QuoteCERGY, June 12, 2013 (AFP) – Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse an angry crowd in a town on the outskirts of Paris where clashes erupted on Wednesday night after they questioned a woman wearing a niqab, which is banned in France.
A police source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the incident started when police stopped a 25-year-old woman in the centre of Argenteuil, a suburb north-west of Paris, who was wearing a niqab.
A passer-by got involved, calling the check "illegitimate", and soon a crowd of about 60 people gathered and attacked the police, who called for back-up, said the source.
"The police were insulted and beaten," he said.
A 32-year-old resident, who asked not to be named, said police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd in Argenteuil, which has a large Muslim population.
The police source said two men, including a cousin of the young woman, were arrested. Some 40 police officers were called to break up the clashes.
France has outraged many Muslims with its law against the niqab, which came into force in April 2011 and bans covering one's face in public.
Violations are punishable by a fine of up to 150 euros ($190) or mandatory citizenship training.
About 300 women were caught breaking the law in the first year it was in force, according to the interior ministry.
http://www.aquila-style.com/focus-points/police-check-of-woman-in-niqab-sparks-clashes-near-paris/ (http://www.aquila-style.com/focus-points/police-check-of-woman-in-niqab-sparks-clashes-near-paris/)
French article has more details
QuoteDe violents affrontements ont opposé mardi soir plusieurs dizaines de policiers à des habitants d'Argenteuil, dans le Val-d'Oise, après le contrôle d'une femme de 25 ans portant le voile intégral, a-t-on appris mercredi de sources concordantes.
Alors que les policiers procédaient au contrôle d'identité de cette femme, dans une rue semi-piétonne du centre-ville d'Argenteuil, un attroupement s'est formé et a dégénéré en affrontement, mardi vers 19 heures. "La jeune femme avait dans un premier temps accepté le contrôle. Mais un passant s'en est mêlé, pour dire que le contrôle était à ses yeux illégitime. Il a commencé à s'en prendre aux policiers", a indiqué une source proche du dossier.
Un rassemblement d'une soixantaine de personnes s'est alors formé autour de la jeune femme et des fonctionnaires, qui ont appelé des renforts. "Les policiers ont été pris à partie. Ils ont été insultés et ont reçu des coups, notamment des coups de poing", a assuré la source proche du dossier, évoquant une scène d'"émeute".
LACRYMOGÈNES ET TIRS DE FLASH-BALL
Selon un habitant d'Argenteuil qui a assisté à la scène, les policiers ont utilisé des bombes lacrymogènes et des tirs de flash-ball pour disperser la foule. "Ils ont fait un usage de la force disproportionné. Dans la foule, il y avait des enfants dans des poussettes, qui ont reçu du gaz lacrymogène", a affirmé cet homme de 32 ans, qui n'a pas souhaité donner son nom.
Selon la source proche du dossier, deux hommes dont un cousin de la jeune femme ont été interpellés lors des échauffourées. Agés de 23 et 37 ans, ils ont été placés en garde à vue pour "provocation à l'attroupement", "violences sur personne dépositaire de l'ordre public", "outrage" et "rébellion". Une quarantaine de policiers ont été mobilisés pour ramener le calme après les échauffourées, a précisé cette source. "La situation n'est revenue à la normale que vers 20 h 30", a-t-elle précisé.
La loi du 11 octobre 2010 interdit de dissimuler son visage dans l'espace public. La violation de cette interdiction est punie d'une amende maximum de 150 euros. Un an après l'entrée en vigueur de cette loi, le 11 avril 2011, environ 300 femmes avaient été verbalisées.
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/06/12/affrontements-a-argenteuil-apres-le-controle-d-une-femme-en-niqab_3428901_3224.html
I have not seen the non-bobo faction of Lemonde.fr so vehement for quite a while. Usually, the bobos are quite in strength with the newspaper catering to them by calling Erdogan an islamo-conservative instead of islamist.
No bobos to complain about the use of flashballs by the police yet. In other countries even democratic (USA or even Sweden ;) ), rebellion against police officers would be answered by gunshot.
I like how a resident of Argenteuil (guess it's not one of Frankish, Gallic and/or Latin stock) is complaining about the use of non-lethal force against the angry crowd since "there were kids in strollers" (not 1500 dollars worth I hope) "who breathed tear gars." Well, that's human shield tactics for you...
NB: Argenteuil is 20 km away from Paris and a town with an impressionist past ( e.g Monet's Argenteuil painting and Monet among there lived there for a few years). Never been there myself...
Religious nuttery must be fought. Go French police!
Tamas, you really disappoint me. I guess you'll always be a Eastern European.
Not helping your case by calling them Bobos.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 04:53:34 AM
Not helping your case by calling them Bobos.
Yet, that's what they are (I take it you know what it means?) and that's their case that needs help, not mine.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:46:41 AM
Tamas, you really disappoint me. I guess you'll always be a Eastern European.
Maybe they should claim the islamotard-wife women can't wear the veils because they pose a national security risk. Then 56% of Americans would support their ban.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 05:00:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:46:41 AM
Tamas, you really disappoint me. I guess you'll always be a Eastern European.
Maybe they should claim the islamotard-wife women can't wear the veils because they pose a national security risk. Then 56% of Americans would support their ban.
That's great, but I still won't. Seriously though, Tamas. You are better then this.
Yes I am.
Human sacrifice, cannibalism, cruelty to animals, these were all religious customs we have come to ban. Objectification and effective slavery of women is ought to follow.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 06:36:09 AM
Yes I am.
Human sacrifice, cannibalism, cruelty to animals, these were all religious customs we have come to ban. Objectification and effective slavery of women is ought to follow.
Objectification of women? So what, you are against porn now?
Raz, this is the last time I am answering to any of your posts for a while, so I suggest you stop trying.
There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.
The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 06:43:29 AM
Raz, this is the last time I am answering to any of your posts for a while, so I suggest you stop trying.
We need a "Like" button for posts here like facebook has.
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 06:51:47 AM
There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.
The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.
It's not the duty of citizens to engage their government, it's the duty of government to interact with it's citizens.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 06:58:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 06:51:47 AM
There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.
The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.
It's not the duty of citizens to engage their government, it's the duty of government to interact with it's citizens.
1. I used the word "unable" not "obligated", you are being willfully obtuse as well as ignoring the content of my post.
2. What Tamas said
Raz!
Go French Police Go!
What's a bobo?
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
What's a bobo?
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
You are wrong, because in this case, they are not banning a veil so a veil can be banned. They are banning a veil which is in both practice and theory are to enact and promote the enslavement of women.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 07:57:54 AM
You are wrong, because in this case, they are not banning a veil so a veil can be banned. They are banning a veil which is in both practice and theory are to enact and promote the enslavement of women.
Well I am not in law enforcement over there but it strikes me that there might be less heavy handed ways to combat the oppression of women than this. Criminalizing them strikes me as an odd answer. Now I understand France has its laity thing and in general lots of religious symbols are banned in certain public spaces but just walking around on the street seems a bit over the top.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 07:57:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
What's a bobo?
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
You are wrong, because in this case, they are not banning a veil so a veil can be banned. They are banning a veil which is in both practice and theory are to enact and promote the enslavement of women.
Yet according the the article, it is the woman wearing the thing that gets a fine or gets sent for re-education.
Punishing someone for symbolic reasons that are ultimately asserted to be for their own good = bad idea. Worse, where the punishment is inflicted over a minority symbol of faith.
It may well be that the motives are truly benign and paternalistic, but it is easy to see that the subjects of this action are far more likely to read it as a majority's attempt to denigrate the minority. Anyone from that minority who had pride in their heritage is likely going to view this as an outrage, no matter what they happen to think about the status of women.
This is the exact reason why the state should not be in the business of using criminal sanctions to make "symbolic" points.
Keep allowing immigrants from sub standard cultures in and you will keep getting this endless headache of trying to assimilate what can't be assimilated... And it can't be assimilated because it's antithetic to everything the host society is. This isn't rocket science! <_<
G.
Here is the deal guys: what the veil symbolizes, and WHAT IT ACHIEVES, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the BASIC VALUES of France, and the EU in general.
You cannot tolerate people held as non-humans, while also promote civil liberties, ban slavery and such.
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available. And it WILL have a positive effect on the long term.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea.
Meh, it's their country. I'd oppose such a law here but I want to see how it plays out over in France.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available.
It is an incredibly unjust solution if you think they are being forced to do so, they basically get to be victimized twice. Now I can see having a dress code for girls at schools or women at certain public spaces like courthouses whatever but just walking down the street seems a bit problematic. Because then you cannot just say 'no entry unless you remove the head covering' then you basically have to pull out the sticks the state has available.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Here is the deal guys: what the veil symbolizes, and WHAT IT ACHIEVES, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the BASIC VALUES of France, and the EU in general.
You cannot tolerate people held as non-humans, while also promote civil liberties, ban slavery and such.
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available. And it WILL have a positive effect on the long term.
Perhaps it is best to ask the person wearing the thing whether it means they are a non-human or a slave.
So far, the "positive effect" appears to be to increase the alienation of the Muslim community. I suggest that the North American approach has a better track record to date in terms of "effect".
That is quite aside from the arument over basic principles - and again, I suggest that the principle of "civil liberties' is better advanced by
not infringing them, than by infringing them in the name of some theoretical "greater good".
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Here is the deal guys: what the veil symbolizes, and WHAT IT ACHIEVES, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the BASIC VALUES of France, and the EU in general.
You cannot tolerate people held as non-humans, while also promote civil liberties, ban slavery and such.
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available. And it WILL have a positive effect on the long term.
I agree with the above, except the bolded part. My concern is that rather than changing the behaviors of those involved, it's instead creating a situation where these women are now not allowed to leave their homes at all. Basically, they can't leave the house without a veil, but they can't wear a veil outside the house. Ergo, they can't leave the house.
In essence, the French have now put these women under house arrest due to their religious beliefs. I'm not sure how, in the long- or short-term, that's going to help anyone.
When someone uses a lot of all caps it makes their argument silly.
Quote from: PDH on June 13, 2013, 08:33:43 AM
When someone uses a lot of all caps it makes their argument silly.
Apparently, someone told the US Navy. :D
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/navy-all-caps/?hpt=hp_t2
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:27:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Here is the deal guys: what the veil symbolizes, and WHAT IT ACHIEVES, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the BASIC VALUES of France, and the EU in general.
You cannot tolerate people held as non-humans, while also promote civil liberties, ban slavery and such.
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available. And it WILL have a positive effect on the long term.
I agree with the above, except the bolded part. My concern is that rather than changing the behaviors of those involved, it's instead creating a situation where these women are now not allowed to leave their homes at all. Basically, they can't leave the house without a veil, but they can't wear a veil outside the house. Ergo, they can't leave the house.
In essence, the French have now put these women under house arrest due to their religious beliefs. I'm not sure how, in the long- or short-term, that's going to help anyone.
If the women cant leave their city homes it means their husband must do all the chores. No way a north african islamotard will live with that. The veils will disappear, and the women will like it. It will take years, or more likely, decades, but it will work. It only takes resolve.
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:27:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Here is the deal guys: what the veil symbolizes, and WHAT IT ACHIEVES, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the BASIC VALUES of France, and the EU in general.
You cannot tolerate people held as non-humans, while also promote civil liberties, ban slavery and such.
Yes, punishing the one wearing it is not the perfect solution, but the best realistically available. And it WILL have a positive effect on the long term.
I agree with the above, except the bolded part. My concern is that rather than changing the behaviors of those involved, it's instead creating a situation where these women are now not allowed to leave their homes at all. Basically, they can't leave the house without a veil, but they can't wear a veil outside the house. Ergo, they can't leave the house.
In essence, the French have now put these women under house arrest due to their religious beliefs. I'm not sure how, in the long- or short-term, that's going to help anyone.
If the women cant leave their city homes it means their husband must do all the chores. No way a north african islamotard will live with that. The veils will disappear, and the women will like it. It will take years, or more likely, decades, but it will work. It only takes resolve.
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Quote"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
:D
That does not apply.
In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
What's a bobo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobos_in_Paradise
bourgeois-bohemian. Caviar left. Leftist elitists.
Quote
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
Good idea. All democraties should have laws against dissimulating your face in public place.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
That does not apply.
In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
So you restrict their freedom even more.
For their own good of course.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
No shit.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
If the women cant leave their city homes it means their husband must do all the chores. No way a north african islamotard will live with that. The veils will disappear, and the women will like it. It will take years, or more likely, decades, but it will work. It only takes resolve.
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Given that women aren't usually allowed to drive in this type of community, it's not uncommon for men to run all errands, or to hire someone to do it for them.
I think you're wrong. I don't believe that this will help anyone. I applaud the sentiment, but can't see it doing anything more than bringing conservative Muslims closer together and more dogmatic in their beliefs. It's what happens in an "us vs them" situation.
Personally, I think just allowing people to do what they want while they interact with others doing what they want will bring about a faster change. Kids growing up in a community where they can see everyone's faces but their mothers' will start to question. Kids growing up under house arrest, on the other hand, won't have the opportunity to do so.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:45:55 AM
Given that women aren't usually allowed to drive in this type of community, it's not uncommon for men to run all errands, or to hire someone to do it for them.
:lol:
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
That does not apply.
In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
That's ridiculous. Of course it can be. People should have the right to decide for themselves how they want to live. That's what personal freedom is. Holding these women hostage to their beliefs isn't going to suddenly make them want more freedoms. Especially when so many of those women believe that by wearing the niqab they're freer than their counterparts since they don't have to be a slave to their looks.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
If the women cant leave their city homes it means their husband must do all the chores. No way a north african islamotard will live with that. The veils will disappear, and the women will like it. It will take years, or more likely, decades, but it will work. It only takes resolve.
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Given that women aren't usually allowed to drive in this type of community, it's not uncommon for men to run all errands, or to hire someone to do it for them.
I think you're wrong. I don't believe that this will help anyone. I applaud the sentiment, but can't see it doing anything more than bringing conservative Muslims closer together and more dogmatic in their beliefs. It's what happens in an "us vs them" situation.
Personally, I think just allowing people to do what they want while they interact with others doing what they want will bring about a faster change. Kids growing up in a community where they can see everyone's faces but their mothers' will start to question. Kids growing up under house arrest, on the other hand, won't have the opportunity to do so.
you may be right.
But again: what the veil accomplishes and symbolizes in direct opposition of the values on which French and European society is built upon. To allow it is to deny the basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:45:55 AM
Given that women aren't usually allowed to drive in this type of community, it's not uncommon for men to run all errands, or to hire someone to do it for them.
:lol:
:huh:
Running errands != chores. And most of the time, they hire teenaged boys to do it for them, anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Um I thought the idea here is they are oppressed. That seems a weird response.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:50:18 AM
But again: what the veil accomplishes and symbolizes in direct opposition of the values on which French and European society is built upon. To allow it is to deny the basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on.
I am not disagreeing with this. You do not move to France because you want to live in pious religious conservative society. I am just questioning the means, they strike me as victimizing the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:45:55 AM
Given that women aren't usually allowed to drive in this type of community, it's not uncommon for men to run all errands, or to hire someone to do it for them.
:lol:
:huh:
Running errands != chores. And most of the time, they hire teenaged boys to do it for them, anyway.
Who said anything about chores? I'm just questioning the need to drive in order to get errands done. From what I hear, public transport is used quite a lot in Europe.
Oh, and, uh... MEN DRIVE :menace:
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
What's a bobo?
Bohemian Bourgeois, living in very secluded areas and preaching from safety.
Frequently seen on Lemonde.fr a centrist newspaper sometimes centre-left, sometimes centre-right.
Quote
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 08:50:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
And luckily for them, there are countries which not only legalize those veils but makes them mandatory. So they can always relocate to a society which is not in total opposition to their values.
Um I thought the idea here is they are oppressed. That seems a weird response.
I meant the ones which are doing it on their own accord. :P
Altough the distinction between those must be blurry of course, so I take that back.
Thing is, you guys may not realize, but we already have a lot of laws which are both compatible with a liberal society AND restrict citizens on the basis of cultural principles.
Underage sex, slavery, inentured servitude, etc.
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2013, 08:44:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
What's a bobo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobos_in_Paradise
bourgeois-bohemian. Caviar left. Leftist elitists.
Quote
Law against wearing a veil = bad idea. Not that this is a good reason for rioting.
Good idea. All democraties should have laws against dissimulating your face in public place.
is a nimby bobo a bonobo?
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:50:18 AM
you may be right.
But again: what the veil accomplishes and symbolizes in direct opposition of the values on which French and European society is built upon. To allow it is to deny the basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on.
Which "basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on" are we talking about here? Was that the foundation of the oppression of women's rights that the Catholic church held for a thousand years and then some? Or the idea that women are equal so long as they're paid less than men, don't gain weight, and make a sandwich when asked like the modern ideas?
You're spouting bullshit to justify something you don't agree with. The beauty of a free society is that we don't all have to agree with one another. We simply have to be able to live with one another. And quite frankly, I think the heavy-handed laws that the French have put into place is going to do a lot more harm than good to those very values that you claim to hold so dear.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:50:18 AM
you may be right.
But again: what the veil accomplishes and symbolizes in direct opposition of the values on which French and European society is built upon. To allow it is to deny the basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on.
Which "basic values on which our rights and responsibilities are based on" are we talking about here? Was that the foundation of the oppression of women's rights that the Catholic church held for a thousand years and then some? Or the idea that women are equal so long as they're paid less than men, don't gain weight, and make a sandwich when asked like the modern ideas?
You're spouting bullshit to justify something you don't agree with. The beauty of a free society is that we don't all have to agree with one another. We simply have to be able to live with one another. And quite frankly, I think the heavy-handed laws that the French have put into place is going to do a lot more harm than good to those very values that you claim to hold so dear.
:huh:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
I must be out of date on this, then. I was under the impression that France outlawed the veil, as well. Or is that only in schools/courts/etc.?
There is a muslim couple who have a kid in my kids' pre-school. They usually show up to pick her up about the time I pick up my kids. Woman is covered from head to toe-- you can't see her face. I feel bad for her, especially when her lazy, comfortably-dressed husband just sits in the nice air-conditioned car on a hot day and makes her get out in the sun, wearing all black, to get their daughter. And apparently you never fully get used to wearing those things-- I've seen her bump into corners and fumble with trying to open doors.
I've said hi to her but I'm afraid I'd violate some arcane religious law by engaging in any sort of conversation.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:56:30 AM
:huh:
You're trying to argue that the subjectification of women goes against the very foundation of French and European beliefs. I cry bullshit. It is the very foundation of those beliefs. Things have changed, thankfully, but the santimonious "we love our womenz!" is crap, and this law is just an excuse to show dislike for a culture that you don't approve of.
That said, I readily admit that I am unable to be objective in this.
Maybe because I only occasionally venture into western Europe and I haven't gotten used to this, but every time I saw a jerk arab guy in shorts and T shirt and his women covered completely in heavy black clothing... That needs to stop.
And saying its the personal choice of the woman is BS. She cannot decide not to wear it, unless she is ready to flee and break all contacts with her family.
We are happy to offer legal protection against domestic violence, rightly so, but decide to leave these women alone?
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 09:00:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:56:30 AM
:huh:
You're trying to argue that the subjectification of women goes against the very foundation of French and European beliefs. I cry bullshit. It is the very foundation of those beliefs. Things have changed, thankfully, but the santimonious "we love our womenz!" is crap, and this law is just an excuse to show dislike for a culture that you don't approve of.
And I think you are missing the point. You are mixing in minor (BUT STILL VALID!) issues of modern western women. Yes they are minor compared to the stone age shit done to these women married to islamotards.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
That does not apply.
In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
Yes it can.
Many are oppressed by their culture in various ways - generally, the more conservative the culture, the greater the degree of oppression, particularly for women. This isn't something limited to Muslims, nor are they unique. This oppression, unfortunately, tends to come from within - that is, the person oppressed internalises the oppression. It may well be enforced by others, but such enforcement can be dealt with - internalized oppression cannot. Or should not.
Civil society recognizes - or should recognize - that there are limits to what can and should be done to free people from themselves, to prevent us from living "... under omnipotent moral busybodies ..." who wish to free us from our self-victimization by imposing their rules upon us. Arrest some guy forcing his wife, sister or daughter to wear a veil = good. Arrest the woman for wearing a veil = bad.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 09:00:55 AM
That said, I readily admit that I am unable to be objective in this.
Maybe because I only occasionally venture into western Europe and I haven't gotten used to this, but every time I saw a jerk arab guy in shorts and T shirt and his women covered completely in heavy black clothing... That needs to stop.
And saying its the personal choice of the woman is BS. She cannot decide not to wear it, unless she is ready to flee and break all contacts with her family.
We are happy to offer legal protection against domestic violence, rightly so, but decide to leave these women alone?
We don't force women in abusive relationships to leave their spouses, either. It sucks, but there it is.
Ok fine, consider me partly convinced. :P
Still, I am interested to see how the French experiment plays out, so I hope they continue.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
I must be out of date on this, then. I was under the impression that France outlawed the veil, as well. Or is that only in schools/courts/etc.?
That's another, earlier law from 2004 following trouble starting in the '80s.
Only for minors and teachers if at state schools. Not universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools)
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 09:03:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 09:00:55 AM
That said, I readily admit that I am unable to be objective in this.
Maybe because I only occasionally venture into western Europe and I haven't gotten used to this, but every time I saw a jerk arab guy in shorts and T shirt and his women covered completely in heavy black clothing... That needs to stop.
And saying its the personal choice of the woman is BS. She cannot decide not to wear it, unless she is ready to flee and break all contacts with her family.
We are happy to offer legal protection against domestic violence, rightly so, but decide to leave these women alone?
We don't force women in abusive relationships to leave their spouses, either. It sucks, but there it is.
We do take children being abused by their parents away from their parents. We also arrest husbands that beat their wives.
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 09:02:08 AM
And I think you are missing the point. You are mixing in minor (BUT STILL VALID!) issues of modern western women. Yes they are minor compared to the stone age shit done to these women married to islamotards.
I'm not missing the point at all. You're arguing that women wearing a niqab flies in the face of the very foundation of European freedom. I say that the foundation of freedom was built on religiously imposed women's subjugation. That in many cases, that same subjugation continues (see: Morman, conservative Christians, conservative Catholics, etc.). There are no laws, to my knowledge, that require that women wear pants (something forbidden in some religions), that women not wear hair caps, etc.
I believe that this is very much a case of "THINK OF THE WOMENZ!!!111" as an excuse to outlaw that which the majority don't understand and/or agree with. It's a bullying tactic to force assimiliation.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
I'm just going by the article you posted, which claimed that the law "... bans covering one's face in public".
Do the police generally ask people for IDs when they are walking down the street? That's never happened to me. Also, in Canada, for four months of the year my face
is covered when I'm walking down the street in public - with a scarf or balaclava; only my eyes are showing. That tends to happen when it's -25 degrees out. Yet Canadian civil society chugs along regardless.
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 09:08:55 AM
We do take children being abused by their parents away from their parents. We also arrest husbands that beat their wives.
I'm not sure how those are equitable. I'm not arguing that we don't do that. In fact, I strongly advocate it.
But what does either of those things have to do with a person choosing to live a life of subjugation?
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 09:10:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 09:08:55 AM
We do take children being abused by their parents away from their parents. We also arrest husbands that beat their wives.
I'm not sure how those are equitable. I'm not arguing that we don't do that. In fact, I strongly advocate it.
But what does either of those things have to do with a person choosing to live a life of subjugation?
The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.
I'm actually against banning of any kind of clothing. It is a symptom and a distraction from the root cause of the abuse. The root cause is the religion and the tradition in which it is practiced.
I think it is reasonable for the police to insist to see the face for identification based on a photo id. I don't think it is reasonable to ban facial coverings.
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 09:15:55 AM
The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.
I think you are missing the distinction she appears to be making.
Protecting a victim from acts of abuse by an abuser, by punishing or threatening punishment
to the abuser = good.
Protecting a victim from him or herself adopting a lifestyle choice that society judges is associated with or symbolic of abuse, by punishing
that victim = bad.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 09:09:21 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
I'm just going by the article you posted, which claimed that the law "... bans covering one's face in public".
Do the police generally ask people for IDs when they are walking down the street? That's never happened to me. Also, in Canada, for four months of the year my face is covered when I'm walking down the street in public - with a scarf or balaclava; only my eyes are showing. That tends to happen when it's -25 degrees out. Yet Canadian civil society chugs along regardless.
The article also said first the niqab is banned.
Guess what, covering, as in hiding, your face prevents identification...
Also, France does not have these winters, nor does Canada have a significant number of muslims, specially the salafist-like, the troublemaking ones.
Police does ask people for IDs and not only from poor muslims oppressed by French secularists. I've been asked it and showed it without my family rioting, despite other members, men having to show it if asked.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 09:21:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 09:09:21 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?
I'm just going by the article you posted, which claimed that the law "... bans covering one's face in public".
Do the police generally ask people for IDs when they are walking down the street? That's never happened to me. Also, in Canada, for four months of the year my face is covered when I'm walking down the street in public - with a scarf or balaclava; only my eyes are showing. That tends to happen when it's -25 degrees out. Yet Canadian civil society chugs along regardless.
The article also said first the niqab is banned.
Guess what, covering, as in hiding, your face prevents identification...
Also, France does not have these winters, nor does Canada have a significant number of muslims, specially the salafist-like, the troublemaking ones.
Police does ask people for IDs and not only from poor muslims oppressed by French secularists. I've been asked it and showed it without my family rioting, despite other members, men having to show it if asked.
I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.
The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.
As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?
Who cares? It's a woman. They aren't equals anyways.
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 09:15:55 AM
The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.
Actually, we prosecute crimes, we don't protect victims. Physical and sexual abuse is illegal, and therefore the person doing the act is arrested. We do not, however, remove a child or a spouse from an emotionally abusive home, as that's not a crime.
QuoteI'm actually against banning of any kind of clothing. It is a symptom and a distraction from the root cause of the abuse. The root cause is the religion and the tradition in which it is practiced.
I think it is reasonable for the police to insist to see the face for identification based on a photo id. I don't think it is reasonable to ban facial coverings.
Agreed on both counts. :hug:
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 09:28:13 AM
I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.
"reasonable frequency" is pretty vague and should be better defined but that certainly far below Argenteuil levels
As for banned outfits, in the name of multiculturalism here are some examples:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc8%2FMuslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg%2F170px-Muslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg&hash=75c1745fb9939145d58819002ce35fab34a41d8c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3e%2F20070102_per_erik_strandberg_balaclava_1.jpg%2F170px-20070102_per_erik_strandberg_balaclava_1.jpg&hash=01db828a0470eef5539d08b7e1eb4647052e9e8b)
Quote
The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.
Your society has not significant number nor proportion of face-hiding muslims who do not function properly in civil society (or even muslims) so the comparison is not apt. Immigration laws (family regrouping) are also different. And so forth.
Quote
As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?
I could agree that asking random people for ID is intrusive, however the police is legally entitled to use them as preventive but not mass-style as in generalised. This is left to police judgement and is very controversial.
Thing is, the law was created to give legal ground for cops to demand to see faces.
PS: no worries ninja outfits are still legal during carnival. It's enshrined in the law. :)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 09:56:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 09:28:13 AM
I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.
"reasonable frequency" is pretty vague and should be better defined but that certainly far below Argenteuil levels
As for banned outfits, in the name of multiculturalism here are some examples:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc8%2FMuslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg%2F170px-Muslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg&hash=75c1745fb9939145d58819002ce35fab34a41d8c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3e%2F20070102_per_erik_strandberg_balaclava_1.jpg%2F170px-20070102_per_erik_strandberg_balaclava_1.jpg&hash=01db828a0470eef5539d08b7e1eb4647052e9e8b)
Quote
The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.
Your society has not significant number nor proportion of face-hiding muslims who do not function properly in civil society (or even muslims) so the comparison is not apt. Immigration laws (family regrouping) are also different. And so forth.
Quote
As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?
I could agree that asking random people for ID is intrusive, however the police is legally entitled to use them as preventive but not mass-style as in generalised. This is left to police judgement and is very controversial.
Thing is, the law was created to give legal ground for cops to demand to see faces.
PS: no worries ninja outfits are still legal during carnival. It's enshrined in the law. :)
To be specific, 1 in 20 people in my city are Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Religion
I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.
There will always be this when you get lots of immigrants coming from the same place. Add to that the French general suspicion of religion and you get a fairly volatile cocktail.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 09:15:55 AM
The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.
I think you are missing the distinction she appears to be making.
Protecting a victim from acts of abuse by an abuser, by punishing or threatening punishment to the abuser = good.
Protecting a victim from him or herself adopting a lifestyle choice that society judges is associated with or symbolic of abuse, by punishing that victim = bad.
I don't think the victim's perception of abuse is an absolute standard here. We have a long documented history of women choosing to stay in abusive relationships
http://www.examiner.com/article/domestic-violence-why-do-women-stay-abusive-relationships
They do not do this freely, but believe, and in this case belief in god is a big factor, that there are other factors either commanding her to suffer the abuse or to think that the abuse is justified because she is a bad and or worthless person.
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 06:51:47 AM
There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.
The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.
Even if your argument's right - and I don't think it is - isn't this a bit like saying 'smoking is a problem, so we should ban ashtrays'?
QuoteWhat's a bobo?
Bourgeois bohemian.
QuoteIn the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
Personal freedom can only be guaranteed through vigorous state intervention into people's clothing?
QuoteI would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.
Yep. If it's because this makes the job of police asking for people's papers, then I think the real problem is that the police are asking far too many people for their papers and most of their targets seem to be Muslim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 11:26:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2013, 06:51:47 AM
There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.
The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.
Even if your argument's right - and I don't think it is - isn't this a bit like saying 'smoking is a problem, so we should ban ashtrays'?
I did point out that I'm not for a ban on niqab or any other religious dress for private citizens. I'm open to government employees being instructed not to wear cultural or religious symbols if they are divisive, subversive and/or detrimental of the image of authority the government is trying to present.
Using your smoking analogy. I'm saying it's pointless banning ashtrays when the problem is smoking. I haven't gone so far as to demand that smoking be banned cause I drink and I don't want beer banned, or bacon for that matter.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
To be specific, 1 in 20 people in my city are Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Religion
For a metropolitan, cosmopolite area which is supposed to have most foreigners that's relatively low, as I suspected so the average for Canada as a whole has to be lower.
There are 5-6 millions muslims in France out of 65 and they are not spread regularly i.e only in big city areas, specially the suburbs. Sources are pretty vague, even in the French Wiki
QuoteAs of 2010, according to the French Government which does not have the right to ask direct questions about religion and uses a criterion of people's geographic origin as a basis for calculation, there are between 5 to 6 million Muslims in metropolitan France. The government counted all those people in France who came here from countries with a dominant Muslim population, or whose parents did. Only 33% of those 5 to 6 million people (2 million) said they were practicing believers. That figure is the same as that obtained by the INED/INSEE study in October 2010.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)
No precise figures about Argenteuil but I'd say 20 to 30 % of the residents and locally in some neighborhoods the
quartiers even more.
Quote
I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.
It's not about being able to randomly ID people obviously since as I said the police can ask
preemptively for ID if they feel something is fishy to protect the population.
Unease with Muslim immigration? Certainly, but ID checking works wonders for illegal immigration (ask the Gypsies).
And as said jokingly by Tamas
Quote from: Tamas
Maybe they should claim the islamotard-wife women can't wear the veils because they pose a national security risk. Then 56% of Americans would support their ban.
There's indeed the security risk but more from delinquency than terrorism. The ghetto gangs pestering the suburbs and public transportation like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops.
Spotting suburban "youths" with hidden faces is a dead giveaway that trouble is going to happen but that might have escaped the bobos.
Last thing, I take it that those opposed to ban any kind of clothing won't have any objections against walking around naked, at least for religious reasons? Or is that forbidden in North America as well?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 12:37:46 PM
Last thing, I take it that those opposed to ban any kind of clothing won't have any objections against walking around naked, at least for religious reasons? Or is that forbidden in North America as well?
I think in the UK and some bits of the US it's only actually illegal if there's intent to shock or arouse, in which case it's public indecency. That seems fair enough to me.
I always get the impression they're far more liberal about that sort of thing in Germany :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 12:43:10 PM
I always get the impression they're far more liberal about that sort of thing in Germany :lol:
No argument from me on that part, Frei Körper Kultur über alles, yet it tends to be in some places not everywhere. Even the DDR was pretty cool about that (there are some FKK Merkel photos of the era for the interested).
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
To be specific, 1 in 20 people in my city are Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Religion
For a metropolitan, cosmopolite area which is supposed to have most foreigners that's relatively low, as I suspected so the average for Canada as a whole has to be lower.
There are 5-6 millions muslims in France out of 65 and they are not spread regularly i.e only in big city areas, specially the suburbs. Sources are pretty vague, even in the French Wiki
QuoteAs of 2010, according to the French Government which does not have the right to ask direct questions about religion and uses a criterion of people's geographic origin as a basis for calculation, there are between 5 to 6 million Muslims in metropolitan France. The government counted all those people in France who came here from countries with a dominant Muslim population, or whose parents did. Only 33% of those 5 to 6 million people (2 million) said they were practicing believers. That figure is the same as that obtained by the INED/INSEE study in October 2010.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)
No precise figures about Argenteuil but I'd say 20 to 30 % of the residents and locally in some neighborhoods the quartiers even more.
Quote
I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.
It's not about being able to randomly ID people obviously since as I said the police can ask preemptively for ID if they feel something is fishy to protect the population.
Unease with Muslim immigration? Certainly, but ID checking works wonders for illegal immigration (ask the Gypsies).
And as said jokingly by Tamas
Quote from: Tamas
Maybe they should claim the islamotard-wife women can't wear the veils because they pose a national security risk. Then 56% of Americans would support their ban.
There's indeed the security risk but more from delinquency than terrorism. The ghetto gangs pestering the suburbs and public transportation like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops.
Spotting suburban "youths" with hidden faces is a dead giveaway that trouble is going to happen but that might have escaped the bobos.
Last thing, I take it that those opposed to ban any kind of clothing won't have any objections against walking around naked, at least for religious reasons? Or is that forbidden in North America as well?
Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg
Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg
Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. ;)
"Some areas" is again very vague and we know there aren't many muslims, specially salafites in Canada in comparison to France or even Europe.
A nice Potemkin muslim village :)
As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?
I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.
We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.
It helps that many of the Muslims who come here are well off and well educated. For example, the Persians who come here tend to be over-representedly upper middle class.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 12:58:46 PM
As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?
What sort of trouble do you mean?
QuoteI should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.
We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.
Exactly.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 12:58:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg
Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. ;)
"Some areas" is again very vague and we know there aren't many muslims, specially salafites in Canada in comparison to France or even Europe.
A nice Potemkin muslim village :)
As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?
In point of fact, anyone driving around Toronto's suburbs will see very visible signs of the influx of Muslims - namely, lots of mosques being built.
In general, Torontonians and people in the GTA tend to cluster in ethnic communities. Little Italy, Chinatown, "Asian-court" (really, Agincourt ;) ), etc. Muslims forming Muslim enclaves is nothing unusual here - it's a very typical pattern.
Why are some immigrants a problem and others not? I suggest that those who are a problem are those who, for whatever reason, feel totally alienated from the host society. Poverty is one thing that can do that. Another is of course serious cultural differences, to the extent that these become an issue.
Stuff like having the majority pass laws specifically targeting the everyday habits of the minority tend to not help, in terms of alienation.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 12:59:58 PM
I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.
We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.
It helps that many of the Muslims who come here are well off and well educated. For example, the Persians who come here tend to be over-representedly upper middle class.
People don't care about mosques in France if there's no public money involved and they respect zoning and architectural regulations.
Anglo Canadians dont'care as long as they don't speak French with a Québec accent? :D
You should also be pointed out that Islam is the second religion in France, nothing comparable like Canada. As I said, immigration laws are not comparable. Until you know the situation in European suburban areas, keep your preaching for yourself and/or start being tolerant to Quebeckers. Your choice ;)
As for Iranians, no shit Sherlock! They are shia at most and cannot be salafites so no niqab for them. Most of them in Europe are exiles from the Iranian Revolution times and are pretty vehement against islamism of all varieties, specially salafism, for good reason. They are not going to defend freedom for niqabites.
It's worth saying the niqab doesn't actually mean instant Salafism, any more than a big beard and a salwaar kameez do. It would be far easier to tackle extremism if that were the case :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:02:59 PM
What sort of trouble do you mean?
Rioting when being asked for ID for instance.
QuoteI should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.
We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.
Exactly.
[/quote]
There are tippers everywhere, even in extreme-right circles (the most famous skinhead in France is of Lebanese origin for instance).... Good folks as well, I'm sure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:11:35 PM
It's worth saying the niqab doesn't actually mean instant Salafism, any more than a big beard and a salwaar kameez do. It would be far easier to tackle extremism if that were the case :lol:
The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once. :)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once. :)
Not always Salafi.
I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.
Anyway I don't really worry about what sort of Islam people believe in, it's only if there's belief in violence that I think it should be a worry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once. :)
Not always Salafi.
I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.
Anyway I don't really worry about what sort of Islam people believe in, it's only if there's belief in violence that I think it should be a worry.
Funny enough, the ones hating "Moderate Islam" are the extreme-right wingers around here. :D
If that bothers you, well make it belief in violent islam. :)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:09:52 PM
People don't care about mosques in France if there's no public money involved and they respect zoning and architectural regulations.
Anglo Canadians dont'care as long as they don't speak French with a Québec accent? :D
You should also be pointed out that Islam is the second religion in France, nothing comparable like Canada. As I said, immigration laws are not comparable. Until you know the situation in European suburban areas, keep your preaching for yourself and/or start being tolerant to Quebeckers. Your choice ;)
As for Iranians, no shit Sherlock! They are shia at most and cannot be salafites so no niqab for them. Most of them in Europe are exiles from the Iranian Revolution times and are pretty vehement against islamism of all varieties, specially salafism, for good reason. They are not going to defend freedom for niqabites.
The issues between Anglo-Canadians and Quebequois have nothing to do with this debate. They don't need my "toleration", because they have their own province, where they are in the political majority.
But really now, your argument isn't persuasive - I'm saying, as an outsider, that your law is counter-productive because it is likely to increase immigrant alientation. It is hardly an answer to say 'well, your country has problems too, so please STF up' or 'you just don't know what it's like here'. Those are the arguments of bankruptcy, what's left when you can't persuade with facts or logic.
There is not doubt Canada has problems, and does some things worse than France. This just happens to be something Canada does better. If a Frenchman told me Toronto was a cultural wasteland compared to a comparable French city, that's fair enough; we don't do culture as well as the French. What we do better, is accomodate and absorb Muslim immigrants.
Anyway, if you want to point to a comparable problem, don't point to Quebec - point to Native Canadians. ;)
So by the numbers provided, France has a population of about 10-12% Muslim, and only about 3% devout or conservative Muslims. That doesn't really seem so extreme to me.
I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
Probably surprising no one, I tend to agree with the socially liberal axis of Meri, Malthus, Sheilbh et. al. on this.
I do agree that the niqab and other veil type garments can be symbols of gender oppression. But at the same time they are also symbols of modesty, of cultural identity, of a struggle for social acceptance, of defiance of a heavy handed state, of piety, and of several other things. Insisting there is only one reading of a symbol, especially if you don't belong to the culture that employs the symbol, is bound to cause conflict.
There are a number of issues surrounding the wearing of the niqab in France, and a number of reasons and arguments given from the ban.
The argument is made that it's to protect the women from abusive relationships and being subjugated. My question is, how much effort is being put into identifying and helping specific women who are being actively abused? Are there attempts to find, reach out to, and help these women, without simultaneously requiring them to reject their own culture and identity? If there aren't, and if you aren't concerned with providing these things, then claims to want to counter the abuse and oppression ring somewhat hollow.
Similarly regarding security concerns - if you are primarily concerned about security but wanted to be respectful of cultural differences, you could look for compromises instead of a blanket ban. Maybe you just ban the niqab in places that requires very high security; maybe you check niqab wearing women's identity using women officers, and in private unless there are pressing reasons not to; maybe you train the people doing the checks to do them with some respect. Again, if you're looking for ways to address specific security concerns while doing your best to accomodate the wishes of the minority group in question you come across as a lot more sincere than if you simply announce a blanket ban and back it up with the direct coercive power of the state.
It really seems the underlying motivation is "we don't like who you are, and we're looking for ways to harass you."
Ultimately, of course, different cultural groups have to figure out how to coexist; and minority groups have to work out to accomodate the majority, and vice versa. Some degree of assimilation is going to happen one way or the other.
Personally I believe that the more tolerant, liberal approach of maximizing personal and community freedom with a core of individual rights that cannot be violated produces the most harmonious results and - ultimately - is more effective in assimilation; it seems to me that the more you go with "follow our rules, or else" the more conflict you generate, and the more you entrench the cultural values you want to get rid of as a reaction to that heavy hand.
History has countless of examples of cultural and religious groups that have withstood attempts (many which are beyond the will of a country like modern France to implement) to force them to change their ways, but those groups have emerged with stronger identities and more commitment to their practices.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
Mostly because it is not true.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
It does sound a bit odd to an American. But the French & other European nations are entitled to protect their culture & national identity. Of course, it may not have been wise for them to import large numbers of muslims who don't want to assimilate, but it's a bit late to do much about that.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:22:17 PM
Funny enough, the ones hating "Moderate Islam" are the extreme-right wingers around here. :D
If that bothers you, well make it belief in violent islam. :)
My issue is that I think we don't talk about Islam in the right way.
First of all we use political rather than religious language about it. When we talk about the CofE or Catholics we use broad divisions of 'modernists' or 'reformists vs 'traditionalist'. Occasionally we'll talk about 'conservatives', 'liberals', 'evangelicals' or 'Anglo-Catholics'. But I can't think of a single time when discussing a bishop, or internal politics when I've heard someone described as a 'moderate Catholic'. Similarly I don't think liberal or reform Jews are routinely described as 'moderate Jews'. It's a problem that all our discourse about Islam is based in political terms (as opposed to Islamism, a moderate Islamist or hard-line Islamist makes perfect sense).
Secondly I think you're right. All too often it seems that people actually cede lots of ground to the most conservative interpretations of Islam. We do a weird 'no true Muslim' thing, that narrows what we consider that faith to include to, basically, Iran and Saudi which is unfortunate. I have Muslim friends who drink, I'm not going to doubt their self-identified faith or exclude them from my idea of Islam on the basis of one teaching. But then as a gay condom-using Catholic who am I to judge another's adherence to the faith. But for some reason we've generally decided that actually the strictest interpretation of Islam is the interpretation, which rather yields the argument and lets down many Muslims.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
Got to love a streak of Jacobinism :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 01:35:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
It does sound a bit odd to an American. But the French & other European nations are entitled to protect their culture & national identity. Of course, it may not have been wise for them to import large numbers of muslims who don't want to assimilate, but it's a bit late to do much about that.
The Muslims in France are, presumably, just as much Frenchmen as the Frenchmen who are not Muslims - assuming they are French citizens. Islam is now part of the "cultural identity" of France, because there are now French Muslims.
I tricked a muslim into eating a barbecue pulled pork sandwich a few weeks ago :menace:
The trick was just that I had her thinking it was gonna be spicy barbecue sauce and it wasn't :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:22:35 PM
The issues between Anglo-Canadians and Quebequois have nothing to do with this debate. They don't need my "toleration", because they have their own province, where they are in the political majority.
I'm glad for them to have a majority because otherwise they could be still waiting for your toleration. :D
Quote
But really now, your argument isn't persuasive - I'm saying, as an outsider, that your law is counter-productive because it is likely to increase immigrant alientation. It is hardly an answer to say 'well, your country has problems too, so please STF up' or 'you just don't know what it's like here'. Those are the arguments of bankruptcy, what's left when you can't persuade with facts or logic.
Fact is, you don't know the French situation as I do.
Besides as an outsider, you can only rely on indirect sources. You didn't know about the relative numbers of muslims, how the "sacro-sanct freedom of clothing" is abused by gangs, not necessarily muslim btw if that makes you feel better. Are you really suggesting that delinquents do no like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops? Try entering a bank with a motorbike helmet and see what happens.
You don't even have an idea of what is to be an immigrant or a son of an immigrant...
Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
Quote
There is not doubt Canada has problems, and does some things worse than France. This just happens to be something Canada does better. If a Frenchman told me Toronto was a cultural wasteland compared to a comparable French city, that's fair enough; we don't do culture as well as the French. What we do better, is accomodate and absorb Muslim immigrants.
Anyway, if you want to point to a comparable problem, don't point to Quebec - point to Native Canadians. ;)
Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing ;)
I also said the immigration laws are not the same, I never implied it as a criticism, far from it, so calm down, I never wanted to hurt your Canadian pride.
You select them before allowing them inside? Good, but that's right-wing talk around these parts.
I'll take your word for Toronto being a cultural wasteland :)
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Native Canadians ? Are they like the native French in Argenteuil?
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
The Muslims in France are, presumably, just as much Frenchmen as the Frenchmen who are not Muslims - assuming they are French citizens. Islam is now part of the "cultural identity" of France, because there are now French Muslims.
Lawyers :rolleyes:
Some French citizens are culturally more French than others, and you know that.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
The Muslims in France are, presumably, just as much Frenchmen as the Frenchmen who are not Muslims - assuming they are French citizens. Islam is now part of the "cultural identity" of France, because there are now French Muslims.
Well...the fact only a small percentage actually practice their supposed religion indicates this is very true :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:41:41 PM
As an outsider, so you have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't know about the relative numbers of muslims, how the "sacro-sanct freedom of clothing" is abused by gangs, not necessarily muslim btw if that makes you fell better. Are you really suggesting that delinquents do no like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops? Try entering a bank with a motorbike helmet and see what happens.
But none of that's unique to France. I'm sure some North Americans could talk about gang colours.
As with the ID checks how much of a problem is Muslim women in the niqab against CCTV? :blink:
Quote from: sbr on June 13, 2013, 08:44:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
That does not apply.
In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.
So you restrict their freedom even more.
For their own good of course.
Restricting choices can increase freedoms. Anyone even remotely familiar with game theory knows that.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:41:41 PM
I'm glad for them to have a majority because otherwise they could be still waiting for your toleration. :D
Quote
But really now, your argument isn't persuasive - I'm saying, as an outsider, that your law is counter-productive because it is likely to increase immigrant alientation. It is hardly an answer to say 'well, your country has problems too, so please STF up' or 'you just don't know what it's like here'. Those are the arguments of bankruptcy, what's left when you can't persuade with facts or logic.
Fact is, you don't know the French situation as I do.
As an outsider, so you have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't know about the relative numbers of muslims, how the "sacro-sanct freedom of clothing" is abused by gangs, not necessarily muslim btw if that makes you fell better. Are you really suggesting that delinquents do no like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops? Try entering a bank with a motorbike helmet and see what happens.
You don't even have an idea of what is to be an immigrant or a son of an immigrant.
You have some decided views on what I do and do not know.
You are completely wrong about me not knowing about what it is like being the child of an immigrant - my wife is the child of an immigrant.
Your appeal-to-personal-authority argument fails to persuade. This law is pretty clearly *not* about gangs of veil-wearing hoodlums.
QuoteIncreasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
Hardcore Salafist Muslims - like Jacques Chirac? :)
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/jacques-chirac-on-french-muslims-alienation-in-a-speech-at-elysee-palace
This is what I've been saying, only he says it better:
QuoteAll the children of France, whatever their background, whatever their origin, whatever their belief, are daughters and sons of the republic.
QuoteStop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing ;)
Again, you are wrong. I have no "problems" with the Quebequois - though I do enjoy debating with several of them on Languish.
QuoteI also said the immigration laws are not the same, I never implied it as a criticism, far from it, so calm down, I never wanted to hurt your Canadian pride.
You select them before allowing them inside? Good, but that's right-wing talk around these parts.
I'll take your word for Toronto being a cultural wasteland :)
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
So I can't have a viewpoint until then? Okay.
QuoteNative Canadians ? Are they like the native French in Argenteuil?
There are similar problems with poverty and alienation.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
The Muslims in France are, presumably, just as much Frenchmen as the Frenchmen who are not Muslims - assuming they are French citizens. Islam is now part of the "cultural identity" of France, because there are now French Muslims.
Lawyers :rolleyes:
Some French citizens are culturally more French than others, and you know that.
That's the whole issue. I'm saying there is no legitimate basis to insist that citizens should have their legal rights determined by how "culturally French" they are.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:54:49 PM
That's the whole issue. I'm saying there is no legitimate basis to insist that citizens should have their legal rights determined by how "culturally French" they are.
Right the reason is because it is supposed to be oppressive to women. Even if we accept that as completely true, for the sake of arguement, it is still wrong because it punishes the people it is created to protect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.
It's a useful distinction in a religion that kills and clubs people for looking or acting the wrong way.
Besides, in Islam there is no distinction between politics and religion. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 02:03:50 PMIt's a useful distinction in a religion that kills and clubs people for looking or acting the wrong way.
No it's not. 'Moderate' isn't a positive value in a religious context. As I say you're in effect yielding the argument and saying there's something somehow insufficient in the beliefs of Muslims who don't blow themselves up.
QuoteBesides, in Islam there is no distinction between politics and religion. :nerd:
Bollocks :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 02:10:03 PM
No it's not. 'Moderate' isn't a positive value in a religious context. As I say you're in effect yielding the argument and saying there's something somehow insufficient in the beliefs of Muslims who don't blow themselves up.
The antonym of moderate is not sufficient. It's immoderate, or extremist.
Describes Muslims perfectly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 02:10:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 02:03:50 PMIt's a useful distinction in a religion that kills and clubs people for looking or acting the wrong way.
No it's not. 'Moderate' isn't a positive value in a religious context. As I say you're in effect yielding the argument and saying there's something somehow insufficient in the beliefs of Muslims who don't blow themselves up.
QuoteBesides, in Islam there is no distinction between politics and religion. :nerd:
Bollocks :P
As in, "an extreme Jain wears no clothes and will not even squish a mosquito; a moderate Jain can't achieve that level of austerity". The implication is that the "moderate" is lacking in dedication, and if they were really dedicated, they would be an extremist.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 02:19:44 PM
As in, "an extreme Jain wears no clothes and will not even squish a mosquito; a moderate Jain can't achieve that level of austerity". The implication is that the "moderate" is lacking in dedication, and if they were really dedicated, they would be an extremist.
Well Judaism has 'Right Belief' Judiasm and 'Ultra Right Belief' Judaism. Which seems to hint that all others are less right in their beliefs.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 02:22:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 02:19:44 PM
As in, "an extreme Jain wears no clothes and will not even squish a mosquito; a moderate Jain can't achieve that level of austerity". The implication is that the "moderate" is lacking in dedication, and if they were really dedicated, they would be an extremist.
Well Judaism has 'Right Belief' Judiasm and 'Ultra Right Belief' Judaism. Which seems to hint that all others are less right in their beliefs.
Orthodox Jews definitely think this is true! ;)
Note that the opposite sects are known as "Reform" and "Reconstruction", which also tends to suggest what adherents to these groups think of that claim. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 02:13:36 PM
The antonym of moderate is not sufficient. It's immoderate, or extremist.
What bit of a 'moderate Muslims' Islam is being moderated? Which bit are they reining in?
It's an insulting thing to describe someone's faith as moderate. You can be fully Muslim and actually go out drinking, or be down with gay marriage. That doesn't make someone's faith anymore moderate.
We do Christianity, and Judaism, the courtesy of respecting divisions based on theology and liturgical views. We don't do it for Muslims, we impose a political framework on their beliefs that, perversely, makes the extremists sound like they're somehow more Muslim.
QuoteAs in, "an extreme Jain wears no clothes and will not even squish a mosquito; a moderate Jain can't achieve that level of austerity". The implication is that the "moderate" is lacking in dedication, and if they were really dedicated, they would be an extremist.
Exactly. I've been thinking about it with the Church because of some of the Pope's recent comments on a 'Pelagian' current versus a 'Gnostic' current within the Church and the eternal traditionalist v modernist row.
I didn't like it during the conclave when journalists talked about liberal and conservative candidates. I'd flip my lid if they called Francis a 'moderate Catholic' :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 02:31:14 PM
What bit of a 'moderate Muslims' Islam is being moderated? Which bit are they reining in?
Punishment of sin.
I'm fairly devout but I don't think I'd be bothered if someone called me a moderate Christian. "Moderate" usually carries positive connotations.
Sheilbh, Christianity could have been made to a degree apolitical because its holy text never intended to regulate all aspects of everyday life. Islam has done that, and therefore it cannot ever be distinguished from politics.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 02:43:03 PM"Moderate" usually carries positive connotations.
Well as I say I think it does in political terms. It's perjorative when you're describing someone's professed faith.
QuotePunishment of sin.
So Christians who don't believe in hell are 'moderate Christians' too?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 03:12:35 PM
So Christians who don't believe in hell are 'moderate Christians' too?
This is Razz like in it's non-sequiturishness.
Jesus didn't tell his followers to beat up sinners. Mohammed did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 02:03:50 PMBesides, in Islam there is no distinction between politics and religion. :nerd:
Is there a distinction between politics and religion in Christianity?
Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2013, 02:52:45 PM
Sheilbh, Christianity could have been made to a degree apolitical because its holy text never intended to regulate all aspects of everyday life.
That is a point of view.
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Is there a distinction between politics and religion in Christianity?
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's."
"My kingdom is not of this earth."
Of course there is.
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Is there a distinction between politics and religion in Christianity?
Yes.
QuoteRender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's
The secular state and religion are separate. Which really was one of the foundations of Christendom...until the Lutherans anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:20:58 PM"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's."
"My kingdom is not of this earth."
Of course there is.
Seems like there's a significant block in US politics who do not make that distinction, though.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 03:21:16 PMThe secular state and religion are separate. Which really was one of the foundations of Christendom...until the Lutherans anyway.
... yeah, the evangelical right doesn't seem that big on separation of state and religion.
EDIT: And it's a bit of a stretch to claim any significant separation of politics and religion in pre-Lutheran Europe as well.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 03:21:16 PM
The secular state and religion are separate. Which really was one of the foundations of Christendom...until the Lutherans Constantine anyway.
Quote from: Maximus on June 13, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 03:21:16 PM
The secular state and religion are separate. Which really was one of the foundations of Christendom...until the Lutherans Constantine anyway.
Constantine was never made head of the Church, in fact he was very clear he was not a priest or an authority.
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 03:21:16 PMThe secular state and religion are separate. Which really was one of the foundations of Christendom...until the Lutherans anyway.
... yeah, the evangelical right doesn't seem that big on separation of state and religion.
EDIT: And it's a bit of a stretch to claim any significant separation of politics and religion in pre-Lutheran Europe as well.
The distinction was between secular rulers and church. A 'separation of politics and religion' does not exist anywhere today in some pure form. But that strikes me as moving the goal posts to an impossible standard.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 03:35:33 PM
A 'separation of politics and religion' does not exist anywhere today in some pure form.
I agree. Only possible with a population 100% atheist or in an atheist dictatorship.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:41:41 PM
You don't even have an idea of what is to be an immigrant or a son of an immigrant...
Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Okay, so as an American I get to have an opinion on this, right? Since, you know, this has been an ongoing issue in the States for.. 100 years? Wait... probably longer. And as the wife of an immigrant, a sister-in-law to two immigrants, and the foster child of a first-generation American, I think I hit all of the marks.
And guess what? Your country is doing it wrong for the stated goal.
Good job guys. I'm glad someone was able to make Tamas listen. :)
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
Okay, so as an American I get to have an opinion on this, right? Since, you know, this has been an ongoing issue in the States for.. 100 years? Wait... probably longer. And as the wife of an immigrant, a sister-in-law to two immigrants, and the foster child of a first-generation American, I think I hit all of the marks.
And guess what? Your country is doing it wrong for the stated goal.
You don't hit the one mark he set, which was to wait until you have as many troublesome immigrants as France does.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:52:47 PM
You are completely wrong about me not knowing about what it is like being the child of an immigrant - my wife is the child of an immigrant.
lol
Let me guess: you also know what it's like to be a woman?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:54:39 PM
You don't hit the one mark he set, which was to wait until you have as many troublesome immigrants as France does.
:huh:
Republicans are telling me that the Mexicans are the worst sort of immigrant. How much more "troublesome" can it get?
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
:huh:
Republicans are telling me that the Mexicans are the worst sort of immigrant. How much more "troublesome" can it get?
Are they in fact the worst sort of immigrant?
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:54:39 PM
You don't hit the one mark he set, which was to wait until you have as many troublesome immigrants as France does.
:huh:
Republicans are telling me that the Mexicans are the worst sort of immigrant. How much more "troublesome" can it get?
LOL they sure the heck are not saying that here. George W Bush even spoke in funny accented Spanish. And the Mexicans are practically the definition of easy immigrants.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:41:41 PM
Besides as an outsider, you can only rely on indirect sources. You didn't know about the relative numbers of muslims, how the "sacro-sanct freedom of clothing" is abused by gangs, not necessarily muslim btw if that makes you feel better. Are you really suggesting that delinquents do no like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops? Try entering a bank with a motorbike helmet and see what happens.
The US is getting a hard time in the other thread for collecting phone metadata. I can't imagine what the reaction would be if the FBI proposed to regulate what people would wear on their heads b/c it would interfere with their ability to compile CCTV surveillance footage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.
It's a useful distinction in a religion that kills and clubs people for looking or acting the wrong way.
Besides, in Islam there is no distinction between politics and religion. :nerd:
This second sentence is precisely what the activists said about Catholics in the US for over 100 years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:59:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
:huh:
Republicans are telling me that the Mexicans are the worst sort of immigrant. How much more "troublesome" can it get?
Are they in fact the worst sort of immigrant?
;)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
This second sentence is precisely what the activists said about Catholics in the US for over 100 years.
That would require a rather fantastic ignorance of Catholic history :hmm:
I cannot speak for Islam in this matter I admit. I know they did have things like Caliphs who were sort of Caesar-Popes but pretty sure today the House of Saud do not consider themselves religious leaders...but what do I know? Iran, on the other hand, but at least that is a modern innovation.
Of course the UK is technically a theocracy :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
This second sentence is precisely what the activists said about Catholics in the US for over 100 years.
That would require a rather fantastic ignorance of Catholic history :hmm:
I cannot speak for Islam in this matter I admit. I know they did have things like Caliphs who were sort of Caesar-Popes but pretty sure today the House of Saud do not consider themselves religious leaders...but what do I know?
It was because of the Pope. It was believed that as a Catholic, their allegience would be first to the Pope and his law, and then to his/her country. So, if a Catholic were made President, he/she would be beholden to the Pope first, and the American people second.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 11:26:47 AM
Personal freedom can only be guaranteed through vigorous state intervention into people's clothing?
We had to destroy the freedom in order to save it. :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
This second sentence is precisely what the activists said about Catholics in the US for over 100 years.
That would require a rather fantastic ignorance of Catholic history :hmm:
I cannot speak for Islam in this matter I admit. I know they did have things like Caliphs who were sort of Caesar-Popes but pretty sure today the House of Saud do not consider themselves religious leaders...but what do I know?
I meant to say Nativists instead of activists., but I think you got what I was saying. The idea was that Catholic voters and Catholic politicians would be following the will of the Pope and thus were totally incompatible with Democracy. JFK had to address this issue when he ran for President.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 04:11:12 PM
I meant to say Nativists instead of activists., but I think you got what I was saying. The idea was that Catholic voters and Catholic politicians would be following the will of the Pope and thus were totally incompatible with Democracy. JFK had to address this issue when he ran for President.
Yes though I am not sure that is the same thing as saying there is no distinction between religion and politics. But why exactly should we discuss such a ridiculous idea? I mean the Italians had just held the Pope hostage for sixty years before JFK ran.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:54:39 PM
You don't hit the one mark he set, which was to wait until you have as many troublesome immigrants as France does.
:huh:
Republicans are telling me that the Mexicans are the worst sort of immigrant. How much more "troublesome" can it get?
The Mexicans I know make awesome immigrants. But then again they're educated, assimilate easily, and aren't breaking the law.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:14:26 PMYes though I am not sure that is the same thing as saying there is no distinction between religion and politics. But why exactly should we discuss such a ridiculous idea? I mean the Italians had just held the Pope hostage for sixty years before JFK ran.
A claim was made that there is no distinction between religion and politics in Islam, and this is used to argue for a number of political actions aimed at Muslims.
A similar argument was made at Catholics in the past, to similarly target them socially and politically.
Comparing the similarities and differences could theoretically illuminate our understanding of the subject at hand.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
The Mexicans I know make awesome immigrants. But then again they're educated, assimilate easily, and aren't breaking the law.
Then why are we trying to push them out? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 04:30:44 PM
A claim was made that there is no distinction between religion and politics in Islam, and this is used to argue for a number of political actions aimed at Muslims.
A similar argument was made at Catholics in the past, to similarly target them socially and politically.
Comparing the similarities and differences could theoretically illuminate our understanding of the subject at hand.
I am not even sure if that is exactly a similar argument. For them to be similar we would have to assume both accusations had identical motives and accuracy. I am not sure if it is accurate in Islam and I do not know if it is being spread around to target them socially or politically. I mean I presume Yi is not intending to do that.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
The Mexicans I know make awesome immigrants. But then again they're educated, assimilate easily, and aren't breaking the law.
Then why are we trying to push them out? :huh:
We are doing a remarkably bad job. But generally the answer is: insanity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 03:15:58 PM
This is Razz like in it's non-sequiturishness.
Jesus didn't tell his followers to beat up sinners. Mohammed did.
But this is my point. The reason they don't believe in recreating 6th century Arabia isn't because they're moderate, or because they're reining in their beliefs. It's because they don't have a fundamentalist, sola scriptura approach to the Koran - that's a theological difference. Or because they come from a culture that has a traditional variant of Islam lacking in those punishments - a cultural/liturgical difference.
It isn't because they're reining in their beliefs any more than a Unitarian is against a Holy Roller.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
The Mexicans I know make awesome immigrants. But then again they're educated, assimilate easily, and aren't breaking the law.
Then why are we trying to push them out? :huh:
Good question, but poorly aimed. Why
are you trying to push out legal Mexican immigrants? Seems foolish to me.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
The Mexicans I know make awesome immigrants. But then again they're educated, assimilate easily, and aren't breaking the law.
Then why are we trying to push them out? :huh:
We're not.
Quote from: The Brain on June 13, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:52:47 PM
You are completely wrong about me not knowing about what it is like being the child of an immigrant - my wife is the child of an immigrant.
lol
Let me guess: you also know what it's like to be a woman?
At least I cohabit with the human variety. Unlike some. :P
I think that results in understanding them even less.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:52:47 PM
You have some decided views on what I do and do not know.
You are completely wrong about me not knowing about what it is like being the child of an immigrant - my wife is the child of an immigrant.
Your appeal-to-personal-authority argument fails to persuade. This law is pretty clearly *not* about gangs of veil-wearing hoodlums.
I know for a fact that you don't know French :) Much harder to know France with the bad English level of the natives ;)
The law is also about that. They are pretty well known for hiding their faces, not with veils but the law is not only about veils, it deals with security risks.
Of course knowing that would require reading the law or maybe a translation in, say wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering)
Quote
The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2]
The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication.
As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other headwear that do not cover the face, are not affected by this law and can be worn.[4] The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law (such as motor-bike riders and safety workers) and during established occasional events (such as some carnivals). The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law.[5][6] The bill also penalises, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.[1][5][7]
QuoteArticle 1
Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage.
Article 2
I. ― Pour l'application de l'article 1er, l'espace public est constitué des voies publiques ainsi que des lieux ouverts au public ou affectés à un service public.
II. ― L'interdiction prévue à l'article 1er ne s'applique pas si la tenue est prescrite ou autorisée par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires, si elle est justifiée par des raisons de santé ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de pratiques sportives, de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles.
Article 3
La méconnaissance de l'interdiction édictée à l'article 1er est punie de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la deuxième classe.
L'obligation d'accomplir le stage de citoyenneté mentionné au 8° de l'article 131-16 du code pénal peut être prononcée en même temps ou à la place de la peine d'amende.
As for the wife argument, The Brain answered before I could ;)
Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
Quote
Hardcore Salafist Muslims - like Jacques Chirac? :)
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/jacques-chirac-on-french-muslims-alienation-in-a-speech-at-elysee-palace
This is what I've been saying, only he says it better:
QuoteAll the children of France, whatever their background, whatever their origin, whatever their belief, are daughters and sons of the republic.
A 2003 speech way before the laws were voted. His government voted the first law restricting on conspicious religious symbols merely one year after. Nice try. By the way, try to dig out his speech "Le bruit et l'odeur" ask the Québécois for what it means. Hint: it's about loud and smelly immigrants.
He also said that democracy could be possible with single-party rule (abroad not in France). A whole movie was made about his ludicrous statements. Dans la peau de Jacques Chirac
Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing ;)
Quote
Again, you are wrong. I have no "problems" with the Quebequois - though I do enjoy debating with several of them on Languish.
That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these
Têtes de Turc of yours... ;)
QuoteI also said the immigration laws are not the same, I never implied it as a criticism, far from it, so calm down, I never wanted to hurt your Canadian pride.
You select them before allowing them inside? Good, but that's right-wing talk around these parts.
I'll take your word for Toronto being a cultural wasteland :)
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Quote
So I can't have a viewpoint until then? Okay.
You can have one, just not an informed one.
Native Canadians ? Are they like the native French in Argenteuil?
