France Goes Nuts!

[Luke T.]

France Set To Bans Muslims From Wearing Headscarves In Schools (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1145206,00.html)

France now proposes to take its secularism a step further. Under legislation that yesterday passed its first stage in the French parliament, the government is seeking to ban the wearing of hijabs, or headscarves, by Muslim women attending state schools. Supporters of the ban say this is consistent with France's history of secular education. They point to the legislation's ban on other overt religious symbols, including Jewish skullcaps and crucifixes, as evidence of fairness. And they defend the ban on the grounds that it liberates women from the enforced veil of Islam.

Since the muslim women won't take off their scarves, they will be effectively isolated from mainstream society by this law.

Idiots.

[Regnad Kcin]

And they defend the ban on the grounds that it liberates women from the enforced veil of Islam.And if a woman wishes to wear a scarf?

[Zep]

The Muslim and Jewish women are apparently openly defying this stupidity JOINTLY in the street, shoulder to shoulder.

Would that the same could be done in the Middle East...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
The Muslim and Jewish women are apparently openly defying this stupidity JOINTLY in the street, shoulder to shoulder.

Would that the same could be done in the Middle East...

Amen to that.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Since the muslim women won't take off their scarves, they will be effectively isolated from mainstream society by this law.

Idiots.

Who are the idiots you refer to? The people who refuse to remove their religious symbols, or the legislators?

I am not familiar with France. How are the christian clergy, such as nuns and priests dressed? Are they going in the slammer for wearing a white collar, or a habit?

It's their country, so I guess they can make whatever laws the majority of citizens will put up with, and those who disagree can either protest or leave.

It'll be interesting to keep an eye on this, anyway.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Isn't this "news" a bit old (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32424)?

[zenith-nadir]

Woman are forbidden, in Islam, to show up her charms, therefore they have to cover up from head to toe.

Other reasons are to protect the honor, dignity, and personal safety of women in public.

It has a social role, not religious.

Middle Eastern feminists, especially those who were influenced by the West, often treat the veil as a symbol of oppression.

I guess if one was to read between the lines the veil and Hejab is suppose to stop Islamic men from lusting after a really hot babe. ;)

[kevinsbikes]

Hey, I wear ugly clothes... I sure hope that Bush doesn't get any crazy ideas from the French and try to ban my closet offerings. :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Isn't this "news" a bit old (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32424)?

No, the thread you link to is from when they proposed the law. They passed it yesterday.

[iain]

Originally posted by Badger
I am not familiar with France. How are the christian clergy, such as nuns and priests dressed? Are they going in the slammer for wearing a white collar, or a habit?As I understand it, the law only applies to children attending school. All religious symbols are included, I think, so Christian as well as Muslim.

I believe the problem the French are trying to tackle is the separation of the different ethnic groups from each other. The problem is that girls (many, though not all, of whom are forced to wear headscarves by their families) are then separated from society.

The French are very worried about muslims forming a separate sub-culture in France and not integrating. Whether this is a valid concern, or whether this rule is the best way to tackle it is another matter.

Certainly many muslim women in France support the new law.

I think people are being a little hasty in jumping around saying the French are crazy without understanding the problem they are trying to solve.

[richardm]

Originally posted by iain
As I understand it, the law only applies to children attending school.

That's right. The French have a strict separation of State and Religion. If you're in a State School, I think the argument goes, you should not be distinguishing yourself on a religious basis by wearing overt religious symbols.

[iain]

Originally posted by Luke T.
France Set To Bans Muslims From Wearing Headscarves In Schools (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1145206,00.html)



Since the muslim women won't take off their scarves, they will be effectively isolated from mainstream society by this law.

Idiots.

Metro newspaper, 11th Feb
The bill also has the support of one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam - the grand sheikh of Egypt's al-Azhar mosque. Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said Muslim women could ignore the obligation to wear a headscarf if the law where they live banned it

[Darat]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Woman are forbidden, in Islam, to show up her charms, therefore they have to cover up from head to toe.

Other reasons are to protect the honor, dignity, and personal safety of women in public.

It has a social role, not religious.

Middle Eastern feminists, especially those who were influenced by the West, often treat the veil as a symbol of oppression.

I guess if one was to read between the lines the veil and Hejab is suppose to stop Islamic men from lusting after a really hot babe. ;)

As you and Iain’s quote state this whole “covering up” issue is not a Koranic imperative, although many clerics try to say it is.

Am I against this law (if it is passed by the second chamber)? The simple answer is – no I think it is a valid law for a secular state to pass, however I also think it is a stupid law that serves no purpose.

The law is not only “aimed” at Muslims but at the religious symbols, the schools are not a private place but part of the state, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Christians can still wear whatever they like to and from school.

One question I have – does anyone know if this same principle is applied to all “state” activities, from the civil servants, to police and so on?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I guess if one was to read between the lines the veil and Hejab is suppose to stop Islamic men from lusting after a really hot babe. ;)

I knew it was the women's fault!

[iain]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


I knew it was the women's fault! You ever doubted? :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Badger


Who are the idiots you refer to? The people who refuse to remove their religious symbols, or the legislators?

The legislators.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by iain
As I understand it, the law only applies to children attending school. All religious symbols are included, I think, so Christian as well as Muslim.

The separation of church and state goes both ways. The church should not be imposing itself on the state, and the state should not be imposing itself on the church.

Someone wearing a headscarf or crucifix, or whatever, to school is in no way an establishing of religion by the state!

I believe the problem the French are trying to tackle is the separation of the different ethnic groups from each other. The problem is that girls (many, though not all, of whom are forced to wear headscarves by their families) are then separated from society.

The French are very worried about muslims forming a separate sub-culture in France and not integrating. Whether this is a valid concern, or whether this rule is the best way to tackle it is another matter.

They are not separated from society at this time. They go to the same schools as everyone else. By passing this law, they will not remove their scarves. They will go to separate schools, thereby accomplishing the very thing the state is claiming it is trying to eliminate. And that is why I call them (the legislators) idiots. They are driving the muslims right into the open arms of extremists.


Certainly many muslim women in France support the new law.

I think people are being a little hasty in jumping around saying the French are crazy without understanding the problem they are trying to solve.

Not hasty at all. The outcome is entirely predictable.

[iain]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Not hasty at all. The outcome is entirely predictable. I'm always curious about statements like this. You're not just saying that you think you are right, but that you are so obviously right that it's completely clear.

Given that the majority of French people (who, living in the country, you might think would have a reasonable grasp of the issues) disagree with you, as do most of the French politicians, are you claiming that
- you have some information that others don't.
or
- you are far more intelligent that everyone else, so you can see things they cannot.

In both cases, supplying evidence of said info/intellect would be handy.

Or, just maybe, things aren't as self-evident as you believe.

(Note : I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment, just questioning the certainty of your prediction).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by iain
I'm always curious about statements like this. You're not just saying that you think you are right, but that you are so obviously right that it's completely clear.

Given that the majority of French people (who, living in the country, you might think would have a reasonable grasp of the issues) disagree with you, as do most of the French politicians, are you claiming that
- you have some information that others don't.
or
- you are far more intelligent that everyone else, so you can see things they cannot.

In both cases, supplying evidence of said info/intellect would be handy.

Or, just maybe, things aren't as self-evident as you believe.

(Note : I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment, just questioning the certainty of your prediction).

It is obvious because anyone who knows anything about religious convictions knows that people are not going to give up their religious practices just because the law says they must. They will become polarized and remove themselves from the society which has banned their religious practices. This will be a boon to the extremists within the muslim faith.

