Burqa ban in France goes into effect today..

[GamezRule]

Dommy, why do you hate the freedom to be naked?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because a religion that impose them to wear a burqa doesn't retrict their right to choose how to dress?

If you wanted to prevent parents from making their children wear it, you may have a case. But if she chooses to be part of that religion, that's her freedom.

Are you for public nudity?

I wouldn't lose any sleep if they allowed it, but nobody's religious freedom is infringed by the laws against it.

are you for polygamy?

I don't think marriage should affect taxation, so non-relevant in my case.

Are you for marriage at 12

No. A 12 year old can't legally consent, so there is a victim.

Are you for stonning adultery women?

Sure! Assuming of course, she agrees to it. If not, there is a victim. Wearing a burka gives no victim.

Why would France be anti freedom and not you? Or do you think your own standard are the only one which are universally right?

The French law restricts religious freedom.

Dommy, why do you hate the freedom to be naked?

I don't, its just not an infringment on human rights to ban that.

 

[Steph]

If you wanted to prevent parents from making their children wear it, you may have a case. But if she chooses to be part of that religion, that's her freedom.

How can she choose if it's a religion obligation? Isn't that self contradicting?

nobody's religious freedom is infringed by the laws against it.

Never heard about the cult of the naked breast?

No. A 12 year old can't legally consent, so there is a victim.

Why? It's legal in other countries. Why do you infringe on the freedom to marry at 12?

Sure! Assuming of course, she agrees to it. If not, there is a victim. Wearing a burka gives no victim.

So, you support killing someone for adultery, but are against forbidding a piece of cloth? Preventing someone to wear a burka will not kill her.

Your are showing such high values here .

The French law restricts religious freedom.

How so? She can still pray at home, or go the mosquee and pray there, even with her Burqa.

I don't, its just not an infringment on human rights to ban that.

Human are borned naked. Why are you against their basic rights to stay close to their natural form?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Never heard about the cult of the naked breast?

I actually haven't. But a religious belief has to be, first of all, sincerely held, and second of all, not harm other people. While this cult may not violate #2 (It might if there are children around), it definitely violates #1, and so is unnecessary.

Why? It's legal in other countries. Why do you infringe on the freedom to marry at 12?

Most of those countries arrange such marriages anyway. They don't have a choice.

So, you support killing someone for adultery, but are against forbidding a piece of cloth? Preventing someone to wear a burka will not kill her.

Your are showing such high values here .

I was not actually supporting killing someone for adultery. My point was that nobody is going to agree to being killed for their adulterous affair, thus there is a victim if you kill them, thus it can't be allowed.

How so? She can still pray at home, or go the mosquee and pray there, even with her Burqa.

What if she believes she needs to wear one at all times? Or what if she just feels like it? You really don't need a reason to want to wear "A piece of cloth."

Human are borned naked. Why are you against their basic rights to stay close to their natural form?

I'm not.

 

[Cheetah]

I actually haven't. But a religious belief has to be, first of all, sincerely held, and second of all, not harm other people. While this cult may not violate #2 (It might if there are children around)

Run that by me again:

Naked breasts might harm children?



Your arguments still end up at: "I think X is disturbing, therefore it is okay to ban it. I don't think Y is disturbing, so I'm not okay with banning that."

Seriously though:
1. Covering the face makes it difficult to participate in a normal, full life in the French Republic.
2. A few women voluntary choose to wear burkas.
3. More women are forced to wear burkas against their choice, and it is difficult to do something about this because they typically won't be able to stand up to their family/social group even if they were encouraged to go without the veil.
4. By banning face coverings a few women who wish to cover their faces are hurt, but more women who wish not to cover their faces are being helped.

This law is trying to make it possible for all women to participate as full citisens in the French Republic. It does that by banning the right to cover your face, which harms a few women, but helps far more.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Your arguments still end up at: "I think X is disturbing, therefore it is okay to ban it. I don't think Y is disturbing, so I'm not okay with banning that."

Except I don't want to ban X either...

1. Covering the face makes it difficult to participate in a normal, full life in the French Republic.

That is the choice of those who choose to wear them.

2. A few women voluntary choose to wear burkas.

And that should be their choice.

3. More women are forced to wear burkas against their choice, and it is difficult to do something about this because they typically won't be able to stand up to their family/social group even if they were encouraged to go without the veil.

I'm fine with not allowing people to force other people to wear the burka (Obviously.)

4. By banning face coverings a few women who wish to cover their faces are hurt, but more women who wish not to cover their faces are being helped.

Good old "Resort to the government, restrict freedom to protect freedom" nonsense.

 

[Steph]

I actually haven't. But a religious belief has to be, first of all, sincerely held, and second of all, not harm other people. While this cult may not violate #2 (It might if there are children around), it definitely violates #1, and so is unnecessary.

What makes you think it wouldn't be held sincerely? What wearing a burqa would be religiously more important than being naked for a nature loving person?

