Woman in face veil detained as France enforces ban by Geezer

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Look, if a girl wants to wear the damn thing, if she feels uncomfortable and exposed without it, who are YOU to demand such a thing, consider this for our female posters - how would YOU feel if some nimrod made it mandatory for you to expose your breasts in public ?
Cause that *IS* how some of these girls feel about it, never you doubt it - for a fact most folk have NO understanding of any culture but their own.

Now if she don't wanna wear it, and this is being shoved upon her unwanted, then it's not a matter of CULTURE to step in and make an issue of it, it's a matter of being a human being - and that stands even if it's WITHIN a culture and country where forcing that upon them is the norm.

well I think its pretty hard for the CULTURE to step up when it suits the powerful in that culture to subjegate the less powerful. That's kind of the point of the burqa and face veil. They pose huge restrictions on women, even what they can see of the world around them. Now if you are talking about a culture in a particular country - that is their culture, and I guess their decision to make regarding how they go about things. Personally, I still want to have a voice around cultural issues like female circumcison and honour killings and the like, and screw the culture frankly. But wearing full covering is not the culture of France and europe and I can see why it pisses them off.

Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country. Isn't it kind of up the French/Europeans to decide what kind of society they have? Why is commenting on this law okay, but criticising a cultural law that insists on women covering themselves in entirity okay. and don't tell me its an individuals choice, coz i'm pretty sure that individual women DON'T get a choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:05 PM

But that is the point, you see.

In one place, by law, they MUST.
In another, by law, they must NOT.

So where in there, at all, is any place for freedom ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:30 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
For the same reason Muslim mosques are having such a hard time in America...

Not quite. A few mosques are having a hard time in a few places in the U.S. Most aren't having any problem at all. Certainly not around where I live in Northern Virginia.

This seems to be an example of a standard American trope. If something a particular individual doesn't like happens anywhere within the country, it suddenly (to them) becomes endemic in the entire country.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:59 PM

Quote:
well I think its pretty hard for the CULTURE to step up when it suits the powerful in that culture to subjugate the less powerful.

Pretty sure there aren't many cultures that DON'T do that. And it's unacceptable in any culture its found in... But it doesn't mean that all members of that culture are guilty of it, nor does it mean that there aren't case by case specifics, exceptions, and so on. Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.

Your well meaning intentions, which they are, may also result in people being unable to practice something they believe, including women that you're trying to protect, educate, elevate, and so on. Perhaps this is important to them? Perhaps because of their upbringing, they don't see what you see, or think it's a big deal.

Quote:
Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country.

It's politics. Libertarians talk about politics all the time, in both their country and others. Like, hey, Qaddafi has a POLICY of killing the bejeesus out of his own people.

Are we not supposed to comment on world affairs because of our political ideologies? That would be pretty useful to any of our political opponents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:55 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country. Isn't it kind of up the French/Europeans to decide what kind of society they have? Why is commenting on this law okay, but criticising a cultural law that insists on women covering themselves in entirity okay. and don't tell me its an individuals choice, coz i'm pretty sure that individual women DON'T get a choice."

Hello,

Being a Libertarian entails absolute freedom to comment on absolute freedom, absolutely. ;-)

If you think Libertarians are any happier about laws that require this clothing to be worn, then I suspect you haven't been paying attention.

I have trouble respecting any law that tells you what you can and cannot wear. Anyone who would put a gun to someone's head in order to control their fashion seems crazy to me. In any country.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Pretty sure there aren't many cultures that DON'T do that. And it's unacceptable in any culture its found in... But it doesn't mean that all members of that culture are guilty of it, nor does it mean that there aren't case by case specifics, exceptions, and so on. Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.

Yeah, haven't seen much evidence of that. Sorry Byte. Of course all cultures contain power imbalances, that wasn't my point. I was responding to Frem's argument that 'it's up to the culture in question to rectify itself'. Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.

I did say I was playing devils advocate here, because I don't personally think a ban on clothing is the way to go. I'm arguing that the stance taken is necessarily racist, and I have a degree of sympathy for the Europeans in this regard. Religious tolerance isn't part of MY ideology. Personally, I'm sick of being tolerant of religions when they themselves are intolerant. When do you allow something to happen just because it happens in the name of religion or someones culture. Do you allow families to perform clitorectomies on their daughters? Do you allow children to be wed to old men? Do you allow honour killings? They are all part of people's religion/culture and yet we wouldn't allow those things.

If a man moved in down the road from me and refuse to let his wife or daughters show their face to anyone. If he made them wear paper bags on their head down the street and to school, and when challenged he would say 'oh it is their choice to wear the paper bag' would I have to tolerate it? I might not expect some form of legal intervention - actially I'd probably would for the children, but why should something that subjegates another be okay just because someones shitty god has ordered them to do it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"and when challenged he would say"

Hello,

I'd say you'd be challenging/asking the wrong person.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"and when challenged he would say"

Hello,

I'd say you'd be challenging/asking the wrong person.

well when asked, the women would say they are happy with it. Because that's what people do when they are being subjegated, they don't have the power to say 'no'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:05 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.

Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.

Then you empower them, or help do so.
Cause sticking the gun barrel of law in their face and giving them orders is no better thing - all THAT does is change which oppressor is giving the orders, and is not a net benefit.

In order to give them the freedom to not wear the veil/burkha, we ALSO, absolutely MUST, give them the freedom to do so - for if there is no choice, it's not a matter of empowering them to decide, but rather making their decisions for them, the very act these supposed laws are set against, and I firmly believe the folks who wrote em are damn well aware of it, and that the intent behind them is in fact oppressive, on purpose.

As usual, most of the folk talkin about freedom and choice - they don't REALLY want to cut the chains of oppression, all they wanna do is change the hand holding them to their own.

