Advanced search

Freedom of movement

(29 Posts)
babybarrister Thu 22-Dec-16 11:55:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SapphireStrange Thu 22-Dec-16 12:48:52

I'm not sure I understand your question or point.

All EU citizens have freedom of movement within the EU, no?

Mistigri Thu 22-Dec-16 13:15:45

I don't really understand your point either (which is a bit concerning if you really are a barrister, whose job involves putting points across in a considered and coherent manner).

Citizens of EU and EEA countries have freedom of movement within the EU, regardless of what religion they profess (if any) and regardless of what clothing they wish to wear, as long as they abide by national laws.

And once inside the Schenghen zone, any EU/EEA citizen or anyone in possession of a Schenghen visa can move freely between Schenghen states (although they may be subject to random border controls).

lalalonglegs Thu 22-Dec-16 16:01:30

Do you mean how will a burqa-wearing muslim be allowed FoM if other countries introduce anti-burqa rules as some are proposing? I suppose they'd just have to decide to abide by the rules of those nations or not travel to them confused.

5notrumps Thu 22-Dec-16 16:19:54

The citizen enjoys freedom of movement.
If they elect to dress in a way which is illegal in the country to which they are travelling they will be detained and sent back. Burqua wearers are treated no differently to naked cyclists.
EU countries have different laws on a range of issues eg holocaust denial, age of consent etc. You have to obey the law of the land you are in. So you can deny the holocaust in UK but not in Germany or Austria. You can have sex with a 15 year old in France, but not in UK.
Not hard. Surprised a trainee barrister has not covered this.

babybarrister Fri 23-Dec-16 09:00:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SapphireStrange Fri 23-Dec-16 09:43:20

baby, it's truer to say (for me, anyway) that I just didn't understand what you were asking about.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 09:45:05

Baby barrister I would have thought if you are a student of law you will have pretty much started your studies in the first lecture considering and debating the origin and role of the law in society and established it is not based on absolute moral truths but on the values and cultural context of the countries it applies in. It is not exactly surprising that the debate going on in European countries around where the freedom of the individual ends and the interests of the wider community start in relation to the wearing of the Burka is manifesting itself in ambiguity and inconsistency in the law on the issue. I don't personally think there is any easy answer, the law imposes certain moral values about decency that not everyone agrees with but I don't think many, if any, are saying that they should have a right to walk around naked. I do personally think an individual should have a right to wear the Burkha if they chose to do so, and I do know women who are Muslim feminists who are arguing fiercely for greater equality for whom it is a positive choice and a statement about their identity that is important to them. There are some clear examples where the individual right to cover up is at odds with the interests of the wider community, in the operating theatre for example, where it is in conflict with the need for sterility. I would also include contexts where face to face contact is important, teaching, nursing, and the legislative context, in police stations, law courts, passport offices.... However it is for wider communities to determine where the line is drawn legally. Other communities judge the Burkha to be at odds with important common values concerning equality and secular society, which is why the law is an ass different in different parts of the continent.

Really of course the big issue is that women's bodies and how they chose to dress is a target / manifestation of patriarchy that is common to so many societies including western, Muslim and Asian. You have fallen feet first into the trap of focusing political and moral debate on women's bodies.....

Heratnumber7 Fri 23-Dec-16 09:49:13

We don't have freedom to wear what we like in the UK now, or anywhere else I can think of. Neither would I want us to have it. Nothing to do with the EU or FoM.

babybarrister Fri 23-Dec-16 11:25:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DarthPlagueis Fri 23-Dec-16 11:41:17

I think the post regarding having to obey the law in the country you are in nails it here. THAT is the common value we share across the EU btw, that you respect the laws of each different country. The OP is being a bit goady.

I'd also imagine that lots of people voting for brexit would like a Burka ban here too.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 12:36:32

Who is dodging what bullet?

Given you have rallied forth from the Brexit pub I assume you are trying to make some point about how British values differ from the rest of Europe, ergo there are no common values on which to base membership of the EU / FOM?

However I would switch your argument on it's head. Nobody has ever said that the individual countries of Europe did not have distinctive cultural, political, and legal differences. There never was some plan for a homogenous superstate except in the paranoid minds of some Brexiteers along with the whole EU army, migrant hoards, Turkey joining, EU collapse narrative planted by the media and politicians. We had control and sovereignty, as far as it is possible to whilst trading with the rest of the world (which we were free to do as well).

Freedom of movement was never about freedom of common values precisely because not all our values are common, nor would anyone want them to be. We do have some basic values in common because of a shared christianity, enlightenment and development of liberal values, and appreciation of the importance of working peacefully together to avoid another war and because we share that history we do have more in common than sets us apart but the right of each country to determine what is important about what sets it apart and legislate accordingly is actually demonstrated by your example. That is exactly why freedom of movement gives you the right to live and work throughout Europe but not, because each country is different, with different laws and practises, the right to the freedom to disrespect those laws and practises simply because they are different to where you come from.

Your decision to use a Muslim woman's body as the focus for your argument was both racist and misogynist, in exactly the same way as those constantly raising /legislating on how a Muslim woman dresses as the battleground for liberal values are. I have no doubt that you and the local mayor in the South of France who banned the Burkha have those values in common.

babybarrister Fri 23-Dec-16 12:48:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 13:01:27

You miss the point. I have no idea if you are racist or not but the decision to use that example, whether you realise it or not, is. Women's bodies have been used as a political battleground throughout history and across cultures in a way men's are not. Now it is Muslim womens bodies being used, whether it is by you or by a mayor in the South of France.