Quote
There are similar problems with poverty and alienation.
Funny that you compare immigrants with natives. ;) Or did you mean French natives could get alienated as well?
Maybe the niqab thing is really about the Muslamic Ray Guns? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AIPD8qHhtVU#t=0s
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 04:30:44 PM
A claim was made that there is no distinction between religion and politics in Islam, and this is used to argue for a number of political actions aimed at Muslims.
A similar argument was made at Catholics in the past, to similarly target them socially and politically.
Comparing the similarities and differences could theoretically illuminate our understanding of the subject at hand.
I am not even sure if that is exactly a similar argument. For them to be similar we would have to assume both accusations had identical motives and accuracy. I am not sure if it is accurate in Islam and I do not know if it is being spread around to target them socially or politically. I mean I presume Yi is not intending to do that.
I think Yi was incorrect in saying that Muslims can't separate religion and politics. The people who made such accusations about Catholics and the ones that currently make such accusations of probably had and have a multitude of motives, and I imagine there is a lot of overlap.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once. :)
Not always Salafi.
I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.
Anyway I don't really worry about what sort of Islam people believe in, it's only if there's belief in violence that I think it should be a worry.
There's a great political French quote about modéré:
« Républicain modéré mais non modérément républicain » Difference is clear in French.
So I actually am the child of an immigrant.
Not sure what else to say because I can't figure out from the thread what the significance of that status is.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 01:11:35 PM
It's worth saying the niqab doesn't actually mean instant Salafism, any more than a big beard and a salwaar kameez do. It would be far easier to tackle extremism if that were the case :lol:
Though the majority of muslim women I've spoken with about this issue, have said they adopted the various face cover as a symbolic or overtly political statement; the vast majority of these women were young British Asians.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 05:36:58 PM
So I actually am the child of an immigrant.
Not sure what else to say because I can't figure out from the thread what the significance of that status is.
You can become* President, they can't. :smarty:
* does the constitution prohibit a non-native** born from running for the post or just bans them from taking up office if they win ?
** In the accepted sense of the term ie John McCain and Obama were legitimate candidates.
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 04:31:58 PM
Then why are we trying to push them out? :huh:
The argument against amnesty is that it would incentivize future illegal immigration. And reward law-breaking.
Perhaps incidentally, the UK has legislation making it illegal, in effect to 'cover one's face' in certain public circumstances and there have been prosecutions.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 05:18:00 PM
I think Yi was incorrect in saying that Muslims can't separate religion and politics. The people who made such accusations about Catholics and the ones that currently make such accusations of probably had and have a multitude of motives, and I imagine there is a lot of overlap.
Ok then can we talk about that then? I am sure something bad has been said about many religions in the past but discussing all of them might be time consuming. Yi had a :nerd: suggesting it was a scholarly thing of some sort not Yi drawing from bigots.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 06:13:26 PMOk then can we talk about that then? I am sure something bad has been said about many religions in the past but discussing all of them might be time consuming. Yi had a :nerd: suggesting it was a scholarly thing of some sort not Yi drawing from bigots.
Well, if all religions fail to distinguish religion and politics, that puts Yi's comment specifically about Islam in a different light, no?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 06:13:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 05:18:00 PM
I think Yi was incorrect in saying that Muslims can't separate religion and politics. The people who made such accusations about Catholics and the ones that currently make such accusations of probably had and have a multitude of motives, and I imagine there is a lot of overlap.
Ok then can we talk about that then? I am sure something bad has been said about many religions in the past but discussing all of them might be time consuming. Yi had a :nerd: suggesting it was a scholarly thing of some sort not Yi drawing from bigots.
I don't know what Yi was drawing from particularly, and I wasn't aware that Yi was a scholar on the topic of Islam.
It's not an original thought. Bernard Lewis perhaps?
No clue what bigotry has anything to do with anything.
I agree with Matlhus et al. Banning head coverings is both intrusive and counterproductive.
Since the issue seems to be a problem with large numbers of immigrants who aren't easily assimilated, it seems there are better ways of addressing *that* problem, rather than a coercive and inflammatory measure that isn't likely to succeed in its ostensible goal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 07:55:19 PM
No clue what bigotry has anything to do with anything.
It's the motivation for laws like the French law under discussion.
"Muslim women and girls are particularly affected, facing an extreme form of double discrimination on the basis of both their religion and their gender. In France for instance, 85% of all Islamophobic acts target women."
http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/pdfpress/13-03-20%20shadow%20report%202011-12%20final.pdf
http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/publications/shadow%20report%202011-12/shadowReport_EN_LR%20%283%29.pdf
I guess it's for their own good.
I sympathize with both outlooks.
It seems very justifiable for a French citizen to bristle at being lectured on the virtues of North American multiculturalism, when the social/economic/political history (and current reality) of immigration from Muslim countries is radically different.
On the other hand, this law (and its rationalizations in terms of facilitating the legalized police state) also strike me as a significantly oppressive, as well as counterproductive, burden to place on people comprising a free society.
Something escaped the freedom-loving people here with their beloved multiculturalism: the woman actually complied to the ID check but a passerby deemed it illegitimate and started rioting. That was in the French article and even google translate would have given an idea. That or asking me.
That bodes very bad for the freedom of choice of that woman.
QuoteAlors que les policiers procédaient au contrôle d'identité de cette femme, dans une rue semi-piétonne du centre-ville d'Argenteuil, un attroupement s'est formé et a dégénéré en affrontement, mardi vers 19 heures. "La jeune femme avait dans un premier temps accepté le contrôle. Mais un passant s'en est mêlé, pour dire que le contrôle était à ses yeux illégitime. Il a commencé à s'en prendre aux policiers", a indiqué une source proche du dossier.
As for alienating and counterproductive, being opposed by local muslims(the ones that count) that's not clearcut as you think
QuoteResponse
Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential in France, testified to parliament during the bill's preparation. He commented that the niqāb was not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalisation and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state; but that due to expected difficulties in applying a legal ban, he would prefer to see the issue handled "case by case".[18] Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, opposed using a law but favored discouraging Muslim women from wearing the full veil.[2]
Abroad, in July 2010, hundreds of Muslims protested against the bill in Karachi, Pakistan. The chief of the Pakistan-based Jamaat-e-Islami Party demanded that the UN take immediate action against France.[19] Nasharudin Mat Isa, leader of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, said that the ban had made Muslims around the world angry but stated that he hoped that it would not provoke any terrorist incidents.[20]
Abdel Muti al-Bayyumi, a member of the council of clerics at Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, Egypt, applauded the ban and stated that the niqāb has no basis in Sharia. He also said, "I want to send a message to Muslims in France and Europe. The niqab has no basis in Islam. I used to feel dismayed when I saw some of the sisters (in France) wearing the niqab. This does not give a good impression of Islam."[15] Yusuf al Qaradawi, another prominent Egyptian Islamic scholar, stated that in his view "the niqab is not obligatory" while criticizing France for violating the freedom of those Muslim women who hold the view that it is and criticizing France in that "they allow other women to freely dress in a revealing and provocative manner".[21]
Hassen Chalghoumi, a notable imam of the mosque in Drancy near Paris who had earlier received death threats and seen his religious service interrupted by Islamists because he supported dialog with the French Jewish community, later expressed support for the ban. He stated that the full facial covering "has no place in France, a country where women have been voting since 1945" and that "the burqa is a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination".[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering)
NB: Hassen Chalgoumi is famous for being called the Imam of the Jews by more radical muslims. He has been threatened for a while.
Raz
Your links are anecdotal and come from organisations little known and/or with very little representativity based on a vague concept as islamophobia (not liking and/or afraid of Islam) specially when defined by some of these organisations. Not liking islam does not mean rioting against muslims.
QuoteAbout ENAR
France
Association des Juristes Arabo-Musulmans d'Europe (AJAME)
Association pour Favoriser l'intégration - AFIP
Collectif audois d'éducation contre les discriminations et le racisme
Collectif contre l'Islamophobie en France (CCIF)
Convention laïque pour l'égalité (CLENPDC)
Coordination contre le Racisme et l'Islamophobie
Foul Express
Homosexuel-les Musulman-es de France
Les Anneaux de la Fraternité - Le Bateau Pédagogique
Soulajah for Arts
http://www.enar-eu.org/Page.asp?docid=30541&langue=EN (http://www.enar-eu.org/Page.asp?docid=30541&langue=EN)
Homosexuel-les Musulman-es de France sounds interesting (complete with PC spelling!) but I really doubt that most muslims see them as representative, much less the pro-niqab.
As for CCIF, now that's brilliant!
QuoteReprésentativité
Composition du collectif
Selon le journaliste Jean-Marie Guénois du Figaro, il est très difficile de connaitre la composition du CCIF. Son président, Samy Debah, serait injoignable et son porte-parole, Marwan Muhammad, soutient que la liste des membres du collectif est « confidentielle »2.
Absence d'accréditation auprès de l'ONU
Le CCIF revendique d'être accrédité au Conseil économique et social ECOSOC de l'Organisation des Nations unies8. Cette information est reprise par de nombreux sites musulmans 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14. L'information est infirmée par le site de cette branche de l'ONU qui ne reconnaît pas le CCIF15,16.
Idéologie
Selon Jean-Marie Guénois du Figaro un « expert reconnu » considère que le CCIF incarne un « islam identitaire agressif »... « Conduit par une jeune génération de musulmans nés en France, il s'est affranchi des grandes fédérations instituées et travaille en réseau avec une stratégie médiatique moderne, peu soucieux des questions du culte, mais en pointe pour une présence musulmane dans la société civile»2.
Le sociologue Gilles Kepel, spécialiste de l'islam en France, dans son livre Quatre-vingt-treize, nie l'existence d'une islamophobie en France. Il considère que « le CCIF ainsi que le site francophobe et anti-blanc des Indigènes de la République et le site islamiste Forsane Alizza – Les Cavaliers de la Fierté – sont les jumeaux chimériques des portails anti-islamiques Riposte laïque, Observatoire de l'islamisation, le« Bloc identitaire ou fdesouche. Ces sites réduisent l'autre exécré à des traits caricaturaux »17
Marwan Muhammad, porte parole du CCIF considère que l'islamophobie est différente selon les préférences politiques : « À droite, l'islamophobie est alimentée par un discours sur l'identité ou la sécurité ; à gauche, par la défense de l'égalité hommes-femmes et la laïcité »18.
Executive summary
Very little is known about the members, it claims some recognition from the UN it has not, experts say it's an agressive lobby at best, an organisation comparable to extreme right wing organisations at worst.
As for people letting people choosing their clothes themselves colour without state interference that would be nice but colour me sceptical. Walking around naked is also regulated if not banned. At best, say Germany, you have FKK areas, you just can't go around naked even in downtown Frankfurt even if you're a neo-Adamite. Or is the US the new promised for Adamites? Does not seem so with puritanical streak...
Lastly, those who sincerely worry for muslims should take into account that removing a security risk not necessarily linked to muslims in fact, and that sanctions for imposing the full veil have been increased, which protects other, law-obiding, muslims.
QuoteArticle 225-4-10
Créé par LOI n°2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 - art. 4
Le fait pour toute personne d'imposer à une ou plusieurs autres personnes de dissimuler leur visage par menace, violence, contrainte, abus d'autorité ou abus de pouvoir, en raison de leur sexe, est puni d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 30 000 € d'amende.
Lorsque le fait est commis au préjudice d'un mineur, les peines sont portées à deux ans d'emprisonnement et à 60 000 € d'amende.
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=EAC70F6752F442BAD1D21C9D0FCFBB86.tpdjo04v_1?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022913250&dateTexte=20130614&categorieLien=id#LEGIARTI000022913250 (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=EAC70F6752F442BAD1D21C9D0FCFBB86.tpdjo04v_1?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022913250&dateTexte=20130614&categorieLien=id#LEGIARTI000022913250)
A laissez-faire approach would be doing a great disservice to other muslims and would actually worsen the situation for them IMO. Secularism is a French thing, and not doing anything would be counterproductive and alienating French natives, or does multikulti work only one way? ;)
Does the French government keep statistics on hate crimes against Muslims?
You can't expect partisans of the debilitating multiculturalism to understand any of this. And the Canadian variety is particularly insidious in that regard as it's been absorded as a core value of their national identity...
This said I am doubtful of the practical effects of the measure since the Muslim presence in France is very significant (anywhere between 5-6 to 9-10 millions). If this can't be applied in areas where the concentration of Muslims is high - and where the police dare not operate for fear of riots - then it becomes rather moot yes?
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 07:23:19 PM
I don't know what Yi was drawing from particularly, and I wasn't aware that Yi was a scholar on the topic of Islam.
:frusty: You know what? Nevermind.
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 07:15:51 PM
Well, if all religions fail to distinguish religion and politics, that puts Yi's comment specifically about Islam in a different light, no?
Um rejecting your absurd requirements that go way beyond any standard I have ever heard of before in my life does not prove the absurd hypothesis that all religions fail to distinguish between politics and religion. I bet they have similarities and differences in how they view the relationship between politics and religion.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 07:46:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2013, 07:23:19 PM
I don't know what Yi was drawing from particularly, and I wasn't aware that Yi was a scholar on the topic of Islam.
:frusty: You know what? Nevermind.
