How far will the rise of nationalistic populism go ?

[L00b 441]

Hang on, if you ban the burqa then you need to ban full face motorbike helmets otherwise you have indeed treated religion differently. Back to you.

False equivalence.

 

The sole reason to full face motorbike helmets to exist at all and be used in the first place, is their technical functions when in ordinary use.

 

There is no equivalent to burqas or balaclavas. Except perhaps when you're camel riding in some sun-beaten desert or skiing down slopes.

I've not made a single point about the allowing the burqa to exist on religious grounds and I don't believe it should be.

I did not say that you did

 

I said that your statement "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" gave a religious context (first part of your sentence), and asked you the question about the Sikhs, because currently they enjoy special treatment (exception to criminal liability for carrying a knife) as do burqa wearers (no ban whatsoever in place, on security or still less objective ground), but applying the law to Sikhs "equally" would therefore prevent them from carrying an article of faith (the Kirpan) which is arguably (inasmuch as religions can ever be compared objectively/quantitatively) more important to that community, than wearing a burqa is to the Muslim community. Quid of your liberalism then?

 

But this is by-the-by. The French burqa ban (which is not an actual ban on burqas, but on any and all face coverings) is a prime example of your "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" in action: the only exception it provides is, commonsensically, for safety helmets when they are worn during their ordinary use (i.e. whilst riding a bike) (Oh, and the Sikh Kirpan is banned there too )

Edited December 14, 2016 by L00b

[sgtkate 10]

False equivalence.

 

The sole reason to full face motorbike helmets to exist at all and be used in the first place, is their technical functions when in ordinary use.

 

There is no equivalent to burqas or balaclavas. Except perhaps when you're camel riding in some sun-beaten desert or skiing down slopes.

I did not say that you did

 

I said that your statement "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" gave a religious context (first part of your sentence), and asked you the question about the Sikhs, because currently they enjoy special treatment (exception to criminal liability for carrying a knife) as do burqa wearers (no ban whatsoever in place, on security or still less objective ground), but applying the law to Sikhs "equally" would therefore prevent them from carrying an article of faith (the Kirpan) which is arguably (inasmuch as religions can ever be compared objectively/quantitatively) more important to that community, than wearing a burqa is to the Muslim community. Quid of your liberalism then?

 

But this is by-the-by. The French burqa ban (which is not an actual ban on burqas, but on any and all face coverings) is a prime example of your "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" in action: the only exception it provides is, commonsensically, for safety helmets when they are worn during their ordinary use (i.e. whilst riding a bike) (Oh, and the Sikh Kirpan is banned there too )

 

I think we are tying ourselves up in knots. The burqa should just be treated as if it is a fashion item with no religious context in terms of the law. If you must legally remove a motorbike helmet then you must remove the face covering of a burqa. Reasonable grounds can be made for the removal of the covering to be minimised to avoid embarrassment when possible. None of this has anything to do with religion, if someone has terrible acne and decides to wear a balaclava but must remove it when carrying out banking services then that can and should be done sensitively too.

 

The French method is how I think we should do things here, but it should be done with a more evidence based slant., rather than it really being a way to ban the burqa by stealth.

[unbeliever 10]

Whether you suspected or not, you couldn't possibly no for sure.

 

No but government makes policy on whether things can reasonably be suspected as well on what can be proven.

 

I think you'd have great difficulty getting that one to fly. People do all sorts of weird things whilst of sound mind.

 

There are limits.

 

They have no legal authority to ask you to remove it or demand an explanation. Nor should they.

 

The law in this area is complicated. There are clauses in the stop and search powers. But you're right, they better have good solid and specific reason for such an order.

Edited December 14, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone 10]

But this is by-the-by. The French burqa ban (which is not an actual ban on burqas, but on any and all face coverings) is a prime example of your "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" in action: the only exception it provides is, commonsensically, for safety helmets when they are worn during their ordinary use (i.e. whilst riding a bike) (Oh, and the Sikh Kirpan is banned there too )

 

And of course if you're skiing, or if it happens to be snowing in Paris and you're cycling... So, actually it is singling out a specific religion isn't it.

It would be much like banning all crosses and then pretending that it wasn't an attack on Christians. Sure, you've said it applies to all crosses, not just ones that happen to be a certain proportion, but in reality it affects just one group of people and thus is discriminatory, despite the very thin veneer of 'well it applies to everyone'.

[L00b 441]

And of course if you're skiing, or if it happens to be snowing in Paris and you're cycling... So, actually it is singling out a specific religion isn't it.

It would be much like banning all crosses and then pretending that it wasn't an attack on Christians. Sure, you've said it applies to all crosses, not just ones that happen to be a certain proportion, but in reality it affects just one group of people and thus is discriminatory, despite the very thin veneer of 'well it applies to everyone'.

Well, in the French context you're onto a loser with that argument on two fronts: firstly, because secularity is embedded at the constitutional level, and all of the various anti-proselityzing 'bans' through the ages to date are hinged upon it and worded non-denominationally (none 'targets' a specific religion or religion-specific attire); and secondly because, all artificial as the French face covering ban may be to target the burqa in particular, the ECHR, that well-known bastion of european liberalism -which is wholly independent from France judicially and politically-, has heard all the arguments and seen all the evidence, and ended up agreeing with the socio-cultural purpose of the ban. You might want to read the judgement. If not to be convinced, then at least to gain a better understanding of the issue than I can convey & explain.

 

Burkas in europe are a new thing, Europeans don't like burkas, and governments are reacting accordingly, lastly in Germany. Methinks it's more wahabism that europeans don't like. It's a fairly illiberal variant of Islam, and given the (relatively) recent trajectory which historically-conservative and longer-established religions have adopted in Europe through enlightened liberalism, namely a gradual and lately non-trivial loss of following and influence, it's little surprise that european populations end up pushing back against a nascent ultra-conservative branch of Islam trying to get a toehold: it's taken them a few centuries to get rid of the hardcore clergy, they're not about to let it get replaced with hardcore imams without a care. Simple as.

