80 replies to this topic

[Knight Of Shadows]

meryt-tetisheri, on 07 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Hey KoS I hope you're safe and doing well.  
Tantawi 5arfan ? Ezkorou Ma7assen Mawtakum ! He used to be popular in Cairo for a while. The poor man passed away, but Azhar did not change its position that niqab is a tradition not a 'fard'. It is the ultra-right which is espousing niqab in Egypt, and they are losing credibility (for other reasons) fast.  As a matter of fact, niqab has been used for committing crimes, not just felonies, which included shooting a suspect in front of a court house in Upper Egypt (the example which came in mind now); and years ago, a large niqabi person literally ran into me in down town, Cairo wearing army boots, too large in build to be a woman, and the experience was "startling" to say the least. The problem of niqab in the west has more to do with integration and showing a willingness to accept and adopt the new 'homeland'; this is a main reason why public opinion is so suspicious of it; but this is only one reason among others. The comparison between a niqab ban in the ME, where it is part of a traditional culture, and the West, where it is an "alien" practice that runs counter to its own traditions does not really hold. It is not simply a matter of corruption.  However, I admit that personally, as a woman, I share Mona Al Tahtawi's  view of niqab, but that's another discussion.
As for Egypt, it's passing through a transitional period full of turmoil, and the choice between bad & worse isn't sitting well with many people. Married to a European, I cannot vote. I do not want to go into details (or derail the thread) but I definitely would not have voted for Shafik or Mursi el estebn' (the 'spare tyre'). Egypt missed a chance with both Baradei & Sabahy.

Stay safe!

hey there thanks
so if the Niqab was used in crimes yeah am aware of some cases that has happened
and they're aren't few but compare them to other crimes they are slimy rate if we did that
what i get from you is that the west is banning the Niqab not for crimes but simply for people to adapt a new enviorment or home
which i can understand really i can't agree to it but i can indulge it and understand it
i was just going see where this " Niqab " as security threat goes here .. coz it seems like a silly excuse for banning
which the real reason seemed in my opinion is the opression of freedom of religion and dress code etc etc etc
and personally i do believe that to be the reason .. when people immigrate to another land that doesn't mean they should be " stripped down "
of their former and original idenity
however after that being said .. when and if that law was put out i think the muslims of that country should eiather obey it or leave
after all most muslims just wear hair cover as you already know
beside it wouldn't sound fair to " force " change in a country you move into but you can't also let them erase your former and original idenity completly

if it proves  to be for reasons beyond "anti-islamic" agenda then why not ?
but i can't see any reason that help to push that claim away

for azhar's tantawy ;D yeah i got harsh opinions on the man
as i do on all people who commit mistakes and does not admit them and worse of all carry on with them
you are aware of types of messy fatawa he did aren't you ?

hope things turn out well for your people in egypt the revolution sure did not finish there i suspect there's second uprise on the way
especially after the trial of mubarak and his sons and only convicting two and letting the rest off the hook
but hey we take first place on the bad list they gonna have to try harder hehehehe

things will get better eventally in both countries don't worry .. sorry for drift out of topic

Edited by Knight Of Shadows, 08 June 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[Yamato]

eight bits, on 07 June 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

That may well be, although we are drifting away from the topic of this thread.


There are two Americans discussing the contrast between how two governments protect their people's liberty. One government chooses one freedom and leaves the other, while the other government chooses the other freedom, and leaves the first. Nobody can have both.


Do the math. In France, the principle of secularism allows the costume to be forbidden in public, and the government did so, legally and constitutionally. In America, freedom of religious expression prevents the government from  forbidding the costume from being worn in public.

It follows that you cannot have both freedoms. They are incompatible, generally, but also as regards the specific public behavior that is the subject of the thread. (You can wear whatever you like in private in both France and the United States; there is no issue of regulating personal private behavior in this thread, only overt acts in public.)


