Yeah me too.

to putins, no worries sorry for the lack of specificity

"Civil rights (including free exercise of religion and freedom from discrimination on the basis of national origin) should protect everyone, not just people who are more or less in the mainstream."

Rights are not a one-way street. There should be a reciprocal relationship. The state protects 'rights' so long as the citizen expresses a willingness to be a part of the community. Why should states give rights to people who want to isolate themselves from the rest of society? Furthermore, I have a hard time agreeing to the idea that wearing head and face coverings is a 'civil right', since this does not seem to be mandated anywhere in the Islamic scriptures, but rather is a minority practice by *some* Muslims.

""Really? The state does? Not the people living in the state? How then do cultural practices evolve? The reality of the situation is that people decide what cultural practices are. The state then follows suit. Not the other way 'round. Except in the most authoritarian of regimes."

Most states were states before they were republics or democracies. And in fact the state has always played a huge role in creating national cultures. For example, what would French national culture be if the French state hadn't 1) repressed regional dialects and customs; 2) fostered a system of national education supplanting regional education; 3) consolidated central control over French territory, etc?
The process was perhaps even more blatantly state-led in Germany and Italy. Similar state-led processes have happened in the US, as the laws and policies of the states led to the dominance of Anglo-American culture here.

"That is a salient point, however I would argue that any policy based on the principle of favouring people with ancestry in the country is itself an inherently racist and problematic principle as well."

If there is no border control why have government? Furthermore while I'm sympathetic to the no-border argument to some extent, the fact is without countries being able to control who becomes a citizenship and who comes in and who comes out it becomes unfair to the current population of the country who participates in the public affairs and pays taxes but yet the resources go to people who do not. This is exactly why the Berlin Wall was built. Germans took advantage of the generous high quality education East Germany provided and then bolted to West Berlin to get lucrative jobs. Meanwhile the East Germans who stayed were stuck with the bill.

A no-borders argument is akin to telling home owners that they can't lock their doors. They can't decide who stays and who goes. But you home owners will damn well pay for all the utilities and bills related to the house.

" If France is really going to a liberally democratic republic, then public displays of religiosity should not be antithetical to the french way of life. If it is that means that the french way of life in inherently biased against minority religious groups."

Liberalism has no ability to repress illiberal ways of life? Don't you eventually run the risk of becoming illiberal and dominated by these groups you're forced to accept if you can't have any standards?

Anyway the French people overwhelmingly support the hijab ban, like I said, so your 'who-creates-culture' argument doesn't exactly change anything in this case.

"Rights are not a one-way street. There should be a reciprocal relationship." - Rights are absolutely a one way street. The entire point of them is that you don't have to earn them. Things that are two way streets are called privileges. Are you seriously arguing that in order to have your right to free exercise of religion you have to be willing to give up religious practices? And yes, not every Muslim believes that the niqab is mandated by the Quaran, but many do. It's not fair to argue that it isn't a religious practice.

I do concede the point, Putin that the relationship between national values and the state is bidirectional.

Obviously border control is a practical necessity. But I find if people don't think of the problems with it, they tend to start approaching the issue from an extremely entitled point of view. "They came here, so they should try to integrate into our society, we should never have to do anything to try and make outsiders feel welcome." The fact is people from the middle east are beginning to emigrate in larger numbers than ever before. That is going to change the cultural landscape of the countries they move to, and people are going to have to get used to it. It's absurd to say "France has every right to try and prevent new immigrants from changing the culture of France in any way shape or form." To continue your homeowners locking their doors analogy, I'm not saying people can't lock their doors, but what I am saying is that when you get a roommate to share your apartment, you can't expect them not to cause changes in your daily routine, just because you were there first.
"Liberalism has no ability to repress illiberal ways of life?" - Basically. As long as what's happening isn't illegal. You can't take an idea based on tolerance, and then say "I'm only going to tolerate things I agree with." That's not tolerance at all, in fact, that's the exact opposite of tolerance. I'm not saying we can never expect immigrants to adopt or be influenced by or take up the values of their new home country, but it is a gradual process. It might take a generation or two. And in the meantime, we have to be tolerant of people who come from very different backgrounds, having very different practices, even if we see problems in those practices. I'm not saying we're trying to appease Muslim regimes, but we have to show some understanding for people who grew up in those regimes, and the way of life they're used to.

