Poll
Question:
Should prisons accomodate non-medical (i.e. cultural, religious or philosophical) dietary requests of inmates?
Option 1: Always
votes: 6
Option 2: Yes, but only if this does not cause substially increased costs or hassle
votes: 23
Option 3: No
votes: 8
Should prisons accomodate inmates who expect halal, kosher or vegetarian food?
Within reason, sure. And hey the three examples you listed can all be satisfied with vegetarian food.
Mart and Tim should be fed Nutraloaf. Yum.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FV_LaXTa-3U/hqdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:21:26 AM
Within reason, sure. And hey the three examples you listed can all be satisfied with vegetarian food.
Indeed.
Topic is probably a non-issue for all but the hang'un high brigade.
Gotta agree with Valmy and mongers here.
:yawn:
voted always, but I took that to mean for legitimate diets only--no spaghetti 24/7
I think if the government seeks to lock away people, it should pay the appropriate costs. if it can't pay, reduce sentencing
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
What if the flying spaghetti monster forbids eating meat on Friday or during Lent?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 09:01:49 AM
What if the flying spaghetti monster forbids eating meat on Friday or during Lent?
Well you have a vegetarian alternative. So the pasta gods will smile upon you.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.
I try to consume 100g of protein a day. I also avoid simple sugars and foods that are high in fat or otherwise greasy. I don't (often) eat red meat. I avoid white bread and pasta. I incorporate fresh fruits and vegetables into my daily diet.
Can I follow this diet? What if I get a doctor's note saying it is important for my health?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 09:11:43 AM
I try to consume 100g of protein a day. I also avoid simple sugars and foods that are high in fat or otherwise greasy. I don't (often) eat red meat. I avoid white bread and pasta. I incorporate fresh fruits and vegetables into my daily diet.
Can I follow this diet? What if I get a doctor's note saying it is important for my health?
Indeed - in fact, I think 100% of prisoners in America could argue that their doctors would recommend a healthier diet than what they are going to get in prison.
Is that a special, and reasonable, accommodation? Please don't feed me crappy food?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.
Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.
Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?
Prisoners in general trying to exploit the system to make their lives more comfortable?
Yes, I would say so - but the system as it exists today deals with it pretty well, I think.
How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 09:49:32 AM
How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.
I don't think it is similar at all though.
A hospital, for example, as an incentive to accommodate a variety of dietary restrictions, medical and personal. however "onerous" it might be, they will do so because they will lose customers otherwise, and the cost is largely irrelevant to the decision about whether to provide those options.
A prison, presumably, has no need to meet the wants of the prisoners, only their needs. Hence the cost to meet what amounts to a want, rather than a need, become much more of a factor.
And hence the discussion - when does a want (which we would likely all agree we probably don't care much about when it comes to prisoners) become a need (which we probably all agree that the person holding the prisoner is obligated to meet).
And how do we accommodate the needs when they are legitimate (say for some small percentage at some reasonable cost) when we know that the populace will attempt to exploit that accommodation and insist that their wants are actually needs?
I actually think it is a tough thing to handle. I assume it is handled now on some kind of case by case basis, which is probably about the best you are going to do...
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:54:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 09:49:32 AM
How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.
I don't think it is similar at all though.
A hospital, for example, as an incentive to accommodate a variety of dietary restrictions, medical and personal. however "onerous" it might be, they will do so because they will lose customers otherwise, and the cost is largely irrelevant to the decision about whether to provide those options.
It is rather different outside of the US. Here in Canada, as in many places in the Western world, hospitals are mostly* funded through public insurance, and so do not have an economic incentive to attract paying "customers". Costs spent on food is thus presumably something that comes out of their global budget and so they have the same incentives as prisons on minimizing unnecessary expense - they probably get budgeted so much on food per patient and no more.
*Here in Ontario, for example, you can pay to upgrade your room to semi-private or private, but that's it; you don't get better care, or food, simply by paying more.
Quote
A prison, presumably, has no need to meet the wants of the prisoners, only their needs. Hence the cost to meet what amounts to a want, rather than a need, become much more of a factor.
And hence the discussion - when does a want (which we would likely all agree we probably don't care much about when it comes to prisoners) become a need (which we probably all agree that the person holding the prisoner is obligated to meet).
And how do we accommodate the needs when they are legitimate (say for some small percentage at some reasonable cost) when we know that the populace will attempt to exploit that accommodation and insist that their wants are actually needs?
I actually think it is a tough thing to handle. I assume it is handled now on some kind of case by case basis, which is probably about the best you are going to do...
Hence the question - is it really a big expense for others who have to do it on the public dime in other settings? We have to know if it's a problem of any magnitude, before we can say how much if at all we should care about it.
Again, it isn't the same though.
Even a publically funded institution has an incentive to make their customers happy. If nothing else, they are going to complain if they cannot get decent food. And they should care about such a complaint.
Hell, even the military in the US, tries to keep the soldiers basically happy with the food, as much as they can.
Presumably we don't care if prisoners are "happy" with their food, within reason. As long as it provides for their NEEDS, what they want is irrelevant.
That is not at all the case with hospitals, military bases, or any other large institutional organization. Even if they are not attracting paying customers directly, they have an incentive (at least I hope they do) to keep their customers basically *happy* or at least content.
I doubt they even could tell you how much it costs them to provide that level of service compared to the option of not, since it seems unlikely they would have ever even considered the not option.
Hmmm...makes me wonder what the overall cost per meal is for a prisoner compared to a hospital. I bet it is a fraction...off to google!
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:46:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.
Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?
Prisoners in general trying to exploit the system to make their lives more comfortable?
Yes, I would say so - but the system as it exists today deals with it pretty well, I think.
Yeah I was asking in the context of this specific 'issue.'
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Again, it isn't the same though.
Even a publically funded institution has an incentive to make their customers happy. If nothing else, they are going to complain if they cannot get decent food. And they should care about such a complaint.
Hell, even the military in the US, tries to keep the soldiers basically happy with the food, as much as they can.
Presumably we don't care if prisoners are "happy" with their food, within reason. As long as it provides for their NEEDS, what they want is irrelevant.
That is not at all the case with hospitals, military bases, or any other large institutional organization. Even if they are not attracting paying customers directly, they have an incentive (at least I hope they do) to keep their customers basically *happy* or at least content.
I doubt they even could tell you how much it costs them to provide that level of service compared to the option of not, since it seems unlikely they would have ever even considered the not option.
Hmmm...makes me wonder what the overall cost per meal is for a prisoner compared to a hospital. I bet it is a fraction...off to google!
Also, you can bring food into a hospital. You don't have to eat their crap.
You still need to pay for meals in Canadian hospitals, don't you?
Quick google search says that the average cost per inmate per day is about $2.50 or so. That is crazy cheap, and must be some pretty crappy food. So something like $1 per meal or less?
A good comparison might actually be to public school lunches - that is about as close to a prisoner population as you are going to get!
Apparently a typical school lunch, which is just one meal, is about $2.75 or so. So that is probably at least three times the cost, if not more.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 10:13:42 AM
Also, you can bring food into a hospital. You don't have to eat their crap.
You still need to pay for meals in Canadian hospitals, don't you?
No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.
This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.
http://healthydebate.ca/2012/05/topic/cost-of-care/hospital-food
QuoteHospital food has traditionally had a bad reputation, and for good reason. Ontario's hospitals feed patients 3 meals a day, and 2 snacks, on an estimated budget of less than $8 per day per patient , excluding labour costs. It is no wonder that many associate hospital food with bland sandwiches, canned fruit and jello as hospitals aim to feed patients in a way that is nutritionally balanced, broadly appealing, cost effective and easy to assemble.
In an era of tight hospital budgets, food services are often cut or looked to for efficiencies. Ontario's hospitals operate largely with global budgets, meaning that they receive a fixed amount of dollars per year from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to run the entire operations of the organization – which includes staff salaries, equipment, medicines and supplies such as food.
So this is what Obama has in store for us...
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 10:22:22 AM
So this is what Obama has in store for us...
:D
There is no doubt, public hospital food isn't the best advertisement for the public system.
I've seen what prisoners eat. It's not an unreasonable expectation to be offered at least basic nutritional subsistence, even if some people believe they don't "deserve" it.
Same goes with public school systems, even if some people think certain school populations don't "deserve" it, either.
there's an assumption that certain choices would provide materially better food. there also seems to be an assumption that a majority of inmates would select the option that provides this "better" food.
I'm not sure either is true.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 10:21:04 AM
No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.
This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.
That is actually a decent amount of money, considering it excludes labor costs.
FWIW, while I definitely see the benefits in public healthcare, I think having a free cafeteria in a hospital is going too far.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 10:21:04 AM
No, they have to feed you at no cost to you. However, the food is widely thought to be terrible, and so people do bring food in.
This article claims it cost an estimated CAN $8 per day in 2012.
That is actually a decent amount of money, considering it excludes labor costs.
FWIW, while I definitely see the benefits in public healthcare, I think having a free cafeteria in a hospital is going too far.
It's for in-patients only. Most hospitals have a paid version, or outlets of chain restaurants in their lobby, to feed visitors and out-patients (and for visitors to get better food to bring in!).
If you accept all patients regardless of ability to pay, it kinda follows that you have to feed them regardless of ability to pay, as well; not sure what else you could do.
For the record, I voted the second option.
The potential problem with accomodation I have, though, is actually the one that Valmy accidentally aluded to - the risk of this actually reducing the choice for the majority. Because what stops the prison authorities from saying "fuck it, it's vegetarian only from now on" - and then everybody suffers because some crazy person would not eat bacon? :P
Keeping inmates "happy" is actually a major concern. A happy inmate is less likely to stab a guard. Also if you don't provide food that falls within the dietary restrictions of certain inmates you are going to face hunger strikes.
$2.50 a day for food is likely not meeting anyone's dietary restrictions. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 10:45:02 AM
$2.50 a day for food is likely not meeting anyone's dietary restrictions. :P
Sheriff Joe supposedly does it for less than a buck a day!
"Muslims" make up less than 10% of the US prison population, and Jews around 1.5%. And somehow, I just don't see the Aryan Brotherhood and its offshoots asking for kosher or halal meals.
So let's keep shit that starts riots to a minimum.
Hospital food isn't that bad. At least Kettering medical center wasn't when I was there. The only problem was the menu got boring after a week.
The rehab place? Iffy. Somne good but some horrid Sysco crap.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
How do you handle the problem with people claiming dietary needs simply because they perceive that the special diets have better food?
What if they want to switch back and forth?
How do you tell someone you don't actually believe they are Jewish, for example?
Or do you just define a set of special diets, and let anyone partake of them as they wish, no matter the cost?
Hence my 'within reason' qualifier. There is always that person claiming the flying spaghetti monster forbids him from eating apricots on Thursdays.
But providing a vegetarian alternative is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that prisoners, by and large, have no incentive to "be reasonable", so you need a system to handle the fact that they are going to try to exploit your "reasonable" accommodations, and then sue you when you reasonably tell them that you don't care what the flying spaghetti monster thinks about baked beans.
Is that an overwhelming problem in the prison system today?
Inmates often go out of their way to make the life of the prison system as difficult as possible - either from filing spurious lawsuits, to acting up within the facility.
Maybe if you stopped railroading them in with shitty plea bargains, you wouldn't have to worry about an overly unhappy prison population, Crown Inquisitor.
There are a few problems with the "veggie option" from the cost perspective though. What if there is only one inmate who wants it - how do you then keep it down to $2.50 per inmate per day without making it below required nuitrition level?
They should have thought of that before they committed such heinous crimes.
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2016, 11:54:39 AM
There are a few problems with the "veggie option" from the cost perspective though. What if there is only one inmate who wants it - how do you then keep it down to $2.50 per inmate per day without making it below required nuitrition level?
They were already going to serve bread, fruit and vegetables. Substituting more beans for pork isn't a big problem.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2016, 08:20:15 AM
Should prisons accomodate inmates who expect halal, kosher or vegetarian food?
not specifically. They could offer 2 or 3 choices on the menu, including one without pork and one without meat though. But we shouldn't specifically pay for kosher or halal food.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
Ah, so this it. You are concerned Muslims are getting better food. That is a big problem isn't it?