It is particularly stupid because the state is going after kids who are going to be taught very young that the society they live in doesn't like them.

Just look at America and how many home-schooled children are members of fundamentalist religions.

[iain]

Originally posted by Luke T.


It is obvious because anyone who knows anything about religious convictions knows that people are not going to give up their religious practices just because the law says they must. They will become polarized and remove themselves from the society which has banned their religious practices. This will be a boon to the extremists within the muslim faith.

It is particularly stupid because the state is going after kids who are going to be taught very young that the society they live in doesn't like them.

Just look at America and how many home-schooled children are members of fundamentalist religions. I agree that that is one likely outcome. I don't agree that it's obviously the only outcome. It might happen that way; it might not.

An alternative outcome is : there is initially vocal opposition, but over time that dies away and people just continue much as before. Muslims get on with life, just as jews and christians do, and girls stop wearing headscarves in schools. There are a few problems, but for every girl who wants to, there is another who is happy that she is no longer forced to.

I just feel that when I've thought something political/social was so obvious to be self-evident but many people disagree with me, it's always been a sign that I don't fully understand or appreciate the issue; even when I've turned out to have been right.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by iain
I agree that that is one likely outcome. I don't agree that it's obviously the only outcome. It might happen that way; it might not.

An alternative outcome is : there is initially vocal opposition, but over time that dies away and people just continue much as before. Muslims get on with life, just as jews and christians do, and girls stop wearing headscarves in schools. There are a few problems, but for every girl who wants to, there is another who is happy that she is no longer forced to.

I just feel that when I've thought something political/social was so obvious to be self-evident but many people disagree with me, it's always been a sign that I don't fully understand or appreciate the issue; even when I've turned out to have been right.

There will be some Muslim girls who will take off their scarves and will continue to go to public schools. But there will be some who refuse and will no longer go to public schools. The end result will be that less Muslim girls will be going to public schools. That is polarization, pure and simple.

edited to add: Think about it. How will this law encourage more Muslim girls to be integrated into society? This isn't about integration, it is about assimilation. An erosion of culture, which is a direct intrusion of the state on a church.

[Darat]

Not directly on topic but this is a good summary of the French educational system that may provide some background for the debate.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-education/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=95

[bignickel]

I have not made up my mind on the issue. It certainly is alot more complex than I first thought.

On the one hand, we Americans are so used to the Bill of Rights, that we take it for granted that we should be able to express ourselves.

On the other hand: weren't we all a little peeved when that airline piloted started preaching his xtianity to a rather captive audience the other day?

We have the Bill of Rights here in the USA, so we take it for granted that we can speak or wear things that express our ideas. But remember: French law comes down from the tradition of the Napoleonic code: the people are allowed the rights that government gives them, not the other way round.

Remember: this law ONLY affects public schools. Our own public schools here in the USA have rules about what students can't wear: you think students are allowed to walk around in bikinis? What if they said that their religion demanded it?

Check out this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4106422/

Note this passage:
"We have seen tragic examples where a young Muslim student was stoned, or even burned to death, because she wasn’t wearing a veil, or fasting during the holy month of Ramadan," Kepel said. "If this continues, we are going to have a society that is utterly divided.’’

Who is oppressing who here, exactly?

How about this quote:
"Kepel said French schools have become "hunting fields" — recruiting centers for radical Islamic students who want to impose extremist views on others. "

Now, you may disagree with the accuracy of Kepel's opinion. But remember: he's there in France to observe this kind of stuff. And we're not. It may be rather obvious, but France is not the USA. Both countries have VERY differant issues that affect them based on their history and population.

The French want to remain French: they do not want to become like America, with it's constant infighting of groups ('whites', 'blacks', jews, 'asians', hispanics, et al), each trying to control differant sectors of politics, business and entertainment.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:There will be some Muslim girls who will take off their scarves and will continue to go to public schools. But there will be some who refuse and will no longer go to public schools. The end result will be that less Muslim girls will be going to public schools. That is polarization, pure and simple.Perhaps. It would depend on quite a number of factors, such as the ease with which private schools can be established and the cost to parents and whether there would be any state funding. There might also be national graduation tests which any pupil in France would need to pass, no matter whether the pupil attended a public or private school.

Plus, the time spent in school is not 24 hours per day. The pupil will still be influenced by the mores of the society he/she is in.
edited to add: Think about it. How will this law encourage more Muslim girls to be integrated into society? This isn't about integration, it is about assimilation. An erosion of culture, which is a direct intrusion of the state on a church. It is indeed about assimilation. Is there some problem with this?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Perhaps. It would depend on quite a number of factors, such as the ease with which private schools can be established and the cost to parents and whether there would be any state funding. There might also be national graduation tests which any pupil in France would need to pass, no matter whether the pupil attended a public or private school.

Lucky for us that Darat provided information about private schools. :)

It is indeed about assimilation. Is there some problem with this?

There is a right way and a wrong way to assimilate people. The right way is to teach tolerance of those who are different than us and to enact laws which prohibit discrimination, not pass laws which are discriminatory and attempt to suppress a cultural way of life.

Do you really want vanilla to be your only flavor option in life?

[pgwenthold]

I think the best part about the French law is that they have applied it to ALL religious symbols, including crosses and yamakas. At least if they wanted to ban muslim head gear, they recognized they had to ban everything religious.

Was that the plan from the beginning, or did they have to come around to eventually?

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Lucky for us that Darat provided information about private schools. :)Lucky indeed. What did his link reveal?
There is a right way and a wrong way to assimilate people. The right way is to teach tolerance of those who are different than us and to enact laws which prohibit discrimination, not pass laws which are discriminatory and attempt to suppress a cultural way of life.The right way is whatever works. And the French law doesn't discriminate anyone.
Do you really want vanilla to be your only flavor option in life? Do you really want to outlaw the concept of school uniforms?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Luke T.

There is a right way and a wrong way to assimilate people. The right way is to teach tolerance of those who are different than us and to enact laws which prohibit discrimination, not pass laws which are discriminatory and attempt to suppress a cultural way of life.

Do you really want vanilla to be your only flavor option in life?

Luke, how are you going to assimilate people who view the indigenous culture as making sluts and whores out of their daughters?

[iain]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I think the best part about the French law is that they have applied it to ALL religious symbols, including crosses and yamakas. At least if they wanted to ban muslim head gear, they recognized they had to ban everything religious.

Was that the plan from the beginning, or did they have to come around to eventually? If anything the other way round. I think that large crosses and jewish skull-caps were already banned; this law defines the muslim headscarf as a religious symbol.

[Darat]

Originally posted by iain
If anything the other way round. I think that large crosses and jewish skull-caps were already banned; this law defines the muslim headscarf as a religious symbol.

"large crosses"? I smell a hint of hypocrisy here, why any crosses if they are banned as a religious symbol? Perhaps the Muslim girls should just wear a small head covering then...?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Lucky indeed. What did his link reveal?

With respect to "the ease with which private schools can be established and the cost to parents and whether there would be any state funding" it reveals that private schools are already established and are of two types; state-funded and non-state-funded. With regard to "there might also be national graduation tests which any pupil in France would need to pass, no matter whether the pupil attended a public or private school," it depends on whether they attend a state-funded private school or a non-state-funded private school.

So there is nothing to prevent Muslim parents from yanking their kids out of public school and sending them to private school.

The right way is whatever works. And the French law doesn't discriminate anyone.

It discriminates against religious people. And alienates them.

Do you really want to outlaw the concept of school uniforms?