Are you actually going to make any arguments in support of whatever bullet it was you were firing. I am not the only one who is confused , those responding to you are remarkably consistent in their arguments.......

DarthPlagueis Fri 23-Dec-16 13:03:02

But its fine to do so if you think that the point that you are making is . You did use a muslim woman as the focus of an argument, in an attempt to show that we have "different values" from others, which puts you right in the frame for critique.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 13:23:03

It is pretty low to start a thread and then just snipe at people's considered replies.......

Peregrina Fri 23-Dec-16 13:54:05

Didn't some shopping centres ban young men in hoodies? Remember David Cameron in his hug a hoodie phase? Does that mean that a young man wanting to travel must make sure he doesn't wear a hoodie?

babybarrister Fri 23-Dec-16 14:35:24

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lurkinghusband Fri 23-Dec-16 14:36:42

As an academic exercise, what if we substitute "US" for EU, and contemplate the idea that some states might try to enforce a Burka-ban, while others might not ?

What then for a Burkha-clad citizen wishing to travel to or through a Burka-ban state ?

It's then we realise what the Constitution is for, and how far states are allowed freedom before they are prevented from becoming "unAmerican".

DarthPlagueis Fri 23-Dec-16 14:45:49

"And yes I do very much object to being a called a racist and it only confirms my view that every time many remainers are confronted with difficult arguments about the EU, that they raise the racism trump card ..."

Well if Trump is going to make sweeping generalisations about Mexicans being thieves and rapists then its perfectly legitimate to call him a racist.

I find more than anything else, people make a racist statment and then complain that this is the only response that they get. Its akin to "shouting down" as a point and very weak.

Also lets not pretend that we don't have a government that has had things challenged by the EU, surely staying in the EU which challenges things like Poland's High Court issue and our Snoopers charter is better.

So no, I don't think that your point is relevant, the EU is actually attempting to stop many countries from becoming more authoritarian and taking away civil liberties ( including ours) so your argument is somewhat paradoxical.

If you don't want us to have any alliance to countries like this then I suggest you tell leavers who keep raising the points about better trade deals with China, Saudi etc.

In fact this shows that utter hypocrisy of your point.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 15:48:59

Well now you have made your bullet explicit then It highlights all the more that the example you used was racist. For the most part the laws concerning Burkhas are as much a product of liberal and secular culture as of right wing authoritarian regimes. Basically much of the debate on the issue is Liberals getting their knickers in a twist about how you deal with a situation where religious values clash with secular and liberal ones, with a hefty dose of misogyny thrown in, as I say quite wrongly making the battle ground the bodies of Muslim women. In fact right wing regimes tend to favour methods of social control that erase women from any form of economic or social power of which covering them up is a very obvious example. Not only did you also chose to use Muslim women's bodies as a battleground for this debate but it was not even a very good example of the point you were trying to make. You may not be racist but the way you framed your argument was and I won't not call you out on it just because you do not like it.

As others have said the EU has used its combined resources to stand up against right wing authoritarian regimes /legislation both inside and outside the EU including here and that for me was one of the benefits of membership.

Justchanged Fri 23-Dec-16 15:58:36

Babybarrister, I think you objected to me saying on an earlier thread that I thought the EAW point was not relevant as (i) one can be a member of the EAW despite not being an EU member as Mrs May is keen to do and (ii) it is dwarfed in comparison to other issues - e.g. freedom of movement, reinstating a border in Ireland etc. I stand by these claims. In addition, it seems to me a real positive that someone wanted for a crime in one European country can be arrested in another.

Whilst there probably are aspects of the justice system in some member states (including our own) which could be improved, the link you posted to gives a great example as to how the EU helps protect the rule of law in Europe.

whatwouldrondo Fri 23-Dec-16 18:32:24

If baby barrister is presenting an advance of the far right authoritarian version of the whole EU is sliding into chaos / extremism narrative, and I don't personally think it will do but I am extremely concerned about the rise of right wing authoritarianism in the EU and UK, then rather than focusing on the example where a racial religious female minority are being picked on by secular liberals, perhaps she should be worrying about the wider misogyny of the hard right in the EU and closer to home. The unfair burden of austerity falling on women, the overt misogyny of both right wing Tories and UKIP alike, Leadsom favouring women being deprived of all maternity rights, Dominic Raab saying that blatant discrimination against men is being ignored and that feminists are obnoxious bigots. Brexit has put these people into power and women will not have the protection of EU regulation to prevent them eroding the rights we do have.

babybarrister Sat 24-Dec-16 09:46:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DarthPlagueis Sat 24-Dec-16 10:41:04

Don't need to, already know about Poland and Hungary. Poland btw will make changes to its highest court, its already in motion behind the scenes.

The reason why you are being challenged on this is that you have used a platform to try to raise a topic. If you'd raised the issues with pre trial things first it might give you more legitimacy, instead you went for an emotive and controversial point ( and were pretty quickly slapped down) and are now whinging cause you were pulled up on it. It was correct to pull you up and I'll continue to do so.

The problem with your attempts to critique countries within the EU is to paraphrase that which we have in common is far larger than that which divides us. Yet you're advocating this ( rather desperately I feel) in order to justify a leave vote. It doesn't wash.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: