French police going Erdogan over al-niqab?

[Grey Fox]

Malthus is the man!

Your hippy parents must not be happy.

[Malthus]

Malthus is the man!

Your hippy parents must not be happy.

My parents were not hippies. They were, in fact, totally clueless about hippy-dom.

True story: when my mom was working as a potter in 1970, a guy asked her to make five hundred "beads" of a very particular shape. She did - and was later horrified to discover he was selling them as these:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=tokestones&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5R-7UZT2PImgqgGesIHACA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=878

[Duque de Bragança]

You don't even have an idea of what is to be an immigrant or a son of an immigrant...

Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.

Okay, so as an American I get to have an opinion on this, right? Since, you know, this has been an ongoing issue in the States for.. 100 years? Wait... probably longer. And as the wife of an immigrant, a sister-in-law to two immigrants, and the foster child of a first-generation American, I think I hit all of the marks.

And guess what? Your country is doing it wrong for the stated goal.

My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.

As for

So by the numbers provided, France has a population of about 10-12% Muslim, and only about 3% devout or conservative Muslims. That doesn't really seem so extreme to me.

I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.

That's not something that I will ever understand.

I also trongly disagree with your unwarranted sweeping generalization since the jacobinist streak implied by you and mentioned by Sheilb is a bit passé nowadays. This is isn't 1793 or even the Third Republic anymore.
Sarkozy enshrined the minority languages in the constitution and he promulgated as the face covering ban as well.

[Duque de Bragança]

Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.

There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...

Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.

The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man".  Read the link to find out what that means.

First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed if you prefer cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned but then admitted it.

[Valmy]

I also trongly disagree with your unwarranted sweeping generalization since the jacobinist streak implied by you and mentioned by Sheilb is a bit passé nowadays. This is isn't 1793 or even the Third Republic anymore.
Sarkozy enshrined the minority languages in the constitution and he promulgated as the face covering ban as well.

Yeah that was a pretty disappointing post by Meri.

[Malthus]

Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.

There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...

Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.

The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man".  Read the link to find out what that means.

First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.

I'm not saying it's insulting. I am saying it is an ad hom argument. Or did you forget these little tidbits:

Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing

And when I said you were wrong about that:

That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...

That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.

Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.

Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:

I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.

Then yiou say to Meri:

My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.

Which is it? Are you claiming that you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?

Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?

[dps]

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.

I don't put any value on multiculturalism.  What I do put value on is individual freedom, and I don't care for the idea of a state that has the power to tell people what clothing can or can't wear.

Now, there are situations in which it's reasonable to exercise state power to regulate what people are wearing.  For example, IMO it's perfectly acceptable to require people on construction sites to wear hard hats, or to ban people from wearing T-shirts with racist slogans to public schools.  But those situations should be the exception;  the default should be that people can wear what they want.  The French law has it backwards;  it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.

[Duque de Bragança]

Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.

The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man".  Read the link to find out what that means.

Thing is, saying that I don't know the situation in France would be ludicrous.
By ad hom, do you mean it's all fallacy or like your link says it's

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

?

First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.


Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing

And when I said you were wrong about that:

That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...

That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.

Classic case of double standards for a multiculturalist.

Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.

Mere facts number and proportions do matter. You have to rely on English sources that may be not as complete hence misleading cf. the English link which did not mention the woman first accepted to have her ID checked as I do when I am asked randomly and/or if a cop believes I might represent a security risk.

Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:

I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.

Then yiou say to Meri:

]My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.

Which is it? Are you claiming that you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?

Are you claiming that there are no Portuguese immigrants/expats in France? I don't think so but feel free to contradict me.

Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?

I have been discussing with others even when disagreeing with others. Ideally, there would be no such a law, we can all agree on that.
I might also imagine that Canadian laws could work (better) for Canada.
However, given what I see in France and elsewhere in Europe (Belgium has a similar law IIRC) I can see the merits of such a law given the situation, a situation you have never experienced first hand.

More on that later when I get back home.

[Malthus]

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.

I don't put any value on multiculturalism.  What I do put value on is individual freedom, and I don't care for the idea of a state that has the power to tell people what clothing can or can't wear.

Now, there are situations in which it's reasonable to exercise state power to regulate what people are wearing.  For example, IMO it's perfectly acceptable to require people on construction sites to wear hard hats, or to ban people from wearing T-shirts with racist slogans to public schools.  But those situations should be the exception;  the default should be that people can wear what they want.  The French law has it backwards;  it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.

Well put.

While I do happen to put value on multiculturalism, this case isn't about that. It is about the reasonable limits on the state's use of criminal powers.

There simply hasn't been a reasonable explaination given as to why the state needs to do this - the one provided, that an overall ban on face-coverings is needed to allow the cops to ID people, quite frankly reeks of bullshit. Everyone, it would appear, has accepted that the real target is not gangs of face-covered hoodlums, but Muslims who wear face-covering veils - why would hoodlums need "citizenship re-education"?

