France Bans Public Prayer

[Viking]

Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?

It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.

So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?

[Ed Anger]

Run them over with some cuirassiers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaNADrdPMA&feature=related

Excuse me, I have a boner. BRB.

[Martinus]

Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?

It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.

Even muslims do not refer to women like this. 

[Zoupa]

Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?

It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.

So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?

[Zoupa]

Run them over with some cuirassiers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaNADrdPMA&feature=related

Excuse me, I have a boner. BRB.

[Grey Fox]

Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?

It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.

So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?

You are but a different one.

[dps]

Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?

It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.

So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?

You are but a different one.

OK, in that case, what's the need for the law? 

[Oexmelin]

OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?

Political posturing.

France's National Assembly likes to enact law without being the least concerned about applicability. Or, sometimes, compliance with the European Human Rights Commission.

[Barrister]

OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?

Political posturing.

France's National Assembly likes to enact law without being the least concerned about applicability. Or, sometimes, compliance with the European Human Rights Commission.

So you agree with the critics then?

I mean - it sounds like there is a languish consensus here - people shouldn't block the streets by having giant outdoor prayer meetings on Friday.

It just seems like most of us (other than Zoups) seem to agree you don't need to ban outdoor prayers in order to combat this problem.

[Zoupa]

  I love you too BB.

[Barrister]

I love you too BB.

I love ya zoups.  I hope I can make it to MTL one of these days and meet up with ya.

But really - it seemed like there was a bit of a languish consensus on this issue - but you weren't a part of it.  Or do you agree with what I said - that people should not be blocking traffic on Fridays, but you don't need to ban any outdoor religious activity to do it?

[Zoupa]

If it was up to me I would ban religious demonstrations of any kind on republican grounds. If people want to rent or buy a field somewhere and have giant orgies in the name of Buddha, Manitou or Chthulu, that's fine with me.

[Oexmelin]

So you agree with the critics then?

Yes and no. To me, there are three different issues entertwined.

French laïcité, as Valmy mentionned, is the type of thing which has been built in the very identity fibre of France, whether its applicability strikes us as odd or not. In that sense, it isn't much different from gun ownership in the US: the original context might be gone, but it keeps on being reinterpreted to fit current political dilemmas. On that regard, I don't feel it is up to me to say whether this is a bad or a good thing. I certainly understand why it is there.

Then, the issue of private vs public. This is also a mirror image of similar debates in the US. In France, the notion of "public" can be extended to many things and places "done in public" - France favours the notion of "public eye" for its definition of public space, where US seems to favour the look of ownership (i.e., the answer in the US is to call many places "private spaces" to deem people free to censor or control behaviour). I think the more hardcore view of this in France tends to make religion a kind of vestment you should only wear inside, and I think this is impractical.

The "public disturbance" element seems to be a cop-out, and there is a kind of law fetichism in the French political class - not limited at all to this issue (which is well documented by French jurists and lawyers). What is for sure is that the lack of space for mosques *is* a problem, but it is fraught with difficulties. The far-right and xenophobes don't *want* the issue resolved, for any mosque is a mosque too much. Helping to finance, or allow the construction of mosques is denounced by part of the left and the laïcité movement in the name of the State's neutrality. So Sarko does a big show, like he always does - this time, trying to appease the right-wing part of his movement (he's been losing grounds with the christian-democrats and the centre-right, so he's fishing far-right) and hide behind neutral "public disturbance" elements, while sending more moderate ministers to test the idea of "helping construct mosques".

[Martinus]

I love you too BB.

I love ya zoups.  I hope I can make it to MTL one of these days and meet up with ya.

But really - it seemed like there was a bit of a languish consensus on this issue - but you weren't a part of it.  Or do you agree with what I said - that people should not be blocking traffic on Fridays, but you don't need to ban any outdoor religious activity to do it?

There is hardly a Languish consensus. Zoupa, Valmy, Solmyr, Iormlund and myself (to name but a few people) supported the law. The majority (but not an overwhelming one) of those who posted in the thread opposed it - but that's pretty normal, considering people come out against something more vocally than in favour of something.

If you consider European posters, I think only Viking and Warspite criticized the law, so a clear minority.

I think Oexmellin's point that this is like gun control - a cultural issue - is a good one. The US has a lot of laws that in Europe would be considered an unthinkable violation of human rights. We had a discussion about perp walks when DSK was arrested - and obviously, don't get me started on the death penalty.

[Martinus]

On a re-read, the only people who posted and opposed the law clearly were BB, CC, dps, Warspite, Viking and raz. That is hardly a clear majority or anything pointing to a "Languish consensus" - especially as several people in addition to the five who argued for the law posted semi-non-committal responses which indicate they support the law to a degree or don't give a fuck.

BB, do you misrepresent reality like this when you argue in courts, too?