Do France Allow Freedom of Speech/Religion?

[faroukfarouk]

I suppose as an Atheist I feel that this really isn't that much of an important issue and that my bias is at work here, and I could well be wrong as it does depend on how you define the "human" in "human rights". But generally speaking I would consider human rights violations a physical threat to person and property and state sponsored violence and by comparison I would consider this fairly minor.

In 2004 Human Rights Watch, a civil liberties group, issued a report stating that a proposed law would be "discriminatory" as it disproportionately affects Muslim girls. It said: "The impact of a ban on visible religious symbols, even though phrased in neutral terms, will fall disproportionately on Muslim girls, and thus violate anti-discrimination provisions of international human rights law as well as the right to equal educational opportunity."
A French Muslim student who was barred from school, because of her refusal to remove her head scarf ,made the ff statement:
"Taliban forced women to wear hijab and France forced women to remove it; what is the difference as far as the issue of human rights is concerned?...Muslim women in Arab and Muslim states are criticized for staying at home. The French ban is designed to force French Muslim women at home."

 

[Laika]

In 2004 Human Rights Watch, a civil liberties group, issued a report stating that a proposed law would be "discriminatory" as it disproportionately affects Muslim girls. It said: "The impact of a ban on visible religious symbols, even though phrased in neutral terms, will fall disproportionately on Muslim girls, and thus violate anti-discrimination provisions of international human rights law as well as the right to equal educational opportunity."
A French Muslim student who was barred from school, because of her refusal to remove her head scarf ,made the ff statement:
"Taliban forced women to wear hijab and France forced women to remove it; what is the difference as far as the issue of human rights is concerned?...Muslim women in Arab and Muslim states are criticized for staying at home. The French ban is designed to force French Muslim women at home."

This implies there is absolutely no choice on the part of Muslim women as to whether they wear a religious symbol or clothing. I would assume this refers to the Hijab. So yes, it is clearly a discriminatory piece of legislation designed to enforce secular values onto Muslim women and girls, by making it illegal for them to wear the hijab in schools. This therefore has little or nothing to do with secularism because it is so discriminatory as the restriction on religious freedom implied by secularism should be borne equally. So the question becomes whether a Muslim girl or women has the right to wear a hijab as a means of expressing their religion.

I have mixed feelings on whether the state should advance liberal and feminist position by preventing the exercise of freedom of religion by wearing religious symbols or clothing such as the Hijab because it over-rides individual choice. This would be a position where I might feel comfortable using government power to discriminate on what kind of religious practices are acceptable, but I haven't embraced the ideas of government led "Cultural Revolution" because I recognize to hold such a position consistently would require a fairly drastic re-thinking on the nature of individual liberty, freedom of thought and religion and a dictatorial commitment to a impose a set of values on society. I am simply not that hostile to religion to take up such a position that i feel the need to regulate the way people think, dress or behave. Whilst I understand the need for an effort as part of a wider movement towards gender equality, I do not believe it should be done by the force of law. With the exception of that reservation because gender equality is part of the basis for human rights, I would agree that this is an act of bigotry by the state and it is wrong to do so.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh boy..........
Who made mention of cartoons?
I do think you have a serious problem understanding simple english.

Nope, I asked you a question and you just insulted me. Care to answer it?

 

[gsa]

This implies there is absolutely no choice on the part of Muslim women as to whether they wear a religious symbol or clothing. I would assume this refers to the Hijab. So yes, it is clearly a discriminatory piece of legislation designed to enforce secular values onto Muslim women and girls, by making it illegal for them to wear the hijab in schools. This therefore has little or nothing to do with secularism because it is so discriminatory as the restriction on religious freedom implied by secularism should be borne equally. So the question becomes whether a Muslim girl or women has the right to wear a hijab as a means of expressing their religion.

