Philosophy Now Forum

What was undemocratic in what they did?

You mean besides murdering the opposition?

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

Google French burka law. That should answer all your detail questions.

What it was meant to accomplish is the end of the oppression of the French Muslim women as well as protecting the French culture that Islam is trying to erode for Sharia.

How I would make it work is what I have been saying. By fines and police having the power to make women show their faces.

That should prevent some of the crap that Australia had to endure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOiaXN ... st-g-vrecs

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
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

A democracy is capable of passing undemocratic laws. I gave you one example. There are many more.
Was the exclusion of all women from the vote undemocratic?
Your problem is that you do not understand democracy.

Greatest I am wrote: Google French burka law. That should answer all your detail questions.

I'm not interested in France's problems right now.
I asked you to explain your position regarding a proposed law in Canada.

How I would make it work is what I have been saying. By fines and police having the power to make women show their faces.

This is it?

- No woman is allowed to cover her face in public. (Or only Muslim women?)

- Any police officer has the authority to stop any woman on the street or in a public place and order her to uncover her face.

If she refuses to do so, the officer is required to - what? Rip the offending garment from her face? and/or 1. Issue a ticket, as he would for a traffic violation? or 2. Fine her on the spot? (How much?) or 3. Arrest her and hold her in custody, pending payment of the fine? or 4. escort her home and demand payment of her nearest males relative?

- What if the fine is not paid? Trial? Prison? Garnisheed wages?
- What happens to repeat 'offenders'?

I'm still unclear on how this makes women safer.
When a husband or father learns that his wife or daughter has been shamed in public by a random policeman, what prevents him from punishing the woman? What prevents him from keeping forcibly at home? If the abusive husband or father does not hit her on the face, the next policeman will not see the bruises when he forces her to uncover the next time she goes out - if she ever does - unless he forces her to uncover more than her face. And when the abusive husband or father learns that, she will be killed.
What protection are you offering women against these eventualities?

I'm still unclear on how this makes women safer. When a husband or father learns that his wife or daughter has been shamed in public by a random policeman, what prevents him from punishing the woman? What prevents him from keeping forcibly at home? If the abusive husband or father does not hit her on the face, the next policeman will not see the bruises when he forces her to uncover the next time she goes out - if she ever does - unless he forces her to uncover more than her face. And when the abusive husband or father learns that, she will be killed. What protection are you offering women against these eventualities?

Should have little to do with 'making her safer'. The laws of the land offer thorough protections to women: the most comprehensive in the world's history.

Getting stopped for an infraction is not 'shaming' just as getting a ticket for littering has not that function. Covering of women's faces is a gesture which reflects all manner if different stances, or impositions if you will, on observant women (and observant women choose to dress that way, and often defend it). The Islamic relationship to women is obviously incompatable with Western ideals and thus laws are enacted against it in France and, in that context, for smart and defensible reasons.

If men punish their women for being 'shamed' or blame them, and violate their rights, that woman can call on the police to enforce the laws that protect women. The law is not a nanny and does not have to anticipate all the consequences. If a man kills his wife for such a reason, or any reason, he will simply have to pay the costs in a prison term.

Tickets are issued, I assume, and fines imposed. Failure to pay the fine results in being declared a scofflaw and results in a warrant for arrest, imposition of other fines, and/or imprisonment. Simple.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Should have little to do with 'making her safer'. The laws of the land offer thorough protections to women: the most comprehensive in the world's history.

Okay. In that case, GIA's statement:

What it was meant to accomplish is the end of the oppression of the French Muslim women

is not true.

Getting stopped for an infraction is not 'shaming' just as getting a ticket for littering has not that function.

Unless it involves forcible uncovering. I asked whether that was part of the procedure.
I also asked whether this law would apply to all costumes and all women, or only certain specified garments worn only by a visible minority?

If men punish their women for being 'shamed' or blame them, and violate their rights, that woman can call on the police to enforce the laws that protect women...... If a man kills his wife for such a reason, or any reason, he will simply have to pay the costs in a prison term.

Why not start with human rights, enforce the existing law, and forget about the clothes?

The law is not a nanny and does not have to anticipate all the consequences.

'Reckless endangerment' only applies to civilians?
It's okay to cause the very thing you pretend you're trying to prevent.

Tickets are issued, I assume, and fines imposed. Failure to pay the fine results in being declared a scofflaw and results in a warrant for arrest, imposition of other fines, and/or imprisonment. Simple.

Not simple. Who is expected to pay the fine? Who is imprisoned?
Putting people in prison for being victims is unlikely to end their oppression.

Therefore, only the second part of GIA's statement

as well as protecting the French culture that Islam is trying to erode for Sharia.

is true. It's not about ending the oppression of women; it's about protecting a Western culture from an unwanted influence.
Those are two quite separate matters that cannot be addressed with a single piece of legislation.
If the main point is to protect your cultural norms and mores and sensibilities, why not simply outlaw the practice of Islam?

