Deference Deference

Head Scarves Banned In Paris, Some Protest, What is your Position?

▼

Head Scarves Banned In Paris, Some Protest, What is your Position?

from PolMach Forums
We've all heard of France's (poor) decision to ban head scarves in schools. This policy is a slap in the face to all who believe in a free society. Forget freedom fries, this is something much more important, I can't see any American (or even Frenchie) supporting this poorly devised policy that practically invites terrorism and protest. Oddly enough, there has been little protest beside the action these one hundred young women have offered. What does the JoeUser community think about this?

The link to the yahoo news article is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_eu/france_head_scarves
politics
16,937 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
Article 2 of the French Constitution reads:
(1) France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction as to origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs. (this amendment was added in 1946, many years after the constitution was created in the 1800's)

This amendment was to insure the French never had to suffer through a corrupt church reigning over the government as their ancestors did. That is the spirit of this amendment, it was not intended to serve as a bedrock for further amendments limiting personal religious accessories such as scarves. The fact that the new amendment does exactly that crosses the line from being simply a good division of church and state, and becomes an encroachment upon civil liberties. This was not something that was passed or asked for by the French people themselves, but rather, by their representatives who passed this bill in the legislature. Americans, how many times have your representatives passed bills contrary to your wishes? Of course, this might reflect the French public's belief that their society is in danger of being overrun by outside immigrants. Most immigrants to France are Muslim and represent only 8% of the population, but some demographers say that a high birth rate amongst these could lead to Muslims becoming the majority in only 25 years.

"Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin opened four days of debate on the bill by laying out the reason for the ban. "Certain religious signs, among them the Islamic veil, are multiplying in our schools. They are taking on a political meaning," he said. "Some want to know how far they can go. We are giving them a response today."

"The French government introduced a bill Tuesday in the National Assembly that would ban religious symbols in public schools. The bill, backed by President Jacques Chirac, would forbid large crosses, skullcaps and Sikh turbans. But the measure is aimed mainly at head scarves worn by some Muslim girls. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-02-03-head-scarves_x.htm

In France, they are getting away with something American conservatives could only dream of; controlling the representation of a particular culture to slow their influence amongst the French. No problem, I think that's a great idea. Let's do it here, too. Let's institute the same policy in America and close our doors to the Muslim populace, let's protect our whitebread culture.

Alas, that will not come about any time soon, can one imagine the immense amount of screaming and pinching by the media, the people, and the partisans? This is my point, the French are doing something we in America would not find acceptable, but they may think of themselves as part of the "free world".

As for America and it's Patriot Act, I think the correct phrase is not "supported by many" but "ignored by most". There is apathy and then there are those that are totally ignorant of it's devastating and far reaching effects. The rest are hawks and stuffies who believe the act will never touch their door.


Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
(this amendment was added in 1946, many years after the constitution was created in the 1800's


(War of 1812 Theme Plays)

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE!!! YEAH!!!!

VIVA LA NAPOLEON!!
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deference,
the latest law is NOT an amendment to the constitution, it is purely a law enforcing aspects of the constitution.

As you have quoted, the French constitution gaurentees religious freedom. It also however bans religious expression in state schools. Hence the new law clarifying what is an acceptable and what is not an acceptable expression of religion in state schools. No change here at all, just a clarification.

Yes the influx of muslim face scarfs in schools has been the trigger for this new law, but that's because it's this influx is in direct contradiction to their constitution and was beginning to cause religious tension within schools. France acted to change this.

It is very important to note that muslims are totally free to express their religion outside of state schools (as are christians, jews, buddists, etc). It is also important to note that the law allows not overt religious symbolism and has been carefully discussed wit the muslim community to ensure that head coverings acceptable to muslims can be worn. It is therefore NOT a

controlling the representation of a particular culture to slow their influence amongst the French


but an reinforcement of the values on which the French state is founded, while accepting that the population of that state is changing. It's a clarification of what those values mean in todays world. Religious symbols in state schools? Acceptable, so long as they are discreet and personal and do not interfere with the secular nature of the schooling.

As for introducing such laws into the US, that would be an issue for the US itself.

Paul.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Thanks Paul, for the clarification on the law / amendment bit, I got carried away and failed to make the correct distinction.