No, there is no American legal doctrine that corresponds with the French principle of secularism. Of course, there is no French dotrine of free religious expression. Both recognize freedom of conscience.

You seem to think that France must, should or would be nicer to respect rights that French Muslim women would have in the United States. The women affected by the ban aren't in the United States. They're in France. They have different rights. The French people have every right to regulate religious displays in their public places. The American people do not, because they have chosen to embrace another incompatible freedom instead.

eight bits, on 07 June 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

That may well be, although we are drifting away from the topic of this thread.


There are two Americans discussing the contrast between how two governments protect their people's liberty. One government chooses one freedom and leaves the other, while the other government chooses the other freedom, and leaves the first. Nobody can have both.


Do the math. In France, the principle of secularism allows the costume to be forbidden in public, and the government did so, legally and constitutionally. In America, freedom of religious expression prevents the government from  forbidding the costume from being worn in public.

It follows that you cannot have both freedoms. They are incompatible, generally, but also as regards the specific public behavior that is the subject of the thread. (You can wear whatever you like in private in both France and the United States; there is no issue of regulating personal private behavior in this thread, only overt acts in public.)


No, there is no American legal doctrine that corresponds with the French principle of secularism. Of course, there is no French dotrine of free religious expression. Both recognize freedom of conscience.

You seem to think that France must, should or would be nicer to respect rights that French Muslim women would have in the United States. The women affected by the ban aren't in the United States. They're in France. They have different rights. The French people have every right to regulate religious displays in their public places. The American people do not, because they have chosen to embrace another incompatible freedom instead.

I'm not referring to French legal doctrine and have no interest in comparing or contrasting it.  We're certainly not France, and that's not the point.  Under our system of government its powers are enumerated and thus constrained and the idea of a federal law oppressing our peoples' freedom of religious expression when it's supposed to be protecting it is hypocrisy par excellence.  How secular we are or aren't notwithstanding.

French women live under different laws (they don't have different "rights" - that is not something I'd ever expect to hear a real libertarian utter) and the point of this thread is to discuss and debate those laws in the process of determining what kind of laws we should have as Americans.

Whether or not your either-or proposition is right, it's not government's job to choose our freedoms, that's our job.

[Mr Walker]

My bottom line on this issue is that, basically, men and women should be able to wear anything they please as a general principle. That general principle is then restricted by good and specific reasons in certain circumstances. For example on principle i am often tempted to walk around my town and go to work with a paper bag over my head to demonstrate this point.

If I want to, why shouldnt I ? But if i enter a bank or am stopped by a policeman then i woulfd have to take the bag off And if it restricted my vision when driving then i would have to modify it to ensure it did not or else not drive with it on.

When this is gender based and relates to womens "fear " of men seeing them, then a society can afford to be generous in trying to alleviate that fear or even discomfort

In australia, women asked to take off a veil etc., can require a woman police officer to do this, and perform the identification or what ever is required. The western standard would be that if a woman has to be strip searched, then a woman officer would do this. To a muslim, having a face or body unveiled  often feels the same as for a western woman standing naked among men.

MAybe it is all perception but it is genuine and real, and needs to be understood and accepted by westerners. I have some sympathy for these women. My wdfe never wears makeup or jewellery and dresses modestly,iIn part because she sees physical beauty as a false "idol" and a distraction from her true self. As it happens she is the most beautiful woman I know, but I can appreciate her POV and can translate it to the cultural understandings of many other women, both christian and muslim

My belief is that you do not confer freedom by taking freedom away.  MAny modern, educated, australian muslim women want to wear traditional islamic clothes because they feel it liberates them from many of the social expectations (and [particularly sexual expectations)  forced on them, eg. wearing make up, jewellery etc. Basically the whole, "my looks determine who i am, and my value as a person"  concept.
Which brings me back to  one reason why i  sometimes want to walk around with a bag on my head. Being incredibly handsome creates unwarranted and unwanted  attention. With a bag on my head no one will know what I look like, and  all can judge me  on my intelligence and personality, not my incredible sex appeal. :whistle:

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 June 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Yamato, on 08 June 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Whether or not your either-or proposition is right, it's not government's job to choose our freedoms, that's our job.