This isn't encouraging them to stand up, it simply encouraging them to bow down to someone else, and at the end of the day, that's ALL it is.

-Frem
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/23/their-empty-talk-of-liberat
ing-afghan-women.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.

Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.

--Anthony

well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 5:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.

Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.

--Anthony

well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.

Hello,

I can share your strong emotional distaste for these religious practices and mistreatment of women, but you are straying in your topic and argument.

You have gone from describing people who claim to enjoy a particular dress code to people who are dismayed at their own castration.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 6:23 AM

Quote:
Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.

My understanding is when a prominent Australian imam said something along the lines of "women would not be raped if they were covered," using a metaphor of cats around meat, his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.

To me, it really sounds this is more of an issue of assholes being in every group. I was able to find some comments from non-Muslim western viewers in response to a young girl being raped then stoned for adultery in Budapest that it was the GIRL'S fault, and that making the girl out to be the victim is unfair to her rapists.

What I was saying before is simple logic. A population requires a fairly even spread of both men and women to reproduce. Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population. Stone women for false accusations of adultery (rape) and you reduce the reproductive potential of that pool. Perform extreme clitorectomies where the vaginal canal is tightened, partially covered or even covered over and requiring cutting into for intercourse reduces fertility. And above, even though the conversation was very off-topic, I suggested the possibility that women being unable to achieve orgasm reduces fertility. Very young girls have a higher chance of dying in childbirth.

The population in question must figure out that they are hamstringing themselves, or they will decline in importance and prominence, and might even die out completely. Islam is in this position, and little over 100 years ago, most of the western world was in the same situation.

Quote:
Do you allow families to perform clitorectomies on their daughters? Do you allow children to be wed to old men? Do you allow honour killings?

Of course not, but for several of those, there's ALREADY laws against these things. Forcing someone into an unwilling sexual relationship is rape. Honour killings are a form of murder. Clitorectomies have no laws against it, but I'd be willing to say in that case that if it is forced, it is a violation of choice and body. In any case, if your concern is clitorectomies, but you're focusing your laws on burqas, that seems to me to be missing the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 8:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, so I’m prejudiced against the French, but certainly not to the degree Wulf is---but then Wulf’s prejudices seem to all be mostly extreme. I don’t think for one minute it’s about WWII, tho’ that prejudice certainly still exists to a degree. It’s more because of the stereotype of what French people ARE---and stereotypes exist because there is a certain amount of truth to them. Like the British being uptight, Americans being loud and overbearing, Italians being dirty, etc. On which subject, as an aside, we traveled by rail through Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. In the first three, there was little difference between the trails. When we got into Italy, the trains were noticeably dirtier, the stations MUCH dirtier, ALL the trains we took, even to Venice. It was quite noticeable. So now I have that prejudice, tho’ I try to be aware of it and not let it affect how I feel about individual people.

Quote:
no one makes people respect how we live when they come here

I disagree. I think we’re often not AWARE of how much people respect us when they visit America, but trust me, coming from almost anywhere, they respect a lot. When Americans travel to Europe, very FEW of them bother to learn any of the language, and even when they immigrate there, that’s rarely the case. Yes, we allow it in schools and even teach it there, but I think when it’s a problem, it’s more because of lack of inclusion in society---for which they are as much responsible as we are, unquestionably. We are a far more tolerant country than many others; if we were stricter, we’d have the kind of law we’re discussing in France, but I wouldn’t really WANT us to be.

While we’re speaking of prejudices, how about the current fluffer-nutter about the ad with the woman laughing at her son having painted his toes pink? It’s insane to hear what people are saying with regard to that, while I’ll bet in France it wouldn’t even be noticed. Different cultures = different prejudices, and from what I saw, many (not most) Americans don’t show the people of the country they’re in much respect...certainly not compared to people who visit us. Living there is another matter, but the same is true even then for many.

Magons, I would disagree in one respect. Frem is right; many (especially older) Muslim women WOULD feel naked and even violated without their veils. Literally HUNDREDS of years of their culture have made that the norm for them. To break that norm sometimes takes education and exposure to the world, but sometimes it also takes a few generations. In fact, from what I’ve experienced, Muslim women in America DO have the choice, and the vast majority of them choose not to wear veils. But from what experienced in Afghanistan, there are definitely women who choose to wear a chadri or some form of veil.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 8:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Geezer, I didn’t say “most” mosques or even “many” mosques, but the fact remains that where previously there wasn’t even thought given to mosques being built in a community, in current times it IS an issue in some places.

Quote:
If something a particular individual doesn't like happens anywhere within the country, it suddenly (to them) becomes endemic in the entire country

Certainly, that’s kind of what I was saying, that if the person gets attention and the mood of the country is right, it is easy to MAKE that prejudice be adopted by more people, which is then highlighted on the media or something and spreads to more and more of the country. In that respect they’re not wrong (especially as that kind of person usually “cleaves to their own” and their attitudes get reinforced).

Quote:
Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.

Yup, that’s what I think and what I kind of said.

Magons, I’ll say one thing about “Personally, I'm sick of being tolerant of religions when they themselves are intolerant.” It’s not the RELIGIONS which are intolerant, it’s how man defines them, yes? All religions that I know of preach tolerance, but once humans take over the implementation of the religion (or even, in some cases, the writings by human which are supposedly the word of a god), that goes out the window. I blame those within the religion with the power to manipulate the religion into what they want...usually for more power.

And I say again, in some cases, yes, the woman DOES choose to follow her culture, even when to us some of it (or all of it) can be considered subjugation. Some are also devout, and it would feel blasphemous to them to abandon the rituals of their religion. Yes, some women actually DO feel that way, and forcing OUR culture onto them (except where it breaks our laws or hurts someone) is as wrong to me as the (ridiculous) concept of Sharia law taking over in America. It’s not always a matter of being powerless to say no. There’s also the fact that any woman in America who CHOOSES to do so needn’t follow the laws of their religion or culture, with the obvious difficulty that they’d often lose those closest to them if they do.

Caveat: I am in NO way condoning any of the subjugating rituals which harm people, women, children OR men, so please don’t say I am. I find some practices within different religions absolutely abhorrent, I’m just pointing out the other side.

Quote:
In order to give them the freedom to not wear the veil/burkha, we ALSO, absolutely MUST, give them the freedom to do so - for if there is no choice, it's not a matter of empowering them to decide, but rather making their decisions for them

Huzzah Frem! What I’ve been trying to say, but much more succinctly, as always.

I really hate to say it, Riona, but yes, there are even who would feel violated if they were forced NOT to have a clitorectomy. Luckily they are dying out, but they still exist. We shouldn’t be forcing them NOT to, which of course is a difficulty because it’s done to young girls, who perhaps have not imagined anything different or been exposed to the possibilities.

And I do agree with Anthony, this has gone from a small “cultural norm” to some very drastic examples.

Quote:
his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.

Still I guess as mentioned, playing devil’s advocate, but I would add “some” before both Muslim and Muslim women.

As another aside (snark?):

Quote:
Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population

Agreed, but when’s the last time you saw MEN being oppressed?

As for no law about clitorectomies, I think that would probably come under “aggravated assault” in this country, wouldn’t it? Just guessing, and suggesting perhaps that there’s no need for a specific law against it, just as honor killings would be prosecuted as murder.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 9:17 AM

That's an interesting question. Unwilling clitorectomies probably ARE some kind of assault. My guess would be a sexual assault, just like some woman mutilating a guy for cheating on her would be a sexual assault.

Clitorectomies themselves, if performed willingly, are probably a cosmetic surgery. There are some women I understand who want to have their hymen repaired so they can convince their newly-wed husbands they're a virgin, which would probably also fall under cosmetic surgery.

As for oppression of men, I've seen my share of abusive relationships with both genders in the power position. It happens. Society wise, things in America seem to be getting pretty close to equal, but it's hard to tell from the inside. All I know is that for every case I see that's oppression of women, I also see a case of oppression of men. It's just the oppression of women seems to be more extreme and repugnant.

Men are the highest incidence of rape, but that's by other men, and factors in the prison population. Male on female rape is quite a bit more common than female on male rape.

I'd have to look at sexual harassment in the workplace numbers. It's probably higher against women again, but it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Certain work environments are riskier than others, such as in the military.

But when we look at the mainstream examples, it all looks pretty equal. On television, men are shown to be uncultured and dumb-witted beasts with no control over their sexual appetites. This is as offensive as when women were shown the same way. But for women, there's still lingering subtext about educated women, women in power jobs, abilities of women, intelligence of women, desperation of women, and so on. Overt examples against women are generally shouted down now, which is good, but subtle ones persist, such as in advertising. Examples of oppression against men seem to rarely be shouted down, which in my estimation increases some of their weight in this comparison.

If we look at wages, women make slightly less then men, but then if you think about it MOST people aren't paid enough for their work, so big picture this looks more like everyone is oppressed than a sign of male oppression over women.

So I say pretty equal. Could still be better, it'd be nice if we didn't have underhanded messages about either gender, and if we could cut down on the rape and sexual harassment some more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 9:56 AM

Kind of side-topical, but provided the deal goes through this'll make things interesting - a local security related biz just caved in, they were just a front to try to get a juicy contract from DepHomeSec/TSA and that fell through, causing the proprietor to flee town and creditors (one of them PO Box LLC companies, total fly by night stuff), and left a bunch of gear laying around, which I made a bid on, if any of those creditors cares to sell it to me.

Thing is, there's a whole crapload of camera-dvr widgets disguised as innocent objects in there, all of which can record to micro-SD card - I plan to have the instructions translated and ship the whole works to RAWA, playing along with our existing plan to make those Tali-tubby freaks suffer the indignity of having their asshattery exposed to the world, and as well instill a fear of the Burkha since you can hide all manner of shit under one of those, you see - the intent is to draw the notions of covered women and espionage/assassination (tho that's more an NFA thing) together in their minds in such a way that it challenges thier concepts, aided along by mockery from our male allies over the notion that they're so weak and pathetic they can't control themselves around exposed women, a questioning of their manhood as it were - which culturally is a bigger thing with Pashtun than it is with us.

Concept: "What, you are so spiritually weak you cannot gaze on the beauty Allah gives us without falling prey to evil, are you this pathetic ?
And then, and then, you blame HER for being a creature of Allahs grace, and force her to cover herself for YOUR sin, how dare you ?"

Coming from their own, in language, culture and belief, that's a damn strong incentive, and although it's not often discussed openly, not all members of RAWA lack a Y chromosone, you know.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 10:01 AM

Ooh, that's a good one. Although this makes me nervous that they then might start to try to force disrobe the women, and if any of the women are caught, oh my gosh, punishments. These women are very brave. I wish them all the luck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 10:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I said "men", meaning in general, because yes, I think we all know marriages, etc., where the man is the underdog. And I meant in reality, not on TV or so forth, places where generically women get shorter shrift just by being female, especially the work place, and sports, for example.

Frem: GOOD 'UN! Huzzah!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 10:40 AM

Nah, I don't think women in America getting the shorter shrift more than men is that much reality anymore, which is why I included analysis of rape, sexual harassment, and wages.

