Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

anonguest

French Veil Ban Upheld

Recommended Posts

I wonder if this ruling will have any impact on official policy/thinking over here? or whether the oft claimed reputation of Brits for tolerance, etc will continue to be the case and no change in stance will occur?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

I'm no legal scholar but do understand that arguing the finer nuances of language is what lawyers and legal academics do.....but I must confess to finding it curious how they square their claim that the ban does not violate an indivduals right to practice their religion, with the demands of the presumed majority.

I found the last paragraph, quoted from the court ruling, somewhat contorted and hard to digest.

"The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."

Translated - "the needs (desires) of the many outweigh the demands of the few" ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this a really messy situation. The veil is a huge glaring sign of an intolerant, oppressive culture - would anyone really want to wear it who hasn't been browbeaten into submission? But banning it does run contrary to a freedom to wear whatever you like and believe whatever nonsense you like. Ultimately the only real solution is to eliminate the culture that forces it but how on earth you do that... Direct assaults on a culture's more obnoxious aspects generally just hardens the opinions of those they're directed at. Perhaps the best way would be to make sure that they can be ridiculed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this ruling will have any impact on official policy/thinking over here? or whether the oft claimed reputation of Brits for tolerance, etc will continue to be the case and no change in stance will occur?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

I'm no legal scholar but do understand that arguing the finer nuances of language is what lawyers and legal academics do.....but I must confess to finding it curious how they square their claim that the ban does not violate an indivduals right to practice their religion, with the demands of the presumed majority.

I found the last paragraph, quoted from the court ruling, somewhat contorted and hard to digest.

"The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."

Translated - "the needs (desires) of the many outweigh the demands of the few" ??

Aye, just as we stop public nudity due to the current views of the majority.

However, I'd like to see the full court statement, as I trust the BBC not to cherry pick as much as I trust a zombie not to bite me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, just as we stop public nudity due to the current views of the majority.

However, I'd like to see the full court statement, as I trust the BBC not to cherry pick as much as I trust a zombie not to bite me.

Which sort of reinforces the observation/claim made by the late George Carlin.....that all these so called 'rights' are anything but. They are not universal rights. They are merely 'privileges' that are acceptable to the majority here and now? If the needs/desires of the majority changes over time then those so called rights will disappear, to be replaced by some other replacement or redefined 'rights'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which sort of reinforces the observation/claim made by the late George Carlin.....that all these so called 'rights' are anything but. They are not universal rights. They are merely 'privileges' that are acceptable to the majority here and now? If the needs/desires of the majority changes over time then those so called rights will disappear, to be replaced by some other replacement or redefined 'rights'.

Check out the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

Article 29:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers might be interested to know that while the other parties won't go near this with a barge pole, UKIP's official policy (since 2009 I think) is a very liberal take on the situation.

They say that people should be allowed the freedom to wear whatever they like, as long as they comply with the rules of the places that they are wearing them. These rules which are to be fairly applied to all. So, you can wear a veil if you really want too, but if you're in a bank (for example) that insists motorcyclists have to remove their helmets, then you would have to remove your veil too

Can't see much to argue about there? Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which sort of reinforces the observation/claim made by the late George Carlin.....that all these so called 'rights' are anything but. They are not universal rights. They are merely 'privileges' that are acceptable to the majority here and now? If the needs/desires of the majority changes over time then those so called rights will disappear, to be replaced by some other replacement or redefined 'rights'.

Rights are things which you can defend.

None of us has a right to life...obviously, as we all die..dieing is an affront to a very basic human right.

therefore living isnt a right. What we do have however, is the right to stay alive and similarly, nobody else has a right to take your life away.

Likewise, there is no right to wear a veil whereever you want, but you do have right to defend your practice..and if its so very important to you, you will defend to the death..I suspect its not really that important, and what god would ever demand his creation was indeed brought to earth to be covered up in shame...I note that its desert races that tend to have this nonsense put upon their women, a desert being a place where being covered outside makes good sense, followed by a male population that cant resist the site of a bare arm without soiling the inside of his own covering. This is clearly more about Power Politics than religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really only in deserts though. Even though we didn't exactly stoop to the level of veils the idea of fainting at the sight of a bare ankle isn't really that old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really only in deserts though. Even though we didn't exactly stoop to the level of veils the idea of fainting at the sight of a bare ankle isn't really that old.