Vanilla people. That's what this law wants. It wants people who are different out of sight.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I think the best part about the French law is that they have applied it to ALL religious symbols, including crosses and yamakas. At least if they wanted to ban muslim head gear, they recognized they had to ban everything religious.



Have they banned Jewish boys from attending public school? After all, some poor Gentile schmuck might see a circumcised penis in the shower after gym class and freak out.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by iain
If anything the other way round. I think that large crosses and jewish skull-caps were already banned; this law defines the muslim headscarf as a religious symbol.

Going from bad to worse.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Luke, how are you going to assimilate people who view the indigenous culture as making sluts and whores out of their daughters?

If they passed a law that said your daughter had to go to school nude, how would you feel?

[Nikk]

I really don't see the problem here.

A dress code has been imposed on schoolchildren.

So what!

The more impotent religious loonies are shown to be, the better!

ed.sp.

[Luke T.]

I get the impression that some people hate it when religion interferes with the state but not the other way around. One way street.

[Luke T.]

It's unbelievable anyone could have a problem with a child wearing too much, and is trying to force them to go against their beliefs, and this will somehow make them fell any warmth toward their society. "Oh, thank you so much for making me feel naked!"

Like I said, this feeds right into the hands of the extremists.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:With respect to "the ease with which private schools can be established and the cost to parents and whether there would be any state funding" it reveals that private schools are already established and are of two types; state-funded and non-state-funded. With regard to "there might also be national graduation tests which any pupil in France would need to pass, no matter whether the pupil attended a public or private school," it depends on whether they attend a state-funded private school or a non-state-funded private school.

So there is nothing to prevent Muslim parents from yanking their kids out of public school and sending them to private school.I'll take your word for it. (I'm lazy).

The question of course remains whether a fundie couple would have ever sent their child to public school before the ban.
It discriminates against religious people. And alienates them.It discriminates no one. It sets a standard for school uniform in public schools.
Vanilla people. That's what this law wants. It wants people who are different out of sight. It wants to make sure that no child is ostrazied for the clothing they wear. This has, to my knowledge, always been the main reason for school uniforms.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:It's unbelievable anyone could have a problem with a child wearing too much, and is trying to force them to go against their beliefs, and this will somehow make them fell any warmth toward their society. "Oh, thank you so much for making me feel naked!"It is unbelievable that students in the US can't come to school naked, if they feel like it. Discrimination is everywhere.
Like I said, this feeds right into the hands of the extremists. So you say. I doubt it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It wants to make sure that no child is ostrazied for the clothing they wear. This has, to my knowledge, always been the main reason for school uniforms.

Gee, baby, now that I can see your hair, I can't even tell you are a Muslim. :rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Gee, baby, now that I can see your hair, I can't even tell you are a Muslim. :rolleyes: Did you have a point?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I get the impression that some people hate it when religion interferes with the state but not the other way around. One way street.

The bulk of muslim immigrants to France come from North Africa and especially Algeria. In total they form 10% of the population. Algeria has suffered from a a very brutal civil war between Muslim fundamentalists and government forces both of whom appear to be complete sh#ts. This leaked over into France which experienced a series of bombings in the 90's associated with this movement and some of these Islamic guys are now involved in Al Q related activities.

So, religion already has interfered with the state - violently.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nikk


The bulk of muslim immigrants to France come from North Africa and especially Algeria. In total they form 10% of the population. Algeria has suffered from a a very brutal civil war between Muslim fundamentalists and government forces both of whom appear to be complete sh#ts. This leaked over into France which experienced a series of bombings in the 90's associated with this movement and some of these Islamic guys are now involved in Al Q related activities.

So, religion already has interfered with the state - violently.

And by alienating Muslims even more, this will solve the problem how?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T. : Did you have a point?

Taking the scarf off a Muslim girl isn't going to make it any less obvious that she is a Muslim. If there is a problem with Muslim children being ostracized, then it only proves my point that assimilation needs to be about teaching tolerance of those who are different.

edited to add: And dress codes are designed so that poor students don't stick out, not different ones. You can hide someone's Muslim background in only two ways. Get rid of them, or limit their speech.

edited to fix vBull problem

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Taking the scarf off a Muslim girl isn't going to make it any less obvious that she is a Muslim. Why not?
If there is a problem with Muslim children being ostracized, then it only proves my point that assimilation needs to be about teaching tolerance of those who are different.Uhh...no it doesn't. There would be no otracisation if everyone looked equal.
edited to add: And dress codes are designed so that poor students don't stick out, not different ones. You can hide someone's Muslim background in only two ways. Get rid of them, or limit their speech. Crapola. They would look the same as everyone else. If they felt a need to expound on their parent's instillment of religion into their own heads, they are so allowed. But that would be up to themselves.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Why not?
Uhh...no it doesn't. There would be no otracisation if everyone looked equal.
Crapola. They would look the same as everyone else. If they felt a need to expound on their parent's instillment of religion into their own heads, they are so allowed. But that would be up to themselves.

You can't be serious. You think all it takes for everyone to get along is to look the same?!?!?

Have you been reading this topic? Better yet, take a walk over to the Philosophy and Religion section of this forum and spend a few minutes bathing in the anti-religious hatred there.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:You can't be serious. You think all it takes for everyone to get along is to look the same?!?!?I'm saying that children of a particular indoctrinating faith won't be forced to wear odd garments which will make them stand out.
Have you been reading this topic? Better yet, take a walk over to the Philosophy and Religion section of this forum and spend a few minutes bathing in the anti-religious hatred there. The religious or anti-religious friction is exactly the reason that this law is a superb idea.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


And by alienating Muslims even more, this will solve the problem how?

But does it alienate them? From memory 40% of muslim women support this policy. Some girls are currently pressured into wearing the scarf by males.

The battle cry of the French revolution was liberté, egalité, fraternité; where's the fraternité in religious symbols emphasising cultural differences?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Nikk
But does it alienate them? From memory 40% of muslim women support this policy. Some girls are currently pressured into wearing the scarf by males.

It's the other 60% I'm concerned with, though I support the rights of the first 40% not to wear the scarves if they don't want to.

Originally posted by Nikk
The battle cry of the French revolution was liberté, egalité, fraternité; where's the fraternité in religious symbols emphasising cultural differences?

The freedom to wear religious symbols emphasising cultural differences would be the liberté part. Being able to choose any religious symbol would be egalité. Fraternité would be the respect other French people show by allowing them to do it.

Equality and freedom are not won by forcing everyone to be the same. Equality and freedom is allowing everyone the same freedom to make choices, choices that might lead them to become different.

[DanishDynamite]

Mycroft:The freedom to wear religious symbols emphasising cultural differences would be the liberté part. Being able to choose any religious symbol would be egalité. Fraternité would be the respect other French people show by allowing them to do it.

Equality and freedom are not won by forcing everyone to be the same. Equality and freedom is allowing everyone the same freedom to make choices, choices that might lead them to become different. It is a school uniform! This is, to my knowledge, legal in the US as well as in France.

[bignickel]

I don't think I have much to add: most of my points were made in my initial post. (which seems to have slipped under the radar...)

If it helps: doing this will PROTECT muslims, Luke. Like the MSNBC article said, there have been cases where Muslims who were not wearing the headscarves were assaulted BY THEIR FELLOW MUSLIMS.

Kind of hard to attack someone for not wearing something when no one else is wearing it either.

And as was said before: this applies to ALL religions. So no, the Muslims are not being singled out.

Once again Luke: do you think it's unfair that students in the US can't attend public school wearing bikinis? If their religion demanded it?

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mycroft:It is a school uniform! This is, to my knowledge, legal in the US as well as in France.

