I think you might want to check up on that. I think you'll find that they can. Bush signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act in 2006 just for these assholes. Yeah, like those people who don't want Muslim women to wear burkas --oh, wait...
Unfortunately not. I'm not sure how things work in the US. In Canada, the police's primary role is to keep the peace also. Similarly, I'm sure US cops could legally intervene in the Westboro Baptist Church's exercise of free speech if things were about to turn decidedly ugly. It would not be about free speech, but about keeping public order. It has not happened yet because the Westboro Baptist Church has enough of their spawn going to legal school (expect a **** storm in the next 10 years) to know which line not to cross. In any case, the point I am making is that sometimes being in the right and being in one piece are mutually exclusive conditions. Sometimes in an escalating stand-off, the wiser person blinks first. Mrs. Bennett had to blink first this time around. I never took the stance that Mrs. Bennett's windows should be bricked. I'm pointing out that plenty of other people on this forum feel about Western Democratic Freedom™ and respect for their own cultural values as you describe, but somehow do not see the contradiction with not respecting Muslim womens' right to dress as they choose. Just sayin', is all.
I do agree with what your saying but would like to put forward for discussion this point. (Havent read past this post yet so sorry if its already been brought up) Comming form Northern Ireland I've grown up with "religious" tension. While the troubles is nothing to do with religion but political view points, a large percentage who vote one side or another would be from one religions background or another. As a result certain aspects ie religious symbols you wear or even your name, become identifiers to your background. The problem with the burka is that it becomes a symbol, not of following religion, but a deeper tension that seems to be in certain societies that these people are hear to take over (Im not saying that theres an invasion but ultimately like Christianity the goal is to reach everyone). With this being (very loosely used term) "Christian" Society the burka can be seen as a symbol to oppose that, sort of our ideals against yours. Like Northern Ireland the conflict isn't about religion, but its another object, like tri-colour or union flags here, that can be held up to cause tension and divide. While you have already given practical examples of how actions divide, the way I see it is that by holding onto the burka, they are setting themselves apart from society and creating a barrier. Same with "communities" over here, to integrate you need to remove the symbols that are held up to set you apart. In one way thats why Im so against the 12th celebrations here, yes its a tourist thing but its what I've come to associate the 12th with, Violence and divide. I would rather have a Northern Ireland flag than the tri-colour or Union too but all thats for another thread. Hope I said that clearly, hard to judge what way people will read things. Religious matters are horrible things to sort out. EDIT: Very good example got me thinking, How would society react if I ran around in a balaclava? I don't want to draw on the fact that it is a symbol of the paramilitaries but more the fact its headgear that covers the entire face. EDIT2: Look at Nothern Ireland. We wouldn't have so many problems during the troubles if it wasn't for the government "relocation schemes". They are just as much to blame for carving up areas and causing tension by doing so. Your previous post shows what happens when you dump a social group into one area. Each group integrate amongst themselves and it builds tension with outsiders of that community.
Instead of banning clothing which covers the face, maybe wearing such items should just make the person ineligible for any kind of welfare or similar due to being unable to get a job thanks to those clothes.
That will accomplish nothing. If a woman is so insistent on wearing a burka that she's willing to risk permanent unemployment, stripping her of unemployment benefits will unlikely change her mind either. In fact, in the eyes of her community she'll probably be regarded as a living martyr - and they'll rally around and support her. If anything, the only people that will suffer will be her children. "Won't anyone think of the children!" *throws hands up in the air*
Then you're just ostracizing people for their beliefs, not even letting them be true citizens. May as well say they can't vote too, just to really feed the flames.
I think that is a very good way of looking at it. But can you force people to integrate? History seems to suggest not. It either ends up in people feeling disenfranchised and lost, or in them trying to find another, possibly more radical way to preserve their cultural identity.
I agree with Nexxo's assertion. I don't think you can or should "force" cultural integration (or assimilation depending on your perspective) but on the other side of the spectrum, it's just as wrong to subsidize non-integration via the multi-headed beast that multiculturalism has sadly become. The beauty is in the balance, which can seem impossible when it doesn't happen as fast or in the manner in which people expect it should. On thing I'm kind of surprised hasn't come up in this discussion (unless I missed it) is the cultural atmosphere that is contemporary France. This seems to be part of a long standing crusade (pun intended) on their part to preserve "The French Culture". From not accepting new words into the official french language and seemingly evolving into a control of religious expression. The burka is merely the latest focus. Before that, it was the wearing of crosses, stars of David, scarves and turbins in public schools back in 2007. On the surface, it doesn't seem like the official vocabulary and religious expression are related but I believe the are. Therefore, I'm not to sure how much this translates back to the original question "What about the rest of Europe". As an American, I'm sure I miss a lot of nuance but don't the french do a lot of wacked out crap that no one else in the EU follow?
That's a little excessive, but IMO a system of unemployment benefits should be structured to be fair. I know in the US, for instance, unemployment benefits will only last a specified amount of time after losing your job, and you may have to actually be looking for a job to get them. Welfare does not have a time limit, but it is based on household income. Does the UK have similar restrictions? With any sort of payout system, it is a trade-off. You want to support those people who legitimately have lost their jobs and are trying to get new ones, and you want to support people who can't work due to legitimate medical reasons, but you want to avoid abuse of the system by those people who are capable of working, but elect not to, or who are incapable of working due to factors completely under their control. There is no cut-and-dry solution to that. For instance, under the US system, if someone tried to abuse it by not working due to their chosen style of dress, they might be able to get a year or two of unemployment benefits, however those would expire. If their household (whether that be parents or spouse) is making above a certain minimum amount of money, they would not be eligible for welfare. If they didn't qualify for either of those, but had a real medical condition that prevented them from working, they could be able to get disability payments. If they are single without kids, physically capable of working, and choosing not to work, then they are not eligible beyond the initial 1-2 years of unemployment. Not a perfect system, but it tries to prevent abuse.