I have mixed feelings on whether the state should advance liberal and feminist position by preventing the exercise of freedom of religion by wearing religious symbols or clothing such as the Hijab because it over-rides individual choice. This would be a position where I might feel comfortable using government power to discriminate on what kind of religious practices are acceptable, but I haven't embraced the ideas of government led "Cultural Revolution" because I recognize to hold such a position consistently would require a fairly drastic re-thinking on the nature of individual liberty, freedom of thought and religion and a dictatorial commitment to a impose a set of values on society. I am simply not that hostile to religion to take up such a position that i feel the need to regulate the way people think, dress or behave. Whilst I understand the need for an effort as part of a wider movement towards gender equality, I do not believe it should be done by the force of law. With the exception of that reservation because gender equality is part of the basis for human rights, I would agree that this is an act of bigotry by the state and it is wrong to do so.

Is Turkey an anti-Muslim, bigoted state as well?

The headscarf ban is debatable, but as long as it isn't banned everywhere for everyone, and is limited to certain public commons, it isn't an unreasonable or unjust limitation on religious freedom.

 

[leibowde84]

Is Turkey an anti-Muslim, bigoted state as well?

The headscarf ban is debatable, but as long as it isn't banned everywhere for everyone, and is limited to certain public commons, it isn't an unreasonable or unjust limitation on religious freedom.

Why is a headscarf dangerous though? It's not the one that covers their face right?

 

[gsa]

Why is a headscarf dangerous though? It's not the one that covers their face right?

In France the ban is limited to public schools and is aimed at preventing any ostentatious religious symbols, to promote social cohesion and discourage exclusion and pressure. No head coverings, no large visible crosses.

And no niqab anywhere in public.

 

[columbus]

You off topic.
Please open your own thread and i will definitely give you a reply.

Rather than start a new one @gsaseeker was kind enough to bump up an ongoing thread.
Tom

 

[Laika]

Is Turkey an anti-Muslim, bigoted state as well?

The headscarf ban is debatable, but as long as it isn't banned everywhere for everyone, and is limited to certain public commons, it isn't an unreasonable or unjust limitation on religious freedom.

The restriction on individual liberty in a liberal society is limited to that which causes harm to others or denies another person their rights. I know what you mean about it promoting social cohesion and inclusion, but really that should be about banning religious schools as independent bodies as a form of educational segregation along religious lines. The problem is not wearing the Hijab or niqab, but the intensity and conservationism of the beliefs it represents.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The head-scarf ban is not religious discrimination, because that garment is not mentioned in the Quran. A couple of years ago, the Al-Azhar University issued a fatwah stating that wearing one is an Arabian custom but not part of Islam.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Nope, I asked you a question and you just insulted me. Care to answer it?

No i did not insult you.
You actually insulted yourself.
Your question on discrimination it is already answered by others.
Please be tolerant and read all postings so that you will understand what the topic is all about and not jump the gun.

Is Turkey an anti-Muslim, bigoted state as well?
The headscarf ban is debatable, but as long as it isn't banned everywhere for everyone, and is limited to certain public commons, it isn't an unreasonable or unjust limitation on religious freedom.

Turkey is a secular state founded by Ataturk.Who was a stooge of Western nations and he passed laws against the will of the majority.
Today they are moving away from such western bigot laws and giving its citizens more liberty to decide for themselves.

In France the ban is limited to public schools and is aimed at preventing any ostentatious religious symbols, to promote social cohesion and discourage exclusion and pressure. No head coverings, no large visible crosses.
And no niqab anywhere in public.

Yes they allow you to wear a bandana because its fashionable and so we sent a child with a printed one and she was sent home.Only a plain one is allowed said the teacher.
Then we sent a muslim boy with a cap.This cap was trimmed from his mothers black bra and it resembled a Jewish cap.The teacher asked him why he is wearing a Jewish cap and his reply was it is not a Jewish cap but a fashion sun cap.After some deliberation he was asked to only wear it outside of class room.