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 09:49:32 AM
How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.
private hospitals and schools will developp to offer such foods to their clients, for a price.
but the State has no business catering to the individual needs of each and every single religion or life philosophy on earth to suit everyone, especially in prisons.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
FWIW, while I definitely see the benefits in public healthcare, I think having a free cafeteria in a hospital is going too far.
The cafeteria isn't free. Only the meals served to patients while they are hospitalized are free. That's a big difference. You don't like what you have and you want something more from the cafeteria, go for it, pay for it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
But since everything's better with bacon, we know this is just not true.
The real power is how much your commissary account is stocked with Little Debbies. And we're talking Oatmeal Creme Pies, not that weak ass Star Crunches bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
Ah, so this it. You are concerned Muslims are getting better food. That is a big problem isn't it?
Yep, you've again figured me out.
Quote from: SeedyBut since everything's better with bacon, we know this is just not true.
Have you seen how much fucking bacon costs these days???
I don't think anyone is getting bacon at $2.25/day.
Somebody offers you their fruit cup, you belt that fucker with your tray.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2016, 11:48:59 AM
Maybe if you stopped railroading them in with shitty plea bargains, you wouldn't have to worry about an overly unhappy prison population, Crown Inquisitor.
I'll guess we'll never know then. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
agree that if you polled prisoners with the question, "would you be interested in working the system if you could?" you'd probably find a majority saying yes. that's not what I was getting at, though.
Still trying to figure out how Muslims would get "better" food. Do they have to get free trade shitty beans, as opposed to just regular shitty beans?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:35:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
Ah, so this it. You are concerned Muslims are getting better food. That is a big problem isn't it?
Yep, you've again figured me out.
Yup, he is so insightful.
No. Prison is not a Burger King.
You can have it your way but don't get crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 10:43:49 AM
Keeping inmates "happy" is actually a major concern. A happy inmate is less likely to stab a guard. Also if you don't provide food that falls within the dietary restrictions of certain inmates you are going to face hunger strikes.
While I agree that we should try to prevent situations that lead one prisoner to stab a guard or another prisoner, I don't understand why we should care if someone goes on a hunger strike. They wanna starve themselves, let 'em
We didn't get to choose when I was in the army. My heart bleeds for prison inmates.
More or less. Seems to me the easiest/cheapest way would be for all meat meals to be halal or kosher - plus vegetarian and, as needed, other halal/kosher options. So that choice can, I imagine, feed most of the population most of the time. Then occasionally have pork, maybe.
I'm not sure I see the point of sourcing three different types of beef, say, or chicken when non-Muslims/Jews can eat the halal/kosher beef with no issue.
How much of a problem is this? Are there many jews and muslims that are observant enough to follow dietary rules but end up in the big house? If you can stab a guy in the neck, you can eat a pork chop.
Not all inmates are there for first degree murder, you know. I get that part of the point of prisons is that they are unpleasant places that you don't want to find yourself in, but it seems unnecessarily vindictive to not try to accommodate religious/ideological diets that fall within a reasonable amount of expense and trouble.
Whether "but everybody would sign up for muslim food" would be an issue, dunno, I like my pork.
Pork is a treat :contract:
Maybe not in Spain...
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2016, 05:03:16 PM
We didn't get to choose when I was in the army. My heart bleeds for prison inmates.
Damn straight
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.vision-strike-wear.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2Fsex5.jpg&hash=b2f16237bda9551e4ebbc0f5b87ebca67fceb2af)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2016, 06:07:56 PM
Pork is a treat :contract:
Maybe not in Spain...
Cheapest meat type over here. This nation is built over doing delicious things with pork.
Some interesting links--
What's in a Prison Meal? (https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal#.r8nfFHDLM), a selection from various jurisdictions, by the Marshall Project. Definitely scroll down to Morgan County, Alabama.
More of an experiment,
Quote1-Week Prison Food Diet Reveals Problems With Inmate Meals: Low Cost, Bad Taste, And Very Little Nutrition (http://www.medicaldaily.com/1-week-prison-food-diet-reveals-problems-inmate-meals-low-cost-bad-taste-and-very-349572)
Instead of a grocery list, I brought the Federal Bureau of Prisons' food menu and purchased ingredients for a week's worth of prison food.
...
I used the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Certified Menu from 2012 because it is recent and reflective of many meals Koster described to me in our interview. Although Koster would probably argue otherwise, food service in prisons aims to "prepare and serve three daily nutritional, appetizing meals," according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There are three menu options provided for each inmate: regular, heart healthy, and non-flesh diet (vegetarian). Every meal is certified by Religious Services as kosher regardless of individual religious affiliation.
Good enough.
I just checked, and in Spain we accommodate vegetarian and halal food (plus medically mandated diets). And apparently a court sentence will force the introduction of vegan diets too :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2016, 06:17:50 PM
Some interesting links--
What's in a Prison Meal? (https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal#.r8nfFHDLM), a selection from various jurisdictions, by the Marshall Project. Definitely scroll down to Morgan County, Alabama.
More of an experiment,Quote1-Week Prison Food Diet Reveals Problems With Inmate Meals: Low Cost, Bad Taste, And Very Little Nutrition (http://www.medicaldaily.com/1-week-prison-food-diet-reveals-problems-inmate-meals-low-cost-bad-taste-and-very-349572)
Instead of a grocery list, I brought the Federal Bureau of Prisons' food menu and purchased ingredients for a week's worth of prison food.
...
I used the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Certified Menu from 2012 because it is recent and reflective of many meals Koster described to me in our interview. Although Koster would probably argue otherwise, food service in prisons aims to "prepare and serve three daily nutritional, appetizing meals," according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There are three menu options provided for each inmate: regular, heart healthy, and non-flesh diet (vegetarian). Every meal is certified by Religious Services as kosher regardless of individual religious affiliation.
Btw, your Sig sucks. What happen to the old one?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 06:28:10 PM
Btw, your Sig sucks. What happen to the old one?
I grew tired of it.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 05:50:44 PM
How much of a problem is this? Are there many jews and muslims that are observant enough to follow dietary rules but end up in the big house? If you can stab a guy in the neck, you can eat a pork chop.
IMO, it's more about the general attitude toward inmates. lack of care for their wellbeing helps contribute to the terrible conditions they endure.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2016, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:35:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 22, 2016, 12:36:24 PM
how many inmates do that, barrister?
this thread has had some generalizations of the inmate population
Shrug.
I have several friends and family members who are guards in prisons.
Anecdtoally, finding a prisoner interested in working the system is about as hard as finding one that is breathing at any particular moment.
Hell, who can blame them? If *I* was in prison you can bet I would be working the system as best I can, and I would have zero concern about whether that was "reasonable" or not.
The Muslims get better food? Sign me up!
Ah, so this it. You are concerned Muslims are getting better food. That is a big problem isn't it?
Yep, you've again figured me out.
Yup, he is so insightful.
Am I to understand you are no longer hostile to "Abrahamic religions"?
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 10:43:49 AM
Keeping inmates "happy" is actually a major concern. A happy inmate is less likely to stab a guard. Also if you don't provide food that falls within the dietary restrictions of certain inmates you are going to face hunger strikes.
While I agree that we should try to prevent situations that lead one prisoner to stab a guard or another prisoner, I don't understand why we should care if someone goes on a hunger strike. They wanna starve themselves, let 'em
Prisons are required by law to keep the inmates alive. That's part of the deal.
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2016, 05:03:16 PM
We didn't get to choose when I was in the army. My heart bleeds for prison inmates.
"Kosher? What is Kosher? Is that another type of rotten fish?"
Curiously on prison food I was reading this just yesterday
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/22/ramen-prison-currency-study
:hmm: :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2016, 05:18:33 PM
More or less. Seems to me the easiest/cheapest way would be for all meat meals to be halal or kosher - plus vegetarian and, as needed, other halal/kosher options. So that choice can, I imagine, feed most of the population most of the time. Then occasionally have pork, maybe.
I'm not sure I see the point of sourcing three different types of beef, say, or chicken when non-Muslims/Jews can eat the halal/kosher beef with no issue.
Even if you completely disregard that some inmates may want to eat bacon (and non-halal, non-kosher food is generally cheaper), you have to also consider the supply side - why should my tax payer money be spent in a way that effectively pushes the non-halal non-kosher meat manufacturers out of the market, by curtailing their ability to sell their products to prisons and the like?
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:07:27 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2016, 05:18:33 PM
More or less. Seems to me the easiest/cheapest way would be for all meat meals to be halal or kosher - plus vegetarian and, as needed, other halal/kosher options. So that choice can, I imagine, feed most of the population most of the time. Then occasionally have pork, maybe.
I'm not sure I see the point of sourcing three different types of beef, say, or chicken when non-Muslims/Jews can eat the halal/kosher beef with no issue.
Even if you completely disregard that some inmates may want to eat bacon (and non-halal, non-kosher food is generally cheaper), you have to also consider the supply side - why should my tax payer money be spent in a way that effectively pushes the non-halal non-kosher meat manufacturers out of the market, by curtailing their ability to sell their products to prisons and the like?
I don't know why as a taxpayer that I would care at all. I think there are lot of other things that I'd probably care about that have more of an impact on myself and people I know when I think about tax revenue allocation.
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
That's true - my problem was with the Sheilbh's "great idea" of just stopping buying pork altogether and feeding chicken and beef to everyone.
I don't think (I hope not anyway) that prisons are a huge income source for butchers.
Sheilbhs way makes sense. Serve halal meat usually, on days where you're serving pork or bacon then the halal option is the same as the veggie option.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
That's true - my problem was with the Sheilbh's "great idea" of just stopping buying pork altogether and feeding chicken and beef to everyone.
That wasn't my idea :lol:
Mine was, if you're not serving pork, then just use halal or kosher for everyone plus halal/kosher for Muslims/Jews to cut down on duplication and waste.
Also in the UK halal meat is normally significantly cheaper than non-halal. Plus obviously they should still have to operate on budget which is already possible.
Apparently this is actually what happens here. Chicken and beef etc are halal but they produce separate meals for vegans, veggies Jews and Rastas. Then when they're cooking pig they obviously produce separate halal meals for Muslims.
A far superior range of options to what was on offer back in my boarding school days :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 08:16:52 AM
A far superior range of options to what was on offer back in my boarding school days :D
A far superior range to what was on offer in Oxford dining halls a decade ago. <_<
Meanwhile Sarko launches his campaign with a policy to ban non-pork meals in schools.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 06:53:11 PM
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 10:43:49 AM
Keeping inmates "happy" is actually a major concern. A happy inmate is less likely to stab a guard. Also if you don't provide food that falls within the dietary restrictions of certain inmates you are going to face hunger strikes.
While I agree that we should try to prevent situations that lead one prisoner to stab a guard or another prisoner, I don't understand why we should care if someone goes on a hunger strike. They wanna starve themselves, let 'em
Prisons are required by law to keep the inmates alive. That's part of the deal.
Well, I wasn't talking just about prisoner hunger strikes; I was also considering hunger strikes by political activists. But as far as prisoners are concerned, how far does the law go in requiring the prison to keep them alive? A mentally competent adult can refuse medical treatment, even if they are suffering from a condition which will be fatal if untreated, but can be treated with a high probability of success. Do you lose the right to refuse treatment when you're in prison?
Beyond that, I'm suggesting that the law shouldn't require prisons to force feed a prisoner to keep them alive if the prisoner doesn't want to eat.
Bacon is used as currency on the inside.
It's true.
Strips, though. Not that round Canadian shit. That'll get you shanked.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2016, 12:21:26 PM
Bacon is used as currency on the inside.
It's true.
Strips, though. Not that round Canadian shit. That'll get you shanked.
Worse than Canadian bacon is the floppy, undercooked British bacon. :(
British bacon is the only true bacon.
