, the debate regarding womens positions at work and the differences in salary between men and women is really the hotspot of politics at the moment. The argument is that you're obviously discriminating women (this could be anything though, like religion, ethnic heritage and so on) by paying them less and giving them less 'prestigeous' spots in the company.

Lets create a scenario where Microsoft thinks that womens place in society is at home, cooking and spreading their legs for their husbands, and hence don't want to hire any women. I would wager that a woman then successfully would be able to sue them because they are not treating everyone equally.

This in turn creates some questions. Why can I be fired for my opinion as an individual? I didn't infringe on anyone elses rights by stating my opinion. And why am I as an owner of my own company not allowed to treat everyone under my jurisdiction the way I want? It should be my right to do whatever I want with the company that I've created with my own hands. But wait, if the requierment is that I can do what I want with my company as long as I treat everyone equally, then I'll just ban everyone from working here, since that obviously would mean that I'm treating everyone equally and hence am not discriminating anyone! <- The far fetched connection with the original topic

Liberals tend to claim that the focus is on the rights for you as an individual person, but isn't it quite interesting that what they're advocating is in fact a form of small dictatorships in the shape of companies? You can create the rules you want, hire and fire at will, as long as you treat everyone equally. The difference being that in a dictatorship you would decide what to do based on the individual rather than the collective, which is also kind of funny and ironic, if you have the same twisted sense of humor as I do. Of course you as an individual can chose not to work at said company, just as you can chose not to live in a country ruled by dictatorships.

So, if I now manage to establish this as the truth (knowledge isn't power as we all know, power is the ability to establish our knowledge as the truth, as the post-modern bastard that I am), then the question would be if we have to wait for the whole world to be democratic on a state level before we can start working on democracy at a company level? Or is this in fact what we want when we call ourselves democratic?

Edit: I haven't given this much thought yet, so I'm not sure if I can answer any questions lol. I haven't had any sleep for the past 20 hours or so, and this was just something that popped up in my head hehe.

 

[Rodéric]

If you're going to argue along that line, then why not ban political attributes too? After all, you don't need to tell everyone around that you're liberal (or whatever), just be it.

That's already the case, politics are forbidden in school in France.

 

[oi]

That's already the case, politics are forbidden in school in France.

I think that is the case here too. Or well, maybe not political views (except nazi symbols, and other which would fit in the 'extreme' category), but rather that you aren't allowed to wear clothing which displays political parties. I might have dreamt this up though, so I'll have to look it up heh.

edit: I was completely wrong, with the exception of symbols of extreme ideologies which have been deemed offensive.

 

[epicstruggle]

A scarf or a cross doesn't hurt anyone, in fact I believe that it's a good thing, since it encourages discussion and understanding. A burqa however can be problematic due to identification problems and problems taking part in the education behind the thing. So banning a burqa could be motivated, but I still think that decision should be on the local level and applied only where there would be a problem.

By banning just burqa's the law would be seem like it only targets muslims. By making the law broad, it seems more fair to the average french person.

later,
epic

 

[Humus]

Long post

Companies aren't democratic institutions. Nor are they dictatorships. They are private property that can be owned by one or many people. Like with any private property it's up to the owner to decide what to do with it. Just like my computer isn't a democratic institution that anyone but me have a say in what to do with it.

 

[Humus]

That's already the case, politics are forbidden in school in France.

Well, that sucks equally much.

 

[Humus]

I think that is the case here too. Or well, maybe not political views (except nazi symbols, and other which would fit in the 'extreme' category), but rather that you aren't allowed to wear clothing which displays political parties. I might have dreamt this up though, so I'll have to look it up heh.

If there's any such rules, I must have totally missed it. I have never heard of any such limitations, except maybe nazi stuff. I did a quick google for some law text, and in the stuff I found there was nothing of that sort.

 

[Humus]

By banning just burqa's the law would be seem like it only targets muslims. By making the law broad, it seems more fair to the average french person.

If it's banned because of a problem that has arised because of it, then this shouldn't be a problem, since the reason is easy to explain. And if the decision is made on the school, rather than in law, then any issues could easily be ironed out with a discussion about it.

 

[oi]

Companies aren't democratic institutions. Nor are they dictatorships. They are private property that can be owned by one or many people. Like with any private property it's up to the owner to decide what to do with it. Just like my computer isn't a democratic institution that anyone but me have a say in what to do with it.

So you're basically telling me that companies are outside the democratic system, because it's private property. Then why are people discussing issues as child labour, discrimination of gender and culture, looks, age, intelligence, since obviously according to you the owner/s has the right to do whatever they with want with their own property? And sure, you don't have to call companies dictatorships specifically, since that would imply that there's one absolute leader. The point is that companies are undemocratic institution, which you yourself just said, and apparently think is ok too.

I have below collected a number of quotes from you from this thread, which I find interesting in the light of your opinion about companies:

Freedom of speech is a right at any time of the day ... The french view is wrong cause it violates the human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech ... You don't like how the majority can rid the rights of the minority in a democracy, while in a republic the majority can never deny you your rights ... Why shouldn't people be able to affect each other's views? Isn't that the whole point of open debate and freedom of speech? ... Why shouldn't people be able to pray everywhere? If someone wants to pray in school, that's fine, as long as he's not forcing anyone else to participate ... All this is protected under the freedom of religion and freedom of speech and should not be restricted ... But expressing your views by your own free will should never be denied ... They have their freedom of speech too, regardless how uncomfortable their views are. Such problem are solved by bringing it into the public room, not be banning it and taking it underground ... Open debate is always the best place to fight it.

So I guess all the above is just something that flies out the window as soon as we step inside the gates of the company that we work for, a place where most people will spend a significant amount of their life at. It's actually you who have been advocating rights for everyone no matter what, so call me suprised when it's obviously only when you're not working, if you've ended up in the private sector. And I hope you do realise that dictators use the exact same line of thought as yourself when they justify their rule over a country. It's their property which they might have inherited, won, or been assigned to.

I personally am not as blind so that I'll say that everyone should have their basic rights no matter what, because that's impossible in a democracy. A democracy isn't about preserving everyones rights, it's about being able to discuss and compromise your beliefs and rights with others. And that's also why democracy is less bad than most other systems, because it's really undefined when it comes down to the important parts.