What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

Er, if you're going to start banning dress--especially dress that's religiously important to people--you really should have a better reason than that.

 

Of course, I've got plenty of reasons to separate state from church and ban religious symbols. I'm not from that country that puts "in the graven image we trust" on its currency and I am not forced to attend ceremonies to gods I don't personally know.

This was just about the misconception that the scarf is a clear cut, or as you sate "dress that's religiously important to people". No, it's not and after spending some time with people with muslim background you find out why. Of course some do wear it, most don't. And that's the start of a perpetual arguing that never ends. They're worse than a public-forum on the internet.

Scarves and no alcohol? Bull****.

The anology in western terms... Maybe... should women be allowed to wear trousers ?

 

I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding you, but...to separate church from state, you want to ban religious symbols? Isn't that self-defeating?

Allow me to rephrase; "dress that's religiously important for some Muslims." Better?

 

Ah, yes. Very much so.

Hm... I might have to work on the wording ... some little bit. How about: Separate religion from state and with it the state from religious symbols... Except for the flag, which looks fine as she is. You know, laicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

So, no god bless you after every cough or political speech, I am free to chose my own gods.

 

By the laws of the western world, Muslim women can't be forced to wear a head scarf (with the obvious exception of minors, who can't be forced once they are of legal age). For those Muslim women who feel naked without their scarf it is more than unreasonable to forbid them from wearing it. It is cruel. Also, if you are going to disallow the wearing of headscarves, then you must also disallow the wearing crosses, yamacas, the Nun's Habit, crucifixes, Celtic Crosses, Yin/Yang symbols, Pentagrams, Hindu Iconography, scapulars, and the symbol of eternity. If you don't, then you are singling out and limiting the rights of only one religious group (actually two, since orthodox Jewish women also often wear the head scarf), which is considered discrimination.

 

Hm. That's the standard Anglo-Saxon answer. All Anglo-Saxons seem to think about it that way. Too embedded in your own way to tolerate or even imagine a different way. And it has to be the Anglo-Saxon way, no other way.

Besides, yes there's is plenty indication that ostentatious probably means ostentatious.

Would it be less cruel to leave them at home, keep them away from school as their parents wish and later marry them or send them to a factory ? Or come up for the rest of their lives through welfare, as they never managed to acquire the basic skills to get a job?

Naked, swimming lessons come to mind. September of last year, a 12-year old Bosnian girl drowned in the lake. Couldn't swim. Sad story and coincidende. But underlying: Many muslims don't want their girls to go to swimming lessons that actually would be mandatory around here.

If it's unreasonable to forbid it... depends. Are there other means to get that? They can go to a private school that allows them to wear a scarf.

What can be gained ? An education they could othwerwise not have. And note: We are talking here about plenty of different cases. Many muslims, I think the biggest part, tear off their legs to get a decent education for their children, particularly their girls, be it with or without scarf.

And I for one don't see no value in the religious opinions of a Turk, ALgerian, Albanian or someone who thinks his 50-cent or coming straight from Compton or Queens, can barely read or write, has managed to extend his Hip-Hop vocabulary to Bitch, ****, Nigger, dissing, Eminem and Faggot, is victim of some macho-cult, gets regularly drunk, tells stories about Russian girls and insists on preaching to others about decent clothing.

 

alter, german-turk rap rocks voll krass!