It's legal, but in practice people are allowed to wear headscarved and yarmulkes.

Interesting irony here. When Disneyland Paris first opened, French people went ape over the fact that wearing a costume is a condition of employment.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It's the other 60% I'm concerned with, though I support the rights of the first 40% not to wear the scarves if they don't want to.

Fair point. But sometimes people need to be rescued from ignorance. There is by the way no "right" involved here, merely a desire. No one has suggested that the decision is unconstitutional


The freedom to wear religious symbols emphasising cultural differences would be the liberté part. Being able to choose any religious symbol would be egalité. Fraternité would be the respect other French people show by allowing them to do it.

Equality and freedom are not won by forcing everyone to be the same. Equality and freedom is allowing everyone the same freedom to make choices, choices that might lead them to become different.

Anti-clericalism has a long history in France and the liberty spoken of includes the liberty not to have your mind moulded into a belief in fantasies at an early age.

It is difficult to be equal if you, as a woman, are strongly influenced by a religion which does not seem to believe in your equality ( a fairly new concept for us in the West of course ).

As for fraternité my point is that, to the French, a scarf symbolises that you are setting yourself apart from the whole culture.


None of this would matter of course if France did not have a poorly integrated large Muslim minority. Immigrant religious loonies and their practices can be tolerated as long as they only impose themselves on consenting adults but when they seem to be creating an alien subculture then this is cause for concern.

Whether this is the "right" decision is impossible to say but I don't see that anyone's "rights" are threatened.

[ingoa]

I am totally in favour of the ban, which is actually almost as old as the French revolution.

In France church and state are strictly separated (laicite). In public institutions that are state funded no prominent religious symbols are allowed.

Why? If you are a pupil or a student, you are just that. The French do not want to seperate people on the grounds of religion or politics. Thus teachers are also not allowed to wear these things either. What you do after school thats your own matter, but within school grounds it's not.

You wouldn't believe how much this touches the core of the self-image of the French. I also didn't initially, being myself a German.

As for the Muslim girls. Currently fundamentalistic Islam is growing in the sub-urbs. This forces the girls to comply to the dressing rules of their faith (actually of the faith of the extremists). School becomes more and more a place where young Muslim ladies can evade these pressures. The French will not accept that peoples faith is forced into schools. Well, one could say that "laicite" is forced onto the Muslims by that. But that's how the French have made their laws. Treat everybody equal. A nun in her habitat (sp?) will not be able to teach in a state funded school. Without it she will.

I believe it is highly misleading to see a veil as an expression of faith by the girls. Ten years ago veils were no issue. They were barely seen anywhere.

Last week I saw a TV-feature on ARTE (joint German-French TV) about the suburbs in Paris. Quite impressive....

The girls (15-17 years old) complained of being forced to wear veils. Otherwise they are threatened, beaten up, raped or even worse. Look here (http://in.news.yahoo.com/030226/137/21jt1.html) or here (http://www.****france.com/read.html?postid=404873&replies=3) .

There were also interviews with guys. The youger ones (15-20 years old) didn't want to be interviewed. But there were several 30 year old men. The vast majority of them (I know it is not representative) stated that this has been a very recent development. One guy stated that he is in favour of banning veils in school because it is the only time that the girls can be girls.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If they passed a law that said your daughter had to go to school nude, how would you feel?

Firstly, thats ridiculous.

Secondly, I wouldnt go to a country in which children go to school naked in the first goddam motherfecking case!

Thridly, even if I did go to a country were children go to school naked I would take care to send my child to a private school were she didnt have to be naked or Id leave the goddam mother fecking country and feck off home!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bignickel
I don't think I have much to add: most of my points were made in my initial post. (which seems to have slipped under the radar...)

If it helps: doing this will PROTECT muslims, Luke. Like the MSNBC article said, there have been cases where Muslims who were not wearing the headscarves were assaulted BY THEIR FELLOW MUSLIMS.

Kind of hard to attack someone for not wearing something when no one else is wearing it either.

This law will not solve that problem. When they go home, they will put the scarves back on. And if there are girls who are not wearing them and being attacked for it, those attacks will now take place outside the view of the public.

Once again Luke: do you think it's unfair that students in the US can't attend public school wearing bikinis? If their religion demanded it?

But you see, here we have a problem of the state thinking the girls are wearing TOO MUCH! To the Muslims, it is as if you were being told your daughter had to go to school in a bikini and wasn't allowed to wear pants.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nikk
Fair point. But sometimes people need to be rescued from ignorance. There is by the way no "right" involved here, merely a desire. No one has suggested that the decision is unconstitutional

"Rescued from ignorance?" And you are the expert on who needs to be rescued?

Some Muslims think you are ignorant and should be "rescued" and made to dress in an offensive manner to you. How would that make you feel?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mycroft:It is a school uniform! This is, to my knowledge, legal in the US as well as in France.

Students are not banned from wearing religious symbols in our schools. They can wear a crucifix, or star of David, or yamulke, or headscarf, or the colorful knit hat some American Muslims like to wear, or whatever.

Where there are school uniform policies, it only relates to the color of their pants and shirts. For girls, there may be a limit put on how short their skirts can be. And there is the usual policy about foul language on a T-shirt in most places.

[Pad]

Well, being French myself, I'll try to explain a few details in my miserable english (which gets worse and worse every day :D). I hope you will understand a few sentences however...

Some fundamentalist groups are tying to test the resistance of the French Republic. More and more male students (or employees) refuse to take oral exams (or punishments) from women. Some women get certificates (produced to oblige them) which allow them not being at certain lessons, such as biology, civics, sexual and physical education... In public hospitals, some men refuse to allow their wives to be examined by male doctors, and corridors are used as prayer rooms. People try to gather in accordance with their religion. Religious frictions are threatening in french suburbs.

You have to understand that the French want to be a united people. They fear becoming a juxtaposition of foreign communities without common identity.

Most of the french politicians were initially against such a law. A commission headed by Bernard Stasi, after 6 months of study and 120 hearings that collected testimony from all concerned people, made a big report about those issues. The commission members, who were initially against the law too, all changed their mind after their inquiry. In addition, some parliamentary reports were made : they came to the same conclusions. The French Republic is in danger.

More and more women are forced to war veils. That's why 49% of the french muslim women agree with this law (while 43% disagree). They want to be free at least in one place : the free secular public school. The French wants misogyny to keep outside the schools.

They also think that public school has to transcend ethnic, religious and politic determinism, in order to make from each pupil a free french citizen. Religious influences must not enter the school. Of course, liberty of religion is guaranteed, but religion must not be a factor of division or segregation.

Wearing a veil is a voluntary separation from other pupils. It's the sign that you asser your identity, that your beliefs come first. But school, according to the French, isn't a place where you should assert your identity with conspicuous symbols. It's a place where you are supposed to receive culture and education. The teacher wants to teach to pupils, not to followers, nor to living religious emblems. Conspicuous symbols creates a harmful climate, in which religious assertions interfere with secular education. It's no good for a serene education. Wearing a veil is like wearing a flag on your head. It's disturbing.

By the way, at school you have to remove your cap, your hat, and anything that covers your head. Of course, those women say that they feel naked. But what will you answer if one day they demand to wear a burka at school ? Moreover, they have to swim for physical education anyway, and they won't be able to swim with their clothes... But they actually get false medical certificates...

[Luke T.]

Pad, I am glad we finally have a Frenchman on here. Most other European countries have been represented for some time, but France seems to have been noticeably absent. Maybe you can do something about all the Danes...

