Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To play devil's advocate though. This is France. If the French citizenry decides that their culture is paramount and it doesn't violate their particular constitution, the phrase "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit your keister on the way out" comes to mind.

I can't complain about France and then turn a blind eye to the Middle East, the Stans and parts of Asia with its own dress codes/Sharia.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

See I would disagree that it is just a social modesty. I can see your point on it and to a certain level I would agree, but I have been over int he middle east and seen all of this first hand and would say that this is a strong equation in demeaning women in islamic culture. Now I understand your feeling towards this and I had I not been overseas I would agree with you full hearted, but my own experience tells me different. As to your point about france banning it I would agree as this is just france. I am a little shocked as france is heavily inlaid with Algeria from it's colonial days(algeria is heavily islamic) so I am a little suprised that this issue even arose, but that said it does little, but to say agrivate the issues with islam if not to segregate them even more from western society.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do)...

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

True that Frazz...

Frazzled wrote:
And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

Not being able to stop people from wearing something you don't like isn't tyrannical. Tyranny requires oppressive power. There is nothing oppressive about the presence of a Muslim woman in a veil.

dogma wrote:]

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

that is somewhat out of context. Tyrant means single leader of a city state or polis ergo tyranny is enforcing the will of one leader and one Leader only. Draconian tyrants are more were we derive the negative conotation of tyranny as they were evil leaders.

Frazzled wrote:Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Exactly Frazz!! Stroke your wiener dog for me. :-)

As far as the veil goes, I think France has got this right. The veil is a symbol of opression to women, that is entirely cultural. In much the same way radical Islam is mostly cultural.

GG

Frazzled wrote: the phrase "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit your keister on the way out" comes to mind.

I can't complain about France and then turn a blind eye to the Middle East, the Stans and parts of Asia with its own dress codes/Sharia.

Imitation has always been the sincerest form of flattery.

Anyway, I thought we all realized a long time ago that "love it or leave it" is nonsense.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

Not being able to stop people from wearing something you don't like isn't tyrannical. Tyranny requires oppressive power. There is nothing oppressive about the presence of a Muslim woman in a veil.

Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Well to be issue neutral on this, I hope it prompts and fosters the sort of immigration and cultural debate that the UK needs right now. Too many right wing and single issue parties are getting a foothold into mainstream politics precisely because the populace at large wants these issues discussed and raised.

Whether we like it or not, I think the idea of unrestricted immigration and the encroachment of Islam into Western society unnerves and worries people. It needs to be debated before the issue degenerates into fear and rumour mongering and kills any chance of addressing the problem.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Exactly Frazz!! Stroke your wiener dog for me. :-)

As far as the veil goes, I think France has got this right. The veil is a symbol of opression to women, that is entirely cultural. In much the same way radical Islam is mostly cultural.

GG

You knew I had to go there

Empchild wrote:
that is somewhat out of context. Tyrant means single leader of a city state or polis ergo tyranny is enforcing the will of one leader and one Leader only. Draconian tyrants are more were we derive the negative conotation of tyranny as they were evil leaders.

Not really. Tyranny of the majority is a specific political term that deals with the disproportionate power afforded to large population groups in a pure democracy. Its been around since Plato wrote about it in The Republic.


Also, tyranny, in its minimal form, means "oppressive power". Also, there is no necessary connection to a tyrant of any sort.

Yeah i have to say i find it kinda oppresive, i mean, they could be men hiding right? I thought that was one of th major issues.

If i was alone on a subway and 6 head to toe blacked out Burkha glad fethers got on, i think id feel worse than just 6 big guys who i can see clearly.

I thought that was one of the issues you know, hiding weapons, bombs, your size, actual sex, its all do-able with a ninja suit on isnt it?

Quote from wikipedia "In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny

why do you make me look these up why....Not that I mind proving you wrong and me right but really!

why do you make me look these up why....

I dunno, my question is how do you manage to look them up wrong?

tyr⋅an⋅ny  [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

Via dictionary.com

Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

Yeah i have to say i find it kinda oppresive, i mean, they could be men hiding right? I thought that was one of th major issues.

If i was alone on a subway and 6 head to toe blacked out Burkha glad fethers got on, i think id feel worse than just 6 big guys who i can see clearly.

Yes, and when they start making laws because of your insecurities that will matter.

I thought that was one of the issues you know, hiding weapons, bombs, your size, actual sex, its all do-able with a ninja suit on isnt it?

That is one of the issues, though it's also true that no crime has been committed in france wherein a bhurkha made it difficult to apprehend or identify a suspect. It's a faux security issue to cover up what belies the law itself, that being western insecurity about a foreign religion that they are now in contact with.

Funny how freedoms only free when you're a white christian/athiest who dresses like everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Empchild wrote:Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

My first post had a point, now that I've stated what I believe I'm at that point in the thread where I tell people that are wrong how and why they are wrong. Sometimes I can do it simply by quoting a dictionary. Those times are the easiest.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Oppression is the cruel or unjust expression of authority or power. Obviously the notions of authority and cruelty have no place here; leaving us with justice and power. In the social sense (the only sense that's important here), power relates only to the ability to control others. The wearing of a veil cannot be an oppressive act in the relevant sense. Its not a matter of opinion at all.

That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Empchild wrote:Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

Wait.... you mean actually brought him off of ignore? :-)

GG

Absent a violation of their fundemental rights, tyranny of the majority is what the rest of the world calls-democratic government.

Sorry if that democracy thing bugs you.

Empchild wrote:Quote from wikipedia "In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny

why do you make me look these up why....Not that I mind proving you wrong and me right but really!

Really, I'm not the person to debate political science with.

Tyranny of the Majority

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed. The phrase also refers to tyrants and despots whose behavior causes similar oppression.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Oppression is the cruel or unjust expression of authority or power. Obviously the notions of authority and cruelty have no place here; leaving us with justice and power. In the social sense (the only sense that's important here), power relates only to the ability to control others. The wearing of a veil cannot be an oppressive act in the relevant sense. Its not a matter of opinion at all.

That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Interesting point of contention i'll give you that. So in lamest terms you feel if france is doing this for their own kicks then they are wrong, but if they are doing it to stop muslim men from oppressing muslim women then they are right?

P.S Shuma when your on ignore it just shows up as ingored post

ShumaGorath wrote:

That is one of the issues, though it's also true that no crime has been committed in france wherein a bhurkha made it difficult to apprehend or identify a suspect. It's a faux security issue to cover up what belies the law itself, that being western insecurity about a foreign religion that they are now in contact with.

Funny how freedoms only free when you're a white christian/athiest who dresses like everyone else.

I don't suppose for a moment that burka wearing Muslim women make up a large percentage of the criminal fraternity, however I don't think the French are making any pretence that it is being done purely for security reasons, one of the reasons I admire their approach; they are tackling the issue of cultural integration head on. I don't see anyone complaining about lack of freedom to practise Islam in western societies - only the restriction on elements that conflict with our society. That's why Sharia law isn't implemented over here.

AHHHH now dogma by adding tyranny into a sentence we are shooting for a whole different ball game here, and yes I never know why but I take shuma off every now and then. Then he rambles something odd or so offbeat that I put him on.. I think he will stay on ignored from now on.

Frazzled wrote:Absent a violation of their fundemental rights, tyranny of the majority is what the rest of the world calls-democratic government.

Yes, it is. Its also implicit in Plato's discussion of democracy. There's a reason there are no viable, pure democracies in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
Sorry if that democracy thing bugs you.

Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

It can stand to reason too though that if the majority of frances hours(no idea what their governing group is called) feels that this law should be in effect I feel they have the right to do so. In sense these people are "ELECTED" officials by the people of france and thus act accoarding to the peoples wishes(yes I know what I just said). So really in my eyes france has stood up and said they don't want these people to wear burkhas in their country, and they have that right.

dogma wrote:

Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

That's pretty much a permanent state of affairs here in the UK

Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

They have the right to do as they wish, but they do not have the right to remain free from criticism.

That's why saying "they have the right" is not an effective means of deflecting criticism.

Empchild wrote:It can stand to reason too though that if the majority of frances hours(no idea what their governing group is called) feels that this law should be in effect I feel they have the right to do so. In sense these people are "ELECTED" officials by the people of france and thus act accoarding to the peoples wishes(yes I know what I just said). So really in my eyes france has stood up and said they don't want these people to wear burkhas in their country, and they have that right.

I wonder if they have put it to a referendum? Our European neighbours seem to be a little more keen than British governments have hitherto been to refer pressing matters back to the electorate.