Me ne suis pas Charlie

[charmer]

They've targeted a particular cultural group then. Does that make it better?

 

No they haven't, it is disingenuous of you to suggest they have. They banned people covering their faces in public. You could say that they have failed to give special rules to a certain cultural group. That's as far as it gets.

[mafya]

Of course there's some hypocrisy amongst the people, of all religions and none, that marched. I think it's pretty insulting though to suggest, as the so called "thought experiment" is doing, that the vast majority of the people on the march don't realise this or that they are stupid for marching in solidarity.

 

The apologists (and I'm not referring to you Cyclone) that reply with "The act was an inexcusable act of unquantifiable evil. But..." are tediously sickening. The apologists that are now trying to spread the idea that this is somehow about "double standards" are merely trying to use these murders to reinforce the dangerous concept that they have been trying to spread for years, that this is about "us and them". It saddens me to read some people on the left, to which I align myself, buy into this falsehood.

 

The burka ban in France has been discussed into oblivion several fold on here.

 

It was a measure taken by an aggressively secular country targeting an infinitesimally small portion of its residents (RG/DGSI stats estimated 2,000 wearers approx. at the time, out of 6+ millions Muslims, for a population of 65+ millions) to help impede the growth of wahabism in France. And I say this as a supporter of it. No point putting blinkers or sweetener on it, and you can expect more of that to follow in due course now, especially when the right (hopefully not Marine, but hell...) gets back in power in 2017.

 

Whether its 'marketing' should be considered double standards is entirely moot: it wasn't a measure enacted in such predominantly-Muslim countries as e.g. Turkey, Iran and the like (which have centuries of precedent for this garb), and France has long had form curbing any and all expressions of faiths which it considers proselyte (such as banning Christian and Jewish paraphernalia in public/State buildings, years and decades before people even started to notice burkas). The national logic since 1789 (give or take) goes thus: you can believe in whichever deity you want, but that doesn't make you special at all (relative to followers of other deities and non-followers), and the State rules you at all times in its own way regardless of whatever your faith says.

 

Unless France eventually turned into a Muslim Republic or somesuch, or its constitutional principle of secularism (laïcité) was repelled (like any of that will ever happen), the measure isn't likely to go away, particularly after it was sanctioned by the ECHR and now in light of continuing Muslim-related attacks making ever the clearer case for heightened security and therefore against face coverings (of any sort).

 

By all means continue discussing it in here if you wish...but, personally, I can't really see the point.

 

The banning of the Burka is seen by some as an attack on those of the muslim religion who choose to wear one, I am not a fan of them myself but the double standard perception is a valid point.

When the excuse that women are forced to wear it is stated it actually insults the women who choose to wear it out of choice.

If we have the freedom of expression than banning someone wearing a burka takes away that persons freedom of expression IMO.

[charmer]

The banning of the Burka is seen by some as an attack on those of the muslim religion who choose to wear one, I am not a fan of them myself but the double standard perception is a valid point.

When the excuse that women are forced to wear it is stated it actually insults the women who choose to wear it out of choice.

If we have the freedom of expression than banning someone wearing a burka takes away that persons freedom of expression IMO.

 

It is seen as an attack on the Muslim religion only by those with absolutely no scriptural knowledge and who fail to differentiate between cultural and specifically religious requirements.

 

There is no requirement within Islam to dress your women in a Burkha. This is men telling ladies what they can and can't wear. Most people in the Western World find this idea abhorrent.

 

Some of these woman are forced to wear the Burkha, no one can deny that. I therefore feel that legislation to protect the vulnerable minority is justified.

[Cyclone]

Except when it's women choosing to wear it for themselves... Then the legislation is oppressing this minority...

You can't fight oppression with more oppression.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2015 at 14:57 ----------

 

T now in light of continuing Muslim-related attacks making ever the clearer case for heightened security and therefore against face coverings (of any sort).

 

Because banning face coverings has clearly made it easier to stop terrorist atrocities... Oh wait.

Do you seriously expect people who are prepared to commit multiple murders to respect a law banning the covering of their face???

Edited January 14, 2015 by Cyclone

[anfisa]

Except when it's women choosing to wear it for themselves... Then the legislation is oppressing this minority...

You can't fight oppression with more oppression.

 

Choosing to be an extremist is no justification for allowing them to practice an extreme version of their religion.

[L00b]

The banning of the Burka is seen by some as an attack on those of the muslim religion who choose to wear one, I am not a fan of them myself but the double standard perception is a valid point.

When the excuse that women are forced to wear it is stated it actually insults the women who choose to wear it out of choice.

