Philosophy Now Forum

Greatest I am wrote:So you like the idea of wearing what you please.

That is what I want for Muslim women who are presently being forced to wear what they do not want to wear.

Okay. So you outlawed burkas.
1. How would this law read?
2. How do you set out in legal terms a dress code for societal standards?
3. How do you go about determining whether any particular woman is dressing as she does by choice or coercion?
4. How do you protect a woman from retribution after the fine has been paid?

Who does the enforcing? Do police hand out tickets for costume infractions? What are the criteria the police are supposed to follow?
If somebody does not pay the fine, what happens next? Do they get arrested? If so, who gets arrested - the woman who has committed the costume infraction, her husband or the head of her household?
IOW How do you go about enforcing this law?

[/b]

About 5,000 honor killings a years not enforcement enough for you?

In Canada? I do not think so.
I believe we investigate and prosecute all murders and assaults, whatever the motive.
As for murders elsewhere in the world, do you truly believe that forcing Canadian women to dress differently would save lives in Pakistan?
Do you even believe that forcing Pakistani women to dress different would save their lives?

I think what you're advocating here is attacking a symbol.
Changing culture takes longer. You don't need to make a whole new law for one group of people; you only need to make fair laws for everyone and maintain honest, competent law-enforcement agencies and treat all those who break the law exactly the same.
Then, you need to give people opportunities to work, learn, participate and integrate.
Second and third generation immigrant are usually assimilated without any special measures having been taken.

Skip wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:So you like the idea of wearing what you please.

That is what I want for Muslim women who are presently being forced to wear what they do not want to wear.

Okay. So you outlawed burkas.
1. How would this law read?
2. How do you set out in legal terms a dress code for societal standards?
3. How do you go about determining whether any particular woman is dressing as she does by choice or coercion?
4. How do you protect a woman from retribution after the fine has been paid?

Who does the enforcing? Do police hand out tickets for costume infractions? What are the criteria the police are supposed to follow?
If somebody does not pay the fine, what happens next? Do they get arrested? If so, who gets arrested - the woman who has committed the costume infraction, her husband or the head of her household?
IOW How do you go about enforcing this law?

[/b]

About 5,000 honor killings a years not enforcement enough for you?

In Canada? I do not think so.
I believe we investigate and prosecute all murders and assaults, whatever the motive.
As for murders elsewhere in the world, do you truly believe that forcing Canadian women to dress differently would save lives in Pakistan?
Do you even believe that forcing Pakistani women to dress different would save their lives?

I think what you're advocating here is attacking a symbol.
Changing culture takes longer. You don't need to make a whole new law for one group of people; you only need to make fair laws for everyone and maintain honest, competent law-enforcement agencies and treat all those who break the law exactly the same.
Then, you need to give people opportunities to work, learn, participate and integrate.
Second and third generation immigrant are usually assimilated without any special measures having been taken.

Such a phony. You might have 75 years to wait of this magical 'assimilation', but most of us don't. What kind of a sick fuck of a religion could even come up with the concept of 'honour killing', and where you have parents with no diagnosed mental disease thinking it's ok to murder their own children? You can feel all virtuous and warm and fuzzy for paying 'tolerance' lip-service to their bullshit misogyny but don't expect others to. You still haven't said why you don't want several million angry muslims in the US, or why you aren't opening up your home to a few dozen of them. Are you an islamophobe or something?

Greatest I am wrote:
You do not seem to get that women are being forced to wear the clothing in question

Well then outlaw that rather than the clothing which is not actually the problem here

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Such a phony. You might have 75 years to wait of this magical 'assimilation', but most of us don't.

I'm still waiting for an achievable solution which nobody is presenting.

What kind of a sick fuck of a religion could even come up with the concept of 'honour killing', and where you have parents with no diagnosed mental disease thinking it's ok to murder their own children?

Unfortunately, the world is full of sick fucks who make up all kinds of inappropriate responses to behaviours of which they disapprove. One might recommend killing them all, but the problem remains: the killers then become sick fucks and require killing in their turn, so pretty soon we'd run out of people to carry out the sick-fuck-cleansing.

