France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Fahran]

Well, first off, burqas and hijabs are quite different, as I'm confident you know.

I'm aware. I'm far less wary about the hypothetical ubiquity of the hijab than I am about the hypothetical ubiquity of the burqa - in part because the burqa is almost invariably associated with Salafism or Deobandism.

Second, yes, the hijab is an indicator of cultural values, of collective religious and social beliefs, but it does extend to the individual level as well. And when it comes to freedom of religion, I tend to take the individualist route. The origins of the hijab are interesting, I may not even be fond of the cultural and religious ideals that spurned its commonality in the first place.

I don't really disagree with this in princple. As I've expressed before, I don't really support even burqa bans as a rule, at least not in the United States.

But, for me, I see a case like this as a clear cut in terms of my belief system. If I believe that people ought to wear what they want, so long as it doesn't harm those around them, then logically I'll defend their right to do so with more of a focus on the individual right to expression than questions of collective meaning and prevailing cultural attitudes.

The issue is that cultural regalia and the expression of certain values can serve to popularize and reinforce prevailing cultural attitudes that are actively harmful to individual liberties and to the collective well-being of persons. As I pointed out, even quoting particular attitudes present in this thread, a lot of the attitudes and arguments that accompany the wearing of these garments are not very advantageous for women who don't subscribe to these high standards of modesty.

Well, a SA women's rights person defended her right to wear the veil. Just because Europeans think that walking around half naked is 'freedom' doesn't mean anyone else does.

I think this perception, and its not an uncommon one among certain Muslim men, is part of the problem that bans like this are attempting to address. If you believe women, even women who are dressed modestly by the standards of their own communities, are "half naked", what other perceptions towards those women might that engender? We can get some indication based on how these people talk about women who do not wear the hijab or niqab, and it's really not pretty. The words range from "sluts" to "whores" to "loose" and onward.

This is part of what I mean when I say that hijab usually isn't about the empowerment of women or gender equality as most people conceive of them. If people have the attitude that not wearing the hijab is slutty or loose behavior, adhering to a cultural standard that has those sorts of attitudes surrounding it literally makes women worse off in almost every social respect.

Maybe they are the great nation we need in order to make the world a better place. These rich white men are gonna make the world a better place. With naked women and drunk men. Because nakedness and drunkness is what shows that the country is free from oppression

Well, there's a lot to unpack on this one.

Mind you, my intention isn't to call these particular posters out. I don't think they believe, or at least I hope they don't believe, that women who refuse to wear the hijab are behaving immodestly or are half-naked. I read this as a bit of hyperbole, perhaps referencing that women are allowed to dress down in France but aren't allowed to dress up to the standard of modesty prevalent in the Dar as-Salaam. That said, there are a decent number of Muslims, men in particular, who do hold these sorts of toxic and misogynistic opinions. As an example...

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan blames rise in rape on decline in modesty

The Prime Minister of Pakistan has caused widespread outrage after he urged women to dress more modestly while addressing a surge in rape cases.

The former professional cricketer turned politician, 65, made the comments during a televised interview, where he said women should cover their bodies to avoid being attacked.

Taking a question from a caller, Prime Minister Khan was asked what the government was doing to address a rise in sexual attacks in Pakistan.

“The incidents of rape of women … (have) actually very rapidly increased in society,” he said.

Khan cited the Islamic concept of purdah, which means using veils and screens to obscure women from men.

“This entire concept of purdah is to avoid temptation; not everyone has the willpower to avoid it,” he said.

Khan said his government would be bringing in new laws to protect women from sexual assault – but added it was up to society to preserve women’s modesty.

The Prime Minister said a rise in rape indicated the “consequences in any society where vulgarity is on the rise”.

The comments sparked furious outrage, with women’s rights campaigners and activists in the country accusing the Prime Minister of “baffling ignorance”.

And, while I'm bringing up misogyny in the Muslim community, I do also want to emphasize that similar attitudes may be found in Christian and Jewish communities as well, especially when we're dealing with more traditionalist religious sorts. There can be very real harm in these kinds of attitudes proliferating so, while I agree with you to some extent, I wouldn't call these cultural expressions innocuous when they have a good amount of this type of implicit or explicit misogyny behind them.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

f you truly think that what I said was offensive, then you are more then welcome to report me to moderation.