If we have the freedom of expression than banning someone wearing a burka takes away that persons freedom of expression IMO.

Freedom of expression is curtailed by the social norms of the host country as codified in the form of its statutes. That's not partisan, it's an irrefutable fact, and the very reason why the meaning of freedom of expression can vary so greatly from one country (France) to another (North Korea) with all variants in-between.

 

Are you offended France is ostracizing 1000 wahabist's wives (give or take a few) and denying a fraction of them their freedom of expression? In Stephen Fry's immortal words, well so f***** what? There's a few (tens of-) millions of French people who are not, and these are their laws governing their country and way of life. Less glibly, a question: is the freedom of (say) 700 women not to be forced to wear a burka in public worth curtailing the freedom of expression of the (say) 300 who want to wear it out of choice?

 

As regards cartoons, politico-satirical material of the sort (long-) published by Charlie Hebdo was a staple of the French publishing landscape since the late 19th century if not earlier. Biting and irreverent satire at politics and religions is as French as stripey tshirts, berets and onion necklaces. That's the social norm and standard there, and the reason why the reaction has proven so unexpectedly large (relative to e.g. over here post 7/7 or Lee Rigby).

 

Burka wearers are no more and no less ostracized legally in France, than political extremists wishing to express their own freedom of expression by wearing Nazi uniforms (oh look, no covered face security issue here...and yet that is banned indeed). A fitting analogy, IMO.

Because banning face coverings has clearly made it easier to stop terrorist atrocities... Oh wait.

Do you seriously expect people who are prepared to commit multiple murders to respect a law banning the covering of their face???

You've completely missed the point I made in that passage (reiterated in the above brackets), by taking it out of its context and making a complete pass on the rest of my post. You weren't after scoring a cheap (and wrong) point by any chance, were you? Edited January 14, 2015 by L00b

[Zamo]

Except when it's women choosing to wear it for themselves... Then the legislation is oppressing this minority...

You can't fight oppression with more oppression.

 

Most people don't agree, including the European Court of Human rights.

[forum41]

Brilliant, well written article...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[milquetoast1]

The banning of the Burka is seen by some as an attack on those of the muslim religion who choose to wear one, I am not a fan of them myself but the double standard perception is a valid point.

When the excuse that women are forced to wear it is stated it actually insults the women who choose to wear it out of choice.

If we have the freedom of expression than banning someone wearing a burka takes away that persons freedom of expression IMO.

 

The "double standards" argument is gaining some momentum from people who want to blame the cartoonists for their own murder to people who want to censor, and people who want to claim hypocrisy against the strawman of some free-speech fundamentalist society.

 

It seems to me that the evidence put forward for this amounts to:

 

1. French comic Dieudonne was banned because his act was considered anti-Semitic.

2. French rapper Monsieur R was prosecuted for insulting France.

3. France banned a pro-Palestine march.

4. In France defaming public officials is not allowed.

5. A Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Maurice Sinet was fired for failing to apologise for making comments that were considered anti-Semitic.

6. The burqa.

7. If an imaginary man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January wearing a badge that said "Je suis Chérif" then we could imagine him getting attacked.

 

Now I am a fundamentalist advocate for free-speech, so I would let the racist say racist things if they wish, and people march if they wish, but no society I know of is.

 

Just because France has an uncomfortable history of anti-Semitism, and still struggles with it, and so has rules to prevent it, is no evidence of double standards.

 

L00b has described the reasons for the Burqa ban above, it was debated, agreed with, disagreed with, and went to the court of Human Rights. I don't agree with it, but again there is no evidence of double standards.

 

It would only be double standards if the magazine only targeted Islam, but we know it was an equal opportunity offender.

 

The first 5 points come from Raza Nadim's YouTube video that was linked to here. On it he points to Asghar Bukhari's blog with the claim "Nothing To Do With Free Speech  -  It Was About War".

 

The agenda is clear, create a feeling of "us and them", convince that there's a war.

[ab6262]

The banning of the Burka is seen by some as an attack on those of the muslim religion who choose to wear one, I am not a fan of them myself but the double standard perception is a valid point.

When the excuse that women are forced to wear it is stated it actually insults the women who choose to wear it out of choice.

If we have the freedom of expression than banning someone wearing a burka takes away that persons freedom of expression IMO.

 

 

is the wearing of Burkas a new thing? i mean the last 10 years or so? its just i used to visit Pakistan regularly in the north on business and can honestly say in small towns and large cities i didnt see one Burka, it does seem to be a new way of subtly sticking 2 fingers up at the west?