 

Don't you think that's a bit stupid? Every discussion regarding polemic issues in the West tend to end into "which point of view is 'democratic' and discrimination-ridden", and, in the end of it all, the concrete fact of matter is forgotten and left as a minor convenience. That's why I say the West is lost into some sort of schizophrenic paranoia, living of illusions and non-problems.
What I mean is, one argue that banning scarfs is wrong because that's discriminating against certain religious groups - "undemocratic" - and that is not acceptable in the West. Other argue that actually allowing immigrant males to force women to wear clothes they wish them to wear is sexism - discrimination - and thus, "undemocratic". For sakes, can't your brains process and digest info - and propose solutions - beyond the idea of what is "democratic" and anti-discrimination?
All it takes is any discussion, and then all we hear is two opposing sides hurling "undemocratic"; "discrimination" accusations at each other. How about discussing the concrete fact for a change? How about thinking the problem without necessarily using the "democracy" filter? How can it be normal when two conflicting sides compete in a challenge to prove which side is the real democratic one, and the object of discussion end up being neglected as a mere detail? Who cares if either banning scarfs, or allowing males to force clothes upon women, is the democratic stance? Both sides have an argument to prove they are backed up by Democracy, and by all rules of logic, one has to be wrong. So, why the hell is that important? Fact of the matter is, this is a relevant problem concerning muslims in the West right now, and some solution is needed, regardless if it is a "democratic" one, or not.
I picture these old, senile and impotent European bureacrauts in parlaments discussing all sorts of issues, and one bringing "Yes, that's what we should do", but then other "Yes, that's certainly the best solution possible, no way around... But now that I think again, I wonder if that is 'democratic?'". "How could I forget this! How could I suggest such practical and good solution, without making sure it is the 'democratic' thing to do". And on and on. What's the difference of this, from a bishop in the Xth century asking himself if, that obviously good resolution, that will benefit everyone, no doubt about it, if, despite the certain positive aspects of his to-be-act, it would find support in the Holy Bible - and thus God's will? Both are irrational and rely on the notion that a simple concept is enough to legitimate the act. If it is God's will, it has to be good and that's enough. If it is Democratic, it can obviously not go wrong. Of course these champions of "Democracy" despise the typical religious fundamentalism, and irrational way of dealing things. After all, they are "democratic".
It is almost intellectual snobbism. Yeah, I know I am a wacko conspiracy guy, but I am certain that the West is on the way of self destruction, and it will not last long. One of the reasons for this, is most clearly the fact that it seems the West has lost the capacity to think and act pragmatically. Instead of worrying about fixing problems, it is entangled in an eternal discussion of what point of view, act, proposal etc is democratic, and which is not; and as both sides can almost always surround their stance with an aura of (pseudo) democracy - as I showed in the scarf example - it ensues even more discussion, and yet nothing is decided. As if Democracy is a holy word that gives legitimacy to everything; as if nothing can exist which is not encompassed by it's divine aura of goodness and virtue. I tell you what, Democracy is only a word, Greek one - yes, we all know that I am sure - one that designs a form of goverment, like many others we had before - Aristocratic rulership, Absolutism, loosely fascism etc - and by no means it is perfect or holy; actually, as Plato would say, a Democracy can easily turn into tyranny - as I think it has nowadays. I will tell even more, it is only a form of goverment, one that I am sure will come to pass in the future, and become an issue of History. Yes, people will say "No one says Democracy is perfect, but it is the best thing we have had so far", and they will quote Churchill to sound smart, but while they say that, their acts and points of view certainly indicate otherwise: by reducing all discussion to weather something is democratic or not, certainly assumes Democracy is an unflawed and holy concept as a premise. If not, why would something need to be Democratic to be acceptable? Which is even more troublesome when both sides claim they are fighting for democracy, and thus, nothing can come out of it - after all, if neither side can positively prove the other one is "undemocratic", and thus assuring their own is legitimated by the divine concept of democracy, how can proposals be put into practice and perspective? Democracy has taken the position God had in the Middle Ages. No more no less. And the proponents of "Democracy" claim to be fighting against fundamentalism and fanaticism. How is that? Meh!
Nah, modern Democracies are a joke - as I said before - and they only benefit the better demagogues, who can better twist and exploit terms such "democracy"; "freedom of speech", "tolerance"; etc. Terms which few actually know what they mean, but they use anyway for the sake of the good rhetoric and civilization. Of course it benefit those with money and power as well...
It has gone a bit longer than I expected, and I lost some track by now, but I guess the botton line is, instead of engaging in futile debates of what is democratic or not, how about actually soluting problems. Of one thing I am sure, deciding what is democratic will NOT solute anything; it will only bring an aura of legitimacy and acceptance of the status quo, and zilch practical results. Unless Democracy is God, and the mere theorical - intellectual - adequacy of the concrete case to it's concept will magically transform and resolve things...
Feel free to move this to a new thread for a different discussion. I was not sure what to do.

