Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yamato

A Battle of Two Muslim Women

81 posts in this topic

so what i can conclude and understand is that they might ban islamic traditional cover

due to the fear of that cover is being used as mean to hide personality

such as mentioned cases of bank robbery or shoplifting etc etc etc

but then we are missing the point here .. is that this religious cover is being USED by your corrupted socities

by YOUR corrupted individals to do corrupted deeds

so basicall you're blaming the islamic cover or clothing on the actions the might be done by the filth of your socities

your own theifs and murderers etc etc etc and you know you got alot of those worthless criminals

that enough for you to fear that a tradtional or religious clothes that cover's one face might be a danger

because YOUR own socitiy would use it as way to crime " which other countries with islamic majorities have those cover religious clothes everywhere

and it wasn't used or been abused by robberies or such actions "

therefore the problem root is within your own western society not the islamic clothes

and personally i think if they wanna ban them .. at least have the guts to put it the same way i did above

and say the truth that " our society is way too filthy and might used such code of clothes to do nasty crimes "

. don't blame me now on being harsh ... freedom of speech !

All societies have corruption, yours included. Like it or not all people over here have to have their faces exposed in most public buildings, or to drive or fly, etc. That's just the way it is. This applies to all people, not just those that wear the veil!

Even though it applies all year around, at Halloween most stores here specifically state with signs that masks (this includes veils) cannot be worn inside the store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with your post mostly... but the odds of a veiled woman coming up and speaking to you are next to nil...

They really are not encouraged to talk to strangers (unless they have no choice)... When I was in Iraq, troops

out on patrol were told to not talk directly to women, but to get a male family member to 'relay' the message, even

though she might be standing right there yelling at you...

This didn't always work of course - but that was the cultural expectation...

nope this is not part of any culture

but my personal guess is being alongside with an army that raped their citizians women

let alone bombing their shelters which had children and families

and tortured their men in prison might have had something to do of women not talking to you directly

the only way women would not talk to some one directly is the thought that person is viewed

as .. umm unworthy or viewed as threat or enemy etc etc etc

sorry though it's not what i think it's how i guess it's explained but i just wanted to make it clear

there's no such thing in our cultures

but to tradtions or cutlure there is no such thing that prevent women from talking directly to normal men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

All societies have corruption, yours included. Like it or not all people over here have to have their faces exposed in most public buildings, or to drive or fly, etc. That's just the way it is. This applies to all people, not just those that wear the veil!

Even though it applies all year around, at Halloween most stores here specifically state with signs that masks (this includes veils) cannot be worn inside the store.

indeed and mine might be way more corrupted in some means

it's just my socitiy did not dig low enough to use religious costumes or clothes as mean to crimes

" my socitiy not my goverment coz the latter have gone worst than animals in their corruption "

my socitiy does not ban religious covers and claim democracy and freedom at least if they wanna ban them

just put it as the fact for it stand for .. that is some of your socity's scums and filth will use it as mean to crime

and say that is your socities fault .. and the problem not within the veil it self

that's all am saying

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quoted my posts .. When we quote someone's post, shot in the dark but that usually means we are addressing their posts lol

So then I addressed your posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then I addressed your posts?

Post 6 --> http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228333&st=0 .. You quote my post making it lok like you are addressing me ...but you never address anything I posted, meaning the post content.. you rambled off in a tangent that was irrelevant to my post.. and you kept going.. I found it odd and a bit boring.. I will just skip them next time.. no offence.. I am more keen on addressing others who have actually addressed what I wrote and not what I haven't wrote..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indee

indeed and mine might be way more corrupted in some means

it's just my socitiy did not dig low enough to use religious costumes or clothes as mean to crimes

" my socitiy not my goverment coz the latter have gone worst than animals in their corruption "

my socitiy does not ban religious covers and claim democracy and freedom at least if they wanna ban them

just put it as the fact for it stand for .. that is some of your socity's scums and filth will use it as mean to crime

and say that is your socities fault .. and the problem not within the veil it self

that's all am saying

This is not an attack on the Muslim faith or those that dress for their faith!

It's not religious costumes per se, but anything that masks ones face. This includes masks as well as the veil.

The problem here is that if you see someone wearing the veil, you can't assume the person wearing it is even a female. In Muslim countries it's OK to wear it but it is unnerving to most people in western countries. We are accustomed to seeing people's faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KoS, niqab has been, and is being used by people also in the Middle East to hide their identity, sometimes even their gender, while committing illegal or fraudulent crimes; one example would be the recent elections in Egypt when the same person voted several times, using different ID cards, and some were caught. I think you must have also heard about anecdotal incidents when it was used in countries from which this tradition originated, to circumvent restrictions on meetings between unrelated men & women. Niqab is but one interpretation of Islam. The last Sheikh Al Azhar, Sheikh Tantawy, refused to repudiate the French law stating that it is permissible for one to accommodate, or adapt to a different culture as a “darourat’ (necessities).