Most of those countries arrange such marriages anyway. They don't have a choice.

You are avoiding the question. Why is it OK at 18 but not at 12 for you? Didn't the Bible ask that humankind have numerous children? A girl could be a mother before 18.
Oh... and are you sure all women who where a burqa do that because it's comfy? Do they really have a choice? If you do something because of a religious obligation, is that really a choice?

I was not actually supporting killing someone for adultery. My point was that nobody is going to agree to being killed for their adulterous affair, thus there is a victim if you kill them, thus it can't be allowed.

But it's religious! How dare you infringe on their religious belief?

Beside... you think this should be banned because it hurts them. What doesn't hurt them is not a problem. Since wearing a burqa doesn't hurt a woman (your claim), it's not a problem. But does having to remove a burqa hurts a woman? Where's the problem then?

What if she believes she needs to wear one at all times? Or what if she just feels like it? You really don't need a reason to want to wear "A piece of cloth."

See above. What if a woman (or woman) believe he needs to be naked all time? I don't understand why a situation is OK for you but not the other. Isn't that just a few "pieces of cloth"?

 

[Cheetah]

Except I don't want to ban X either...

There is not a single thing you are a proponent of banning as long as it does not hurt another person (out of curiosity, does this go for animals as well)? What about in the cases were banning something might hurt some people but not banning it might hurt other people?

That is the choice of those who choose to wear them.

Agreed. Emphasis on choose.

And that should be their choice.

Agreed. Emphasis on should.

I'm fine with not allowing people to force other people to wear the burka (Obviously.)

Obviously. But you also know that if a woman is forced to cover her face there is no way you are going to be able to protect that particular woman's right to not cover her face without alienating her from her family/social group?

Good old "Resort to the government, restrict freedom to protect freedom" nonsense.

Yeah. Sometimes a lesser evil is better than a greater evil. Like taxes. Taxes are basically the government stealing your money to spend it on things it argues is good for you. That is bad. But it does pay for such nifty things like the military and police - which protects your life and property, public roads - which gives you the freedom to travel, clean drinking water and guaranteeing that your food is safe - which protects your wellbeing, comfort, health and life, and so on.

That some women are hindered from wearing a piece of clothing that they want is a problem, but it is a greater problem that said clothing are worn were it may be a problem for society (in banks, where id is required, etc.), and that said clothing is forced on other women.

Two wrongs does not make a right, but some wrongs are lesser than some rights.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What wearing a burqa would be religiously more important than being naked for a nature loving person?

Both should be allowed anyway. Of course, in a private establishment, the owner can tell them they can't (In both cases.)

You are avoiding the question. Why is it OK at 18 but not at 12 for you? Didn't the Bible ask that humankind have numerous children? A girl could be a mother before 18.

18 is an arbitrary line, I agree, but 12 is definitely too young. I could live with it at 16.

The Bible does say "Go forth and multiply" but according to Paul, that's not a Universal command, some people aren't meant to marry at all.

Oh... and are you sure all women who where a burqa do that because it's comfy? Do they really have a choice? If you do something because of a religious obligation, is that really a choice?

OK, so now you think the French government is big enough to protect women from their God? What arrogance!

I'm perfectly fine with, and agree with, not allowing parents to force their children to wear a burka, since the child has a right to not be treated that way against their will. But if the woman wants to wear it, and chooses too, on religious grounds... OK so you want to protect her from Allah? How do you propose doing that?

But it's religious! How dare you infringe on their religious belief?

Your rights end where mine begin, but that goes both ways. Negative liberty is a myth. For instance, you have a right to speak, but you DON'T have a right not to have hateful things said about you (OK, on CFC you do, I'm talking about IRL.)

You have a right (In the US, most European countries defy this) to own a firearm, you don't have a right to take away your neighbor's firearm since it scares you or makes you nervous.

Exc.

The line does go blurry. Do I have a right not to be stoned because of adultery? Yes, because Justice is given to the government, and killing someone deprives them of their positive right to life. Common sense should be used. In this case, I do not think France did so.

What doesn't hurt them is not a problem. Since wearing a burqa doesn't hurt a woman (your claim), it's not a problem. But does having to remove a burqa hurts a woman? Where's the problem then?

Well, arguably its religious persecution. Even if not though, this is a classic argument for statism "Well its really not a big deal." I loathe that argument with every bone in my body.

See above. What if a woman (or woman) believe he needs to be naked all time? I don't understand why a situation is OK for you but not the other. Isn't that just a few "pieces of cloth"?

I'm OK with either situation.