I guess that's for the best, cause I really didn't no what you were on about.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 08:09:24 AM
I guess that's for the best, cause I really didn't no what you were on about.
Yeah that conversation was going nowhere.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2013, 01:52:47 PM
You have some decided views on what I do and do not know.
You are completely wrong about me not knowing about what it is like being the child of an immigrant - my wife is the child of an immigrant.
Your appeal-to-personal-authority argument fails to persuade. This law is pretty clearly *not* about gangs of veil-wearing hoodlums.
I know for a fact that you don't know French :) Much harder to know France with the bad English level of the natives ;)
The law is also about that. They are pretty well known for hiding their faces, not with veils but the law is not only about veils, it deals with security risks.
Of course knowing that would require reading the law or maybe a translation in, say wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering)
Quote
The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2]
The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication.
As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other headwear that do not cover the face, are not affected by this law and can be worn.[4] The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law (such as motor-bike riders and safety workers) and during established occasional events (such as some carnivals). The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law.[5][6] The bill also penalises, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.[1][5][7]
QuoteArticle 1
Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage.
Article 2
I. ― Pour l'application de l'article 1er, l'espace public est constitué des voies publiques ainsi que des lieux ouverts au public ou affectés à un service public.
II. ― L'interdiction prévue à l'article 1er ne s'applique pas si la tenue est prescrite ou autorisée par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires, si elle est justifiée par des raisons de santé ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de pratiques sportives, de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles.
Article 3
La méconnaissance de l'interdiction édictée à l'article 1er est punie de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la deuxième classe.
L'obligation d'accomplir le stage de citoyenneté mentionné au 8° de l'article 131-16 du code pénal peut être prononcée en même temps ou à la place de la peine d'amende.
As for the wife argument, The Brain answered before I could ;)
Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
Quote
Hardcore Salafist Muslims - like Jacques Chirac? :)
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/jacques-chirac-on-french-muslims-alienation-in-a-speech-at-elysee-palace
This is what I've been saying, only he says it better:
QuoteAll the children of France, whatever their background, whatever their origin, whatever their belief, are daughters and sons of the republic.
A 2003 speech way before the laws were voted. His government voted the first law restricting on conspicious religious symbols merely one year after. Nice try. By the way, try to dig out his speech "Le bruit et l'odeur" ask the Québécois for what it means. Hint: it's about loud and smelly immigrants.
He also said that democracy could be possible with single-party rule (abroad not in France). A whole movie was made about his ludicrous statements. Dans la peau de Jacques Chirac
Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing ;)
Quote
Again, you are wrong. I have no "problems" with the Quebequois - though I do enjoy debating with several of them on Languish.
That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours... ;)
QuoteI also said the immigration laws are not the same, I never implied it as a criticism, far from it, so calm down, I never wanted to hurt your Canadian pride.
You select them before allowing them inside? Good, but that's right-wing talk around these parts.
I'll take your word for Toronto being a cultural wasteland :)
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Quote
So I can't have a viewpoint until then? Okay.
You can have one, just not an informed one.
Native Canadians ? Are they like the native French in Argenteuil?
Quote
There are similar problems with poverty and alienation.
Funny that you compare immigrants with natives. ;) Or did you mean French natives could get alienated as well?
Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.
There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:20:18 AM
Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.
There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 14, 2013, 01:27:39 AM
I sympathize with both outlooks.
It seems very justifiable for a French citizen to bristle at being lectured on the virtues of North American multiculturalism, when the social/economic/political history (and current reality) of immigration from Muslim countries is radically different.
On the other hand, this law (and its rationalizations in terms of facilitating the legalized police state) also strike me as a significantly oppressive, as well as counterproductive, burden to place on people comprising a free society.
I take Europeans bristling about being lectured by North Americans about multiculturalism exactly as seriously as I take Americans bristing about being lectured by Europeans about gun laws and medicare, or Canadians bristling about being lectured about environmentalism by Europeans. ;)
Some things are just done better in other places, for whatever reasons. The US has problems with creating a workable system of health care, and would do well to look at how Europeans do things; the Europeans have problems with immigration and incorporating Muslims in their societies, and would do well to look at how Americans do things.
Getting butthurt and making personal remarks, as the OP seems wont to do, isn't any sort of answer. It could well be the case that, because of unique circumstiances, one society could never adopt any proven, good ideas on one topic or another from a different society, but I'm inclined to doubt it - more like parochial pride gets in the way.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:20:18 AM
Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.
There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...
Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly
none.
The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man". Read the link to find out what that means.
Malthus is the man!
Your hippy parents must not be happy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 08:48:46 AM
Malthus is the man!
Your hippy parents must not be happy.
My parents were not hippies. They were, in fact, totally clueless about hippy-dom. :D
True story: when my mom was working as a potter in 1970, a guy asked her to make five hundred "beads" of a very particular shape. She did - and was later horrified to discover he was selling them as these:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=tokestones&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5R-7UZT2PImgqgGesIHACA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=878
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on June 13, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2013, 01:41:41 PM
You don't even have an idea of what is to be an immigrant or a son of an immigrant...
Increasing immigrant alienation? Only, the hardcore muslim ones if salafist is too specific.
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Okay, so as an American I get to have an opinion on this, right? Since, you know, this has been an ongoing issue in the States for.. 100 years? Wait... probably longer. And as the wife of an immigrant, a sister-in-law to two immigrants, and the foster child of a first-generation American, I think I hit all of the marks.
And guess what? Your country is doing it wrong for the stated goal.
My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.
As for
QuoteSo by the numbers provided, France has a population of about 10-12% Muslim, and only about 3% devout or conservative Muslims. That doesn't really seem so extreme to me.
I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.
That's not something that I will ever understand.
I also trongly disagree with your unwarranted sweeping generalization since the jacobinist streak implied by you and mentioned by Sheilb is a bit passé nowadays. This is isn't 1793 or even the Third Republic anymore.
Sarkozy enshrined the minority languages in the constitution and he promulgated as the face covering ban as well.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:20:18 AM
Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.
There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...
Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.
The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man". Read the link to find out what that means.
First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed if you prefer cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned but then admitted it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 08:53:38 AM
I also trongly disagree with your unwarranted sweeping generalization since the jacobinist streak implied by you and mentioned by Sheilb is a bit passé nowadays. This is isn't 1793 or even the Third Republic anymore.
Sarkozy enshrined the minority languages in the constitution and he promulgated as the face covering ban as well.
Yeah that was a pretty disappointing post by Meri.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 08:20:18 AM
Thanks for making your argument all about me, rather than the topic. Which I think is adequate evidence that you have no other arguments.
There is a term for that sort of argument, neither in English nor French but Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
All about you? Now, you're having delusions of grandeur. Ask Raz...
Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.
The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man". Read the link to find out what that means.
First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.
I'm not saying it's insulting. I am saying it is an ad hom argument. Or did you forget these little tidbits:
QuoteStop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing
And when I said you were wrong about that:
QuoteThat's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...
That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.
Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.
Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:
QuoteI'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Then yiou say to Meri:
QuoteMy country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.
Which is it? Are you claiming that
you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?
Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 09:02:53 AM
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
I don't put any value on multiculturalism. What I do put value on is individual freedom, and I don't care for the idea of a state that has the power to tell people what clothing can or can't wear.
Now, there are situations in which it's reasonable to exercise state power to regulate what people are wearing. For example, IMO it's perfectly acceptable to require people on construction sites to wear hard hats, or to ban people from wearing T-shirts with racist slogans to public schools. But those situations should be the exception; the default should be that people can wear what they want. The French law has it backwards; it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 09:15:29 AM
Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.
The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man". Read the link to find out what that means.
Thing is, saying that I don't know the situation in France would be ludicrous.
By ad hom, do you mean it's all fallacy or like your link says it's
QuoteDoug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
?
First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.
Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing
Quote
And when I said you were wrong about that:
That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...
Quote
That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.
Classic case of double standards for a multiculturalist.
Quote
Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.
Mere facts number and proportions do matter. You have to rely on English sources that may be not as complete hence misleading cf. the English link which did not mention the woman first accepted to have her ID checked as I do when I am asked randomly and/or if a cop believes I might represent a security risk.
Quote
Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Quote
Then yiou say to Meri:
]My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.
Which is it? Are you claiming that you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?
Are you claiming that there are no Portuguese immigrants/expats in France? I don't think so but feel free to contradict me.
Quote
Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?
I have been discussing with others even when disagreeing with others. Ideally, there would be no such a law, we can all agree on that.
I might also imagine that Canadian laws could work (better) for Canada.
However, given what I see in France and elsewhere in Europe (Belgium has a similar law IIRC) I can see the merits of such a law given the situation, a situation you have never experienced first hand.
More on that later when I get back home.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2013, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 09:02:53 AM
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
I don't put any value on multiculturalism. What I do put value on is individual freedom, and I don't care for the idea of a state that has the power to tell people what clothing can or can't wear.
Now, there are situations in which it's reasonable to exercise state power to regulate what people are wearing. For example, IMO it's perfectly acceptable to require people on construction sites to wear hard hats, or to ban people from wearing T-shirts with racist slogans to public schools. But those situations should be the exception; the default should be that people can wear what they want. The French law has it backwards; it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.
Well put.
While I do happen to put value on multiculturalism, this case isn't about that. It is about the reasonable limits on the state's use of criminal powers.
There simply hasn't been a reasonable explaination given as to why the state needs to do this - the one provided, that an overall ban on face-coverings is needed to allow the cops to ID people, quite frankly reeks of bullshit. Everyone, it would appear, has accepted that the real target is not gangs of face-covered hoodlums, but Muslims who wear face-covering veils - why would hoodlums need "citizenship re-education"?
It's of a piece with the previous laws concerning the wearing of "ostentatious religious symbols" which was really aimed, as almost everyone agrees, at Muslims.
Whenever a law is enacted because of X, but the ostensible reason for it is Y - that is not a good sign. It is equally a not a good sign where a law which is ostensibly neutral, is in fact aimed squarely at one group, and would have a differential impact on them. It's a bad move, and no amount of special pleading of the 'you just don't have the background to understand the situation in France' type disguises this fact.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2013, 10:08:45 AM
The French law has it backwards; it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.
I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.
They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 14, 2013, 10:17:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 09:15:29 AM
Count how many things you have said about me, personally. Compare to how many personal things I have said about you - that is, exactly none.
The sum of your argument is that I'm not fit to make any. It's a classic argument "about the man". Read the link to find out what that means.
Thing is, saying that I don't know the situation in France would be ludicrous.
By ad hom, do you mean it's all fallacy or like your link says it's
QuoteDoug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
?
First-hand experience is invaluable, you definitively lack it, I'm sorry (sort of given what we're talking about). How is it insulting or ad hominem?
You can make any argument you want, just don't expect people having real life experience to give it much value beyond a classic example of well-meaning but flawed multiculturalism.
You're not the only badly informed cf. Meri who believed any kind of veil was banned.
Stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing
Quote
And when I said you were wrong about that:
That's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...
Quote
That's a classic ad-hom. Don't see how you can reasonably deny it.
Classic case of double standards for a multiculturalist.
Quote
Combine that with the notion that because I don't speak Frencjh, and because my country doesn't have the same number or type of immigrants, I can't have an "enlightened" opinion, it is pretty clear what you are saying.
Mere facts number and proportions do matter. You have to rely on English sources that may be not as complete hence misleading cf. the English link which did not mention the woman first accepted to have her ID checked as I do when I am asked randomly and/or if a cop believes I might represent a security risk.
Quote
Indeed, I have no idea why else you brought that up. First you say to me:
I'll repeat this for the last time: wait until you have the same numbers and proportions of troublesome immigrants then you can have an enlightened viewpoint.
Quote
Then yiou say to Meri:
]My country? Portugal has no significant muslim presence, much less niqabites for lack of a better word.
Which is it? Are you claiming that you can't have an "enlightened viewpoint"?
Are you claiming that there are no Portuguese immigrants/expats in France? I don't think so but feel free to contradict me.
Quote
Or perhaps we can just drop this silly sort of argument, and get back to debating the actual merits of the law?
I have been discussing with others even when disagreeing with others. Ideally, there would be no such a law, we can all agree on that.
I might also imagine that Canadian laws could work (better) for Canada.
However, given what I see in France and elsewhere in Europe (Belgium has a similar law IIRC) I can see the merits of such a law given the situation, a situation you have never experienced first hand.
More on that later when I get back home.
An ad-hom is generally considered an extremely weak sort of argument, and is usually a fallacy.
See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
QuoteAn Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
See the hierachy of argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg
Note that "attacks the characteristiscs or authority of the writer" is just one step above "you are an ass hat" as an argument.
Special pleading is another sort of fallacy, similar to the first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Quoteassertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
Example: I know you think that quantum mechanics does not always make sense. There are things about quantum mechanics that you don't have the education to understand.
Are you begnning, perhaps, to see certain ... resemblences to these common fallacies and weak arguments, to how you are arguing your case against me? :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:25:28 AM
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2013, 10:08:45 AM
The French law has it backwards; it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.
I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.
They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.
I understand this; I don't approve of it.
On a certain level, of course, it's none of our business, but we're still allowed to express our opinion.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2013, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:25:28 AM
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2013, 10:08:45 AM
The French law has it backwards; it regulates what people can wear as the default, and then allows exceptions.
I know it's going to be hard for Americans to accept or really any Anglo-Saxons country but that is how the French work.