The history of the scarves in schools dates back to 1989 when two muslim girls were expelled from school for wearing their scarves. Since that point up till this legislation, girls have been kicked out of schools on a case to case basis in France because of their wearing scarves as it had been seen to school officials to be an "affrontery" to Amendment 2. Scarves have never actually been a "classroom disruption" they've just been seen as a problem by religiously intolerant schoolmarms.

The fact that this type of legislation does control religious expression in such secular zones as schools does consequently show that it is an attempt to keep a particular influence away from the public sphere. No bones about that, let's just call a spade a spade and not sugarcoat it.

"We're not saying you're religious preference is wrong, we're just asking you to..um...tone it down a little."

"Then we kill your journalists you French Fascists, all praise Allah!"

Geez, guys, couldn't we've have handled this a bit more intelligently...how about closing your doors to immigration if you're scared of the changes it will bring?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #30 By: Deference - 9/15/2004 10:28:05 AM
Thanks Paul, for the clarification on the law / amendment bit, I got carried away and failed to make the correct distinction.

The history of the scarves in schools dates back to 1989 when two muslim girls were expelled from school for wearing their scarves. Since that point up till this legislation, girls have been kicked out of schools on a case to case basis in France because of their wearing scarves as it had been seen to school officials to be an "affrontery" to Amendment 2. Scarves have never actually been a "classroom disruption" they've just been seen as a problem by religiously intolerant schoolmarms.

The fact that this type of legislation does control religious expression in such secular zones as schools does consequently show that it is an attempt to keep a particular influence away from the public sphere. No bones about that, let's just call a spade a spade and not sugarcoat it.


Deference you seem to be missing the point. This does"not" single out muslims. This "law" also bans overly large crosses (Christians) and skullcaps (Jewish). Again you missed the point, puplic schools in France are secular!


Webster definintion:

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm not missing any point, the effort to sidestep the issue by saying this is not about singling out the Muslim population is decimated by the public statements provided by French officials, one of those statements is above. It is also highly suggested by the timing and demographic changes in France and the world events of late that this legislation would not come about by itself in only pertaining to crosses and skullcaps. It is quite clear as to what the target and main intent of this bill is to any reasonable person.

I am also fully aware that this is not America we are talking about as I make abundently clear by using the words "French" and "France" time and time again and by my reference to the French constitution. I am voicing a quite valid opine that as a member of the "free world" France is slapping all free world members in the face with this type of abrasive movement that has served to actually encourage terrorism.

So what's your opinion?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #32 By: Deference - 9/15/2004 12:28:53 PM
I'm not missing any point, the effort to sidestep the issue by saying this is not about singling out the Muslim population is decimated by the public statements provided by French officials, one of those statements is above. It is also highly suggested by the timing and demographic changes in France and the world events of late that this legislation would not come about by itself in only pertaining to crosses and skullcaps. It is quite clear as to what the target and main intent of this bill is to any reasonable person.

I am also fully aware that this is not America we are talking about as I make abundently clear by using the words "French" and "France" time and time again and by my referenences to the French constitution. I am voicing a quite valid opine that as a member of the "free world" France is slapping all free world members in the face with this type of abrasive movement that has served to actually encourage terrorism.

So what's your opinion?


Weather or not it's a slap in the face to the rest of the world is "totally" immaterial! It's their "law" and as such "must be" obeyed by their citizens. What they do internally should have "absolutly" NO bearing on the outside world! And I DO stress the word "internally"! If they're messing up then let them stew in their "own" juices! My opinion is that it's "their" headache not ours!
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
Just my opinion buddy. And you believe it to be simply their headache with no bearing on the outside world. Correct?

Well, I've kind'a got this radical idea that somehow, not quite sure, maybe it's geographic or political, hell, maybe even socially possible, that France and the U.S. are connected (as well as other countries) and that we are effected by what the other does. Maybe it is in our sharing of technology, words that somehow eke their way into each others vocabulary (rendevous and ala carte among others spring to mind), or even certain democratic ideology, that hint at how inexplicably connected we all are, regardless of location. I would check out CrispE's post on "Are We Sending Russia the Wrong Message?" as a decent illustration of how countries can influence one another's actions, or rather, reactions, to events.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
No this is just another excuse to French bash.