In a democracy we delegate that job to our representatives, and we also have lawmakers to codify and write the law, and police to enforce it.

Actually, "WE" dont have any right, or business, in a democracy to directly decide what is right, or to make our own laws, or to act as we will. We are bound by the laws and conventions of our society, and, because it IS a democracy, this is right and proper.
Of course via elections, plebecites, referenda etc, and  through our elected representatives, we can have a say in  our freedoms; but if we start individually trying to detemine them, then we have chaos, anarchy, and the break down of those very freedoms.

[eight bits]

Y

Quote

I'm not referring to French legal doctrine and have no interest in comparing or contrasting it.

Well, obviously not. If you want to determine what replies you get to your posts, then post on your blog. If instead, you post a video on an open discussion board that depicts Americans assessing the merits of a French civil rights law, then you will get replies comparing and contrasting French and American civil rights concepts.

Quote

Under our system of government its powers are enumerated

Ah, I see you didn't get the memo about the Civil War. That's OK, the Fourteenth Amendment will tell you all you need to know about what happened to the Ninth and Tenth. In an earlier post, you mentioned being strip-searched as a condition of participation in interstate commerce. I think you'll find that that power of the federal government isn't "enumerated" anywhere. You should have no difficulty, however, finding what's called "the Commerce Clause." Please step this way, sir.

Quote

the idea of a federal law oppressing our peoples' freedom of religious expression when it's supposed to be protecting it is hypocrisy par excellence.

And yet, that's what happens every day, what must happen every day, as the federal government attempts to ensure both free expression of religion and avoid the establishment of (that is, providing any tax support whatsoever for) religion. That is "Shylock impossible" (cut a pound of living flesh without spilling any blood; you won't succeed, but you can think about using a cauterizing blade, so it isn't strictly, necessarily impossible).

Allow the full free expression of religion while preventing the public expression of religion? That's logically and necessarily impossible. So, the French people chose, and the American people chose. They chose differently. There is no impersonally valid advice to give them.

There is an excellent libertarian case to be made that somebody who rings your doorbell, located on your property, and wasting your time, to tell you contrary to a posted sign saying "no solicitors," their ideas about Jesus should be subject to arrest. But it can't happen in the United States. Not because American ideas about liberty are better than French ones, but because American ideas are different from French ones.

Quote

they don't have different "rights" - that is not something I'd ever expect to hear a real libertarian utter

Then you must have lived a sheltered life. And, um, weren't two French women warned by the police about wearing their costume in public? Noticing that French women have differnt rights, then, has nothing to do with being a libertarian. It is just being aware of a simple fact.

Quote

to discuss and debate those laws in the process of determining what kind of laws we should have as Americans.

That's certainly an objective. You did notice that this forum is operated from Scotland, right?

Quote

  it's not government's job to choose our freedoms, that's our job.

France and the United States are both democracies, so that wouldn't seem to be an urgent issue. Nice to see, though, that you are warming to the idea that there are choices that must be made.

[Yamato]

Mr Walker, on 08 June 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

In a democracy we delegate that job to our representatives, and we also have lawmakers to codify and write the law, and police to enforce it.

Actually, "WE" dont have any right, or business, in a democracy to directly decide what is right, or to make our own laws, or to act as we will. We are bound by the laws and conventions of our society, and, because it IS a democracy, this is right and proper.
Of course via elections, plebecites, referenda etc, and  through our elected representatives, we can have a say in  our freedoms; but if we start individually trying to detemine them, then we have chaos, anarchy, and the break down of those very freedoms.