Its so hard to find real bacon abroad :(
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
floppy, undercooked British bacon. :(
Oh man. That sounds fantastic :mmm:
I like the British bacon from happy pigs, but I always crisp the fat. American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2016, 12:36:30 PM
British bacon is the only true bacon.
Its so hard to find real bacon abroad :(
Actually even in your own country it isn't. I've had many sandwiches that say bacon and you have to look closely at container to tell what kind they mean.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
It is good if the whole thing is crisp. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
That's true - my problem was with the Sheilbh's "great idea" of just stopping buying pork altogether and feeding chicken and beef to everyone.
Your problem is you want to stick it to Muslims and Jews. They don't serve a lot of goat, lutefisk, or fried grasshopper in prison either. Are you worried that your tax dollars are not supporting the grasshopper collectors?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2016, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
That's true - my problem was with the Sheilbh's "great idea" of just stopping buying pork altogether and feeding chicken and beef to everyone.
Your problem is you want to stick it to Muslims and Jews. They don't serve a lot of goat, lutefisk, or fried grasshopper in prison either. Are you worried that your tax dollars are not supporting the grasshopper collectors?
Buddy, you need to settle down.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2016, 04:42:55 PM
You can have it your way but don't get crazy.
where does it stops?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
It is good if the whole thing is crisp. :contract:
In the UK we stayed mostly at B&Bs, which meant a lot of Full English breakfasts, complete with floppy british bacon. Edible, but not my favourite.
But we stayed a week at a cottage, so we did our own cooking. And I did buy some british (well scottish :scots:) bacon. When cooked to crispy it was delicious. :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2016, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2016, 04:42:55 PM
You can have it your way but don't get crazy.
where does it stops?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.someecards.com%2Fsomeecards%2Fusercards%2F1292045034949_9266399.png&hash=8af0882b31d3fe71a3a3d36915bd9b7045492f3c)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
I like the British bacon from happy pigs, but I always crisp the fat. American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
The key is to have a happy animal at the time of the slaughter. The happy hormones transmit through the meat, and lead to a better dining experience.
This is where American factory farms really excel. By keeping animals in obscenely small cages without access to sunlight, they are so happy to see that slaughter is about to put their misery to an end.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2016, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
Well, tell that to a pig farmer who is suddenly out of job because a politically correct prison administration stops buying his produce because some criminal savage refuses to eat bacon cuz his moon god told him so.
Martinus, man of the people?
Presumably, btw, the prison wouldn't be buying excess bacon anyway given that they know certain inmates won't eat it. Even if you didn't want to offer alternative, no use buying more bacon than will actually be consumed.
That's true - my problem was with the Sheilbh's "great idea" of just stopping buying pork altogether and feeding chicken and beef to everyone.
Your problem is you want to stick it to Muslims and Jews. They don't serve a lot of goat, lutefisk, or fried grasshopper in prison either. Are you worried that your tax dollars are not supporting the grasshopper collectors?
Buddy, you need to settle down.
We have this debate every so often and it always boils down to the same thing.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2016, 09:55:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 06:53:11 PM
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 10:43:49 AM
Keeping inmates "happy" is actually a major concern. A happy inmate is less likely to stab a guard. Also if you don't provide food that falls within the dietary restrictions of certain inmates you are going to face hunger strikes.
While I agree that we should try to prevent situations that lead one prisoner to stab a guard or another prisoner, I don't understand why we should care if someone goes on a hunger strike. They wanna starve themselves, let 'em
Prisons are required by law to keep the inmates alive. That's part of the deal.
Well, I wasn't talking just about prisoner hunger strikes; I was also considering hunger strikes by political activists. But as far as prisoners are concerned, how far does the law go in requiring the prison to keep them alive? A mentally competent adult can refuse medical treatment, even if they are suffering from a condition which will be fatal if untreated, but can be treated with a high probability of success. Do you lose the right to refuse treatment when you're in prison?
Beyond that, I'm suggesting that the law shouldn't require prisons to force feed a prisoner to keep them alive if the prisoner doesn't want to eat.
I think the food has to be something they will eat. You can not for instance, shit in a bowel and serve it them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 08:25:27 AM
Meanwhile Sarko launches his campaign with a policy to ban non-pork meals in schools.
Another empty promise. :) Primary elections time!
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2016, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 09:49:32 AM
How is this problem dealt with in other institutional feeding situations like hospitals? Is it particularly onerous or difficult there? I have no idea.
private hospitals and schools will developp to offer such foods to their clients, for a price.
but the State has no business catering to the individual needs of each and every single religion or life philosophy on earth to suit everyone, especially in prisons.
My question was 'how much of a problem is this in reality'. Presumably, having to feed all sorts of folks with differing dietary concerns is an issue in all sorts of settings, more than just in prisons, and my suspicion (given I lack any sort of data either way) is that they are somehow able to handle it without enormously higher costs.
One such setting is public hospitals, but I am sure there are plenty others: school cafeterias for example.
The issue of not providing alternatives, as far as I know, emerges most controversially in France, where local governments of a right-wing type are or were busy shutting down *existing* school lunch programs that provided (until now) alternatives for religious Jews and Muslims. Interestingly, I haven't seen the news articles concerning that issue advancing the argument that providing such alternatives was excessively onerous. Presumably if it was, they would cite that as a reason for shutting them down. Rather, they concentrate on the 'making everyone eat the same is advancing important secular values' argument.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/pork-school-dinners-france-secularism-children-religious-intolerance
Yet France still has holidays named and designated for Catholic holidays. <_<
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Yet France still has holidays named and designated for Catholic holidays. <_<
So? Should they bring back the 1st Republic calendar to be truly secular?
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2016, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Yet France still has holidays named and designated for Catholic holidays. <_<
So? Should they bring back the 1st Republic calendar to be truly secular?
Yes...yes they should. Hey how are you celebrating the sans-culottides this year?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2016, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
I like the British bacon from happy pigs, but I always crisp the fat. American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
The key is to have a happy animal at the time of the slaughter. The happy hormones transmit through the meat, and lead to a better dining experience.
This is where American factory farms really excel. By keeping animals in obscenely small cages without access to sunlight, they are so happy to see that slaughter is about to put their misery to an end.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2016, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Yet France still has holidays named and designated for Catholic holidays. <_<
So? Should they bring back the 1st Republic calendar to be truly secular?
So secularism is the shit unless it interferes with tradition/days off?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
So secularism is the shit unless it interferes with tradition/days off?
People will get their day off anyway. Does it really need to be a law that it will be called something else than Christmas or Easter? We celebrate Patriot's day while Canada celebrates Victoria Day. Most folk around here still call it
Fête de Dollard (Dollar des Ormeaux's birthday).
I honestly don't care how it's called. It doesn't interfere with secularism.
Yeah religious symbolism supported by the State...
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2016, 02:01:02 PM
In the UK we stayed mostly at B&Bs, which meant a lot of Full English breakfasts, complete with floppy british bacon. Edible, but not my favourite.
I fear our reputation for shit service intervened here. Crispy bacon is a common request people tolerate and accommodate :blush:
My mum only eats crispy bacon. And I'm not far off :mmm:
Ramen FTW
http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/restaurantsandnews/ramen-noodles-are-becoming-a-crucial-currency-in-prison-because-inmates-get-so-little-food/ar-BBvUGZ2?ocid=ansmsnfood11&OCID=ansmsnnews11
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 03:10:24 PM
Yeah religious symbolism supported by the State...
not really. St-Jean-Baptiste started as a religious day, but it's a civic day now, and it's called National Holyday. There are still people who chose to go to mass on this day, but that does not make it a religious day anymore. Would you suggest we move the date to, oh, July 3rd instead? What goal would that accomplish?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 23, 2016, 07:37:55 PM
Ramen FTW
Yeah, there's a lot of that on the inside. Rammin'.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2016, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 03:10:24 PM
Yeah religious symbolism supported by the State...
not really. St-Jean-Baptiste started as a religious day, but it's a civic day now, and it's called National Holyday. There are still people who chose to go to mass on this day, but that does not make it a religious day anymore. Would you suggest we move the date to, oh, July 3rd instead? What goal would that accomplish?
If you are going to have a society that makes a woman strip off some of her garments in public in the name of good moral and secularism, then yeah I think one should expect to be called out for hypocrisy (and racism) if you religious symbolism enshrined in state holidays.
To be honest, you are surprising me a bit given how much grievance you attach to symbolism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/95acffe22eef10a2506db02cc912bb62fc1a600f/48_213_4030_2418/master/4030.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=4ad700ad0f5720e7616d574eb5cc6532)
Catholic religious holidays and bikinis are part of the French culture. Halal slaughter and burkinis aren't. France, wisely, believes in superiority of its own culture over others, and does not subscribe to the false and harmful ideology of multiculturalism.
If you don't like the French culture, the best solution is not to live in France. :contract:
If you feel like "sunbathing" while wearing a duvet or a beekeper suit, a better choice for you could be Doha than Saint Tropez.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2016, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
I like the British bacon from happy pigs, but I always crisp the fat. American bacon appears to be what we would call streaky bacon, also very good as long as the fat is crisped.
The key is to have a happy animal at the time of the slaughter. The happy hormones transmit through the meat, and lead to a better dining experience.
This is where American factory farms really excel. By keeping animals in obscenely small cages without access to sunlight, they are so happy to see that slaughter is about to put their misery to an end.
Have you ever actually been on a farm? :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 03:11:37 AM
Catholic religious holidays and bikinis are part of the French culture. Halal slaughter and burkinis aren't. France, wisely, believes in superiority of its own culture over others, and does not subscribe to the false and harmful ideology of multiculturalism.
If you don't like the French culture, the best solution is not to live in France. :contract:
If you feel like "sunbathing" while wearing a duvet or a beekeper suit, a better choice for you could be Doha than Saint Tropez.
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Somehow, I very much doubt that the authorities would care if someone was sitting at the beach under a duvet or in a beekeeper suit.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I just have a really hard time understanding why a liberal democracy has to force women to undress in beaches.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I think if you want Muslims to leave your country/not enter, making explicit bigoted statements is probably more effective. Unduly harassing them using a figleaf of secularism probably just leads to radicalization.
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 06:01:25 AM
I just have a really hard time understanding why a liberal democracy has to force women to undress in beaches.
Indeed.
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 06:01:25 AM
I just have a really hard time understanding why a liberal democracy has to force women to undress in beaches.
Many liberal democracies enforce dress code in public places.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 06:17:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I think if you want Muslims to leave your country/not enter, making explicit bigoted statements is probably more effective. Unduly harassing them using a figleaf of secularism probably just leads to radicalization.
You have to also work around useful idiots in the West.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 06:24:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 06:17:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I think if you want Muslims to leave your country/not enter, making explicit bigoted statements is probably more effective. Unduly harassing them using a figleaf of secularism probably just leads to radicalization.
You have to also work around useful idiots in the West.
Having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too much clothing in them doesn't seem to me that far removed from having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too little clothing in them.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Somehow, I very much doubt that the authorities would care if someone was sitting at the beach under a duvet or in a beekeeper suit.
That may be a language barrier thing. I think when French people hear about Laïcité they understand it means French Republican Culture. Which I think is a bit different from what we think of as 'good morals and secularism'.
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 06:24:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 06:17:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I think if you want Muslims to leave your country/not enter, making explicit bigoted statements is probably more effective. Unduly harassing them using a figleaf of secularism probably just leads to radicalization.
You have to also work around useful idiots in the West.
Having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too much clothing in them doesn't seem to me that far removed from having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too little clothing in them.
Yes. Would Spanish or US police intervene if a woman was walking completely naked at a non-nudist beach?
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 09:12:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 06:24:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 06:17:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:58:10 AM
Which is fine and they should be plain in saying so. Not hide behind the values of 'good morals and secularism' as that's naught but a fig leaf.
Didn't we have the same discussion when we were arguing whether the US President should come out and say that the US is at war with Islamism - I thought at the time it was decided that explicit and plain rhetorics is less important than achieving strategic goals. Same here, I suppose?