Oppression is oppression, either comparing relationships or even just on the level of how the gender is depicted by the mainstream. Like I said, when women were the uneducated, child-like, and sex-starved gender, it created stereotypes that perpetuated across society in reality. Are we prepared to say the same thing hasn't or couldn't happen to men? So, oppression. Both genders get oppressed. I would not like to see either gender start to become MORE oppressed, which makes me feel like we might be just about on a balance point, which implies we're getting pretty close to some form of equality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 12:14 PM

Brave don't begin to describe it, I mean, I got guts, sure - but it's a far different thing to act knowing you may suffer, than to stay your hand when everything within you cries out to bring havoc upon them cause you KNOW it's counterproductive... man that's harsh - if you ever saw Pans Labyrinth you can see that kind of courage in Mercedes, but when she did act, she made it count.

They got folks guarding their schools, who's whole job is to intercept potential bombers and try to set the bomb off AWAY from the place, or in the case of the all-too-common drone attacks, run like hell and try to draw its fire, knowing they will die.
(All too often our fuckin fundamentalist "friends" feed our idiot military the locations of those schools as targets, and we just gobble it up with a smile cause our idea of intelligence these days is beating phony confessions out of kidnapped cab drivers, grrrr)

The NFA girls (who are NOT affiliated with RAWA) take it a step beyond that, cause they're usually packing at the very least a hand grenade with a detcap instead of a fuse (goes off instantly, instead of timed) and if caught out they just go kaboom.

Every time we side with the damn fundamentalists on anything, all we do is defeat our own purpose.

Aliya (the minimart owners wife, who is Pashtun) says we oughta send over whole combat units exclusively made of women - I can see her point cause like it or not, violence *IS* the usual way to make your point in Afghanistan, and having their asses repeatedly kicked by women damn well MIGHT encourage them to respect, out of a certain macho-cultural thing, provided enough of em survive to carry the tale.

But of course, that would require something other than hoo-rah, gobbling down our own infantile propaganda, and letting the fucking christian dominionists who want a new crusade run wild within our military...

To do evil - is wrong.
To do evil badly - is unforgivable.

-Frem
Do Wrong, Right
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle956r32ys
Also:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PragmaticVillainy

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.

Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.

--Anthony

well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.

Hello,

I can share your strong emotional distaste for these religious practices and mistreatment of women, but you are straying in your topic and argument.

You have gone from describing people who claim to enjoy a particular dress code to people who are dismayed at their own castration.

--Anthony

Yes, sorry Anthony. It was quite late last night in my zone of the world, and I had a few glasses of Cab Sav, apols for not being particularly coherent.

The point I was badly trying to make was that assuming something is voluntary just because you have given an individual choice is kind of naive, particularly in cultures where individual preferences and rights are not given the same credence as the rights of the culture/family. You are really talking apples and oranges here. So my example was off topic, but to give an instance of a situtation where consent was given to horrific procedures, but it was still banned because it was horrific. It wasn't a particularly good example because those procedures are carried out on female children (often at the insistence of a mother). A better example might be suttee, where many, many women went voluntarily to their husbands funeral pyre to be burnt alive until the practice was banned. So I guess I am trying to use more extreme examples of where cultural expectations/power imbalances could lead to individuals being subjegated and abused, but seemingly with their consent. I hope I am being clearer now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE

My understanding is when a prominent Australian imam said something along the lines of "women would not be raped if they were covered," using a metaphor of cats around meat, his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.

Of course, Byte. This really isn't about being Muslim, because Muslims are not a cohesive group in any sense. They have vast differences in culture and even in their interpretation of the Qu'ran. Plenty of people decried this idiot iman, including Muslim men and women, because there are plenty of progressive Muslims in this country.

There are women and men who are Muslim who do not agree with women being fully covered and who speak out against such activity. But they don't belong to the community who do it, and would have little or no impact on them. So it's not like you would see a covered woman who says "Yep, this is wrong, I hate it, but I have to do it because I'll be thrown out of my community if I don't'.

See my post above, we talk about the rights of individuals to choose, but not every culture gives those rights to the individual. They don't exist. Actually they don't exist in most cultures, except for us in the west. In most places in the world, family needs override the individual. So really they may have no choice.

Quote:
What I was saying before is simple logic. A population requires a fairly even spread of both men and women to reproduce. Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population. Stone women for false accusations of adultery (rape) and you reduce the reproductive potential of that pool. Perform extreme clitorectomies where the vaginal canal is tightened, partially covered or even covered over and requiring cutting into for intercourse reduces fertility. And above, even though the conversation was very off-topic, I suggested the possibility that women being unable to achieve orgasm reduces fertility. Very young girls have a higher chance of dying in childbirth.

which is exactly what happens. but cultural practices are very hard to change, even if they are self defeating or not useful for the community. cultural practices become dogma and we see that with many, many religious laws. what started out 1000's of years ago as something practical ie 'let's keep our women covered because when we get raided by neighbouring tribes AGAIN, they won't be able to target our young, fertile women to kidnap' becomes enshrined in religious dogma. And every one has to tip toe around it, no matter how subjegating or stupid it is, because we have to respect people's religious beliefs or at least YOU do because you were founded by a bunch of religious fanatics. We on the other hand were founded by criminals, which is why we don't like authority ;}

Quote:

Of course not, but for several of those, there's ALREADY laws against these things. Forcing someone into an unwilling sexual relationship is rape. Honour killings are a form of murder. Clitorectomies have no laws against it, but I'd be willing to say in that case that if it is forced, it is a violation of choice and body. In any case, if your concern is clitorectomies, but you're focusing your laws on burqas, that seems to me to be missing the point.

yes, see above. got a little off track. and I am playing devils advocate because I don't actually agree with a ban, but just trying to demonstrate how we sometimes have to draw a line on what we find acceptable, even if it means banning certain religious laws.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 2:48 PM

An article which says what I have being trying to say.