Lets not even talk about these asylum seekers on benefits its an absolute joke this discussion will really wind me up. We had a Abdul Hanza getting the likes of £100 000 a year just for causing shite never mind looking for work. Only recently we had a Somalian living in a 2 million pound house and on benefits. Thinks that's it on this benefits thing for me as that's the biggest joke.
People like him shouldn't be allowed to live here. Yes freedom of speech is a basic write but when that speech is used to stir up tension, corrupt and promote violence doesn't deserve to live in Western society. Its an impossible problem which human nature prevents from being solved. Force people to integrate or leave people to it. Personally I would like to know where I stand within society, ie. If you come here, this is how we do things, like it or lump it. There are hundreds of other countries many more open in view point toward to keep in touch with this thread the burka, why not go there? I know if I left here I wouldn't be bringing many of the "way to do things" attitude simply because I would be moving to another country because of its culture and what it has to offer. In response to Nexxo, you can't force people to integrate but nor should you have to force them. What I said above they should be willing to integrate and embrace the ideas of the society they are moving into otherwise don't move at all. Comming from a christian family involved in outreach one thing I learnt was about "testomony". Basically if something causes someone to question your testimony or question your actions (not everything is black and white, like again the example of this thread, should all muslim women wear the burka? or do you have to wear a suit to church [i can argue both sides of that one]) the most effective thing to do is to just do away with the offence rather than arguing about it. Again that comes back to what I said above. I would be willing to just go with it rather than hold onto the symbol. The only way to solve this is to let the people vote, sure thats democracy not the "choose your dictator" illusion of democracy.
Yes. The French are not afraid to do their own thing when it suits them. As one of the main members of the EU they have a major part in setting policy but they will happily and openly flaunt EU laws and regulations when it suits them. I'm pretty sure their air traffic controllers will only speak in French even though English is considered the international language of air travel. I have been to France a couple of times and they have a very nice quality of life so i can see why they fight so hard to keep it. I said earlier in the thread i admire France for their belief that your a French citizen first and everything else comes after that.
france is a secular state anyway, so they will do what they want when it comes to law and religion, religion doesn't play a part in french law, except to ban it from public office and schools etc. which i might add probably isn't a bad idea. , except the school part, religion should be taught but not practiced in school.
History shows that immigrants almost always come with a aspirations to integrate into society. It is the locals who won't let them (remember the "No blacks or Irish" signs in the windows of landlords). The new ethnic group gets marginalised and clusters in (usually deprived) ghettos --better to be amongst your own; then they start competing... Would your Christian family feel happy to do away with the cross? I think not.
Very true, the locals are just as big a problem, sorta chicken and the egg since I donno what came first but there is a generation of immigrants who don't bother with the local language and show no interest in learning it. They also want state handouts....ironically the same can be said of the locals, no interest in education or getting a job >.> Tbh the cross is only a symbol, and while it reminds its nothing more than that. What was done on the cross is the important thing unfortunatly a lot of people loose sight of that and the symbol becomes more important.
While I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiment, there is a significant difference between choosing not to have something and it being taken away. Moreover, it's the question of what is driving the cultural trend and what lies behind the prohibition. Not knowing what to expect next can cause a lot of undue anxiety. Even if you are OK with phase 1 of a progression, there's the aspect of "Is this a sliding slope?" or "Is this the only thing they will mess with?".
Very very good and valid points. In the case outlined above yes I probably would oppose but not strongly. The same could be said about the necklace cross thingie people wear or even the "WWJD" bracelets that where so popular in high school (mine at least). I guess if you take that away its only fair to remove such symbols from every faith. To take it further the bible does state to respect and follow government laws unless it directly oposes a command from God, and since removing the cross doesn't actually prevent you worshiping or proclaiming the gospil it should be a problem as such. As you quite rightly said tho once such things have been intervened with chances are it won't stop there. As nexxo said its peoples hostility that is ultimately driving a lot of these motions and preventing true integration. I just worry that by banning it, that the wrong message is sent out, that it actually encourages such hostilities and promotes them acceptal. It will also flame situations and a feeling of percution which in turn causes divides to widen. Violence seems to be the solution to discontent, especially in younger generations. Just look at the rioting on the 12th over crappy parades. There is a balance tho, like mentioned in thread such as practical times the burka probably shouldn't be worn. Personally like I mentioned how would you like it if I wore a balaclava? A lot can be read from peoples faces especially during a conversation. I think I fall that I would prefer a ban in certain public areas but an outright ban is pointless, conter productive and against freedoms we in the west should enjoy. Its easy to turn this into "us against them" (refer to my first post about holding the burka as a symbol to oppose our ideals) it comes down to what can be described as paranoia and just general hostility and fear of the unknown. If anything the attempts to ban it has turned it into the symbol to represent and even embody such fears. I think that made sense >.>