In the US we're not a democracy we're a republic.   I do not live in a society where two wolves and a sheep vote on who to have for dinner.   I do not live in a society where the 51% can impose their will on the minority.  I live in a Constitutional Republic that is purposefully designed to prevent that from ever happening by making the legal process extremely difficult.   I live in a society with a government that makes it extremely difficult for freedoms like the one on the chopping block here to be violated.  I have rights in a society not because of elections or the fact that I have bureaucrats representing me democratically.   I have rights because I'm endowed inalienably.   Nothing you're talking about above confers me any "right".  If you think you get freedoms from government, and that's a dangerous precedent imho.   And it might practically be the case in Australia if that's what Australians believe.   But the reason why we don't get anarchy or chaos in the US is again, because of the Constitution (our rule of law).  

US politics have proven to me over time that elections are overrated and bureaucrats are all the same, but the principle found in the best government in the world is worth defending.

[Beckys_Mom]

Yamato, on 08 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

In the US we're not a democracy we're a republic.   I do not live in a society where two wolves and a sheep vote on who to have for dinner.   I do not live in a society where the 51% can impose their will on the minority.  I live in a Constitutional Republic that is purposefully designed to prevent that from ever happening by making the legal process extremely difficult.   I live in a society with a government that makes it extremely difficult for freedoms like the one on the chopping block here to be violated.  I have rights in a society not because of elections or the fact that I have bureaucrats representing me democratically.   I have rights because I'm endowed inalienably.   Nothing you're talking about above confers me any "right".  If you think you get freedoms from government, and that's a dangerous precedent imho.   And it might practically be the case in Australia if that's what Australians believe.   But the reason why we don't get anarchy or chaos in the US is again, because of the Constitution (our rule of law).  

US politics have proven to me over time that elections are overrated and bureaucrats are all the same, but the principle found in the best government in the world is worth defending.

Have you considered  leaving the USA ?... If so, what country would you like to live in and agree is best for you?  ...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 08 June 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Yamato]

eight bits, on 08 June 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Y


Well, obviously not. If you want to determine what replies you get to your posts, then post on your blog. If instead, you post a video on an open discussion board that depicts Americans assessing the merits of a French civil rights law, then you will get replies comparing and contrasting French and American civil rights concepts.


Ah, I see you didn't get the memo about the Civil War. That's OK, the Fourteenth Amendment will tell you all you need to know about what happened to the Ninth and Tenth. In an earlier post, you mentioned being strip-searched as a condition of participation in interstate commerce. I think you'll find that that power of the federal government isn't "enumerated" anywhere. You should have no difficulty, however, finding what's called "the Commerce Clause." Please step this way, sir.


And yet, that's what happens every day, what must happen every day, as the federal government attempts to ensure both free expression of religion and avoid the establishment of (that is, providing any tax support whatsoever for) religion. That is "Shylock impossible" (cut a pound of living flesh without spilling any blood; you won't succeed, but you can think about using a cauterizing blade, so it isn't strictly, necessarily impossible).

Allow the full free expression of religion while preventing the public expression of religion? That's logically and necessarily impossible. So, the French people chose, and the American people chose. They chose differently. There is no impersonally valid advice to give them.

There is an excellent libertarian case to be made that somebody who rings your doorbell, located on your property, and wasting your time, to tell you contrary to a posted sign saying "no solicitors," their ideas about Jesus should be subject to arrest. But it can't happen in the United States. Not because American ideas about liberty are better than French ones, but because American ideas are different from French ones.


Then you must have lived a sheltered life. And, um, weren't two French women warned by the police about wearing their costume in public? Noticing that French women have differnt rights, then, has nothing to do with being a libertarian. It is just being aware of a simple fact.


That's certainly an objective. You did notice that this forum is operated from Scotland, right?


