— Musings —12.20.2011 08:04 AM
— Musings —12.20.2011 08:04 AM
Linky no worky.
My take on this issue – and when it came up in France – is that it is not only wrong on its face; but it sets a very dangerous precedent. Once we establish that the majority can dictate to the minority what they can and can not wear; we destroy minority rights.
And once that precedent is established, what happens when – at some future time; fundamentalist Muslims become a majority? Once we destory the legal protection of the minority, what would stop some future government from imposing on everyone dress regulations, when we have effectively done the same?
All this does is buy into Muslim prejudice now and only serves to further isolate this community and make the above outcome, ironically, more likely.
As long as no one is getting hurt, governments have no (ahem) goddamned business telling religions what to do. And religions have no business telling government what to do.
The problems begin, Mr K., when the religion BECOMES the government, whether by democratic means or otherwise.
Agreed, 100%; they don’t. And the people trying to make religiions that they object. come to heel this way may one day be forced to come to heel themselves; because they threw away any moral basis to object.
Having said that; I am pretty sure that the Koran does not dictate anywhere, that woman must be veiled. i wouldn’t put this down on Islam. At all.
Interesting that you should choose the word “when” and not “if”, Jim.
As I understand it, the population trends in France indicate a Muslim majority within a few generations. So its when.
Its impossible to know where that majority will be, politically speaking, but measures as proposed in France, and in Quebec, and now here, only serve to marginalize that community and discourage integration. All this will do here is effectivley deny those woman citizenship and the protections thereunder. WHen they become the majority, well we just handed them the tools for our oppression, too. Payback can be a bitch.
At least when Quebec humiliates Sikhs in the National Assembly (unanamously to the shame of all the parties); there is no risk that Sikhs will form a government anytime soon.
Lest I be misunderstood, the reason for living and let live isn’t the Machievilean concern, that oneday this will come back to bite us; its because its wrong on its face to interfere in the private decision of a private individual. I just find that fact that it will come back to bite us tragically ironic and foreseeable. It seems we can’t learn from the mistakes of history, after all.
Hi Jim,
I agree with your point about minority rights and the power of the majority, especially with regards to this issue, I only disagree with your contention that Muslims may be a majority in France in a few generations.
While that’s not outside of the realm of possibility, it’s unlikely – they may become a substantial minority, but that’s not even much of a chance of them becoming a plurality in France.
One good reference on this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp
Mea culpa…I guess I left myself a good out with “as I understand it”…I had read from a somewhat reliable source thats where the trend was going but it seems to have been debunked. Similar statistics show that there will be no Italians left after 2150 or something…
I certainly agree with the main thrust of the editorial. The test should be harm without consent. I look forward to seeing how they try to run this regulation past the Oakes test.
AFWIW, Chief Justice Bauman’s polygamy ruling, while nuanced and wise in many respects, is good service to a rotten law. I say dump the polygamy ban, and focus on forced marriages.
No you see, Japan doesn’t have any of these issues because they simply don’t allow immigration. Canada would not be facing the imminent seditionist threat had they kept the well conceived immigration laws from the before the 1950’s.