Support NeoGAF

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

IS won. This is what they wanted.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

I don't have all the answers. But what I do know is that what they're doing isn't preventing anything. They've caught four people. And I can guarantee you it's been used to create at least four more that'll end up just like them. You're not safer.

What I do know is that tormenting a people not because anything they've done, but because of what they may be doing based on what they look like and who they worship is wrong.

What I do know is that if France had a sudden burst of Christian terrorist attacks, this is not how the country would act.

What I know is what's right, and what's wrong. This is wrong and no less terrorism than the acts it's supposedly meant to prevent.

What they're doing is preventing things - 4 people were arrested so far, and no attack has happened since then at least
But the % of the number of potential attacks that were prevented compared to the amount of people who were affected by the police's raids is ridiculous

Did you just compare this to the terror attacks that happened last year though? Not cool.

It does. There are several cases of people having their human rights violated in the OP. You don't have to down play it.

There is a middle ground. No one has suggested to do nothing.

1) and 2) seem pretty accurate to me.

1) so we are to wait until more than 50% of Muslims in France experience police brutality before calling them out?
2) Even before all this, French Muslims were viewed as "less French". The recent attacks certainly haven't helped.

And we know that they are being unfairly searched because there is no judge involved as well as the pathetic success rate.

It doesn't matter if the police are scared. They have no right to use a minority as a punching bag to make themselves feel better.

I didn't express myself very well
I'm not saying the police is in the right at all, I'm saying there is more to the situation than "the bad evil racist french police wants to hurt muslims"
French citizens (or just people really) are being treated unfairly in France right now, no one's saying this is right or that it needs to go on
But the situation is being overblown - yes, the police is fucking up, no, most muslims in france are actually safe, no, it won't suddenly convert moderates into extremists, no, it's (probably) not racially motivated, the police is tired and not good at what they're doing anyway

 

[tfur]

Let's call it cosmic karma and leave it at that.

I'll call it BS.
When asked about it, you fold and call it "cosmic karma." ?

You are the one who mentioned "some very scary, quiet people do care. "... but then shrink when asked for details.

Is this a language barrier and you meant to say "some very scared people who are quiet?"

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Another very good point that I wish more people would use to help perspective.

That's just baseless assumption though. The only thing we could maybe draw a parallel is with the treatment of the terrorist attacks for an independent Corsica which has been going on for decades now. But they've made less (not sure about that) victims than islamist terrorism.

 

[BocoDragon]

Elaborate.

You don't smear someone as a bigot just because they support vigilant police activity. It's a cheap shortcut to try and discredit them.

They may be wrong. You can argue them without ascribing to them some racist motivation which was pulled out of nowhere.

 

[The Wall]

I'll call it BS.
When asked about it, you fold and call it "cosmic karma." ?

You are the one who mentioned "some very scary, quiet people do care. "... but then shrink when asked for details.

Is this a language barrier and you meant to say "some very scared people who are quiet?"

Not everything can be given an accurate label.

And no, that is not what I meant, but I do have some language barriers that I am working on. Thank you for interacting with me.

 

[The Adder]

What they're doing is preventing things - 4 people were arrested so far, and no attack has happened since then at least
But the % of the number of potential attacks that were prevented compared to the amount of people who were affected by the police's raids is ridiculous

Did you just compare this to the terror attacks that happened last year though? Not cool.

I compared it to terrorism in general. Because that's what it is. It just so happens to be backed by the country in which it is occurring.

And "no attacks have happened since"? It's been 4 months. Cnarlie Hebdo and the last attacks were a full 10 months apart. That there hasn't been an attack since your government lost its god damned mind proves nothing.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

I compared it to terrorism in general. Because that's what it is. It just so happens to be backed by the country in which it is occurring.

And "no attacks have happened since"? It's been 4 months. Cnarlie Hebdo and the last attacks were a full 10 months apart. That there hasn't been an attack since your government lost its god damned mind proves nothing.

Attacks were planend and thwarted during those 4 months is what I mean. The police isn't randomly ransacking Muslim households for revenge, they're doing much more than what they should do to actually be efficient and citizens are paying the price.

And you're comparing police paranoia that has resulted in bruises and hospital trips to people being killed to make an ideological statement. I'm not defending either but comparing police brutality to terrorist attacks, comparing mistreatment of people's rights to utter bloodshed, is an offense to the people who actually died.

imma going to bed, good night

 

[MegaMelon]

You don't smear someone as a bigot just because they support vigilant police activity. It's a cheap shortcut to try and discredit them.

They may be wrong. You can argue them without ascribing to them some racist motivation which was pulled out of nowhere.

When I used the word bigot I did not mean in a religious/ethnic sense but rather with reference to his refusal to accept the idea that a different plan of action would be better than this injustice towards innocent people. See the following:

again no denying its not a catalyst. but my point was to point out that if people adopt radicalization due to these poor execution of raiding and profiling. then good ridance to them. where are we lost?

 

[The Adder]

Attacks were planend and thwarted during those 4 months is what I mean. The police isn't randomly ransacking Muslim households for revenge, they're doing much more than what they should do to actually be efficient and citizens are paying the price.