East or west, human nature is the same: same weaknesses, same strengths. Nirvana does not reign in either. There are no ‘filthy societies’, only ‘filthy’ individuals, and they abound everywhere.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I acknowledge why you're torn and think you've thought it out well. Your laundry list is prudent, yet government is great at finding exceptions to our liberties just like that, and its intentions for doing so are always good as I'm sure yours are. We can broach the topic of security issues, but it's an extracurricular activity not framed by the differences between these two women in the video. On this matter, I again agree with the woman in the niqab, and with you as well. I agree security is an important consideration in some circumstances and in those, we should show our faces.

That said, I can wear a wig, a hat, grow a beard and dye it, wear sunglasses that even hide my eyes, and hide more of my appearance than a woman in a niqab and yet I don't hear any rush of agreement to ban such preferences in my appearance in the grand quest that is always the federal government making us "safe". It's more specific to Muslims than that, it's more discriminatory than that. Rules about going into stores isn't the federal government's business, that is typically a matter of store policy. If businesses want to discriminate and risk shooting themselves in the foot in the pursuit of security, that's their responsibility. Taking risks is a business's job.

Try walking into a bank or into an airport wearing a wig, a hat, a dyed beard, and sunglasses and see how far you'd get. I would suspect you would be pulled aside for questioning real quick like!

Using bad words in speech, speaking dishonestly, or hiding one's true feelings with false emotional expressions wouldn't be conducive to a quality conversation either, but likewise, I don't want government enforcing legislation that seeks to control or ban those behaviors. Maybe behind her veil, you have to judge her by what she says and not what she looks like. Don't tell me that can't be used to advantage by some women. I can understand why some women want to wear clothes like this and I respect their right to do so. Our visual brains may feel deprived by that, but our auditory brains could use the workout!

To each his/her own. I personally want to see the face of the person I am conversing with and the government agrees with me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Niqab is but one interpretation of Islam, but religion is often like that. Our founding fathers paid an undue amount of attention to freedom of religion, and the different interpretations seen in every major religion are covered. They were especially and explicitly clear that this liberty is protected and I'm thankful for that. I'm of course only speaking for the US per the US Constitution. You can't cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, and there are indeed pragmatic limitations to the liberty conveyed by our Bill of Rights, but what happens to you if you cry in a theater should largely be a matter between you and that theater, and perhaps local legislation, local courts and local police. The federal government's role in this case should be to stand by ready to defend my 1st Amendment rights if necessary. Of course we don't get government anywhere near that Constitutionally ideal but it's still nice to talk about, and a boy can dream too can't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey tetisheri

ahh please these aren't really crimes they're .. fraud felony

they're talking big here like armed robbery i have never seen a man in woman's clothes robbing a store here .. did you ?

sheikh tantawy ... if you ask me i think old age got the best of him he started to make alot of mistakes and stupid things of late

which drops his creditablity in my eyes you do know he made alot of crap fatuas don't you ?

he was just old .. 5arfan man .. in my opinion make one mistake and keep going with that mistake

and that earns you a spot on my black list no matter who you were :D azhar shekth or not

the different is .. we have those Niqabs here and egypt and everywhere

have they became generally the means to crime ?

has it became the theme for crimes here ? did it became so dangerous that the nation laws would wanna

take action against it .. i'll answer for you .. no

but if it scares the western so much .. then they know that their societies are way much corrupted

that they'll use this religious cover as means to crime thefore they saw it as threat coz they knew

such corruption could not handle such cover or clothes

how do you explain us having it all over middle east .. and yet rarely .. there is a man in Niqab banging shoots left and right

the fact is firm .. there wasn't crimes in Niqab enough in middle east to ban it

whilst the westerns run tirelessly to ban it therefore they know their scrums of socitiy and their criminals and their etc etc etc

could not handle it

therefore .. it's their soceity's fault .. not the cover

how is egypt by the way .. i hope you're not gonna vote for shafiq-mubarak :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try walking into a bank or into an airport wearing a wig, a hat, a dyed beard, and sunglasses and see how far you'd get. I would suspect you would be pulled aside for questioning real quick like!

To each his/her own. I personally want to see the face of the person I am conversing with and the government agrees with me.

Our personal wants shouldn't be legislated on the federal level and the federal government definitely doesn't disagree with me on this; read the Constitution.