May the odds forever be in your favor.

Nah mate, I aint no dog

Races don’t exist because they’re frankly stupid.

Hausa people are generally “black” rather than “brown” but are usually genetically closest to Berbers who are almost always listed as “white” than they are to their “black” Fulani neighbors.

Hausas, Pashtuns, and and Italians are all “Caucasian”, even though only one of them are “white”.

Meanwhile, Malagasy people are generally considered “black” despite the fact they genetically should be considered Southeast Asian.
My point is genetic differences exist and certain regions and people of certain skin colors may have general genetic trends and similarities but ultimately race is simply a 15th century myth designed to divide people.

Those aren't races. Races are subspecies of human, after all, we are all human but we have different species of human. I feel like your political opinions are HEAVILY westernised. Ironic because I live in the western world yet have more of a third-world political opinion

[Vassenor]

f you truly think that what I said was offensive, then you are more then welcome to report me to moderation.

May the odds forever be in your favor.

Nah mate, I aint no dog

Races don’t exist because they’re frankly stupid.

Hausa people are generally “black” rather than “brown” but are usually genetically closest to Berbers who are almost always listed as “white” than they are to their “black” Fulani neighbors.

Hausas, Pashtuns, and and Italians are all “Caucasian”, even though only one of them are “white”.

Meanwhile, Malagasy people are generally considered “black” despite the fact they genetically should be considered Southeast Asian.
My point is genetic differences exist and certain regions and people of certain skin colors may have general genetic trends and similarities but ultimately race is simply a 15th century myth designed to divide people.

Those aren't races. Races are subspecies of human, after all, we are all human but we have different species of human. I feel like your political opinions are HEAVILY westernised. Ironic because I live in the western world yet have more of a third-world political opinion

So what's the taxonomy for these various species of human?

[Picairn]

Those aren't races. Races are subspecies of human, after all, we are all human but we have different species of human. I feel like your political opinions are HEAVILY westernised. Ironic because I live in the western world yet have more of a third-world political opinion

Race is purely a social construct. It's time you catch up with 21st century science.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Nah mate, I aint no dog

Those aren't races. Races are subspecies of human, after all, we are all human but we have different species of human. I feel like your political opinions are HEAVILY westernised. Ironic because I live in the western world yet have more of a third-world political opinion

So what's the taxonomy for these various species of human?

Its similar to how you have different breeds of cats or elephants. Subspecies exist in the world. Calling the human race one race is stupid because everyone has their own genetic code and phenotype which derive from different humans who have evolved in areas

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Those aren't races. Races are subspecies of human, after all, we are all human but we have different species of human. I feel like your political opinions are HEAVILY westernised. Ironic because I live in the western world yet have more of a third-world political opinion

Race is purely a social construct. It's time you catch up with 21st century science.

I dont call it race. I call it genetics and ethnicity, race is a retarded term only used by those who refer to a group of people by skin colour

[The Alma Mater]

So what's the taxonomy for these various species of human?

Its similar to how you have different breeds of cats or elephants. Subspecies exist in the world. Calling the human race one race is stupid because everyone has their own genetic code and phenotype which derive from different humans who have evolved in areas

Words have meanings. Different human races indeed used to exist, but they died out (or we eradicated them). Homo Sapiens Idaltu was the last one iirc.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Its similar to how you have different breeds of cats or elephants. Subspecies exist in the world. Calling the human race one race is stupid because everyone has their own genetic code and phenotype which derive from different humans who have evolved in areas

Words have meanings. Different human races indeed used to exist, but they died out (or we eradicated them). Homo Sapiens Idaltu was the last one iirc.

Ethnicities still exist as subspecicies. Each sub-specie of human is different, explains factors such susceptibility to illnesses, temperature preferences, skull shapes, body sizes, etc

[Kilobugya]

Its similar to how you have different breeds of cats or elephants. Subspecies exist in the world.

Calling the human race one race is stupid because everyone has their own genetic code and phenotype which derive from different humans who have evolved in areas

Subspecies exist in some species, when they had groups that they were separated for long enough (in term of generations) compared to the size of the groups, and the groups didn't mix up which each other afterwards. Or in the case of cats, dogs and cows, when they were artificially selected. Subspecies do not necessarily exist for all species.

For scientists to be able to define subspecies, you need have different characteristics, external (body size, type of hair, shape of ears, ...) and internal (immune system markers like blood type, ...) that differ more between subspecies than between individual of the subspecies (ie, there is more difference is size between an average poodle and an average labrador than between two random poodles or two random labradors), and that are correlated between them.

That's not the case of humans - none of the main population groups were isolated for long enough, there has been interbreeding for centuries, and there is no way to define such subspecies. You might say things like "asian are shorter than european" but the variation of size inside asian and inside european are bigger than between the groups, and if you make the distinction using the size criteria, you'll get a totally different classification than if you the shade of skin color, which will get you a different one than if you use the frequency of blood types which again will be different than if you use having curly hairs or not...

So you can't define, scientifically, subspecies of humans. That's the consensus among geneticists since more than half a century.

[Kilobugya]

Ethnicities still exist as subspecicies. Each sub-specie of human is different, explains factors such susceptibility to illnesses, temperature preferences, skull shapes, body sizes, etc

Ethnicities are cultural not genetic. Wikipedia is pretty clear about :

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment within their residing area.

And no, as I said above, whatever factor you consider among your list and many other, you'll have more variation within any subgroups than between the subgroups, and you'll get different classifications of humans if you use different criteria, meaning you can't objectively or scientifically define subspecies among modern Homo Sapiens.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Its similar to how you have different breeds of cats or elephants. Subspecies exist in the world.

Calling the human race one race is stupid because everyone has their own genetic code and phenotype which derive from different humans who have evolved in areas

Subspecies exist in some species, when they had groups that they were separated for long enough (in term of generations) compared to the size of the groups, and the groups didn't mix up which each other afterwards. Or in the case of cats, dogs and cows, when they were artificially selected. Subspecies do not necessarily exist for all species.

For scientists to be able to define subspecies, you need have different characteristics, external (body size, type of hair, shape of ears, ...) and internal (immune system markers like blood type, ...) that differ more between subspecies than between individual of the subspecies (ie, there is more difference is size between an average poodle and an average labrador than between two random poodles or two random labradors), and that are correlated between them.

That's not the case of humans - none of the main population groups were isolated for long enough, there has been interbreeding for centuries, and there is no way to define such subspecies. You might say things like "asian are shorter than european" but the variation of size inside asian and inside european are bigger than between the groups, and if you make the distinction using the size criteria, you'll get a totally different classification than if you the shade of skin color, which will get you a different one than if you use the frequency of blood types which again will be different than if you use having curly hairs or not...

So you can't define, scientifically, subspecies of humans. That's the consensus among geneticists since more than half a century.

The factor you are trying to put out is that humans are inbred because of early history which I can understand. The thing is, as civilisation took place and more of the same communities existed that formed people and groups of similar phenotypes and ethnicity. Of course like cats and dogs, humans are bred to have different species or exist in the wild. Its how we have different species of European Homo Sapiens. Although similar each have their own distinctive features genetically and on the physical outside. Like Comparing a Norman-Brit to a Native Anglo, its a wide spectrum. I'd like to say that humans have the most subspecies possible in the world as compared to any other animal

[Kilobugya]

The factor you are trying to put out is that humans are inbred because of early history which I can understand.

They have both not been separated for long enough and kept contacts with each other, meaning that genes are all mixed up, not homogeneous enough for subspecies to be possible to define.

The thing is, as civilisation took place and more of the same communities existed that formed people and groups of similar phenotypes and ethnicity.

Ethnicity is cultural. As for "groups of similar phenotypes" that first doesn't mean much, phenotype is just the expression of genes, and it's just not how it works at all. It's geographical isolation of subgroups for long enough time that lead to different genes (and therefore different phenotypes), not the other way around. And civilisation is way too recent, a few hundred of generations, compared to population size to be able to produce subspecies. Even more because people have been mixing with each other a lot size centuries.

Of course like cats and dogs, humans are bred to have different species or exist in the wild. Its how we have different species of European Homo Sapiens. Although similar each have their own distinctive features genetically and on the physical outside.

Except that as I explained above, you have no way to define such subgroups. "European Homo Sapiens" doesn't make any sense, however you try to define that you'll find that they have much higher variety among themselves than between other groups, and that for many criteria subgroups of your "European Homo Sapiens" will be closer to some subgroups of "African Homo Sapiens" than to other subgroups of "European Homo Sapiens". You can't make a sane classification when you've a set of items that features all mixed up. That's very basic science.

