France outlaws burqas, veils

[PaloAltoCougar]

Viewed in the least charitable light possible, the burqa is more comparable to a Klan outfit or a swastika.

While I agree that a burqa ban would not, and should not, be adopted or enforced here in the states, your argument here is not one of your better efforts. I doubt there were many Klansmen or storm troopers who wore their outfits because their wives would beat the living hell out of them (or worse) if they didn't.

[UtahDan]

While I agree that a burqa ban would not, and should not, be adopted or enforced here in the states, your argument here is not one of your better efforts. I doubt there were many Klansmen or storm troopers who wore their outfits because their wives would beat the living hell out of them (or worse) if they didn't.

It is actually disgusting to think about one of the implements of personal terror and subjugation in terms of free speech when you think of it in those terms. Someone needs to photoshop a burqa onto SU's avatar. This thread is a huge badge of shame for him.

[SeattleUte]

While I agree that a burqa ban would not, and should not, be adopted or enforced here in the states, your argument here is not one of your better efforts. I doubt there were many Klansmen or storm troopers who wore their outfits because their wives would beat the living hell out of them (or worse) if they didn't.

I'm sure at least you recall that Skokie was a predominently Jewish community populated by thousands for Holocaust survivors. They testified to feeling sickened, threatened and scared by the Nazi parade; in fact the Illinois injuction addressed this, precluding the Nazis from strutting in threatening ways, etc., in addition to prohbiting their Nazi apparel.

In addition, I'm sure I could develop evidence that young people in the Nazi parade were oppressed by older Nazi relatives and others, mentally and emotionally if not physically (I have some personal experience with this sort of mind control and guilt tripping of youth by people with a white supremacist outlook, though I never personalize my cases). But of course, Naziism is the ultimate cult of violence and death and misogyny from which radical Islam learned everything it knows. They are alike fascist movements, as I have noted here (I am not equating radical Islam with orthodoxy, like some ignorant ones here have).

Nevetheless, Skokie has stood as a seminal and unabridged pillar of First Amendment jurisprudence for the last forty years.

In short, if you are suggesting the burqa is more deserving of a ban than a Nazi parade in a place like Skokie I think you are on weak ground. In any event, I don't think you are suggesting this. Thank you for ackowledging the burqa ban would be illegal in our country.

[SeattleUte]

It is actually disgusting to think about one of the implements of personal terror and subjugation in terms of free speech when you think of it in those terms. Someone needs to photoshop a burqa onto SU's avatar. This thread is a huge badge of shame for him.

While I agree that a burqa ban would not, and should not, be adopted or enforced here in the states, your argument here is not one of your better efforts. I doubt there were many Klansmen or storm troopers who wore their outfits because their wives would beat the living hell out of them (or worse) if they didn't.

PAC and 99% of law professors at good schools in our country agree with me. YOU are the one who has shamed yourself with your admitted blanket condemnation of all things Islamic and expressed hatred of Islam.

[UtahDan]

PAC and 99% of law professors at good schools in our country agree with me. YOU are the one who has shamed yourself with your admitted blanket condemnation of all things Islamic and expressed hatred of Islam.

I have to concede that it is not easy to respond to an appeal to authority in the form of PAC. Also, AA is going to cry when he sees that you steered him to a school that you don't yourself view as "good." I'm going to let up on you before you get hurt any further.

[LA Ute]

I am not sure where I stand on the burqa question, except to say that it is always cases like this that define the outer limits of First Amendment law. If the burqa is indeed part of the exercise of religion (which is a broader standard than just "worship") then it will be very hard to regulate in the USA. Think yarmulkes and crucifixes.

I wonder if the eventual resolution of the issue will be affected by a national security incident. Suppose, for example, that a suicide bomber hiding the explosives in a burqa murders 100 people in Times Square. If an anti-burqa statute is passed, would the First Amendment analysis then be different? Justify your answer. Extra points for neatness.

[I.J. Reilly]

I am not sure where I stand on the burqa question, except to say that it is always cases like this that define the outer limits of First Amendment law. If the burqa is indeed part of the exercise of religion (which is a broader standard than just "worship") then it will be very hard to regulate in the USA. Think yarmulkes and crucifixes.

I wonder if the eventual resolution of the issue will be affected by a national security incident. Suppose, for example, that a suicide bomber hiding the explosives in a burqa murders 100 people in Times Square. If an anti-burqa statute is passed, would the First Amendment analysis then be different? Justify your answer. Extra points for neatness.

I don't really want to answer your hypothetical, but I do want to make a couple of comments.

1. I believe the proposed ban in France (it has passed through the lower level of parliament, not its upper division, iirc) is just on the burqa, and not on the full abaya, which is the dress part that accompanies the burqa, the facial covering. Of course, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding on the proposal.

If that is the case, would it be possible to fit enough explosives under a facial covering to kill 100 people? Would it still be scary enough if it was only able to kill 2 or 3 other people? And if you could fit it under a facial covering, would a sufficient amount of explosives fit under a hat? If so, do you ban hats?

