Display:
Come on. I am simply bringing up the most obvious, extreme case of the state outlawing a particular mode of (un)dress, which is common to all "free" countries (and even hysterically so in the case of one country that generally takes itself to be a cut freer than the others, witness a famous football halftime incident).

"Free" countries may also (as you point out) outlaw masks or face coverings on security grounds (facial recognition). I'm not saying I approve of all this, just that your point above about the government making decisions about dress isn't right. Though I don't trust Sarkozy's motives, I don't see anything fundamentally reprehensible about him expressing a view on this subject. If it means he will ram legislation through without debate, without seeking consensus, then I will find that extremely reprehensible.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not against the state outlawing a particular mode of (un)dress in all cases bar none.

But I am against the state doing so based on an interpretation by the state of what the (un)dress in question is a "sign" of.

To me personally, it is of little importance whether it is Sarkozy or anyone else advocating such a policy.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 at 04:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the French Republic has a long history of actively fighting organised religion in all its forms, so this fits right in, and is heavily supported by the population, including its Arab minorities, I may say.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 06:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series