Imagine how upset Americans would get if a Frenchman tried to tell them that they couldn't own guns. That they didn't have the right to make that choice because others disapprove.
Great point, man!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #34 By: Deference - 9/15/2004 12:47:07 PM
Just my opinion buddy. And you believe it to be simply their headache with no bearing on the outside world. Correct?

Well, I've kind'a got this radical idea that somehow, not quite sure, maybe it's geographic or political, hell, maybe even socially possible, that France and the U.S. are connected (as well as other countries) and that we are effected by what the other does. Maybe it is in our sharing of technology, words that somehow eke their way into each others vocabulary (rendevous and ala carte among others spring to mind), or even certain democratic ideology, that hint at how inexplicably connected we all are, regardless of location. I would check


And you are intiteled to your opinion. However that said what they are doing should have NO impact on the US! Neither politically, geographical or socially. You may not agree with this but... when it's their rules, it's "THEIR Way! Jst like when it's OUR rules it's OUR WAY! It's not like they're Canada or Mexico which is "right" next door to us. Could you please explain to me just how we're connected through democratic idealogy?
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
Both the U.S. and the French have constitutions and a seperation of powers, we share many of the same practices in our governments, it is reasonable to presume we have some of the same ideological taproot from which these structures stem.

In regards to the idea that there should be no impact on one country from another's policies, it is seen as desirable only in some circumstances. Foreign policy, world trade, or leading by example, for instance, are practices that are meant to have some good impact upon other countries. One may say, however, that our policies on guns should not affect other countries policies, which is fine in theory, but in practice, some may look to the lead of others (such as developing countries might look upon the U.S. regarding industrialization and business models) to find their own way.

Some practices in France have found their way here, RU-486, for example has been imported to America, largely endorsed by the left and leading women's organizations such as NOW with the legacy in France being it's testament. Putin is ready to lock down following the Bush Admin. response to "terrorism". It is easy to see that our nation's leaders are able to learn from others mistakes and are able follow practices and courses long trailblazed by others, it is important to raise red flags when we see things happening in other countries, particularly ones that are similar to us to let our own government know that some paths are not acceptable to Americans.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
This is a good show of how the U.S. might display it's unhappiness with another country's decisions regarding such things as religious freedom, and these guys aren't a democracy:

The State Department said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has engaged in "particularly severe violations" of religious freedom and for the first time included the kingdom, a key U.S. ally, on a list of countries that could be subject to sanctions. A department report assessing the state of religious freedom worldwide said that in Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion does not exist and is not recognized or protected under the country's laws....(this continues, please read all)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040915/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/religious_freedom
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
France is France, US is US, Britain is Britain, Australia is Australia, not US is France, Australia is Britain, Britan is US, France is Australia.

One country cannot control another country's laws when it comes to something like that, let the French deal with the problems they will recieve from it or not, while the US does not, Britain does not, Australia does not, heck even Japan and Korea does not.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
as a member of the "free world" France is slapping all free world members in the face with this type of abrasive movement that has served to actually encourage terrorism


I think this is your point that I most disagree with Deference. Two issues with it.

1) I do not believe that the French are doing anything wrong. They are enforcing their non biased constitution. You have a problem with the fact that it just happens to be muslims that have triggered this clarification in the law. When they wrote the constitution it was catholics that were the problem. The law is unbiased and applies to all. Just because one segment of society is breaking it more does not make it biased. It's like the arguement that if blacks are more likely to break the law in the US does this not make the law racist? On the positive side, the French have used the law to clarify the constitution so that muslim girls now know exactly what they can wear in school(which has already been stated by the muslim community as acceptable attire), and so that schools now know what is acceptable (no more expulsions because some school takes the constitution too far).

2) The statement that this encouraged terrorism is not quite right. Some kidnappers in Iraq tried to claim that this is why they kidnapped the French journalists, but the entire muslim community in France came behind the government to support this and show solidarity against terrorism. If anything this law has surprisingly united French muslims strongly against any terrorism.

Paul.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a school teacher I would have no problem with a student covering their face if that was their religious conviction.

"you are just going to segregate your Islamic population"
Yeah cos banning the scarf has really decreased the segregation problem hasn't it!? Everyone has suddenly become very tolerant of Moslems now that you can't see them.

The only way for people to overcome their prejudices is for them to be exposed to alternative people and see that they aren't freaks.

