Languish.org

Aux armes citoyens...

QuoteFrench report calls for veil ban 


Only a small minority of Muslim women in France
are thought to wear the niqab [AP] 

A French parliamentary panel has called for a ban on Muslim women wearing the full Islamic veil in public institutions, describing the dress as an "unacceptable" challenge to French values.

In its report, released on Tuesday, the panel also recommended that authorities refuse residence cards and citizenship to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice".

"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," it said.

The commission stopped short of a full ban on the veils, which it deemed unconstitutional, but said they should be banned from schools, hospitals and public transport.

'Not welcome'

It has called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating the all-encompassing veil is "contrary to the values of the republic".

But the opposition Socialists, who condemn the full veil, have said they would not endorse the final report, saying it would amount to an inconsistent "ad hoc law".



The report is likely to raise concerns that its recommendations will unfairly stigmatise France's Muslim population, estimated at about six million.

Of those, only about several thousand are thought to wear the niqab, which covers all of the face except the eyes.

Tuesday's report is the culmination of a six-month inquiry into the issue, after Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president, said full-body veils were "not welcome" in the country.

The veil is widely viewed in France as a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offense to France's secular foundation.

'Scandalous practices'

A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from primary and secondary school classrooms.

Andre Gerin, chair of the parliamentary commission  and a communist politician said the "wearing of the full veil is the tip of the iceberg".

"There are scandalous practices hidden behind this veil," he said.

It is not yet clear whether the government, or parliament, will take up any or all of the report's recommendations.

Any action is not expected to come before March regional elections.

That would be a rather ridiculous thing.  Even in the North African countries where most Muslim immigrants to France come from the veil is not worn that often.

But then I think banning it in schools was silly.

I misread this as a ban on veal.  :Embarrass:

I am rather torn on the issue - this would never fly in the US of course (nor should it), but France is not nearly as adamant about strict religious freedom of expression trumping their cultural values, I think. At least that is the impression I get.

I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

:yeah:

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 10:43:42 AM
I am rather torn on the issue - this would never fly in the US of course (nor should it), but France is not nearly as adamant about strict religious freedom of expression trumping their cultural values, I think. At least that is the impression I get.

I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

I wonder.  There are times when you need to compare a person's face against their ID.  Driving incident for example.  Boarding a plane.  Strange that a similar case has not popped up in the States at least once.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 10:51:06 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 10:43:42 AM
I am rather torn on the issue - this would never fly in the US of course (nor should it), but France is not nearly as adamant about strict religious freedom of expression trumping their cultural values, I think. At least that is the impression I get.

I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

I wonder.  There are times when you need to compare a person's face against their ID.  Driving incident for example.  Boarding a plane.  Strange that a similar case has not popped up in the States at least once.

I would imagine that there are provisions for such things - ie you have a female security guard to make that check or whatever. Your right - it has to have come up already.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 10:51:06 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 10:43:42 AM
I am rather torn on the issue - this would never fly in the US of course (nor should it), but France is not nearly as adamant about strict religious freedom of expression trumping their cultural values, I think. At least that is the impression I get.

I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

I wonder.  There are times when you need to compare a person's face against their ID.  Driving incident for example.  Boarding a plane.  Strange that a similar case has not popped up in the States at least once.

It has.

Quote from: WikiSultaana Lakiana Myke Freeman is a resident of the state of Florida, United States. She gained media attention when she sued the state of Florida in order to wear a face veil for her driver's license picture.

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

Florida appeals court denying her claim:
http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2006/021306/5D03-2296.op.corr.pdf

The difference is that a law specifically to ban the full veil would be a transparent attack on a particular religion, and so would not fly in the US.  Making someone show their face on certain occasions, however, is ok.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 10:51:06 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 10:43:42 AM
I am rather torn on the issue - this would never fly in the US of course (nor should it), but France is not nearly as adamant about strict religious freedom of expression trumping their cultural values, I think. At least that is the impression I get.

I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

I wonder.  There are times when you need to compare a person's face against their ID.  Driving incident for example.  Boarding a plane.  Strange that a similar case has not popped up in the States at least once.

It has.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 10:43:42 AM
I do think that the full veil is pretty anti-liberal though, and agree that there isn't really a place for it in modern liberal society. I am not sure the solution to that problem (banning it) is better than the problem though.

Meh, it's France.  I say go ahead.

On one hand, Florida's taken some fire from the ACLU for pointing out that hijabs hinder identification: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69c_1217305657

On another, we have Avon and Somerset Constabulary in the UK, who've issued hijabs to muslim females as uniform accessories; I'd assume they're told to hold an interviewee/suspect while they get a female officer. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6730192.ece

EDIT: Way too slow on that one.  Valmy beat me with better source.

QuoteThe commission stopped short of a full ban on the veils, which it deemed unconstitutional, but said they should be banned from schools, hospitals and public transport.

:lol:

Cheers Slarg.

:cheers:

In its report, released on Tuesday, the panel also recommended that authorities refuse residence cards and citizenship to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice".

This line worries me. Citizens have a right to radical religious practice, and visible signs of it.  Or at least, I think they should have such a right.

I fail to see how such a thing could really be done legally. When is someone wearing a muslim veil and when is someone just cold and covering their face?

Quote from: Lettow77 on January 26, 2010, 01:45:00 PM


In its report, released on Tuesday, the panel also recommended that authorities refuse residence cards and citizenship to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice".

This line worries me. Citizens have a right to radical religious practice, and visible signs of it.  Or at least, I think they should have such a right.

But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

Quote from: Tyr on January 26, 2010, 01:46:14 PM
I fail to see how such a thing could really be done legally. When is someone wearing a muslim veil and when is someone just cold and covering their face?

When they start screaming 'death to the godless infidel republic!'

Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 02:03:23 PM
But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

I don't have a problem with that. Pretty much every single country on the planet has laws about attires that are allowed and disallowed in public - if you believe otherwise, take off your pants and take a stroll through a major street of New York, or put on a swastika armband and have a walk in Berlin.

If one society finds a woman going topless in a public school offensive, another may find a woman wearing a veil in a public hospital offensive, and ban it accordingly.

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2010, 03:46:04 PM

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2010, 03:46:04 PM
What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

I'd argue that this is actually an expression of the old French anti-clerical tradition.  This isn't acknowledging that religion should get special treatment but is as much a part of viewing religion as a special target as, for example, Jules Ferry or Mitterand's failed attempt to nationalise the ecoles libres.  Religion hasn't been a special treated section of French society in over 200 years.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 03:51:57 PM

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

Expression is protected under free speech.

Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2010, 03:46:04 PM

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

In France, or any other free country, you can typically do as you please unless there is a compelling public interest otherwise. It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2010, 02:34:29 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 02:03:23 PM
But do noncitizens have a right to residence cards and citizenship?  Or does a nation have a right to refuse residency and citizenship to whomever it wants?

Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

Wrong.

I say, good for the French.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2010, 05:49:38 PM
It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

The religion it represents is an adversarial polar opposite to the basic tenets of what it means to be a French citizen.  So there.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2010, 05:45:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2010, 03:51:57 PM

This is essentially what I meant in my post, except that I note that in the US at least, we do in fact hold religious expression as uniquely protected.

Not all expression is equally protected.

Expression is protected under free speech.

All forms of expression with the exception of "yelling fire in a crowed theater" type expression.

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2010, 02:34:29 PM
Nations have no rights whatever.  Only people have rights.

While I understand what you're getting at, I don't think that's correct.

First of all what is a right?

It's a complicated question since the word has so many potential meanings, but google gives one potential definition as:

Quotean abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature;

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:right&ei=j35fS5-NBs-0tgeWvdGBDA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE

So the very definition seems to say that a right can accrue to a governmental body.  It's a different kind of right than is given to a person, but it is a right.  For example in Canada only the provinces have the power to pass laws with respect to "the administration of justice in the province".  Surely it's correct to say that the province has the right to legislation with respect to the administration of justice?

A ban on anything islamic is a ban in the good direction.  :osama: :thumbsup:

Personally I'd go much father than this but you all knew it didn't you!?



G.

Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2010, 06:51:39 PM
So the very definition seems to say that a right can accrue to a governmental body.

Really, it's not worth arguing with Grumbler on this point.  I would note that the Treaty of Westphalia specifically mentions rights that States have.

QuoteLXIV.

And to prevent for the future any Differences arising in the Politick State, all and every one of the Electors, Princes and States of the Roman Empire, are so establish'd and confirm'd in their antient Rights, Prerogatives, Libertys, Privileges, free exercise of Territorial Right, as well Ecclesiastick, as Politick Lordships, Regales, by virtue of this present Transaction: that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence.

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

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2010, 07:23:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

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

America Wins.

Quote from: ulmont on January 26, 2010, 07:01:18 PM
Really, it's not worth arguing with Grumbler on this point.  I would note that the Treaty of Westphalia specifically mentions rights that States have.

QuoteLXIV.

And to prevent for the future any Differences arising in the Politick State, all and every one of the Electors, Princes and States of the Roman Empire, are so establish'd and confirm'd in their antient Rights, Prerogatives, Libertys, Privileges, free exercise of Territorial Right, as well Ecclesiastick, as Politick Lordships, Regales, by virtue of this present Transaction: that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence.