They have no such thing has innoncent until proven guilty.
I understand this; I don't approve of it.
On a certain level, of course, it's none of our business, but we're still allowed to express our opinion.
Yes. And there's Duque & Malthus wall of text. :zzz:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
Yes. And there's Duque & Malthus wall of text. :zzz:
Make some points, and I'll give you a wall of text all for yourself. :D
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 07:50:04 AM
Um rejecting your absurd requirements that go way beyond any standard I have ever heard of before in my life does not prove the absurd hypothesis that all religions fail to distinguish between politics and religion. I bet they have similarities and differences in how they view the relationship between politics and religion.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My whole line of inquiry here is a response to Yi's (and possibly Bernard Lewis') statement that "Islam does not distinguish between religion and politics."
Presumably for this statement to have meaning, it must be in reference to other religions. Given the context of the thread - the discussion of a secular state with Christian roots (France) outlawing the public wearing of the niqab - the most relevant comparison is Christianity.
Now, if Yi and Bernard Lewis mean that "Neither Islam nor Christianity can distinguish between religion and politics" then I don't have much of an argument with them. I'm not sure that I agree with them, and it seems you'd definitely disagree; but my preceding posts in this thread were based on the assumption that they meant "unlike Christianity, Islam cannot distinguish between religion."
Personally, I can't think of any criteria where that statement holds up.
Are we looking at a historical context of forced conversion and states which where explicitly identified with the religion? Islam and Christianity both have that.
Are we saying that religious values are used as an organizing principle in politics and are used to successfully define and implement policies? Again, no argument that this happens with Islam; but the state of abortion across the US and in Ireland, for example, shows that the same holds true for Christianity.
Are we talking about religious elements in society resorting to extra-democratic means to push their religiously driven agenda? Certainly you see that with Islam, but abortion clinic bombers is an example of Christianity having a similar impact.
Are we talking about sectarian violence where different versions of the creed becomes explicitly enmeshed in an armed political struggle? Certainly Islam has that, but so does Christianity - just look at Northern Ireland.
Or conversely, do we argue that plenty of Christians manage to hold their beliefs without overtly influencing their political views and actions? Because there are plenty of Muslims like that as well.
So yeah... I'm wondering what reasoning - absurd or not - Yi is using to arrive at the statement that "Islam cannot distinguish between religion and politics"; then I'm testing the absurdity of the reasoning and the relevance to our discussion regarding the niqab in France by applying it to Christianity and seeing how that shakes out. I'm not particularly wedded to any given definition myself.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
Yes. And there's Duque & Malthus wall of text. :zzz:
Make some points, and I'll give you a wall of text all for yourself. :D
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 10:48:14 AM
So yeah... I'm wondering what reasoning - absurd or not - Yi is using to arrive at the statement that "Islam cannot distinguish between religion and politics"; then I'm testing the absurdity of the reasoning and the relevance to our discussion regarding the niqab in France by applying it to Christianity and seeing how that shakes out. I'm not particularly wedded to any given definition myself.
Well I do not know Yi's reasoning. I was saying we should wait in good faith to see what he has to say about it before declaring it equivalent to something else. If you do not know his reasoning how can you declare it absurd and apply it other places? I was not sure what he was getting at either but I took exception to where Raz was going.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AMLower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
I expect that given that stark a choice, the French will see much more ghettoization than they otherwise would.
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AMLower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
I expect that given that stark a choice, the French will see much more ghettoization than they otherwise would.
Indeed. But most are assimilating, I wish the French would relax a bit about it but then I can hardly talk. We have lots of people in this country incredibly irrational about immigration and we have centuries of continued and constant success in this area.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
The fact is that many people, given that choice, are likely to choose ghettoization - because people have pride, rightly or wrongly, in their heritage. Being given that choice will make them angry and convince them that "the other" is the enemy.
If you really want to assimilate a people, don't attack that pride.
Look at the experience of Jews as an example. Thousands of years of attacks and (literal) ghetto-ization in Europe failed to assimilate the Jews, in spite of the fact that the Christian Church put considerable resources towards converting them, and the personal rewards of assimilating were great.
In North America, where few could care less about Jews, Jews are in serious danger of disappearing altogether as a group through assimilation.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 10:55:00 AMWell I do not know Yi's reasoning. I was saying we should wait in good faith to see what he has to say about it before declaring it equivalent to something else. If you do not know his reasoning how can you declare it absurd and apply it other places? I was not sure what he was getting at either but I took exception to where Raz was going.
I'm not getting in between you and raz :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
not getting in between you and raz :hug:
Raz and I called it off due to mutual incomprehension :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
The fact is that many people, given that choice, are likely to choose ghettoization - because people have pride, rightly or wrongly, in their heritage. Being given that choice will make them angry and convince them that "the other" is the enemy.
If you really want to assimilate a people, don't attack that pride.
Look at the experience of Jews as an example. Thousands of years of attacks and (literal) ghetto-ization in Europe failed to assimilate the Jews, in spite of the fact that the Christian Church put considerable resources towards converting them, and the personal rewards of assimilating were great.
In North America, where few could care less about Jews, Jews are in serious danger of disappearing altogether as a group through assimilation.
Small wall but a wall nonethe less. Next time don't forget to break down my quote line by line.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:25:43 AM
Small wall but a wall nonethe less. Next time don't forget to break down my quote line by line.
:(
Hey, I'm boring you as fast as I can. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
The fact is that many people, given that choice, are likely to choose ghettoization - because people have pride, rightly or wrongly, in their heritage. Being given that choice will make them angry and convince them that "the other" is the enemy.
If you really want to assimilate a people, don't attack that pride.
Look at the experience of Jews as an example. Thousands of years of attacks and (literal) ghetto-ization in Europe failed to assimilate the Jews, in spite of the fact that the Christian Church put considerable resources towards converting them, and the personal rewards of assimilating were great.
In North America, where few could care less about Jews, Jews are in serious danger of disappearing altogether as a group through assimilation.
True but this is being driven by fear. Fear of the jews (in many forms) led eventually to the shoa.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:35:40 AMTrue but this is being driven by fear. Fear of the jews (in many forms) led eventually to the shoa.
Seems that a fair bit of the anti-Muslim legislation is being driven by fear as well.
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:35:40 AMTrue but this is being driven by fear. Fear of the jews (in many forms) led eventually to the shoa.
Seems that a fair bit of the anti-Muslim legislation is being driven by fear as well.
Yes. My point, exactly.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
See, I made this point, and Valmy is disappointed in me. You, he agrees with. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 07:50:04 AM
Um rejecting your absurd requirements that go way beyond any standard I have ever heard of before in my life does not prove the absurd hypothesis that all religions fail to distinguish between politics and religion. I bet they have similarities and differences in how they view the relationship between politics and religion.
Islam has an entire set of laws, which some Muslims believe comprise the only laws a nation or society needs to have. I don't know of any "Christian" (or Buddhist, or whatever) set of laws about divorce, property rights, inheritance, child custody, criminal trial and punishment, etc, etc. To imply, however, that "Muslims don't distinguish between politics and religion" is to go too far, however. Many Muslims believe that the concepts behind Sharia law are valid as moral precepts, but that the law of the land should be secular (and thus recognize a distinction between religion and politics). Others believe that Sharia should be binding on Muslims but not on non-Muslims, and thus believe in a limited separation between politics and religion. Others believe Sharia is divine law binding on everyone, and thus reject the separation of politics and religion.
I'd say that it is easy to generalize about a religion from extreme examples while ignoring counter-evidence (see that argument that non-Catholics are magical thinkers while Catholics are not). It doesn't seem very useful, though.
Quote from: merithyn on June 14, 2013, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
See, I made this point, and Valmy is disappointed in me. You, he agrees with. :rolleyes:
That is not what you said.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 14, 2013, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
See, I made this point, and Valmy is disappointed in me. You, he agrees with. :rolleyes:
That is not what you said.
ie Different is bad. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on June 14, 2013, 12:48:17 PM
ie Different is bad. :contract:
Eh it is more complicated than that, and frankly GF is not entirely right but I was mainly just taking that opportunity to point out that most Muslim immigrants ARE assimilating to great extent.
I should probably get off this thing for a bit I think being back in class with my short nights is starting to mess with my brain. I am starting to do more of that thing where I respond too fast without reading closely over what the other poster is saying. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 12:51:52 PM
Eh it is more complicated than that, and frankly GF is not entirely right but I was mainly just taking that opportunity to point out that most Muslim immigrants ARE assimilating to great extent.
I should probably get off this thing for a bit I think being back in class with my short nights is starting to mess with my brain. I am starting to do more of that thing where I respond too fast without reading closely over what the other poster is saying. :blush:
:hug:
I still :wub: you.
Quote from: grumbler on June 14, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 07:50:04 AM
Um rejecting your absurd requirements that go way beyond any standard I have ever heard of before in my life does not prove the absurd hypothesis that all religions fail to distinguish between politics and religion. I bet they have similarities and differences in how they view the relationship between politics and religion.
Islam has an entire set of laws, which some Muslims believe comprise the only laws a nation or society needs to have. I don't know of any "Christian" (or Buddhist, or whatever) set of laws about divorce, property rights, inheritance, child custody, criminal trial and punishment, etc, etc. To imply, however, that "Muslims don't distinguish between politics and religion" is to go too far, however. Many Muslims believe that the concepts behind Sharia law are valid as moral precepts, but that the law of the land should be secular (and thus recognize a distinction between religion and politics). Others believe that Sharia should be binding on Muslims but not on non-Muslims, and thus believe in a limited separation between politics and religion. Others believe Sharia is divine law binding on everyone, and thus reject the separation of politics and religion.
I'd say that it is easy to generalize about a religion from extreme examples while ignoring counter-evidence (see that argument that non-Catholics are magical thinkers while Catholics are not). It doesn't seem very useful, though.
Agreed.
Although some interesting confusions can arise over the assumptions made about such things. For example, irrc In the run up to WWI and the early years of the war, when the British were talking to King Hussein of the Hejaz about supporting his claim to be Caliph if he supported their war effort against the Turks, the British thought they were promising him political control over certain areas of Turkish held lands. Hussein thought they supported giving him authority over all Muslims as their religious leader. This caught the British somewhat by surprise since Hussein's understanding conflicted with the support the British were also giving to the House of Saud.
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 10:48:14 AMSo yeah... I'm wondering what reasoning - absurd or not - Yi is using to arrive at the statement that "Islam cannot distinguish between religion and politics"; then I'm testing the absurdity of the reasoning and the relevance to our discussion regarding the niqab in France by applying it to Christianity and seeing how that shakes out. I'm not particularly wedded to any given definition myself.
I always think it's a sort-of sonderweg theory of Islamism/Islamic terrorism.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
The fact is that many people, given that choice, are likely to choose ghettoization - because people have pride, rightly or wrongly, in their heritage. Being given that choice will make them angry and convince them that "the other" is the enemy.
If you really want to assimilate a people, don't attack that pride.
Look at the experience of Jews as an example. Thousands of years of attacks and (literal) ghetto-ization in Europe failed to assimilate the Jews, in spite of the fact that the Christian Church put considerable resources towards converting them, and the personal rewards of assimilating were great.
In North America, where few could care less about Jews, Jews are in serious danger of disappearing altogether as a group through assimilation.
I think you get it wrong there. Shitloads of jews were assimilated. Not just the crypto-jews like Madeleine Albright. The Ghetto was a tool used by the jews to prevent assimilation, not a tool used by the christians to force assimilation.
Uh, no. Trust Malthus, he knows Jews.
Quote from: Viking on June 14, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
I think you get it wrong there. Shitloads of jews were assimilated. Not just the crypto-jews like Madeleine Albright. The Ghetto was a tool used by the jews to prevent assimilation, not a tool used by the christians to force assimilation.
:lol: I don't think you read his post carefully enough. You argue that he got it wrong, and then repeat his exact argument as a "correction."
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Lower class muslim immigrants and their descendants from Algérie and Liban still cannot understand that the only way to be part of French society is too shed anything from before immigrations, starting with religion. The French while having accepted these refugees from their even more crazy brethrens don't actually consider them French. There is only 2 option in French society : Getthoization or Assimilation.
Lebanon is not actually the best example of trouble-making "lower class" muslim immigrant. The so-called "lower class factor" interestingly really only matters with people from muslim countries who are much more into religion than others be them Catholics, Greek Orthodox or Buddhist/Taoist/Shintoiist/whatever Far East religion. So I'm not quite convinced by the decisive importance of class in successful integration. Culture is more important.
Interestingly enough, some Languishites claim that Greeks and Turks are the same yet they hardly behave the same in secular France. Turks even come from a so-called secular country or one which used to be at least. Guess who are the less integrated ones...
As a matter of fact, the French perception of Lebanesee is quite good, specially with all the Maronites being quite successful businessmen and being a plurality among Lebanese. Shia Lebanese would be second in numbers then Sunni with sizable numbers of Greek Orthodox and Armenian Lebanese (sometimes counted as only Armenians).
Algerians oh yes, with the added problem that many and their families stayed in France despite being pro-independence but were barred by the Algerian FLN dictatorship from going there following power struggles.
Not to mention the Algerian war did not help things.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/remi_0765-0752_1993_num_9_1_1052 (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/remi_0765-0752_1993_num_9_1_1052)
for the Lebanese immigration in France