Jump to content

International Events 5, "As the World Turns"


DireWolfSpirit

Recommended Posts

On 3/18/2021 at 3:27 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Does France not have an age of consent already, or is it just currently set to being below 15?

The brave French Senate also did this:

Quote

France, has taken a more severe stance against “religious” clothing and symbols with its move to outlaw the hijab on women under the age of 18 in public places.On March 30, the French senate voted in favor of the “prohibition in the public space of any conspicuous religious sign by minors and of any dress or clothing which would signify an interiorization of women over men.” In addition, hijabi mothers would be prohibited from accompanying school field trips and burkinis would be banned at public swimming pools. 

https://en.vogue.me/culture/french-senate-votes-hijab-ban/

To recap, to combat what they consider an oppressive religious requirement by forcing women and girls to wear specific items of clothing in public, a bunch of men have decided for Muslim women and children *checks notes* what they can and cannot wear in public.

And 15 is old enough to understand consenting to sexual intercourse, but not old enough to understand consenting to wear a hijab. Got it.

If your argument is that girls and young women are being forced to do something without consent, you don't counter it with legislation that forces girls and young women to not do something without their consent. FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kairparavel said:

The brave French Senate also did this:

https://en.vogue.me/culture/french-senate-votes-hijab-ban/

To recap, to combat what they consider an oppressive religious requirement by forcing women and girls to wear specific items of clothing in public, a bunch of men have decided for Muslim women and children *checks notes* what they can and cannot wear in public.

And 15 is old enough to understand consenting to sexual intercourse, but not old enough to understand consenting to wear a hijab. Got it.

If your argument is that girls and young women are being forced to do something without consent, you don't counter it with legislation that forces girls and young women to not do something without their consent. FFS.

I dunno if this is extremist secularism or it's Christian oppression of Islam dressed up as secularism. I guess the regulation prevents minors from conspicuously wearing crucifixes, stars of David etc, though those can still be worn under the clothes, so it's only real target is things that cannot be hidden from view, which is almost exclusively clothing. Seems like this ban would not pass muster in a constitutional court when examined through the lens of freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I dunno if this is extremist secularism or it's Christian oppression of Islam dressed up as secularism.

Neither really.

This is part of a general offensive of right-wing forces in France against immigrants and Muslims. There are at least three different reasons for this offensive:
- The government is highly unpopular right now (among other things, for screwing up its management of the pandemic), so the only hope of LRM ("La République en Marche", Macron's party) politicians of being reelected is to face a far-right opponent in the second round of the election for which they are a candidate (because there are still many who will vote against the far-right, almost regardless of what the alternative is). So paradoxically, the government and many right-wing officials are embracing and fueling xenophobia to ensure that the far-right is their only political rival.
- Samuel Paty's beheading has left a profound mark on French folks. There's an old French tradition of seeing teachers as symbols and "foot soldiers" of the Republic and its values, and the attack on someone trying to teach about freedom of speech and freedom of the press (in this case, about blasphemy) is seen as an attack on progressivism itself.
On some level, a "small" targeted attack is seen almost as shocking as the indiscriminate violence of bombings or shootings.
- This law happens to be mostly about schools (schools are a "public space"). For a while now there's been a hot debate about the hijab/burka/veil on girls in French schools. The question being about how coherent it is to teach about collective/national values (including secularism) in schools while tolerating visibly regressive symbols. Technically, French schools have often looked the other way when young students came in with a hijab/burka/veil ; in other words, there was for a time a de facto tolerance for religious symbols (teachers were reluctant to confront the students and/or parents and/or the press). Since 2015 however, this tolerance has evaporated, and Paty's execution was the opportunity that some were waiting for in order to reassert the idea that France is a secular nation and its schools should be a place to fight obscurantism and superstition rather than to tolerate it.

I'm kind of torn myself. I can see that the ultimate purpose of this political strategy is to pursue neoliberal policies (i.e. to use xenophobia and the culture wars to confuse people into voting against their own self-interest), and that Muslims are convenient scapegoats. Therefore I would be inclined to despise these moves.
OTOH, I fully support such laws on principle.

23 hours ago, kairparavel said:

To recap, to combat what they consider an oppressive religious requirement by forcing women and girls to wear specific items of clothing in public, a bunch of men have decided for Muslim women and children *checks notes* what they can and cannot wear in public.

No, they have forbidden the specific items of clothing that are deemed oppressive, which is subtly different.