There is not a single thing you are a proponent of banning as long as it does not hurt another person (out of curiosity, does this go for animals as well)? What about in the cases were banning something might hurt some people but not banning it might hurt other people?
Agreed. Emphasis on choose.
Agreed. Emphasis on should.
Obviously. But you also know that if a woman is forced to cover her face there is no way you are going to be able to protect that particular woman's right to not cover her face without alienating her from her family/social group?
Yeah. Sometimes a lesser evil is better than a greater evil. Like taxes. Taxes are basically the government stealing your money to spend it on things it argues is good for you. That is bad. But it does pay for such nifty things like the military and police - which protects your life and property, public roads - which gives you the freedom to travel, clean drinking water and guaranteeing that your food is safe - which protects your wellbeing, comfort, health and life, and so on.

That some women are hindered from wearing a piece of clothing that they want is a problem, but it is a greater problem that said clothing are worn were it may be a problem for society (in banks, where id is required, etc.), and that said clothing is forced on other women.

Two wrongs does not make a right, but some wrongs are lesser than some rights.

The government should not ban anything that does not SPECIFICALLY hurt someone else. For instance, the government should not ban wearing a burka just because someone could be forced to wear it. They should deal (Harshly) with those who force others to wear it, but leave those who wear it by choice alone.

On the other hand, driving past the speed limit (Assuming its a speed limit fairly set) does hurt someone else since reckless driving is dangerous.

I think you see my point.

 

[Fuzzz]

I just wonder if this sort of dress code would be banned if it wasn't traditional muslim clothing, but just a fashion statement.

Spoiler :

My guess is no.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I hate burqas but its there thing she can wear it if she wants they shouldn't ban it, it makes them look like ninjas

 

[nato2101]

I just wonder if this sort of dress code would be banned if it wasn't traditional muslim clothing, but just a fashion statement.

Spoiler :

My guess is no.

What fashion statement forces women to be completely covered and to a certain extent isolated from those around them.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

What fashion statement forces women to be completely covered and to a certain extent isolated from those around them.

Nobody forces them, its their choice, burqas aren't the only way to cover themselves

 

[nato2101]

Nobody forces them, its their choice, burqas aren't the only way to cover themselves

Their choice? Like the arranged marriages? Get real, for every woman who chooses to do so there are 3 who are forced by their family, and 6 who think they must because their culture says it is part of their religion (which btw it isn't)
And the other forms of cover were not outlawed, only the one that completely covers them.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Their choice? Like the arranged marriages? Get real, for every woman who chooses to do so there are 3 who are forced by their family, and 6 who think they must because their culture says it is part of their religion (which btw it isn't)
And the other forms of cover were not outlawed, only the one that completely covers them.

They live in a European country, they can get a divorce, get a new life, get a job, they don't have to do it

 

[nato2101]

You are kidding yourself. Try looking up how many woman living in Europe are forced into marriages every year.
If you are isolated by your family it doesn't matter where you live you can still be indoctrinated.

 

[Fuzzz]

What fashion statement forces women to be completely covered and to a certain extent isolated from those around them.

I don't know, there has been none. Since it's linked to muslim culture, non-muslim women won't wear it probably. But it could be some sort of feminist statement against the objectification of women or something.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

You are kidding yourself. Try looking up how many woman living in Europe are forced into marriages every year.
If you are isolated by your family it doesn't matter where you live you can still be indoctrinated.

I'm Muslim, I live in Europe, I don't know anybody who is forced to wear it, hell I hardly know anybody that wears the Hijab, the news did it again, the people that go radical are like 1% of the Muslim population in a country and most woman choose to wear it because they are religious, so your taking away the right to be religious. But you think everyone lives like that, everyone is forced, we are savages...

 

[Lillefix]

You are kidding yourself. Try looking up how many woman living in Europe are forced into marriages every year.
If you are isolated by your family it doesn't matter where you live you can still be indoctrinated.

True dat. The Norwegian government considers to raise the marriageable age, just because of that problem(or at least if you marry a foreigner).

 

[Steph]

Both should be allowed anyway. Of course, in a private establishment, the owner can tell them they can't (In both cases.)

And in private women can wear burqa.

18 is an arbitrary line, I agree, but 12 is definitely too young. I could live with it at 16.

So, not much different than an arbitrary line saying a veil covering the hair is OK, but covering the face is not. Funny how you are OK with some arbitrary lines and not others.

OK, so now you think the French government is big enough to protect women from their God? What arrogance!

First, I said an obligation from their religion, not their god. There's a difference. Second, if you can show me evidence that a woman is struck by a lightning hurled by a vengeful god just after she removes her burqa, I might consider your point valid.
Well, if it wasn't for the thousands of muslim women who don't wear a burqa and can have a normal religious life.

OK so you want to protect her from Allah? How do you propose doing that?

That's the purpose of the law. If someone force a woman to wear a burqa, then he can be fined. She can filled a complaint. But I'm not sure Allah will come to the tribunal if summoned. We'll just have to try him In absentia.

Common sense should be used. In this case, I do not think France did so.

Your common senses is not the one in France then. It seems it is not so common.

Well, arguably its religious persecution.

A religion forcing a woman to wear a cloth cage (why not men by the way? What about gender equality?) is a lot more like persecution by a religion to me.