What? People don't follow laws? There is sin in the world? Inconceivable!

Ray Jay wrote:For what it's worth I have learned that many Jews in France are afraid to wear the Star of David around their necks or even yarmulkes on their heads. In addition, people of all stripes are afraid to write, draw, say, etc. what they truly feel because of potential backlash.

Well, it's not always ideal for everyone to express what they truly feel, because some people are truly racists or in other ways bigoted. After all, part of the reason that some Jews may not want to be public is that they don't want to encounter expressions of antisemitism (even simply verbal ones).

It's one thing to say that something is legal; it's another to enforce a culture of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Another way of saying this is that you can have the best laws on the books, and the best intentions, but if your culture moves so that people are afraid to exercise their constitutional rights, you don't really have those freedoms.

Indeed. That is not a 'policy' thing, then is it?

But I'm not sure what you are saying about French culture. And do they have laws for freedom of expression and religion if they also have a law than bans the niqab?

bbauska wrote:No, the jab from you was the OCD comment.

Which I think was adequately balanced by the death penalty comment from you.

agree a draw?

bbauska wrote:Personally, I don't care what the French laws are. I have not been there myself either. I do believe that restrictions against clothing, signs, medallions et.al. due to religious reasons is a bit silly.

Restricting the head/face coverings on an ID is a different situation, however. ID is just that, IDENTIFICATION! If a person cannot be identified by the picture on the ID, that what good is that ID? The ID picture should clearly show face and hair. Otherwise, it is useless. Using that ID without your face showing is a bit self defeating as well. People should have the choice to wear coverings and deal with the difficulties that may present.

Maybe you don't care what the French laws are, but as we are talking about France, and your suggestion was to enforce the laws 'equally', it is kind of relevant what you understand those laws to be, and potentially relevant what you think the laws should be.

Mind you, we are at a bit of a diversion. The events of this week in and around Paris are not really over clothing laws, but were an act of terrorism. We seem to be in a similar position across the group that we should not let terrorists restrict free expression. I would say we also don't want governments to do it for them as well.

Danivon:

After all, part of the reason that some Jews may not want to be public is that they don't want to encounter expressions of antisemitism (even simply verbal ones).

No, it's because they don't want to be killed.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:No, the jab from you was the OCD comment.

Which I think was adequately balanced by the death penalty comment from you.

agree a draw?

Fine

Not sure the ban on niqab and burkha was such a clear-cut infringement on religious expression.https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... -and-niqab
Also, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... ghts-court

In any case, immigrants should expect some accommodation to French culture . Most Muslim women do without the Burkha and niqab ( in the court case at the EU French estimates that only 1,900 French Muslims wore them). I don't think the ban was rooted in prejudice, either. (Though it was a bit disingenuous of the French to extend it persons wearing helmets in publics, so as to able to claim that the ban was not targeted at Muslims).
I am getting tired of Muslim leaders claiming that the Koran says nothing about punishing blasphemy...as some blogger in Saudi Arabia gets 1000 lashes (over 50 weeks)
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/01/08/sa ... on-friday/
And I think it is horrible this rising anti-semitism on Europe. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... ince-nazis

The chancellor of Germany says antisemitic attacks are an "attack on freedom and tolerance and our democratic state". Yes.

I don't really know what to say about Owen's comment that Jews may not identify themselves publicly in France so as to avoid anti-semitism...except they should be able to wear a yarmulke or Star of David without fear of even verbal harassment.

freeman3

I don't get your point, Ricky. Clearly, there are a large number of Muslims who feel that blasphemy must be punished. Telling them to re-read the Koran...probably isn't going to help

.

I am getting tired of Muslim leaders claiming that the Koran says nothing about punishing blasphemy...as some blogger in Saudi Arabia gets 1000 lashes (over 50 weeks

The point is that the interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law by many Islamic "fundamentalists" is actually perverse. That is that the religion has been interpreted to fit the needs of political entities like the House of Saud, then the battle within the various Islamic clergy over the proper interpretation of the Koranic teachings is vital. And the proper interpretation will take away the religious justifications for many of the harsh laws.
Its exactly the kind of debate that Western commentators think should be going on in the Islamic world. And is to some extent. But westerners accepting the extreme views as 1) correct and 2) well supported by the Muslim world, gives in to the extreme view.
And not wholly different to conversations that have blunted many of the extreme interpretative uses of the Christian bible in subjugating, blacks and women, and justifying acts of war.
Its important to make clear that the interpretation of the religion by the French terrorists is not supported by any but the most extreme, and not nurtured culturally except where political actors in places like Pakistan and the KSA have found it can help them prosper and survive.

bbauska

As for the drivers license comment, I was expanding the scope of what you were typing about.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stephe ... the-niqab/

A rather progressive nation, Canada; Eh? (Has this policy been removed?)

we have a constitution that protects individual rights in Canada.
.In a recent Supreme court decision the wearing of the niqab in court was allowed.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012 ... cases.html

What theat means for the immigration Ministers single handed policy on wearing veils at immigration ceremonies

CAIR-CAN lawyer Faisal Bhabha said the decision means “that the justice system has a duty to accommodate and that the onus will be on the other party to show that there is a ‘serious’ risk to trial fairness.”
The group added the ruling should force the Conservative federal government to reverse its requirement for women in niqab to remove the face-veil when taking the ceremonial oath of citizenship.

Jason Kenneys' "policy" was particularly Dickish since it came out of thin air with no reports that there was actually a lot of niqab wearing at immigration ceremonies. he was just playing to the extreme within his own supporters..
For a view of how society actually reacts to individual rights ... watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9rFprD_Qf4

Given that the Saudis, with their enormous financial power and influence in the Muslim world including funding of madrassas (see http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=8445197) believe in punishing blasphemy the notion that blasphemy must be punished is an extreme ( or rare) interpretation of Islam seems pretty naive...

In the Middle East and North Africa 14 out of 20 countries criminalize blasphemy . http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... blasphemy/

Rare, indeed.

Islam lacks a central religious authority and relies on the Koran (which is essentially a plagiarised version of Christian and Jewish texts mixed with localised hokum and in any case written about 200 years after the death of Mohammed) and the Hadiths. The Hadiths are an utterly unreliable set of sayings by and stories about the prophet which were supposedly handed down by word of mouth until they miraculously re-appeared hundreds of years later and eventually got compiled together into a single body of work. Needless to say the Hadiths are a) clearly fabricated and b) extremely vague, allowing for whatever interpretation you like to suit your agenda. They also frequently contradict each other, but that seems to be par for the course with religious holy documents. The lack of a reliable body of work or a clearlly defined organising authority for Islam means that it's simply not possible to say that something is or is not 'unIslamic'. Islam is as Muslims do, and in everywhere you go in the Islamic world there are harsh blasphemy laws. There are also extraordinarily harsh laws for apostasy. The mildest punishment for apostasy anywhere in the Islamic world is in Indonesia, and even there the penalty is 5 years imprisonment.

Certainly better surveillance has to be part of the answer. Reports are that the US told France to watch these guys, which they did for awhile until their priorities shifted.

"Islam is as Muslims do". Well-said.

freeman3 wrote:I don't really know what to say about Owen's comment that Jews may not identify themselves publicly in France so as to avoid anti-semitism...except they should be able to wear a yarmulke or Star of David without fear of even verbal harassment.

My point was about two sides to free expression. Yes, I think that people should be free to wear a star of David or a yarmulke / a crucifix or a fish device / a hijab or a crescent without fear of violence.

But if you have the idea that anyone should be able to express their true feelings, that also allows for the racists to express their bigotry as well. And as much as people have a fear of death, a more likely fear is that of ridicule or abuse - because it's far more likely to actually happen.

So, what people revile as "political correctness" is often actually a societal pressure to not be a jerk. Racists hide their racism, which means we can't detect them but also that we don't have to deal with it

And the religious are not above expressing bigotry in the name of their faith. However twisted that may be from the 'true faith' or not. cf Westboro Baptist Church.

Perhaps this was not clear from how expressed it - some self-censorship is OK.