2. I hate the idea of any law being passed or upheld based upon an abstract fear. To let the terrorists blow themselves up and then to let that dictate what our laws will be is to ultimately give into them, whether on the surface it seems like they don't get what they want (as it might in the case of a burqa ban). Their ultimate goal is power and control; to cede them that by giving up ground on some of our most cherished principles because of their actions is to let them win. They can point a finger in our direction and say, "See, America is weak. They are willing to give up what they say are their principles for a false sense of security. America isn't truly what it says it is."

[LA Ute]

I don't really want to answer your hypothetical, but I do want to make a couple of comments.

1. I believe the proposed ban in France (it has passed through the lower level of parliament, not its upper division, iirc) is just on the burqa, and not on the full abaya, which is the dress part that accompanies the burqa, the facial covering. Of course, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding on the proposal.

If that is the case, would it be possible to fit enough explosives under a facial covering to kill 100 people? Would it still be scary enough if it was only able to kill 2 or 3 other people? And if you could fit it under a facial covering, would a sufficient amount of explosives fit under a hat? If so, do you ban hats?

You may have me here, as I am pretty ignorant regarding burqas. I only came to this thread at the urging of Utah Dan, and I made what can only be called a "drive-by post." I thought the burqa was the entire outfit.

2. I hate the idea of any law being passed or upheld based upon an abstract fear. To let the terrorists blow themselves up and then to let that dictate what our laws will be is to ultimately give into them, whether on the surface it seems like they don't get what they want (as it might in the case of a burqa ban). Their ultimate goal is power and control; to cede them that by giving up ground on some of our most cherished principles because of their actions is to let them win. They can point a finger in our direction and say, "See, America is weak. They are willing to give up what they say are their principles for a false sense of security. America isn't truly what it says it is."

I see your point but I think it is over-wrought. A measured response to a demonstrated threat (as opposed to an "abstract fear," and I am not sure what you mean by that) need not be "giving up ground on some of our most cherished principles." For example, we subject everyone who gets on a commercial airplane to a fairly invasive search, which no one seriously argues is "unreasonable" as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment.

My post was mainly in jest anyway, and I am not arguing for the burqa to be outlawed. I was just trying to join Utah Dan in bugging SU. But then you got me going!

[SeattleUte]

I have to concede that it is not easy to respond to an appeal to authority in the form of PAC. Also, AA is going to cry when he sees that you steered him to a school that you don't yourself view as "good." I'm going to let up on you before you get hurt any further.

Epstein's regrettable equivocation is why I went from 100% to 99%.

[SeattleUte]

I am not sure where I stand on the burqa question, except to say that it is always cases like this that define the outer limits of First Amendment law. If the burqa is indeed part of the exercise of religion (which is a broader standard than just "worship") then it will be very hard to regulate in the USA. Think yarmulkes and crucifixes.

I wonder if the eventual resolution of the issue will be affected by a national security incident. Suppose, for example, that a suicide bomber hiding the explosives in a burqa murders 100 people in Times Square. If an anti-burqa statute is passed, would the First Amendment analysis then be different? Justify your answer. Extra points for neatness.

There is no principled difference between yarmulkes and burqas in this context. As I have shown (and PAC recognizes), recognizing a First Amendment right to wear a burqa in public would most emphatically not define the outer limits of the First Amendment. That right is well within the grid.

As for your second paragraph, a compelling state interest is always a basis for abridging first amendment freedoms, including religion and speech. Think polygamy and noise ordinances. But prior restraints almost inevitably fail; reasonable time and place restrictions usually are upheld.

Your abstract fear is precisely the kind of thing that caused internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. One could use your own national scurity rationalizatoin to just lock up all Muslims. You don't think so? think again, it's been done before in this country, in our parents' lifetimes. As we see from even Roman history, your liberties are taken incrementally until--woops--their gone. Of course, America didn't lock up German or Finnish or Italian Americans during WWII. Likewise, I wonder if your rationalization of a burqa ban would lead to a banning of ski parkas. I rather doubt it.

Try again. Your hypos are too easy.

[LA Ute]

There is no principled difference between yarmulkes and burqas in this context. As I have shown (and PAC recognizes), recognizing a First Amendment right to wear a burqa in public would most emphatically not define the outer limits of the First Amendment. That right is well within the grid.

As for your second paragraph, a compelling state interest is always a basis for abridging first amendment freedoms, including religion and speech. Think polygamy and noise ordinances. But prior restraints almost inevitably fail; reasonable time and place restrictions usually are upheld.

Your abstract fear is precisely the kind of thing that caused internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. One could use your own national scurity rationalizatoin to just lock up all Muslims. You don't think so? think again, it's been done before in this country, in our parents' lifetimes. As we see from even Roman history, your liberties are taken incrementally until--woops--their gone. Of course, America didn't lock up German or Finnish or Italian Americans during WWII. Likewise, I wonder if your rationalization of a burqa ban would lead to a banning of ski parkas. I rather doubt it.