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

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2010, 07:45:00 PM
I know that you are not putting forth this argument honestly and that it isn't worth arguing with you on it

I think you're projecting again.

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2010, 07:45:00 PM
do you propose (1) that the Treaty of Westphalia is still valid, and (2) that its enumeration of the "rights" of states is complete: to wit: "that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence" is a full and complete enumeration of the rights of states (as well, of course, of Electors and Princes, and that (3) the rights of the states of the Holy Roman Empire apply by some form of osmosis to all states?

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

He got you there, grumbler.

Where's the popcorn smiley?

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

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2010, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

Your Jedi grumbler tricks won't work on me.

Quote from: Slargos on January 26, 2010, 07:58:03 PM
Actually, looking again, he said "don't have rights" and a 400 year old document does not disprove that statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2010, 08:30:40 PM
States have power and states have authority, but I agree with grumbler that it confuses terminology to ascribe them "rights".  The fact that one can cite hortatory examples from various historical documents doesn't really refute the point.  The "right" of a state to be free from molestation is nothing more than a statement of the conditional whim of its neighbors not to molest it, which is really not a right at all.  To say a state has the "right . .  to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts" is simply to state the tautology that the state is a state and has the sovereign attributes of one.  A state organizes itself, etc. not by virtue of some "right" to do so, but because it has the power to do and to prevent some other entity from interfering.

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

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

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

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

And yeah, I know my French bites.

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

I think it's a terrible idea, but France is free to do whatever they want in their country.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 26, 2010, 09:39:03 PM
I think it's a terrible idea, but France is free to do whatever they want in their country.

Would you say France has that...right? ;)

Quote from: Jaron on January 26, 2010, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 26, 2010, 09:39:03 PM
I think it's a terrible idea, but France is free to do whatever they want in their country.

Would you say France has that...right? ;)

:lmfao:

Quote from: Jaron on January 26, 2010, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 26, 2010, 09:39:03 PM
I think it's a terrible idea, but France is free to do whatever they want in their country.

Would you say France has that...right? ;)

No, they're usually more on the left.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2010, 05:49:38 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2010, 03:46:04 PM

What I welcome in that development is that it does not acknowledge that religious expression should get a special treatment, compared to any other form of expression. All should be treated equally and subject to such restrictions in the name of the public order that are deemed necessary.

In France, or any other free country, you can typically do as you please unless there is a compelling public interest otherwise. It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

No, they don't like the subjugation of women it represents. I find this reason to be more compelling than, say, banning women from going topless in public. It seems the French public agrees. Vive La France!

Quote from: Josephus on January 26, 2010, 09:03:45 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

And yeah, I know my French bites.

So according to you no liberal democracy can make any restrictions about what people could wear in public?

Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 10:32:58 AM
That would be a rather ridiculous thing.  Even in the North African countries where most Muslim immigrants to France come from the veil is not worn that often.

But then I think banning it in schools was silly.

For the schools, the pupils are minors and the shit started with it then went on with islamists refusing sports/whatever PTI for the girls on religious grounds, then the studies of the Crusades (evil infidel agression) and last but not least the Final Solution since it's Jewish propaganda. Useful idiots on the left generally sided with the islamos such as Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D I eagerly await her opinion this time. Thanks to the law, the cases dwindled so the fundies are having another try since they failed previously.

Notice how your beloved Turkey bans even veils in the universities though it might change soon with the islamist government...
The issue has not been reported very well it seems. First, the veil is increasingly worn in Morocco and Algeria, not in Tunisia where, guess what, it's banned in some cases...

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

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

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 02:35:34 AM

Quote from: Josephus on January 26, 2010, 09:03:45 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

And yeah, I know my French bites.

So according to you no liberal democracy can make any restrictions about what people could wear in public?

I fear this is much different than that. Using your previous examples, a ban on not running around topless on the street or without pants makes sense because it is universally applied and, for 99% of the population, universally unacceptable to run around half naked. This ban targets a very specific portion of the French population. To me it is the same as if a government was to ban wearing white shirts knowing full well that only Mormons wear them ( just a bad example ). This is not a righteous protest. It is discrimination for the sake of conformity.

You could equally say anti-nudism laws target specifically leftist environmentalists, you know...

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 02:35:34 AM

Quote from: Josephus on January 26, 2010, 09:03:45 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

And yeah, I know my French bites.

So according to you no liberal democracy can make any restrictions about what people could wear in public?

Maybe he thinks that liberal democracies shouldn't pick on minorities.

Quote from: Josephus on January 26, 2010, 09:03:45 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
I think it's pretty funny that so many people are up in arms over the French government's attempts to ban certain Islamic practices, but don't mentioned anything about the imprisonment or death sentences imposed on individuals who dare attempt to try the same thing with western garb in some Islamic countries.

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

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

And yeah, I know my French bites.

:lmfao:

You cultural relativists are actually worse than the Taliban. They don't know any better, while you should.

France is "obviously no better" than countries where women are stoned for being raped?

Are you insane, man?

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 02:31:04 AM


No, they don't like the subjugation of women it represents. I find this reason to be more compelling than, say, banning women from going topless in public. It seems the French public agrees. Vive La France!

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:49:57 AM
Maybe we should ban bras and women's razors because they also represent the subjugation of women.

That's about empowerment of women, you douche.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D

This however is probably true.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 27, 2010, 06:51:41 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:49:57 AM
Maybe we should ban bras and women's razors because they also represent the subjugation of women.

That's about empowerment of women, you douche.

It's about saggy tits and hairy legs.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:53:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D

This however is probably true.

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:54:35 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 27, 2010, 06:51:41 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:49:57 AM
Maybe we should ban bras and women's razors because they also represent the subjugation of women.

That's about empowerment of women, you douche.

It's about saggy tits and hairy legs.

You don't talk to those either.

Quote from: ulmont on January 26, 2010, 07:55:19 PM
The concept of sovereignty as expressed in the Treaty of Westphalia - to wit, that states have all power within their borders and no power without - is still core to the understanding of international law, yes.

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

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

QuoteAs to the idea that rights of states in the Holy Roman Empire apply by osmosis:  your contention is that "states" can have no rights.  As such, any recognition of a right held by a state demonstrates your argument's flaw.

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

My contention is merely that states do not have rights.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:53:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D

This however is probably true.

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

Quote from: Slargos on January 26, 2010, 08:45:54 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2010, 08:30:40 PM
States have power and states have authority, but I agree with grumbler that it confuses terminology to ascribe them "rights".  The fact that one can cite hortatory examples from various historical documents doesn't really refute the point.  The "right" of a state to be free from molestation is nothing more than a statement of the conditional whim of its neighbors not to molest it, which is really not a right at all.  To say a state has the "right . .  to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts" is simply to state the tautology that the state is a state and has the sovereign attributes of one.  A state organizes itself, etc. not by virtue of some "right" to do so, but because it has the power to do and to prevent some other entity from interfering.

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

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

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 07:05:52 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:53:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D

This however is probably true.

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

No veils have strangled people I know of.

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 03:07:25 AM
If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

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

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 07:11:40 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 07:05:52 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 06:53:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D

This however is probably true.

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

No veils have strangled people I know of.

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

You said veil.

Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2010, 07:13:08 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 03:07:25 AM
If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 07:25:20 AM
You said veil.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 07:27:29 AM
I disagree with the conclusion that there is a clear compelling public interest in case of the ban on nudity, but not the ban on burqa - both are based in the perceived offensiveness such attire or lack thereof present to the principles and values of the general public. Only because you live in a puritanical, religiously-permissive culture does not mean the French cannot have a different set of values and sensibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2010, 07:13:08 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 03:07:25 AM
If liberal democracies are defined by not interfering with the garments citizens wear or not, then going naked everywhere should be legal... either that, or there are no liberal democracies.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 07:47:39 AM
I honestly don't know what your point is.  Like I said before If you Euros want to show how backward you are that you confuse a woman wearing funny outfit with a guy with dynamite strapped to his chest I can't stop you.  I do wish to know something.  When you guys banned these outfits in schools back in 2004 did that accomplish something worthwhile?

As to backwardness  :lmfao:

Yes, the number of cases dropped. A limit needed to be shown (cf. islamic dress then no swimming, then no history lessons about Crusades, Shoah etc.).

The mosques where they are "told" to wear that sight-impeding garment produce the terrorists and foreign jihadists in Afghanistan and elsewhere...
Is that so hard to understand ? The salafists (origin of the current islamist insurgency/terrorism movement) start by "reislamising" the dressing customs because in the 60's and '70s the North African women were removing veils (women's lib etc.). The burqa and niqab i.e FULL VEIL not mere scarfs were not part of North African tradition to begin with. It's not a neutral religious practice by any means.
Besides, the ones wearing the burqa/niqab are a minority within the muslims...

So you should start by acknowledging it's full veil we are dealing with to know what you are talking about instead of mixing up everything.

The main point actually is that you can be asked to identify yourself, if you keep a motorbike helmet on, it won't be possible as well. Is that discrimination against bikers ?

My only concern is whether Sarkozy and the like do not do their legal homework very well and end up with an unconstitutional law.

