French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[Razgovory]

Maybe we should ban bras and women's razors because they also represent the subjugation of women.

That's about empowerment of women, you douche.

It's about saggy tits and hairy legs.

[CountDeMoney]

Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil

This however is probably true.

Yeah, gonna have to go with that one too.  More Timmays in this world is too toxic to contemplate.

[CountDeMoney]

Maybe we should ban bras and women's razors because they also represent the subjugation of women.

That's about empowerment of women, you douche.

It's about saggy tits and hairy legs.

You don't talk to those either.

[grumbler]

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.

That does not answer the question:  do you believe that the Treaty of Westphalia is still valid (and thus, that the "rights" it grants are still held by the states of the Holy Roman Empire)?

I note that you do not use right here yourself, merely powers.  We all agree that states have powers.  The concept of sovereignty is unrtelated to the issue of whether states have the right.

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.

I am not saying that no one has ever believed that "states" had right.  After all, the writers of the Treaty of Westphalia believed that God himself had ordained the sovereigns of each state, and thus they would have the "right" that God gave them.

My contention is merely that states do not have rights.

[Duque de Bragança]

Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil

This however is probably true.

No attacks of anime-related terrorism reported so far...

[grumbler]

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  The fact that one can cite hortatory examples from various historical documents doesn't really refute the point.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.

Indeed, the issue of what rights people have is not an easily-resolved one (and some "rights" are not the equals of others;  the "right to vote" is not really a basic right like the "right to life").  However, I think that it is pretty commonly held in the West that people have rights by virtue of being people.  "Unalienable" and "endowed by their creator" kinds of things.

[Razgovory]

Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil

This however is probably true.

No attacks of anime-related terrorism reported so far...

No veils have strangled people I know of.

[grumbler]

If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

You could argue that liberal democracies do not interfere in peoples' decision-making in the absence of a compelling public interest, and thus support the ban on nudity but not on the veil.

The issue that distinguishes liberal democracies is why the government interferes.

[Duque de Bragança]

Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil

This however is probably true.

No attacks of anime-related terrorism reported so far...

No veils have strangled people I know of.

Lots of burqa incidents have happened actually since they don't see clearly. Besides, we are talking burqa and niqab not a mere scarf/veil whatever now.

[Razgovory]

You said veil.

[Martinus]

If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

You could argue that liberal democracies do not interfere in peoples' decision-making in the absence of a compelling public interest, and thus support the ban on nudity but not on the veil.

The issue that distinguishes liberal democracies is why the government interferes.

I disagree with the conclusion that there is a clear compelling public interest in case of the ban on nudity, but not the ban on burqa - both are based in the perceived offensiveness such attire or lack thereof present to the principles and values of the general public. Only because you live in a puritanical, religiously-permissive culture does not mean the French cannot have a different set of values and sensibilities.

The "why" of the government interference is purely subjective in both cases - personally I find the "why" of the French more compelling than the "why" of the Americans.

[Duque de Bragança]

You said veil.

She said veil in 1989...
My first post was to show that the proposed law was about the Burqa/niqab in 2010. Reading FTW...
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3547.msg182469#msg182469

Second, it's not your average traditional North African veil, it's the NIQAB or BURQA (the ninja or kunoichi-like outfits) which prevent identification. These veils are not used in North Africa, only by Wahhabists and in Afghanistan.
In my area of Paris, I only see them worn by Persian Gulf tourists women who carry the kids and luggage while the husband wearing western clothes just strolls but in other areas it's not the case...

And veils may actually cause trouble (accidental strangulation) for the pupil when used during climbing activities btw...

[Razgovory]

I honestly don't know what your point is.  Like I said before If you Euros want to show how backward you are that you confuse a woman wearing funny outfit with a guy with dynamite strapped to his chest I can't stop you.  I do wish to know something.  When you guys banned these outfits in schools back in 2004 did that accomplish something worthwhile?

[grumbler]

I disagree with the conclusion that there is a clear compelling public interest in case of the ban on nudity, but not the ban on burqa - both are based in the perceived offensiveness such attire or lack thereof present to the principles and values of the general public. Only because you live in a puritanical, religiously-permissive culture does not mean the French cannot have a different set of values and sensibilities.

Not sure what you are evebn arguing here.  Are you arguing that the some US states ban indecent exposure because it is a puritanical culture and thus, that any state that bans  indecent exposure is puritanical?  If so, then are you arguing that any ban on dress is puritanical?  If that is also true, then are you puritanical enough to support the ban on the veil in France?

If the ban on indecent exposure in a US state (and thus, by extension, the ban on indecent exposure in, say, France) is not due to puritanism, but rather to the desire to avoid public disturbance, then is there an equally compelling case to be made that people wearing a veil also create a public disturbance?

Merely that someone might be offended by something is no reason to ban it, in a liberal democracy.

The "why" of the government interference is purely subjective in both cases - personally I find the "why" of the French more compelling than the "why" of the Americans.

I wonder if you know as little about the "'why' of the French" as you do the "'why' of the Americans" given that, for instance, public nudity is recognized as a part of the right of free speech in Oregon! 

[Alatriste]

If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

You could argue that liberal democracies do not interfere in peoples' decision-making in the absence of a compelling public interest, and thus support the ban on nudity but not on the veil.

The issue that distinguishes liberal democracies is why the government interferes.

You could... if there were a compelling public interest in hiding human bodies from sight.

Now, I fully understand any sane government would hesitate between protecting the citizens, because Man is better off not knowing the horrors that lurk in the shadows, and allowing them glorious insights into the naked truth of things, but the matter being discussed is whether there is such a compelling public interest involved that we are not to be allowed to choose ourselves, and I see none.

On the other hand, I can see some justification in saying that we have a compelling public interest in making sure women aren't forced to wear burkahs...