 

[NoX]

Turkey is a secular state founded by Ataturk.Who was a stooge of Western nations and he passed laws against the will of the majority.
Today they are moving away from such western bigot laws and giving its citizens more liberty to decide for themselves.

Thanks to Ataturk that destroyed all of our cultural values, our language, our education systems and imposed an education system that created by Britons to prevent Turkiye to be developed and many things. He made Turkiye (the one of World most strategic point) a British base on EuroAsia. Today we clean these trojans one by one.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The head-scarf ban is not religious discrimination, because that garment is not mentioned in the Quran. A couple of years ago, the Al-Azhar University issued a fatwah stating that wearing one is an Arabian custom but not part of Islam.

Verses from Quraan very self explanatory.Study it yourself.
Verse 24:31
Transliteration
Waqul lilmu/minati yaghdudnamin absarihinna wayahfathnafuroojahunna wala yubdeena zeenatahunna illa mathahara minha walyadribnabikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna wala yubdeenazeenatahunna illa libuAAoolatihinna aw aba-ihinnaaw aba-i buAAoolatihinna aw abna-ihinna awabna-i buAAoolatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw baneeikhwanihinna aw banee akhawatihinna aw nisa-ihinnaaw ma malakat aymanuhunna awi attabiAAeenaghayri olee al-irbati mina arrijali awi attifliallatheena lam yathharoo AAala AAawratiannisa-i wala yadribnabi-arjulihinna liyuAAlama ma yukhfeena min zeenatihinnawatooboo ila Allahi jameeAAan ayyuhaalmu/minoona laAAallakum tuflihoon

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

Now lets look into this fatwah.
In 2009, on a tour of an Al-Azhar girls’ school, Al-Azhar's Sheikh Muhammad Tantawi, also referred to as Tantawi, ordered an 11-year-old pupil to remove the niqāb, saying that "the niqāb is only a custom and has no connection to Islam". Four days later, Al-Azhar Supreme Council, which Tantawi headed, passed a resolution banning the wearing of the niqāb in all-girl Al-Azhar classrooms and dorms. This ban applied to all levels: elementary schools, high schools, and colleges
Sheikh Tantawi clarified that a woman wears the niqāb so that no man may see her face – and that it was completely illogical for her to wear it where only women were present. He stressed that for this decision, he had relied on a majority clerical opinion that a woman's face is not shameful.

Just to clarify if Girls/ Women and going to a female school and no males are present then yes there is no need to cover their heads/face.

 

[Flankerl]

Thanks to Ataturk that destroyed all of our cultural values, our language, our education systems and imposed an education system that created by Britons to prevent Turkiye to be developed and many things. He made Turkiye (the one of World most strategic point) a British base on EuroAsia. Today we clean these trojans one by one.

The stuff I read on the Internet.
The man who actually fought against the enemies of the Turkish state, secured its borders, halved non-literacy and brought fourth Turkish Nationalism which meant that everyone is a citizen of the Turkish state and the Religion should be a private matter and of no importance to the rights and duties of its citizens is now seen as an Enemy of the state in AKP Turkey.

Too bad the military won't intervene this time.

 

[faroukfarouk]

This implies there is absolutely no choice on the part of Muslim women as to whether they wear a religious symbol or clothing. I would assume this refers to the Hijab. So yes, it is clearly a discriminatory piece of legislation designed to enforce secular values onto Muslim women and girls, by making it illegal for them to wear the hijab in schools. This therefore has little or nothing to do with secularism because it is so discriminatory as the restriction on religious freedom implied by secularism should be borne equally. So the question becomes whether a Muslim girl or women has the right to wear a hijab as a means of expressing their religion.