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 08:23:52 AM
You could... if there were a compelling public interest in hiding human bodies from sight.

A compelling public interest is not needed to justify individual freedom.

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

I can see some too.  But this law makes no reference to coercion.  The garment is illegal regardless of whether the woman is wearing it of her own free will or not.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 08:42:20 AM
A compelling public interest is not needed to justify individual freedom.

Err, what? This response makes no sense in relation to what Alatriste said. Individual freedom in this context would mean the right to walk around naked.

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 08:45:04 AM
Err, what? This response makes no sense in relation to what Alatriste said. Individual freedom in this context would mean the right to walk around naked.

You're right.  I thought he was talking about the burkha, not walking around nude.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 08:48:06 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 08:45:04 AM
Err, what? This response makes no sense in relation to what Alatriste said. Individual freedom in this context would mean the right to walk around naked.

You're right.  I thought he was talking about the burkha, not walking around nude.

Both, actually.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
For the schools, the pupils are minors and the shit started with it then went on with islamists refusing sports/whatever PTI for the girls on religious grounds, then the studies of the Crusades (evil infidel agression) and last but not least the Final Solution since it's Jewish propaganda. Useful idiots on the left generally sided with the islamos such as Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D I eagerly await her opinion this time. Thanks to the law, the cases dwindled so the fundies are having another try since they failed previously.

Notice how your beloved Turkey bans even veils in the universities though it might change soon with the islamist government...
The issue has not been reported very well it seems. First, the veil is increasingly worn in Morocco and Algeria, not in Tunisia where, guess what, it's banned in some cases...

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

Yes I know they are often banned and not worn in Turkey and North African states...which was what I believe I said...that it is not worn very often in the areas French Muslims usually immigrate from.

As for the socialists being the ones to support religious conservatives...well that is just two terrible ideas coming together...sad to see left wingers throwing away the only things redeeming about them.

Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2010, 08:57:55 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
For the schools, the pupils are minors and the shit started with it then went on with islamists refusing sports/whatever PTI for the girls on religious grounds, then the studies of the Crusades (evil infidel agression) and last but not least the Final Solution since it's Jewish propaganda. Useful idiots on the left generally sided with the islamos such as Ségolène saying Japanese cartoons were more dangerous than the islamic veil :D I eagerly await her opinion this time. Thanks to the law, the cases dwindled so the fundies are having another try since they failed previously.

Notice how your beloved Turkey bans even veils in the universities though it might change soon with the islamist government...
The issue has not been reported very well it seems. First, the veil is increasingly worn in Morocco and Algeria, not in Tunisia where, guess what, it's banned in some cases...

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

Yes I know they are often banned and not worn in Turkey and North African states...which was what I believe I said...that it is not worn very often in the areas French Muslims usually immigrate from.

As for the socialists being the ones to support religious conservatives...well that is just two terrible ideas coming together...sad to see left wingers throwing away the only things redeeming about them.

To be fair, it was a lone communist parliament member André Gérin who started with this initiative, supported by the UMP conservatives (for France) , some dissenters notwithstanding. Greens are against the ban too.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 08:35:07 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 07:47:39 AM
I honestly don't know what your point is.  Like I said before If you Euros want to show how backward you are that you confuse a woman wearing funny outfit with a guy with dynamite strapped to his chest I can't stop you.  I do wish to know something.  When you guys banned these outfits in schools back in 2004 did that accomplish something worthwhile?

As to backwardness  :lmfao:

Yes, the number of cases dropped. A limit needed to be shown (cf. islamic dress then no swimming, then no history lessons about Crusades, Shoah etc.).

The mosques where they are "told" to wear that sight-impeding garment produce the terrorists and foreign jihadists in Afghanistan and elsewhere...
Is that so hard to understand ? The salafists (origin of the current islamist insurgency/terrorism movement) start by "reislamising" the dressing customs because in the 60's and '70s the North African women were removing veils (women's lib etc.). The burqa and niqab i.e FULL VEIL not mere scarfs were not part of North African tradition to begin with. It's not a neutral religious practice by any means.
Besides, the ones wearing the burqa/niqab are a minority within the muslims...

So you should start by acknowledging it's full veil we are dealing with to know what you are talking about instead of mixing up everything.

The main point actually is that you can be asked to identify yourself, if you keep a motorbike helmet on, it won't be possible as well. Is that discrimination against bikers ?

My only concern is whether Sarkozy and the like do not do their legal homework very well and end up with an unconstitutional law.

I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 08:23:52 AM
You could... if there were a compelling public interest in hiding human bodies from sight.

I think you misunderstand the nature of politics and reality.  Your opinion doesn't create an objective reality, and so liberal democratic state governments do not have to conform to your opinion or forgo the option of being liberal democratic states.

The enacters of the law merely have to believe that they are acting on a compelling public interest in order to meet the test.  Your approval is purely optional.

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

You have a compelling public interest in making sure men are not forced to wear long blonde wigs, or making sure that no one is forced to eat chocolate cake, as well.  The means of ensuring lack of compulsion in an activity isn't to make the activity itself illegal, though.  You would pretty much have to make everything illegal, save those things that you want to allow people to be forced to do.

Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 08:45:04 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 08:42:20 AM
A compelling public interest is not needed to justify individual freedom.

Err, what? This response makes no sense in relation to what Alatriste said. Individual freedom in this context would mean the right to walk around naked.

To be honest, I don't know why people aren't allowed to walk around naked if they want to...and I imagine that odds are no one's going to give a rat's ass if you do walk around naked down the streets of Paris.
However, you keep harping back to this argument,and as other people have said, it's not comparable.

What the French gov't is doing is not telling people that they have to wear clothes, it's telling a small minority group of people that they Cannot wear a certain outfit. A good lawyer can tell the difference.

This is nothing short of religious and or ethnic discrimination. Is it illegal for a woman in Paris to cover her face with a scarf if it's cold outside?

Note, I am not in favour of the Hibab or whatever it's called, and maybe if the government made a case that forcing a woman to wear one is abuse, I might be more in favour of such a ban. I think it's an incredibly sexist thing.

That said, if a woman wants to wear one, or feels religiously or culturally obligated to wear one, in a liberal democracy the law should protect that right.

The ban on public nudity may or may not be justified, but it's a pretty weak argument that since other countries engage in this irrational ban France is allowed to engage in its own irrational ban.

BTW, I recall that women in Ontario (all of Canada?) won the right in court to go topless.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 10:11:24 AM

BTW, I recall that women in Ontario (all of Canada?) won the right in court to go topless.

Yes. I'm no lawyer, but in Ontario it is legal for a woman to walk down the street topless. That said I've yet to see one (or two) in all this time. Note, though, I think places have the right to prohibit that. In other words, I don't think a woman can go topless into a public place like Canada's Wonderland or anything.

The thing with public nudity is that there's multiple justifications for a ban: isolation of contaminants, safety (a community simply isn't capable of enforcing the same standards of cleanliness and debris removal in all public areas that a private citizen is within their own lodgings), temperature regulation.  I'm not sure I agree with a ban, though.  There's no material justification for the state to force removal of a veil- it's one group's sensitivity being used to overrule another group's sense of modesty.  There needs to be a better justification for compelling citizens to comply than simply that it offends some experts; not wearing the veil would offend others, so there's no net progress for the community, and the only result will be a group of suddenly pissed-off muslims.

It may shock some of the perpetually outraged here, but in fact some Muslim women prefer wearing "the veil". So I would no sooner ban burqas, niqabs etc than I would wearing country clothing in town or white socks with black shoes.

Unless, of course, you guys have a magic method for determining which women are being forced to wear this kind of dress.

Quote from: Warspite on January 27, 2010, 11:02:35 AM
white socks with black shoes.

:Embarrass:

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 09:33:46 AM


I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 27, 2010, 11:08:01 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 27, 2010, 11:02:35 AM
white socks with black shoes.

:Embarrass:

Give me liberty, or give me death!

I disagree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.

Murder Boner's right to wear white socks with black shoes is not worth the bones of a single Croatian grenzer.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 11:13:53 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 09:33:46 AM


I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

This religiously neutral thing, that's a French cultural value yes?  That's what it said in the original article.  I'm guess you broadly agree with it.  When you say things such as "Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth" and "of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning" what do you mean?  What is it you think these "islamists" want?  What is it the beginning of?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 11:13:53 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 09:33:46 AM


I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

Eminently sensible. 




G.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 27, 2010, 11:13:53 AM
Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

I think part of the problem here is that "veil" and "scarf" have different meanings in French and English, and shouting about them when you don't understand their meanings simply makes you look like a loud ignoramus, as opposed to a quiet one.

A burqa is not a veil or a scarf in English, it is a burqua.  if this is what you mean, then say so (just don't yell; yelling is impolite).  Otherwise, I don't think your shouted distinction between veils and scarves is meaningful.

The rest of your post doesn't make any sense to me, but since you are not discussing the issue with me I don't care.

