France's highest administrative court has suspended a ban on full-body "burkini" swimsuits that was imposed in a town on the Mediterranean coast. The ban in Villeneuve-Loubet "seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms", it found. The ruling could set a precedent for up to 30 other towns that imposed bans on their beaches, chiefly on the Riviera. At least three mayors have already said they will keep the bans in their towns. The court will make a final decision later on the bans' legality.
Good. Reason has prevailed.
The "burkini bans" actually make no mention of the burkini. The rules simply say beachwear must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism.
Then what in the world is wrong with women who want to cover up on the beach ???? And let's not forget :
https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+swimming+costume&biw=1446&bih=920&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSvOaXr9_OAhVEtRQKHccaCjQQ_AUIBygC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479
It is just as wrong to force a woman to wear less clothing as it is wrong to force them to wear the Burka. This is just plain bigotry based in the unreasonable fear that all Muslims are radical.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, is clothing restrictions going to improve or erode feelings of persecution among those who feel that they are fighting a war against their faith?
"must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism"
ReplyDeleteIf secularism was indeed invoked in the law, whoever thought about doing it, should resign quickly (to clarify, just in case: secularism refers to the govt, not the people).
Heh.
ReplyDeleteلاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
In Canada we don't care what Muslims want to do, as long as they do not break Canadian laws of the land. Their religious practices are not our concern; what they wear is not our concern, unless they are going for government issues and the airport identification in a room designed for them to feel safe, and their religious rights are not violated. We do not accept Sharia law, nor Jewish law, nor any other religious laws.
ReplyDeletePlease read Canadian Laws on Google
Ian Rawlings It took me a long time to figure out what you meant, but now I see it. Of course I mean, "then what in the world do the authorities think is wrong with women who want to cover up" !
ReplyDeleteCanadian Laws are also religious, inspired by the religions of Humanism and Statism.
ReplyDeleteZephyr López Cervilla Alex Blue I'm not sure how this tangent got started, but there is a difference between a religion and an ideology, though both can be harmful when taken to an extreme.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the US constitution is actually more secular than Canada's. We shouldn't be held up as the secular ideal. For example, in the province I live, public money goes to fully fund a Catholic school system while not funding any other religious based education. We actually had our debates regarding the hijab and immigration during last election, and some regions do have laws restricting the use of religious garments and symbols (specifically targeted against Muslims, too), so we ain't perfect either.
Zephyr López Cervilla: I rebuke your heretic invocation of the religions of Spelling and Grammar.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't really surprising, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe decision was divisive already, and the reasons even more - the "maintaining order by avoiding what could be felt as provocation" apparently held legal waters, but not the one based on laïcism (the stronger version of secularism, an old demon in France) didn't.
But after the recent photograph of police forcing a woman do undress, it became clearly untenable, and I think the government felt it was better to drop than support it.
(Yes, officially the Conseil d'Etat is independent as a judiciary organism, but let's not kid ourselves.)
I don't know what to think about the Burkini itself as a symbol (whether it is empowering women in their choice, denying them or both - or neither), but the whole thing was indeed a sad example of typical French political and judiciary incompetence - whether good or bad, we are pretty good at screwing ideas up in their application.
At least they did some damage control instead of doubling down on it, so it could have been worse.
Mike Aben: "there is a difference between a religion and an ideology,"
ReplyDelete— Sure, most if not all religions have an ideological component, but not all ideologies are religions. Nonetheless, Humanism and Statism are religions:
«I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.»
— John J Dunphy. A Religion for a New Age. The Humanist (January-February 1983)
http://secularhumanism.org/index. php/articles/3452
http://secular-humanism.com
«The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933»
…
«the first Manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists' board, owners of the document, twenty years later.»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
«The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:»
…
«Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.»
…
«Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognizes our dependence and responsibility for the natural world.»
…
«Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-view on all of humanity.»
…
«Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art.»
…
«Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living»
–
«The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.).»
ReplyDelete…
«If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").
Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – "equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s! Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the – love-State.»
— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845) English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1st English edition, 1907)
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
Zephyr López Cervilla: You're worshipping Kopimi wrong, too.
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo, now that you mentioned "worshipping" (aka "worshiping"), I just realized that I had forgotten to cite Thomas Hobbes' view of the State as a "mortal god":
ReplyDelete«The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes also wrote during a time of civil war and also arrived at the notion of sovereignty as a solution. For Hobbes, the people established sovereign authority through a contract in which they transferred all of their rights to the Leviathan, which represented the abstract notion of the state. The will of the Leviathan reigned supreme and represented the will of all those who had alienated their rights to it. Like Bodin's sovereign, Hobbes’ Leviathan was above the law, a mortal god unbound by any constitution or contractual obligations with any external party.»
— Daniel Philpott. Sovereignty. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 31, 2003; revision March 25, 2016.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty
«But today, I want to talk about sovereignty. There are two great concepts that come out of Hobbes that you have to remember. One is the state of nature and the other is sovereignty. I spoke a bit about the first one yesterday or Monday rather. Today, I want to talk about Hobbes's theory of the sovereign state, the creation of the sovereign. Hobbes refers to the sovereign as a mortal god, as his answer to the problems of the state of nature, the state, the condition of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And it is only the creation of the sovereign for Hobbes, endowed or possessed with absolute power, that is sufficient to put an end to the condition of perpetual uncertainty, anxiety and unrest that is the case of the natural condition.»
— Steven Smith. The Sovereign State: Hobbes, Leviathan. [October 25, 2006] Chapter 1. Introduction: Hobbes's Theory of Sovereignty. PLSC-114: Introduction to Political Philosophy. Open Yale Courses.
oyc.yale.edu/transcript/789/plsc-114
«In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.»
— Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. (1651-1668)
bartleby.com/34/5/13.html
And its own salvation myth:
«At a time when the state seems pervasive and inescapable, it is easy to forget that for much of history, living within or outside the state—or in an intermediate zone—was a choice, one that might be revised as the circumstances warranted. A wealthy and peaceful state center might attract a growing population that found its advantages rewarding. This, of course, fits the standard civilizational narrative of rude barbarians mesmerized by the prosperity made possible by the king’s peace and justice—a narrative shared by most of the world’s salvational religions, not to mention Thomas Hobbes.
This narrative ignores two capital facts. First, as we have noted, it appears that much, if not most, of the population of the early states was unfree; they were subjects under duress. The second fact, most inconvenient for the standard narrative of civilization, is that it was very common for state subjects to run away. Living within the state meant, virtually by definition, taxes, conscription, corvée labor, and, for most, a condition of servitude; these conditions were at the core of the state’s strategic and military advantages.»
ReplyDelete— James C Scott. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
amazon.com/dp/0300169175
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed
Zephyr López Cervilla: Yes, yes, when you paste ten citations, it's inevitable you must have forgotten two or three.
ReplyDeleteBryce Alexander What is wrong in respecting the society you live in? It is just like the same way you are not allowed to expose your body in some Islamic nations in the public.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor It is based on compulsion not that many really want to cover up.
ReplyDeleteYou can't force women to undress. End of.
ReplyDelete