"Anyway the French people overwhelmingly support the hijab ban, like I said, so your 'who-creates-culture' argument doesn't exactly change anything in this case." I'm aware of that, I still thought it was a salient point, and surely Putin you must know that simply because a majority of French people support it, that doesn't make it right. That's called the tyranny of the majority, and it's a very very important reason why things like rights and constitutions exist in the first place.

"Rights are absolutely a one way street. The entire point of them is that you don't have to earn them."

I disagree. Not to get into semantic warfare, but I believe what you are describing are entitlements, not rights. With rights come responsibilities, and rights can be lost. It's obvious that they can be lost because we have prisons full of people who failed to meet their responsibilities and lost their rights as a result. Likewise citizenship rights can be lost, as historically citizenship was only given to those who expressed a willingness to be part of the polity. Since the veil is an explicit expression of defiance against the secular and liberal values of the French republic, the people who wear the veil and those who pressure people to wear the veil can be deprived of their "rights". At the very least, immigrants who want citizenship cannot reasonably demand full citizenship rights while rejecting French values. Citizenship, indeed, is earned.

"Are you seriously arguing that in order to have your right to free exercise of religion you have to be willing to give up religious practices?"

There must be a distinction between what constitutes the 'free exercise of religion' and supplementary demands which are not essential for the practice of religion. If these supplementary demands contradict core principles of the country then that country should not be forced to accept them. For example, for Christians, Sunday is a day of rest. Historically businesses were closed on Sunday and alcohol sales were prohibited on Sunday. Would it be reasonable for a Christian minority to demand this same cultural practice in a non-Christian country? Of course not. I view the head coverings in the same light. Muslims can still worship without hindrance and do what they wish in their private lives as it pertains to observing their faith. They shouldn't expect public institutions to adopt or accommodate their every demand.

"I still thought it was a salient point, and surely Putin you must know that simply because a majority of French people support it, that doesn't make it right. That's called the tyranny of the majority, and it's a very very important reason why things like rights and constitutions exist in the first place. "

But you said the people determine what the cultural practices are. So, I'm confused here. I guess only certain people decide what the cultural practices are? People have this kind of authority only when they agree with Mafia Alligator's sense of tolerance, or what?

"I'm not saying people can't lock their doors, but what I am saying is that when you get a roommate to share your apartment, you can't expect them not to cause changes in your daily routine, just because you were there first"

Well you usually only room with people you know you can live with, and are not obligated to move in with said roommate. What the pro-tolerance people seem to be suggesting is that people have no choice whatsoever about who their roommate is, even if that roommate completely rejects the rules and norms of the building and generally annoys the hell out of you.

So the majority of the people in the Confederate States of America said that slavery was acceptable and it was part of the culture. Does that make slavery right? The majority of the people in Germany during WWII put Hitler in charge and backed his anti-Jewish policies and "solution". One would argue this was part of the Nazi culture. Does that make Nazism right?

The CSA illegally seceded, so what they say is irrelevant. This debate is not really over whether or not policies are morally right. I find Saudi Arabia's domestic policies abominable, but I'm not calling for western intervention to change them. Nor am I denying Saudi Arabia's right as a sovereign state to determine its cultural practices.

Jews were German citizens at the time Nazi policies were implemented, so again this akin to the southern states deliberately disenfranchising their own people with black codes. Jews were not 'immigrants' to Germany, so no Germany does not get to pick and choose whether or not they are accepted in German society.