I see scarves on the street every day, by the dozens:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdsuniverse.info%2Fsdsuniverse%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fres300xy-ftr-111208-pursuitofislam1.jpg&hash=d2d0727a0ba8f178313e1507ddb2a8a8baee00db)

Occasionally, I will see chicks in veils:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islamreview.com%2Fnews%2FveilAP_228x228.jpg&hash=17d910b25f69988a7e46c6ef1afe1e7af38e25ec)

I think I've only seen a burqa once in Vienna.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Funambig.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fburqa.jpg&hash=63605f23d6eb1c43a20ba5209ecaf6a0bfdf72c7)

Quote from: Slargos on January 03, 1974, 09:34:35 AM
By that same reasoning, people don't have rights either.

No that doesn't follow.  The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.  If a limited government violates a citizen's right, the citizen has a remedy which the infringer of the right has bound itself to honor.  That does not exist among Westphalian states, which explains why all those hundreds of principalities, bishoprics and states whose "rights" of non-interference were supposedly guaranteed by the treaty ceased to exist within about 200 years.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2010, 07:17:52 PM
The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.

Like consular notification...

Quote from: ulmont on January 27, 2010, 07:35:14 PM
Like consular notification...

Oooh!  Cryptic.  I like it.

I'll try one:  like eshewing obfuscation....

Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2010, 08:49:18 PM

Quote from: ulmont on January 27, 2010, 07:35:14 PM
Like consular notification...

Oooh!  Cryptic.  I like it.

I'll try one:  like eshewing obfuscation....

Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 

The United States ratified the Vienna Convention, which provides in pertinent part that

Quoteif a person detained by a foreign country "so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State" of such detention, and "inform the [detainee] of his righ[t]" to request assistance from the consul of his own state. Art. 36(1)(b), id., at 101.

The Supreme Court assumed that

QuoteArticle 36 grants foreign nationals "an individually enforceable right to request that their consular officers be notified of their detention, and an accompanying right to be informed by authorities of the availability of consular notification."

Not withstanding that assumption of an individually enforceable right, the Supreme Court held that Medellin had no remedy, and in fact that the only entity that could do anything related to the right was Mexico, who could complain to the UN Security Council.

So again, Medellin has an "individually enforceable right" that he cannot, in fact, enforce.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf

I'm pretty sure Minsky saw the case when it came down.

Quote from: Josephus on January 27, 2010, 09:57:17 AM
This is nothing short of religious and or ethnic discrimination. Is it illegal for a woman in Paris to cover her face with a scarf if it's cold outside?

That's a very interesting question. And sane, and logical too.

My answer is, yes, she can. And under the proposed ban, a woman in Paris actually could wear a burkha on the street. She would, however, be forced to remove it when entering a public building, an school or boarding an airplane ("interdiction dans les services publics, transports inclus", if you know French)

Can you enter a public building, an school or board a plane wearing a hockey mask?

http://www.france24.com/fr/20100126-voile-int-gral-mission-parlementaire-veut-linterdire-services-publics

Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 12:21:06 PM


This religiously neutral thing, that's a French cultural value yes?  That's what it said in the original
article.  I'm guess you broadly agree with it.

Yes, it is called laïcité here and there's no real equivalent in English.
Correct guess.

Quote
  When you say things such as "Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth" and "of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning" what do you mean?  What is it you think these "islamists" want? 

Back in 1989, it started with MINORS i.e people without full civil rights for age reasons wearing mere scarves AT SCHOOL. Nobody said anything about adults wearing scarves or even full veils since it's a then unknown salafist gimmick, furthermore foreign to North Africa and Turkey, regions where most muslims in France come from.

I stick to the term of full veil as a synonym for the niqab, burqa and the like since veil is not that precise (cf. Josephus mixing it up with scarf) and for a law, specially in Roman-style law, ambiguities are not desirable.

Problem is, after turning a blind eye in the name of cultural sensitiveness to the appearance of the veil/scarf (not the niqab/full veil cf. Syt's pic) other "requests" followed such as gender-separated sports classes, no participation in swimming classes since it would require unislamic dress, revision of the history curriculum in state-owned schools. I said "public" previously but it is not in the British sense.

Please note that religious schools do exist. Even religious schools have to get some form of state recognition of their curriculum if they want to get some subsidies. 

Today, in 2010, instances of islamist fundies refusing their niqad-clad wifes to be examined by a male doctor or refusing to have them remove their full veils when dealing with the French administration which requires identification for obvious reasons.

Let's say than drawing a veil over this issue no longer possible (se voiler la face as they say in France).

Quote
What is it you think these "islamists" want? 
What is it the beginning of?

The islamist agenda.
PC surrendering leading to self-segregated salafist "communities" while leeching on French welfare and guess what, after given radical anti-western/french/european/whatever indoctrination, terrorist cells.

It has to be mentioned there are regional elections in March...

Quote from: ulmont on January 27, 2010, 09:38:04 PM
Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 
(snip)

I don't see how that supports your contention that states have rights (or at least a right).  Or is this no longer your contention?

Quote from: Alatriste on January 28, 2010, 03:33:06 AM

Quote from: Josephus on January 27, 2010, 09:57:17 AM
This is nothing short of religious and or ethnic discrimination. Is it illegal for a woman in Paris to cover her face with a scarf if it's cold outside?

That's a very interesting question. And sane, and logical too.

My answer is, yes, she can. And under the proposed ban, a woman in Paris actually could wear a burkha on the street. She would, however, be forced to remove it when entering a public building, an school or boarding an airplane ("interdiction dans les services publics, transports inclus", if you know French)

Can you enter a public building, an school or board a plane wearing a hockey mask?

http://www.france24.com/fr/20100126-voile-int-gral-mission-parlementaire-veut-linterdire-services-publics

See that's all OK. But after she boards the plane, shows her face to a security woman, who checks it against the passport, why can't she put her Burka back on when she sits down on the plane. I think there's few people who would disagree with said woman showing who she is to proper, sensitive authorities, but once she shows who she is, why not allow her to cover up.
If she's gonna blow up the plane, she's gonna do it with or without her Burka on.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 07:37:34 AM

Quote from: ulmont on January 27, 2010, 09:38:04 PM
Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 
(snip)

I don't see how that supports your contention that states have rights (or at least a right).  Or is this no longer your contention?

That was being used as rebuttal to Minsky.  While it is true that it is desirable that "every right must have a remedy" (which Minsky was using to support his contention that states have no rights, having no remedies for violations of said rights), it is by no means universal.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 09:55:14 AM
That was being used as rebuttal to Minsky.  While it is true that it is desirable that "every right must have a remedy" (which Minsky was using to support his contention that states have no rights, having no remedies for violations of said rights), it is by no means universal.

I don't see hw you are rebutting his point, which is that "the maxim is that every right must have a remedy."  Are you saying that this is not the maxim?

If you disprove the maxim, does that indicate in any way that states have a right?

Quote from: ulmont on January 27, 2010, 07:35:14 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2010, 07:17:52 PM
The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.

Like consular notification...

I think that case supports my position:  TThe court's holding was that treaties are intergovernmental compacts that have no force other than what the signatories choose to give them in domestic law.  In Medillin's case, the United States chose to not to give effect to its treaty commitment.  Since the offended party is actually another government, and since governments have no rights, the only recourse is through diplomatic complaint.  Medellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2010, 07:17:52 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 03, 1974, 09:34:35 AM
By that same reasoning, people don't have rights either.

No that doesn't follow.  The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.  If a limited government violates a citizen's right, the citizen has a remedy which the infringer of the right has bound itself to honor.  That does not exist among Westphalian states, which explains why all those hundreds of principalities, bishoprics and states whose "rights" of non-interference were supposedly guaranteed by the treaty ceased to exist within about 200 years.

So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 10:10:44 AM
So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

I am not sure - it depends what you mean be inalienable.
Many rights - but not all - can be waived.  I am not sure whether this is what you mean though.

The use of "inalienable" rights in the American Declaration of Independence related to a theory of popular sovereignty - that is a theory that the people as sovereigns had certain rights that a legislature could not take abrogate.  That was not an accurate description of the constitutional system of Great Britain at the time, where King-in-Parliament were sovereign.  It did form the basis of the later American constitution.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 10:06:11 AMMedellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

And the Supreme Court explicitly assumed that that Medellin had what it described as an individually enforceable right.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 10:05:21 AM
If you disprove the maxim, does that indicate in any way that states have a right?

It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

Quote from: Josephus on January 28, 2010, 08:20:03 AM
See that's all OK. But after she boards the plane, shows her face to a security woman, who checks it against the passport, why can't she put her Burka back on when she sits down on the plane. I think there's few people who would disagree with said woman showing who she is to proper, sensitive authorities, but once she shows who she is, why not allow her to cover up.
If she's gonna blow up the plane, she's gonna do it with or without her Burka on.

There are social benefits in encouraging conformity.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 10:28:46 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 10:06:11 AMMedellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

And the Supreme Court explicitly assumed that that Medellin had what it described as an individually enforceable right.

No - the Supreme Court, as it did in Sanchez-Llamas, assumed without actually deciding that the Vienna Convention intended to create individually enforcable rights (as opposed to rights that only governments could enforce on their citizens behalf).  In then held in both cases that even assuming the Vienna Convention was designed to create individually enforcable rights, that nonetheless no such rights existed in the United States, due to the fact that the US chose not to instantiate such rights into domestic law. 

