Well, yes, but there are two problems here, I think. First, most schools have the rule that no one can wear any headgear. So if I say to you, “You can’t wear your beret, and he can’t wear his cap, but she can wear her scarf because her religion tells her to”, then that seems to be a kind of discrimination. Because she’s of a certain religion, it’s giving her the right to do something that no one else has the right to do. It’s giving her special treatment, and also saying that a religious motivation behind an action is “better” than a non-religious one.
Also, it can be divisive. There’s a problem in France with North-African Muslim immigrants, who are unable, due to discrimination against them, to fully become assimilated into French culture. With the girl wearing a scarf on her head, that singles her out…it makes her obviously different, and that can lead to discrimination against her in the classroom by other students, or even by the teacher.
It’s not reasonable to compare the US to France (with respect). In the US the gov’t is specifically prohibited both from creating a religion AND interfering with the free expression therof (unless it violates criminal law, not everything goes of course).
Muslim children here are free to where appropriate religious dress as are Jewish children etc.
The weird thing is, if you read some of the writing on this it’s NOT a religious article so much as a political one, a statement of support of more fundamentalist groups which apparently only started in the 70’s. It may (or may not, ) be akin to wearing a KluxKluxKlan or rebel flag emblemed hat or t-shirt to school. That casts it differently indeed.
Frankly, in that light I would be more concerned about it. But ion this instance I’m torn because some literature says it’s a simple religious thing, and other writings say it’s a political thing. A covert form of support for fundamentalists of the more Taleban/Wahhabi style.
I’d be very interested in hearing from any older muslims on the board (someone who was at least a teenager in the 60’s and 70’s) on whether or not the scarf is
A) A recent invention,
B) A re-invention of something 7th or 8th century,
C) A consistently worn device down through the centuries (like say in 1492, and 1776 and 1863 and 1917 and so on).
Any straight dope scholars want to take a crack at this? (Please include cites where appropriate)
Let me add to this discussion the fact that many muslim schoolgirls don’t wear headscarves. Some do, some don’t; some will do so later when they are older, some never will.
Capt, the hijab is not about “denying” something fundamental to women. Certainly it can be used that way. But your blanket statement is too broad and therefore distressingly inaccurate. Some women wear the hijab by choice. Women and girls who wear the hijab are still unmistakably women, and clearly individuals.
Come hang out with the brilliant, lively, outspoken muslim women around here. Some of whose families are paying tens of thousands of dollars for them to get a top-notch college education and yes, even graduate degrees.
Brutus, thank you for that helpful distinction for the level of one’s religious fervor. I am sure the term “gansta-ass” will be an oft-repeated and meaningful term as we all educate each other about religious customs.
I think this would be despicable. Freedom of expression is an important, basic right. And the expression of religion is one of humanity’s deepest desires.
The government should have NO RIGHT to tell free people what they can and cannot wear in public.
How about, “Look at me, I like AC-DC”? Want to ban T-shirts with slogans on them? How about tattoos? Hats? Haircuts?
Our clothing, hair, and ornamentation IS how we express our individuality. You want everyone to walk around making no statement other than “I am French”? How about putting them all in black plain clothing then? Works for the Hutterites.
When I opened this thread, I expected to see universal condemnation of this obnoxious idea. Instead, there’s lots of, “Hmmnn… Tough Problem!” responses.
Yes, it’s a tough problem. That’s the way freedom is sometimes. A society that is only free when it is convenient is not free.
Are people so dense that they can’t see the difference between a baseball cap one wears for fashion and an article of clothing worn for religious purposes? As I said earlier, if the state is going to compel others to attend school then they need to make reasonable accomodations for some of their beliefs. It is not unreasonable to allow someone to wear a scarf or a skull cap.
You can’t honestly think that removing scarves is going to prevent discrimination, do you? As if the color of their skin, their surnames, and possible accents aren’t going to be some indication of their origins. I haven’t met many north Africans in my life but those I have were signifigantly darker then the average Frenchman.
I seriously doubt this policy is to prevent discrimination based on religious grounds. After all, you can wear a small religious symbol. It’s more about preventing those foreign devils from polluting French culture.