"But you said the people determine what the cultural practices are. So, I'm confused here. I guess only certain people decide what the cultural practices are? People have this kind of authority only when they agree with Mafia Alligator's sense of tolerance, or what?"
That's not at all what I'm saying. Even remotely. At all. I'm objecting to your view that cultural values are determined in a top down way by governments. Really, cultural values are ultimately decided by the people. It is possible for the state to influence the values of the people through propaganda and legislation and stuff, but really things only become cultural values once they are taken up by the people. If tomorrow the US government decided to outlaw meat, vegetarianism would not be an American cultural value until a majority of Americans actually believed that eating meat was wrong. So yes, the relationship does go both ways in determining cultural values. What I'm objecting to is the French government using that bidirectional approach to control through legislation what new immigrants are allowed to hold as cultural values. They're not trying to protect French values. French values will continue to exist in some form or another. What they're trying to do is maintain the status quo. Prevent any changes at all in the way their citizens think or view the world. Finally, I do see your point in saying that France has the right to determine who should be allowed to be a citizen of France, but I think they take it too far. Saying you welcome immigrants, so long as the immigrants in question have the same values as natural born French citizens is kind of a crazy thing to say. Where will these immigrants immigrate from? Will they immigrate to France from France? Because with requirements like that, that's about the only place they can come from.

What was illegal about the secession of the CSA? Nothing in the Constitution prohibited it and every legal reference I have found said there was nothing illegal about it. Please cite your source, Putin. Otherwise that statement was patently false.

I copied this from a thread on another forum. Not sure if it is accurate but I'll copy what I read here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-235574.html

In Article 6 Section 3 of the Constitution it clearly states that "the states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution." They agreed to be part of the Union forever. By seceding, they were breaking the oath they took 72 years ago. 

In Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution it says "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation." In order to secede from the Union and form their own country, they needed to make treaties and alliances with other states. Article 1 Section 10 also says that "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger." The South was keeping troops, and they attacked and captured Fort Sumter, which was basically an act of war against the United States. 

In Article 4 Section 3, it states that "Congress will make rules and regulations for territories and for property of the federal government." The state or territory on its own cannot create the rules for itself. Therefore, when the South seceded, they were taking the property of the federal government since they didn't get permission from Congress to secede or buy the land. 

To change the tack a little: Is France (as the French know France) threatened by Islamization? That is could the culture of France inevitably change in a way that is undesirable to the majority of the present day French? And if so do they have a say in the matter?

If they wish to mitigate Islamization, is banning the burqa an effective method?
Is banning it compatible with their values?
Is Islamization not even a threat? Are they over-reacting?
Could they make things worse?

@Mafia: if you don't earn human rights, how do you get them?

Why does everyone ask that? What did you do, pastoralan to earn the rights you are protected by? At what point was it determined that you did enough to earn them? I actually don't recall what I did, in order to earn my rights, and at what point it was determined that I'd earned them.
Now Putin does make a potentially defensible argument in favour of the French government being able to deny citizenship to immigrants who refuse to integrate, but that's not even technically at issue hear. A significant number of French women who want to wear niqabs have already successfully immigrated to France. They are already French citizens and are thus defended by the constitution of France, which according to my research does provide for freedom of religious belief and practice.
Secondly I don't buy the argument that women in niqabs don't want to integrate into French society. I think it means they don't want to ASSIMILATE into French society, but that's not whats at issue here. Assimilation is a much bigger issue it's about making everyone culturally homogenous, rather than allowing people from diverse backgrounds to make a place for themselves in a more unified and whole society.

In Article 6 Section 3 of the Constitution it clearly states that "the states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

That's an inaccurate quote. It says that elected senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution, not the states themselves.

"In Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution it says "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation.""

This is true. However, the states first seceded from the union (and thus freed themselves from this restriction) and then formed the confederation.

"In Article 4 Section 3, it states that "Congress will make rules and regulations for territories and for property of the federal government." The state or territory on its own cannot create the rules for itself."

If that were true, it would be unconstitutional to have any state laws, and make every state statute and regulation null and void. Also, historically territories have had their own governments that do make rules for itself; Puerto Rico today has its own fully functioning government, and I believe many of the territories which later became states had governmental bodies of their own before statehood.

I think it is worth noting that when the federal constitution was first ratified, most states added declarations listing the rights they expected to retain within the new union; among them often was the right to secede. Also, southern states were not the only states to threaten to secede; there was at least one major secession crisis of the New England states earlier in the 19th century; Jefferson said something to the effect that the states had a right to secede, but he would prefer they didn't. This malarkey about states having no right to secede was invented from whole cloth after the war as an ex post facto justification for it. It is the political equivalent to the belief that marriage lasts forever - no matter how abusive the other party is.

... AND THEN twice the concept of nullification and secession was rejected outright BEFORE THE WAR. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were eventually deemed dangerous and void, and then the Jackson Administration denied South Carolina's right to secede 30 years before the Civil War and assured the state that force would be used if they seceded. The Hartford convention was deemed illegitimate and caused the death knell of the Federalists, secession was NEVER acceptable, and your assertion that this idea was "invented out of whole cloth" is itself invented out of whole cloth. It was backed up time and again by historical precedent, the southern states knew from that precedent that secession amounted to war, and when Lincoln was in office he rightfully seized on that precedent to reestablish the union.

And, if by chance, if you Constitutional lawyers want the reason why states are unable to secede, it has nothing to do with what is written in the constitution, it is who drafted the constitution. The constitution was not ratified by the states, it was ratified by the state ratifying conventions otherwise known as "The People". For that reason Madison pointed out that the people, not the states, formed the Constitution. Therefore only the people as a whole can disintegrate the bonds of union, not the individual states. So a state can secede, but would need a constitutional amendment to do so.

@Mafia: people ask that question because it's a really good one that affects the whole understanding of what rights are and how they should be enforced. And your response tells me that you really have no idea.

Well then, pastoralan, enhance my understanding, and answer my question. What did you do, to earn your rights?

The states cannot legally secede because first of all, the state governments themselves did not technically ratify the Constitution and thus join the Union to begin with. This was done by popular delegates through constitutional conventions. If the state governments did not make the union, how do they have the power to dissolve it?

Second of all, states have no status whatsoever outside the union. States were created by the union and only exist through the existence of the union. Any rights they have were given to them by the union. The declaration of independence was an act of union. How then, can the states secede from something that created them in the first place?

Furthermore, if the union was a voluntary association to be dissolved upon the slightest offense to any or several of the states who did not get their way, then why did so many of the delegates to the Constitutional convention raise such a fuss about the various threats the new Constitution posed to states "rights"? If they could leave whenever they felt like it, as if they were a member of an alliance, not a general government, then why did the framers go through the trouble of ratifying a Bill of Rights to appease those who feared a strong federal government?

The Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, was formally called the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". Within these articles, it was expressly said that "this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual". The Preamble to the Constitution explicitly references the Articles, and calls for the Constitution in order to establish a "more perfect union". How would a more perfect union not also be perpetual?

Why does the Constitution enumerate all sorts of powers to the federal Congress and expressly prohibit the states from interfering from the federal imposition of these powers, if the union was not meant to be perpetual? Why would the federal government not grant these enumerated powers to the states, but yet grant the greatest power of all to them - the power to unilaterally dissolve the union at their whim?

Santa already mentioned the issue of nullification, which demonstrates conclusively that states do not have the power to destroy the constitution at their whim.

Furthermore, where does the Constitution say officers can break their oath to it for any reason whatsoever? Is oathbreaking allowed so long as one forsakes both the Constitution and the general government completely through secession? Oathbreaking is oathbreaking. The states of the CSA unilaterally nullified their contract with the United States of America without the consent of all parties involved.

Finally, when the states ratified the Constitution, they pledged to abide by the outcome of elections which are held under its rules. The CSA seceded because they would not abide by the outcome of a lawful election. Their secession was a revolt against the Constitution and the principle of republican government in general.

The CSA's endless threats of secession were nothing but blackmail. They had successfully blackmailed the north countless times in the past with their threats. No government could survive under this constant threat of force whenever something the south didn't like was passed (they threatened secession over the tariff and the gag rule in the 1850s, the fugitive slave law in the 1850s). The CSA was a terrorist alliance of slaveocrat oligarchs who valued white supremacy over constitutional government.

"What I'm objecting to is the French government using that bidirectional approach to control through legislation what new immigrants are allowed to hold as cultural values. They're not trying to protect French values. French values will continue to exist in some form or another. What they're trying to do is maintain the status quo. Prevent any changes at all in the way their citizens think or view the world."

