Political Paradox: Nicolas Sarkozy and the Hijab

A few months ago NPR reported that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was attempting to push a law through that would ban the wearing of the hijab in public. The proposed rationale was to prevent the oppression of women in public.

I personally find this to be ridiculous and wonder that Mr. Sarkozy, president of France and one-time leader of the Euro Zone, would even consider such a ludicrous piece of legislation.

However, rather than arguing about how much power the government should and shouldn't have over a person in order to determine whether this is right or wrong, I'd like to propose a different argument.

First I'd like to introduce the concept of the principle of explosion. It is a proven fact that if we assume the following:
P & ~P
(That is, a statement P and its negation)
That one can derive anything from the assumptions, which follows directly from the Law of the Excluded Middle (A statement is either true or false; there is no third possibility).

Now since anything can be proven by assuming a contradiction to start, I shall proceed to show that Mr. Sarkozy contradicts himself.

If the banning of the hijab prevents oppression of women in French public, then we must ask the following question: "Are there women who willingly wear the hijab in French society?" There is no reason this is not the case (at least prior to the passing of the law), so therefore we can reasonably assume that there are women who willing wear the hijab. However, prohibiting these women from wearing the hijab (especially if it is for ethnic reasons) fits the definition of oppression. Therefore the law, by preventing oppression, causes oppression. This is an issue. A law that prevents oppression causes oppression. Since the law is not supposed to cause oppression, but only prevent it, it follows that Mr. Sarkozy's law fulfills the requirements of the principle of explosion.

Therefore, logically speaking Mr. Sarkozy must believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, be five years old, be a woman, not exist, live in Buckingham Palace, and breathe water (among an infinitude of other impossibilities).

Not only that, it is provable that Mr. Sarkozy is, at least in this instance, an idiot.

Dragon, you cannot say that the government having and not having power isn't the point of this when you say directly it is about creating opression. That is all that government power does, just saying.

But yes, the law in effect simply causes more oppression. The real reason- as anyone should know- is that the French and Dutch (and to extent much of Europe) is facing challenges in keeping their freedoms and secular beliefs in the face of radical Islam.

The problem that Socrates mentioned is due to the liberalism that Europe is so well known for. Now that Islam has taken center stage again in the minds of the international society, Europe thinks it needs to control those Muslims living there. While their fears are not unfounded, I'd say that they are going about it the wrong way. Instead of tighening immigration policies to prevent Muslims from entering into European nations, all they are doing is making new laws that are supposed to curb fundamentalism.

But that's not all there is to it. Muslims traditionally have large families, this means lots of kids. You can go and read up on the conspiracy theories on how Muslims will dominate Europe by 20XX just by reproducing.

If I've deviated, the please don't strike me down..

I do agree with you Kshatriya. I am rather anti-religion in general, and I have a particular propensity for disliking Islam, but simply because a small number of muslims have done bad things does not give any government the right to impose laws that limit their practicing their beliefs.

Yes, I have read such theories.

I do believe Islam is a threat to reason and the advancement of civilization, period. But that is no reason to treat muslims like second class citizens. Laws restricting their entrance may also be pointless. Rather than banning muslims, or Islam, the government should simply take full precaution and enforce full use of all punitive measures and punishments on those who break the law- regardless. In other words, riots in the streets of Holland (I believei t was) should be crushed, forcefully, when they are unjustified (which, considering the riots were about muslims basically believing Europe should give up free speech concerning Islam, but that muslims can still bash Jews, America, and Christians) they were unjustified.

I'd like to point out, France also has laws prohibiting most forms of religious spectables, ranging from wearing crosses and the star of David to schools to public prayer.

The theory works on a larger time scale. The reason I said that a change in immigration policies is necessary is because if Muslims are in a numerical majority, then there's nothing more to be done for it.. I'm sure you're aware of the consequences of that?

Honestly I think that if the muslim world continues it's zealously over sensitive views on it's religion and imposing it's beliefs on liberal Europe- and us- that there will be conflict, or, such a harsh crackdown on freedom of speech and prosecuting it's persecutors that the muslims will stop forcing themselves on western beliefs, or, there will be violence, more than ever.

No, Kshatriya, I must admit that I am not aware of the consequences of an Islamic majority, nor did I realize that there would (or even should) be any.

This is mainly because I fail to see a reason why we should assume that anything should come about because of such a change. Should you wish to convince me, I demand a deductive proof of the matter.

Also, Socrates, the reason I said the argument did not entail a discussion of government power was because I was merely interested in the paradoxical aspect of Sarkozy's proposed law. The Law of the Excluded Middle demands that any logical statement must be true or false, but not both or neither; and it was the paradox of including this concept with an analysis of Sarkozy's law that I was interested in.

This was not intended to become a discussion of perceived problems with a religious group.

(As you can tell I'm not a fan of sweeping statements.)

I think that Europe will eventually move towards conservatism to protect itself. These crackdowns are already starting to happen. I read about a ban of minarets in Switzerland. While that's no harsh crackdown, it's certainly a surprising move for liberal Europeans.

You're not gonna get a reply on that tonight, or tomorrow night either.. nothing for the rest of the week actually :-/

A ban on minarets is also unnecessary.

I do not believe that expressions of religion should be limited in the public eye. Sweeping issues of tolerance under the rug do not help to solve them; and keeping something in private does not necessarily keep it from spiraling out of control.

By exposing people to something regularly they grow used to it; and I find this, admittedly incredibly slow, technique to be truly effective.

TheSleepingDragon wrote:

By exposing people to something regularly they grow used to it; and I find this, admittedly incredibly slow, technique to be truly effective.

I partially agree with you, but if it is a negative thing being exposed, eventually someone will rise up against it. Granted most people will be used to the offending idea or item, but once someone gets the avalanche started it's hard to stop.

That is a case I forgot to mention. Thank you for noticing GodOfWar.

I think this topic should have been in the philosophy section then Dragon lol