Norway: Veil and warning
Source:
South Asia Citizen's Wire
The mysterious death of Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician, in Oslo comes as a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who speak out about the violence against women in their communities in the West.
The assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the expatriate Muslim community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women.
THE battle over headscarves in Europe appears to have claimed its first human casualty. Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin and the first Muslim woman to support a ban on headscarves in Norwegian schools, died mysteriously after falling on train tracks in suburban Oslo. On November 14, 2005, a Norwegian human rights group, Human Rights Service, reported the news of her death, yet another catastrophe in the blood-smeared landscape of European Islam.

Samira Munir's death is a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who choose to speak out about the violence in their communities and aggressively seek reform instead of conforming to the religiously "acceptable" forms of rights discourse that are tolerated by Muslim communities in the West. Samira Munir was unapologetic about her position and unwilling to buy into the rhetoric of the liberated hijab (headscarf) increasingly bandied about by many Muslims.

For this outspokenness, this political divergence from the much-lauded camp of liberated Muslim women that celebrates the hijab as a voluntary act of faith, Samira Munir was condemned to die under mysterious circumstances. The terror of her last moments is amplified by the ominous statements that she made prior to her death. She received threatening phone calls on a daily basis and was being harassed by Muslim men who accosted her on the streets and threatened to kill her.

The intimidation did not stop there: in interviews to Norwegian newspapers Samira Munir spoke about feeling pressured by the Pakistani Ambassador to Oslo, Shahbaz Shahbaz, who twice summoned her to the Pakistan Embassy. The embassy visits were purportedly arranged to "discuss her political views". Samira Munir also said that the Ambassador had repeatedly mentioned the fact that "she still had her family in Pakistan". The message implicit in the Ambassador's reminder of this vulnerability has apparently become clear now.

Her voice was too loud and her commitment to women's rights simply too threatening to be tolerated, and she was obliterated in the isolation of a suburban Oslo train station. Here was a woman who had lived in Norway for 20 years, a Norwegian citizen and a member of the Oslo City Council. Only Norwegian newspapers reported her death. The Pakistan Ambassador, so concerned about her political views in life, did not make any public statement about her death. The Pakistani community, otherwise so vocal in all matters affecting Pakistani-Norwegians, maintained a macabre silence.

Rumours are afloat that her death may have been a case of suicide, but despite the existence of surveillance cameras in the train station no definitive account of the cause of her death is available. Unwilling to grapple with the complex political issues surrounding her death, most people seem to welcome the assumption that she simply took her own life.

The death of Samira Munir lies at the epicentre of a gaping tension between the religiously conservative Pakistani-Norwegian community opposed to any restraints on cultural practices and the Norwegian state accustomed to treating all things cultural as innately sacred and unworthy of state intervention. In the middle of this chasm lie the women whose interests Samira Munir was attempting to represent, the young Pakistani-Norwegian girls alienated from their parents' culture and prevented from identifying with Norwegian culture. In supporting a ban on the hijab in Norway's public schools, Samira Munir sought to establish for these girls the choice that many Muslim women who support the hijab tout as their reasons for adopting it. In securing for them a state-sponsored space that would allow them to develop as women unencumbered with cultural and parentally imposed restraints, Samira Munir sought to procure for them the ability to make a choice based on their own beliefs rather than those of their parents.

It is in welcoming state intervention in developing such a space that she was labelled as an enemy of Islam and a threat to the image of solidarity that Norwegian Muslims sought to project to the Norwegian majority.

In the wake of the controversy over headscarves in France, scores of Muslim women have spoken out in defence of the hijab. Indeed, hundreds of Norwegian Muslim women demonstrated in Oslo against implementing the ban. Their remonstrations on behalf of the hijab focus predominantly on two crucial aspects; first the notion that the hijab is a required tenet of Muslim religious practice and second that they chose to wear the hijab of their own volition.

However, the two prongs of the argument represent a problematic logic. Even if the divergence of views on the hijab as a requirement of faith is ignored, can such a requirement be constructed simultaneously as an essential obligation of a practising Muslim and an act of free will? The philosophical underpinnings of this complex inquiry provide only one conclusion, the fact that school-age girls stand vulnerable to becoming pawns in the hands of parents trying desperately to cling to the traditional practices of their past and retain a cultural identity free of Western influence.

Even a cursory analysis of the Norwegian Muslim community presents significant evidence of pervasive anti-integration sentiments typical of European Muslim communities.

The unwelcome communal burden of post-9/11 scrutiny in the guise of anti-terrorism measures has promoted a victimised and beleaguered self-image, deeply suspicious of the Norwegian culture that surrounds it. Religious conservatives within the community frown on assimilation and integration and often paint it as an abandonment of Islam and as the adoption of the wayward ways of the West. In the summer of 2005, an Urdu publication entitled Iblis ki Aulad (Children of Satan) was released within the community by the All Pakistan Muslim Association. The author of the book, allegedly a Pakistani mullah, not only attacks Norwegian ethics and morality but describes all Norwegian children as illegitimate and conceived "here and there".

Expectedly, the anti-assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women. The hijab thus becomes an effective instrument of this control, a convenient means of extending the control exerted by fathers, husbands and brothers in the private sphere into the public sphere of school life. The tension between those that consider the hijab a requirement of faith and those that do not is also increasingly obvious within the Muslim community. Norwegian school officials such as Anne Bech Skogen, the principal of a girls' school in Oslo, report not only an increase in headscarves in girls schools but also fights among Muslim girls in which girls not wearing the hijab are called prostitutes. The tussles in the schoolyard represent an extension of the battles against integration to an arena that should be devoted solely to educational pursuits.