It's of a piece with the previous laws concerning the wearing of "ostentatious religious symbols" which was really aimed, as almost everyone agrees, at Muslims.

Whenever a law is enacted because of X, but the ostensible reason for it is Y - that is not a good sign. It is equally a not a good sign where a law which is ostensibly neutral, is in fact aimed squarely at one group, and would have a differential impact on them. It's a bad move, and no amount of special pleading of the 'you just don't have the background to understand the situation in France' type disguises this fact.

[Grey Fox]

The French law has it backwards;  it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.

I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.

They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.

[Malthus]

Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.

The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man".  Read the link to find out what that means.

Thing is, saying that I don't know the situation in France would be ludicrous.
By ad hom, do you mean it's all fallacy or like your link says it's

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

?

First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?

You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.


Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing

And when I said you were wrong about that:

That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...

That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.

Classic case of double standards for a multiculturalist.

Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.

Mere facts number and proportions do matter. You have to rely on English sources that may be not as complete hence misleading cf. the English link which did not mention the woman first accepted to have her ID checked as I do when I am asked randomly and/or if a cop believes I might represent a security risk.

Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:

I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.

Then yiou say to Meri:

]My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.

Which is it? Are you claiming that you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?

Are you claiming that there are no Portuguese immigrants/expats in France? I don't think so but feel free to contradict me.

Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?

I have been discussing with others even when disagreeing with others. Ideally, there would be no such a law, we can all agree on that.
I might also imagine that Canadian laws could work (better) for Canada.
However, given what I see in France and elsewhere in Europe (Belgium has a similar law IIRC) I can see the merits of such a law given the situation, a situation you have never experienced first hand.

More on that later when I get back home.

An ad-hom is generally considered an extremely weak sort of argument, and is usually a fallacy.

See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

See the hierachy of argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg

Note that "attacks the characteristiscs or authority of the writer" is just one step above "you are an ass hat" as an argument.

Special pleading is another sort of fallacy, similar to the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that quantum mechanics does not always make sense. There are things about quantum mechanics that you don't have the education to understand.

Are you begnning, perhaps, to see certain  ... resemblences to these common fallacies and weak arguments, to how you are arguing your case against me? 

[dps]

The French law has it backwards;  it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.

I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.

They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.

I understand this;  I don't approve of it.

On a certain level, of course, it's none of our business, but we're still allowed to express our opinion.

[Grey Fox]

The French law has it backwards;  it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.

I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.

They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.

I understand this;  I don't approve of it.

On a certain level, of course, it's none of our business, but we're still allowed to express our opinion.

Yes. And there's Duque & Malthus wall of text. :

[Malthus]

Yes. And there's Duque & Malthus wall of text. :

Make some points, and I'll give you a wall of text all for yourself. 

[Jacob]

Um rejecting your absurd requirements that go way beyond any standard I have ever heard of before in my life does not prove the absurd hypothesis that all religions fail to distinguish between politics and religion.  I bet they have similarities and differences in how they view the relationship between politics and religion.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My whole line of inquiry here is a response to Yi's (and possibly Bernard Lewis') statement that "Islam does not distinguish between religion and politics."

Presumably for this statement to have meaning, it must be in reference to other religions. Given the context of the thread - the discussion of a secular state with Christian roots (France) outlawing the public wearing of the niqab - the most relevant comparison is Christianity.

Now, if Yi and Bernard Lewis mean that "Neither Islam nor Christianity can distinguish between religion and politics" then I don't have much of an argument with them. I'm not sure that I agree with them, and it seems you'd definitely disagree; but my preceding posts in this thread were based on the assumption that they meant "unlike Christianity, Islam cannot distinguish between religion."

Personally, I can't think of any criteria where that statement holds up.

Are we looking at a historical context of forced conversion and states which where explicitly identified with the religion? Islam and Christianity both have that.

Are we saying that religious values are used as an organizing principle in politics and are used to successfully define and implement policies? Again, no argument that this happens with Islam; but the state of abortion across the US and in Ireland, for example, shows that the same holds true for Christianity.

Are we talking about religious elements in society resorting to extra-democratic means to push their religiously driven agenda? Certainly you see that with Islam, but abortion clinic bombers is an example of Christianity having a similar impact.

Are we talking about sectarian violence where different versions of the creed becomes explicitly enmeshed in an armed political struggle? Certainly Islam has that, but so does Christianity - just look at Northern Ireland.

Or conversely, do we argue that plenty of Christians manage to hold their beliefs without overtly influencing their political views and actions? Because there are plenty of Muslims like that as well.

So yeah... I'm wondering what reasoning - absurd or not - Yi is using to arrive at the statement that "Islam cannot distinguish between religion and politics"; then I'm testing the absurdity of the reasoning and the relevance to our discussion regarding the niqab in France by applying it to Christianity and seeing how that shakes out. I'm not particularly wedded to any given definition myself.