:D

Anyway, I think what France is experiencing is what any country that has a sudden, large influx of immigrants experiences. Culture shock.

In America, we have experienced at least three such periods. The Irish immigration, the freeing of the slaves, and the Mexican immigration. Each era was accompanied with a lot of problems.

We made a lot of mistakes, but we got through it.

I don't see why a headscarf is distracting. I can see where proselytyzing would be.

We have quite a few muslims here in the U.S., and they wear the scarves. They look rather exotic, but they don't distract me to the point where I forget what I came to the grocery store for. And I would think the mulim girls' fellow students would get accustomed to the sight.

Your problems have nothing to do with the scarves, and won't even be begun to be solved by banning them.

Those girls who are happy to take them off at school will still have to put them back on the second they leave school property.

I just don't see what good this law will do. It's like putting a band-aid on your knee for a gunshot wound to the chest.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pad
Well, being French myself, I'll try to explain a few details in my miserable english (which gets worse and worse every day :D). I hope you will understand a few sentences however...

Some fundamentalist groups are tying to test the resistance of the French Republic. More and more male students (or employees) refuse to take oral exams (or punishments) from women. Some women get certificates (produced to oblige them) which allow them not being at certain lessons, such as biology, civics, sexual and physical education... In public hospitals, some men refuse to allow their wives to be examined by male doctors, and corridors are used as prayer rooms. People try to gather in accordance with their religion. Religious frictions are threatening in french suburbs.

You have to understand that the French want to be a united people. They fear becoming a juxtaposition of foreign communities without common identity.

Most of the french politicians were initially against such a law. A commission headed by Bernard Stasi, after 6 months of study and 120 hearings that collected testimony from all concerned people, made a big report about those issues. The commission members, who were initially against the law too, all changed their mind after their inquiry. In addition, some parliamentary reports were made : they came to the same conclusions. The French Republic is in danger.

More and more women are forced to war veils. That's why 49% of the french muslim women agree with this law (while 43% disagree). They want to be free at least in one place : the free secular public school. The French wants misogyny to keep outside the schools.

They also think that public school has to transcend ethnic, religious and politic determinism, in order to make from each pupil a free french citizen. Religious influences must not enter the school. Of course, liberty of religion is guaranteed, but religion must not be a factor of division or segregation.

Wearing a veil is a voluntary separation from other pupils. It's the sign that you asser your identity, that your beliefs come first. But school, according to the French, isn't a place where you should assert your identity with conspicuous symbols. It's a place where you are supposed to receive culture and education. The teacher wants to teach to pupils, not to followers, nor to living religious emblems. Conspicuous symbols creates a harmful climate, in which religious assertions interfere with secular education. It's no good for a serene education. Wearing a veil is like wearing a flag on your head. It's disturbing.

By the way, at school you have to remove your cap, your hat, and anything that covers your head. Of course, those women say that they feel naked. But what will you answer if one day they demand to wear a burka at school ? Moreover, they have to swim for physical education anyway, and they won't be able to swim with their clothes... But they actually get false medical certificates...


I understand and sympathize with the problem, but this "solution" seems to be more like and act of desperation than a viable solution. How will banning headscarves and limiting free speech solve those problems?

[Pad]

Hi,

Originally posted by Luke T.

Pad, I am glad we finally have a Frenchman on here. Most other European countries have been represented for some time, but France seems to have been noticeably absent.:D Unfortunately, my English prevents me from discussing seriously (I have to spend a lot of time to write messages)... I just wanted to express a point of vue which is rather representative in France.
The major part of the French support the scarf ban -often for different reasons : women protection, "laïcité", fight against fundamentalism-, but a considerable part of them disagree as well (the debate was passionnate). IMO, both opinions are respectable.
Almost all politicians are in favour of the ban.

We have quite a few muslims here in the U.S., and they wear the scarves. They look rather exotic, but they don't distract me to the point where I forget what I came to the grocery store for. But nothing ever prevented them from wearing scarves at the grocery store, you know...

Your problems have nothing to do with the scarves, and won't even be begun to be solved by banning them.Of course the scarf ban is far from solving every problem, and unfortunately the French are likeky to forget the other responses (the commission made a lot of propositions in order to favour integration and to fight against discriminations).
But it's a means of telling the fundamentalists that religion is a private matter, that public school is (and will remain) secular, that the Republic won't yield to their demands.

Thousands of fundamentalists demonstrated against the law, shouted some beautiful anti-semitic and anti-french slogans (claiming that Chirac=porn=Sharon=Jews=French Republic=Hitler)... If the law was withdrawn, it would be a disaster, for the Republic would have despicably bowed before them. They would believe that they are the strongest...

Those girls who are happy to take them off at school will still have to put them back on the second they leave school property.If they can take them off at school, education will become much serene. Fundamentalist and misogynous pressures will not be present at school, they will not interfere with school education. School is a place where pupils have to learn to live together. They are regarded as future citizens. School is not a place where you can enjoy your liberties first (contrary to a grocery store !), it's a place where you can build up your liberties. Now, when a pupil sees religious -an misogynous- emblems on other pupils' heads, he is subjected to a system. For many French, such an influence, in such a place, is not acceptable.

Originally posted by Luke T.

I understand and sympathize with the problemI'm glad! Those who think France is becoming facist didn't try to understand anything.

I forgot to add that more and more pupils refuse to study some history lessons (about the Holocaust, or judaïsm,...) and some writers. Some muslim teachers voluntarily don't speak of other religions than islam...

All those issues are connected. The muslim scarf has always been banned by school directors. 20 years ago, nobody wanted to wear it (not even the muslim girls!). There was a general consensus. But for a few years, fundamentalism has grown, pressures have become so deep that nothing but a law could save the neutrality of the school space.

[Pad]

I would like to add :

France is home to the biggest muslim and jewish communities in Europe. Now, school is the only place where everybody learns to live together, beyond religious faith. Since conspicuous symbols divide the pupils (faithful/infidel, men/women, muslims/jews/christians/atheists/...), they are not necessarily welcome there...

[Pad]

Originally posted by Tony

I understand and sympathize with the problem, but this "solution" seems to be more like and act of desperation than a viable solution. How will banning headscarves and limiting free speech solve those problems?As I said, it won't solve those problems, but not doing it would be worse still. Actually, scarves are already banned.

Banning them isn't a limitation of free speech. When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation...;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pad

When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation...;)

But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.

[bignickel]

I would once again like to point out that France is NOT like the USA.

Until you've been to France, you will not fully appreciate the issue. I was there only a week, but I could see in a few days the differance between French and American society.

French society is not like American society: they are French first, ethnic second, class third.

This is very differant from America, which is ethnic first, class second, and American third.

Until you go to France you will not appreciate this. What will startle most Americans who pay attention is how well blacks are integrated into French society. This was a big eye-opener for me. They were sprinkled in to every crowd, just like everyone else of non-gallic origin.

That's when I realized what America was: it is full of ethnic groups (who call themselves American) fighting amonst themselves for power in business, politics, and entertainment.

The French do not want themselves to become that. The fundamentalists in France are driving things that way. Since when do members of the JREF cowtow to fundamentalists?

In my home state of Missouri, the fundamentalists are trying to get 'Intelligent' Design into our public schools. This is completely unacceptable. Who the heck are we to insist the French let religion into their schools as well?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


"Rescued from ignorance?" And you are the expert on who needs to be rescued?

I think a belief in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic god, in the terms they are normally presented, is ignorant nonsense. One does not need to be an expert to see this. The French state respects the right of muslims to practise their faith but is under no moral compulsion to permit this nonsense to interfere with social stability.