Also caught in this tumultuous current are hundreds of Norwegian-Pakistani girls fleeing forced marriages who have been contacting relief centres pleading for state protection against their families. Like their counterparts in other West European countries, these girls fear for their lives for flouting tradition. According to newspaper reports, the girls, most of them under 18, are often brought to the centres by their teachers in whom they confide. Despite being given new legal identities, new addresses and portable alarms, many report feeling threatened by their parents.

There is good reason for their fear. Months before the mysterious death of Samira Munir, a 20-year-old Pakistani girl named Rahila Iqbal was killed during a trip to Pakistan. In a gruesome set of events, Rahila was lured to Pakistan under the guise of a conciliatory family vacation. There, in rural Punjab, the unwitting Rahila was surreptitiously drugged, then raped and drowned in a staged car accident at the behest of her own family. The murderers included Rahila's mother, who conspired against her to erase the shame brought upon the family by Rahila's love marriage. The family members have since been indicted in Norwegian courts and are facing criminal trial.

Rahila's killing was a crime of honour, fuelled by a desire to erase the existence of a daughter who had chosen to reiterate her own will against that of her family. Against the backdrop of such unabashed commodification of women as emblems of family honour, the issue of hijab becomes problematic and the question of state intervention in "cultural matters" even more imperative. Should Western liberal states reconsider their non-intervention policies towards Muslim minorities at the risk of being accused of adopting imperialist and paternalistic attitudes towards them or should the potential for the abuse of the rights of Muslim women like Rahila endorse a proactive attitude towards integration that justifies a ban on headscarves in public schools?

see more at http://www.wluml.org/node/2690

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 3:30 PM

MOCKROMANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This isn't about the "majority vs the minority".

Thats a smokescreen.

Its an issue of privacy. Those in power don't LIKE not knowing who you are.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

True. is that a liberal thing or a Conservative thing? I think it is a federal Gov. thing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 3:32 PM

MOCKROMANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.

It's not really the same, it's not always painful, though, admittedly, sometimes it is, for a guy, and when it is, you can't exactly make an adjustment in public, the way a girl could with her boobs.

Girls don't always need bras though. They could wear a push-up or a corset. Or just something really tight.

She might defy gravity

But if not, there are other solutions

I don't know who this girl is, but I found this pic while searching.

Felt obliged to share.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Boob bump

Ya, I am a mammal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 3:50 PM

Quote:
And every one has to tip toe around it, no matter how subjegating or stupid it is, because we have to respect people's religious beliefs or at least YOU do because you were founded by a bunch of religious fanatics. We on the other hand were founded by criminals, which is why we don't like authority ;}

For the record, I'm an atheist. Have been so my entire life. I was never dunked, even though my entire extended family is Mormon, and frankly, I think all religion, religious philosophy, spiritualism, and "dogma" is a load of hooey.

Back when I was in high school, I used to provoke the christian football jocks into fist fights with me, just from mocking their religion. As you have seen here on the board, I can be a super bitch, and I also used to be extremely violent and disrespectful, with little patience for untrue bulldunk.

But several years later, I realized, it's POINTLESS to try to argue against it, or fix anyone or their beliefs. All they're going to do is resist you, and fighting them just makes things worse, it CEMENTS their beliefs. People have to figure stuff out for themselves, the government and laws and fines aren't going to make them realize, oh, right, killing young girls BAD, they're just going to do it in secret instead.

All this culture clashing, it's needless, all the feelings of cultural superiority, just stuff we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good about who we are and what we do. But you know what? We've killed more Muslim girls than Muslim men have killed Muslim girls.

Otherwise, criminal solidarity, Magons. My family was polygamist not four generations back. A murderous band of thugs that killed Native Americans and non-Mormon settlers passing through, and auctioned off thirteen year olds to lecherous old men for the highest bidder. One of them founded Bountiful. Some of the other ones were slave owners in the south. So it's not so much that our country's founders ever believed so much in freedom of religion, it's more they only believed in freedom of christian religion, and oppressing the hell out of everything else, but I can see how that would be easy to overlook.

Freedom of religion in America is a relatively new thing. And still far from perfect. But it's also definitely NOT bowing to authority, because every gain for right to practice (or even not practice, for atheists!) has been clawed from discriminatory laws and the people in power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 4:32 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I didn’t say “most” mosques or even “many” mosques...

Nope. You said 'mosques' without a qualifier, which in common English usage means all mosques. Sort'a like if PN says 'Jews' support something, you prebably assume he's suggesting that all Jews od so, not "most" or "many", or if someone says 'Teabaggers' have a certain position, you figure they mean all of them.

I don't doubt that some folks don't want mosques in their neighborhoods, like they don't want gun stores or liquor stores or strip clubs or scrapbooking shops or whatever, but that's a far cry from a national government making laws to ban articles of clothing some folk consider necessary for the practice of their religion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 4:56 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

"For the same reason Muslim mosques are having such a hard time in America..."

She could've meant it as in 'some Muslim mosques', Geezer. I can hear it either way - although first time I heard it like you did.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 5:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Yes, sorry Anthony. It was quite late last night in my zone of the world, and I had a few glasses of Cab Sav, apols for not being particularly coherent.

The point I was badly trying to make was that assuming something is voluntary just because you have given an individual choice is kind of naive, particularly in cultures where individual preferences and rights are not given the same credence as the rights of the culture/family. You are really talking apples and oranges here. So my example was off topic, but to give an instance of a situtation where consent was given to horrific procedures, but it was still banned because it was horrific. It wasn't a particularly good example because those procedures are carried out on female children (often at the insistence of a mother). A better example might be suttee, where many, many women went voluntarily to their husbands funeral pyre to be burnt alive until the practice was banned. So I guess I am trying to use more extreme examples of where cultural expectations/power imbalances could lead to individuals being subjegated and abused, but seemingly with their consent. I hope I am being clearer now.