I agree wholeheartedly that schools should be secular and I am currently engaged in a strong debate with a school because I don't agree that they should have Religious Ed on Wednesdays, particularly considering the religious diversity in their classroom means that they are excluding certain students. But that does not mean that we should stop children from living as God wants them to. This has no effect on the curriculum. It is simply the clothing that they choose to wear because of religious convictions.

It is not an entirely secular belief that people should wear shirts, shorts and shoes but no head scarves. Those are the values of Christian societies and other non-Moslem societies. The diversity of people should be valued and treasured, not hidden.

"as can bandanas for muslims (approved by the muslim community as acceptable by the way). "

Actually this depends on which denomination a Muslim is from. They have denominations just like the Christians you know.

"Who here honestly believes they have a right to tell the French how to live? No this is just another excuse to French bash."

Who here honestly believes that the French have a right to tell Moslems how to live? This has nothing to do with French bashing. I speak their language fluently and travel there often because I love their country. However, I also have witnessed that in many parts of the country there is deep-seeded racism, particularly against Arab Moslems, which was there long before the Americans jumped on the bandwagon in 2001.

"Surely minorities should also be tolerant of the wishes of the people as a whole?"

If the majority of French people don't want to wear headscarves, then, yes, Moslems should be tolerant of that. However, they should not be tolerant of the French telling them how to worship their God. There are boundaries of course. If they choose to worship their God by flying a plane into a building, then this causes problems for the people inside the building. But wearing a head scarf does not have an effect on another person that is particularly detrimental. I am still able to go about my business very easily no matter how many people start wearing headscarves.

"One country cannot control another country's laws "

Iraq War?
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who here honestly believes that the French have a right to tell Moslems how to live? This has nothing to do with French bashing. I speak their language fluently and travel there often because I love their country. However, I also have witnessed that in many parts of the country there is deep-seeded racism, particularly against Arab Moslems, which was there long before the Americans jumped on the bandwagon in 2001.


Excuse me maam, but the French are telling NO ONE how to live! What they are saying is that you can't do that in our school. And you don't know that it's NOT detrimental to the other students now do you? And because this is in France you can't draw parallel's between your classroom and their's either. The ONLY way to control another countries laws IS to go to war with them. Do you honestly believe that the US will go to war with France over this???? I think NOT! And as such there ain't spit we're going to be able to do to change this! So ALL of this is a moot point. Don't get me wrong I personally think what their doing is reprehensible and dead wrong! But it's their country and their laws not ours!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Champas,
I am unaware of any muslim denomination which finds bandanas unacceptable. Indeed the French government itself is unaware of an issue here.

The wearing of the full muslim headscarf is a VOLUNTARY decision, not an act of faith. This is where I find fault with your arguement. The scarf is no more about worshipping your God than me wearing a large crucifix around my neck is. Worship is deeper than that and most importantly of all to the French worship is banned in state schools. So if you believe wearing a headscarf is a form of worship then it is right to be banned from schools under the constitution. If not, then your arguement is incorrect.

The French are not telling muslims how to worship their God. They are saying it is unacceptable to do so in schools. They are saying that if you choose to live in this country, you are welcome to live here, but you must obey all laws (unless shown to be racist). Now greater legal minds than mine have carefully examined this issue (European court of Justice) and ruled that it is not discriminatory for a government to impose secular requirements on it's schools if such is the wish of the population. So it's not racist. The muslims are totally welcome to worship outside of the state schools as befits their religion.

Now the issue of racism existing is a different matter, and without a doubt there is indeed anto muslim racism occurring in France. Recent EU reports show that it is on the increase.

Paul.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now the issue of racism existing is a different matter, and without a doubt there is indeed anto muslim racism occurring in France. Recent EU reports show that it is on the increase.


Part of the problem lies with the Muslims themselves. Have you heard any of the non-extremeist muslims making any kind of noise about the kidnappings or beheadings? No you haven't. And the rest of the world is wondering why and getting pissed off!
Reply #45 from PolMach Forums Top
Hmm...you can wear bandannas but not skullcaps. What a bunch of malarky.