That is why Mr. Medellin did not really have the rights he thought he had and it is also why he- just like the principalities that signed the Treaty of Westphalia - is now dead.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 10:29:29 AM
It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

It would equally imply that fire hydrants have rights with no remedies.

allowing /= implying

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 10:47:07 AM
That is why Mr. Medellin did not really have the rights he thought he had and it is also why he- just like the principalities that signed the Treaty of Westphalia - is now dead.

:lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 06:41:36 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2010, 05:49:38 PM
It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

The religion it represents is an adversarial polar opposite to the basic tenets of what it means to be a French citizen.  So there.

Are you saying that Moslems don't believe in surrendering?  :)

Quote from: Alatriste on January 27, 2010, 08:23:52 AM
I can see some justification in saying that we have a compelling public interest in making sure women aren't forced to wear burkahs... 

So the state is going to make sure that women aren't force to wear clothing that they don't wan to wear--by imposing a mode of dress on them.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 10:10:44 AM
So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

I am not sure - it depends what you mean be inalienable.
Many rights - but not all - can be waived.  I am not sure whether this is what you mean though.

The use of "inalienable" rights in the American Declaration of Independence related to a theory of popular sovereignty - that is a theory that the people as sovereigns had certain rights that a legislature could not take abrogate.  That was not an accurate description of the constitutional system of Great Britain at the time, where King-in-Parliament were sovereign.  It did form the basis of the later American constitution.

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 10:55:24 AM

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 10:29:29 AM
It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

It would equally imply that fire hydrants may have rights with no remedies.

allowing /= implying

Did you just grumbler yourself?  :hmm:

FYP, btw.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:05:12 AM
So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

Did you just Slargos yourself?

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:07:20 AM
Did you just grumbler yourself?  :hmm:

Nope.  You have pretty clearly Slargosed yourself with this misreading of my intent, though.

QuoteBroke FYP, btw.

FYP, btw.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 11:27:55 AM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:05:12 AM
So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

Did you just Slargos yourself?

I'm curious.

If a right without a remedy is no right, and there are rights which are inalienable but have no remedies, where does that place us?

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 11:29:44 AM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:07:20 AM
Did you just grumbler yourself?  :hmm:

Nope.  You have pretty clearly Slargosed yourself with this misreading of my intent, though.

QuoteBroke FYP, btw.

FYP, btw.

:lol:

I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:05:12 AM
So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

I am not sure we are on the same page.

One can speak about rights in two senses - natural right and positive rights.  Natural rights are the kind of rights that Jefferson was talking about in ulmont's quotation -- they are rights that are assumed to exist to adhere to people by virtue of their being people.  Artificial entities like states and corporations, being non-natural, cannot be said to enjoy natural rights.  Natural rights are not necessarily rights in the sense I have been talking about because they can be theoretical and without remedy. 

Only where a remedy exists can one talk about positive rights.  The category of positive rights in turn breaks down into conditional rights and non-conditional or constitutional rights.  The former are rights that exist because the government choses to provide a remedy - such as the "right" to receive a public pension; they are conditional because if the government choses to revoke those entitlements, the individual citizen has to recourse other than petition and political advocacy.  Non-conditional or constitutional rights that the government cannot revoke and which carry remedies that the government is bound to obey.  It is these rights that the Declaration presumably means by inalienable - they are inalienable in the sense that the government cannot simply evade them through an act of ordinarily legislation or decree.

Either kind of positive right can be waivable or not, depending on the nature of the right and the circumstances. 

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

Then get used to the feeling of "need" - it is gonna last a long, long time.  :lol:

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:31:01 AM
I'm curious.

If a right without a remedy is no right, and there are rights which are inalienable but have no remedies, where does that place us?

I am not sure what you mean by "without remedy."

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

There is your remedy.

Discussing what a "right" is is just masturbation. Which is fine, I masturbate myself sometimes. But not on Languish.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 12:34:36 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

Then get used to the feeling of "need" - it is gonna last a long, long time.  :lol:

Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim.  :hmm:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 12:02:46 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 11:05:12 AM
So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

I am not sure we are on the same page.

One can speak about rights in two senses - natural right and positive rights.  Natural rights are the kind of rights that Jefferson was talking about in ulmont's quotation -- they are rights that are assumed to exist to adhere to people by virtue of their being people.  Artificial entities like states and corporations, being non-natural, cannot be said to enjoy natural rights.  Natural rights are not necessarily rights in the sense I have been talking about because they can be theoretical and without remedy. 

Only where a remedy exists can one talk about positive rights.  The category of positive rights in turn breaks down into conditional rights and non-conditional or constitutional rights.  The former are rights that exist because the government choses to provide a remedy - such as the "right" to receive a public pension; they are conditional because if the government choses to revoke those entitlements, the individual citizen has to recourse other than petition and political advocacy.  Non-conditional or constitutional rights that the government cannot revoke and which carry remedies that the government is bound to obey.  It is these rights that the Declaration presumably means by inalienable - they are inalienable in the sense that the government cannot simply evade them through an act of ordinarily legislation or decree.

Either kind of positive right can be waivable or not, depending on the nature of the right and the circumstances.

If we're going to clarify the definition of "rights" then this discussion becomes much simpler, but I've mostly seen blanket statements so far.

Of course, I find your assertion about what a government can and cannot do to be completely ridiculous, but I guess that also depends on the definition of "can", doesn't it?

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 12:38:55 PM
I am not sure what you mean by "without remedy."

I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

QuoteThere is your remedy.

And when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:26:47 PM
Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim.  :hmm:

Since I wasn't making that claim, I knew it would need no backing up.  :bowler:

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 02:42:45 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:26:47 PM
Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim.  :hmm:

Since I wasn't making that claim, I knew it would need no backing up.  :bowler:

Of course you didn't, grumbler. It's convenient to always expect people to read your post in the literal fashion, but appeal to what you intended at your convenience.  :lol:

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:35:47 PM
I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

This is called argument by assertion.  Can you support this assertion with evidence, or are you just gonna leave it a naked personal opinion?

QuoteAnd when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

The government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Now, such rights are not unlimited, as we well know.  One can lose the protection of one's right to life by committing a crime for which just law imposes a death penalty, for instance, and one's freedom of speech does not protect falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  These limits occur when one infringes upon another person's rights, though, not because one has violated some right of governments or states or whatever.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Of course you didn't, grumbler.

Glad we cleared that up, then.  Be sure to let me know my writing exceeds your reading comprehension in the future, and I will be glad to again help you understand, Slargos

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 02:53:04 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Of course you didn't, grumbler.

Glad we cleared that up, then.  Be sure to let me know my writing exceeds your reading comprehension in the future, and I will be glad to again help you understand, Slargos

Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse.  :hug:

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 02:50:17 PM

QuoteAnd when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

The government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil.  I fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse.  :hug:

And I will let you know, Slargos when (if?) you stop being obtuse.  :hug:

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 02:50:17 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:35:47 PM
I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

This is called argument by assertion.  Can you support this assertion with evidence, or are you just gonna leave it a naked personal opinion?

An interesting question. Is it even possible to put into evidence the existence of rights?

QuoteThe government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Now, such rights are not unlimited, as we well know.  One can lose the protection of one's right to life by committing a crime for which just law imposes a death penalty, for instance, and one's freedom of speech does not protect falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  These limits occur when one infringes upon another person's rights, though, not because one has violated some right of governments or states or whatever.

Then who created them?

I assume that you don't expect them to exist apart from humanity?

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse.  :hug:

And I will let you know, Slargos when (if?) you stop being obtuse.  :hug:

Touché, old man. I'm glad to see you haven't lost touch with your inner pre-schooler.  :lol:

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 02:54:54 PM
Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil. 

Correct.  There are many countries in which human rights have no practical value.

QuoteI fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

Because nations states don's have any rights at all, practical or not (or, at least, not rights in the sense that we use the term).  They have rights in the sense that you have the right to expect fast service at a fast food restaurant.

I would argue animals are much closer to having rights (in the meaningful sense) than states are.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 03:02:53 PM

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 02:54:54 PM
Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil. 

Correct.  There are many countries in which human rights have no practical value.

QuoteI fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

Because nations states don's have any rights at all, practical or not (or, at least, not rights in the sense that we use the term).  They have rights in the sense that you have the right to expect fast service at a fast food restaurant.

I would argue animals are much closer to having rights (in the meaningful sense) than states are.

To use your own protestations, this is argument by assertion. I don't see you presenting any evidence that states states don't have rights.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:58:50 PM
An interesting question. Is it even possible to put into evidence the existence of rights?

The subject of the sentence was 'assertion."  When one is asked to provide evidence to support an assertion about rights, that is not a call for evidence to support the existence of rights.  I thought that you understood the meaning of the word assertion, sorry.  You can look it up, and try again, without penalty.

QuoteThen who created them?

Interesting question.  Who creates inherent things: the creator of the things they are inherent in.  Who/what created mankind?

QuoteI assume that you don't expect them to exist apart from humanity?

Another interesting question.  I would expect that most would agree that self-aware beings have rights.  Some might argue that there are degrees of rights commensurate with the degree of self-awareness,  but my current thinking is that there is a threshold of self-awareness that makes one 'human" and rights are vested completely at that threshold.  So your assumption would be wrong.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:05:48 PM
To use your own protestations, this is argument by assertion. I don't see you presenting any evidence that states states don't have rights.

But the asserter of the postulate must evidence it.  I say humans have rights.  My evidence is the Declaration of Independence (which states what they are and from whence they come) and numerous USSC rulings which reinforce the authority of those concepts.

One who wishes to assert that states have rights needs evidence.  So far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

If you want to make the assertion that states have more rights than, say, fire plugs, by all means be at it.  From whence does a state get its rights?  What authority references the validity of those rights?  What exactly are those rights (at least insofar as they have been enumerated) and where are they enumerated?

I assert that nothing has rights (in the sense we are suing the term: privileges that cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances) unless there is compelling evidence that such rights exist.  To argue the reverse, as you are doing (that everything has rights unless there is evidence that they lack it) is madness from both a  logical (evidencing a negative) and practical (makes the meaning of rights meaningless) standpoint.

Long story short:  I don't have to present evidence of a negative, because the burden of proof isn't on me.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 03:11:13 PM
The subject of the sentence was 'assertion."  When one is asked to provide evidence to support an assertion about rights, that is not a call for evidence to support the existence of rights.  I thought that you understood the meaning of the word assertion, sorry.  You can look it up, and try again, without penalty.

"Misunderstanding" are we now? You're really pulling out all the grumblers here, aren't you?  :lol:

No, I can't give you any evidence to support my assertion, any more than I can give you any evidence that you exist other than as a figment of my imagination.

QuoteInteresting question.  Who creates inherent things: the creator of the things they are inherent in.  Who/what created mankind?

Argument by assertion. Can you display any evidence that rights are inherent?

QuoteAnother interesting question.  I would expect that most would agree that self-aware beings have rights.  Some might argue that there are degrees of rights commensurate with the degree of self-awareness,  but my current thinking is that there is a threshold of self-awareness that makes one 'human" and rights are vested completely at that threshold.  So your assumption would be wrong.

It was mostly rhetorical at any rate. I would like to see the evidence you have to support the notion of inherent rights.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 03:20:58 PMSo far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

You glossed over the writings of Thomas Jefferson several hundred years later, and the Treaty of Montevideo over a hundred years after that.

You're also applying a different standard with respect to the rights of humans (you asserted they come from their creator; to which I reply "show me that creator") and states.

And hey, check this out:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZcdIsXrmcPwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA300&ots=5edWxwOXex&sig=wzWWg1jSNdCfLDDFg5TbH4ZstdY#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 03:20:58 PM

But the asserter of the postulate must evidence it.  I say humans have rights.  My evidence is the Declaration of Independence (which states what they are and from whence they come) and numerous USSC rulings which reinforce the authority of those concepts.

One who wishes to assert that states have rights needs evidence.  So far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

If you want to make the assertion that states have more rights than, say, fire plugs, by all means be at it.  From whence does a state get its rights?  What authority references the validity of those rights?  What exactly are those rights (at least insofar as they have been enumerated) and where are they enumerated?

I assert that nothing has rights (in the sense we are suing the term: privileges that cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances) unless there is compelling evidence that such rights exist.  To argue the reverse, as you are doing (that everything has rights unless there is evidence that they lack it) is madness from both a  logical (evidencing a negative) and practical (makes the meaning of rights meaningless) standpoint.

Long story short:  I don't have to present evidence of a negative, because the burden of proof isn't on me.

:huh:

I haven't argued that everything has rights. I have protested your notion that states cannot (and do not) have rights.

As for evidence on declarations of rights pertaining to societal structures rather than individuals, here is the UN declaration on the rights of "peoples"

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

and on the rights of states

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r092.htm

Quote

C.  Rights and benefits
     5.   Every State has an equal right to conduct activities in the field of
international direct television broadcasting by satellite and to authorize
such activities by persons and entities under its jurisdiction.  All States
and peoples are entitled to and should enjoy the benefits from such
activities.  Access to the technology in this field should be available to all

States without discrimination on terms mutually agreed by all concerned.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:22:15 PM
"Misunderstanding" are we now? You're really pulling out all the grumblers here, aren't you?  :lol:

Exactly.  You Slargos the question competely, and I grumbler to correct your misconceptions about sentence structure. :hug:

QuoteNo, I can't give you any evidence to support my assertion, any more than I can give you any evidence that you exist other than as a figment of my imagination.

Okay, but you cannot have my point, which was precisely this:  yours is an unsupported assertion.  Dunno why you pretend to argue my point when you only come back to agree with it.

QuoteArgument by assertion. Can you display any evidence that rights are inherent?

Sure:

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

QuoteIt was mostly rhetorical at any rate. I would like to see the evidence you have to support the notion of inherent rights.

You have it.  I am astonished, frankly, that there is anyone with anything like a complete education in the Western world that doesn't understand the concept behind human rights.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 03:42:53 PM

You have it.  I am astonished, frankly, that there is anyone with anything like a complete education in the Western world that doesn't understand the concept behind human rights.

I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:44:15 PM
I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Jefferson was only deified to the extent that he supported rights of persons.  To the extent he supported rights of states, his quotes are irrelevant.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 03:46:25 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:44:15 PM
I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Jefferson was only deified to the extent that he supported rights of persons.  To the extent he supported rights of states, his quotes are irrelevant.

I am beginning to grok.  :lol:

Why is Jaron still using that offensive and racist avatar.

How is something offensive AND racist?

Quote from: Siege on January 28, 2010, 03:58:00 PM
Why is Jaron still using that offensive and racist avatar.

Cause he's a troll.

Some people just can't seem to clear the blurred line between rights and powers.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 04:03:00 PM
Some people just can't seem to clear the blurred line between rights and powers.

Kings and princes for one.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:36:38 PM
:huh:

I haven't argued that everything has rights. I have protested your notion that states cannot (and do not) have rights.

If states can have rights, anything can have rights.  States are in no way a unique phenomenon.  Whatever possesses the power to grant states their rights can be presumed to possess the power to grant rights to anything.

QuoteAs for evidence on declarations of rights pertaining to societal structures rather than individuals, here is the UN declaration on the rights of "peoples"

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

and on the rights of states

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r092.htm

Quote

C.  Rights and benefits
     5.   Every State has an equal right to conduct activities in the field of
international direct television broadcasting by satellite and to authorize
such activities by persons and entities under its jurisdiction.  All States
and peoples are entitled to and should enjoy the benefits from such
activities.  Access to the technology in this field should be available to all

States without discrimination on terms mutually agreed by all concerned.

Yes, these are "rights" like the http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html (http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html) Jet Blue Customer Rights, which aren't rights at all, in that they can be withdrawn by the same authority that grants them.  We have all agreed that those kinds of "rights" exist - states have them, animals have them, customers have them... maybe even fire hydrants!

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 03:23:38 PM
You glossed over the writings of Thomas Jefferson several hundred years later, and the Treaty of Montevideo over a hundred years after that.

You are right.  Enlighten me.  According to Jefferson, from whence comes the rights of states, and where are those rights enumerated (insofar as they are enumerated)?

Ditto for tyhe Treaty of montevideo, where it differs from Jefferson.

QuoteYou're also applying a different standard with respect to the rights of humans (you asserted they come from their creator; to which I reply "show me that creator") and states.

Yes, precisely.  Unless you believe that the rights of states come from their creator?

I have no problem having different standards for the rights of persons and non-persons.  Do you have a problem with that?  Or do you think that whatever agency you imagine grants rights to humans could as easily grant those same rights to fire hydrants?

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 03:44:15 PM
I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Are you saying that you disagree with Jefferson?  What is your point here?

QuoteUnless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Not in mine.  How about yours (because I grant you that such is entirely possible)?

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 05:17:42 PM

If states can have rights, anything can have rights.  States are in no way a unique phenomenon.  Whatever possesses the power to grant states their rights can be presumed to possess the power to grant rights to anything.

CAN have. Not must have. Nice strawman, though.

Are you seriously arguing that a ruler cannot bestow rights on whatever object or person he desires?

Law is a suggestion, gravity is not. This is the difference between "natural" rights and natural law.

Quote
Yes, these are "rights" like the http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html (http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html) Jet Blue Customer Rights, which aren't rights at all, in that they can be withdrawn by the same authority that grants them.  We have all agreed that those kinds of "rights" exist - states have them, animals have them, customers have them... maybe even fire hydrants!

We are in agreement then, states can have rights, and indeed do have rights. I don't see why you continue arguing the subject.  :huh:

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 05:30:16 PM
Are you saying that you disagree with Jefferson?  What is your point here?

Very much so. That is not the subject at hand, however. You were asked to bring evidence for the existence of natural rights, and you have thus far only been able to quote someone else also making an assertion.

QuoteNot in mine.  How about yours (because I grant you that such is entirely possible)?

I am rubber you are glue?  :huh:

The assertion of natural rights is the foundation of modern law and the moral justification for representative democracy.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 05:51:05 PM
The assertion of natural rights is the foundation of modern law and the moral justification for representative democracy.

I don't see where that is relevant to the discussion at hand, which is actually turning into two salient questions:

1. Can states have rights?

2. What makes natural rights natural?

"People have worn clothes for ages" has no relevance when questioning why they wear clothes in the first place.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:31:00 PM
If we're going to clarify the definition of "rights" then this discussion becomes much simpler, but I've mostly seen blanket statements so far.