Hello,

There was, ironically, a Star Trek episode that illustrated the dilemma you describe.

A premier scientist was on the verge of developing science that could save his world from some kind of solar disaster. Unfortunately, he was from a planet where the cultural norm was for people to commit suicide when they got to a certain age so that they would not be a burden on society.

This cultural norm may have possibly had nobler roots, when an old person was likely to be terribly infirm and a strain on primitive tribes scrabbling out a meager existence.

However, in the modern era of Star Trek, where people could be healthy and productive for over a hundred years, it made little sense to commit suicide at age 60 (I'm not sure of the exact age chosen for the show, but the scientist was still healthy and robust.)

The scientist's girlfriend, who was from a different culture, railed against him for wanting to end his life early in some barbaric suicide ritual. For a time, she nearly had him convinced not to go through with it.

However, pressure from his friends and family caused him to weaken, and he ultimately chose to go through with the suicide ritual to appease his loved ones. His girlfriend was left with only a single difficult choice- Shun him and let him die without her, or attend the ritual and say goodbye, allowing him to meet his cultural obligations in peace.

It was a particularly moving episode. One of those that I consider a classic example of good Star Trek. The sort of rare jewel that has caused the show to endure for so long, despite its many missteps.

You, Magons, would seemingly wish to imprison this man and possibly send him through some kind of forced re-education process in order to save his life and prevent him from being subjugated by his society and its barbaric customs.

I would not feel comfortable doing that, because I consider the choice to end his own life something personal and inherent to his freedom. However, I would have great empathy for your position, as the injustice of it all would haunt me, too.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 8:25 PM

Nice story.

I don't want to imprison anyone, Anthony. You are misreading my intent if that is what you think.

However, I guess in the Star Trek story, if that practice has been banned, the man wouldn't have been put under pressure to suicide. Sounds like it was based a lot on the suttee example I was using.

If you read the article I posted, you'll see a different view from a Muslim woman who wanted the veil banned in schools, because of the 'cultural space' it would create for young Muslim women, who would not be pressured to wear it for a period of time at least, perhaps giving them more opportunity to think through whether they then wanted to wear it in later life. I like that idea.

Sadly, that woman was murdered because she spoke out against a cultural practice. And that kind of demonstrates my point about how hard it is to dissent in a culture where dissent is often greeted with violence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 9:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Nice story.

I don't want to imprison anyone, Anthony. You are misreading my intent if that is what you think.

However, I guess in the Star Trek story, if that practice has been banned, the man wouldn't have been put under pressure to suicide. Sounds like it was based a lot on the suttee example I was using.

If you read the article I posted, you'll see a different view from a Muslim woman who wanted the veil banned in schools, because of the 'cultural space' it would create for young Muslim women, who would not be pressured to wear it for a period of time at least, perhaps giving them more opportunity to think through whether they then wanted to wear it in later life. I like that idea.

Sadly, that woman was murdered because she spoke out against a cultural practice. And that kind of demonstrates my point about how hard it is to dissent in a culture where dissent is often greeted with violence.

Hello,

I hope that some of these mideast revolutions result in more free societies, although I'm not holding my breath.

Keep in mind that 'banning' a thing is making it illegal. Making it illegal is promising to imprison, attack, or kill anyone who does it.

Thus, banning a thing means that if you do it, I will arrest you. If you resist arrest, I will attack you. If you resist my attack, I will kill you.

This understanding of law makes me very careful about which laws I advocate.

I am in favor of banning violations upon personal choice, but that is a double edged sword. It means I'll defend anyone who wants to diverge from their cultural practices, but I won't spend an ounce of force making them diverge from their cultural practices.

They must make that brave choice themselves, and it is no small thing. I can encourage them, but I can't take that step for them. I won't punish anyone for failing to take it, even as I weep for their plight.

I suppose it is my own Prime Directive. A promise not to violate someone's freedom, even if it's for their own good.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 9:56 PM

you might note that I have consistently said I am not in favour of banning on this issue, unless you are prepared to ban wearing of religious items per se. I can see that such a law would be unweildy to implement and does step over the line re individual's rights. i am playing devils advocate because I dispute that such a law is necessarily racist, and that I understand why some places have introduced a ban.

I do think that sometimes individuals need more than just encouragement in order to enact change, and that laws can be a useful way of creating change. I don't have the same view as some on this board that all laws infringe human rights, I actually think that sometimes laws protect them and protect the individual.

Labour laws in particular have prevented employers from blatant discrimination, from giving women the same pay for same work, from making workers work in dangerous environments.

And again, re suttee or sati, the practice only diminished because of laws which prohibited it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In case you wish to view the episode I was discussing, I found a copy online:

Most people look at this episode as a commentary on how we treat the elderly, but it is obviously much more than that.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 10:00 AM

Ayep, I remember that one - and I remember exactly how I felt about it too, although that was quite a while ago and I might re-evaluate my take on it.

But at the time my opinion was that if they were unwilling to accept cultural dissonance in order to save their own lives, then Starfleet should absolutely NOT, in any way whatsoever, act to prevent the logical consequences of that action, neither making any attempt to forestall the solar event, nor offering to evacuate them prior to it.

In fact, I personally would have gone so far as to inform them that since they were so willing to take that path individually, and force others to do so even against their will - then offering to assist them in preventing the solar event was exactly equivalent on a larger scale and if they were going to demand the "Resolution" on an individual scale, then they could damn well accept it culturally - and then I would have LEFT.