This is one of the reasons why I no longer claim to be a liberal. Liberalism is great at identifying issues, but sucks at finding solutions, because, pretty much by definition, it can only propose moving toward greater individual freedom.
Problem is, not all individual freedoms are progressive.
It should be obvious that religious freedom especially tends to infringe upon others' liberties. Speficically, it should be bloody obvious that religious beliefs, traditions, and superstitions on the one hand, and women's rights on the other, tend to be mutually exclusive. This has always pretty much been true throughout time - regardless of the religion involved.
Of course, the irony of the hijab/burka/veil is that despite it being associated with Islam and Muslim traditions, it is originally not a religious symbol itself. If one wants to be accurate, it is not a symbol of faith, but a traditional symbol of modesty, one that is -very often- imposed on girls by their parents and family -in the name of their family's honor. It would be great if we could be certain that all girls weaing a hijab/burka/veil have chosen to do so of their own volition, but since we are not, we end up banning all displays of modesty, even voluntary ones.

Is this bad for women? Well, I think even if France does end up imposing immodesty in public, it'll still be a much better place for women to live in than... most countries on Earth. No one in their right mind would defend families imposing FGM on girls and oppose forbidding it, so why is forbidding a hijab/burka/veil such a problem?
Anyway, for better or for worse, the right of nation-states to choose the values that translate into law trumps freedom of religion. This is a discussion that belongs to French people. BTW, one should note that French Muslims themselves are absolutely not united in defending the hijab/burka/veil ; many also see it as a regressive symbol that can -or should- be banned.
Bottom line is... freedom isn't always good. Promoting women's rights will often mean restricting their freedom of religion (or in this case, "freedom of clothing" ?). Protecting minorities means ending the "right" to discriminate of landlords and entrepreneurs. Protecting workers means limiting the "right to work." ... etc

Individual freedom isn't the alpha and the omega ; it is up to nations to decide which freedoms can be expanded and which ones can be restricted in order to further collective welbeing.
Fun fact: the veil used to be a traditional symbol of modesty in France... Long before Islam or Muslims was involved. My grandmother would still wear one sometimes. Women stopped wearing it around the 1950s... just when feminism finally achieved a number of important political and social victories. Women got the right to vote to vote in 1944, and Simone de Beauvoir published her famous essay in 1949.
I do not think that was a coincidence.

23 hours ago, kairparavel said:

If your argument is that girls and young women are being forced to do something without consent, you don't counter it with legislation that forces girls and young women to not do something without their consent. FFS.

I am curious to read about your solution then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on the flip-side, a rainbow community organisation here has just put up an inclusiveness billboard that shows a thruple, gay parents and a woman wearing a hijab.

You change people's behaviour by convincing them it's the right thing to do not by passing legislation forcing them to change. You make people welcome by accepting their differences not by demanding their assimilation. You reduce animosity by creating a sense of belonging, whoever you are, not by making laws that have the effect of saying "your kind are not welcome here". 

Some things can't be allowed under a banner of freedom and tolerance, other things should be left to communities to chart their own course without legislative coercion. Female genital mutilation clearly falls on the can't be allowed side of the line. As much as I want to see them eliminated from the Muslim community, I still haven't seen a decent argument for why hijabs, burkas and burkinis should fall on the same side of that line to demand that there be legislative coercion prohibiting them in any context. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: hijabs. There are plenty of Muslim women in the UK with PhDs and independent lives who choose to wear the hijab; doing so makes them happy and harms absolutely no one else. The idea of a chamber full of middle class white people ordering them not to in order to save them from themselves :stillsick: seems repellent to me. Personally I don't see the hijab as any more objectionable than the spangly tops and heels that teenage girls wore pre-lockdown, often when queueing in the depths of winter outside nightclubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the opposition to hijabs, burkas either. It is my belief that the vast majority of these are worn out of personal preference.

In other news, a very interesting writeup on Russia's impressive build up in the Arctic.

Satellite images show huge Russian military buildup in the Arctic

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/europe/russia-arctic-nato-military-intl-cmd/index.html

Russia has invested heavily in icebreakers and is strategically placing itself in position to take advantage of the new shipping routes that Arctic thaw is making possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dog-days said:

spangly tops and heels that teenage girls wore pre-lockdown, often when queueing in the depths of winter outside nightclubs.

Lol, that reminds me of my year abroad, studying in Scotland. I was quite familiar with bitter cold and ever-present rain, of course, but not so much seeing girls opting for open-toed shoes, miniskirts, thin tops and nothing else when going out. I can't remember what the amusing nickname for it was (this was 2006, damn I'm old) but it was implied that a generous coating of body glitter helped keep them warm.