 

It's not a matter of democracy, is a matter of personal freedom. Ideally, we would like that every one has the maximum freedom possible (there have to be some limits, of course, since otherwise some people's free expresion would impinge on the freedom of others).

But, in certains cases and some societies, people give up some freedom for the greater public good. So, for example, elementary education of children might be compulsory (I think is not in the United States, but there are some european countries where it is). So people are not free to raise the children as they want, on the other hand, children grow up to be well adjusted to the society around them.

Such a case can be made for the wearing of the Muslim headscarves; I would imagine the French think that the benefits of abriging their population's freedoms in such a way overweights the stress put upon some. OTOH, the americans, being such personal freedom maniacs, do not care so much.

 

What?


The only benefit France got out of banning headscarves was the rioting Muslim youths and French people being beheaded in Iraq. In America, we allow women to excercise their right to dress modestly if they want to. It doesn't cause us any problems and disallowing the scarf wouldn't grant any benefits. Seriously, what is wrong with a woman choosing to wear a scarf on her head? Forcing her to wear it is bad, but if she chooses to wear it, then she isn't hurting anyone. It isn't a symbol of violence. It isn't even a symbol of Islam, since it is also worn by many Orthodox Jews.

[ February 21, 2006, 06:02: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

No, IT IS democratic to ban scarfs. How so? What is Democratic by its very nature means that the "majority" rules. And that the will of most of the people within a given society prevails against those in the minority (in this instance the Muslims). This, as someone menitioned in a previous post (khaavern), is about the rights of the individual, or in this specific instance, the minority. Thus, we can see that individual liberty is protected against the tyranny of the majority, and not the more "democratic rights" of the larger society. Which would you give the greater weight to in this instance, Svy?

 

I also don't see what the benefit of banning headscarves is - why does it matter to anyone if a person wishes to wear one? And stop with the about how Muslim women who wear them are forced to or whatever - that may be so (I doubt it's an extremely widespread problem, mind you), but it's silly to blanket ban the whole practice and stop those who voluntarily wear them from doing so. These people *want* to do it - and if they're being oppressed it's generally their decision to be so. I don't really think that oppressing yourself counts as a serious form of oppression...

However, it could be said that banning a non-harmful expression of religion is.

 

You could say that nuns are forced to wear habits...

People, please, don't link democracy with liberalism unseparably. Democracy is majority rule (by majority vote etc). Rights of individuals is liberalism. Of course, democratic voting is a right and, in turn, the rights are basically the same for everyone, so there's a link from start, but it doesn't mean something's undemocratic when the majority sets it up against minorities or individuals.

 

That's not what the loudest champions of Democracy would say. They would argue that in Democracy the majority rules - by representation - but never denying the rights of the defeated minority. In this case, it is certainly the case of the minority being denied rights and being oppressed - by western standards of Democracy anyway.