I have mixed feelings on whether the state should advance liberal and feminist position by preventing the exercise of freedom of religion by wearing religious symbols or clothing such as the Hijab because it over-rides individual choice. This would be a position where I might feel comfortable using government power to discriminate on what kind of religious practices are acceptable, but I haven't embraced the ideas of government led "Cultural Revolution" because I recognize to hold such a position consistently would require a fairly drastic re-thinking on the nature of individual liberty, freedom of thought and religion and a dictatorial commitment to a impose a set of values on society. I am simply not that hostile to religion to take up such a position that i feel the need to regulate the way people think, dress or behave. Whilst I understand the need for an effort as part of a wider movement towards gender equality, I do not believe it should be done by the force of law. With the exception of that reservation because gender equality is part of the basis for human rights, I would agree that this is an act of bigotry by the state and it is wrong to do so.

Tks for making that very clear.
Now lets move on to Hate laws.
Hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil/criminal law.. These laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.

Next Freedom of Press
The Law of Freedom of Press guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several prohibitions.
Article 23 specifies that those who directly incite another to commit a crime or misdemeanor will be punished as accomplices. This applies to provocations carried out by various means, including speech, cries or threats in public places or at public meetings, in writing, print, drawings, engravings, paintings, insignia, images
Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap.
Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap

Please study the above laws very carefully before answering my question.
Did not CH break the law and committed a crime by publishing disgusting,insulting,hateful and provocative drawings against Islam?

 

[Laika]

Did not CH break the law and committed a crime by publishing disgusting,insulting,hateful and provocative drawings against Islam?

If we're talking about the letter of the law, irrespective as to whether or not I feel hate laws may be good or bad (my mind isn't made up), it will depend on how you define "incite discrimination", but yes quite possibly. I didn't follow the Charlie Hebdo massacre in any depth as I don't watch TV, but I remember the passions it stirred on RF.

 

[faroukfarouk]

If we're talking about the letter of the law, irrespective as to whether or not I feel hate laws may be good or bad (my mind isn't made up), it will depend on how you define "incite discrimination", but yes quite possibly. I didn't follow the Charlie Hebdo massacre in any depth as I don't watch TV, but I remember the passions it stirred on RF.

Tks and what about the Freedom of Press Law?

 

[faroukfarouk]

The stuff I read on the Internet.
The man who actually fought against the enemies of the Turkish state, secured its borders, halved non-literacy and brought fourth Turkish Nationalism which meant that everyone is a citizen of the Turkish state and the Religion should be a private matter and of no importance to the rights and duties of its citizens is now seen as an Enemy of the state in AKP Turkey.
Too bad the military won't intervene this time.

Lets not forget that he was a puppet of the West and not elected by the people.
Well so far as the military is concerned they did not get paid well enough by the west.
Study history and you will learn that the West used their money by bribing the military to control those nations.
They did it in Afghan bribing the tribal elders but it was their failure and downfall.
Let not forget that France also paid to secure peace for their soldiers in Afghan.

 

[Laika]

Tks and what about the Freedom of Press Law?

yes I would think it would break the law. the only qualification I'd make is that "defaming or insulting" Muhammad could not be legally recognized as he is dead and therefore cannot claim legal rights.

 

[leibowde84]

yes I would think it would break the law. the only qualification I'd make is that "defaming or insulting" Muhammad could not be legally recognized as he is dead and therefore cannot claim legal rights.

Exactly. Muhammad cannot claim legal protections against slander or libel. In order to prove either of those a claim has to be falsifiable. Pretty tough seen how long Muhammad has been deceased for. "Hate" comments would have to be directly insulting Islam in general, not just defaming or mocking its prophet.

 

[Flankerl]

Lets not forget that he was a puppet of the West

So was he a puppet during the whole Turkish War of Independence which Turkey won against Greece, the UK, France, the USA, Italy, Armenia, Georgia and effectively the Ottoman Empire or just after that?

and not elected by the people.

Of course he was elected, just not like in other countries.

Well so far as the military is concerned they did not get paid well enough by the west.
Study history and you will learn that the West used their money by bribing the military to control those nations.
They did it in Afghan bribing the tribal elders but it was their failure and downfall.
Let not forget that France also paid to secure peace for their soldiers in Afghan.

So Afghanistan is somehow relevant to Turkey how?