Some Muslims think you are ignorant and should be "rescued" and made to dress in an offensive manner to you. How would that make you feel?

In their own countries they can impose whatever rules they want. If they offend me I won't bother to go there.

As citizens of France they can attempt to enlist public support for their viewpoints like any other group of citizens.



There is a wider question here of the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into a particular society. My feeling is that if you emigrate to a country with a radically different and homogenous culture you have no reason whatever to expect that culture to adapt itself to your own ethnic peculiarities.

Immigrants to France who embrace its culture are generally welcomed and I am afraid I have little sympathy for immigrants who want the benefits of western society but are not prepared to pay the price of acceptance i.e. to adapt their culture and religion to the new environment.

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:It's legal, but in practice people are allowed to wear headscarved and yarmulkes.But why are the followers of my Church Of Buttnakedness then not likewise accomodated? :)

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Students are not banned from wearing religious symbols in our schools. They can wear a crucifix, or star of David, or yamulke, or headscarf, or the colorful knit hat some American Muslims like to wear, or whatever. Can my fellow Buttnakeders ophold their vows to always be without clothes? Why not?
Where there are school uniform policies, it only relates to the color of their pants and shirts. For girls, there may be a limit put on how short their skirts can be. And there is the usual policy about foul language on a T-shirt in most places. So, the type of discrimination is just different.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Pad, I am glad we finally have a Frenchman on here. Most other European countries have been represented for some time, but France seems to have been noticeably absent. Maybe you can do something about all the Danes...

:DAnd while you're fixing the problem with the Danes, could you have a look at the Americans as well? Thanks. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nikk


There is a wider question here of the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into a particular society. My feeling is that if you emigrate to a country with a radically different and homogenous culture you have no reason whatever to expect that culture to adapt itself to your own ethnic peculiarities.

Immigrants to France who embrace its culture are generally welcomed and I am afraid I have little sympathy for immigrants who want the benefits of western society but are not prepared to pay the price of acceptance i.e. to adapt their culture and religion to the new environment.

It is also worth noting that about the only place where this is not the case is in the US, where the concept of freedom allows one to maintain their own cultural ways (for a large extent). However, this is really only a recent phenomenon (great american melting pot and all that) and is still met with substantial resistence (english as an official national language, for example).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Can my fellow Buttnakeders ophold their vows to always be without clothes? Why not?

Buttnakeders want to wear less clothes, not more.

So, the type of discrimination is just different.

The clothes are for uniformity, which I thought you were for. The dress lengths are a discrimination against skin, I guess. :)

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:Buttnakeders want to wear less clothes, not more.Indeed. Can they do so?
The clothes are for uniformity, which I thought you were for. The dress lengths are a discrimination against skin, I guess. :) My point is that rules for school uniforms in the US prohibit some types of clothing. Rules in France prohibit another type. What pray tell is the difference?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Indeed. Can they do so?

Noooooooo.

My point is that rules for school uniforms in the US prohibit some types of clothing. Rules in France prohibit another type. What pray tell is the difference?

The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons.

As has been stated: the rules in France are for SECULAR reasons too.

It just that they are being more SECULAR about their public schools than we are.

Remember Luke: they come from country whose basis of law is the Napoleonic code: the rights of the people come from the state.

If you would like to persuade them to switch over to our model (state gets it's rights from the people), then go for it. The Bill of Rights is a pretty neat document, if redundant, and the more countries that have it, the better, I figure.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


It is also worth noting that about the only place where this is not the case is in the US, where the concept of freedom allows one to maintain their own cultural ways (for a large extent). However, this is really only a recent phenomenon (great american melting pot and all that) and is still met with substantial resistence (english as an official national language, for example).

But is that really true? Are immigrant's "cultural ways" very different and do they maintain them to any large degree?

To you as a native there will be all sorts of subtle differences between groups that a foreigner will find insigificant. The vast majority of immigrants seem to integrate quite well and are largely assimilated within three generations. They may retain some cultural quirks, distinctive foods and a romantic attachment to the old country but that hardly constitutes a separate culture.

This seems comparable to the UK where there are significant differences between England, Scotland and Wales but not enough to constitute distinctive cultures by most standards.

France has a muslim minority of about 10%. I really wonder how the US would cope with 28 million muslims, many of whom have made it clear that they substantially reject your values, both secular and religous and a tiny minority of whom are conspiring to commit atrocities on your territory.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bignickel
Until you've been to France, you will not fully appreciate the issue. I was there only a week, but I could see in a few days the differance between French and American society.

I've been to France. Long enough to realize the crew of my ship could take over the northern part of the country during the summer and the French wouldn't notice for, like, a month. They are all on vacation then. We could have built half a million condos and colonized the place in that time. It would have been Texas and Mexico all over again. Something to keep in mind if we ever get short of space.

:D

Maybe that's what the Muslims did. The French all came home one September morning and found they had lost their country to them.

I did my part to help maintain the popular image of the Ugly American. I asked the maitre d' of a fancy sidewalk cafe where the nearest McDonald's was. He slapped his forehead so hard in anger he left a dent!

:D

Hey, Pad, don't worry about your English. It is way better than my French. The only French word I know is "taxi." ;)

[Flo]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons. $


(Another French here.)

No, the rules in France are for political reasons. The brouhaha about the scarf and respect of "laïcité" has not much to do with religion.

What the muslim fundamentalists are trying to do is to make sure integration cannot take place, first by making sure the part of the immigrants who traditionnally are doing better at school and at integration into the French society, women, will be prevented to do so.

Their second goal is to make the French (and other occidental governments) yield to them its authority on civil matters when it concerns muslims, for example by closing its eyes on blatant discriminations against women, like categorising girls into "good scarf wearing muslims" and "sluts" (and I can tell you it is open season on the latter in some areas where the fundamentalists are allowed to rule), and making sure women won't have the same opportunities than men.

The message of the law is that this is unnacceptable, especially given the fact that those fundamentalists are for the most part not originary from the usual immigration countries, and try to establish rules that are not prevalent in the countries of origin of most immigrants to France for the last century.

The error of the law lies in the fact that the legislators didn't call a spade a spade, and let religion slip into the reflexion (especially because the Catholic church is trying to reassert as much influence as it can in society these times).

Nevertheless, I think, like Pad, that this law is necessary and cannot be reversed short of conceding a victory to a bunch of clear ennemies of free speech.

I've been to France. Long enough to realize the crew of my ship could take over the northern part of the country during the summer and the French wouldn't notice for, like, a month. They are all on vacation then. We could have built half a million condos and colonized the place in that time. It would have been Texas and Mexico all over again. Something to keep in mind if we ever get short of space.

That's what YOU think ! You would have been drunk on all the Calvados, Gnôle and assorted alcohols we hide in our cellars, and almost dying from food poisonning through eating all the strange organs we keep in our larders by the time we returned from vacations ! :D

[Pad]

Originally posted by bignickel
Remember Luke: they come from country whose basis of law is the Napoleonic code: the rights of the people come from the state.I don't understand this assertion, although I've read it many times... I think it's a misconception. Nobody is the sovereign of France but the French people (the principle of the Republic is : "government of the people, by the people and for the people"). The state belongs to the French. Therefore, the rights that come from the state come from the people too. The French constitution begins as follows :

PREAMBLE

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.

By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

Article 1

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.

TITLE I - ON SOVEREIGNTY

Article 2

The language of the Republic shall be French.
The national emblem shall be the blue, white and red tricolour flag.
The national anthem shall be La Marseillaise.
The motto of the Republic shall be " Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ".
Its principle shall be : government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Article 3

National sovereignty shall belong to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.

