What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

I do not like your vegan example.

You need something more. Something connected to civil war, strife, murder, oppression and mass graves. Something that makes you an refugee that gets his asylum granted. Something that makes you take your wife and kids and move to a foreign country far, far away. Something that makes the US of A put your name on a list and say you are not allowed to step foot on US soil or an US aiiplane for that matter.

Something to die for!

Veganism does not conjure any images of that kind in my head. How many people died for being vegan?


On the other side, a scarf does not exist in a vacuum. You need something connected to moral dilemmas.

From here

 

Drew, obviously you dont understand, or dont want to understand. People do feel oppressed as well as challenged by the increase of religious statement in their midst.

In most European societies religion has largely disappeared from public life. Churches and cathedrals are little more than part of the architectural landscape, priest are more or less respected but rarely heard or seen. Both are only sought out for funerals and weddings, the only spheres wherein religion has retained its significance. And that is a development most are quite happy with, I assume. For it is a truly liberating experience to be spared the meddlesome religious dogmatists and all the inevitable conflicts. We cherish this tranquility. Moderation on religious expression is the best breeding ground for religious tolerance and peace, as no one feels challenged in her/his spiritual, political or cultural arrangement. No strong religious statements - no perceived attacks/challenge - no conflict - no nothing. Something you just dont want to see.
Now, with the muslims we have a group of people... of guests, foreigners no less, discontent to let religion stay invisible, but who rather force it on us, re-awakening the dormant threat of religious conflict. Collectively remembering the bloody times of Europe, and recognizing highly unwelcome tendencies in muslims, feeling our response to their challenge - seeing the danger of a ghost of the past resurface... sorry, we cannot allow muslims to ignore our wish that religion has to take a backseat to have peace and freedom of the individual remain untouched. Strong religious statements have to stay in retirement.

Deny that intruding Islam is oppressive of our values and expressed will, call it antagonizing against our social contract instead – I care not. It must stop before something happens we will all regret. With European embassies burned down that turn of events isnt far off.

 

Aye, Tal. No harm done by us coming to no understanding with Drew on SP as long as the European governments/societies dont get caught in fruitless debates of this kind, but act decisively instead - and try to avoid to escalate the situation at the same time. Which would be quite a miracle. Twenty, thirty years ago... certainly. Now it is all one big mess. Few easy solutions left for us.

 

I hear you, and I'm not playing deaf. Freedom of Speech and Expression goes both ways, guys. If a newspaper in Denmark has the right to print cartoons offensive to Muslims, then Muslims have the right to offend you by wearing a headscarf which, to them,isn't even a religious expression, but an expression of modesty. I'm not playing deaf. I just thought that this simple concept was so obvious to anyone who believes in free speech and free expression that I wouldn't need to spell it out. Clearly I was wrong since you folks obviously only believe in free speech and free expression if it's convenient for you.

I don't like Hijabs, Chidoors, or even simple head scarves, and would rather not see people wearing them. On the other hand, I'd rather not see my individual rights, or the individual rights of anyone else, eroded either. The law is supposed to be fair and even handed. It doesn't exist to protect your "western sensibilities". It exists to protect the weak from the strong, the minority from the majority. It exists to protect the rights of the individual. With that, I'm out. Have a nice life, folks.

[ February 26, 2006, 02:52: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

See ya later Drew.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752804.stm

On the more recent discussions, I tend to side with Drew. I don't see how in a free society we can ban religious dress. It would appear I'm not alone in my sentiments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4109697.stm

From my, admitedly limited, experience of Muslims there doesn't seem to be this culture of "forcing" people to wear something that keeps being harped on about. Even the arranged marriages (Which I think is rather more important that what someone wears) is more to do with introducing people, and either party can say no. I know/knew three girls from University/previous job who wore the headscarves of their own will. I also know some Muslims girls that don't wear it.

I'm sure it happens, I just don't believe it's right to legislatively force someone to not wear something because other people light be forced to wear it. Pot and Kettle.

 

Sorry, not entirely sure which part of my post you're responding to. Exactly what standard am I supposed to be adhereing to? I'm not being forced to wear, or not to wear anything.
The difference that makes us (in my mind) superior to the islamic nations is the greater extent of freedom we enjoy. On an extremely petty level, this includes the choice of what we wear. Banning people from wearing religious dress is no better than an islamic nation banning or punishing women who don't wear such garb.