I think if you want Muslims to leave your country/not enter, making explicit bigoted statements is probably more effective. Unduly harassing them using a figleaf of secularism probably just leads to radicalization.
You have to also work around useful idiots in the West.
Having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too much clothing in them doesn't seem to me that far removed from having the police watching beaches so women don't wear too little clothing in them.
Yes. Would Spanish or US police intervene if a woman was walking completely naked at a non-nudist beach?
I don't think those are at all the same. Requiring someone to take off clothing is not the same as requiring something to wear clothing.
Also, this is clearly a discriminatory law as there is only a small subset of people who would want to wear the banned item (that isn't actually harming anyone).
Of course, it isn't out of line with muslim garb that France has already banned so I shouldn't be surprised...but that doesn't make it any less distressing/shocking.
There's a social taboo in our society regarding showing pubic hair, for example, but there isn't one about fully clothed women in beaches - heck, that was the social norm not that long ago. Unless we're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
There's a social taboo in our society regarding showing pubic hair, for example, but there isn't one about fully clothed women in beaches - heck, that was the social norm not that long ago. Unless we're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
As garbon told me, "settle down".
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 02:00:25 AM
If you are going to have a society that makes a woman strip off some of her garments in public in the name of good moral and secularism, then yeah I think one should expect to be called out for hypocrisy (and racism) if you religious symbolism enshrined in state holidays.
Overzealous cops. That does not exist in multicultural states like the United Kingdom and the United States, obviously.
You wouldn't see a mayor trying to defend silly actions either over there. Nope. Never happenned.
Afaik, it ain't in the law, the tribunals haven't ruled on that either. They did rule that the burkini was forbidden, as with all religious symbols in public space though. And that is a faire compromise for a free society.
Quote
To be honest, you are surprising me a bit given how much grievance you attach to symbolism.
I don't see the harm in celebrating our national holyday on 24th of June or taking a day off on 25th december.
I could still work if I wanted to. I used to. If people are off to celebrate the birth of their God, what do I care? I just don't want to be forced to celebrate with them, to live according to their rules. I really don't think places like Turkey or Iran are models to be followed, nor do I think I would get a fair hearing from a judge who has the Ten Commandments in his courtroom when he realizes I'm not a believer.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 02:00:25 AM
If you are going to have a society that makes a woman strip off some of her garments in public in the name of good moral and secularism, then yeah I think one should expect to be called out for hypocrisy (and racism) if you religious symbolism enshrined in state holidays.
Overzealous cops. That does not exist in multicultural states like the United Kingdom and the United States, obviously.
You wouldn't see a mayor trying to defend silly actions either over there. Nope. Never happenned.
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be a little bitch making insinuations.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 09:37:22 AM
Afaik, it ain't in the law, the tribunals haven't ruled on that either. They did rule that the burkini was forbidden, as with all religious symbols in public space though. And that is a faire compromise for a free society.
Actually social media has been quick to throw up pictures of nuns in their habits at beaches in France. Maybe they were also fined and it simply has never made the news.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 09:31:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
There's a social taboo in our society regarding showing pubic hair, for example, but there isn't one about fully clothed women in beaches - heck, that was the social norm not that long ago. Unless we're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
As garbon told me, "settle down".
You get that because you've been running around rather unpleasantlike across a variety of threads.
Elsewhere in the world...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/24/hijab-approved-as-uniform-option-by-scotland-police/
QuoteHijab approved as uniform option by Scotland Police
The hijab has become an optional part of the Police Scotland uniform as the force works to encourage Muslim women to join the service.
Previously, officers could wear the religious headscarf with approval but it is now formally part of the force uniform.
Police Scotland said it is working to make the force "representative of the communities we serve."
The formal announcement was welcomed by the Scottish Police Muslim Association (SPMA), an organisation set up in 2010 to build closer ties with Muslim communities.
Chief Constable Phil Gormley said: "I am delighted to make this announcement and welcome the support from both the Muslim community, and the wider community, as well as police officers and staff.
"Like many other employers, especially in the public sector, we are working towards ensuring our service is representative of the communities we serve.
"I hope that this addition to our uniform options will contribute to making our staff mix more diverse and adds to the life skills, experiences and personal qualities that our officers and staff bring to policing the communities of Scotland."
A report to the Scottish Police Authority earlier this year showed there were 4,809 applications to join Police Scotland in 2015/16, of which 127 (2.6%) were from ethnic backgrounds.
It read: "Based on these figures, it is clear to see that challenge Police Scotland faces. If the black and minority ethnic groups (BME) national average of 4% is to be met within the organisation, an additional 650 BME recruits are required across all areas of the business.
"Considering current application trends, this would appear to be unachievable."
The Metropolitan Police in London approved the hijab as part of its uniform more than a decade ago.
SPMA chair Fahad Bashir said: "This is a positive step in the right direction, and I am delighted that Police Scotland is taking productive steps in order to ensure that our organisation is seen to be inclusive and represents the diverse communities that we serve across Scotland.
"No doubt this will encourage more women from Muslim and minority ethnic backgrounds to join Police Scotland."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fnews%2F2016%2F08%2F23%2Fmetropolitan-police-hijab-large_trans%2B%2BqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg&hash=5d62c0c150ca5079bc6ea1c08219a33398fae050)
I know a former prison chef, and many inmates say they're Muslim so they can get chicken and/or curry with most meals which is preferable to the alternatives.
Though we seem to have gone off-topic...
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
Unless we're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
We're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 09:31:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
There's a social taboo in our society regarding showing pubic hair, for example, but there isn't one about fully clothed women in beaches - heck, that was the social norm not that long ago. Unless we're making shit up in order to target certain cultural groups.
As garbon told me, "settle down".
You get that because you've been running around rather unpleasantlike across a variety of threads.
Was I wrong?
You've been exceedingly Razzy recently. Is it the heat?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2016, 11:16:53 AM
You've been exceedingly Razzy recently. Is it the heat?
Cat died. I loved that cat. :(
My cat died, too. So suck it up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
My cat died, too. So suck it up.
I have some people don't like me laying into Marty and Berkut about their intolerance.
There's a way to do it, and a way not the do it. You know that.
Busting on Marty shouldn't be more annoying than Marti.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
My cat died, too. So suck it up.
I have some people don't like me laying into Marty and Berkut about their intolerance.
I just don't like you derailing and destroying conversations for that purpose. And worse using things I actually care alot about as ammunition rather than actually wanting to discuss it.
I like you Raz but you trigger me sometimes. I DEMAND THIS FORUM REMAIN MY SAFE PLACE.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be a little bitch making insinuations.
You take one isolated incident that happenned over the weekend, one incident were a lot of the locals took the defense of that poor women, to generalize about a policy that is only meant to protect democracy from the encroachment of religion.
At the same time this happenned in the South, in the North, some ultra catholics protesters got evicted by the police from an occupied Church about to be demolished to make room for condos.
Quote
Actually social media has been quick to throw up pictures of nuns in their habits at beaches in France. Maybe they were also fined and it simply has never made the news.
Is there a widespread movement spearheaded by catholic integrists aiming at chaning societies from the inside, with violence as well as political means?
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
My cat died, too. So suck it up.
I have some people don't like me laying into Marty and Berkut about their intolerance.
I just don't like you derailing and destroying conversations for that purpose. And worse using things I actually care alot about as ammunition rather than actually wanting to discuss it.
I like you Raz but you trigger me sometimes. I DEMAND THIS FORUM REMAIN MY SAFE PLACE.
I sent you PM about that apologizing. The thought occurred to me that I should put a trigger warning in my sig. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be a little bitch making insinuations.
You take one isolated incident that happenned over the weekend, one incident were a lot of the locals took the defense of that poor women, to generalize about a policy that is only meant to protect democracy from the encroachment of religion.
Sounds like you need to check out the news. Cannes and Nice have specifically banned the burkini.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 12:45:49 PMAt the same time this happenned in the South, in the North, some ultra catholics protesters got evicted by the police from an occupied Church about to be demolished to make room for condos.
Ok? Not sure what this shows?
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 12:45:49 PMQuote
Actually social media has been quick to throw up pictures of nuns in their habits at beaches in France. Maybe they were also fined and it simply has never made the news.
Is there a widespread movement spearheaded by catholic integrists aiming at chaning societies from the inside, with violence as well as political means?
Do French authorities have proof that burkini wearers are doing that? Seems like they are just trying to enjoy a nice day at the beach. It does seem weird though that banning religious dress is only important when it is religious dress that we don't like.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be a little bitch making insinuations.
You take one isolated incident that happenned over the weekend, one incident were a lot of the locals took the defense of that poor women, to generalize about a policy that is only meant to protect democracy from the encroachment of religion.
At the same time this happenned in the South, in the North, some ultra catholics protesters got evicted by the police from an occupied Church about to be demolished to make room for condos.
Quote
Actually social media has been quick to throw up pictures of nuns in their habits at beaches in France. Maybe they were also fined and it simply has never made the news.
Is there a widespread movement spearheaded by catholic integrists aiming at chaning societies from the inside, with violence as well as political means?
I don't see government's role as to protect you from the "encroachment of religion". Government should be neutral toward religion, though accommodating to the needs of it's citizens. There are cases when the government has to get involved in religion (for instance army chaplains), and when they do they should be fair and equal.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 01:17:25 PM
Sounds like you need to check out the news. Cannes and Nice have specifically banned the burkini.
It's against the law, and it's been upheld by the tribunals, but it has nothing to do with the images you posted. And it's a pretty damn good law. I just wish more countries would imitate France, we'd have less problems with militant islam by now.
This was about a woman wearing a simple weil at the beach and being harassed by overzealous cops.
Quote
Ok? Not sure what this shows?
that secularism concerns all religions.
Quote
Do French authorities have proof that burkini wearers are doing that? Seems like they are just trying to enjoy a nice day at the beach. It does seem weird though that banning religious dress is only important when it is religious dress that we don't like.
It's a religious symbol, one that is imposed by muslim integrists. Women not wearing these clothes are considered to be without honor and deserving of punishment, according to these associations. As such, it's a good thing that you don't give them any inch to grow. You could look at the propaganda from Collectif contre l'islamophobie en France, or any such institution in Canada that talks of islamophobia. They're the first ones to invite radical imams to preach their hatred of occidental freedoms over here.
Religion is private, just like sex. You'll be sanctionned if you have sex in public, and religion should be just the same. Keep your Faith at home or in a specific building with other consenting people. There are actually people who don't care about that stuff and want to live free. And we deserve respect too.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Religion is private, just like sex. You'll be sanctionned if you have sex in public, and religion should be just the same. Keep your Faith at home or in a specific building with other consenting people. There are actually people who don't care about that stuff and want to live free. And we deserve respect too.
There is almost
always a problem when "freedom" is defined as "
my freedom to be free of having to put up with
you being all 'in my face' about your identity".
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 01:17:25 PM
Sounds like you need to check out the news. Cannes and Nice have specifically banned the burkini.
It's against the law, and it's been upheld by the tribunals, but it has nothing to do with the images you posted. And it's a pretty damn good law. I just wish more countries would imitate France, we'd have less problems with militant islam by now.
This was about a woman wearing a simple weil at the beach and being harassed by overzealous cops.
Wow. I'm not sure given 2016 that I'd say 2015 or 2016 has been doing a good job with militant islam. Nor how banning fashion choices has had any impact on level of violence.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
that secularism concerns all religions.
I think I need a link. I don't really understand this at all.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
It's a religious symbol, one that is imposed by muslim integrists. Women not wearing these clothes are considered to be without honor and deserving of punishment, according to these associations. As such, it's a good thing that you don't give them any inch to grow. You could look at the propaganda from Collectif contre l'islamophobie en France, or any such institution in Canada that talks of islamophobia. They're the first ones to invite radical imams to preach their hatred of occidental freedoms over here.
Religion is private, just like sex. You'll be sanctionned if you have sex in public, and religion should be just the same. Keep your Faith at home or in a specific building with other consenting people. There are actually people who don't care about that stuff and want to live free. And we deserve respect too.