No section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.

Suffrage may be direct or indirect as provided by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal and secret.

All French citizens of either sex who have reached their majority and are in possession of their civil and political rights may vote as provided by statute.

Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and positions.

Article 4

Political parties and groups shall contribute to the exercise of suffrage. They shall be formed and carry on their activities freely. They must respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy.

They shall contribute to the implementation of the principle set out in the last paragraph of article 3 as provided by statute.The difference is, that the French conception of liberty is not exactly the same as the American one. In France, when free speech threaten human rights, it is accepted to be limited.

Originally posted by Tony
Originally posted by Pad

When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation... But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.If a national-socialist teacher wants to militate in favour of nazism at school and isn't allowed to, is it free speech limitation ?

Scarf is like a flag, like a noise, and school is not a place for proselytism. School is not a place for political demonstrations. It must be a place safe from religious and political influences. One can wear religious symbol at school, provided that they aren't conspicuous.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Pad
But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.If a national-socialist teacher wants to militate in favour of nazism at school and isn't allowed to, is it free speech limitation ?

Scarf is like a flag, like a noise, and school is not a place for proselytism. School is not a place for political demonstrations. It must be a place safe from religious and political influences. One can wear religious symbol at school, provided that they aren't conspicuous. [/QUOTE]

Well, I said earlier in this topic that the only way France can solve their problem with Muslims is not by banning scarves, but by either removing the Muslims from their sight or by restricting their speech.

That is the way we do it in America. Kids can wear their crucifixes and headscarves, but they can't corner other kids in the hallways and try to recruit them into their religion.

As for Muslims persecuting other Muslims, banning headscarves won't solve that problem either. In fact, it will only drive the problem underground out of sight.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Pad
I don't understand this assertion, although I've read it many times... I think it's a misconception. Nobody is the sovereign of France but the French people (the principle of the Republic is : "government of the people, by the people and for the people"). The state belongs to the French. Therefore, the rights that come from the state come from the people too. The French constitution begins as follows

Well, as Rick said in 'Casablanca', "Well, I was misinformed."

The difference is, that the French conception of liberty is not exactly the same as the American one. In France, when free speech threaten human rights, it is accepted to be limited.

I was going to point out that the third sentence on Article 1 and first sentence of Article 2 seemed to contradict each other, but it looks like you beat me to it.

On the other hand: this is a public education issue, not a constitutional issue. With Luke's example of students cornering others and proselytizng to them: the French recognize displaying your religious affiliation as the same thing.

'Do it on your free time, not on mine' seems like a reasonable request by the people who are educating French students.

[ehobbs]

Originally posted by iain
If anything the other way round. I think that large crosses and jewish skull-caps were already banned; this law defines the muslim headscarf as a religious symbol.

What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?

Ed

[Flo]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, I said earlier in this topic that the only way France can solve their problem with Muslims is not by banning scarves, but by either removing the Muslims from their sight or by restricting their speech.

You don't understand the problem and the context. Outside of some racist nuts, nobody in France want the Muslims out or silent. What is wanted is Muslims in, free to practice their religion, but to the extent that it respects the common law. When the religious practices advocated imply discriminatory practices against a part of the population, they cannot be accepted in state-funded institutions.

That is the way we do it in America. Kids can wear their crucifixes and headscarves, but they can't corner other kids in the hallways and try to recruit them into their religion.

And that would be the way everybody wish it could be done, if it was only a religious problem instead of a purely politic one. I'm afraid that none of the fundamentalists who advocate headscarves or (pretend to) wear it "voluntarily" would abide by that kind of rule. The law is the direct result of the increased political demands of a tiny fraction of muslim immigrants in France. Girls, the scarf, and so called attacks against religious freedom have been instrumentalised by a minority with a purely political and rather nasty agenda: making sure there cannot be any integration of the muslim population and thus maintaining a reservoir of recruits for "jihads" to come.

As for Muslims persecuting other Muslims, banning headscarves won't solve that problem either. In fact, it will only drive the problem underground out of sight.


Sure, let them eat themselves and wash our hands of the mess ...

[Flo]

Originally posted by ehobbs


What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?

Ed


It used to be that wearing a scarf was only a fashion statement. Thanks to muslim fundamentalists, wearing a scarf has become a militant/religious statement , and there is less freedom for all as a result, which is the goal of all fanatics everywhere :(

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Flo

You don't understand the problem and the context. Outside of some racist nuts, nobody in France want the Muslims out or silent. What is wanted is Muslims in, free to practice their religion, but to the extent that it respects the common law. When the religious practices advocated imply discriminatory practices against a part of the population, they cannot be accepted in state-funded institutions.

We are having a similar phenomenon occurring in the States right now on the issue of gay marriage. Most Americans do not want gays to be able to be "married," but many are willing to accept "civil unions." The gay minority wants "marriage" because that would entitle them to the same tax breaks, inheritance laws, and so on, that heterosexuals get. The friction has built up between the minority and the majority to the point that there is now a growing movement to actually amend our Constitution to prevent gay marriages. Ridiculous. That trivializes our Constitution and will not solve the problem, either.


And that would be the way everybody wish it could be done, if it was only a religious problem instead of a purely politic one. I'm afraid that none of the fundamentalists who advocate headscarves or (pretend to) wear it "voluntarily" would abide by that kind of rule. The law is the direct result of the increased political demands of a tiny fraction of muslim immigrants in France. Girls, the scarf, and so called attacks against religious freedom have been instrumentalised by a minority with a purely political and rather nasty agenda: making sure there cannot be any integration of the muslim population and thus maintaining a reservoir of recruits for "jihads" to come.


The Polarization Effect. I started a topic by that name in the Community section of this forum.

Sure, let them eat themselves and wash our hands of the mess ...

This scarf law will do just that. That's what I am saying. I am not advocating you wash your hands of them, I am saying that is what the law will bring about. Polarization.

The law is concentrating on the symbol of the problem, and not the problem.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Where there are school uniform policies, it only relates to the color of their pants and shirts. For girls, there may be a limit put on how short their skirts can be. And there is the usual policy about foul language on a T-shirt in most places.

Not quite true.

I recently found out that Leon Country school dress codes do ban hats, bandannas, and sweat bands. The ostensible reason is from way back when bandannas and baseball caps worn sideways were symbols of gang membership.

Exceptions are made for skullcaps and headscarves.

[Pad]

Originally posted by bignickel

On the other hand: this is a public education issue, not a constitutional issue. With Luke's example of students cornering others and proselytizng to them: the French recognize displaying your religious affiliation as the same thing.You're absolutely right.

Originally posted by ehobbs

What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?If her headscarf is just a fashion accessory, she has to take it off (like she would take off her cap...)

Originally posted by Luke T.

The law is concentrating on the symbol of the problem, and not the problem.A symbol, in a school, is important. I would not like seeing swastikas in the classrooms...;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pad
If a national-socialist teacher wants to militate in favour of nazism at school and isn't allowed to, is it free speech limitation ?


Yes.

[Pad]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes.
...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Pad

...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

That's a strange assertion.

It is, clearly, a free-speech limitation. That one may not like it does not magically make it not a free-speech limitation.

There exist many free-speech limitations; the most obvious is copyright law.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pad

...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony


Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs?

That's an interesting question, I think you should start a thread on this topic.

[bignickel]

Pretty easy to address Nazi teachers, Tony.

How about tackling the one about students wearing swastika armbands?

DOES a school have the right to have some control over the environment that students are learning in?

