France makes a stand for freedom

[-Peacemaker-]

It's a tough situation. The French have lived as a tribe in their territory for at least a thousand years. Now because of immigration policies many French feel like they are being forced to share their home. I agree this is not the appropriate way to go about dealing with the situation. You don't oppress people who've come to your country in a lawful way. If they have a problem with immigration then they're free to change the immigration laws but they must treat everyone fairly.

 

[Badran]

I find security concerns valid & understandable. Muslims will have to adjust to such concerns. The ban is just a bad solution IMO.

If they were actually justified. Or to use a different word than justified, if it was actually demonstrated that there is a reason for such concern. Statistics for example showing that a concerning number of criminals have committed crimes while wearing this attire, and/or that this number is increasing.

To ban women from wearing an attire (associated with religion as well like i said) in a country that advocates personal freedoms, you need one hell of a reason, and you need to make it perfectly clear that the only single reason for this is due to security problems and demonstrate them well enough.

None of this has been done by the French government. Quite the contrary, they continue to site ridiculous reasons that run counter to their most cherished values.

The French don't seem to treat non-Muslim women as well as they should either, as evidenced by the national conversation precipitated by the Strauss-Kahn affair.

I'm not familiar enough with this incident to address it properly, however i'm talking specifically about treatment related to personal freedoms.

 

[Badran]

It's a tough situation. The French have lived as a tribe in their territory for at least a thousand years. Now because of immigration policies many French feel like they are being forced to share their home. I agree this is not the appropriate way to go about dealing with the situation. You don't oppress people who've come to your country in a lawful way. If they have a problem with immigration then they're free to change the immigration laws but they must treat everyone fairly.

Exactly, if you can't handle religious or cultural diversity, don't allow as much or at all diverse groups in your country to begin with. Not allow it then give in to irrational fear and then start mistreating and oppressing people.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they were actually justified. Or to use a different word than justified, if it was actually demonstrated that there is a reason for such concern. Statistics for example showing that a concerning number of criminals have committed crimes while wearing this attire, and/or that this number is increasing.

I don't know what else to say about it.

 

[Badran]

I don't know what else to say about it.

What do you mean? You mean you can't express your disagreement in any different words and that you covered all points?

Or that you don't have anything to say regarding the part you quoted?

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean? You mean you can't express your disagreement in any different words and that you covered all points?
Or that you don't have anything to say regarding the part you quoted?

All points covered.

 

[Badran]

All points covered.

I'm not trying to be pushy, but they're not. Because you haven't addressed why the supposed security problem is valid. When i thought i misunderstood you and that you're not actually saying that you see anything valid there, you said that the security reasons are valid and that Muslims have to adjust.

You haven't addressed the part where i propose what makes a supposed security concern valid.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not trying to be pushy, but they're not. Because you haven't addressed why the supposed security problem is valid.

Instead of "valid", think of their security concerns as understandable in times of unpredictable terrorism.
The word "valid" would convey more approval than I'd grant them.

When i thought i misunderstood you and that you're not actually saying that you see anything valid there, you said that the security reasons are valid and that Muslims have to adjust.

I do think that Muslims will have to adjust to women showing their faces to authorities as needed. This could very well mean male authorities.

You haven't addressed the part where i propose what makes a supposed security concern valid.

I've already said that facial recognition is useful for security. Is more needed?

 

[Badran]

Instead of "valid", think of their security concerns as understandable in times of unpredictable terrorism.
The word "valid" would convey more approval than I'd grant them.

I do think that Muslims will have to adjust to women showing their faces to authorities as needed. This could very well mean male authorities.

I've already said that facial recognition is useful for security. Is more needed?

Okay, i don't want to bug you so i'll state upfront that this much i can agree with to an extent, but let me clarify something (just for the sake of clarity because i think we misunderstood each other at some points). Cars, for instance, cause plenty of deaths. Not security concerns, actual deaths. So does smoking. Knives for instance, are used for murder. Do we ban any of those things? No, because for the most part (except for smoking) they're used properly. One needs strong or compelling reasons to do something like that.

The niqab or burqa, is a dress worn by women belonging to a minority in France due to religious reasons. A minority which was already complaining about discrimination in France, which is also like i said a country that advocates personal freedoms. Now, they supposedly have a concern (i don't accept that, but for the sake of this clarification) concerning it being used as a cover for criminal acts. Okay, is that enough to ban it? No, and you do agree to this much as i understand. Thus, this decision, of the ban, without it actually being a demonstrated security concern (by which i mean a concern justified by numerous incidents for example), is neither understandable or agreeable. Also because they could have handled it differently, using the way which we all are in agreement on, revealing the face in the needed or required places and times.

That way, would have been the normal procedure, the easiest to enforce, the one causing the least number of complaints and would not oppose France's values. Assuming the security concern is actually true and is a basis for this, i understand why you would sympathize and/or understand it (the supposed security concern), i don't object to that part, what i do object to however, is understanding and/or sympathizing with the decision of the ban. Your reply this time leads me to believe that you don't, but that you just sympathize and understand the supposed existence of such concern, to which i can agree to an extent (and the only reason its an extent and not fully of course is because i don't think it actually does exist or at least that it is supposedly part of the basis for this ban).

 

[Badran]

To make it clear in a different and simpler way, when you said this:

Seriously, I understand the ban, & have some sympathy for their efforts to solve a security problem.

The ban itself, not the supposed security concern, that i entirely disagree with. Being okay with this ban, or understanding it (not approving of it) is not warranted because its not an appropriate solution to the supposed 'problem', and its oppression of people. There is no understanding that.

However, like i said understanding the existence of the security concern, which seems to me now to be what you actually meant, is different.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So it is only the niqab that is targeted by the ban?

I don't know about France, but in Norway there is a general law that bans face coverings that prevent identification and we've had it since forever, i.e. long before niqabs became an issue.
It is rarely enforced though, and I have heard of no cases in which the law has been brought up.

 

[Revoltingest]

To make it clear in a different and simpler way, when you said this:

The ban itself, not the supposed security concern, that i entirely disagree with. Being okay with this ban, or understanding it (not approving of it) is not warranted because its not an appropriate solution to the supposed 'problem', and its oppression of people. There is no understanding that.

However, like i said understanding the existence of the security concern, which seems to me now to be what you actually meant, is different.

I think any disagreement we have is due to:
- My clumsy expression.
- Small differences in what the French think about their law.
I agree with your larger goal of preserving liberty for Muslims & everyone else.

And no, you're not bugging me at all. (Btw, I've been away for a few days.)