(Going down the rabbit hole) So why aren't we banning nun habits in public? That's religion in public, surely.
Also seems a bit paternalistic. How do you know that women where such garb don't actually want to wear it? How do you know it is only because men are forcing them too?
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2016, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Religion is private, just like sex. You'll be sanctionned if you have sex in public, and religion should be just the same. Keep your Faith at home or in a specific building with other consenting people. There are actually people who don't care about that stuff and want to live free. And we deserve respect too.
There is almost always a problem when "freedom" is defined as "my freedom to be free of having to put up with you being all 'in my face' about your identity".
Particularly as it is always just a mask for 'I don't really like when people in group x, do x.'
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 01:13:05 PM
I sent you PM about that apologizing. The thought occurred to me that I should put a trigger warning in my sig. :lol:
Hey man you do you.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 01:49:03 PM
(Going down the rabbit hole) So why aren't we banning nun habits in public? That's religion in public, surely.
Well nuns have been attacked by the French State in the past. And actually I do think their habits are banned in certain public spaces. I do not recall the details though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 01:56:33 PM
And actually I do think their habits are banned in certain public spaces. I do not recall the details though.
Only their
bad habits.
[ducks, runs]
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Religion is private, just like sex. You'll be sanctionned if you have sex in public, and religion should be just the same. Keep your Faith at home or in a specific building with other consenting people. There are actually people who don't care about that stuff and want to live free. And we deserve respect too.
Except it isn't. Religion has always been a public activity, moreover it is a integral part of a person's life. You demanding not to see people with religiously inspired garb in public is the same as some Saudi cleric demanding that short pants not be worn in public.
Ooh some people would have been apoplectic. I saw so many women wearing hijabs on my 7 minute walk from my office to tube station (one in a niqab). I lost track after 30 but probably saw at least 40.
Short pants shouldn't be worn in the city. Also, what the fuck is wrong with Americans? You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
You take one isolated incident that happenned over the weekend, one incident were a lot of the locals took the defense of that poor women, to generalize about a policy that is only meant to protect democracy from the encroachment of religion.
One isolated incident in a country with a far right party leading the polls, where the mainstream right candidates have been talking about a 'Christian Republic' and one of them kicked off their campaign by promising to ban non-pork meals from schools.
Personally I'm relatively uncomfortable with armed, male police standing around making a woman conform to a dress code. But, the French, God bless them, have never really done liberalism.
QuoteOoh some people would have been apoplectic. I saw so money women wearing hijabs on my 7 minute walk from my office to tube station (one in a niqab). I lost track after 30 but probably saw at least 40.
It is kind of interesting that in France this has support from the far-left to the far-right including the Socialists and the Gaullists, though obviously not universal. I don't think I've seen anyone in Britain left of UKIP who is okay with it.
Curious how the way to make sure a woman isn't being oppressed is to oppress her.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
Curious how the way to make sure a woman isn't be oppressed is to oppress her.
Yeah.
But it reminds me of the whole French (and some other continental European) approaches to this. Liberalism is a superior way of life that is so fragile and unattractive that it must be enforced by the state :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Them's fighting words, son.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Them's fighting words, son.
What are you gonna do? Pleat on me?
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Them's fighting words, son.
What are you gonna do? Pleat on me?
BB and the Brain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFE35vyCqVw
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Them's fighting words, son.
What are you gonna do? Pleat on me?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.2959613.1424465470%21%2FfileImage%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2F16x9_620%2Fhkn-oilers-jets-20150216.jpg&hash=10804f1ca0b6c459ceebdd3bb1cf700fd2f1f905)
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
Them's fighting words, son.
What are you gonna do? Pleat on me?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.2959613.1424465470%21%2FfileImage%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2F16x9_620%2Fhkn-oilers-jets-20150216.jpg&hash=10804f1ca0b6c459ceebdd3bb1cf700fd2f1f905)
I gotta say that seems unlikely.
I thought about the French burkini controversy a bit more and decided I think what the French authorities are doing is wrong, but not because it is about controlling what women are wearing.
The women wearing the burkas and hijabs very often do so out of social, cultural, religious and economic pressure, so the left which argues against such policing measures by comparing it to police telling women what mini skirts they can wear are missing the point, and ignoring a greater social injustice going on, which concerns treatment and subjugation of women in muslim communities.
That being said, the French measures are akin to penalising victims of domestic abuse for refusing to testify against their abusers - in other words, they try to combat a social ill by targetting the weakest link - the victim. This is why such measures should be opposed, and we should come up with a better solution to address it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 07:55:34 AM
I thought about the French burkini controversy a bit more and decided I think what the French authorities are doing is wrong, but not because it is about controlling what women are wearing.
The women wearing the burkas and hijabs very often do so out of social, cultural, religious and economic pressure, so the left which argues against such policing measures by comparing it to police telling women what mini skirts they can wear are missing the point, and ignoring a greater social injustice going on, which concerns treatment and subjugation of women in muslim communities.
That being said, the French measures are akin to penalising victims of domestic abuse for refusing to testify against their abusers - in other words, they try to combat a social ill by targetting the weakest link - the victim. This is why such measures should be opposed, and we should come up with a better solution to address it.
The French measures are designed to let people know that un-French things are not to be tolerated. It doesn't have alot to do with trying to preserve secularism or helping women. France has always been about culture and sometimes this is good, it is easy to join the Frog club. But it has always been a double edged sword. But the French pattern is to act like assholes and go through their stages of mourning over the world changing and eventually reach the acceptance stage. Not sure if it will go that way this time though. Though, at least when I was there, the Arab immigrants did a pretty good job integrating. But this is not the 90s anymore.
At least that is my view.
Perhaps, but I still do think that there is a valid concern over many Muslim women being pressured into wearing these outfits, and at least as far as the Western societies are concerned, such state of affairs should be unacceptable.
But as I said, targetting men forcing women to do so should be the priority.
if the main rationale for these laws is the social/cultural pressure men impose on their women, we should sanction little girls playing house
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:03:35 AM
Perhaps, but I still do think that there is a valid concern over many Muslim women being pressured into wearing these outfits, and at least as far as the Western societies are concerned, such state of affairs should be unacceptable.
But as I said, targetting men forcing women to do so should be the priority.
Look if somebody wants to wear stuff on her head that is cool. My problem with the Hijab is entirely based on the ideology behind wearing it, not wearing it itself. But banning something because of the ideology behind it is anti-free speech and anti-political freedom. Even if that speech and political statement is bullshit.
But I know in Europe fucked up political things can and do get banned. So there is that.
Banning women from wearing burkas in the beach is not going to make them stand up to their men so they can go to the beach; they will stop going to the beach.
Also, a significant % of those women probably do want to wear this kind of dress, since it's ingrained in their culture. Even though my personal agenda is for them to adopt a more independent world view, I'm not sure it's the place of law enforcement in a liberal state to force this issue. At the end of the day, it's a matter of freedom of expression. If we want cultural integration, that's the job of our educational system, not the police.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 25, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
if the main rationale for these laws is the social/cultural pressure men impose on their women, we should sanction little girls playing house
I don't own any women so fortunately I am not guilty of this :P
But seriously, sure. If girls were being pressured into playing house would it be justifiable to then prevent ANY girls from playing house even if they wanted to?
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2016, 08:12:43 AM
Banning women from wearing burkas in the beach is not going to make them stand up to their men so they can go to the beach; they will stop going to the beach.
Also, a significant % of those women probably do want to wear this kind of dress, since it's ingrained in their culture. Even though my personal agenda is for them to adopt a more independent world view, I'm not sure it's the place of law enforcement in a liberal state to force this issue. At the end of the day, it's a matter of freedom of expression. If we want cultural integration, that's the job of our educational system, not the police.
Yep. Besides history shows pretty conclusively that tolerating people gets them to integrate better than giving them shit anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 08:13:41 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 25, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
if the main rationale for these laws is the social/cultural pressure men impose on their women, we should sanction little girls playing house
I don't own any women so fortunately I am not guilty of this :P
But seriously, sure. If girls were being pressured into playing house would it be justifiable to then prevent ANY girls from playing house even if they wanted to?
apparently. any girl who wants to play house only does so because of societal pressure--brainwash. so, all little girls should be prevented from playing house. it is in their best interest for legislators to sanction this conduct!
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2016, 08:12:43 AM
Banning women from wearing burkas in the beach is not going to make them stand up to their men so they can go to the beach; they will stop going to the beach.
Also, a significant % of those women probably do want to wear this kind of dress, since it's ingrained in their culture. Even though my personal agenda is for them to adopt a more independent world view, I'm not sure it's the place of law enforcement in a liberal state to force this issue. At the end of the day, it's a matter of freedom of expression. If we want cultural integration, that's the job of our educational system, not the police.
I am agreeing with you. I just think that painting this *solely* in the context of personal choice (without acknowledging the fucked up social pressure put on these women by their social, family and religious leaders) is betrayal of Western Enlightenment ideals.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 08:14:43 AM
Yep. Besides history shows pretty conclusively that tolerating people gets them to integrate better than giving them shit anyway.
Only that, with Islam, it hasn't worked so far. And as an empiricist and progressivist, I am not sure that the argument that "well, this has always worked in the past, so why change it" is a very good one, especially when it is clearly not working this time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 08:13:41 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 25, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
if the main rationale for these laws is the social/cultural pressure men impose on their women, we should sanction little girls playing house
I don't own any women so fortunately I am not guilty of this :P
But seriously, sure. If girls were being pressured into playing house would it be justifiable to then prevent ANY girls from playing house even if they wanted to?
To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:20:55 AM
I am agreeing with you. I just think that painting this *solely* in the context of personal choice (without acknowledging the fucked up social pressure put on these women by their social, family and religious leaders) is betrayal of Western Enlightenment ideals.
Sure. However it is tricky isn't it? Cultural Christians cannot really go around shitting on Muslim shit. Muslims, or non-Muslims from a cultural Muslim background, have to do it. Just like it is not necessary for us to sit around and point out the fucked up things nutty Jews do, fortunately we have lots of Jews to handle that business. However decrying fundy Christian nuttery is alright. It is just how it is. There are certain things you cannot do outside of the club without it becoming a tribe on tribe type deal, which is not the point.
However think of it like this: if these women can get out and interact with the general public, and the public treats them well, then they will have connections and networks that could empower them if they ever want to make a different choice. If they are isolated in ghettoized ethnic bastions they will lack that option realistically. I think France is being dangerously counter-productive here, even if it is counter-productive in a very French way.
Are we sure it isn't working though? We obviously get fixated with the very notorious examples of when it doesn't, but my commute is full of Arab teenagers that dress like normal teenagers and listen to the same horrible music. I don't think we are doing badly - ghettoization is my biggest worry and at least our authorities seem aware of the issue given what's happened in France, for example the Barcelona city council has deliberately worked on "opening up" the immigrant quarter in the Old City and it's been largely successful - integration is just not something that's going to happen overnight.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2016, 08:29:38 AM
but my commute is full of Arab teenagers that dress like normal teenagers and listen to the same horrible music.
When I was in France in 1997-1999 this is pretty much what I saw. The Arabs were pretty French. But, as I said, that was the pre-9/11 world.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:24:34 AMTo both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?
Quote from: LaCroix on August 25, 2016, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:24:34 AMTo both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?
I was about to say something like 'yes and regulating how children should be raised is more justifiable for the government to be doing' :P
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
Short pants shouldn't be worn in the city. Also, what the fuck is wrong with Americans? You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
You sure you aren't confusing us with Canadians? :huh:
Quote from: LaCroix on August 25, 2016, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:24:34 AMTo both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?
No, because as I have said already, punishing the victim is the worst possible "solution". But, since the 1950s, we have initiated a number of educational campaigns targetted at both adult women and school girls, telling that that being a stay at home mom is just one of many life style choices available to them, and that they can realize themselves pursuing professional careers or otherwise participating in public life.