France and the United States are both democracies, so that wouldn't seem to be an urgent issue. Nice to see, though, that you are warming to the idea that there are choices that must be made.

eight bits, on 08 June 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Y


Well, obviously not. If you want to determine what replies you get to your posts, then post on your blog. If instead, you post a video on an open discussion board that depicts Americans assessing the merits of a French civil rights law, then you will get replies comparing and contrasting French and American civil rights concepts.


Ah, I see you didn't get the memo about the Civil War. That's OK, the Fourteenth Amendment will tell you all you need to know about what happened to the Ninth and Tenth. In an earlier post, you mentioned being strip-searched as a condition of participation in interstate commerce. I think you'll find that that power of the federal government isn't "enumerated" anywhere. You should have no difficulty, however, finding what's called "the Commerce Clause." Please step this way, sir.


And yet, that's what happens every day, what must happen every day, as the federal government attempts to ensure both free expression of religion and avoid the establishment of (that is, providing any tax support whatsoever for) religion. That is "Shylock impossible" (cut a pound of living flesh without spilling any blood; you won't succeed, but you can think about using a cauterizing blade, so it isn't strictly, necessarily impossible).

Allow the full free expression of religion while preventing the public expression of religion? That's logically and necessarily impossible. So, the French people chose, and the American people chose. They chose differently. There is no impersonally valid advice to give them.

There is an excellent libertarian case to be made that somebody who rings your doorbell, located on your property, and wasting your time, to tell you contrary to a posted sign saying "no solicitors," their ideas about Jesus should be subject to arrest. But it can't happen in the United States. Not because American ideas about liberty are better than French ones, but because American ideas are different from French ones.


Then you must have lived a sheltered life. And, um, weren't two French women warned by the police about wearing their costume in public? Noticing that French women have differnt rights, then, has nothing to do with being a libertarian. It is just being aware of a simple fact.


That's certainly an objective. You did notice that this forum is operated from Scotland, right?


France and the United States are both democracies, so that wouldn't seem to be an urgent issue. Nice to see, though, that you are warming to the idea that there are choices that must be made.

Why are you having so much trouble with this?   We're not saying we want to make American laws French, we're questioning the merits and demerits of that law whether you whine about it or not.  If you don't think that the moderator of this debate framed it well then just what do you think is wrong with it?   That events happened in France as a backdrop to this debate is incidental to me.   This could be happening in any country, and the principle of liberty and the importance of this discussion remain the same.   I don't actively look to discredit something by way of distractions and I'm not going to do that here.

If the board is full of Scots and they make a Scotland-centric post, I'm not going to blab and complain, in kind.  Okay?   What is the trouble making itch about here?   I'm Scottish on my father's side and I'm aware that many Scots are more American than most Americans.   If our Constitution needs any ingredient to improve itself, some William Wallace might be just the ticket.   I have Scottish friends here, and what's great about them is that we all speak English.

Your little hit job on the Bill of Rights here is as revealing as it is ridiculous.  Interpreting and administering the first amendment isn't impossible or even difficult, and the Bill of Rights are all still in the game.  Don't let any statist nonsense you heard somewhere (where?) convince you otherwise.

[Yamato]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 June 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Have you considered  leaving the USA ?... If so, what country would you like to live in and agree is best for you?  ...

The USA is the best.  Why would I consider leaving it?

[Beckys_Mom]

Yamato, on 08 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

The USA is the best.  Why would I consider leaving it?

I was asking you  if you considered leaving  it...it was a mere question...and yet you answer  my question with a question  lol    Better stop that, or people will think yo are Jewish  lol   ...Kidding of course

[Yamato]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 June 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

I was asking you  if you considered leaving  it...it was a mere question...and yet you answer  my question with a question  lol Better stop that, or people will think yo are Jewish  lol   ...Kidding of course

I also said that the USA is the best.  Borrowing some eloquence from Sir Winston Churchill, the US government is the worst government except for every other government!   And yet I trust the American people more than the government and that makes me thankful for our Constitution.  I believe that individuals make the difference through civil action like social movements.   We get the best results from individuals not governments or even corporations.  The individual is especially protected in the US and that is something precious enough to defend.  Obviously I'm thrilled to be here but I'd also like to keep it that way.

