Hacker News Reader

Comment by oconnor663 | Hacker News Reader

Look, my biases are much more in favor of the US govt than of China's, for all the obvious reasons. But we have to be able to see that this is opening a huge can of worms. For example, I think it's pretty troubling that the French government banned a bunch of Muslim religious garments. Does that mean I should advocate that various US companies need to stop doing business with France? Clearly there's _some_ level of abuse that would be too much. But I think setting objectively standards about these things is extremely difficult.

View on HN

> For example, I think it's pretty troubling that the French government banned a bunch of Muslim religious garments.

You're either misinformed on the French legislation or, less charitably, willfully misrepresenting it. The legislation [1] passed by the French government was a ban on face coverings in public spaces. It included covering the face with balaclavas, full face helmets, masks and yes, full face veils such as the niqāb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

Sure, but the entire reason that it was created was to target religious garb.

All the other stuff has zero relation to why it was created in the first place.

It would be like banning cross-shaped necklaces, and trying to pretend that this isn't targeting Christianity, because it technically targets all cross shaped necklaces and not just religious ones.

yes as we all know, ideas carry moral taint in the karmic dimension if they are not conceived in perfect current year purity according to the book of tumblr

I promise you that I reread that article before I commented about it, and we can all plainly see that 1% of the discussion is about balaclavas and 99% of it is about the effect of the law on Muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c... is also relevant.

To be fair, maybe the article is that way because it was written by non-Frenchmen with non-French sensibilities. I understand that French attitudes about religion and assimilation are different from American ones, and that I'm missing all sorts of other context besides. My "oh deary me how troubling" reaction probably isn't worth very much, and in any case my broader point is that I'm not advocating jumping to conclusions or boycotting France or whatever else.

But at the same time, if you want to call it "misinformed" to worry about the law's effect on religious minorities, that comes across as pretty one-sided in its own right.

Almost all countries has categories of clothing which is considered decent and proper based on culture and norms. The French law want extend which specific items should be excluded, while those opposing it want to include specific items. However it is not politically right to saying you want to exclude or include specific items in the set of decent and proper clothing, so what we get is one group making general laws that forbids "types" of clothing while having a disproportional effect that focus specific clothes, while the other side argues for general rights (religious or otherwise) but which never will be implemented in ways that actually removes the distinction between decent and proper, and indecent and improper clothing.

If those companies were making special tools to identify and remove said garments, then yes.

That sounds like a hard line to draw. A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? How do we factor in the French government's intention to build its own garment related tools on top of a camera's general purpose interfaces? What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US?

My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here.

Hmm, what's worse, a single populist regulation, punishable by a moderate fine or total information control? Very hard to draw a line indeed...

I think you just put words in my mouth, which is difficult to respond to on the internet. Of course I agree with you about which is worse. Have you thought about how I can both agree with you and also believe that drawing the line is hard?

Well, my point (which I tried to do sarcastically, admitted) was that I disagree that it's hard to draw a line here:

One is a regulation with restricted scope and consequences in a system that otherwise has human rights and individual freedom as core values. (Which doesn't make the regulation itself any good)

The other is a system with control of individual knowledge at its root and then developing regulations to further that goal as needed.

So, actually, yes, I have thought about it and no, I don't think you can.

> A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"?

By itself, no.

If you're making it specifically for the government that has stated that it intends to use it in that manner, or if, based on their past actions, a reasonable person with the same amount of knowledge as you would deduce that it will be used that way, then yes.

> What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US?

Same thing. If suppliers didn't know, they're not responsible (but once we told them, they know, and from there on they'll be judged accordingly). If they did know, or reasonably believed, then they're complicit.

> My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here.

There is, but this isn't really any different from law in general. Governing the behavior of people is always going to be nitpicky; that's why we have centuries of experience with law and its application. Most of these issues have been tackled there, and while they're not resolved to perfection, they are resolved.

I applaud France's action here. Should have done it earlier. These women are often forced to wear such garments or face severe retribution from their fundamentalist communities. Making it illegal allows them a similar loophole that a US law not permitting US companies to implement surveillance programs would allow US companies. It takes the option off the table without inciting retribution against the women or the companies.

That's sad that liberals consistently condemn christian fundamentalism but never fail to coddle Muslim fundamentalism out of some misguided liberal virtue signalling. Muslim women had it much better 40 years ago. Why are liberals so quick to side with their oppressors?

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/asia/gallery/afghan-women-pas...

You got a point there, but then banning niqabs puts the women between a rock and a hard place too.

No, it removes them from one, since the decision is made by the state, not by hubby and brother. Also, appeasement is not the answer. This fundamentalist backslide that has occurred over the last 40 years must be confronted, not encouraged. Liberals of the future will look back at how liberals of today are embracing this oppression with horror and disgust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com