So maybe we need educational campaigns targetted at Muslim women, telling them that no man has a right to tell them what they can wear, and while they are perfectly fine to choose how they dress, if they are under any pressure or a threat, these are the places and numbers they can contact to get help etc. At the same time, we should be making it very clear that any threats against Muslim women* who choose not to wear the traditional dress will be met with an immediate and decivise response from the law enforcement (and if such threats come from family members, we will be using the same enforcement toolset we already have in place for other forms of domestic abuse). Now, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that, in the name of multiculturalism, many Western governments are failing to do something like that, thinking it would be a violation of cultural differences or something.
*Or in fact any women - if there are people harassing them for their dress (whether the harassment is being done by men or women), the harassers should be punished with the full force of law.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2016, 08:52:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
Short pants shouldn't be worn in the city. Also, what the fuck is wrong with Americans? You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!
You sure you aren't confusing us with Canadians? :huh:
Yes. Canadians are insignificant.
I think part of what you guys are missing is that people have more than one reason to wear culturally-identifying clothes.
Sure, one reason is because of notions of modesty, and in some times and places those get enforced by more than just what the people wearing the clothes want. In Iran for example, you get religious cops running around enforcing hair coverings for women.
Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.
However, there are other reasons to wear such outfits besides enforced modesty: for one, exactly because the outfit identifies the wearer as a member of a particular religious community. This is often a matter of personal and 'tribal' pride (let alone religious feeling), and this pride is only enhanced by stubbornness the more 'persecution' the wearer gets for wearing the outfit. Women, as much as men, sometimes *want* to identify with their religious community, as in this example from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.662729
Thing is, if this is a factor in why people are wearing such outfits, cracking down in the French manner is exactly the wrong thing to do (disregarding for the moment whether it is ethical or ought to be legal and looking only at results). By doing so, the French state is setting up an opposition of loyalties between itself and the Muslim community that did not need to exist. Now, women who maybe wanted to wear "French" outfits because they are more comfortable/stylish and because they don't care much for religious notions of modesty, will think twice about it - because giving up Muslim dress in response to such coercion looks like cowardice and giving in to the majority.
In Canada, our government has taken the opposite route. The notion is that if Muslims can wear their traditional garb and still be included as "Canadians", we can better secure their loyalty for the nation, as we do with other groups such as Sikhs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-diversity-policy-hijab-1.3733829
Personally, I prefer this policy, and I guess time will tell which works better.
The Sikhs in Canada make an interesting case study, btw. In the '80s, it was Sikhs and not Muslims who were the scary terrorism threat. Sikhs have killed more Canadian civilians through terrorism than Muslims, as the Air India bombing was Canada's version of 9/11 - the worst mass murder in Canadian history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
Then, in the 90s, there was a HUGE controversy over allowing Sikhs to wear turbans and beards.
Now, the Canadian Minister of Defense is a religious Sikh, who (among other things) invented, while in the Army, a gizmo that allows bearded men to wear gas masks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan
The hope, under the current policy, is to one day perhaps have a Minister of Defense wearing a Hijab. Clash of civilizations - avoided. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.
I only know what Islam says about the Hijab. And I fundamentally disagree with it. But I cannot possibly know what any one person thinks of the clothes they wear and I would certainly never treat any woman wearing a Hijab, or any other sort of clothing, with anything but kindness and civility. As I would do anybody else.
QuoteHowever, there are other reasons to wear such outfits besides enforced modesty: for one, exactly because the outfit identifies the wearer as a member of a particular religious community. This is often a matter of personal and 'tribal' pride (let alone religious feeling), and this pride is only enhanced by stubbornness the more 'persecution' the wearer gets for wearing the outfit. Women, as much as men, sometimes *want* to identify with their religious community, as in this example from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Which was exactly my point. It is just stupid, and historically shown to be stupid, to crack down on shit like this.
QuotePersonally, I prefer this policy, and I guess time will tell which works better.
Time has already told which one works better.
QuoteThe hope, under the current policy, is to one day perhaps have a Minister of Defense wearing a Hijab. Clash of civilizations - avoided.
Ah so I guess the UK is now beloved by Muslims everywhere because they elected a Muslim mayor of London? Not that simple.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.
The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 09:56:23 AM
Ah so I guess the UK is now beloved by Muslims everywhere because they elected a Muslim mayor of London? Not that simple.
Sure, I agree we will always have problems with the ISIS types. Indeed, they will hate us all the more if we are making efforts to include Muslims within the definition of "we". They understand very well that ISIS (and groups like them) only succeed to the extent that they are able to stir up hatred between Muslims and others - so that Muslims see themselves, and are seen by others, as outside the definition of "we", and so are more ready to join with or sympathize with groups such as ISIS.
We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.
The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.
You aren't parsing what I wrote.
I'm not doubting that incidents such as that have happened. I'm questioning how widespread such terrorization is as a motive for wearing the outfits.
It is a massive leap from "two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed" to 'the motive (or at least, a substantial part of the motive) for Muslim women to wear such outfits is fear of Muslim men'.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 10:03:42 AM
We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.
You don't do it, though, by turning a blind eye to victimisation of women going on in Muslim communities that we would never tolerate in the rest of the society, though.
And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 10:03:42 AM
Sure, I agree we will always have problems with the ISIS types. Indeed, they will hate us all the more if we are making efforts to include Muslims within the definition of "we". They understand very well that ISIS (and groups like them) only succeed to the extent that they are able to stir up hatred between Muslims and others - so that Muslims see themselves, and are seen by others, as outside the definition of "we", and so are more ready to join with or sympathize with groups such as ISIS.
We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.
Well sure. However, people in our countries join any number of crazy cults that do crazy shit. So who the hell knows if it will actually reduce the fringe minority who does crazy shit? They are statistically insignificant. The clash is a clash of ideas.
And it is the ISIS types and certain governments are the other side of the clash. Which is why simply being more tolerant and liberal is not going to avoid any such clash. After all if we didn't do those things there would be no clash. Being a fundamentalist Christian poses no threat to ISIS/Salafist types. Liberal tolerance does.
I am not necessarily disagreeing just putting in my thoughts here.
Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS. It is not. It's denigration of women, intolerance of gays, honor killings, intolerance of apostasy and all kinds of abhorrent practices that are present not just in the likes of ISIS, but in a significant part of Muslim communities, including in the West.
Sure, we should avoid alienating other Muslims who subscribe to Western values about the role (and rule) of secular law, gender equality, freedom of religion etc. - but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to things that are simply not compatible with the fundamental values of our societies.
Edit: And really, this is where popularity of people like Le Pen or Trump comes from. Because, whereas Le Pen and Trump propose bad solutions to the problem - the liberal elites, who think like Malthus, refuse to acknowledge the problem exists in the first place.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.
The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.
you harassed two of our women? Fuck yiu we're going to harass all of your women.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:13:15 AM
And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.
As I said, Muslims are the only one who can really kill the Hijab.
We provide our ideas to their communities and they have to do the rest. Just like other religions do.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:13:15 AM
And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.
As I said, Muslims are the only one who can really kill the Hijab.
No, they need our help. We need to pick the voices like the ones made by Asra Namani, and support them, empower them, give them strength. We can't just wash our hands and say this is purely for Muslims to decide and we do not interfere - because such voices lack the institutional and financial support (of our dear "allies", like Saudis, no less!) that the ultra-conservatives get.
Not to mention, the reformists within the Muslim world say exactly that - they say "we need the support of the Western (liberal) elites". Really, if you listened to one interview with these people (Bill Maher have them on very often, for example), it would be much clearer.
The creepy bottom line (no pun intended) is fully dressed men are forcing women to wear fewer clothes than they want to wear.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:17:54 AM
Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS.
Really? Where did I say anything like that?
What I actually said was more like 'we will never win ISIS over, so there is no use in trying, but there IS use in trying to win over Muslims'.
To quote:
QuoteWe will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.
Quote from: Brazen on August 25, 2016, 10:23:23 AM
The creepy bottom line (no pun intended) is fully dressed men are forcing women to wear fewer clothes than they want to wear.
True. Doesn't play well.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:17:54 AM
Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS.
Really? Where did I say anything like that?
What I actually said was more like 'we will never win ISIS over, so there is no use in trying, but there IS use in trying to win over Muslims'.
To quote:
QuoteWe will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.
But this creates the false dichotomy - ISIS vs. other Muslims living in our countries.
The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.
This is where the line should be drawn between those we fight and those we support and seek to ally with.
Edit: And this is exactly the mistake we have been making over and over again with AQ, Boko Haram and now the ISIS. Our enemy is not one organisation or another - if we defeat it, there will be a new one to take its place (often, more radical and violent than the last one). No, our enemy is the ideology of islamism. Until we eradicate it, we will never have peace.
Really anybody who believes things like apostates should be killed are the bad guys/gals here, not just the people who take it into their own hands. But ultimately my position on this doesn't change. We enforce the law and stand by what we believe in.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:28:32 AM
But this creates the false dichotomy - ISIS vs. other Muslims living in our countries.
The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.
This is where the line should be drawn between those we fight and those we support and seek to ally with.
No it doesn't. The dichotomy I am suggesting is between those we have no hope of influencing, and those we have a hope of influencing. The latter group includes Muslims living in our country who currently hold beliefs we both deplore.
Where we differ is that I think there is potential to change their minds, and I think that a policy of gradual incorporation and assimilation has the best hope of achieving that - all while of course making it clear that violations of the rule of law will not be tolerated, but allowing the law to accept largely symbolic accommodations with Islam (such as allowing female Mounties to wear the Hijab if they want, just as male Sikhs are allowed to wear the Turban).
You would I guess disagree, and state we must simply label them as "enemies" and fight them, and so presumably you would not be in favour of such accommodation.
I think we can even influence ISIS. After all it is not their extremism that makes us compelled to bomb them, it is their actions. If they were just sitting around talking about sex slavery and Caliphs, like say the normal garden variety Salafist, we wouldn't be doing so.
There will be important ex-ISIS members speaking out against this type of thing, presuming there are not already.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 10:35:39 AM
Really anybody who believes things like apostates should be killed are the bad guys/gals here, not just the people who take it into their own hands. But ultimately my position on this doesn't change. We enforce the law and stand by what we believe in.
Yeah, but then you end up like those polls from the UK from few years ago, where you get 30% of young Muslims declaring they believe in death penalty for apostasy.
Responding to you (and Malthus), I don't think we should necessarily label them as enemies outright, but I think we need to state our position more decisively and not tolerate, say, preachers and clerics who argue such positions (even if they couch them in ambiguous language). And, more so, we should initiate PSA campaigns, perhaps reminding people of their rights.
In any case, my post was mainly in response to Malthus's initial claim that there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West - and I think this is wrong and there is a plenty of evidence of this being done - surely, not every time, but enough to do something about it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:28:32 AM
The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.
So you want Muslims to be SJWs?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2016, 10:50:34 AM
So you want Muslims to be SJWs?
:lol: Ok that was good.
But yes -_-
SJWs are not for rule of law, freedom of religion and gender equality - they hate the US constitution, christianity and men. -_-
In fact, there are many similarities between them and Islamists. :contract:
https://youtu.be/ecJUqhm2g08
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 10:43:01 AM
Yeah, but then you end up like those polls from the UK from few years ago, where you get 30% of young Muslims declaring they believe in death penalty for apostasy.
I view this poll, of US Muslims and their attitudes, to be a rather more hopeful sign. It indicates that American Muslim attitudes to an issue that can be likened to a canary in the coal mine - namely, acceptance of homosexuality - are (a) about the same as that of Protestant Christians; and (b) getting more tolerant over time.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
The important findings for our purposes: Muslims in America are not notably different in attitudes towards homosexuality from other mainstream religious groups.
One of the questions was whether homosexuality should be accepted by society. The answer for Muslims was: 38% said "yes" in 2007; while 45% said "yes" in 2012. The answer for Protestants as a whole: 38% said "yes" in 2007; 48% said "yes" in 2012.
[The groups that polled the worst were Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians. Witnesses polled only 12% "yes" in 2007, and 16% "yes" in 2012].
This poll demonstrates some useful points, based on some facts rather than rhetoric:
(1) In America itself, Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality are reasonably mainstream, on average. They are no worse than American Protestants (again, on average).