Nevertheless, I would like the state to involve itself as little as possible with people's wardrobe choices. Conversely, support should be given to those who experience undue pressure from their surroundings to wear things they feel uncomfortable with, and at age 15*, absolutely no-one should be able to dictate what you should wear, so long as you buy your own clothes.

I'd even go so far as to remove laws against public nudity or "indecency", as I'm not convinced that bare skin is intrinsically unhygienic (more so than clothes, at any rate) or traumatizing to the degree that it must be banned by law.

 

*Too lazy to double check, but IIRC at 15 you can take on a part-time job without the need for parental consent here, as long as it doesn't interfere with primary education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I don't want to get dragged into this conversation, so I'll make it simple:

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You make people welcome by accepting their differences not by demanding their assimilation.

France has taken the very opposite view: it is up to immigrants to accept the fundamental values of the French Republic. One of these fundamental values is secularism.
"France is a whole, secular, democratic, and social republic..." is the first article of the French constitution.
Basically, if you immigrate or live here, you have to accept that your religious liberties are not fully guaranteed.
It's the deal, the social contract, and it is non-negotiable.

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You change people's behaviour by convincing them it's the right thing to do not by passing legislation forcing them to change.

This is the liberal perspective and, I'll daresay, the anglo-saxon liberal perspective.
Ideally yes, it would be nice if people could be convinced or encouraged to do "the right thing," if we could provide education and incentives rather than coercion, and if that worked everytime.
Very often though, education and incentives are not enough, and a nation-state requires laws that reflect and enforce its values.

Weirdly enough, at some point in history, France decided that religion and religious practices were backward and that it was no longer up to society to accomodate -or provide for- religious people. That citizens would have to accept that the collective decisions of the nation would henceforth supersede their individual choices.
From an anglo-saxon perspective, it is at heart a fundamentally illiberal tradition.
It is dangerous, and I'm well aware (terrified even) of where it could go. But freedom of religion is the one freedom I will not shed a tear for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is this bad for women? Well, I think even if France does end up imposing immodesty in public, it'll still be a much better place for women to live in than... most countries on Earth.

If France made marital rape no longer illegal  it’d still be better than most countries on earth who don’t recognize such a thing as even possible.

That would still be really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Right, I don't want to get dragged into this conversation, so I'll make it simple:

France has taken the very opposite view: it is up to immigrants to accept the fundamental values of the French Republic. One of these fundamental values is secularism.
"France is a whole, secular, democratic, and social republic..." is the first article of the French constitution.
Basically, if you immigrate or live here, you have to accept that your religious liberties are not fully guaranteed.
It's the deal, the social contract, and it is non-negotiable.

This is the liberal perspective and, I'll daresay, the anglo-saxon liberal perspective.
Ideally yes, it would be nice if people could be convinced or encouraged to do "the right thing," if we could provide education and incentives rather than coercion, and if that worked everytime.
Very often though, education and incentives are not enough, and a nation-state requires laws that reflect and enforce its values.

Weirdly enough, at some point in history, France decided that religion and religious practices were backward and that it was no longer up to society to accomodate -or provide for- religious people. That citizens would have to accept that the collective decisions of the nation would henceforth supersede their individual choices.
From an anglo-saxon perspective, it is at heart a fundamentally illiberal tradition.
It is dangerous, and I'm well aware (terrified even) of where it could go. But freedom of religion is the one freedom I will not shed a tear for.

Fascinating.

This is actually closer to my heart as well, as I have no love of religion.

I had no ideal France was this strong in its secularism. Ideally the World would have no religion whatsoever were it up to me.

Anyways I see your comment was not wishing to get drawn into a discussion on it, so do not feel a need to respond. Just wanted to observe how interesting your explanation was, thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2021 at 11:38 PM, dog-days said:

Re: hijabs. There are plenty of Muslim women in the UK with PhDs and independent lives who choose to wear the hijab; doing so makes them happy and harms absolutely no one else. The idea of a chamber full of middle class white people ordering them not to in order to save them from themselves :stillsick: seems repellent to me. Personally I don't see the hijab as any more objectionable than the spangly tops and heels that teenage girls wore pre-lockdown, often when queueing in the depths of winter outside nightclubs. 

It’s nativism and misogyny thinly veiled as mere care for women’s rights.

women not presenting like the dominant ethnic group in terms of dress can’t be allowed.