IMO the discussion in France started because of the new surge of violence against girls and women in the “cités”, the socially and economically disfavored areas. Apparently the way how girls and boys talk to each other changed a lot the last couple of years.
Girls/Women need to dress very moderately, i.e. almost as a boy, else they are insulted (“whore!”).
The whole thing started when a girl was burnt alive in one of the cités because she refused to obey a guy.
In many cases, the headscarf is not a sign of personal freedom anymore. Not all, but many people are forced to wear it, or they wear it protect themselves
To paraphrase a comment from a French guest on NRI/NPR yesterday:
France is a country of great national and cultural pride. One of the cultural definitions of the French is the secular govement that they have. With a history of secularism and anti-Catholosim, the idea of making people keep religion under the covers is not a new one.
France expects citizens to put national pride before religion. A French citizen is a French Citzen FIRST and (insert religion) SECOND. French pass laws to support this pride of the Republic.
The Frech guest (who was quite hard to understand in some instances), insisted that they did not FORCE any peoples of Islam to become French citizens, but if they wish to do so, and use their public schools, then they need to accept their culture.
That is the difference between the French and the US- The US allows and celebrates cultural differences (At least in theory), The French expect new citizens to conform to their idea of what a French citizen means.
That, according to the guests on NPR, is what this is all about.
Epimetheus, would you mind telling us who this French guest was?
Where is clairobscur to comment on this?
My personal opinion: cultural differences yes, but the state (the republic) has the right and the obligation to fight against all forms of oppression of its citizens. Religion is volontary, and if a group of the society (religous or not) adhers to pressure and force to spread it’s ideas, then it should be made clear immediately, that this is not ok in a democractic society.
Sorry, cant do, perhaps somebody that actually can retain strange and foreign names with a degree of accuracy will come along and say who it was. I can, however tell you the approximate time it was on the air:
Between 12:30 and 1:00 Central time.
Can’t be more specific, I don’t write these things down while I am driving and listening to the radio.
A first speaker was Laurent Levy, his daughters had been banned from school because they wore the head scarf. The second speaker was a politician from the right wing party UMP, Hervey Mariton (don’t know how his name is spelled).
The politician basically said, that in France the idea is, that immegrants may keep their culture at home, but they need to adher to certain rules in certain public places, as in schools.
True, and in the parts of the UK I know personally headscarves on the younger generation seem uncommon.
So what is it about? If it isn’t required by Islam (and it would be nice to hear more on this from someone who knows more), and it’s only females who wear it, what does it symbolize?
I can’t distinguish all that clearly between the simple headscarf and the all-over covering imposed by, say the Taliban, or the ghastly looking metal face masks I’ve seen worn by Saudi women down the market - these are definitely symbols of repression.
You’re right that I’m tossing out blanket statements here, and these are just my impressions - but my point is that, to me they do lose some individuality and moreover, that is part of the intention behind the headscarf.
You say “Some” women wear the hijab by choice - how many? And what about those who don’t?
Personally I think this is a generational thing, the first generation Muslim immigrants aren’t the first, and probably wouldn’t be the last to see their children making tough choices about defining who they are in a sometimes hostile world.
(Brick lane in London is a wonderful example of different groups coming in, making it, and moving on - Huguenots, Jews and now Bangladeshi Muslims; all must have fought the same battles)
I know such women, but none wear the headscarf.
Personally, I don’t see the need to ban religious symbols of any kind in schools - I like to see a bit of variation in people and we all have to learn that our neighbours may not believe all the same things as us.
As to the idea that to allow religious symbols for some kids is a kind of discrimination against the other kids - I just don’t get it, it’s just cutting a bit of slack so someone can get on with their lives, no big deal, etc.
(Though Alexei Sayle did a sketch about making up fake Jewish holidays when he was at school to get out of class - Hey! where’s the kosher smiley gone!? I thought I’d finally found somewhere to use him, and he’s vanished - are the hamsters French or something? I’ll have to use this one - )
Headscarves do have some positive, non-repressive aspects that would lead some to choose to wear them.
