The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Xenon
Howe exactly would a teacher wearing a scarf distract you?


As you can see many posters here are against religion in general. not just islam. These secular posters along with the religious (another religion) are offended by the fact that some people purposely wear OPTIONAL religious symbols to promote their religion.
Reply 121
DoctorNO
As you can see many posters here are against religion in general. not just islam. These posters along with religious (another religion) are offended by the fact that some people purposely wear religious symbols to promote their religion.


No, they wear 'religious symbols' because it is part of their faith, not because they seek to 'promote their religon'.
kildare
Democracy is based on the principle that the majority should choose the governement, however the governement must also respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. Even without the European Charter of the Human Rights (one of the most commendable things about the E.U in my opinion) I would say it's likely that the proposed bill would violate French law vis-a-vis freedom of relgion and/or expression.

Maybe so, but i still think democracy means the will of the people, what the majority want should be carried. More problems are caused when popular changes aren't made, for example Iraq in the UK, this was unpopular and will resonate badly on ol' Tony in the future.
Reply 123
kildare
Democracy respects the will of the people- not just the will of the majority. Hence why in France the proposed law cannot/should not be passed as it contravenes the European Charter of Human Rights, of which France are a signatory.


Absolute crap. Democracy, generally represents the will of the majority as well you know.

Contravening the European Charter of Human Rights?

Human rights law in Europe comes from the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ammended. Being a signatory to it means sweet fuck-all actually and has as much legal significance as signing Kyoto.

Britain signed this hunk of shit back in 1953 (I think it was) but it wasn't until it was finally embodied into law through the Human Rights Act 1998 that it mean't very much.
Reply 124
claire1985
In a muslim state, banning the veil is a pretty stupid thing to do, as it will affect the majority of people and will be grossly unpopular. However, it must be noted that France is not a muslim state, it is Roman Catholic, and therefore the banning of headscarves and other religious articles will not affect people as much. As Iran is an inherently religious country, religious laws will obviously have more of an effect than in a country such as France, which is less religiously motivated.


France is not a Roman Catholic State it is a secular state and most French people are very proud of that fact. I feel that restricting individual freedom of expression/relgion is a very strange thing for a country which prides itself and liberity and unity to do.
kildare
France is not a Roman Catholic State it is a secular state and most French people are very proud of that fact. I feel that restricting individual freedom of expression/relgion is a very strange thing for a country which prides itself and liberity and unity to do.

But Roman Catholicism is their key religion i thought?
Reply 126
claire1985
Maybe so, but i still think democracy means the will of the people, what the majority want should be carried. More problems are caused when popular changes aren't made, for example Iraq in the UK, this was unpopular and will resonate badly on ol' Tony in the future.


If the majority decided that they wanted the governement to sanction the killing of the other 49% would that be ok? I apologise for the trivial example but the point stands any democratic country MUST respect the wishes of a sizeable minority (within reason) and their own constitution/any other legal system which they are party to.
Reply 127
kildare
Ironically enough, one of the reasons why Iran finds itself in the posistion it does is due to the vastly unpopular laws passed by the Shah, one of which being the banning of the veil...


Well, then change the fuckin law then. Or are the wankers that run the country unable to operate the levers of government? Fuck me.....the Shah got booted out 20 something years ago man!
Reply 128
claire1985
I agree with you totally, religion is the root of all 'evil'.



If you mean that the idea of evil came from religion, then you are right. If you mean what you literally said - then you are talking utter shite.
Reply 129
kildare
Democracy is based on the principle that the majority should choose the governement, however the governement must also respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. Even without the European Charter of the Human Rights (one of the most commendable things about the E.U in my opinion) I would say it's likely that the proposed bill would violate French law vis-a-vis freedom of relgion and/or expression.


Yes, it would. It would violate the constitution as I pointed out earlier.
kildare
If the majority decided that they wanted the governement to sanction the killing of the other 49% would that be ok? I apologise for the trivial example but the point stands any democratic country MUST respect the wishes of a sizeable minority (within reason) and their own constitution/any other legal system which they are party to.

I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.
Reply 131
Howard
Absolute crap. Democracy, generally represents the will of the majority as well you know.

Contravening the European Charter of Human Rights?

Human rights law in Europe comes from the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ammended. Being a signatory to it means sweet fuck-all actually and has as much legal significance as signing Kyoto.

Britain signed this hunk of shit back in 1953 (I think it was) but it wasn't until it was finally embodied into law through the Human Rights Act 1998 that it mean't very much.


de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

Refer especially to points 3 and 5.

Yes, democracy does mean that the majority choose the governement, it does not mean however that the minority forfeit their rights.

As regards the vagaries of national/international law (although I thought you had already argued that the law did contravene European law, I may be wrong though but yes anyway...) I must profess ignorance and as such will only try to argue that the law infringes on basic rights and on the principles that the Republic was founded on.
Reply 132
claire1985
I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.


Basic human rights overrule democracy.
Reply 133
Howard
Well, then change the fuckin law then. Or are the wankers that run the country unable to operate the levers of government? Fuck me.....the Shah got booted out 20 something years ago man!


I'd love it if the law was changed, the Islamic hierocracy are firmly implanted in Iran however, due in no small part to the actions of the Shah and his western sponsors in the years prior to the revolution. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day though...
Reply 134
Howard
Yes, it would. It would violate the constitution as I pointed out earlier.


Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Bigcnee
If you mean that the idea of evil came from religion, then you are right. If you mean what you literally said - then you are talking utter shite.

I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
Reply 136
claire1985
I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.


Fortunatley enough it is the courts which decide on legality and not public opinion...
Reply 137
kildare
No, they wear 'religious symbols' because it is part of their faith, not because they seek to 'promote their religon'.


Like I said something that is a "part" is not necessarily a requirement. The hijab is optional. And some people do make an outward show to distract other people. And as you can see in this thread that some people are already distracted by the very idea of religious symbols in schools.
Reply 138
claire1985
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.


Evil exists independant of religon. Eradicating religon certainly wouldn't eradicate evil/'evil people'.
Bigcnee
Basic human rights overrule democracy.

This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights

Latest

Trending

Trending