It’s fine if they dress modestly out of fear of harassment, assault, even rape, so long as they’re dressing in suitably western attire.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The volcano on the Caribbean island of St. Vincent is about to erupt and cruise ships are rushing to evacuate people in the red zone, apparently about 16,000 residents. The pandemic is going to be an issue, other islands may not want them as they are unlikely to be vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unrest Continues In Northern Ireland"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/briefing/coronavirus-variants-northern-ireland-biden.html

Quote

Analysis: In the febrile aftermath of Brexit, Unionists “feel betrayed by the British government and feel that Northern Ireland’s place in the union is very much under pressure as a result, so that sense of insecurity definitely raises the stakes,” said Katy Hayward, a professor of political sociology at Queen’s University, Belfast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 12:22 AM, Zorral said:

"Unrest Continues In Northern Ireland"

The New York Times has a longer article about that here. It seems with unrest in Northern Ireland and increased seperatism in Scottland that brexit migh longterm be responisble for breaking the United Kingdom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Darzin said:

The New York Times has a longer article about that here. It seems with unrest in Northern Ireland and increased seperatism in Scottland that brexit migh longterm be responisble for breaking the United Kingdom. 

It's been interesting to read Charlie Stross's latest breakdown of BREXIT and Scotland (he's a Scot) on his antipope blog.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2021/04/a-death-in-the-firm.html

You will have to scroll quite far down in the comments to it, but I'll pull a bit:

Quote

 

....Longer term: Scotland is currently under the control of a hegemonizing and unaccountable (to Scotland) political union run by Tories and Tory-lite Labour. The Tories are clearly following a trajectory that ends in outright fascism with a side order of an immense amount of corruption and, as Graydon notes, a total unwillingness to recognize actual facts when the facts contradict their ideology.

England is currently a de-facto one party state: even the choice ostensibly on offer is no choice at all -- it's either the Tories (who are close to indistinguishable from the BNP of ten years ago) or Labour (who under Starmer have triangulated even further to the right than Blair went, so that they're now a de-facto Thatcherite neoliberal party with the same racist anti-immigrant sentiment as the Tories of a decade ago).

If we (Scotland) remains part of the UK, then we will be dragged into the same fascist nightmare as the rest of the country. So leaving, while not a bed of roses, is desirable for reasons other than short-term economic benefit.

Arguing over the pros and cons of rejoining the EU at this point is premature, but I'd just like to note that the accusations of democratic unaccountability and uncaring dictatorial centralism that the Brexiters levied at the EU -- accusations which were baseless -- are in fact valid when pointed at Westminster, from Scotland.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Age of the Castros has concluded.  Raúl stepped down today.  Not that it matters to the US, since not single anti-Cuban in the US (except, perhaps for Biden and Flake) can even provide a single name of who is governing the country.  It remains even now, and will be eternally, Fidel. Ha!

Cuba is in a very not-good place.  On top of everything else the Cubans are dealing with is the dumping of the national money, the Cuban Convertible Pes0 (CUC), which it was going to do some time back, but the pandemic put everything to a stop.  But now they are doing it.  Which makes everything even more confusing, as nobody even knows what things should cost, and haven't really got a currency in place at the moment to work with.

This, along with the stoppage of tourism, has encouraged many a young Cuban with internet access and enough bandwidth to start trading in crypto.  That is the currency that allows them to actually price goods and services.  This option is available to relatively few, obviously.

There is another sort of currency operating at the moment: they call it soldo.  It's minutes for the phone. As there is no legal process currently in place for anyone in the US to send money to Cuba, the only financial support we've been able to provide is to top up their phone time, which I know not how, yet can be done from here, and is legal  --Partner does this.  Cubans are trading minutes in exchange for goods and services.

This is yet another reason no one who brings travelers to Cuba can plan anything yet: nobody knows what things cost, so the organizers can't offer any packages.

Plus food distribution and shortages, and shortages of everything else too. All the Cubans know is now so much that has been government subsidized is going to have be paid for by them, which includes electricity.  Which means many Cubans will not be able to afford air conditioning now.. Cuban are getting very very very sick of all this. 

Everything in the future hangs on being able to vaccinate all of Cuba, and that means their own vaccine, as the US won't allow Cuba to buy any -- if it even has the treasury to do so.  However, when their vaccine rolls, they will be able to sell it to other countries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they'll be able to sell some dumbf**** EU in, I don't know, 2224 or so, so we can start vaccinating the 50 year olds...

Sorry to hear about the problems; I thought that at least vaccination-wise, they were in a good place as they had invented their own vaccine..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...