Look guys, I'm not Mr. Muslim Sympathizer, and my point is clear, I'm not confusing France with the U.S. or telling other countries what to do, I've simply stated that it's crap that another democratic society is doing something the majority of the U.S. would find egregiously limiting. I don't know why any would have a problem with that opinion beside those that truly believe France is just trying to remain as secular as possible. My gripe with that position is , of course, that I don't feel a democratic government is serving it's citizens well by enforcing such limiting laws and that the only reason this is coming about is because the French don't appreciate the "overly religious" Muslims flooding in to their country. My suggestion, is, instead of legislating poor laws, fix the problem, close your doors, don't make the rest of your populace suffer for a predicament you could fix in other, better ways.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Excuse me maam, but the French are telling NO ONE how to live!"

Ok I'm a bloke for a start, and telling someone how to live between the hours of 8 and 4 is telling someone how to live in my book.

"And you don't know that it's NOT detrimental to the other students now do you?"

Can you tell me one way in which it could possibly be detrimental to another student? Nudists generally cope with the fact that the rest of us wear clothes.

"And because this is in France you can't draw parallel's between your classroom and their's either. "

So I suppose I should also be okay with other teachers caning their students even though it is illegal (here). My parallel was drawn because we were originally asked our opinions and someone said that headscarves create a barrier to communication. I am arguing that what little difference this makes to communication does not outweigh the impingement on freedom.

"Do you honestly believe that the US will go to war with France over this???? "

No, I wasn't suggesting they would. I'm against war.

"The wearing of the full muslim headscarf is a VOLUNTARY decision, not an act of faith."

Look, I'm no Islam expert but I have met Moslems who have told me that it is part of their faith to wear a head scarf. They believe that it is to control a man's desire for them and for a woman's face to be seen is to incite desire. This is not so much a question of worship, but a question of belief.

"They are saying it is unacceptable to do so in schools."

And that is something I draw issue with. Look as to this being a moot point, no opinion expressed on joeuser is exactly likely to change the world. We wouldn't have a Current Events section if we worried about that. Americans come to my blog and express their opinions about Australian politics all the time and I welcome that.

Liberty to believe in what you believe in. Equality of Rights to follow your faith (it has already been covered how this law is harsher on Muslims than Christians). Fraternity of people respecting each other's choices and beliefs. Liberte Egalite Fraternite.

"Part of the problem lies with the Muslims themselves. Have you heard any of the non-extremeist muslims making any kind of noise about the kidnappings or beheadings? No you haven't. And the rest of the world is wondering why and getting pissed off!"

Well I don't know about your news, but yes I have. Several Muslim leaders have expressed condemnation of the WTC attacks etc. But look it's not exactly great news values to report "Muslim in street who you've never heard of before doesn't think killing is such a good thing". They'd have to go around interviewing everyone in the country to check that they don't agree with killing. It is in fact an assumption we make about people who live in democratic societies that they don't agree with these sorts of actions until they actually kill someone or express a view that killing is okay. I'd say the problem lies with someone very different to the Muslims themselves.

I am aware of the EU's ruling, and I'm cautious about condemning it, but I don't agree with everything our legal systems do. In fact there are a lot of things our legal systems do that I don't agree with: Giving only 3 year sentences to repeat padeophiles. Giving out fines only for people who kill black people (about four decades ago). Allowing the news to report paedophile cases before a conviction is recorded.
I don't believe that when you don't agree with international law you simply go in and start a war anyway, but I do believe you should make your opinions known loudly and strongly. I find it interesting that the French have only just suddenly noticed the headscarves in their classrooms and suddenly took a "secular" objection. I find it interesting that certain items of worship are fine but others aren't, as Deference pointed out very well. I think the French are going too far in trying to enforce secularism. Secularist teaching and curriculum is highly desirable, but forcing your students to be secular between the hours of 8 and 4 is in my book an affront to democratic freedom,
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
but I do believe you should make your opinions known loudly and strongly. I find it interesting that the French have only just suddenly noticed the headscarves in their classrooms and suddenly took a "secular" objection. I find it interesting that certain items of worship are fine but others aren't, as Deference pointed out very well. I think the French are going too far in trying to enforce secularism. Secularist teaching and curriculum is highly desirable, but forcing your students to be secular between the hours of 8 and 4 is in my book an affront to democratic freedom,


While you and I are BOTh entitled to our seperate opinion. I don't care how loudly we voice it, I think it "highly" unlikly to change a thing!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think I'll just have to differ with you Champas and leave it like that.

Paul.