You can't save people from themselves, and you shouldn't oughta try.

Kind of like the situation in some parts of south africa where for various idiotic reasons they murdered most of the folk producing their food and burned the fields, and then pleaded for aid cause they had no food - I would not have shipped so much as one grain of rice to them even if it did mean watching them starve horribly, because to do otherwise means they will not learn, it means supporting the very conduct you oppose.

Think of it like loaning a friend money who makes no attempt to be fiscally responsible, and never pays you back, eventually you DO cut him off, and he suffers for it, does he not ?
Are YOU responsible for that ?

If I do not support an action, I do not support it - even if I have to restrain my conscience and better nature, such as I have, in the doing.

They learn, or they burn, it's that simple.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 10:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I always thought Starfleet was oddly selective in their execution of the Prime Directive.

Picard did a much better job with the Prime Directive in the episode about drug addiction. Where one planet supplied medicine, and another planet supplied labor. But the ships that delivered the medicine were breaking down, and Picard offered to help.

Only it turned out the medicine wasn't real medicine. The disease it treated had been gone for generations. Only the addiction to the chemical remained.

Once Picard understood this, he refused to help them repair their ships in the future. If they wanted to keep a planet of addicts, they could damn well fix their own ships.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:32 AM

Indeed, and they weren't the only ones Picard left swinging on the hook of their own foolishness.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Hunted_%28episode%29
Admittedly, I laughed up my sleeve a bit, over that one.

Quote:
"In your own words, this is not our affair. We cannot interfere in the natural course of your society's development. And I'd say it's going to develop significantly in the next few minutes."
- Picard

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 1:23 PM

The Prime Directive was a bit of a flawed concept, really, as most of the time throughout Starfleet they broke it willy nilly - it really was the whole point of the series, interacting with alien species. Even through interacting, you kind of break the directive. It's a silly concept really.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The Prime Directive as originally created had some value: Don't mess with primitive people. Don't even be seen by them. That was the gist.

They still managed to ignore it whenever it suited Kirk, though it was at least a simple concept at the time.

But then it was expanded to mean lots of other things in TNG. Even then, they managed to violate it frequently.

I'll give the TNG writers some credit, though. They as often created interesting dilemnas surrounding the Prime Directive as they did ignore it wholesale. When they did it right, it worked well.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 6:42 PM

yes, nothing creates a good story line quite as well as having a iron clad law and then breaking it constantly.

I'm currently watching the Enterprise series with my son. They haven't quite got the prime directive thing happening yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 8:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think laws that prevent physical harm are good, like banning suttee (using Magons' spelling here). I would consider a clitterectomy as physically harmful, especially if it was done in an old fashioned way w/o sterilized tools etc.) I guess if an adult woman wanted to do it it would be her right, but doing it to little girls is illegal in America, at least I hope it is. I don't think wearing a face veil is physically harmful, therefor I see no reason to ban it. Sure I'd not want to wear one, but it isn't about me, if someone chooses to then its their choice.

I wouldn't care if a mosque was built in my neighborhood, as long as they don't announce morning prayer time over a loud speaker while I'm sleeping, :)

I saw that Star Trek episode a couple of weeks ago, a good one that makes one think, I too thought of it as a question of annalyzing how the usefulness of a person would be measured, this culture thinks usefulness ends at about 60 or soon after, so they have teh resolution. It also adresses the issue of cultural norms and how much should we, or shouldn't we, judge those norms. I personally find the point about measuring usefullness to be more personally relevent, but both points are important. I think everyone is useful and has a place, the only time someone shouldn't be part of things is if they've lost that privelidge by murdering several folk without probable cause etc. But that is irrelevent here. That episode was on again a couple of days ago, but I didn't watch it because I'd seen it last month. I don't remember the drug addict one, maybe I haven't seen it yet.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 2:09 PM

Just as a side issue in response to Riona's comment about physical harm....kind of interesting that people often rate physical harm above emotional or psychological harm and I often wonder why that is. Sometimes physical scars heal quicker, in my experience anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:05 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

You are right Magon's, but I think the reason why people think in terms of physical harm is because it is more tangible, more proovable, one can identify it and quantify it easier. Sometimes something that wouldn't harm most people psychologically can be devistating to someone whose system isn't working at 100 percent, so how do we measure psychological harm, unless it is something that is blatent, rape for instance does physical and psychological harm, it is bad for anyone it happens to, though outcomes vary as far as to long term affects, how emotionally scarring it is for the victim etc.

So I guess that's why people think in terms of physical harm, one can classify it easier.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 5:01 AM

It's not that I rate emotional harm as less than physical harm, it's that it's not up to the justice system to protect us from either one in advance. It finds abuses, and prevents further abuses, but something only qualifies as abuse if it is against the victims will.

Maybe it sounds weird to you, but I believe our experiences make us who we are, scars and all, visible or not. Frankly I admire the Muslim women for what they have to put up with. Everyone has their troubles, everyone has some people who would like to manipulate and control them. They aren't going to go away because you pass a law against them. If you want to end abuse entirely, there are other, better ways to help. You nurture the human. You help them and teach them to not become abusers OR abusees. People grow strong, they grow angry, they grow righteous, and when they cast down their oppressors, when they finally step into the light after the long dark, they grow brave.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:53 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I agree that personal will and the freedom to err is essential to true liberation.

Forcing barbaric people to be civilized is what we used to do when we (the international community) were Empires. I hope we've outgrown that tendency.

At the same time, I won't pretend not to weep for those who choose their oppression from a sense of habit, culture, or social pressure and programming. I pray that teaching them and setting the example will allow them to elevate themselves out of their mean customs.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:30 AM