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

Published on September 8, 2004 By Deference In Politics

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

Comments (Page 3)

drmiler

on Sep 15, 2004

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 b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation

Which means ALL religons should "not" have openly displayed items in "public" schools! And once again this AIN'T America we're talking about, it's France! And our views of this are obviously not theirs!

Deference

on Sep 15, 2004

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?

drmiler

on Sep 15, 2004

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!

Deference

on Sep 15, 2004

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.

stevendedalus

on Sep 15, 2004

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!

drmiler

on Sep 15, 2004

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?

Deference

on Sep 15, 2004

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.

Deference

on Sep 15, 2004

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

ShoZan

on Sep 15, 2004

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.

Solitair

on Sep 16, 2004

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.

Champas Socialist

on Sep 16, 2004

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?

drmiler

on Sep 16, 2004

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!

Solitair

on Sep 16, 2004

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.

drmiler

on Sep 16, 2004

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!

Deference

on Sep 16, 2004

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!