I walk into my bank with a hat and sunglasses almost every time I walk into my bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our personal wants shouldn't be legislated on the federal level and the federal government definitely doesn't disagree with me on this; read the Constitution.

I'm not saying our wants should be legislated but heavy security seems to be in these days.....

I walk into my bank with a hat and sunglasses almost every time I walk into my bank.

What about the wig and the dyed beard? And there's no way you'd get through an airport with all of this on! You'd have every square inch of your body felt up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y

No of course not, and why would you do that?

Because I think it is right for the people of France to govern themselves and to make their own laws. As I stated, the specific issue is consttutionally settled in the US, and that's fine with me, for the parallel reason, that the people of the United States should govern themselves.

The woman wearing the niqab expressed that she has no problem with driver's licenses or TSA agents at airports and so bringing that up doesn't broach her position, my position, or even a difference between the two women.

No, but it does limit the prospects for the other woman's proposal for changing the laws in the United States. She may get some of what she wants, but she will have to settle for reasonable time, place and manner regulations, and no more than that. That's what I discussed.

... freedom of religion....

That term means different things in different places. In France, it means freedom of conscience. It also means that you cannot be imposed upon by others' overt acts of faith in public. (There are some exceptions.)

We don't have a right to infringe on anyone else's rights; and preventing that from happening is the primary role of government.

Right after there is a clear statement of what everyone's rights are. That's harder than it looks. Apparently you don't see that.

For a libertarian, a visit to Paris is like dying and going to heaven. You can save any song and dance that France is not a free country. They do not, however, have one particular right that Americans do, and conversely Americans don't have one that the French do.

You can't have both a secular society and an unrestricted right of free religious expression. Each country chose one. There is no impersonally interesting "liberty" issue. There is a conflict among rights. Providing a peaceful means of resolving those, too, is a legitimate function of government, even among libertarians. I would know that, since I am one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you're a libertarian, getting groped by the TSA means that bin Laden won.

There are two Americans in the video and the debate is over the degree to which government should intervene in personal dress code. We apply a case study to ourselves and therein lies the debate. I'm not interested in intervening in French law, that's not at issue for me.

Who says you can't have both a secular society and freedom of religious expression? Of course you can have both. And we very nearly do in the US, save for road bumps like this one.

What "rights" is there a conflict among? There are religious freedoms of Muslim women getting violated, for a number of reasons and not all of them good. Cases in the US aren't as severe as the French backstory to this video and yet Muslim women have been discriminated against in the US, in the past 10 years especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey tetisheri

ahh please these aren't really crimes they're .. fraud felony

they're talking big here like armed robbery i have never seen a man in woman's clothes robbing a store here .. did you ?

sheikh tantawy ... if you ask me i think old age got the best of him he started to make alot of mistakes and stupid things of late

which drops his creditablity in my eyes you do know he made alot of crap fatuas don't you ?

he was just old .. 5arfan man .. in my opinion make one mistake and keep going with that mistake

and that earns you a spot on my black list no matter who you were :D azhar shekth or not

the different is .. we have those Niqabs here and egypt and everywhere

have they became generally the means to crime ?

has it became the theme for crimes here ? did it became so dangerous that the nation laws would wanna

take action against it .. i'll answer for you .. no

but if it scares the western so much .. then they know that their societies are way much corrupted

that they'll use this religious cover as means to crime thefore they saw it as threat coz they knew

such corruption could not handle such cover or clothes

how do you explain us having it all over middle east .. and yet rarely .. there is a man in Niqab banging shoots left and right

the fact is firm .. there wasn't crimes in Niqab enough in middle east to ban it

whilst the westerns run tirelessly to ban it therefore they know their scrums of socitiy and their criminals and their etc etc etc

could not handle it

therefore .. it's their soceity's fault .. not the cover

how is egypt by the way .. i hope you're not gonna vote for shafiq-mubarak :D

It's a crime to cover your face in certain areas in most western counties ie it's the law of the land, if you don't want to abide by the laws of a country don't go there, there's been very few crimes commited by people wearing a burka but the once that have been are by filthy Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason

which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason

which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

It's what they are saying it's what they have said it's the reason for the ban, you walk into a bank in the UK with your face covered shutters will come down alarms will go of yes we have criminals and a high proportion of them pro rater are Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason

which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

There's no epidemic of Muslim bank robbers here, despite the lack of bans on clothing some Americans actually want. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you're a libertarian, getting groped by the TSA means that bin Laden won.

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

There are two Americans in the video and the debate is over the degree to which government should intervene in personal dress code.

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.

Who says you can't have both a secular society and freedom of religious expression?

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.)

And we very nearly do in the US

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.