You can feel all virtuous and warm and fuzzy for paying 'tolerance' lip-service to their bullshit misogyny but don't expect others to.

Okay.

You still haven't said why you don't want several million angry muslims in the US,

I might want them in the US, but I lack the power and wherewithal to effect that importation.

why you aren't opening up your home to a few dozen of them.

I should imagine the operative word here is "them". Them consists of people - some oppressor, some oppressed, some progressive, some regressive, some bad, some good, some perpetrators, some victims, a whole bunch of children who haven't had a chance to decide yet. I'm not prepared to condemn them en masse - at least, not without even having met any of them.

Are you an islamophobe or something?

As a matter of fact, yes. I dislike religion. A lot. I particularly dislike mean-spirited, oppressive religions, of which Islam is the current poster-boy. The sooner these religions are outgrown by humanity, the better. I've noticed that they tend to lose power in conditions of prosperity and enlightenment; thrive in adversity and want. Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to push them into a corner where they feel they have to fight for their life, because that makes them stronger and more dangerous.

Pathetic. You read an awful lot into the word 'them'. Obviously I was referring to muslims fleeing their ruined countries that the US is responsible for ruining. 'Them' was a bit shorter.

If you believe that wearing these items of clothing are the result of oppression, and not choice, then the only reasonable law should be enacted is one the guarantees that choice.

Thus, rather than outlaw the wearing of certain types of clothing a law ought to be enacted that PREVENTS persons from being made to wear one; that no one is free to force another to wear these clothes.

A law that prevents a choice; that bans certain types of clothes is undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.

What next?? Banning a mask?

Skip wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:So you like the idea of wearing what you please.

That is what I want for Muslim women who are presently being forced to wear what they do not want to wear.

Okay. So you outlawed burkas.
1. How would this law read?
2. How do you set out in legal terms a dress code for societal standards?
3. How do you go about determining whether any particular woman is dressing as she does by choice or coercion?
4. How do you protect a woman from retribution after the fine has been paid?

Who does the enforcing? Do police hand out tickets for costume infractions? What are the criteria the police are supposed to follow?
If somebody does not pay the fine, what happens next? Do they get arrested? If so, who gets arrested - the woman who has committed the costume infraction, her husband or the head of her household?
IOW How do you go about enforcing this law?

[/b]

About 5,000 honor killings a years not enforcement enough for you?

In Canada? I do not think so.
I believe we investigate and prosecute all murders and assaults, whatever the motive.
As for murders elsewhere in the world, do you truly believe that forcing Canadian women to dress differently would save lives in Pakistan?
Do you even believe that forcing Pakistani women to dress different would save their lives?

I think what you're advocating here is attacking a symbol.
Changing culture takes longer. You don't need to make a whole new law for one group of people; you only need to make fair laws for everyone and maintain honest, competent law-enforcement agencies and treat all those who break the law exactly the same.
Then, you need to give people opportunities to work, learn, participate and integrate.
Second and third generation immigrant are usually assimilated without any special measures having been taken.

Rules of law are written by lawyers and politicians. They will decide on enforcement and penalties.

As to your last. Has the U.S. or Canada assimilated it's indigenous tribes even after many more than 3 generations.

No.

Changing a culture does not take a long time if you impose your better law on them from day 1.

Regards
DL

surreptitious57 wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
You do not seem to get that women are being forced to wear the clothing in question

Well then outlaw that rather than the clothing which is not actually the problem here

You think that would work and that Muslim men would not have their wives say that they are wearing that garb voluntarily.

Seriously?

Muslim men have made the clothing the problem by using force and coercion on their chattel wives.

Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you believe that wearing these items of clothing are the result of oppression, and not choice, then the only reasonable law should be enacted is one the guarantees that choice.

Thus, rather than outlaw the wearing of certain types of clothing a law ought to be enacted that PREVENTS persons from being made to wear one; that no one is free to force another to wear these clothes.