If not: Was "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" a large influence on you growing up. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by bignickel


How about tackling the one about students wearing swastika armbands?



I dont have a problem with it. As long as they are peaceful.

DOES a school have the right to have some control over the environment that students are learning in?

They have the right and responsibility to maintain the peace and ensure the free exchange of ideas.

If not: Was "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" a large influence on you growing up. :)

Never seen it. Before my time.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony

Never seen it. Before my time.

You are missing one of the best slow motion pool fantasy scenes ever filmed :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You are missing one of the best slow motion pool fantasy scenes ever filmed :)

I think I’ve seen a few shots of it in various places. Is that the one with the girl in the red bikini?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony


I think I’ve seen a few shots of it in various places. Is that the one with the girl in the red bikini?

Yup

[Luke T.]

And here we are, learning about France, eating pizza. ;)

[bignickel]

I was referring more to the classic scene where Spicoli gets a pizza delivered to him in class.

Ray Walston's response to that is what we're debating here, folks.

I would submit that when it comes to blackshirts marching in French schools (again):

"I dont have a problem with it. As long as they are peaceful."

and

"They have the right and responsibility to maintain the peace"

are going to contradict themselves. By default.


If you can't see that, I recommend Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and "Collapse of the Fourth Republic."

[Pad]

Originally posted by Tony


Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs? No matter whether a prof is nazi or not. I was asking : would you agree to profs militating in favour of nazism inside the classroom?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Luke T.


We are having a similar phenomenon occurring in the States right now on the issue of gay marriage ....


Wrong analogy. And there is a debate about gay marriage in Europe too. The scarf problem is a political tool for religious nuts who want to takeover schools, just as introducing creationism in school curriculum is in your country.

I'm pretty sure that there won't be much or a fight over the scarf law, especially given the fact that most muslims in France are in favor. We'll hear and read a lot of screaming and whining from extremists for a while, and it'll all die down, if only because the actual number of those ready to fight is really, really small (the last demonstration in Paris gathered around 1000 people).

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Flo


I'm pretty sure that there won't be much or a fight over the scarf law, especially given the fact that most muslims in France are in favor. We'll hear and read a lot of screaming and whining from extremists for a while, and it'll all die down, if only because the actual number of those ready to fight is really, really small (the last demonstration in Paris gathered around 1000 people).

I'm glad to hear it. I think this law gives the girls who are forced to wear the scarf a chance to be the same as the other kids for a while. I think it will give a chance for fro the families who might be sitting on the fence over whether or not to support extremists an excuse to back off a bit.

I think that France is actually implimenting a separation of church and state, something that Canada and the States don't have the guts to do.

And Luke, you'll notice that I'm stating my opinions as opinions, not as absolutes. America is a fantastic country, but does not have the best solution for every situation. Maybe check out what happens, and in a few years you can start a "where France went wrong" thread, or possibly a "Let's ban religous symbols in schools" thread.


originally posted by Luke
We have quite a few muslims here in the U.S., and they wear the scarves. They look rather exotic, but they don't distract me to the point where I forget what I came to the grocery store for. And I would think the mulim girls' fellow students would get accustomed to the sight.

Schools aren't grocery stores. Have you forgotten how much importance is attached by the students to what is worn in schools? How much it declares what crowd you're with? France is implimenting a practical solution to an ideological problem.

I really think that the deepest you've got into the roots of the law is from what you've read from the French member's posts. It's something that is (sadly) seen as a sterotypical American attitude, projecting American values onto foreign situations.

If it was a basic human right, I might agree. But if it's an issue of "We do it in the States, so it's wrong for them to do it differently", I'd say, watch and learn. Learn what to try, or what to avoid.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Uhh...no it doesn't. There would be no otracisation if everyone looked equal.


How silly.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Flo


You don't understand the problem and the context. Outside of some racist nuts, nobody in France want the Muslims out or silent.

Out of curiosity, to what extent do you think French people will allow for a change in their culture? The same question certainly applies to the US.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:How silly. How droll.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Ed


Out of curiosity, to what extent do you think French people will allow for a change in their culture? The same question certainly applies to the US.


You've partly answered your own question: No culture priding itself on being homogeneous (a total delusion) wants to see such an ocean of perfection changed in any way, nor will it admit having been influenced by migrants, especially poor, illiterate and holding false beliefs ;)

Seriously, what kind of a change on what aspects of our culture are you referring to ?

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed:How droll.

How Long is a Chinese science fiction author.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm going to watch with interest and see what actually happens in France over this issue.
In Scotland, we have separate schools (state funded), for Roman Catholic children. As a result, the bigotry which is a major curse here, has been propagated into an era when religion should have been a dead issue. (At least to judge by church attendance figures).

Separate schools meant separate lives, uniforms, social activities, everything. And it seemed to be sanctioned by officialdom. There was an actual recognition at local government level that I and the kid across the street were fundamentally different.

Crazy. Stone age thinking.

Now, as immigrant population increases, appeals are being made for Islamic schools, Jewish schools, Sikh schools- all state funded. To me we have a choice of further compounding a stupid mistake, or of doing away with all divisive ethnic/ religious schooling. I know which I would choose.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Now, as immigrant population increases, appeals are being made for Islamic schools, Jewish schools, Sikh schools- all state funded. To me we have a choice of further compounding a stupid mistake, or of doing away with all divisive ethnic/ religious schooling. I know which I would choose.

We sassenaches already have to put up with this bollocks. State funded faith schools Dear Ed! Its just populist politiking- get the vote of the 'traditionalist' religious wankers. Get elected and damn the consequences. :mad:

The political situation is so frustrating. No hope of seeing a decent government for at least a decade.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The political situation is so frustrating. No hope of seeing a decent government for at least a decade.


Lucky you ! I don't expect anything of the sort in France for at least the next 3 generations.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Flo



Wrong analogy. And there is a debate about gay marriage in Europe too. The scarf problem is a political tool for religious nuts who want to takeover schools, just as introducing creationism in school curriculum is in your country.

I think you may have misunderstood why I brought up the gay marriage issue.

Because the gay minority has pushed so hard for gay marriage, they have prompted the straight majority to push back and have cause the issue of an actual Constitutional amendment to ban it. So it is analogous because the Muslim extremists have caused the French to push back by banning head scarves. Stupidity all around.

I'm pretty sure that there won't be much or a fight over the scarf law, especially given the fact that most muslims in France are in favor. We'll hear and read a lot of screaming and whining from extremists for a while, and it'll all die down, if only because the actual number of those ready to fight is really, really small (the last demonstration in Paris gathered around 1000 people).

While the extremists are whining, they will also be gaining more recruits. Their extremism prompted this law, and this law will prompt more extremism. Round and round. Somebody should hav broken the chain by not responding to the other side's extremism. That is where I think the French have gone wrong.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tesserat
And Luke, you'll notice that I'm stating my opinions as opinions, not as absolutes. America is a fantastic country, but does not have the best solution for every situation. Maybe check out what happens, and in a few years you can start a "where France went wrong" thread, or possibly a "Let's ban religous symbols in schools" thread.

I am quite certain that everything that works in America will not work everywhere. Just as I am certain that everything that works elsewhere will not work in America. But there are certain truths which will work anywhere.

Schools aren't grocery stores. Have you forgotten how much importance is attached by the students to what is worn in schools? How much it declares what crowd you're with? France is implimenting a practical solution to an ideological problem.

The only reason these scarves have reached such importance is because they allowed it to. I am sure that if head scarves were made a big deal, and discussion begun on banning them, they would suddenly take on a very noticeable importance in our schools, and a palpable political element would be introduced amongst our students.