Edited December 14, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

Well, in the French context you're onto a loser with that argument on two fronts: firstly, because secularity is embedded at the constitutional level, and all of the various anti-proselityzing 'bans' through the ages to date are hinged upon it and worded non-denominationally (none 'targets' a specific religion or religion-specific attire); and secondly because, all artificial as the French face covering ban may be to target the burqa in particular, the ECHR, that well-known bastion of european liberalism -which is wholly independent from France judicially and politically-, has heard all the arguments and seen all the evidence, and ended up agreeing with the socio-cultural purpose of the ban. You might want to read the judgement. If not to be convinced, then at least to gain a better understanding of the issue than I can convey & explain.

 

Burkas in europe are a new thing, Europeans don't like burkas, and governments are reacting accordingly, lastly in Germany. Methinks it's more wahabism that europeans don't like. It's a fairly illiberal variant of Islam, and given the (relatively) recent trajectory which historically-conservative and longer-established religions have adopted in Europe through enlightened liberalism, namely a gradual and lately non-trivial loss of following and influence, it's little surprise that european populations end up pushing back against a nascent ultra-conservative branch of Islam trying to get a toehold: it's taken them a few centuries to get rid of the hardcore clergy, they're not about to let it get replaced with hardcore imams without a care. Simple as.

 

Now that's convincing.

[mafya 248]

Well, in the French context you're onto a loser with that argument on two fronts: firstly, because secularity is embedded at the constitutional level, and all of the various anti-proselityzing 'bans' through the ages to date are hinged upon it and worded non-denominationally (none 'targets' a specific religion or religion-specific attire); and secondly because, all artificial as the French face covering ban may be to target the burqa in particular, the ECHR, that well-known bastion of european liberalism -which is wholly independent from France judicially and politically-, has heard all the arguments and seen all the evidence, and ended up agreeing with the socio-cultural purpose of the ban. You might want to read the judgement. If not to be convinced, then at least to gain a better understanding of the issue than I can convey & explain.

 

Burkas in europe are a new thing, Europeans don't like burkas, and governments are reacting accordingly, lastly in Germany. Methinks it's more wahabism that europeans don't like. It's a fairly illiberal variant of Islam, and given the (relatively) recent trajectory which historically-conservative and longer-established religions have adopted in Europe through enlightened liberalism, namely a gradual and lately non-trivial loss of following and influence, it's little surprise that european populations end up pushing back against a nascent ultra-conservative branch of Islam trying to get a toehold: it's taken them a few centuries to get rid of the hardcore clergy, they're not about to let it get replaced with hardcore imams without a care. Simple as.

 

my bold=

Shouldn't that be "Europeans don't like Islam/Muslims?

Let's not beat about the bush and call a spade a spade.

[L00b 441]

my bold=

Shouldn't that be "Europeans don't like Islam/Muslims?

Let's not beat about the bush and call a spade a spade.

No, it shouldn't.

[Cyclone 10]

No, it shouldn't.

 

Yes, it probably should.

 

And despite the carefully non-denominational wording, that doesn't alter the fact that everyone knows it's aimed squarely at a single religion.

 

I don't expect my argument to change French law (obviously), but neither am I going to accept that this is an innocent secular law that isn't aimed deliberately at a specific religion.

[L00b 441]

Yes, it probably should.

Sharing the load with mafya's shoulder then?

I don't expect my argument to change French law (obviously), but neither am I going to accept that this is an innocent secular law that isn't aimed deliberately at a specific religion.

I haven't made that argument, so you can stow that strawman.

 

It is self-evident that any law which enforces secularism can never be innocent.

 

The question before you is whether you accept its underlying aim (the preservation of the cultural status quo within the society that promulgates it), whether in whole or part, or not (in which case, you don't get to complain when either (i) you should eventually start to get affected one way or the other by ultra conservative groups continually pulling the liberal blanket to themselves and/or (ii) far harsher legislation eventually becomes required to mitigate the effects onto domestic unbelievers of ultra conservative groups pulling the liberal blanket to themselves).

 

On the basis of your posts (not only in here), you don't. And I certainly don't expect to convince you otherwise anytime soon, nor am I going to try to. All the same, likewise don't expect me to accept your ultra-liberal utopian stance.

[Cyclone 10]

You think this law "enforces secularism"? I mean, wow.

 

---------- Post added 15-12-2016 at 09:28 ----------

 

The French burqa ban is a prime example of your "no religion should be given special treatment and laws should apply equally to all" in action:

 

It isn't though is it, you've now accepted that it is specifically written to target a single religion.

 

This IS special treatment, in this case special persecution of a single religion. The state isn't acting in a secular way, it is targeting a specific religion.

[L00b 441]

You think this law "enforces secularism"? I mean, wow.

Is that your best? Colour me similarly impressed.

 

It isn't though is it, you've now accepted that it is specifically written to target a single religion.

It isn't, which is precisely how and why this law "applies equally to all" (burqa wearers, whether Muslim or Jewish; balaclava wearers, whether religious or not; helmet wearers, whether in a hurry or not; <...>) and how salafism/wahabism is not given any "special treatment" (no exception to the rules for burqa wearers in the name of religious exception; nor for balaclava wearers in case of extreme cold weather; <...>).

 

What I have accepted is its underlying purpose (which is also the basis on which the ECHR deemed it legal). In that respect, it is no different whatsoever to the century-older rules banning the wearing of any ostentatious articles of any faith by e.g. public servants and state school children.

Edited December 15, 2016 by L00b