Support NeoGAF

[spekkeh]

Once again, the government doesn't get to ban people from doing things because they don't like the reason they do them if their doing so doesn't hurt anyone else.

"doesn't hurt anyone else" is a bit of a nebulous concept. The government gets to ban people from walking around naked. Or wearing balaclavas. In some regions from wearing shorts to a swimming pool. In addition, the government is definitely tied to a plethora of UN conventions to take an active role in reducing cultural gender inequalities.

 

[Rest]

"doesn't hurt anyone else" is a bit of a nebulous concept. The government gets to ban people from walking around naked. Or wearing balaclavas. In some regions from wearing shorts to a swimming pool. In addition, the government is definitely tied to a plethora of UN conventions to take an active role in reducing cultural gender inequalities.

Banning women from wearing certain aquatic fashions reduces gender inequalities?

 

[spekkeh]

Yes could be. Similar to school uniforms and the ban of conspicuous religious symbols, in France and Turkey. There's a ton of jurisprudence all over Europe.

 

[The Doc]

Choosing whether or not to have a guiding philosophy around which you base your life is a basic human right, and choosing which that is is included in that, so yes, Shari'a complies with that. Once again, the government doesn't get to ban people from doing things because they don't like the reason they do them if their doing so doesn't hurt anyone else. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and the right to pursue happiness ensure ones right to follow whatever philosophy one chooses, and how much of that philosophy one applies to their own life.

Again, it's the government's job to ensure freedom, not take it away. If these cities feel that there is an infringement of people's rights going on in certain communities within them, they need to make sure that people know that they have a choice, not take choices away from them.

Not wanting governments to persecute ethnic and religious minorities, and reiterating the fundamental reasons why it's wrong for them to do so, isn't beating around the bush, but making excuses for governments that do so just might be.

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

Because a hijab swimsuit is a nazi tshirt.

The irony of "fighting" misogyny by passing paternal laws that target only women and make only some of their clothes illegal.

 

[The Doc]

Because a hijab swimsuit is a nazi tshirt.

I would never say that. I'm saying both of them are symbols and should be regarded and treated as such.
The "wear what you want" argument is not consistent with this debate. Simple as that.

 

[Htown]

Something I've always wondering while lurking on GAF was why people make posts like this one. You do not engage in any conversation with this post, you just pat a poster that has the same opinion as you on the back in a way that is supposed to ridicule the opposing view and thus limit any conversation to be had.

Because frankly the opposing view in this case isn't worth anything but ridicule.

This ban is ridiculous on its face. To spend time arguing that certain women shouldn't be legally allowed to wear what they want, not because the clothing is in some way indecent or otherwise inappropriate for a public setting, but explicitly because the clothing shows that the wearer believes the wrong things, is so inherently antithetical to the freedoms of the "Western culture" this ban is supposed to protect that it verges on Orwellian doublethink.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

This ban is really nothing more than irrational muslim hate. It's not based on anything other than "we don't like muslims and want them to give up their beliefs and do the shit we want". It's not based in any fucking logic. When you boil it down to its basics what are they banning?

"You cant go to the beach with your head covered"
"Why?"
"Because your religion makes me uncomfortable despite the fact you as an individual hasn't done shit to me"

This is the path people wanna defend? Make all the "western values", "islam is bad because xyz" etc arguments you want. It boils down to I don't like islam, you can't practice it in our presence.

 

[RustyNails]

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

Can a Jew wear his yarmulke in democratic France?

 

[spekkeh]

As if decency laws aren't based on the preferential and forced application of certain religions, especially the ban of nudity, what are morals other than personal/shared belief systems?

 

[The Doc]

Can a Jew wear his yarmulke in democratic France?

Yes , because it doesn't imply discrimination.
For the record , i don't worship any religion.

 

[RustyNails]

Yes , because it doesn't imply discrimination.
For the record , i don't worship any religion.

If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

Isnt a Jew wearing a yarmulke, regardless of gender, embracing the guiding philosophy of Judaism? You dont think Judaism is misogynistic?

 

[The Doc]

Isnt a Jew wearing a yarmulke, regardless of gender, embracing the guiding philosophy of Judaism? You dont think Judaism is misogynistic?

