French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[Valmy]

In its report, released on Tuesday, the panel also recommended that authorities refuse residence cards and citizenship to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice".

This line worries me. Citizens have a right to radical religious practice, and visible signs of it.  Or at least, I think they should have such a right.

But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

[Valmy]

I fail to see how such a thing could really be done legally. When is someone wearing a muslim veil and when is someone just cold and covering their face?

When they start screaming 'death to the godless infidel republic!'

[grumbler]

But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

[Martinus]

I don't have a problem with that. Pretty much every single country on the planet has laws about attires that are allowed and disallowed in public - if you believe otherwise, take off your pants and take a stroll through a major street of New York, or put on a swastika armband and have a walk in Berlin.

If one society finds a woman going topless in a public school offensive, another may find a woman wearing a veil in a public hospital offensive, and ban it accordingly.

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

[Berkut]

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

[Sheilbh]

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

I'd argue that this is actually an expression of the old French anti-clerical tradition.  This isn't acknowledging that religion should get special treatment but is as much a part of viewing religion as a special target as, for example, Jules Ferry or Mitterand's failed attempt to nationalise the ecoles libres.  Religion hasn't been a special treated section of French society in over 200 years.

[alfred russel]

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

Expression is protected under free speech.

[alfred russel]

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

In France, or any other free country, you can typically do as you please unless there is a compelling public interest otherwise. It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

[Neil]

But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

Wrong.

[CountDeMoney]

I say, good for the French.

[CountDeMoney]

It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

The religion it represents is an adversarial polar opposite to the basic tenets of what it means to be a French citizen.  So there.

[jimmy olsen]

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

Expression is protected under free speech.

All forms of expression with the exception of "yelling fire in a crowed theater" type expression.

[Barrister]

Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

While I understand what you're getting at, I don't think that's correct.

First of all what is a right?

It's a complicated question since the word has so many potential meanings, but google gives one potential definition as:

an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature;

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:right&ei=j35fS5-NBs-0tgeWvdGBDA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE

So the very definition seems to say that a right can accrue to a governmental body.  It's a different kind of right than is given to a person, but it is a right.  For example in Canada only the provinces have the power to pass laws with respect to "the administration of justice in the province".  Surely it's correct to say that the province has the right to legislation with respect to the administration of justice?

[Grallon]

A ban on anything islamic is a ban in the good direction. 

Personally I'd go much father than this but you all knew it didn't you!?



G.

[ulmont]

So the very definition seems to say that a right can accrue to a governmental body.

Really, it's not worth arguing with Grumbler on this point.  I would note that the Treaty of Westphalia specifically mentions rights that States have.

LXIV.

And to prevent for the future any Differences arising in the Politick State, all and every one of the Electors, Princes and States of the Roman Empire, are so establish'd and confirm'd in their antient Rights, Prerogatives, Libertys, Privileges, free exercise of Territorial Right, as well Ecclesiastick, as Politick Lordships, Regales, by virtue of this present Transaction: that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence.