Riot in France

[DunkleSeele]

Clearly the law is aimed at the religion.  Motorcyclists drive masked all the time with no harassment.

Sure, and when they get off their bike they also take off the helm. Over here, people aren't allowed to enter a public building wearing a helm.

As far as I know, almost everywhere in the West there have always been laws prescribing people to be always recognizable in public, that is, not hiding their face. These laws have always been overlooked in the name of "religious tolerance". Now some countries like France have finally got the balls to enforce them and to explicitely prohibit certain clothing items. Good on them. Hell with the tolerance of intolerant, monstrous beliefs.

[Jason78]

While on the one hand the law seems like (and is) a violation of both individual rights and specifically targeted against a religion, I'm not opposed to a rule that requires people to have their faces revealed when in public. It's both annoying and unsettling to see people walking around with their entire face covered. Makes you feel like they have something to hide.

When I see someone walking down the street with their face covered.  I don't think "Oh look, there goes a person exercising their right as an individual to wear whatever they want.".  I think "Mugger, rapist, or robber."

[Plu]

My point exactly.

[Jack89]

There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering.  Is that also a violation of civil rights?  Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for.  Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public.  If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France.  (And that falls into both of the above classes.)  People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.

So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out?  That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.

The spirit of individual and civil rights is to CONFORM to social norms (which include protection of individual and civil rights).  The one right you DON'T have is depriving ME of MY rights - which is what Muslim extremists in a lot of Western countries are doing now.

I think you and I have different ideas on individual liberty.  I don't think that anyone should mess with another's life, health, liberty or possession and government's only role in this matter is to try and enforce it.  To outlaw a piece of clothing because it's associated with a violent sub-culture doesn't really fit the bill for me.  And this is clearly about religious/culture identity rather than public safety, as you've just implied.  I don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.

It's really simple - making you pay for the product you want isn't depriving you of rights.  Making you conform to the norms of a society from which you want benefits isn't depriving you of rights.  If you don't want to pay, do without the product.  If you don't want to conform, do without the benefits.  Making you get out is a lot nicer than making a law that you're no longer protected by the law.

I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society.  Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.  
On that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive.  People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.

[Plu]

I don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.

It's not so much the choice of attire, it's the covering of the entire body and inability to identify the person inside the outfit. When thugs wear a face concealing scarf and hat, the police will ask them to take that off a well.
It's nice to assume that there's some poor opressed woman inside the tent, but it could also be a robber, and nobody will be able to identify the person aftewards. That's why no other forms of total concealment are tolerated in public (except when actively driving a motorcycle, for safety reasons) and "my religion prescribes it" shouldn't be an exception to it, imho.

[Jack89]

I don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.

It's not so much the choice of attire, it's the covering of the entire body and inability to identify the person inside the outfit. When thugs wear a face concealing scarf and hat, the police will ask them to take that off a well.
It's nice to assume that there's some poor opressed woman inside the tent, but it could also be a robber, and nobody will be able to identify the person aftewards. That's why no other forms of total concealment are tolerated in public (except when actively driving a motorcycle, for safety reasons) and "my religion prescribes it" shouldn't be an exception to it, imho.

Why is it any of your business if someone completely conceals themselves?  Are they hurting you, or anyone, or is it because you don't like it?  Is there an overwhelming number of Muslim women in France who've used niqabs to conceal their identities while committing crimes?  Well, other than wearing niqabs.  The law is aimed at suppressing a religious sub-culture, albeit an archaic one.  The ruse of safety and security, in my opinion, is just that.  Legal trickery to suppress an immigrant culture.  If you're going to do that, don't be cowards about it, just come out and say it.
Don't get me wrong, I think niqabs and burkas are creepy, but it's not my place, or anyone else's, to tell people how to live their lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. That's the direction my moral compass points and I can't really convince myself otherwise.  If you think it's OK to oppress people for the "greater good," or to achieve your ideal society, or just because you don't like it, that's your prerogative, but expect me to disagree.

And by the way, have you seen those folks in protests, all over the place, concealing their identity, wearing masks and bandannas?  I think they should be open about their views, but can you blame them?  Like I said, their choice.

[Plu]

Why is it any of your business if someone completely conceals themselves?

Because I'm in the public domain as well, so the feeling of unease that comes off of people that completely conceal themselves affects me. They might not be hurting anyone, but when a fully concealed person ever decides to hurt anyone, there's practically nothing anyone can do about it because they'll be completely impossible to identify.

I don't agree with the current wording (and I've been opposed to our local right-wing extremist who suggested the same thing because of his wording as well), but the general idea of "don't conceal your identity when you walk across the street" is a good one. And with the exception of religious extremists it's also more or less accepted by everyone that you don't cover your entire face and body when you walk across the street.

(Hell, when you walk across the street with a hoody with the cover up and a cap, you're singled out by the cops because they assume you're up to no good because you're trying to hide who you are.)

And by the way, have you seen those folks in protests, all over the place, concealing their identity, wearing masks and bandannas? I think they should be open about their views, but can you blame them? Like I said, their choice.

Yeah, I think that's pretty weak. If you're going to protest in a civilised country, at least have the balls to come out and show who you are that's supporting the issue. The fact that you're willing to go out and walk in a protest but are too scared to attach your face to it shows that you either know what you're protesting for is socially unacceptable or morally wrong, or you're just in it because there might be riots and you know you're going to do stuff that isn't legal.

People who honestly oppose something and are willing to go in into a protest with the best intentions and an actual noble cause don't hide their identities.
(Again; in a civilised country. The rules are different if you're protesting against Islam in Iraq, obviously.)

(Oh and if they want to wear their concealing gear inside their own homes or inside a private area, that's fine with me. It's only a problem when they wear that kind of stuff in public.)

[Jack89]

Well Plu, I guess we'll just have to disagree.  

I wonder if the French police arrest people in the winter for wearing balaclavas or scarves on their faces.  They might be criminals.

[Plu]

French winter is not that cold  :P

[Colanth]

I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society.  Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.

That works fine if the playing field is level.  But if one group insists, to the point of  violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.

Laws arer for those situations which social controls don't control.

On that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive.  People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.

That's just what happened.  People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that.  In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah".  If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm.  You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has.  Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.

[Jack89]

I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society.  Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.

That works fine if the playing field is level.  But if one group insists, to the point of  violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.
Laws are for those situations which social controls don't control.

You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom.  I said so myself in a previous response to you.  But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.  That's liberty and essentially what J.S. Mill's Harm Principle is, among others.  

On that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive.  People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.

That's just what happened.  People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that.  In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah".  If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm.  You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has.  Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.

I can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty?  Keep in mind that even if you have the majority rule on something that suppresses individual rights, it's still called oppression.  That's pretty much the definition of "tyranny of the majority."  
The reason I advocate social controls is because they make it socially desirable, or undesirable, to behave a certain way, but not mandatory.  This gives those people who truly believe that that status quo is wrong a chance to express their opinions without getting thrown in the slammer.  They just have to endure some discomfort from the majority.  On the other hand, if you make it law, behavior is compulsory and the non-conformists go to jail even if they're not hurting anyone. Keep in mind that the harm principle, or some variation thereof, is always in effect. I wonder how many people are currently in prison who weren't a threat to anyone, or their property.      

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.

I'm tired and going to bed.

[Colanth]

I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society.  Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.

That works fine if the playing field is level.  But if one group insists, to the point of  violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.
Laws are for those situations which social controls don't control.

You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom.  I said so myself in a previous response to you.  But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.

And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?

On that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive.  People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.

That's just what happened.  People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that.  In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah".  If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm.  You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has.  Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.

I can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty?

Read your comment and you'll see that you're contradicting yourself.  People should work to get rid of current laws with which they don't agree - unless it's at the expense of personal liberty?  That would be preventing the people who want to get rid of the current laws from practicing their own personal liberty.

Keep in mind that even if you have the majority rule on something that suppresses individual rights, it's still called oppression.

So is preventing people from getting rid of laws they no longer consider applicable to the current situation.

That's pretty much the definition of "tyranny of the majority."

And preventing it by not allowing society to change is called (I'm coining a phrase) tyranny of the minority.

Again - you don't go into someone's house and demand that he change his decor.  Doing that isn't freedom, it's tyranny.

The reason I advocate social controls is because they make it socially desirable, or undesirable, to behave a certain way, but not mandatory.

But when a minority group insists that it be mandatory that everyone follow THEIR social controls, the majority has the right to fight back.

This gives those people who truly believe that that status quo is wrong a chance to express their opinions without getting thrown in the slammer.