Yes, it is, according to the bible. But misogyny is a behaviour , a single criminal act , not a belief. since a jew doesn't adopt any misogynistic conduct , he is fine. same goes for muslims , obviously.

 

[Lamel]

Because frankly the opposing view in this case isn't worth anything but ridicule.

This ban is ridiculous on its face. To spend time arguing that certain women shouldn't be legally allowed to wear what they want, not because the clothing is in some way indecent or otherwise inappropriate for a public setting, but explicitly because the clothing shows that the wearer believes the wrong things, is so inherently antithetical to the freedoms of the "Western culture" this ban is supposed to protect that it verges on Orwellian doublethink.

It's as simple as this.

 

[Baki]

People here seem to conveniently forget the real problem: that a big decision like this can be made due to a meaningless reason as "public order". Meaning, what if in a few year the white French people decide they don't want people to wear hijabs/headscarves on the street, citing "public order", how would the majority of you react then? This is the exact same thing.

Not surprised theres defence for this. GAF is full of hypocrites, with a mindset that is no different than colonialists from the 1700s.

 

[Neverwas]

France treats Muslims like shit. I'm never confused when there's an attack on French soil, callous as that may sound.

 

[EmiPrime]

France treats Muslims like shit. I'm never confused when there's an attack on French soil, callous as that may sound.

Callous and stupid, yes.

 

[Rest]

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

Yes, Nazi t-shirts should be legal. People are entitle to their emotions, they're a basic part of being a human being. Hate is an emotion, and people are allowed to express that they hate something, including other people. Treating someone badly because of something like race and not a personal knowledge of the individual can and should be illegal, but the government can't tell someone what to feel.

On the other side of that, people who disagree with Nazism and bigotry in general have the right to be offended at the sight of a Nazi t-shirt and tell Nazis whatever thoughts they have about Nazism.

If someone with a Nazi t-shirt is on private property, like say in a cafe, and the cafe owner doesn't want people expressing Nazism or other bigotry in their shop, they have the right to ask the Nazi to remove the shirt or leave.

The idea that having opinions which fall in line with Nazism infringes on Democratic principles is absurd. Democracy is about everyone's voice being heard. If you live in a society that values justice and equality under the law, Nazis will be outliers and their views won't have enough support to influence laws or culture.

In any case, Nazism and Islam have little if not nothing to do with each other, but since you've brought Nazi fashion into a discussion about Islam influenced fashion, let's make an honest comparison of the two:

A shirt with Nazi logos, slogans, or ideas on it shows to an individual (but not a government) that the wearer has a negative view of other people, and has an ideology that aligns with a political movement that asserted that blacks (people who looked different) and Jews (people who worshiped a different god, or worshiped the same god differently, and may or may not have looked different) were less than human, and not only advocated the murder of people falling within those groups, but also homosexuals (people whose sexual socialization was different) and communists (people who had a differing view of ideal governance of a society,) as well as other groups of people, and actively attempted to and successfully implemented policies and built infrastructure to carry out such murders. It's entirely reasonable that a person who values freedom and equality would see a garment with a fashion expressing such an ideology would be disgusted at such an outlook, and offended by another person expressing it. Nazism is directly opposed to liberty and equality.


Islam isn't the same, as Islam is a complex philosophy with several religions based around it, and many interpretations of that philosophy within those religions, resulting in many different ways of expressing and adhering to it. Those interpretations range from an outlook that requires tolerance, love, and care for all other people no matter what at one end, to murdering people who interpret Islam differently and/or don't practice it at the other.

Islam, like many philosophies and religions, touches on ideas of personal modesty, one interpretation of which suggests that it is ideal for women to cover most of their bodies in public.

Now, places where Islam is a predominant religion and philosophy have historically had fashions which look different from those in Europe, and people and groups of people that have immigrated from those places often wear fashions that are identical or have vestigial resemblance to the modern evolution of those fashions. We are discussing here a style of swimsuit which takes heavy influence from those fashions, and the banning of these swimsuits in several cities in a nation which considers its self liberated and valuing of equality.

These swimsuits show that someone wearing one likely interprets that the aspect of Islam which idealizes women covering the majority of their body in public is reasonable, and that the person has chosen to adopt that aspect of Islam for themself. The idea behind banning such a swimsuit is that the ban will allow someone that has adopted that interpretation to be more equal to other members of French society, because the people enacting the ban have made the assumption that someone who has accepted a particular ideal of personal modesty has also adopted an outlook which does not value or accept equality among men and women, or the right of women to make there own choices.