(2) Muslim attitudes, like that of anyone else, can change: they have, fairly significantly, in the short time between 2007 and 2014.
(3) These attitudes are found in a population that is itself majority immigrant. It is interesting to note that the majority (61%) of American Muslims are themselves immigrants.
(4) Therefore, there is nothing essential in being Muslim, or being a Muslim immigrant, that requires or imposes homophobic attitudes. It is perfectly possible to be both Muslim, an immigrant, and not homophobic - at least, the American polling data appears to demonstrate that Muslims in America, including Muslim immigrants, tend to either already have, or to assimilate, much the same attitudes as their fellow-countrypersons.
[As an aside, the most liberal attitudes on this issue are on average displayed by Jews, Atheists/Agnostics, and Buddhists, in order of increasing liberalism; the group with the greatest level of increased liberalism is Hindus].
QuoteResponding to you (and Malthus), I don't think we should necessarily label them as enemies outright, but I think we need to state our position more decisively and not tolerate, say, preachers and clerics who argue such positions (even if they couch them in ambiguous language). And, more so, we should initiate PSA campaigns, perhaps reminding people of their rights.
In any case, my post was mainly in response to Malthus's initial claim that there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West - and I think this is wrong and there is a plenty of evidence of this being done - surely, not every time, but enough to do something about it.
Again, that's not a claim I actually made. What I said was that there was no data so far to indicate that Muslim women were motivated to wear garb like the hijab or burkini because of fear of violence, not that "there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West". I have no doubt that there are some incidents of force being used. What I doubt is whether there is data to show how widespread such force is, and whether it is a significant motivator for wearing the things (as opposed to women
wanting to wear them from religious motives, because of cultural notions of modesty, or out of religious/tribal pride).
None of us here are from the Muslim community, some data (such as the poll I point to) makes more sense than simply jumping to conclusions such as "a couple of Muslim guys threatened women based on their outfits. therefore Muslim women wear the outfits because they are threatened".
Maybe, maybe not. Let's see something like data.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 12:23:42 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Let's see something like data.
Why? I mean I interact with Muslims pretty regularly and based on what they say they wear the Hijab because they are practicing Muslims and Islam commands them to do so. As one might expect. But even if they were being forced to do it at gunpoint I don't think outlawing wearing cloth on heads is how to address that.
I have already talked about US Muslims and Hindus. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Why? I mean I interact with Muslims pretty regularly and based on what they say they wear the Hijab because they are practicing Muslims and Islam commands them to do so. As one might expect. But even if they were being forced to do it at gunpoint I don't think outlawing wearing cloth on heads is how to address that.
Because the claim keeps getting made, and it makes sense to know whether it has any basis in truth?
But it this way: you and I can agree that it doesn't really matter from a policy perspective. But to others, it matters a lot, and they are justifying their support for policy choices through a particular narrative: 'we are protecting Muslim women from being forced to wear this stuff'. If the claim that women are wearing it because they are forced to is largely false, the support for policies based on that claim ought to be either (a) undermined, if that's the real reason the policy is supported; or (b) to be demonstrated to be based on other factors, such as anti-Muslim prejudice.
Therefore, it makes sense to want to know if it is largely true or false.
How would you even collect the data? Besides what if you discover that it is true. Then what?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 12:52:06 PM
How would you even collect the data?
The same way you collect data on other touchy subjects, like acceptance of homosexuality - you ask them, via polling.
QuoteBesides what if you discover that it is true. Then what?
Well, it would certainly require policy adjustments. No insofar as outlawing the wearing of a head-scarf, but rather, in terms of offering increased services to protect women choosing not to do so - as Martinus suggested.
However, given the women I know who choose to wear a headscarf, anecdotally at least I severely doubt it is likely to be true, at least here.
Valmy's position: mindboggling. :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
The same way you collect data on other touchy subjects, like acceptance of homosexuality - you ask them, via polling.
That's different. Asking how you feel about something is different than getting an explanation for your motivations. 'Are you only pretending to be straight because if you were gay your family might murder you?' Is a different question than 'do you feel a certain way about homosexuality?' Tricky.
Quote
However, given the women I know who choose to wear a headscarf, anecdotally at least I severely doubt it is likely to be true, at least here.
Well what kind of situation would that kind of thing be common? And are those the sort of people you would interact with? I mean I might refuse to believe that Christian families throw out and disown their gay children because such a thing would be outrageously unheard of in the circles I travel in. But hey it obviously is a major problem.
And what percentage of families would this have to be true to be significant?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 12:23:42 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Let's see something like data.
Why? I mean I interact with Muslims pretty regularly and based on what they say they wear the Hijab because they are practicing Muslims and Islam commands them to do so. As one might expect. But even if they were being forced to do it at gunpoint I don't think outlawing wearing cloth on heads is how to address that.
I have already talked about US Muslims and Hindus. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros.
I interact pretty regularly with married couples. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros. Surely, they are highly unlikely to suffer or perpetrate domestic abuse. Ergo: domestic abuse is virtually unheard of among married couples.
That's as convincing as your claim that you are a Christian, Valmy.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 01:11:06 PM
Well what kind of situation would that kind of thing be common? And are those the sort of people you would interact with? I mean I might refuse to believe that Christian families throw out and disown their gay children because such a thing would be outrageously unheard of in the circles I travel in. But hey it obviously is a major problem.
And for this reason there are actual programmes aimed at helping gay kids kicked out of their homes for being gay and it is recognised that this is a different issue than kids just running away from home, and requires special tools to address.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 01:09:06 PM
Valmy's position: mindboggling. :huh:
I just have my doubts that even in situations that was true that many women would admit it even in an anonymous poll. I mean to serious Muslims this is literally a command from God. To not do it would be to deny Allah and his Prophet. So essentially they would be admitting that they are only a Muslim under the threat of violence and I have a hard time believing that many of them feel that way. Not sure we could draw conclusions from it. Maybe a better question would be more theoretical.
'Do you agree women should be punished if they didn't cover up?'
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 12:23:42 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Let's see something like data.
Why? I mean I interact with Muslims pretty regularly and based on what they say they wear the Hijab because they are practicing Muslims and Islam commands them to do so. As one might expect. But even if they were being forced to do it at gunpoint I don't think outlawing wearing cloth on heads is how to address that.
I have already talked about US Muslims and Hindus. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros.
I interact pretty regularly with married couples. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros. Surely, they are highly unlikely to suffer or perpetrate domestic abuse. Ergo: domestic abuse is virtually unheard of among married couples.
What is it you think I am trying to convince people of? Because that was not it. Quite the opposite.
QuoteThat's as convincing as your claim that you are a Christian, Valmy.
Well now that was uncalled for.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
And for this reason there are actual programmes aimed at helping gay kids kicked out of their homes for being gay and it is recognised that this is a different issue than kids just running away from home, and requires special tools to address.
Indeed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 01:11:06 PM
That's different. Asking how you feel about something is different than getting an explanation for your motivations. 'Are you only pretending to be straight because if you were gay your family might murder you?' Is a different question than 'do you feel a certain way about homosexuality?' Tricky.
I don't know. You could probably word it in such a way as to avoid being offensive and still obtain useful information. Such as "check all that apply: do you wear a hijab: (a) because it is a religious obligation; (b) for modesty; (c) pride in Muslim heritage; (d) because it would please your community; (e) because it would please your family". That alone would tell you a lot; if it was more heavily weighted towards (a) through (c), for example. Then, if they answer yes to (d) or (e), you could have further questions.
Interestingly, in Canada the trend among the young Muslims is (a) increasing pride in, and identification with, Canada; and (2) increasing wearing of the hijab. Given that young people are *more* likely to wear it than older people, seems likely to me that 'pride in heritage' is more a factor than 'being forced', at least here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-muslim-canadians-environics-1.3551591
From the findings:
QuoteThough Muslims with less education are more likely to wear the hijab, as are those who have been in Canada for less time, the biggest increase since 2006 has come among young Muslims and those with a post-secondary education.
Strikes me that young Muslim women with a post-secondary education are more likely to wear it as a symbol of religious/ethnic pride than because they were being forced by threats of violence.
QuoteWell what kind of situation would that kind of thing be common? And are those the sort of people you would interact with? I mean I might refuse to believe that Christian families throw out and disown their gay children because such a thing would be outrageously unheard of in the circles I travel in. But hey it obviously is a major problem.
And what percentage of families would this have to be true to be significant?
All good questions, which is why data is better than anecdote.
I broadly agree with Malthus.
There's definitely a social and cultural element (but then the same can be said all sorts of behaviour) but I've female, Muslim friends and colleagues who wear the hijab or don't out of choice. Having lived in two of the most Muslim areas of London I'd also say that it's relatively common to see different approaches within families and friendship groups which to me suggests there isn't such a uniform cultural pressure as is being assumed here.
I'd just add that it is very difficult (or extraordinarily expensive) to poll Muslims, certainly in the UK, without some serious caveats.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 01:24:58 PM
Strikes me that young Muslim women with a post-secondary education are more likely to wear it as a symbol of religious/ethnic pride than because they were being forced by threats of violence.
They are also attending religious services more often. Are other religions in Canada MORE religious in the younger generations? Canada is making people less secular and more religious? Huh.
Or maybe not. Are children of Muslim immigrants who do not consider themselves Muslims being counted here? That could skew those sorts of numbers. Maybe the younger generations are more inclined to identify as Muslims as a religion and not as a cultural group. That certainly is true increasingly with Christianity, I think.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
I'd just add that it is very difficult (or extraordinarily expensive) to poll Muslims, certainly in the UK, without some serious caveats.
Well that is the only issue of disagreement I have. I am not sure how one would poll such a thing nor can I imagine a result where it would be a good idea to then ban the Hijab.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
I'd just add that it is very difficult (or extraordinarily expensive) to poll Muslims, certainly in the UK, without some serious caveats.
Well that is the only issue of disagreement I have. I am not sure how one would poll such a thing nor can I imagine a result where it would be a good idea to then ban the Hijab.
Yeah. It's very difficult - and there are I think ethical concerns as well - to poll a very unevenly distributed minority and receive anything approaching decent results. It can be done but all of those polls need a huge caveat and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Martinus can look into their sole.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
I'd just add that it is very difficult (or extraordinarily expensive) to poll Muslims, certainly in the UK, without some serious caveats.
Well that is the only issue of disagreement I have. I am not sure how one would poll such a thing nor can I imagine a result where it would be a good idea to then ban the Hijab.
Yeah. It's very difficult - and there are I think ethical concerns as well - to poll a very unevenly distributed minority and receive anything approaching decent results. It can be done but all of those polls need a huge caveat and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
At the same time, there are people whose whole livelihood depends on them taking into account and adjusting for bias in their survey research. :mellow:
Yep. But they're normally being commissioned by the media who are very rarely willing to pay for a more accurate/comprehensive survey. So my understanding is that most of these 'what British Muslims' think surveys come with huge health warnings by ICM, YouGov or whoever for genuine reasons, but the health warnings don't always get fully carried across.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
Yep. But they're normally being commissioned by the media who are very rarely willing to pay for a more accurate/comprehensive survey. So my understanding is that most of these 'what British Muslims' think surveys come with huge health warnings by ICM, YouGov or whoever for genuine reasons, but the health warnings don't always get fully carried across.
I was speaking personally. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
But even if they were being forced to do it at gunpoint I don't think outlawing wearing cloth on heads is how to address that.
"Woe! These poor women are being forced to dress a certain way. How terrible! We'll solve that problem by using the police power of the state to force them to dress the way we think they should dress!'
Fuck the French. Hypocritical, bigoted shitheads.
Quote from: MartinusI interact pretty regularly with married couples. They are overwhelmingly middle class pros. Surely, they are highly unlikely to suffer or perpetrate domestic abuse.
A very questionable premise.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:24:34 AM
To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
Says the guy with "I ♡ Roman P." written all over his Trapper Keeper.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2016, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 08:24:34 AM
To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.