Like Comparing a Norman-Brit to a Native Anglo, its a wide spectrum. I'd like to say that humans have the most subspecies possible in the world as compared to any other animal

Well, ok, you can define one subspecie per living humans - with identical twins being the only ones lumped together. That's how silly it'll be, if you really want to walk up that barren path.

[Nakena]

Well, ok, you can define one subspecie per living humans - with identical twins being the only ones lumped together. That's how silly it'll be, if you really want to walk up that barren path.

Nah there are different human breeds, sometimes closer related sometimes more distantly and so on. It's not strictly separated as some may want to argue but theres no point in denying it.

[Kilobugya]

Well, ok, you can define one subspecie per living humans - with identical twins being the only ones lumped together. That's how silly it'll be, if you really want to walk up that barren path.

Nah there are different human breeds, sometimes closer related sometimes more distantly and so on. It's not strictly separated as some may want to argue but theres no point in denying it.

Again, there is no way to define those "breeds" that isn't arbitrary, and that don't lead to much bigger internal than external differences. Why is so hard to accept there is no such thing as human subspecies, from a scientific point of view ? You can shrug and wrestle as much as you want, that's what the reality is. The configuration space of humans isn't made of clearly distinct clusters, but of a vast and messy continuum with no meaningful possibility to construct subgroups.

[Nakena]

Nah there are different human breeds, sometimes closer related sometimes more distantly and so on. It's not strictly separated as some may want to argue but theres no point in denying it.

Again, there is no way to define those "breeds" that isn't arbitrary, and that don't lead to much bigger internal than external differences. Why is so hard to accept there is no such thing as human subspecies, from a scientific point of view ? You can shrug and wrestle as much as you want, that's what the reality is. The configuration space of humans isn't made of clearly distinct clusters, but of a vast and messy continuum with no meaningful possibility to construct subgroups.

The thing is because you don't want to know it. But theres clear destinctions between different human breeds and phenotypes in europe and even more so far beyond. Like hell sometimes you can tell by facial features where someone is from. Like someone from algeria or morocco has different features than someone from the middle east etc.

And even amongst europeans you have sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle differences.

[Kilobugya]

The thing is because you don't want to know it. But theres clear destinctions between different human breeds and phenotypes in europe and even more so far beyond. Like hell sometimes you can tell by facial features where someone is from. Like someone from algeria or morocco has different features than someone from the middle east etc.

Sure, there are a few superficial signs that can tell roughly where someone is from. That doesn't mean there are scientific meaningful subspecies among humans. Just like not being able to see the curvature of Earth from your window doesn't mean it's flat, or that seeing the Moon and the Sun having the same visual size don't mean they have the physical size. If you go past superficial features and broad general impression, but try to do a scientific classification of humans, it'll fall apart.

[Nakena]

That reminds me, you have missed my previous post:

I have been to some european islamic "no-go zones" myself. Not in france but elsewhere. They are rather nasty. They definetively exist, and if you run into the wrong people at the wrong place of time you can get into trouble. Never had either for some reason, and i suspect one of the reasons is that i am not 100% white looking. Some other friends I had got a few times mugged and into fights etc.

Here's why. If you're white they know you're not going to call your family or your crew for a fight or potentially worse to later trash their place or w/e and take revenge. They know if you're white, you're going to the police. And the court. Stuff they usually dont fear or care about. Maybe they end up getting a fine or a few hours community work. Months later. Which isn't really a deterrent. As a white you're fair game.

For sure they would be no-go zones for american whitetopian surburbian denizens thus.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

That reminds me, you have missed my previous post:

I have been to some european islamic "no-go zones" myself. Not in france but elsewhere. They are rather nasty. They definetively exist, and if you run into the wrong people at the wrong place of time you can get into trouble. Never had either for some reason, and i suspect one of the reasons is that i am not 100% white looking. Some other friends I had got a few times mugged and into fights etc.

Here's why. If you're white they know you're not going to call your family or your crew for a fight or potentially worse to later trash their place or w/e and take revenge. They know if you're white, you're going to the police. And the court. Stuff they usually dont fear or care about. Maybe they end up getting a fine or a few hours community work. Months later. Which isn't really a deterrent. As a white you're fair game.