French society has an established anti-religious posture which is rather interesting. To understand what goes on there - the controls that are bieng established and the willingness to control aspects of Islamic feminine dress - requires understanding the French attitude toward all religious expression. I do not myself think that the effort to force Muslim women to abandon certain customs of modesty is out of a desire to protect women, though I am sure there is a strong feminist faction that would seek to protect women. I think the efforts are in a sense to - I would almost use the word harrass - put pressure on certain customs which are out of step with French culture generally. I have gotten the sense that this is just a small way to fight back against or oppose the influence of religious Muslim customs. As you know the Western democracies have so many legal protections for religion and intellectual freedom that to outlaw a specific religion, or any religion, would be impossible. What they seem to do though is to control the manifestations of religion.

I don't have any information obout 'forced uncoverings' so have nothing to say there. I doubt strongly that a policeman would have the right to forcibly uncover a woman who came out in public dressed traditionally. I assume she would get a ticket.

The clothes (i.e. these specific head-coverings) are symbols of much more, and from the French national perspective it is the 'much more' that is being confronted. I can only imagine that there will be manifestations of will to limit the external expressions even more. And of course there is a faction in French society that you would likely see as reactionary (racist, chauvinist, etc.)

Reckless endangerment, if memory serves, has no relationship at all to passing such a law or restriction though I see what you are attempting to get at. You want to speak about an 'unintended consequence' of a law that might adversely affect these women. Different legal concept.

The woman who goes out in public dressed illegally would obviously get the ticket. Who else could be held responsible? The husband walking beside here? Her son? Her father? Just as in Canada if you litter it is you who gets the ticket, not someone walking with you!

In secular democracy it is simply not possible to legally describe a women who through social custom wears certain clothes as not being responsible herself for wearing them. That is how our law is established. Pretty rational. In rational French culture a woman who wears a hat, say, cannot lay the blame on another, saying 'He made me wear it!' We assume that each one has the right to accept or not to accept some usage.

I'd agree that the resistances (against Islamic symbols) is more about a desire to protrect French cultural norms, or cultural integrity, than it is specifically about 'protecting women'. GAI is an odd arguer! He doesn't have his predicates all in a straight line ...

You cannot 'outlaw' a religion. But you can apply force against it to secularise it. You can also apply cultural pressure to 'assimilate' people into secular cultural norms or, to put it another way, to induce them to abandon customs which are deemed 'inappropriate'.

I'm still not interested in France's problems or attitudes, or how they might rationalize punishing the victim.

But I would still like to know how Greatest I Am proposes to apply this law to Canada.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[q

A democracy is capable of passing undemocratic laws. I gave you one example. There are many more.
Was the exclusion of all women from the vote undemocratic?
Your problem is that you do not understand democracy.

No one does as none of us live in one. We are all living in oligarchies.

Regards
DL

Skip wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Google French burka law. That should answer all your detail questions.

I'm not interested in France's problems right now.
I asked you to explain your position regarding a proposed law in Canada.

How I would make it work is what I have been saying. By fines and police having the power to make women show their faces.

This is it?

- No woman is allowed to cover her face in public. (Or only Muslim women?)

- Any police officer has the authority to stop any woman on the street or in a public place and order her to uncover her face.

If she refuses to do so, the officer is required to - what? Rip the offending garment from her face? and/or 1. Issue a ticket, as he would for a traffic violation? or 2. Fine her on the spot? (How much?) or 3. Arrest her and hold her in custody, pending payment of the fine? or 4. escort her home and demand payment of her nearest males relative?

- What if the fine is not paid? Trial? Prison? Garnisheed wages?
- What happens to repeat 'offenders'?

I'm still unclear on how this makes women safer.
When a husband or father learns that his wife or daughter has been shamed in public by a random policeman, what prevents him from punishing the woman? What prevents him from keeping forcibly at home? If the abusive husband or father does not hit her on the face, the next policeman will not see the bruises when he forces her to uncover the next time she goes out - if she ever does - unless he forces her to uncover more than her face. And when the abusive husband or father learns that, she will be killed.
What protection are you offering women against these eventualities?

A ban on apparel will not solve the problem of male oppression of women but will show the women that their new free nation cares enough about them to try to move them to real freedom. It will also show Muslim men that free men have limits to the oppression they will allow.

The French are doing their duty of trying to share their freedom. If Muslims men wish to continue to make their women second class citizens, and the women tolerate it, then that is a Muslim problem and not a French one.

If Islam is adamant about making slaves of their women then at least the French do not have to be insulted by garb that denotes slavery.

The other crimes against women you name are already covered by other laws.



Regards
DL

Skip wrote:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Should have little to do with 'making her safer'. The laws of the land offer thorough protections to women: the most comprehensive in the world's history.