The complex nature of the Islamic philosophy and its many interpretations invalidates such an assumption, because this fashion does not imply any interpretation, acceptance, or adoption of any part of Islam other than its ideals of personal modesty. You cannot look at someone wearing this kind of clothing and know anything other than their interpretation of this singular, narrow aspect of Islam, the adoption of which does not relate to their idea of equality among men and women. What's more, although there is the strong implication that someone wearing such a swimsuit is a Muslim, you cannot assume that they are, because people in free societies can choose to wear any fashion for any reason.

Another aspect of the rationale behind that ban is that if you don't allow people to choose to wear certain fashions public, that they will be forced to accept values of freedom and equality among all people. To reiterate that, this ban seeks to enforce ideals of liberty and equality by removing freedoms from a select group of people, specifically by removing the option of women in a minority group to wear certain fashions. That is entirely illogical.

You mention infringement of democracy, but enacting laws like these infringes directly on liberty and equality by restricting liberties, and justifying it by making assumptions that the government has no place to make and no way to support.

 

[Novoitus]

I don't like your avatar, lets ban you. Same logic right?

Marginalizing an entire group of people just because you disagree with them doesn't make it ok. Believe or not, some of those people enjoy wearing that.

wouldn't the same logic be forcing him or anyone else who has his avatar to change it and not use it ever again?

 

[Baybars]

People here seem to conveniently forget the real problem: that a big decision like this can be made due to a meaningless reason as "public order". Meaning, what if in a few year the white French people decide they don't want people to wear hijabs/headscarves on the street, citing "public order", how would the majority of you react then? This is the exact same thing.

AT this point i wonder why there are any muslims who are still living in france. There are alot of muslims who have emigrated from france due inability to practise their faith but i am still suprised that france still has the largest number of muslims in western europe

 

[Neverwas]

Callous and stupid, yes.

And yet there's two decades of France shitting on the Muslim faith every opportunity they get.

 

[Tiberius]

And yet there's two decades of France shitting on the Muslim faith every opportunity they get.

France is shitting on muslim faith since the 90's ?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This is sexist but not making men wear them at all isnt?

I don't see many men wearing mini skirt and heels.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

So catholic and jews which crosses and kipas "show their support" to the Khalaqa and the Canon Law should be expelled too ?

Everybody is following a different set of moral rules different from the legal system of the State. The difference is that if you wish to see that moral system imposed on the state. And muslims, by large, don't want that. Shari'a don't apply to non-muslims and cannot be enforced by non-muslims rulers.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Yes, Nazi t-shirts should be legal. People are entitle to their emotions, they're a basic part of being a human being. Hate is an emotion, and people are allowed to express that they hate something, including other people. Treating someone badly because of something like race and not a personal knowledge of the individual can and should be illegal, but the government can't tell someone what to feel.

On the other side of that, people who disagree with Nazism and bigotry in general have the right to be offended at the sight of a Nazi t-shirt and tell Nazis whatever thoughts they have about Nazism.

If someone with a Nazi t-shirt is on private property, like say in a cafe, and the cafe owner doesn't want people expressing Nazism or other bigotry in their shop, they have the right to ask the Nazi to remove the shirt or leave.

The idea that having opinions which fall in line with Nazism infringes on Democratic principles is absurd. Democracy is about everyone's voice being heard. If you live in a society that values justice and equality under the law, Nazis will be outliers and their views won't have enough support to influence laws or culture.

In any case, Nazism and Islam have little if not nothing to do with each other, but since you've brought Nazi fashion into a discussion about Islam influenced fashion, let's make an honest comparison of the two:

A shirt with Nazi logos, slogans, or ideas on it shows to an individual (but not a government) that the wearer has a negative view of other people, and has an ideology that aligns with a political movement that asserted that blacks (people who looked different) and Jews (people who worshiped a different god, or worshiped the same god differently, and may or may not have looked different) were less than human, and not only advocated the murder of people falling within those groups, but also homosexuals (people whose sexual socialization was different) and communists (people who had a differing view of ideal governance of a society,) as well as other groups of people, and actively attempted to and successfully implemented policies and built infrastructure to carry out such murders. It's entirely reasonable that a person who values freedom and equality would see a garment with a fashion expressing such an ideology would be disgusted at such an outlook, and offended by another person expressing it. Nazism is directly opposed to liberty and equality.


Islam isn't the same, as Islam is a complex philosophy with several religions based around it, and many interpretations of that philosophy within those religions, resulting in many different ways of expressing and adhering to it. Those interpretations range from an outlook that requires tolerance, love, and care for all other people no matter what at one end, to murdering people who interpret Islam differently and/or don't practice it at the other.

Islam, like many philosophies and religions, touches on ideas of personal modesty, one interpretation of which suggests that it is ideal for women to cover most of their bodies in public.

Now, places where Islam is a predominant religion and philosophy have historically had fashions which look different from those in Europe, and people and groups of people that have immigrated from those places often wear fashions that are identical or have vestigial resemblance to the modern evolution of those fashions. We are discussing here a style of swimsuit which takes heavy influence from those fashions, and the banning of these swimsuits in several cities in a nation which considers its self liberated and valuing of equality.

These swimsuits show that someone wearing one likely interprets that the aspect of Islam which idealizes women covering the majority of their body in public is reasonable, and that the person has chosen to adopt that aspect of Islam for themself. The idea behind banning such a swimsuit is that the ban will allow someone that has adopted that interpretation to be more equal to other members of French society, because the people enacting the ban have made the assumption that someone who has accepted a particular ideal of personal modesty has also adopted an outlook which does not value or accept equality among men and women, or the right of women to make there own choices.

The complex nature of the Islamic philosophy and its many interpretations invalidates such an assumption, because this fashion does not imply any interpretation, acceptance, or adoption of any part of Islam other than its ideals of personal modesty. You cannot look at someone wearing this kind of clothing and know anything other than their interpretation of this singular, narrow aspect of Islam, the adoption of which does not relate to their idea of equality among men and women. What's more, although there is the strong implication that someone wearing such a swimsuit is a Muslim, you cannot assume that they are, because people in free societies can choose to wear any fashion for any reason.

Another aspect of the rationale behind that ban is that if you don't allow people to choose to wear certain fashions public, that they will be forced to accept values of freedom and equality among all people. To reiterate that, this ban seeks to enforce ideals of liberty and equality by removing freedoms from a select group of people, specifically by removing the option of women in a minority group to wear certain fashions. That is entirely illogical.

You mention infringement of democracy, but enacting laws like these infringes directly on liberty and equality by restricting liberties, and justifying it by making assumptions that the government has no place to make and no way to support.

Man please stop with all these intellectuals digressions about personal freedom and liberty of expression, the man just want to enjoy the beach without all those mahometan around.

 

[Elchele]

Again, it's the government's job to ensure freedom, not take it away. If these cities feel that there is an infringement of people's rights going on in certain communities within them, they need to make sure that people know that they have a choice, not take choices away from them.

False. We give away a certain amount of our freedom to ensure our safety. That's what societies and governments are made for.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

France is shitting on muslim faith since the 90's ?

It's older than that but the current shitwave we are witnessing started by the socialist government calling a union strike of north africans, "khomeinist group".

Since then, it's all-in paranoia and every bit of visible islamity is perceived as a potential attack against the secular character of France from the "Islamists/Muslim Brotherhood/Salafists". You cannot do very much when the opponent think that every girl hijab is a manifest sign of a spiderweb conspiracy against secularism/western civilization/christendom.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

False. We give away a certain amount of our freedom to ensure our safety. That's what societies and governments are made for.

And in what sense burkini is threatening you ? You're eyeballs will pop out ?

 

[Elchele]

And in what sense burkini is threatening you ? You're eyeballs will pop out ?

There's a clear conflict going on between western culture and islamist culture. If a country feels they should start to take actions to insert their muslim population more into western culture, and away from extremist stone age religion, then I think they are in all their right to do so.

If people don't like it, they can always move to another country.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

There's a clear conflict going on between western culture and islamist culture. If a country feels they should start to take actions to insert their muslim population more into western culture, and away from extremist stone age religion, then I think they are in all their right to do so.

If people don't like it, they can always move to another country.

So, "muslims countries" have the same right to "islamize" the christians and the atheists who live in "their" countries?

What a great notion of nationhood you got here.

 

[Rest]

False. We give away a certain amount of our freedom to ensure our safety. That's what societies and governments are made for.

No. The restriction of one freedom is only just if it reinforces another. Everyone has a right to life, thus killing other people is illegal. Guns are outlawed in many places, but if the reasoning behind such a restriction is something other than to reduce the risk of people using them to kill other people then the law is unjust. If a government has outlawed guns to reduce the risk of armed rebellion against unjust or otherwise unsuitable governance, then the law should not be in place.

Governments should exist to serve the people they govern. If they don't ensure the freedom of their citizens they have failed.

 

[ISOM]

So, "muslims countries" have the same right to "islamize" the christians and the atheists who live in "their" countries?

What a great notion of nationhood you got here.

I assume even if you're a christian woman or atheist woman in most muslim countries, that you have to wear muslim garbs just to follow customs or laws. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though.

 

[The Doc]

Yes, Nazi t-shirts should be legal. People are entitle to their emotions, they're a basic part of being a human being. Hate is an emotion, and people are allowed to express that they hate something, including other people. Treating someone badly because of something like race and not a personal knowledge of the individual can and should be illegal, but the government can't tell someone what to feel.

On the other side of that, people who disagree with Nazism and bigotry in general have the right to be offended at the sight of a Nazi t-shirt and tell Nazis whatever thoughts they have about Nazism.

If someone with a Nazi t-shirt is on private property, like say in a cafe, and the cafe owner doesn't want people expressing Nazism or other bigotry in their shop, they have the right to ask the Nazi to remove the shirt or leave.

The idea that having opinions which fall in line with Nazism infringes on Democratic principles is absurd. Democracy is about everyone's voice being heard. If you live in a society that values justice and equality under the law, Nazis will be outliers and their views won't have enough support to influence laws or culture.

this is just crazy.. i don't even know what to say.

In any case, Nazism and Islam have little if not nothing to do with each other, but since you've brought Nazi fashion into a discussion about Islam influenced fashion, let's make an honest comparison of the two:

A shirt with Nazi logos, slogans, or ideas on it shows to an individual (but not a government) that the wearer has a negative view of other people, and has an ideology that aligns with a political movement that asserted that blacks (people who looked different) and Jews (people who worshiped a different god, or worshiped the same god differently, and may or may not have looked different) were less than human, and not only advocated the murder of people falling within those groups, but also homosexuals (people whose sexual socialization was different) and communists (people who had a differing view of ideal governance of a society,) as well as other groups of people, and actively attempted to and successfully implemented policies and built infrastructure to carry out such murders. It's entirely reasonable that a person who values freedom and equality would see a garment with a fashion expressing such an ideology would be disgusted at such an outlook, and offended by another person expressing it. Nazism is directly opposed to liberty and equality.


Islam isn't the same, as Islam is a complex philosophy with several religions based around it, and many interpretations of that philosophy within those religions, resulting in many different ways of expressing and adhering to it. Those interpretations range from an outlook that requires tolerance, love, and care for all other people no matter what at one end, to murdering people who interpret Islam differently and/or don't practice it at the other.

Islam, like many philosophies and religions, touches on ideas of personal modesty, one interpretation of which suggests that it is ideal for women to cover most of their bodies in public.

Now, places where Islam is a predominant religion and philosophy have historically had fashions which look different from those in Europe, and people and groups of people that have immigrated from those places often wear fashions that are identical or have vestigial resemblance to the modern evolution of those fashions. We are discussing here a style of swimsuit which takes heavy influence from those fashions, and the banning of these swimsuits in several cities in a nation which considers its self liberated and valuing of equality.

These swimsuits show that someone wearing one likely interprets that the aspect of Islam which idealizes women covering the majority of their body in public is reasonable, and that the person has chosen to adopt that aspect of Islam for themself. The idea behind banning such a swimsuit is that the ban will allow someone that has adopted that interpretation to be more equal to other members of French society, because the people enacting the ban have made the assumption that someone who has accepted a particular ideal of personal modesty has also adopted an outlook which does not value or accept equality among men and women, or the right of women to make there own choices.

The complex nature of the Islamic philosophy and its many interpretations invalidates such an assumption, because this fashion does not imply any interpretation, acceptance, or adoption of any part of Islam other than its ideals of personal modesty. You cannot look at someone wearing this kind of clothing and know anything other than their interpretation of this singular, narrow aspect of Islam, the adoption of which does not relate to their idea of equality among men and women. What's more, although there is the strong implication that someone wearing such a swimsuit is a Muslim, you cannot assume that they are, because people in free societies can choose to wear any fashion for any reason.

this is the old standard "apology" of the hijab. But the reality is:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their (Muslim) women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.
(Quran 24:31)

And this applies just for women , end of story.

Another aspect of the rationale behind that ban is that if you don't allow people to choose to wear certain fashions public, that they will be forced to accept values of freedom and equality among all people. To reiterate that, this ban seeks to enforce ideals of liberty and equality by removing freedoms from a select group of people, specifically by removing the option of women in a minority group to wear certain fashions. That is entirely illogical.

You mention infringement of democracy, but enacting laws like these infringes directly on liberty and equality by restricting liberties, and justifying it by making assumptions that the government has no place to make and no way to support.

freedom of religion and equality of rights cannot be put on the same footing. This is the whole point.

Sorry if i'm a little hasty , but it's late here...

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I assume even if you're a christian woman or atheist woman in most muslim countries, that you have to wear muslim garbs just to follow customs or laws. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though.

In 53 countries out of 54 you don't have to wear hijab if you are non muslim. The only exception is Iran. And in Iran you can drink alcohol if you are christian. They even have club in Tehran that serve them.

But even if it was the case, it would be wrong. We cannot criticize a muslim country to try to limit the rights of the christians if we justify that some secular nation do the same thing.

Homogenization of society by the state is a global trend since the invention of the modern nation-state, but it don't make it ethically correct.

 

[TheRealTalker]

I remember when one of these French Right Wing Leaders went to Quebec, Canada recently and believed that everyone there would love her but only came to boos, and protest.

France is trying to hard to be a prick for no reason.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

And this applies just for women , end of story.

So we should forbid heels, miniskirt and bikini ?
By the same token, we should ban nuns as well.
Traditional muslim garment cover men as much as women. You can even find a male equivalent of the niqab.

 

[TheRealTalker]

I also find it hilarious when some people find others moderate because they decided to adopt Western clothing and brand but are considered else if they choose anything else

like all those Assad fanboys that love these Killers since they party and dress to their appeasement


regardless of what people are dressing it doesn't even equate to their morale

 

[Tiberius]

It's older than that but the current shitwave we are witnessing started by the socialist government calling a union strike of north africans, "khomeinist group".

Since then, it's all-in paranoia and every bit of visible islamity is perceived as a potential attack against the secular character of France from the "Islamists/Muslim Brotherhood/Salafists". You cannot do very much when the opponent think that every girl hijab is a manifest sign of a spiderweb conspiracy against secularism/western civilization/christendom.

But you can't denied that there's people trying to test the secular character of france
A grocery store which eliminate porc meat and alcool for faith reasons and a driving school opening rooms separating men and women are symptoms of religious trying to impose the laws of god .
There's even some cities in france with neighbourhood like Molenbeek and it's not acceptable and dangerous

 

[RustyNails]

Yes, it is, according to the bible. But misogyny is a behaviour , a single criminal act , not a belief. since a jew doesn't adopt any misogynistic conduct , he is fine. same goes for muslims , obviously.

Oh wow. Lets keep moving the goalposts. Fine, I'll play your contrived, prejudiced game. Define "misogynist conduct". First it was just embracing the guiding philosophy, now its actually conducting yourself misogynist. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

like all those Assad fanboys that love these Killers since they party and dress to their appeasement

"Assad is so secular, he even celebrate christmas!"

Spoiler

true story

 

[Reeks]

The "wear what you want" argument is not consistent with this debate. Simple as that.

"Women have to wear burkinis"

"Well that's taking away their rights! In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to wear them!!"

You don't see how that's the other side of the same coin?

Yes, it is, according to the bible. But misogyny is a behaviour , a single criminal act , not a belief. since a jew doesn't adopt any misogynistic conduct , he is fine. same goes for muslims , obviously.

Just one behavior? Just one act? I'm not sure you understand misogyny...

 

[Mael]

France treats Muslims like shit. I'm never confused when there's an attack on French soil, callous as that may sound.

To see this level of discussion here is all kinds of disappointing.
"Heh they had it coming".
What a truly despicable comment fit for an equally despicable mind.

 

[Elchele]

In 53 countries out of 54 you don't have to wear hijab if you are non muslim. The only exception is Iran. And in Iran you can drink alcohol if you are christian. They even have club in Tehran that serve them.

But even if it was the case, it would be wrong. We cannot criticize a muslim country to try to limit the rights of the christians if we justify that some secular nation do the same thing.

Homogenization of society by the state is a global trend since the invention of the modern nation-state, but it don't make it ethically correct.

You sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country#Muslim_world

And western societies are still christian societies, cultural-wise. Societies have just secularized much of the culture at this point. And to try and prevent them from doing to a foreign religion/culture such as Islam is absurd. Adapt.

 

[ebullientprism]

Because a hijab swimsuit is a nazi tshirt.

The irony of "fighting" misogyny by passing paternal laws that target only women and make only some of their clothes illegal.

Wow. Banning a piece of clothing that is inherently misogynistic is now paternal misogyny.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

But you can't denied that there's people trying to test the secular character of france
A grocery store which eliminate porc meat and alcool for faith reasons and a driving school opening rooms separating men and women are symptoms of religious trying to impose the laws of god .
There's some cities in france with neighbourhood like Molenbeek and it's not acceptable and dangerous

No it's not.
You won't find pork in a kosher store in Paris, so what the fuss ?
And they have their own separate time for jewish women in some paris pools.
The orthodox jews and the orthodox muslims are so similar, a lot of scholars are making a relation between western antisemitism and western current islamophobia.

It have nothing to do with secularism as defined by 1905 law of separation of church and state. The 1905 law is about public institutions, not the people using them or private market.

 

[The Doc]

Oh wow. Lets keep moving the goalposts. Fine, I'll play your contrived, prejudiced game. Define "misogynist conduct". First it was just embracing the guiding philosophy, now its actually conducting yourself misogynist. Where do you draw the line?

?

So nazi t-shirts should be legal too, by reductio ad absurdum.
But they are not , because they infringe the basic principles of any democratic society.
If you choose a "guiding philosophy" which embrace misogyny , you'll pursue it out of France.

"guiding philosophy which embrace misogyny"

And misogyny is a behaviour , as i said. seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Rest]

this is just crazy.. i don't even know what to say.

If believing that freedom and equality means freedom and equality is crazy, then yes, I'm absolutely insane. But justice should be blind and applied equally, and if you don't take that down to the fundamental origins of human behavior then its application is meaningless.

this is the old standard "apology" of the hijab. But the reality is:

Again, if you think that believing it is the right of individuals to choose their own dress is an apologism for the hijab I won't counter it. But a hijab is a piece of clothing, and people with the right to liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness can wear whatever clothing they want for any reason that makes sense to them.

And this applies just for women , end of story.

Someone quoted a male counterpart to that earlier in the thread, look for it. If it's not in the Qur'an then you should take it up with whoever posted it, but if you're trying to show a double standard as far as I can tell you've failed.

Still, that doesn't negate the fact that a free person has the right to choose their own guiding philosophy, and how much of that philosophy to adopt for themself. That includes religion.

Sorry if i'm a little hasty , but it's late here...

You're wrong. Once again, liberty and the pursuit of one's own happiness are fundamental human rights. Choosing a philosophy to guide one's actions falls under the pursuit of happiness. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in freedom for all.

 

[Mael]

What's so hard to understand about the 1905 law?
It's fundamentally about kicking priests out of teaching position in schools and other public institutions.
That has fuck all to do with beach wear, we don't forbid nuns from going to the beach or even entering a fucking school for that matter.

 

[Reeks]

Wow. Banning a piece of clothing that is inherently misogynistic is now paternal misogyny.

Telling women what they can and cannot wear is paternal misogyny, yes.

 

[Mael]

Telling women what the can and cannot wear is paternal misogyny, yes.

That's only a problem if it has to do with Islam.
If it's traditional outfit then it's tradition and it has to be respected and you're a callous asshole to have a problem with them!

Spoiler

/s