A law that prevents a choice; that bans certain types of clothes is undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.

What next?? Banning a mask?

Actually, in France masks are banned in public, except in special circumstances like carnivals. Unfortunately, with banning the burka, they had to include all other face coverings as well. Mickey Mouse wouldn't be allowed.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you believe that wearing these items of clothing are the result of oppression, and not choice, then the only reasonable law should be enacted is one the guarantees that choice.

Thus, rather than outlaw the wearing of certain types of clothing a law ought to be enacted that PREVENTS persons from being made to wear one; that no one is free to force another to wear these clothes.

A law that prevents a choice; that bans certain types of clothes is undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.

What next?? Banning a mask?

There is nothing undemocratic in any law that a democracy votes in for itself.

That could include the mask you posted if the majority so chose.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: Rules of law are written by lawyers and politicians. They will decide on enforcement and penalties.

Politicians in a democracy are citizens elected to represent other citizens: they have no special training. When they draft legislation, it must reflect the will of their constituency.

You are asking people to vote on a law that you have not drafted. You are asking for a blank cheque.

You are the advocate for a law forbidding anyone to wear hijab, niqab and burka .
This is not a difficult question:
What do you want to accomplish? What do you want that law to say? How do you want it enforced

Until you figure that out, all you're doing is inciting prejudice against an ethnic minority.

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you believe that wearing these items of clothing are the result of oppression, and not choice, then the only reasonable law should be enacted is one the guarantees that choice.

Thus, rather than outlaw the wearing of certain types of clothing a law ought to be enacted that PREVENTS persons from being made to wear one; that no one is free to force another to wear these clothes.

A law that prevents a choice; that bans certain types of clothes is undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.

What next?? Banning a mask?

There is nothing undemocratic in any law that a democracy votes in for itself.

DL

That is possibly the most stupid statement of the week.
What about when the German democracy passed laws to end elections under Hitler?

Skip wrote:[

quote="Greatest I am"]
Rules of law are written by lawyers and politicians. They will decide on enforcement and penalties.

Politicians in a democracy are citizens elected to represent other citizens: they have no special training. When they draft legislation, it must reflect the will of their constituency.

Most politicians have law degrees. This aside.

That is how it should work but mostly does not. It might in a democracy but that is not what we are all living in. We all live in oligarchies and the oligarchs get their way and not the people.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-dat ... b014efbf27

You are asking people to vote on a law that you have not drafted. You are asking for a blank cheque.

Just as Trudeau is on legalisation of pot. That is how things work. AS general agreement first then the legislation.

You are the advocate for a law forbidding anyone to wear hijab, niqab and burka .
This is not a difficult question:
What do you want to accomplish? What do you want that law to say? How do you want it enforced

Until you figure that out, all you're doing is inciting prejudice against an ethnic minority.

[/quote]

Hogwash.

I am inciting prejudice against signs of oppression and slavery in our free cultures.

Why do you not object to signs of slavery in your free nation?

Why are you supporting misogyny and oppression of women?

Regards
DL

You proposed a ban.
What is it meant to accomplish?
How would you make it work?

No matter how you side-track; no matter how much you emote, those simple questions remain unanswered.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you believe that wearing these items of clothing are the result of oppression, and not choice, then the only reasonable law should be enacted is one the guarantees that choice.

Thus, rather than outlaw the wearing of certain types of clothing a law ought to be enacted that PREVENTS persons from being made to wear one; that no one is free to force another to wear these clothes.

A law that prevents a choice; that bans certain types of clothes is undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.

What next?? Banning a mask?

There is nothing undemocratic in any law that a democracy votes in for itself.

DL

That is possibly the most stupid statement of the week.
What about when the German democracy passed laws to end elections under Hitler?

I think you should revise who is making stupid statements.

What about when Hitler passed those laws?

Was it done under the rules of their democracy? Yes they were my friend.

What was undemocratic in what they did?

As you state, they passed laws in what their democracy said was allowed.

You are confusing moral law with the law passed by Hitler. Fact is, his democracy allowed it.

Regards
DL