I don't see your point here. How do you protect values then if protecting values doesn't also mean preventing the values from being changed in a way that the government (and population) disapproves of? How else are values protected? Yes of course some form of values might exist, but so what if those values are Islamism and religious extremism? The French do not want to live in such a society, and they have a right to defend their culture from being changed in that direction.

"Saying you welcome immigrants, so long as the immigrants in question have the same values as natural born French citizens is kind of a crazy thing to say. Where will these immigrants immigrate from? Will they immigrate to France from France? Because with requirements like that, that's about the only place they can come from."

I think you're making a straw man here, with all due respect. Of course the government cannot expect immigrants to already be fully 'French' culturally upon arrival. But they can expect that immigrants express a willingness to assimilate and adopt French culture, at least gradually. The whole point here is the hijabists are explicitly rejecting French values and French culture with their practices. It is this idea that the government objects to. They are showing no willingness to assimilate or integrate whatsoever. Why should a government tolerate such behavior? Why do the French have to put up with immigrants who have no respect for French social norms?

Finally, I do see your point in saying that France has the right to determine who should be allowed to be a citizen of France, but I think they take it too far. Saying you welcome immigrants, so long as the immigrants in question have the same values as natural born French citizens is kind of a crazy thing to say. Where will these immigrants immigrate from? Will they immigrate to France from France? Because with requirements like that, that's about the only place they can come from."

Now I see where our disagreement comes from. OK.
Letting Muslims move into your country. Even those who wear hijabs and niqabs will not lead to Radical Islamization. That's an absurd and xenophobic view. But yes, you're absolutely right, the French government has every right to stop that happening. Except...a few thousand women wearing veils in a country of nearly 66 million does not a Radical Islamic Republic make. We don't even know if those women wearing niqabs are radical Muslims.

Point two. You see the niqab as a sign that people are completely unwilling to try and integrate into French society. I disagree again. I think it's completely possible to try and maintain cultural symbols like niqabs in a cosmopolitan, multicultural liberal democracy like France, and still integrate into that system. And yeah, obviously it's a barrier to assimilation, but assimilation always takes a few generations anyway.

Or rather, it would be possible to maintain cultural symbols like niqabs if not for a vocal and powerful far right in France which is incredibly racist, religiously bigoted and xenophobic. Pandering to that segment of society might be politically advantageous, but it's also pretty disgusting.

"I think it means they don't want to ASSIMILATE into French society, but that's not whats at issue here. Assimilation is a much bigger issue it's about making everyone culturally homogenous, rather than allowing people from diverse backgrounds to make a place for themselves in a more unified and whole society."

How do you have a unified society without cultural similarity or assimilation? Has that worked anywhere that you can think of? In almost every case of ethnic or civil unrest, it is a case of a particular cultural group refusing to assimilate into the culture of the rest of the nation. Ie: The Quebecois in Canada, the Basque in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey, the Uighurs in China, etc.

"What did you do, pastoralan to earn the rights you are protected by? At what point was it determined that you did enough to earn them? I actually don't recall what I did, in order to earn my rights, and at what point it was determined that I'd earned them."

The right to vote is earned by reaching the age of 18, not committing a felony, and registering to vote. Since felons are deprived of their franchise, as are people who are not properly registered, this right can be obviously be restricted or taken away.

The right to assembly is earned by acquiring a permit for a legally authorized march (and many many conditions can be placed upon said march, such as what you can bring with you during the march). You can be arrested for unauthorized marches (as many of my colleagues have). So we are keenly aware that the right of assembly is *earned*.

The right of the people to "bear arms" in a well regulated militia, is most assuredly *earned* no matter how you interpret this right. From the acquisition of weapons license/registration to the not committing a felonious act, etc.

No right is unlimited and therefore to the extent that a right can be restricted it is "earned" and not an inalienable entitlement or birthright.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the fact that we inherit rights *earned* by our predecessors. Like inherited property, it is not as if just because we inherit them, they cannot be nullified or taken away.

OK. You actually have a point about earned rights. What about the rights that are at issue here. Freedom of Religious Belief? Freedom of Expression (of a sort that does not require public assembly)?