 

Carcaroth

I am very glad to see that the lawyer, the prime minister's wife, that represents the girl in your BBC article actually has a completely different opinion. She seems to see things more like me and does not agree with either you, Carcaroth, or Drew.

I actually wonder if you noticed.

See, I agree with Miss Booth.


Firstly, a country can choose to separate state from church and have accordingly secular schools. This is done for example in France and Switzerland.

Or a state can choose to not seperate state from church and therefore has no secular schools. In this case it is wrong to not to grand everyone the right to show his religious signs. In this case it would be discriminating. This is usually in Anglon-Saxon countries the case (i.e. countries with a culture derived from the UK like New Zealand, the US and the UK).

Anglo-Saxon countries obvioulsy have a completely different schools system with their own rules (and weird things like "drop-outs" because school isn't mandatory in those countries. How peculiar).

 

I only have a couple of minutes left online, but allow me to clarify a couple of things.

What is required from Muslim women is for them to to cover every single part of their body except the face and the palms of their hands. This only applies when there are Muslim men or non-Muslim persons around. Among Muslim women, they only need to cover from their belly-button to their knees.

What is required for Muslim men, among any persons, is the same as for Muslim women among Muslim women, which is to cover from their belly-button to their knees.

Any form-fitting attire is also not allowed for Muslim women, even if it covers the areas of the body I stated above.

Note that all this is actually a requirement in Muslim belief. Pious Muslims will have no problem in following the 'rules' above, as Muslims have accepted it as part of their religion.

I apologise if any of these has already been stated before, as I am unable to read through the whole discussion right now. However I hope I've clarified a few things concerning required Muslim attire.

 

@Rhythm: What is the source of these rules?

 

@Fabius: The Koran, of course.

 

Not really. The meaning of the lines referring to this in the Quran are debatable. Not to mention that most Imams will take issue with the argument that women must cover up fully and their words carry much more weight than any other muslim's words would (let alone non-muslims).

 

My thoughts, exactly. IIRC, the Quran states that women have to cover their "bareness". (Don't know if it's the right term.)

 

The word usually used in translations of the Quran is "bosom". The Quran also talks about veiling your beauty from all but your closest family members, but the meaning of that is, again, debateable. The veiling practices that the western world so often link exclusively to Islam actually pre-date it by several centuries. It was a common cultural practice well before the inception of Islam. Most Muslims also hold that this has cultural (rather than religious) roots, as evidenced by the fact that most muslim women do not feel the need to veil themselves and most Muslim nations do not even require the wear of a headscarf.

 

Just to clarify and I'm trying to not allude to the 'slippery slope' here. The whole idea of democracy is that laws are passed that the MAJORITY of the citizens in the country want. Indeed, Muslims more often than not do not make up the majority in a democratic nation.

So, keeping this in mind and understanding that a country can do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases within it's own borders, such as banning headscarves for whatever reason. Can anyone complain? I'm going to sound a bit Socratic here but he did allude to how a good citizen should act in that if you do not like the law either leave, buck up and deal with it or try to change it via the proper legal channels (and failing that go back to the first two choices).

Personally, I think anyone who allows religion dictate their life - in any way, shape or form - is a fool. Yet I fail to see how wearing headscarves is more harmful to the public than it is to the majority of muslims who choose to wear them from being told not to wear them. I'm not religious so I can't fully comprehend how they must feel after being told they can not practice their religion, but I imagine it would be like being told that your personal values are not allowed. I don't hold much dear to me and I find it hard to see how it could be taken away, but it would be like being told you're not allowed to marry somebody who is 5 years older or younger than you becaue it's bad for society. Especially hurtful when the love of your life happens to be 5 years and 1 hour younger than you.

To me this is just a big fuss over such a small piece of fabric. If I see somebody wearing a headscarf I'm not offended, I don't feel oppressed, frankly they can wear whatever they damn well please, it's not MY head! There is also no reason for them to be removed apart from (some) people being 'offended'.

A nation that passes a law like this is simply wasting it's own gods be damned money. They're making a pointless law that will need to be enforced that causes FAR more harm than good. It's basically just asking for a fight. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing. Let them have their damn headscarves, it's not worth the effort. Spend your money on something useful, like hospitals, schools and law enforcement.

 

Sorry to chime in, but that is the antique version of democracy that existed in Rome, Athens, et al.

The modern version tries to adhear to every individual (not only citizens) equally residing in the border of a nation. Naturally, this is an ideal, and in most cases some people will not be pleases by the results.
But in theory, no one is discriminated in modern democracies.