For sure they would be no-go zones for american whitetopian surburbian denizens thus.

Where are these 'no-go zones'?

[Nakena]

That reminds me, you have missed my previous post:

Where are these 'no-go zones'?

NWFP is probably the biggest no-go zone globally speaking. Not that I have been there but I know people who went there.

[Kilobugya]

I have been to some european islamic "no-go zones" myself. Not in france but elsewhere. They are rather nasty. They definetively exist,

I'm still waiting to know where are such alleged "no-go zones" in France. Every time sensationalist media tried to point to one, it happened bogus. Rest of time they just (like posters here) to handwaving and not speak of any precise zones. If they exist, point me to them.

and if you run into the wrong people at the wrong place of time you can get into trouble.

That's true in about every country and doesn't have to do with Islam or immigration. In every country of the world, you can get mugged if you rung into the wrong people at the wrong time. That doesn't make "no-go zones."

Never had either for some reason, and i suspect one of the reasons is that i am not 100% white looking. Some other friends I had got a few times mugged and into fights etc.

Getting mugged is definitely not cool (happened to me once) but has nothing to do with "no-go zones".

Here's why. If you're white they know you're not going to call your family or your crew for a fight or potentially worse to later trash their place or w/e and take revenge. They know if you're white, you're going to the police. And the court. Stuff they usually dont fear or care about. Maybe they end up getting a fine or a few hours community work. Months later. Which isn't really a deterrent. As a white you're fair game.

Sorry but that doesn't make much sense, but from what I understand it's actually the opposite of "no-go zones". Alleged "no-go zones" are supposed zones where white "native" French can't go without being in danger. You're saying that white people are actually safe there, and that others, not sure who, isn't. There are some band rivalry, which are nothing new nor related to Islam, and occasionally they can take an ethnic twist. So occasional inter-ethnic squabbles can happen, sure. But that doesn't mean there are "no-go zones", that Islam is the cause of them, and than oppressing the Muslims would do anything to alleviate the problem.

For sure they would be no-go zones for american whitetopian surburbian denizens thus.

Sorry I can't parse that sentence...

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Where are these 'no-go zones'?

NWFP is probably the biggest no-go zone globally speaking. Not that I have been there but I know people who went there.

Searched NWFP, I got: 'North West Frontier Province'. It dissolved 2010.

[The Alma Mater]

Sorry but that doesn't make much sense, but from what I understand it's actually the opposite of "no-go zones". Alleged "no-go zones" are supposed zones where white "native" French can't go without being in danger.

What would you call an area where a normal white Frenchman can walk without many problems, but a lone woman, a Jew or a gay couple would be at risk of violence ?

[Kilobugya]

What would you call an area where a normal white Frenchman can walk without many problems, but a lone woman, a Jew or a gay couple would be at risk of violence ?

A sh*tty area, for sure. But those don't really exist. All those people are, unfortunately, at higher risk of being victims of violence globally, and it's slightly more true in some area than in others, but it never gets to the point where the risk is so high that it would be considered a "no-go zone".

And the risk level is not linked to Muslim presence - there are most agressions against Jewish people and monuments in the East of France where there are relatively few Muslims but more neo-nazis, while the city I live in has a large Muslim community, but also a large Jewish community and even a Jewish religious school, and there is no strong hostility between the two groups, they mostly ignore each other. Or a gay couple would be more at risk walking next to some (white, "native french") soccer fans after a game or a Le Pen rally than in an area with many Muslims.

[The Alma Mater]

And the risk level is not linked to Muslim presence

You mean it is not always or exclusively linked to muslim presence - which is true.
Jews themselves however DO cite harrasment by muslims as the main reason to move or even emigrate. And speaking for the Netherlands (different country, I know) - over 90% of all violence against gays is committed by muslims. The remainder is mostly christians. Neonazi violence against them is pretty rare - in fact the anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders is openly pro-jew.

[Ostroeuropa]

That might be true for 8 years old. A 16 years old is perfectly able to have belief and to want to assert them. I definitely had when I was 16 and even before.

Not Muslim, but I started to choose to wear veils to church when I was about 16. Teenagers definitely have a right to have their religious views and to wear symbols of their religious views.

I'd be fine with it being lowered to 15 or 16.