I guess that is more or less what I have written above. However, I have never, ever, heard of Democracy being evoked while not linked with the notion of minority rights, religios freedom, tolerance etc. Not in the rhetorics of western politicians and spokesperson anyway. That's why I think both things can be perfectly linked regardless.
That's part of the point I was trying to convey actually. This crippling idea that links Democracy with everything that's supposed to be good and right, and the fact that concepts that should not be confused with Democracy are treated as if they were the same animal.
Let me give you an example. When Jörg Haider was elected in Austria I guess we all remember the big fuss it was. Charges of anti-Democracy and totalitarism being institute in Austria ran rampant. Oh yeah, how so? As far as I am concerned he was elected democratically. As yourself have said, the idea of Democracy is that it should be the rule of the represented majority. So how can someone who was chosen by the votes of the majority to be considered "undemocratic"? No, it can be anything but undemocratic. It could be dangerous, it could promote intolerance, it could promote xenophobia, it could defy some standards of the overly prettentious western ideological outlook, but tell me, how in nine hells it could be "undemocratic"? No, it was perfectly democratic, but in the minds of those Democracy spokesperson, champions, Democracy equals, necessarily, their ideas about tolerance, minority rights, religious freedom, secularism, individual rights and etc. So, if someone is against any of these "truths", he is, therefore, undemocratic.
That's why I say they are the biggest fundamentalists and liars ever. They distort and manipulate ideas and concepts to ensure their grasp on society.
It is very easy. First you give people the idea that Democracy is the holy truth. Then after, you start to link minor concepts with the idea of Democracy. In the next stage, these notions can no longer be dissociated with "Democracy". But, if Democracy has the status of God himself, and if there is no Democracy without their constructed ideas about tolerance, minority rights, secularism etc - which is a farce, as I have showed - then how can someone challenge their stances on any of these issues? They would be denying Democracy itself, and Democracy is God, and to oppose God is wrong. Thus you are evil and dangerous.
The logic goes like that: To oppose gay rights makes you against the idea of tolerance. Tolerance IS Democracy - pitiful, but that's how it works. Thus you are undemocratic. ERGO you are evil.
Or then: To oppose equal status to immigrant's religions makes you against secularism/minority rights. Secularism/minority rights IS Democracy. Thus you are undemocratic. ERGO, you are evil.
That's both a retarded and flawed - albeit purposedly - logic, but unfortunately it is the one prevailing.
In the end, it comes down to maintaining the status quo of their ideology and world view. What is even more pitiful, is that these same sociologists, philosophers, politicians or whatever, create all sorts of theories, write essays, books, to challenge the "rightist, conservativist, White male heterossexual society", and it's - in their words - social creations intended to maintain the status quo and the control. When in fact, they are the ones doing it, by twisting concepts - such as Democracy and tolerance for instance - with the sole intention of demonizing their opposers and giving their own world view the status of "holy truth". And we are the mythical ones. Heh!

Hehe. My solution could not be applied to any western standards of Democracy and the like. My resolve would go along the lines of the existance of a religion that is attached - official if you wish - culturally to the Nation and people's Culture. In this regard, my answer will always be those that place emphasis upon what is ethnical and national.

 

Well, that's what I meant. I am not interested in what a Anglo-Saxon country like the US or Singapore would do. Because many things are different in an Anglo-Saxon country. Surely the law-system (anglo-saxon (common law) versus continental civil law) and the school systems). So different, that any comparisions are getting hard to do. Too many things just work too differently that easy answers can be given.

Further, I think you don't grasp the problem. Headscarves are banned in French public schools since 1905. Yes, that's 1905.
Further, Laicism has its own story, did you bother to read up ?
Further, have you thought about Turkey and Algeria in their approach?

Further, did you think about the special circumstances in the banlieu, unemployment, cheap-goverment sponsored housing, buildings fast put up to house foreign workers.
Did you consider that many European countries completely ****ed up in the time from 1960-1990 in they way they hired cheap labour to still the needs of their booming economies and the pile of shards that remains from that time ?

Did you think about the bullying, mobbing and harassement involving scarves and behaviour among adolescents?

Did you think about basic education that can not be obtained ?

And lets not forget, there are lots of different countries and traditions and cultures involved if we talk about "moslems". (And mixing them can become a problem of its own). A big part of moslem women react very upset to the suggestion of wearing a scarf. Have ever tried to suggest that to an alevit ? They have their own strong opinions about that.