What kind of statements are you looking for?

QuoteOf course, I find your assertion about what a government can and cannot do to be completely ridiculous, but I guess that also depends on the definition of "can", doesn't it? 

I am puzzled by this response; there are very practical limitations on what governments cannot do in consitutional democracies.  For example, if an official of the state seizes me without charge for a certain time, I am entitled to get a writ (a command) from a judge and the official is bound to obey it.  This is not mere theory - such events happen all the time, even when the government of the time is very much against it.  The fact that the last US administration -- which had very definitive ideas of their own power - honored a court writ issued on behalf of suspected terrorist and enemy of the state where the administration firmly believed the writ lacked any proper basis - illustrates that assertions about what governments can and can't do are far from idle talk..

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 05:27:26 PMYou are right.  Enlighten me.  According to Jefferson, from whence comes the rights of states, and where are those rights enumerated (insofar as they are enumerated)?

As to Jefferson, the rights of states were "natural rights," the same as the rights of persons.  There is no enumeration in the source I was looking at.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 05:27:26 PMDitto for tyhe Treaty of montevideo, where it differs from Jefferson.

The Treaty of Montevideo states that the rights arise from

Quotethe simple fact of [the state's] existence as a person under international law.

The enumeration is

Quotethe right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

QuoteI have no problem having different standards for the rights of persons and non-persons.  Do you have a problem with that?  Or do you think that whatever agency you imagine grants rights to humans could as easily grant those same rights to fire hydrants?

I have difficulty imagining what agency could grant rights to humans but not to fire hydrants, yes.

Edit:

Never mind. I don't have the patience today.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2010, 06:06:42 PM

What kind of statements are you looking for?

To begin with, the kind that at least attempts to define what they mean rights are. Grumbler asserts that states do not (and later cannot) have rights, but later admits that they do have rights but that said rights are not rights at all. That's a very interesting set of assertions.

Quote
I am puzzled by this response; there are very practical limitations on what governments cannot do in consitutional democracies.  For example, if an official of the state seizes me without charge for a certain time, I am entitled to get a writ (a command) from a judge and the official is bound to obey it.  This is not mere theory - such events happen all the time, even when the government of the time is very much against it.  The fact that the last US administration -- which had very definitive ideas of their own power - honored a court writ issued on behalf of suspected terrorist and enemy of the state where the administration firmly believed the writ lacked any proper basis - illustrates that assertions about what governments can and can't do are far from idle talk..

They are only theoretical limitations insofar as they need to be tested each and every time an infraction occurs.

Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

Under the right circumstances, ordinary judicial process can in addition be suspended, such as for instance during war.

Note that the operative term here is "can". Rights are only valuable as long as they are being protected. We can presume and expect that the US government will generally act according to the constitution, but we can't know that it will.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 05:40:06 PM
Very much so. That is not the subject at hand, however. You were asked to bring evidence for the existence of natural rights, and you have thus far only been able to quote someone else also making an assertion. 

You asked for evidence, you got it.  Let us see your evidence, now. 

You do have some, do you not?

QuoteI am rubber you are glue?  :huh:

How original!   :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 09:21:20 PM
You asked for evidence, you got it.  Let us see your evidence, now. 

Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Unless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

But I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

QuoteHow original!   :lol:

It wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation?  :P

I'm going out on a limb here, but are you saying that since the concept of natural rights exists, therefore natural rights exist (regardless of what one wishes to define them as)?

I guess I can go so far as to agree on that point, though that kind of nit picking would possibly be the worst kind of obtusity I've seen on this board since I can remember.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

That's a "monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force inside its borders."  You might say the state has the sole right to legitimately use force inside its borders...

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 09:39:09 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

That's a "monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force inside its borders."  You might say the state has the sole right to legitimately use force inside its borders...

A fair contention given the level of precision evidently necessary to discuss even the most mundane of subjects with certain individuals.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 07:41:02 PM
The Treaty of Montevideo states that the rights arise from

Quotethe simple fact of [the state's] existence as a person under international law.

The enumeration is

Quotethe right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

QuoteI have no problem having different standards for the rights of persons and non-persons.  Do you have a problem with that?  Or do you think that whatever agency you imagine grants rights to humans could as easily grant those same rights to fire hydrants?

I have difficulty imagining what agency could grant rights to humans but not to fire hydrants, yes.

Ah, you mean the Montevideo Convention!  I was wondering where you were getting this stuff from!  The "Treaty of Montevideo" search takes one to the 1980s free trade zone treaty.

Having looked through this treaty, I would agree that its "rights" are on the same level as those of humans (ie they are unlimited except where they run up against other states' rights) but it is also clear to me why this is not accepted in general international law.

However, I would also argue that these rights are merely powers, called rights.  I know it says that this is untrue, and that states have rights because they are people under the law, but I am not persuaded.

So, I will maintain that sttates do not have rights (especially given that the convention that grants them rights is signed by only 20 of the 160-some states of the world), but concede that you have grounds to believe otherwise.  Just as you have grounds to believe that US Actions against Germany and Japan in WW2 were illegal, since that is also declared by this same document ("The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily").

That is quite a pill to swallow.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 09:34:25 PM
Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Okay, Show me by example.

QuoteUnless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

Okay, then make your example compelling (more compelling than the Declaration of Independence.... :lmfao:)

QuoteBut I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

If you provide the compelling evidence as an example, I will be duly inspired by your genius and follow suit.

So for you have not presented even non-compelling evidence.

QuoteIt wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation?  :P

:rolleyes:  I dunno what this means, but when you start in on the personal attacks we are seldom far from the end, so... whatever.

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 09:52:09 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 09:34:25 PM
Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Okay, Show me by example.

QuoteUnless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

Okay, then make your example compelling (more compelling than the Declaration of Independence.... :lmfao: )

QuoteBut I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

If you provide the compelling evidence as an example, I will be duly inspired by your genius and follow suit.

So for you have not presented even non-compelling evidence.

QuoteIt wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation?  :P

:rolleyes:  I dunno what this means, but when you start in on the personal attacks we are seldom far from the end, so... whatever.

Again, and I'm working under the assumption that you're not just having a laugh:

You claim the existence of natural rights. Your evidence to support this claim is a document that claims the existence of natural rights. Circle argument much?

"Natural" is just a term commonly used to describe it. Call it what you want, but the impossibility of being granted is one of the defining properties of a right. Therefore the question of who grants rights is inoperative. It has no factual answer because it is dependent on a non-factual premise. You may as well ask why the sun revolves around the earth or why mammals lay eggs.

Rights are not a thing. They are a consequence of the existence of free will and human interaction. They are a description of the state of a relationship between an individual and his peers wherein the individual always maintains the power of refusal. Rights cannot be given because the power of refusal can be exercised at any time. Regardless of the threat or consequences, any being who has the ability to withhold compliance maintains rights. They aren't "natural" because they don't exist if the individual has no peers to whom he can lend his compliance. They only exist in a social context.

States can't have rights because rights cannot be given and a state has no will of its own. A state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to. Therefore the actual rights are never transferred.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 10:01:05 PMA state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to.

The Late Unpleasantness tends to disprove this theory.

Quote from: ulmont on January 28, 2010, 10:38:47 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 10:01:05 PMA state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to.

The Late Unpleasantness tends to disprove this theory.

Do not question the Mad Immortal Theory of the Rights of Man. You can take it to the bank and put it in your safe deposit box--right next to the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.  :D

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:35:47 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 12:38:55 PM
I am not sure what you mean by "without remedy."

I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

QuoteThere is your remedy.

And when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

Governments cannot grant rights, nor take them away.That's not how the Lockean liberal philosophy of the Founders works. Even if the government infringes upon a right, that does not mean the right does not continue to exist. If there was a coup and an Orwelian communist police state imposed, the human rights to life, liberty and property still continue to exist no matter how many people are being shot or thrown in the gulag.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2010, 11:48:23 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 02:35:47 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2010, 12:38:55 PM
I am not sure what you mean by "without remedy."

I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

QuoteThere is your remedy.

And when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

Governments cannot grant rights, nor take them away.That's not how the Lockean liberal philosophy of the Founders works. Even if the government infringes upon a right, that does not mean the right does not continue to exist. If there was a coup and an Orwelian communist police state imposed, the human rights to life, liberty and property still continue to exist no matter how many people are being shot or thrown in the gulag.

A fascinating theory. If I were grumbler, I would demand that you put into evidence this outrageous claim, but I am not and I will not.

I wonder, however, if these rights still exist in a society that has no concept of them?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 10:01:05 PM
"Natural" is just a term commonly used to describe it. Call it what you want, but the impossibility of being granted is one of the defining properties of a right. Therefore the question of who grants rights is inoperative. It has no factual answer because it is dependent on a non-factual premise. You may as well ask why the sun revolves around the earth or why mammals lay eggs.

Rights are not a thing. They are a consequence of the existence of free will and human interaction. They are a description of the state of a relationship between an individual and his peers wherein the individual always maintains the power of refusal. Rights cannot be given because the power of refusal can be exercised at any time. Regardless of the threat or consequences, any being who has the ability to withhold compliance maintains rights. They aren't "natural" because they don't exist if the individual has no peers to whom he can lend his compliance. They only exist in a social context.

States can't have rights because rights cannot be given and a state has no will of its own. A state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to. Therefore the actual rights are never transferred.

This leaves me with more questions than it answered.

Since you don't specify, I presume your statement is valid for all rights, no matter how obscure.

Is it enough to be able to describe a right for it to become intransigent?

Could there be rights of which we are not fully aware?

Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

I'm going to assume that since you used very powerful analogies to the effect, you think your position on this subject is truth, and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Do you make no differentiation between legal and natural rights? I presume not, since you made it pretty clear that "natural rights" and "rights" are the same thing.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 09:55:46 PM
Again, and I'm working under the assumption that you're not just having a laugh:

You claim the existence of natural rights. Your evidence to support this claim is a document that claims the existence of natural rights. Circle argument much?

You seem to be having trouble coming up with the evidence for your argument that will show me how to evidence mine.

Please lead by example, and provide the kind of evidnce for your contention that you insist that i do for mine.  Then I will know what you are looking for.

Merely whining about the shortfalls you perceive in my evidence while refusing to provide any of your own is not argumentation, it is evasion.

Btw, you don't understand what a circular argument is, if you think an argument that appeals to a document is circular.  But educating yourself can await your provision of the example evidence.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2010, 11:48:23 PM
Governments cannot grant rights, nor take them away.That's not how the Lockean liberal philosophy of the Founders works. Even if the government infringes upon a right, that does not mean the right does not continue to exist. If there was a coup and an Orwelian communist police state imposed, the human rights to life, liberty and property still continue to exist no matter how many people are being shot or thrown in the gulag.

And that's why Locke's philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 04:39:11 AM
Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

:)

I think you do understand the point after all.

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
They are only theoretical limitations insofar as they need to be tested each and every time an infraction occurs.

No I don't agree; in most cases these rights are so ingrained in the insitutional culture that they are respected and enforced as a matter of routine. 

QuoteAny government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

But legal action can only have impact if the executive respects what the courts say.  The fact that generally speaking such respect is given again indicates that recognition for individual rights is so deeply ingrained that those who govern feel compelled to restrain themselves.

QuoteUnder the right circumstances, ordinary judicial process can in addition be suspended, such as for instance during war.

But that itself is a existing and recognized limitation on rights (or perhaps more precisely, an exception on a limitaiton to executive power).

QuoteNote that the operative term here is "can". Rights are only valuable as long as they are being protected. We can presume and expect that the US government will generally act according to the constitution, but we can't know that it will.

We can presume it b/c the track record is there.  Of course there are exceptional situations where backsliding occurs (korematsu, HUAC) but historically the system always corrects itself and the incident comes to be remembered as a cautionary anomaly, not the rule.

Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2010, 07:49:51 AM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 09:55:46 PM
Again, and I'm working under the assumption that you're not just having a laugh:

You claim the existence of natural rights. Your evidence to support this claim is a document that claims the existence of natural rights. Circle argument much?

You seem to be having trouble coming up with the evidence for your argument that will show me how to evidence mine.

Please lead by example, and provide the kind of evidnce for your contention that you insist that i do for mine.  Then I will know what you are looking for.

Merely whining about the shortfalls you perceive in my evidence while refusing to provide any of your own is not argumentation, it is evasion.

Btw, you don't understand what a circular argument is, if you think an argument that appeals to a document is circular.  But educating yourself can await your provision of the example evidence.

Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2010, 10:16:26 AM

Quote from: Slargos on January 28, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
They are only theoretical limitations insofar as they need to be tested each and every time an infraction occurs.

No I don't agree; in most cases these rights are so ingrained in the insitutional culture that they are respected and enforced as a matter of routine. 

QuoteAny government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

But legal action can only have impact if the executive respects what the courts say.  The fact that generally speaking such respect is given again indicates that recognition for individual rights is so deeply ingrained that those who govern feel compelled to restrain themselves.

QuoteUnder the right circumstances, ordinary judicial process can in addition be suspended, such as for instance during war.

But that itself is a existing and recognized limitation on rights (or perhaps more precisely, an exception on a limitaiton to executive power).

QuoteNote that the operative term here is "can". Rights are only valuable as long as they are being protected. We can presume and expect that the US government will generally act according to the constitution, but we can't know that it will.

We can presume it b/c the track record is there.  Of course there are exceptional situations where backsliding occurs (korematsu, HUAC) but historically the system always corrects itself and the incident comes to be remembered as a cautionary anomaly, not the rule.

I certainly don't disagree with you. The US government appears to have a pretty solid record on these matters, and I don't doubt that your various government agents by and large act in accordance with the restrictions put on them.

I'm merely disagreeing with the assertion that it CANNOT happen.

This is a side track, however. The main point I am attempting to make is still the fact that rights are granted by social interaction. They are made, not discovered.

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

My goal was to get you to provide even a shred of support for your arguments, and in that I failed.  I knew when you started on the personal attacks that you had no evidence, and that the harder and louder pressure you were exerting to get me to "improve" my evidence was a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you had provided none at all of your own (which was why i insisted on reciprocity).

Concession on your part is wise. Just don't try to twist this into me "declaring myself the winner."  :cool:

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 10:39:55 AM
This is a side track, however. The main point I am attempting to make is still the fact that rights are granted by social interaction. They are made, not discovered.

Do you have any evidence in support of this assertion?  Everyone would agree that some rights are so generated (e.g. the right to vote), but no one I know of but you would assert this for all rights.

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 04:39:11 AM

This leaves me with more questions than it answered.

Since you don't specify, I presume your statement is valid for all rights, no matter how obscure.

Is it enough to be able to describe a right for it to become intransigent?

Could there be rights of which we are not fully aware?

Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

I'm going to assume that since you used very powerful analogies to the effect, you think your position on this subject is truth, and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Do you make no differentiation between legal and natural rights? I presume not, since you made it pretty clear that "natural rights" and "rights" are the same thing.

Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth.  :lol:

I do make a distinction between legal rights and "natural" rights, yes. A person could have a "right" to something because it is contractually obligated to him. Though I would call it a power, technically, the word is used for that. Presumably there could be rights of which we are not aware, because IMO they spring into being as a result of different types of human interaction. So changes in technology that affect how people interact or whatever could bring "new" rights to the surface.

All of this is just my opinion, and I do "refine" it from time to time. I have put some thought into it.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2010, 01:34:45 PM
Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth.  :lol:

Glad  to see that Slargos gets to that "since you didn't explicitly state that your opinions are opinions, I assume you think you have the monopoly on truth" stage with your dissenting opinions as he does when the dissenting opinion is mine!  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2010, 12:39:33 PM

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

My goal was to get you to provide even a shred of support for your arguments, and in that I failed.  I knew when you started on the personal attacks that you had no evidence, and that the harder and louder pressure you were exerting to get me to "improve" my evidence was a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you had provided none at all of your own (which was why i insisted on reciprocity).

Concession on your part is wise. Just don't try to twist this into me "declaring myself the winner."  :cool:

:worship:

Your evidence is sparkling, and your argumentation is sublime.  :homestar:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2010, 01:34:45 PM


Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth.  :lol:

I do make a distinction between legal rights and "natural" rights, yes.

Then why do you state that it's not necessary to call them natural rights, but merely rights?

QuoteA person could have a "right" to something because it is contractually obligated to him. Though I would call it a power, technically, the word is used for that. Presumably there could be rights of which we are not aware, because IMO they spring into being as a result of different types of human interaction. So changes in technology that affect how people interact or whatever could bring "new" rights to the surface.

So rights are "birthed" rather than discovered or made. Spectacular concept.

QuoteAll of this is just my opinion, and I do "refine" it from time to time. I have put some thought into it.

Fair enough.  :D

Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2010, 01:57:18 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2010, 01:34:45 PM
Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth.  :lol:

Glad  to see that Slargos gets to that "since you didn't explicitly state that your opinions are opinions, I assume you think you have the monopoly on truth" stage with your dissenting opinions as he does when the dissenting opinion is mine!  :lol:

Quote from: MadImmortalManIt has no factual answer because it is dependent on a non-factual premise. You may as well ask why the sun revolves around the earth or why mammals lay eggs.

By this statement MIM makes it clear that he doesn't consider it an opinion, but rather Truth.

Don't let such a trifling thing as actual evidence get in your way of grand standing however.

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 03:00:04 PM
By this statement MIM makes it clear that he doesn't consider it an opinion, but rather Truth.

No, he doesn't.  He explains why it is not explicable in the terms you desire.  A better example might be "why is man self-aware?"

QuoteDon't let such a trifling thing as actual evidence get in your way of grand standing however.

Don't let someone's actual words get in the way of your pronouncement that he "makes it clear that he doesn't consider it an opinion, but rather Truth," however.

Quote from: Slargos on January 29, 2010, 03:00:04 PM

By this statement MIM makes it clear that he doesn't consider it an opinion, but rather Truth.

Don't let such a trifling thing as actual evidence get in your way of grand standing however.

I just laid down the logic upon which my opinion is built there. I do not intend to make the claim of Truth, even if I may have conveyed that mistakenly. Clear enough?