And you're comparing police paranoia that has resulted in bruises and hospital trips to people being killed to make an ideological statement. I'm not defending either but comparing police brutality to terrorist attacks, comparing mistreatment of people's rights to utter bloodshed, is an offense to the people who actually died.

imma going to bed, good night

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

see bolded
police is trying to find and arrest potential terrorists to do their job and not have to deal with a third terrorist attack
they're not doing this in the pursuit of political aims
unless you consider protecting the people is a political aim, in which case literally every body of authority is a terrorist organization
people are complaining because their ways of trying to protect people has been doing the opposite and innocent civilians have been hurt, and they're complaining

either way you were also saying that what they're doing is "no better" than what they're trying to prevent, which again is just taking a shit on the people who actually went through what they're trying to prevent

 

[tfur]

Not everything can be given an accurate label.

And no, that is not what I meant, but I do have some language barriers that I am working on. Thank you for interacting with me.

Nobody asked for "accurate labels." I asked for what you meant, and was I given these labels by you.

Actually, some very scary, quiet people do care.

How hard is it to explain what this means?

 

[The Adder]

see bolded
police is trying to find and arrest potential terrorists to do their job and not have to deal with a third terrorist attack
they're not doing this in the pursuit of political aims
unless you consider protecting the people is a political aim, in which case literally every body of authority is a terrorist organization

I consider using ineffective tactics in order to make the majority of your citizenry feel safe while not actually contributing to actual safety a political aim, yes.

either way you were also saying that what they're doing is "no better" than what they're trying to prevent, which again is just taking a shit on the people who actually went through what they're trying to prevent

My turn to ask you a personal question.

Do you know, and I mean personally know, anyone who was actually ever in a terrorist attack?

Because I do.

And I also know people who lived through the Jim Crow south.

And personally knowing people who have been through both kinds of experiences? The latter is much, MUCH worse.

And that's what France is letting itself turn into.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

My turn to ask you a personal question.

Do you know, and I mean personally know, anyone who was actually ever in a terrorist attack?

Because I do.

And I also know people who lived through the Jim Crow south.

And personally knowing people who have been through both kinds of experiences? The latter is much, MUCH worse.

And that's what France is letting itself turn into.

That's an hyperbolic statement if I ever saw one, France is not segregating muslims...

 

[gutter_trash]

Lots of weird posts coming from the anarcho-far-left

IMO, Sensible national security is important to ensure freedoms

 

[The Adder]

That's an hyperbolic statement if I ever saw one, France is not segregating muslims...

France has been ostracizing and othering its muslim citizens for years.

Now it's harassing and terrorizing them.

I didn't say France is the Jim Crow south, I said that's the direction in which it is headed.

Lots of weird posts coming from the anarcho-far-left

IMO, Sensible national security is important to ensure freedoms

What's sensible about beating the teeth out of an innocent man?

What's even the sense in beating the teeth out of a guilty man if he's not attacking you?

 

[MegaMelon]

Lots of weird posts coming from the anarcho-far-left

IMO, Sensible national security is important to ensure freedoms

You could, y'know...quote those posts rather than just make a general statement makes that it difficult to see who you're referring to.

ISIS one when they killed over a hundred civillians, and nobody did anything.

Here we go again. Are you trying to say that the current actions are fine and don't need to be shaken up?

 

[CenturionKei]

IS won. This is what they wanted.

ISIS one when they killed over a hundred civillians, and nobody did anything.

 

[Dr.Social]

Lots of weird posts coming from the anarcho-far-left

IMO, Sensible national security is important to ensure freedoms

Nothing about breaking an innocent disabled man's teeth is sensible.

 

[Walpurgis]

ISIS one when they killed over a hundred civillians, and nobody did anything.

When was that? The only time that happens is when they kill people in Muslim countries.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

France has been ostracizing and othering its muslim citizens for years.

Now it's harassing and terrorizing them.

I didn't say France is the Jim Crow south, I said that's the direction in which it is headed.

Can you give some cases of ostracism and othering the french muslims other the past years?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

IS won. This is what they wanted.

Not really, if you want ISIS to really win then have the US send in major ground forces for a prolonged ground war, that's what ISIS really wants.

 

[MistakenMobius]

Another very good point that I wish more people would use to help perspective.

France killed and raped 150,000 catholic during the crushing the war in Vendee at the end of the 19th century.
The state seized most of the Catholic Church possession in 1905.

France has never been shy on oppressing Catholic

 

[The Adder]

Can you give some cases of ostracism and othering the french muslims other the past years?

http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/france/ (read the Labor Market part here)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/world/europe/immigrants-dreams-mix-with-fury-near-paris.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/w...h-discrimination-as-bans-on-veils-expand.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ID=801420139&spReportId=ODAxNDIwMTM5S0?reload

 

[Walpurgis]

Can you give some cases of ostracism and othering the french muslims other the past years?

France is the only nation on earth to ban the headscarf.

The law does not mention any particular symbol, and thus bans all Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs.[1] It is however considered by many to specifically target the wearing of headscarves (a khimar, considered by most Muslims to be an obligatory article of faith as part of hijab ["modesty"]) by Muslim schoolgirls. For this reason, it is occasionally referred to as the French headscarf ban in the foreign press

As a consequence of the law, the years following the ban has seen an increasing number of Islamic secondary schools being established, some[quantify] Muslim female students chose to study at home, and others[quantify] migrating away from France with their families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Mission accomplished, I suppose.

France killed and raped 150,000 catholic during the crushing the war in Vendee at the end of the 19th century.
The state seized most of the Catholic Church possession in 1905.

France has never been shy on oppressing Catholic

If France is anything like Quebec, nationalism ties back to Catholicism and Catholic heritage - even for atheists, oddly enough.

Here is what I found on Wikipedia.

A while ago, I got the impression that Quebec was the least religious province in Canada and after a little researching, I was met with the opposite. I don't know why I'm surprised by this result.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

To be clear I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, but it's seems like it's blown out of proportion in this thread. I'm biased since I'm french myself (2nd generation immigrant of African descent) which might be why I feel this way but I think that my opinion may add to this thread.

http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/france/ (read the Labor Market part here)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/world/europe/immigrants-dreams-mix-with-fury-near-paris.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/w...h-discrimination-as-bans-on-veils-expand.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ID=801420139&spReportId=ODAxNDIwMTM5S0?reload

I don't know how they found those statistic for your first link since racial and religious census are forbidden in France. As far as your second link goes it comes from the project created after the WW2 when mass immigration happen to rebuild the country. There's been a failure to integrate them in the population which is not specific to the muslim community, me being from African immigrant know perfectly this problem.

I'll also had that the unsatisfaction regarding the job status of muslim youth is echoed in all french's youth, 25,9% of youth are unemployed in France.

Veil aren't ban in France, you can have your veil in the street. Religious symbols are banned in public spaces. it's not othering muslims, more othering religion. You come with a cross as your neckless in a public space you'll have the same treatment as someone who comes with a veil.

France is the only nation on earth to ban the headscarf.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Mission accomplished, I suppose.

As I said above it's religious symbol which are banned, not specifically the veil. Saying that its actually specifically focusing on muslim is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

 

[Walpurgis]

Veil aren't ban in France, you can have your veil in the street. Religious symbols are banned in public spaces. it's not othering muslims, more othering religion. You come with a cross as your neckless in a public space you'll have the same treatment as someone who comes with a veil.



As I said above it's religious symbol which are banned, not specifically the veil. Saying that its actually specifically focusing on muslim is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

I think to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, it is easy to claim that the law applies to everyone but only a select few actually feel this application. What if a government official passed a law prohibiting people from wearing bras? While it is true that such a law applies to everyone, it doesn't actually affect everyone and the intentions behind it are quite clear.

The French anti-religion law was a disaster for Sikhs but I don't believe their population is large enough to be targeted. In any case, the discourse around the issue at the time, the statements from officials and France's issues with Muslim countries/colonial past makes it very clear the intentions of this law.

Examples from that Wiki page.

In 2004, French Cardinal Bernard Panafieu, the Archbishop of Marseilles called the ban "unenforceable." While agreeing that some Muslim immigrants have had trouble adjusting to a "lay, pluralistic society," he asserted that the ban was wrong as it prevented Muslims from "asserting their identity" and that it would be "better to act through persuasion than by compulsion" if the state wanted to limit the use of religious symbols.

However, André Victor, member of Workers' Struggle wrote in his article Islamic Hijab and the Subjugation of Women 25 April 2003 that "Sarkozy has spoken out against hijab on passport photos, and presumably earned the approval of millions of voters, which was probably the real purpose of this exercise in demagoguery[...] Therefore this policy leads to increase the weight of the most reactionary religious authorities within the immigrant population."

The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation.

and etc.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I think to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, it is easy to claim that the law applies to everyone but only a select few actually feel this application. What if a government official passed a law prohibiting people from wearing bras? While it is true that such a law applies to everyone, it doesn't actually affect everyone and the intentions behind it are quite clear.

The French anti-religion law was a disaster for Sikhs but I don't believe their population is large enough to be targeted. In any case, the discourse around the issue at the time, the statements from officials and France's issues with Muslim countries/colonial past makes it very clear the intentions of this law.

Examples from that Wiki page.



and etc.

I personally disagree that a law which affect every religion somehow only target Muslim people.

And let's not forget the catholicism's past of France too which is in fact the reason why there's the separation of religion and state.

 

[gutter_trash]

I personally disagree that a law which affect every religion somehow only target Muslim people.

And let's not forget the catholicism's past of France too which is in fact the reason why there's the separation of religion and state.

Yup, France removed the clergy's grip on politics and power after the Revolution.

Pre-Revolution, the Monarchy and the Church were in bed together controlling the people.

They don't want to revert back to the past when religion interfered with the political class.

Americans and Canadians don't understand how long it took many European countries to separate Church from State. Hence why secularism is a big thing in present liberal democracies there.

 

[Ghostandgoblin]

The French anti-religion law

Well, first you should read and use the right terms. There is no "anti-religion" law, just a principle of secularism translated into different laws and legal texts.

it is easy to claim that the law applies to everyone but only a select few actually feel this application.

This is the definition of a law, it draws limits for certain situations and for people concerned by this situations. Saying the principle of french secularism is targeting muslims is plain stupid: do you have a religion that needs visible signs to be shown ? If yes you need to cover them in public places.
Islam happens to be one one of them, as Judaism, Sikhism... but also all the others if you want to show your religious preferences to the rest of the world.

Now if we are speaking of a specific text (aka the "French ban on face covering") It targets the use of niqabs and burqas which are widely considered a way of oppressing women, disguised as a religious doctrine. As those doctrines are not recognised by the French state the use of those "traditions" are limited to the private space of everyone.

Sure Sarkozy used it to gain part of the far right voters, but the problem is more with the far right feeling and not about the supposed general hate of the muslims.

 

[The Adder]

To be clear I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, but it's seems like it's blown out of proportion in this thread. I'm biased since I'm french myself (2nd generation immigrant of African descent) which might be why I feel this way but I think that my opinion may add to this thread.



I don't know how they found those statistic for your first link since racial and religious census are forbidden in France. As far as your second link goes it comes from the project created after the WW2 when mass immigration happen to rebuild the country. There's been a failure to integrate them in the population which is not specific to the muslim community, me being from African immigrant know perfectly this problem.

I'll also had that the unsatisfaction regarding the job status of muslim youth is echoed in all french's youth, 25,9% of youth are unemployed in France.

Veil aren't ban in France, you can have your veil in the street. Religious symbols are banned in public spaces. it's not othering muslims, more othering religion. You come with a cross as your neckless in a public space you'll have the same treatment as someone who comes with a veil.



As I said above it's religious symbol which are banned, not specifically the veil. Saying that its actually specifically focusing on muslim is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

Your arguments are, in order:

I don't believe them

Yeah, but France is bad at integrated EVERYONE who's different.

Well it applies to Christians too. Or at least it woulld if Christians had any kind of symbol of their faith that they're expected to wear as a tenant of that faith. That they couldn't just tuck into their shirts like a Christian can with a cross necklace. (That law pretends to target all faiths but the wording is intentionally narrow enough to only apply to Islam and the faiths that are often mistake for it by the ignorant like Sikhism).

Give me some time to research your unemployment assertion, given what I've read, pretty sure I can blow holes in that too. Although it might be difficult if France really does keep its demographics data obscjred.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Your arguments are, in order:

I don't believe them

Yeah, but France is bad at integrated EVERYONE who's different.

Well it applies to Christians too. Or at least it woulld if Christians had any kind of symbol of their faith that they're expected to wear as a tenant of that faith. That they couldn't just tuck into their shirts like a Christian can with a cross necklace. (That law pretends to target all faiths but the wording is intentionally narrow enough to only apply to Islam and the faiths that are often mistake for it by the ignorant like Sikhism).

Give me some time to research your unemployment assertion, given what I've read, pretty sure I can blow holes in that too. Although it might be difficult if France really does keep its demographics data obscjred.

Yes I don't believe them because it's not possible to do those kind of research in France.

Your argument was that the french state was othering muslim, which is not true since it's not specifically designed to target muslims but a fairly large community of people. Is it a good thing? No but that's different then what you were saying.

Every religious person is targeted by it in public spaces, places that belong to the state. Jews are targeted too by this law with the kippa btw.

I can provide you some links but in french though: http://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/le-taux-de-chomage-des-jeunes.html

http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/le-...es-jeunes-restent-les-martyrs-de-la-crise.php

http://www.capital.fr/carriere-mana...aisse-en-europe-mais-flambe-en-france-1095593

 

[Ghostandgoblin]

Well it applies to Christians too. Or at least it woulld if Christians had any kind of symbol of their faith that they're expected to wear as a tenant of that faith. That they couldn't just tuck into their shirts like a Christian can with a cross necklace. (That law pretends to target all faiths but the wording is intentionally narrow enough to only apply to Islam and the faiths that are often mistake for it by the ignorant like Sikhism).

Once again, which law are you talking about and were are you seeing that it intentionally targets Muslims ? If you are just saying that after reading protests from religious leaders from the wikipedia article on the face covering ban, broaden your sources a bit.

 

[Walpurgis]

I personally disagree that a law which affect every religion somehow only target Muslim people.

And let's not forget the catholicism's past of France too which is in fact the reason why there's the separation of religion and state.

I do not consider the state imposing its (anti)religious beliefs on its citizens to be a separate of church and state. Letting people practice freely without favouring or putting down any one belief is a separate of church and state.

And if you still disagree on the law being crafted for Muslims, consider that they are the second largest religion in France (Catholicism being #1) and this.

The issue of Muslim hijabs has sparked controversy after several girls refused to uncover their heads in class, as early as 1989. In October 1989, three Muslim schoolgirls wearing the Islamic headscarf were expelled from the collège Gabriel-Havez in Creil (north of Paris). In November, the First Conseil d'État ruling affirmed that the wearing of the Islamic headscarf, as a symbol of religious expression, in public schools was not incompatible with the French school system and the system of laïcité. In December, a first ministerial circular (circulaire Jospin) was published, stating teachers had to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to ban the wearing of Islamic headscarf.

In January 1990, three schoolgirls were expelled from the collège Pasteur in Noyon, north of Paris. The parents of one expelled schoolgirl filed a defamation action against the principal of the collège Gabriel-Havez in Creil. As a result, the teachers of a collège in Nantua went on strike to protest the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in school. A second ministerial circular was published in October, to restate the need to respect the principle of laïcité in public schools.

In September 1994, a third ministerial circular (circulaire Bayrou) was published, making a distinction between "discreet" symbols to be tolerated in public schools, and "ostentatious" symbols, including the Islamic headscarf, to be banned from public schools. In October, some students demonstrated at the lycée Saint Exupéry in Mantes-la-Jolie (northwest of Paris) to support the freedom to wear Islamic headscarves in school. In November, approximately twenty-four veiled schoolgirls were expelled from the lycée Saint Exupéry in Mantes-la-Jolie and the lycée Faidherbe in Lille.

In December 2003, President Chirac decided that the law should prohibit the wearing of visible religious signs in schools, according to laïcité requirements. The law was approved by parliament in March 2004. Items prohibited by this law include Muslim hijabs, Jewish yarmulkes or large Christian crosses. It is still permissible to wear discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

The French Parliament began an initial inquiry on the issue shortly after President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in June 2009 that religious face veils were "not welcome" within France. Sarkozy had stated that the law is to protect women from being forced to cover their faces and to uphold France's secular values. A poll carried out by Pew Research Center leading up to the vote indicated that 80% of French voters supported the ban. It was estimated that about 2,000 women wore the head coverings to be banned by this bill.

Seems like a good use of resources.

"My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban. In my head, I have to prepare for war every time I step outside, prepare to come up against people who want to put a bullet in my head. The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they've done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I'd be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were 'walking prisons'. Well, that's exactly where we've been stuck by this law." Kenza Drider, another protester against the law, said she lives in fear of attack. "I'm insulted about three to four times a day. Most say, 'Go home'; some say, 'We'll kill you.' One said: 'We'll do to you what we did to the Jews.'... I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that's happening to us."

And the result that shocked the world.

You can agree with these bans but please stop ignoring the clear targeting here. Some other minorities are affected by these bans but they are collateral damage. Catholicism is preserved and that is all that matters in France.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I do not consider the state imposing its (anti)religious beliefs on its citizens to be a separate of church and state. Letting people practice freely without favouring or putting down any one belief is a separate of church and state.

And if you still disagree on the law being crafted for Muslims, consider that they are the second largest religion in France (Catholicism being #1) and this.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

Seems like a good use of resources.

And the result that shocked the world.

You can agree with these bans but please stop ignoring the clear targeting here. Some other minorities are affected by these bans but they are collateral damage. Catholicism is preserved and that is all that matters in France.

If you're arguing that the french government wants to protect Catholicism then there's nothing to talk about.

I'll just leave this thread.

 

[Walpurgis]

If you're arguing that the french government wants to protect Catholicism then there's nothing to talk about.

I'll just leave this thread.

If you can't argue, that's probably for the best.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

If you can't argue, that's probably for the best.

Argue with what? Catholicism is the religion that has suffered the most in France, your statement shows a lack of knowledge of the history of religion in France.

 

[Ghostandgoblin]

I do not consider the state imposing its (anti)religious beliefs on its citizens to be a separate of church and state

Once again France is not anti religious, but a country of secularism belief. But if you like to think so, you can. I will surely go out and burn the synagogue, mosque and church that are in my town tonight, woohoo!

And if you still disagree on the law being crafted for Muslims, consider that they are the second largest religion in France (Catholicism being #1) and this.

It's fun how you choose not to read some of our answers: yes some muslims are concerned because their way of practising religion is visible. As are the jews. It is French secularism, you like it or not. A big Christian cross would not be allowed in a school, just as a Muslim hijab, end of the line.

You are even quoting the text :

The law was approved by parliament in March 2004. Items prohibited by this law include Muslim hijabs, Jewish yarmulkes or large Christian crosses. It is still permissible to wear discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.

What do you want us to say, that France is targeting all muslims ? I don't know what you are trying to say by twisting all the facts. If it's small and it's not clearly visible, you can keep it in your pocket.

For the

. Some other minorities are affected by these bans but they are collateral damage.

part, read again what I posted :

Now if we are speaking of a specific text (aka the "French ban on face covering") It targets the use of niqabs and burqas which are widely considered a way of oppressing women, disguised as a religious doctrine. As those doctrines are not recognised by the French state the use of those "traditions" are limited to the private space of everyone.

Oh, and finally : your numbers are saying Muslim are the second biggest religion in France, what are the other numbers you are giving ? At most 2000 people banned from using a niqab or burqa. That is clearly a hunt for the whole Muslim population, congrats, you just found out the official French Anti Muslim Politic. And let's forget the +/-250000 male jews (according to wikipedia, where are those numbers from ?) that can't wear a kipa in school.

 

[Walpurgis]

I'll give a more detailed response when I get to my PC. Basically, those laws are quite new and were only introduced because of Muslims.

I am aware of the issues that France had with the Catholic Church, however, I feel that nationalists cling to it as heritage while fear mongering about the "Islamisation" of France.

I'll post articles and links when I get home.

 

[Africanus]

And François Hollande decreed: "L'etat, c'est moi!"

 

[Madouu]

The position that muslims living in France are not and have not been targeted is so unbelievably disconnected from the reality of what french muslims actually feel that it just boggles my mind that people can truly believe it in good faith.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

The position that muslims living in France are not and have not been targeted is so unbelievably disconnected from the reality of what french muslims actually feel that it just boggles my mind that people can truly believe it in good faith.

Targeted in the media and sometimes in public opinion? Absolutely.

Targeted by laws? I don't think so.

 

[Valinor]

man i hate these threads. nothing ever changes. whether it be reddit , rfd or neogaf. its not like people ever change their mind and it just changes into some sort of name calling without any actual progress.

for what its worth . i don't have any issues with islam or muslims. only with issues of extremism or radical ideology. i am of mind that its important to recongize its dangers whether it be in christianity with westbro, rss with hindus, persecution of rohingaya muslims by ____ budhist in myanmar and find it unacceptable in any circumstances. there should be a strong stance against in whatever forms. As a secularist i don't see how people can justify it , but then we go back to the same circles.

i am gonna try to avoid these political gafs for a while, no need to start needless contention as such . i am gonna apologize to people prior for earlier points of conflict and parlay with a letterkenny video compilation of jokes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EfVlyFK_Zs

"that girl is so hot , i would jerk off her dad just to see where she came from" - gail
letter kenny episode 4, season 1

this is not a shameless attempt to ask for OT for this show. well it might be but its also a white cloth to agree to disagree

 

[Walpurgis]

Argue with what? Catholicism is the religion that has suffered the most in France, your statement shows a lack of knowledge of the history of religion in France.

Once again France is not anti religious, but a country of secularism belief. But if you like to think so, you can. I will surely go out and burn the synagogue, mosque and church that are in my town tonight, woohoo!


It's fun how you choose not to read some of our answers: yes some muslims are concerned because their way of practising religion is visible. As are the jews. It is French secularism, you like it or not. A big Christian cross would not be allowed in a school, just as a Muslim hijab, end of the line.

You are even quoting the text :

What do you want us to say, that France is targeting all muslims ? I don't know what you are trying to say by twisting all the facts. If it's small and it's not clearly visible, you can keep it in your pocket.

For the
part, read again what I posted :


Oh, and finally : your numbers are saying Muslim are the second biggest religion in France, what are the other numbers you are giving ? At most 2000 people banned from using a niqab or burqa. That is clearly a hunt for the whole Muslim population, congrats, you just found out the official French Anti Muslim Politic. And let's forget the +/-250000 male jews (according to wikipedia, where are those numbers from ?) that can't wear a kipa in school.

Catholicism lost its elevated status as state religion in most of France (not all of it), that's pretty much it. I don't know how you can claim that Catholicism is the religion that has suffered the most. There was a short period of discrimination towards Catholics a hundred years ago but there was a lot of bad things back then. The bottom line is, Catholicism is treated quite well today in France. No suffering.

France still has at least two provinces where Catholicism, Judaism and Christianity enjoy elevated status with the "secular" state of France funding their religious institutions and public education with everyone's tax money. Sure, only 3 million people live there but only 2,000 women wore the burka. You would think that this special funding for certain religions would be a bigger issue than the clothing a few women wear.

I almost forgot, the 1905 law only applies to churches built after 1905. Since most churches were built prior to that, they continue to receive tax money from the "secular" state for maintenance and I believe are still owned by them (stolen).

While most Roman Catholic churches in the country were built well before the enactment of the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, and thus are now maintained largely at public expense, followers of Islam and other religions more recently implanted in France have to pay the full price of their founding and maintaining religious facilities. This was one of the arguments noted by Nicolas Sarkozy, when he was Minister of Interior, to controversially argue in favour of funding other cultural[citation needed] centres than those of Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism.

The 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State is often considered politically untouchable by many French politicians and their constituents. Rivals of Sarkozy, such as Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, made it a point that no amendments were made to the law.

Also, the "secular" French President is still nominating Catholic bishops and pays their wages.

The President of the French Republic, currently François Hollande, is ex officio the "first and only honorary canon" of the Archbasilica, a title held by the heads of state of France since King Henry IV.

As for Catholicism in politics today,

Anti-clericalism slowly declined among the French left-wing throughout France in the twentieth century, while the question of religion and of freedom of thought seemed to have been resolved. However, it is still present as a defining trait of the left-wing, while most right-wing Frenchmen describe themselves as Catholics (although not necessarily practicing). Thus, the draft laws presented by François Mitterrand's government in the early 1980s, concerning restrictions on the funding of private (and in majority Catholic) schools, were countered by right-wing demonstrations headed by the then mayor of Paris, the Gaullist Jacques Chirac, who was to be his prime minister in 1986 and would succeed him in 1995 as president. In the same way, the 2004 law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, revived the controversy twenty years later, although the dividing lines also passed through each political side due to the complex matter of the subject.

In other words,
Left: Against religion
Right: Against religions other than Catholicism

This is how both the French left and right were able to agree on the headscarf bans. Think of it like a Venn diagram.

Here is an example of how the French right works.

Sarkozy saw France's main religions as positive contributions to French society. He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France's Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought, arguing that faith should come back into the public sphere. In line with Sarkozy's views on the need for reform of laïcité, Pope Benedict XVI on September 12, 2008 said it was time to revisit the debate over the relationship between church and state, advocating a "healthy" form of laïcité. Meeting with Sarkozy, he stated: "In fact, it is fundamental, on the one hand, to insist upon the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the state toward them." He went on: "On the other hand, [it is important] to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to – among other things – the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society.”

Sarkozy later changed footing on the place of religion in French society, by publicly declaring the burqa "not welcome" in France in 2009 and favoring legislation to outlaw it, following which in February 2010 a post office robbery took place by two burqa-clad robbers, ethnicity unknown, who after entering the post office removed their veils.

Two years ago, the current prime minister of France made this statement.

“Anti-semitism, this old European disease, a new form. It spreads on the Internet, in our popular neighborhoods, with a youth that has lost its points of reference, has no conscience of history, and who hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism.”

Six months later...

“There is a prejudice in society about this, but on the other hand, I refuse to use this term 'Islamophobia,' because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is used to silence people. ”

This is a man on the French left...

Also, look at France's "secular" public holidays.

Targeted in the media and sometimes in public opinion? Absolutely.

Targeted by laws? I don't think so.

Here.

Amid a global recession and with a left-wing government implementing austerity, a strike movement took off in the car industry, in which approximately half of the employees were migrant workers from former French colonies. The Socialist prime minister blamed the religion of the strikers. Soon, popular media such as Le Figaro were asking about French Muslims: "Will we still be French in 30 years?"

In 1989 and 1990, a series of schools began to target Muslim girls for wearing the hijab, supposedly a sign of their refusal to integrate - a controversy that gained momentum with the French state's intervention in Algeria's civil war against the Islamists.

Later, with the "war on terror" in full swing, President Jacques Chirac proposed a "veil law" banning the wearing of all religious symbols in French schools. In 2011, the state passed a further law banning the right of Muslim women to wear any face-covering in public. The result was to effectively place those Muslim women who prefer the niqab or the burqa under house arrest.

Today, most French people consider Islam to be "incompatible" with French values. Leading journalists such as Claude Imbert of the respected conservative magazine Le Point, proudly claim to be Islamophobes. A recent cover of the magazine featuring an image of a Muslim women wearing a niqab, bore the headline: "Brazen Islam ... in school cafeterias, hospitals, and swimming pools".

The culture war against Muslims is a war with teeth. France is a country where around 70 percent of the prison population is Muslim. It is a country in which there is systematic racist brutality on the part of police.

Now, with the emergency laws in place, police are empowered to carry out arrests, raids, house arrests, usually directed against Muslim citizens or businesses, without any judicial oversight or justification.

The French government has made it extremely difficult for Muslims to protest. In 2012, when the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a series of Islamophobic cartoons, the government banned planned protests against the publication.

Last year, when activists sought to protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza, the government used exaggerated reports of anti-Semitism among Muslim protesters to impose bans.

Since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the scope of state repression has drastically increased. There were widespread calls for the policing of those "who are not Charlie", including from Nathalie Saint-Cricq, chief political editor of France 2, who argued for surveillance of possible malcontents in the schools. A series of arrests were handed down for purported "glorification" of terrorism, including that of an eight-year-old schoolboy.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Catholicism lost its elevated status as state religion in most of France (not all of it), that's pretty much it. I don't know how you can claim that Catholicism is the religion that has suffered the most. There was a short period of discrimination towards Catholics a hundred years ago but there was a lot of bad things back then. The bottom line is, Catholicism is treated quite well today in France. No suffering.

France still has at least two provinces where Catholicism, Judaism and Christianity enjoy elevated status with the "secular" state of France funding their religious institutions and public education with everyone's tax money. Sure, only 3 million people live there but only 2,000 women wore the burka. You would think that this special funding for certain religions would be a bigger issue than the clothing a few women wear.

Yes and in these two province a mosque was built and a muslim cemetery was built in 2012, with taxe payer money. There's also some elected official wanting to include islam in the Concordat. Muslim's cult facilities can and have been built with taxpayer money in Alsace-Lorraine.

I almost forgot, the 1905 law only applies to churches built after 1905. Since most churches were built prior to that, they continue to receive tax money from the "secular" state for maintenance and I believe are still owned by them

Taken straight from the law

Article 2 : « La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte. [...] »

Which is pretty clear by itself, or maybe you mean the "french patrimony" (I don't know how I could translate this) which is something else entirely.

Also, the "secular" French President is still nominating Catholic bishops and pays their wages.

It's a weird problem which has its root with the annexion of the Alsace-Lorraine during WW2, I prefer it if it didn't exist but it's there. Also it doesn't only stops at bishops, since rabbi and pastors have the same treatment. The only reason muslim were not included was because at the time they were not as important demographically as they are now.

In other words,
Left: Against religion
Right: Against religions other than Catholicism

This is how both the French left and right were able to agree on the headscarf bans. Think of it like a Venn diagram.

That's a binary way of seeing things which I don't agree of.

Here is an example of how the French right works.

Sarkozy also stated that he wants the french state to fund others religion and more specifically Islam which you conveniently ignored in your post:

This was one of the arguments noted by Nicolas Sarkozy, when he was Minister of Interior, to controversially argue in favour of funding other cultural
centres than those of Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism.

He's even the founder of the French Council of the Muslim Faith which represent muslims in France.

Here's the true quote:

Nicolas Sarkozy, alors ministre de l'Économie, et sortant de son poste de ministre de l'Intérieur et des Cultes, s'interroge, dans un livre intitulé La République, les religions, l'espérance, sur une possible modification de la loi, sans toutefois en remettre en cause les fondements. Il propose de donner à l'État les moyens de pouvoir contrôler efficacement le financement des cultes, de libérer le culte musulman français de la tutelle de pays étrangers et ainsi de pouvoir limiter l'influence de ces pays sur la communauté musulmane de France. Ce contrôle impliquerait comme effet secondaire des facilités accordées par l'État en matière de formation des agents des cultes, en mettant par exemple à disposition des enseignants pour les matières non religieuses pour la formation des prêtres, pasteurs ou imams.

Which says that Sarkozy wants the state to control the cults funding, to liberate french muslims of the guardianship and the influence of foreign states.

Two years ago, the current prime minister of France made this statement.
Six months later...

This is a man on the French left...

And Valls has been rightfully attacked by other politiciens for its stance on this issue. (Kind of unrelated but Valls is only left on paper, all his action reeks for right wing and he's been heavily criticized by the left has a whole and even in his party for his stance on several issues outside of religion)

This is he's justification for not wanting to use "Islamophobia" but rather "anti-muslim"

Je suis ministre de l’Intérieur, il ne m’appartient pas de réglementer l’usage d’un mot. Les mots ont un sens, et le terme suscite la polémique. Moi, je choisis ceux que j’emploie. L’important est de souligner une réalité : les actes racistes et xénophobes exercés à l’encontre de nos compatriotes musulmans ont augmenté de 28% depuis 2012 ! Mais, derrière le mot "islamophobie", il faut voir ce qui se cache. Sa genèse montre qu’il a été forgé par les intégristes iraniens à la fin des années 1970 pour jeter l’opprobre sur les femmes qui se refusaient à porter le voile.

Which basically means that he doesn't want to use it because it was a way for iranian fundamentalist to oppress woman who didn't want to wear the veil in the late 70's. Take it has you will.

Also, look at France's "secular" public holidays.

Holidays really?

And has for your article, the prison states shows a failure to integrate minorities so you won't see me disagree with it, though I would like to see where the stat comes from because all I can see is that they based it on one prison in Lille. As for the law regarding the burqa I forgot about it so it's my bad. Regarding Charlie, saying that you're not Charlie was considered to be an apology of terrorism which is a crime in France. And as for the ban of protest regarding Gaza, France has a problem (in my opinion of course) of overprotecting Israel and what it's doing in Palestine, which you can see with the call to boycott Israel being illigal in France.

I think I answered all your points, feel free to ask me anything else.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Just to had to my post, under Sarkozy the state financed the construction of mosques in all the french territory by bypassing the 1905 law.

So yeah like any politician he'll say or do what gets him some vote.

 

[Apathy]

Brings up images of the October crisis with raids going on and so very few actual criminals found

 

[MisterFalcon]

Brings up images of the October crisis with raids going on and so very few actual criminals found

French and Belgian police are currently hunting two gunmen after three police officers got shot when carrying out one of those totally unneeded raids in Brussels.

 

[Giriath_89]

This is not how to fight terrorism, it's how to breed it. Shame on you, France.

Isn't that the plan though? Destroy regimes that keep extremists in check, train and equip "moderate" extremists. Ignore warnings of imminent terrorist events and use the fallout to activate a state of emergency that robs the citizenry of their rights.

I would not be surprised if the US suffered their next 9/11 under the new presidency, followed by a much worse state of emergency. If that happens, there will be a war against "domestic terrorists".

 

[nilbog21]

Yep.

I expect that now, those same Muslims that have left France out of fear will go to "Muslim friendly" countries that are run/influenced by these terrorists and at least be welcome and treated "fairly" (if everyone is treated like shit it's still equal). There might be enough that are bitter at their treatment and join up with the terrorist groups. SMH.

This dude has it figured out