Upper and middle class women wearing veils to protect them from the sight of the great unwashed was not unknown in late Victorian Britian.

It gets a mention in the Sherlock Holmes story the Specked Band when Helen Stoner is first described

A lady dressed in black and heavily veiled, who had been sitting in the window, rose as we entered

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/acdoyle/bl-acdoyle-speck.htm

In fact even in the Islamic world veils are a big snob thing so largely seen worn by higher status women.

The prole women largely go unveiled as they have to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really only in deserts though. Even though we didn't exactly stoop to the level of veils the idea of fainting at the sight of a bare ankle isn't really that old.

On another thread recently I linked to a gallery of photos taken in Afghanistan in the 1960s, before it got knocked back to the 1260s.

I must admit, I glanced at one of the photos and thought 'yeah, I would'

a26kg4.jpg

So, the moralists have a point

Not a very good one mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this a really messy situation. The veil is a huge glaring sign of an intolerant, oppressive culture - would anyone really want to wear it who hasn't been browbeaten into submission? But banning it does run contrary to a freedom to wear whatever you like and believe whatever nonsense you like. Ultimately the only real solution is to eliminate the culture that forces it but how on earth you do that... Direct assaults on a culture's more obnoxious aspects generally just hardens the opinions of those they're directed at. Perhaps the best way would be to make sure that they can be ridiculed.

I thought they weren't allowed not to wear it ie they don't have a choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I'd like to see the full court statement, as I trust the BBC not to cherry pick as much as I trust a zombie not to bite me.

For bonus points, it's worth digging a bit more into the context of the veil debate in France, which is made even more complicated (and probably polarised) by the old, virulent antagonism between the secularists and the religious.

The veil story started a long time ago in state schools, who are big on secularism (and veils were a blatant religious sign). In theory, even a discreet crucifix around the neck is a no-no.

This starting point has led directly to a debate that is far more confrontational than what we've got in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers might be interested to know that while the other parties won't go near this with a barge pole, UKIP's official policy (since 2009 I think) is a very liberal take on the situation.

They say that people should be allowed the freedom to wear whatever they like, as long as they comply with the rules of the places that they are wearing them. These rules which are to be fairly applied to all. So, you can wear a veil if you really want too, but if you're in a bank (for example) that insists motorcyclists have to remove their helmets, then you would have to remove your veil too

Can't see much to argue about there? Anyone?

Would that mean that you'd be free to wear a nazi uniform outside a synagogue? Didn't we have someone arrested recently for wearing one to the shops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another thread recently I linked to a gallery of photos taken in Afghanistan in the 1960s, before it got knocked back to the 1260s.

I must admit, I glanced at one of the photos and thought 'yeah, I would'

a26kg4.jpg

So, the moralists have a point

Not a very good one mind

I am 98% certain that your mind went 'yeah I would' about the person sitting furthest right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that mean that you'd be free to wear a nazi uniform outside a synagogue? Didn't we have someone arrested recently for wearing one to the shops?

Yes you'd be free too.. But the people inside there would be free to hurl a lot of non-physical abuse your way, and I wouldn't expect a jury to come down on your side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 98% certain that your mind went 'yeah I would' about the person sitting furthest right?

He doesn't look like the sort who'd give you much choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they weren't allowed not to wear it ie they don't have a choice

In French law they can't wear it even if they do have a choice and want to. That's not really any better. Should the law stop someone dressing up in the world's worst-looking Darth Vader costume? Does banning stupid cultural rules end them or just harden the opinion of those enforcing those rules?

Usually there's not much you can do about the current generation of troublemakers, the best you can hope for is to bring up the next generation to ignore them so that when the backwards medieavelists die out so do their ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this a really messy situation. The veil is a huge glaring sign of an intolerant, oppressive culture - would anyone really want to wear it who hasn't been browbeaten into submission? But banning it does run contrary to a freedom to wear whatever you like and believe whatever nonsense you like.

This kind of law is the inevitable consequence of refusing to force immigrants to assimilate. The laws will only get weirder and crazier from here on as the government tries to treat the effects rather than the cause.

BTW, isn't forcing women to wear tents a relatively recent phenomenon, and nothing to do with the Koran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.