Says the guy with "I ♡ Roman P." written all over his Trapper Keeper.
Dude, I was never for Roman P. I think you must have me confused with someone else. I am just not a big fan of no statute of limitations.
An excellent article on this from Maajid Nawaz:
QuoteBoth Sides Are Wrong in the Burkini Wars
Women should be able to wear what they want, without armed cops telling them to change. But let's be clear: The 'modesty' of the burkini is dictated by men, too.
Maajid Nawaz
MAAJID NAWAZ
08.26.16 2:10 AM ET
LONDON — That great French Republic has banned another piece of cloth. The origins of this burkini (or burqini) ban furor are alarming. A Muslim group in Marseille wanted to have an all-burkini day, and the mere notion provoked a storm of controversy. Then the all-over bathing suit was banned in the Riviera resort of Cannes, where a French official rather absurdly described it as displaying "an allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us."
One Corsican village called Sisco banned the full-body swimsuit following a darkly comical mass brawl involving French-Muslim men of North African origin who took offense at photographers taking snaps of burkini-clad women on a local beach. Some of the brawlers reportedly were armed with hatchets. Five people, including a pregnant woman, were injured. One man's wounds were caused by a harpoon.
And then we had, this week, the stunning spectacle of a woman being compelled by armed French cops on the beach at Nice to strip off her burkini.
It seems that we are in the midst of mutual mass-identity hysteria.
The burkini is, in fact, a sad symbol of Islam today going backward on gender issues. France's ban on it is a sad symbol of liberalism today going backward in reply.
Classical liberals of any religion or none would do well to remember that this does not have to be a zero-sum game. It is possible to oppose the French ban on burkinis while also challenging the mindset of those who support burkas and burkinis.
As a reforming secular liberal Muslim, I do not endorse the gender-discriminatory body-shaming and moralizing of burkas. I recoil, too, at the silly idea of a burkini. But I also believe that France's ban on them is ridiculous, illiberal, and incredibly petty. It is also cynical.
As for liberalism going backward, when Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a truck through the crowd in Nice on July 14, he sought to deepen division, and to further the ISIS aim of a global civil war. Strategically, he chose the right location.
The French Riviera is a traditional stronghold of French reactionaries. The area sees consistently high poll results for the far right. Last year, National Front leader Marine Le Pen's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, ran a high-profile campaign there and succeeded in making huge gains. The region is now rapidly turning into a polarized hotbed of tension, pitching far-right sympathizers against Islamist extremists.
In this respect, the burkini ban is nothing but a product of political opportunism. With the proximity of elections looming, shortsighted politicking is the only consideration that matters. Local petty political chieftains would rather provoke national turbulence merely to win a local council seat than do what is in their country's national interest.
As the 2017 French presidential and legislative elections approach, the country's politicians are desperate to prove who can do the most—or anything at all—against the pernicious effect of jihadist terrorism. They have only a few months left. Sadly, grand gestures such as bans on symbolic pieces of cloth carry political currency in this game of mass-hysteria identity politics.
This is how our most valued asset, source of strength and global envy—liberalism—is capitulating to identity-based communalism, short-term electoral gain, populist appeasement, and a clamor to just do something.
This capitulation is exactly what jihadist terrorists were hoping to achieve with their sustained random attacks.
Perpetual identity-based civil war, rather than war between countries, suits those who wish to build a new world order—a caliphate—carved out of existing states. Equal treatment on a citizenship basis means nothing to jihadists.
There is no better way to kickstart dividing people along exclusively religious lines than by committing atrocities in the name of Islam. Their hope is that everyone else also begins to identify Sunni Muslims primarily by their religious identities, in reaction to the atrocities. In this way, religious identity has won and citizenship becomes redundant.
But the backward trajectory of contemporary liberalism is matched by a backward trajectory within Islam today.
In modern Muslim-majority contexts and up until the 1970s, the female body was not shamed out of public view. As one Egyptian feminist asserts, this was mainly due to the social dominance of the relatively liberal, middle-class elite in urban centers.
But throughout the '80s, theocratic Islamism began replacing Arab socialism as the ideology of resistance against "the West." As is always the case with misogynist dogma, the war against the "other" necessitated defining what is "ours" and what is "theirs"—and our women, of course, were deemed "ours."
Suddenly, women's bodies became the red line in a cultural war against the West started by theocratic Islamism. A Not Muslim Enough charade was used to identity "true" Muslims against "Western" stooges. Religious dress codes became a crucial marker in these cultural purity stakes. Only the fanatic can ever win in this Not Muslim Enough game. Any uncovered woman was now deemed loose, decadent, and attention seeking.
In short, too Western.
Many Islamists advocate total segregation between the sexes, and in fact they would reject the burkini. The full-body swimwear would certainly not be allowed in today's Saudi Arabia: still too revelaing!
In that sense, it is actually a step forward from Islamism's peak in the '90s. But it is still a step backward from before theocratic Islamism took hold among Muslims. The more women succumb to this Not Muslim Enough charade, the more theocrats demand of them. Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most abusive, oppressive societies for women happen also to be the most religiously conservative?
When writing recently in defense of her burkini invention, Aheda Zanetti equated concealing the female form with "modesty" no less than three times.
She confessed to not participating in sports when young "because we chose to be modest."
But the assumption that "modesty" equates to covering up is a subtle form of bigotry against the female form. It goes without saying that harassment on Western beaches, where the female form is more normalized, occurs less than in conservative societies, even though it is still present. But in too many instances across Muslim-majority contexts this "modesty theology" has led to slut-shaming of women who do not cover.
In the worst of cases, misogyny disguised as modesty has led to mass sexual harassment on the streets, most recently by gangs of Muslim migrants in Cologne. In Egypt, it has even given rise to a mass public rape phenomenon. As Muslim feminists note, violating Muslim cultural "honor codes" ('irdh) and modesty theology (hayaa') can lead to heinous legal and societal reprimand and the gross fetishization of a woman's body.
Just like any other practice rooted in religiously inspired misogyny, the burkini cannot be detached from the body-shaming tied to its origins. Aheda Zanetti continued to insist that her product is "about not being judged" as a Muslim woman, yet she is wedded to a practice that inextricably judges the female form as being "immodest," as she, too, did in her own piece.
"I don't think any man should worry about how women are dressing," she argued.
OK. But it has only ever been conservative-religious Muslim men telling Muslim women how to dress.
Over the course of my years immersed in Islamic theology and Arabic, I remain unaware of any medieval female Muslim exegete used as authority by Muslim women for the "duty" of wearing a hijab. It is only ever male exegetes of the Quran who are cited preaching for the duty of female "modesty."
And it is simply an undeniable fact that most Muslim women judged and attacked around the world for how they dress are attacked by other Islamist and fundamentalist Muslims, not by non-Muslims. These are religious fanatics playing the Not Muslim Enough game.
I am a liberal. The headscarf is a choice. Let Muslim women wear bikinis or burkinis. Liberal societies have no business in legally interfering with the dress choices women make. I have consistently opposed the ban on face veils in France, just as I oppose their enforced use in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Outside of this legal debate, though, and as a reforming secular liberal Muslim, I reserve the right to question my own communities' cultural traditions and taboos.
As a liberal, I reserve the right to question religious-conservative dogma generally, just as most Western progressives already do with Christianity. Yet with Muslims, Western liberals seem perennially confused between possessing a right to do something, and being right when doing it.
Of course American Christian fundamentalists of the Bible Belt have a right to speak, but liberals routinely—and rightly—challenge their views on abortion, sexuality, and marriage. To do so is not to question their right to speak, but to challenge their belief that they are right when they speak. I ask only that secular liberal Muslims are also supported in challenging our very own "Quran Belt" emerging in Europe.
This is the real struggle. It is intellectual and it is cultural, more than it is legal.
Meanwhile, the French authorities are busily providing the ideal iconography that can, and will, be used by Islamist recruiters the world over. If we seek to debunk the jihadist myth that the West is at war with Islam, it would help not to oblige the jihadist propaganda machinery with ready-made imagery of armed police forcing conservative Muslim women to strip, under the shadow of a gun on a beach.
Or maybe that next election is just that worth it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html?via=desktop&source=twitter
For the record, I wasn't aware of some of the points he is making about the burkini ban - which makes it even more wrong, so I stand corrected. I think generally we should listen more to people like him - which I try to do - because both the anti-Muslim right and the apologist left paint a distorted picture of this issue.
The part I bolded and enlarged is, imho, spot on.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 01:07:05 AM
Dude, I was never for Roman P. I think you must have me confused with someone else. I am just not a big fan of no statute of limitations.
Bullshit, you have always been about the tacit acceptance of boyfucking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2016, 06:38:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 01:07:05 AM
Dude, I was never for Roman P. I think you must have me confused with someone else. I am just not a big fan of no statute of limitations.
Bullshit, you have always been about the tacit acceptance of boyfucking.
But Polanski fucked a girl. :yuk:
He was an artist thinking outside the box. As it were.
Charlie Hebdo wondering if after burkini, we should ban dog outfits. :P
(https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14088631_1230264710329998_5036181734285935023_n.png?oh=4e0d17d1d462b9e20ee695068fffc9d5&oe=583B0216)
French court suspends 'burkini' ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479)
This thread title is so misleading. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dps on August 25, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Fuck the French. Hypocritical, bigoted shitheads.
They will come around. There was a time they were trying to ban American shit to.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 01:16:52 AM
An excellent article on this from Maajid Nawaz:
And here is the best way to get Muslim cultured women to stop wearing the Hijab: allow them to talk about it.
Quote from: Brazen on August 26, 2016, 08:25:17 AM
French court suspends 'burkini' ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479)
Ah good.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 01:16:52 AM
An excellent article on this from Maajid Nawaz:
And here is the best way to get Muslim cultured women to stop wearing the Hijab: allow them to talk about it.
But the point he is also making - is that it should not just be something for "them" to talk. Just as the critique of Christians' stance on abortion, gay marriage or contraception is not limited to Christians - but is discussed by atheists, Jews and everybody else. Same principle should apply here.
I pulled a Timmay. :moon:
So this is where you're hiding.
Anwyay: Burkini Ban. Racist anti muslim. Ladies can go naked but not fully clothed. Crazy. Blah blah...
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:05:45 AM
So this is where you're hiding.
Anwyay: Burkini Ban. Racist anti muslim. Ladies can go naked but not fully clothed. Crazy. Blah blah...
That's true but read the Maajid Nawaz article too and tell me what you think.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 08:59:53 AM
But the point he is also making - is that it should not just be something for "them" to talk. Just as the critique of Christians' stance on abortion, gay marriage or contraception is not limited to Christians - but is discussed by atheists, Jews and everybody else. Same principle should apply here.
Everybody else inside our Christian cultured society yes. It cannot be 'Islamic civilization sucks because of blah blah' and become some kind of nationalistic tribal thing. You know how those things usually go.
I skimmed through it. And yes I agree with your bolded parts.
But the issue of whether or not Islamic women should be wearing burkinis or burkas, in general, is a slightly different topic. I agree it's an old sexist tradition. But as he says, it doesn't preclude that as long as a woman wants to wear a burkini at a beach for religious, cultural reasons, then we shouldn't oppose their desire to do that.
Part of the liberal society that he talks about is giving people the liberty to wear what they want to a beach, surely.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 09:01:33 AM
I pulled a Timmay. :moon:
Nice retitling; I like the idea of dual use threads. :cool:
Burkini. Sounds like something on McDonald's $1 menu. Or a fag cocktail.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
Or a fag cocktail.
Probably a virgin cocktail. One of 72!
I think we may need another burkini thread. This one's getting too full.
I will deal with these threads tonight. HASAAN CHOP
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2016, 01:44:57 PM
I will deal with these threads tonight. HASAAN CHOP
Yeah they seem a bit numerous at the moment. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on August 27, 2016, 10:39:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2016, 01:44:57 PM
I will deal with these threads tonight. HASAAN CHOP
Yeah they seem a bit numerous at the moment. :hmm:
I'll allow it...but watch yourself, McCoy.