Try again. Your hypos are too easy.

First, the next time we eat together it will be in a very expensive place and you're buying.

Second, I said below that I think the burqa deserves pretty much the same Constitutional treatment as a yarmulke or crucifix.

Third, I live in Southern California and thus know almost as little about ski parkas as I do about burqas.

Troll!

[I.J. Reilly]

I see your point but I think it is over-wrought. A measured response to a demonstrated threat (as opposed to an "abstract fear," and I am not sure what you mean by that) need not be "giving up ground on some of our most cherished principles." For example, we subject everyone who gets on a commercial airplane to a fairly invasive search, which no one seriously argues is "unreasonable" as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment.

My post was mainly in jest anyway, and I am not arguing for the burqa to be outlawed. I was just trying to join Utah Dan in bugging SU. But then you got me going!

Don't even get me started on airport security checks. I'm not going to claim that they are unconstitutional, but I do think that they are a waste of my time and government resources, all to appease those that live life in fear.

And for your sake, I will define my terms a little. "Abstract fear" is my own term and means that fear which is unreasonable, based upon its statistical likelihood to affect your life. I'm sure you've heard the numbers before, but here is one scenario:

There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1. If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.

Your odds of dying in a car accident this year? 1 in 7000
Cancer? 1 in 600
Heart Disease? 1 in 400

My point is, laws aimed at preventing terrorist attacks in this country are not really "measured response[s]" and are more aimed at assuaging the collective conscience of the masses and are almost always over-inclusive. My response? Suck it up, grow a pair, and use the laws that are already on the books to accomplish your same aims.

Feel free to return to tag-teaming SU with UtahDan.

[LA Ute]

Don't even get me started on airport security checks. I'm not going to claim that they are unconstitutional, but I do think that they are a waste of my time and government resources, all to appease those that live life in fear.

And for your sake, I will define my terms a little. "Abstract fear" is my own term and means that fear which is unreasonable, based upon its statistical likelihood to affect your life. I'm sure you've heard the numbers before, but here is one scenario:

There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1. If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.

Your odds of dying in a car accident this year? 1 in 7000
Cancer? 1 in 600
Heart Disease? 1 in 400

My point is, laws aimed at preventing terrorist attacks in this country are not really "measured response[s]" and are more aimed at assuaging the collective conscience of the masses and are almost always over-inclusive. My response? Suck it up, grow a pair, and use the laws that are already on the books to accomplish your same aims.

Feel free to return to tag-teaming SU with UtahDan.

I have an abstract fear of libertarians, but therapy is helping.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have enjoyed following this thread. I have bookmarked a few posts and I can't wait until we have another debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict. SU's change of heart in regards to Muslims is nothing short of remarkable.

[Rosebud]

Grrg…. now this thread pissed me off. I stand firmly with SU. This issue has very little to do with protecting women. It’s clearly discriminatory for the reasons SU has already laid out. All of this justifying an authoritarian legislative act because it works to protect women from authoritarian men makes my head spin. Maybe I’m just pissed off because a bunch of Mormon men are jumping into the fray to protect Muslim women from oppression when it seems to me they hardly understand what oppression of this sort is about in the first place.

News Flash: burqas, which I of course think are horrible, work as a method of subjugation only because of what the Muslim people believe. Oppression like this generally exists within the minds of both the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. Muslim women will be freed of burqas when and only when they themselves (speaking as of them as a group, not as individuals) realize that they shouldn’t be forced to wear something that covers their faces. Any authoritarian legislative attempts to change their culture from the outside will, I predict, do little more than galvanize the French Muslim people against the oppression of their government. It will have a cohesive effect on the community and the Muslim people will work to protect themselves from what they feel is an unjust attack on their liberties. Thus, the women will be little better off. Their beliefs will not change and they’ll be swept into a confusing battle of working to protect the very practice that is oppressing them. (Just as 19th century Mormon women and 21st century FLDS women worked/work to protect their rights to practice polygamy).

If you want to help Muslim women, work to assimilate them and make them aware of their options and their rights. Give them information so that their beliefs can change. Allow them to learn and change as they choose. Don’t pass a discriminatory law and then tell them that you’re doing it for their own good. Talk about insulting. Their husbands tell them what they have to wear. Their government tells them what they can’t wear. At some point or another, someone might care enough about them to just keep patiently allowing them to assimilate into the wider world culture in hopes that they’ll eventually realize that it’s natural to interact with the world without something covering their faces. At the point at which they believe this and teach it to their daughters, they’ll figure out how to get out from underneath the authoritarian control of their culture. Until then, there’s little that anyone on the outside can do.

Sorry for the rant, but Mormon men need to give up on the protecting of Muslim women. Gag.

That felt good. And yes, I lurk sometimes.