[Beckys_Mom]

Yamato, on 08 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I also said that the USA is the best.  Borrowing some eloquence from Sir Winston Churchill, the US government is the worst government except for every other government!   And yet I trust the American people more than the government and that makes me thankful for our Constitution.  I believe that individuals make the difference through civil action like social movements.   We get the best results from individuals not governments or even corporations.  The individual is especially protected in the US and that is something precious enough to defend.  Obviously I'm thrilled to be here but I'd also like to keep it that way.

Good to know.. Now stand up .and repeat after me -->  "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."   lol     Hey relax and quit taking everyhting seriously..  Not every question you will read is perosnal  or holds some agenda  lol  relax...I wouldn't mind moving from my country to the USA ....but I am stuck here...green fields, rain.....more rain....grey clouds....soda farls....Irish stew. and so on...Ok I exaggerate..we do get the sun sometimes  ... Last year we got 15 mins of hot sun...I missed it due to the fact I was in the shower at the time  lol  

[Yamato]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Good to know.. Now stand up .and repeat after me -->  "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."   lol     Hey relax and quit taking everyhting seriously..  Not every question you will read is perosnal  or holds some agenda  lol  relax...I wouldn't mind moving from my country to the USA ....but I am stuck here...green fields, rain.....more rain....grey clouds....soda farls....Irish stew. and so on...Ok I exaggerate..we do get the sun sometimes  ... Last year we got 15 mins of hot sun...I missed it due to the fact I was in the shower at the time  lol  

I have relatives in N. Ireland.  I'm looking at a souvenir they bought me while I was there; a basket full of pretty seashells.  One of my cousins is a lobster fisherman.  I have another cousin in England who owns a bar in Hastings.  We picked blueberries and baked pies, saw Giant's Causeway, braved the rope bridge and even invaded Ireland going to Dublin and beyond, even kissed the Blarney stone.  It rained every day but one.  Loved it anyway.

[Beckys_Mom]

Yamato, on 08 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

I have relatives in N. Ireland.  I'm looking at a souvenir they bought me while I was there; a basket full of pretty seashells.  One of my cousins is a lobster fisherman.  I have another cousin in England who owns a bar in Hastings.  We picked blueberries and baked pies, saw Giant's Causeway, braved the rope bridge and even invaded Ireland going to Dublin and beyond, even kissed the Blarney stone.  It rained every day but one.  Loved it anyway.

Lived here all my life and never once  kissed the Blarney Stone !!........... Gaints Causeway is a death trap  .I nearly broke my neck  walking over it.  lol

Speaking of sun...we so far have had  a week of hot sun... but see that is like a miracle  in these parts !

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 08 June 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[eight bits]

Y

Quote

Don't let any statist nonsense you heard somewhere (where?) convince you otherwise.

I made no attack on the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment was a trade-off. The states lost the power to infringe on personal rights, mostly what the federal government couldn't infringe according to the first eight federal amendments, and some things in the original Constituiton as well.

However, the Ninth and especially the Tenth Amendment became, for almost any practical purpose, dead letter. That is, they weren't repealed, but they don't actually much affect the law anymore, either.

To understand dead letter, compare the provisions of state constituions that imposed some religious test on public office holders, for example, Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 37, here

http://www.msa.md.go...html/00dec.html

However black the lettering, the part about belief in God has no force. Googlebing Torcaso v. Watkins for details, if you'd like.

That's what dead letter looks like. Now read the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Notice that under it, and before the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government couldn't (and obviously didn't) compel Maryland to refrain from a religious test for public office. Yet, the federal government did just that, in Torcaso, according to the Fourteenth Amendment.

(BM thank you for the likes .)