They had that right.  The indigenes decided that they shouldn't.  When social control failed to work, they passed laws.

A society that isn't allowed to protect itself from invasion, whether military or social, is a society well on its way to extinction.

They just have to endure some discomfort from the majority.

That's if social control works.  In this case, they inflict discomfort on the majority.

On the other hand, if you make it law, behavior is compulsory and the non-conformists go to jail even if they're not hurting anyone.

It's up to "everyone" to decide whether they're being hurt.  In this case they evidently decided that they were.  (Maybe not by a woman wearing a veil, but by the concept that a certain group was exempt from "social control".)

Keep in mind that the harm principle, or some variation thereof, is always in effect. I wonder how many people are currently in prison who weren't a threat to anyone, or their property.

Probably quite a few.  And probably quite a few who are a threat aren't incarcerated.  Neither fact is relevant to the situation here - which is that the people who wanted the law passed felt that they WERE being harmed by the group that refused to comply with social convention.

[Jack89]

You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom.  I said so myself in a previous response to you.  But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.

And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?

From a concealing veil to radical Muslims who harm others is quite the leap.  Is this justification for taking away individual freedoms?  

I can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty?

Read your comment and you'll see that you're contradicting yourself.  People should work to get rid of current laws with which they don't agree - unless it's at the expense of personal liberty?

That's not a contradiction, it's my point.  I don't think people should let their individual freedom be taken from them, even for the promise safety and security, or the greatness of France, or whatever promise you think your government will fulfill.  What's more important than the ability to live the life that you choose?  

I know that a lot of people think the rational decision is to give up some of their freedom for safety, or fiscal security, or for some Utopian ideal.  I don't.  Harassing a deluded woman for wearing a veil over her face is fucked up.  You're not fighting off the Muslim hordes, you're making a person, a human being, feel trapped and unwelcome for thinking different than you.  Who are you, or the collective French, to tell this woman what she can't wear on her face?  How about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.

I think I'm done with this thread.  Cheers.

[Colanth]

You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom.  I said so myself in a previous response to you.  But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.

And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?

From a concealing veil to radical Muslims who harm others is quite the leap.  Is this justification for taking away individual freedoms?

The "individual freedom" to assume that the social norm doesn't apply to you?  Yes.

That's not a contradiction, it's my point.  I don't think people should let their individual freedom be taken from them

Exactly, and the people of France don't think that their individual freedom to dictate the social norm of France should be taken from them.

What's more important than the ability to live the life that you choose?

That's the whole point.  They want the freedom to live their lives the way THEY choose, not the way some recent immigrants decide they have to live.

I know that a lot of people think the rational decision is to give up some of their freedom for safety

Nope - the people who decided to not allow Muslims to turn France into a Muslim country aren't giving up any of their freedoms, and they're not doing what they did for safety.

They're demanding that the man who walked into their house can't dictate what kind of furniture they can have in that house.  They just want the freedom to do their own decorating.

Harassing a deluded woman for wearing a veil over her face

They didn't.  They "harassed" her for violating the law.  If she doesn't like that law she can do what they did - work - THROUGH THE LAW - to get it changed.  Or change her decision to live in a country whose laws she doesn't like.

How would, say, the citizens of Iran feel if a few Americans moved to Iran, then insisted that the laws of Iran be made secular and that no woman could cover her face in public?

You're not fighting off the Muslim hordes, you're making a person, a human being, feel trapped and unwelcome for thinking different than you.

She IS different - she thinks that the social norms of the society in which SHE CHOSE to live don't apply to her.

Who are you, or the collective French, to tell this woman what she can't wear on her face?

Who are the French to tell people residing in France how people residing in France have to behave?  That's how a democracy works, that's who.

How about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.

How about she first starts obeying the laws of the country she chooses to reside in?  Guests don't get to dictate the rules of the place they're guests in.  (Unless they're Muslims who move to non-Muslim countries?  Non-Muslim guests in Muslim countries sure don't get to dictate the rules in the Muslim countries they move to.)

I think I'm done with this thread.

I think you are.

[Plu]

How about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.

They try that in the netherlands. It doesn't really stick. There's still a clear muslim vs non-muslim split in terms of culture. Fortunately we don't have a culture of our own so we don't really care, but many muslims (especially the fundamentalist ones) make it a point not to assimilate, even across multiple generations.