Further, are you aware about the scarf-controversies in different Maghrebinien countries ?

And than, I think the recent developement in France was wrong. What it certainly was not was discriminatory. Interestingly, I think the French should start to discriminate, so they can differentiate so they can get things done. Becoming discriminating by adopting an Anglo-Saxon approach. Given the stated opinions on this board, I think it's rather ironic.

But I liked this considered approach:

The importance of the compuslory school-system in continental Europe should not be overlooked. If one thing is common among Europeans, it's the education. Who of the continentals on this boards wasn't in public sponsored lycaneum or gymnasium?

[ February 21, 2006, 17:51: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Yeah, let them wear their scarves, let them be happy in their oppressed lifes - after all, it is their tradition.

I am sure those of you making such statements think of themselves as properly tolerant and open-minded.

But you are not. It is nothing but relativism put to practice.

It would be cruel of us to force certain muslima to expose themselves, going without a scarf? That's probably right - when viewed from their perspective.

It is oppressive of certain muslims to make their women hide their appearance as if there was something sinnful, shameful, outrageous about it? That's definitely right - when viewed from an European's perspective.

And that is all this is about. Traditions in themselves are neither good nor bad, wrong nor right. They simply are. Neutral evaluation is impossible. They have desirable or undesirable qualities to them only when compared to the traditions oneself was raised by.

Again, I am sure you feel you take the tolerant and likeable stance - and to some extend I agree with you. This sort of thinking is helpful in matters of empathy and remembering that one's convictions are nothing absolut. But it also opens the floodgates for every madness imaginable. Good bye to moral or ethical grounds to stand against anything. Where to draw the line? Circumcision of women in Africa? It is their tradition. Killing daughters in India. Got to do with tradition. Killing the daughter who has disgraced her family? Slaughtering infidels? All of it can be justified with some (religious) tradition or other. Bloodfeuds etc pp. What if they want to bring their traditions along?

You have to be something or end up being nothing. Definition of self. According to European tradition and culture oppression of women - or oppression of the freedom of expression for that matter - is not acceptable. And I say we stand by our traditions, allow no compromising from outside. And I also say those who come to live with us better do the same, stop challenging our values, if they want to be recognized as peers.

 

Then they're morons and would do well to read about how the democracy of Athens was actually set up.

No, it doesn't. Saying "don't ban headscarves" is hardly the same as saying "yeah, sure, genocide. Do that."

The slippery slope argument is almost always fallacious.

In point of fact, the argument being presented (at least by myself, and I believe by Drew as well) is "it's okay to do anything so long as whatever it is you're doing doesn't harm another," and further that "Wearing a headscarf doesn't harm another."

Erm, banning the headscarves is infringing on freedom of expression. Allowing women the choice to wear a headscarf or not, as they choose, neither oppresses them nor infringes their freedom of expression. By your standards, you shouldn't support the banning of the headscarves.

 

Why does free speech not given to David Irving?

Austria sentences Irving to 3 years

 

@Iago: yes, I have thought of the matters you listed. Turkey (an almost entirely Muslim nation) discriminates against Muslims to an alarming degree. They actually did ban headscarves for awhile but it, uh, backfired when Muslim women marched in great numbers to protest. They are trying to appear more "western" so they will be appealing to the EU.

Bullying people that are different happens with young people and always has. Adults do it, too, but generally more circuitously. This doesn't mean that we should force people to stop being different. The way to handle problems with bullying is by punishing the bullies. You don't (or, at least, shouldn't) punish the victim. France hasn't been enforcing the ban on headscarves since 1905....even if it was on the books. Even if they were, though, it doesn't make much of a difference. In 1905, women weren't allowed to vote in the United States and African Americans couldn't eat in the same restaurants, use the same restrooms or water fountains, and had to give their seats on buses to white people. The age of a law has nothing to do with whether or not it is ludicrous.

[ February 22, 2006, 02:53: Message edited by: Drew ]