French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[CountDeMoney]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries. 

[alfred russel]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

That sucks too. But why post something for which everyone has the same opinion and that isn't a new situation?

[CountDeMoney]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

That sucks too. But why post something for which everyone has the same opinion and that isn't a new situation?

Because I like calling Islamopologists on the carpet.  Especially the Islamopologists that Islamofascists still want to kill.

[Ed Anger]

I can't stand Iranapologists. Which is why I hope the mullahs kill the "reformers", then get bombed back to the stone age for 1979.

America Wins.

[grumbler]

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.

I know that you are not putting forth this argument honestly and that it isn't worth arguing with you on it, but do you propose (1) that the Treaty of Westphalia is still valid, and (2) that its enumeration of the "rights" of states is complete: to wit: "that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence" is a full and complete enumeration of the rights of states (as well, of course, of Electors and Princes, and that (3) the rights of the states of the Holy Roman Empire apply by some form of osmosis to all states?

[grumbler]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

I think it is pretty funny that those so quick to leap to the defense of the French government themselves don't mention anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

Maybe, as AR points out, that is because the topic is old and tired and there isn't anything new to say about it?

[ulmont]

I know that you are not putting forth this argument honestly and that it isn't worth arguing with you on it

I think you're projecting again.

do you propose (1) that the Treaty of Westphalia is still valid, and (2) that its enumeration of the "rights" of states is complete: to wit: "that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence" is a full and complete enumeration of the rights of states (as well, of course, of Electors and Princes, and that (3) the rights of the states of the Holy Roman Empire apply by some form of osmosis to all states?

The concept of sovereignty as expressed in the Treaty of Westphalia - to wit, that states have all power within their borders and no power without - is still core to the understanding of international law, yes.  As to the idea that rights of states in the Holy Roman Empire apply by osmosis:  your contention is that "states" can have no rights.  As such, any recognition of a right held by a state demonstrates your argument's flaw.

[Slargos]

He got you there, grumbler.

Where's the popcorn smiley?

Actually, looking again, he said "don't have rights" and a 400 year old document does not disprove that statement.

[CountDeMoney]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

I think it is pretty funny that those so quick to leap to the defense of the French government themselves don't mention anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

Maybe, as AR points out, that is because the topic is old and tired and there isn't anything new to say about it?

Your Jedi grumbler tricks won't work on me.

[ulmont]

Actually, looking again, he said "don't have rights" and a 400 year old document does not disprove that statement.

Yes, yes.  Unless I come up with something posted today, it won't disprove that statement either.

I will note that Thomas Jefferson said "Every nation has of natural right, entirely and exclusively, all the jurisdiction which may be rightfully exercised in the territory it occupies."  This was 1793, showing the sovereignty concept had held up over 100 years from Westphalia.

And was still good in 1933, with the Montevideo convention:

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm

[The Minsky Moment]

States have power and states have authority, but I agree with grumbler that it confuses terminology to ascribe them "rights".  The fact that one can cite hortatory examples from various historical documents doesn't really refute the point.  The "right" of a state to be free from molestation is nothing more than a statement of the conditional whim of its neighbors not to molest it, which is really not a right at all.  To say a state has the "right . .  to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts" is simply to state the tautology that the state is a state and has the sovereign attributes of one.  A state organizes itself, etc. not by virtue of some "right" to do so, but because it has the power to do and to prevent some other entity from interfering.

[Slargos]

States have power and states have authority, but I agree with grumbler that it confuses terminology to ascribe them "rights".  The fact that one can cite hortatory examples from various historical documents doesn't really refute the point.  The "right" of a state to be free from molestation is nothing more than a statement of the conditional whim of its neighbors not to molest it, which is really not a right at all.  To say a state has the "right . .  to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts" is simply to state the tautology that the state is a state and has the sovereign attributes of one.  A state organizes itself, etc. not by virtue of some "right" to do so, but because it has the power to do and to prevent some other entity from interfering.

By that same reasoning, people don't have rights either.

To nail down this issue, I think "rights" needs to be defined a lot more sharply than it is at the moment.

[Jaron]

being or located on or directed toward the side of the body to the east when facing north

[Josephus]

I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

Because that's a given.
These Islamic countries don't go about pretending to be democratic and liberal. They're a shithole to live in, especially if you're a woman, we all know that.

But France is supposed to be better than that, and obviously it isn't. What about all that shit about , Libertie, Fraternite, Egalitere etc.

And yeah, I know my French bites.

[Razgovory]

Eh, just some more ammo to use against our enlightened Euro pals when they get uppity about human rights.