Okay. In that case, GIA's statement:

What it was meant to accomplish is the end of the oppression of the French Muslim women

is not true.

Getting stopped for an infraction is not 'shaming' just as getting a ticket for littering has not that function.

Unless it involves forcible uncovering. I asked whether that was part of the procedure.
I also asked whether this law would apply to all costumes and all women, or only certain specified garments worn only by a visible minority?

If men punish their women for being 'shamed' or blame them, and violate their rights, that woman can call on the police to enforce the laws that protect women...... If a man kills his wife for such a reason, or any reason, he will simply have to pay the costs in a prison term.

Why not start with human rights, enforce the existing law, and forget about the clothes?

The law is not a nanny and does not have to anticipate all the consequences.

'Reckless endangerment' only applies to civilians?
It's okay to cause the very thing you pretend you're trying to prevent.

Tickets are issued, I assume, and fines imposed. Failure to pay the fine results in being declared a scofflaw and results in a warrant for arrest, imposition of other fines, and/or imprisonment. Simple.

Not simple. Who is expected to pay the fine? Who is imprisoned?
Putting people in prison for being victims is unlikely to end their oppression.

Therefore, only the second part of GIA's statement

as well as protecting the French culture that Islam is trying to erode for Sharia.

is true. It's not about ending the oppression of women; it's about protecting a Western culture from an unwanted influence.
Those are two quite separate matters that cannot be addressed with a single piece of legislation.
If the main point is to protect your cultural norms and mores and sensibilities, why not simply outlaw the practice of Islam?

I am working on my next O.P.

--------------

Would you vote to disband all religious cults that can only grow their tribes by violence?

When Christianity became a true religion of jihad and Yahweh a true God of War, --- as well as a state religion that none could ignore or stay out of, --- the doom of all religious and political free thinking was to be discouraged with death. Islam and Christianity thus both have in common the fact that both were born from War. Not conquest by positive example or showing a better social system.

Thus Constantine and Christianity became co-tyrants to the Western peoples.

The champions of the mystery schools were dominated by Gnostic Christian sects. The best heretics so to speak.

If Gnostic Christian sects were the best of the free thinkers, and today most of the world professes to be freedom seekers and free thinkers, then why is Gnostic Christianity not the largest religious group in any crowd?

At the end of the movie, ---God on trial, --- Jews who had found God guilty of breaking his covenant, and thus recognizing God’s evil nature, those who survived came away praying to God. I see that as a great fear of not having a God. This would be quite idiotic if not for the fact that to the old Jewry, God was a man.

What man having faith in God truly is, is man having faith in himself. Think Jewish Divine Council.

We are natural animals. An animal’s bias always favors it’s own. A man’s God can never be other than what his own Father Complex tells him what characteristic his ideal God should have. These character traits will always be what a man has. Man in God’s image is the same as saying God in man’s image.

Why do cults like Catholics, Protestant Christian, Evangelicals and Islam all try to take man’s inheritance of being the greatest force on the earth away from men?

Why do these immoral, homophobic and horribly misogynistic cults persist in trying to force their God down the throats of free men and women?

Why do free people allow such cults to even exist when all they want is death to all free thinking?

Separation of state and church must be maintained worldwide as all who want theocracies are using war to get it. These are all Catholics, Protestant Christians, Evangelicals and Islam. War mongers all.

I would vote to disband all cults like Catholics, Protestant Christians, Evangelicals and Islam who work against freedom and can only grow their tribes by violence and not good example of good living.

Would you vote against such a proposition and maintain the status quo of having these homophobic and misogynous cults continue to slow our evolution to civilization?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

Skip wrote:...or how they might rationalize punishing the victim.

I admire the injection of a rhetorical statement!

Here is a clue: First, see the woman as agent (of her 'oppression'), not the 'victim' of it. What you are doing, I'd suggest, is extending her victimhood.

Now, the issue of female (and male) modesty is a complex one, but in our societies, and certainly our jurisprudence, we define the individual as the moral agent. So, let her be that much more a real moral agent.

You make her a victim.

Now GIA comes out into the open! Marvelous ...

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
I'd agree that the resistances (against Islamic symbols) is more about a desire to protrect French cultural norms, or cultural integrity, than it is specifically about 'protecting women'. GAI is an odd arguer! He doesn't have his predicates all in a straight line ...
.

I agree. It is the way my mind works and prioritises.

I do not have the discipline that higher education gives but I am usually correct in the direction of my thinking.

Here is a bit for you, and especially Skip, on how Australia administers such laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOiaXN ... st-g-vrecs

Regards
DL

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Now GIA comes out into the open! Marvelous ...

I was never hiding.

Skip asked about outlawing religions and I showed where my thinking was ultimately going.

Does your reply mean that you would not vote to disband all religious cults that can only grow their tribes by violence?

Regards
DL