The first goal is to take the emphasis off of sexuality. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. I know when I was 16, I was so sick of being prepositioned on the street, honked at, and generally harrassed that I started dressing like a boy. I often envyed the Muslim women in my school that did not have to deal with constant sexualization and harrasment, and might have chosen to wear a headscarf if it were culturally appropriate.
In taking the emphasis off sexuality, it also evokes an air of studiousness and seriousness. It can be a sign that a woman wants to be taken seriously, and does not want her status as a sexual creature to get in the way of the work she is there to do. It’s the same concept as, say, school uniforms.
Finally, it is a political statment. In the 70s, pre-revolutionary Iran banned hijab. This pissed a lot of people off. Wearing hijab became a form of resistance. Today, under some circumastances, wearing hijab is still a very bold personal political statment, which involves a lot of thought and political activeness- not just mindless repression.
Is hijab all good? No. But it’s not completely senseless.
I think this is the danger with what the French are trying to do. In seeming to force people to choose between being overtly Muslim and being French, they may not make the intended choice.
flonks’ link puts a new (and nasty) perspective on the whole issue.
Interesting concept. What, exactly, is “France”? The government?
Hey, I personally think making women wear head scarves is demeaning. I think it is a terrible custom. But in a free society, we let individuals make those sorts of decisions for themselves. I don’t know anything about French law, so maybe this whole deal is perfectly legal. But that does not make it morally right.
Yes, you’re right, there are certainly level of covering that vary. And not just between Burqas and masks, but in hijabs too. Some women here wear scarves that let their hair show a little. Others cover hair completely. Some will only wear grey or black, but others have scarves that are beautifully patterned and colored. Similarly, they differ in whether they wear the complete overcoat, or merely a long-sleeved blouse with a long skirt. Actually, I’ve seen some young women wear jeans. This makes it hard to generalize, I guess. I don’t know if the distinctions are based on cultural background or a variation in religious beliefs.
I don’t know how many wear the hijab by choice; I’ve just seen some local media reports on the topic where young women have described their choice and how they came to it.
Lots of religious rules are not in a religion’s primary text. There is nothing in Torah that says that males should wear kippot or specifically stating the Laws of Kashruth but many observent Jews follow them as religious commandments. It is called Oral Law. To tell them that to be a citizen that they need to disobey their understanding of the commandments of their religion is something that should be done only for an overwhelmingly important public interest. Likewise for Islamic headcovering.
Interestingly Laurent Levy, whose daughters were banned for wearing the scarves, is himself an atheist of Jewish heritage married to an Islamic woman. He is not an Islamic or religious activist. His point is that secularism means that you do not impose religion upon your populus; it does not mean that you do forbid religious expression among your populus, it does not mean that you impose an areligious POV upon them. That is just as bad as state sponsored religion.
Again, placing limits on individual ability to follow religious precepts as they see them is not off limits, but it demands an overwhelming public good to be served to justify it. I guess the French see a public declaration of French citizenship uber alles (how would you say that in French?) as a suffiicient public good. Ironically, this action might have the exact opposite effect: many younger Muslims had been becoming more secularized and less observant (as has occured for most Jews in secular societies over the last several generations). Some (per an NPR report) react to this action as divisive by effectively telling Muslims that their religion is not a welcome part of French public society.
(BTW, some Jewish rabbis had already been urging their followers to refrain from kippot in public and wearing baseball caps instead in order to avoid being targets of violent poor Islamic youth.)
So what? Anyway, kids are in school for probably half their waking hours. I guess that would make them half free, right?
That’s a stretch. Somehow I don’t see the connection between a government financing something religious vs the government simply allowing people to dress as their religion advises them to.
it’s more like: simply allowing people to dress as they want in public schools.
As already discussed in this thread, the religion does not advise them to dress like that. My wife is muslim and not just on paper. She does the ramadan, she does not drink alcohol, she does not eat pork. But she never wears a headscarf, except during the prayer.
Honestly, would you like to live in Saudi Arabia? Somebody has to tell the religious fundementalists where the line is drawn. Since the government can’t tell people not to wear the head-scarf since not all women who wear them are forced to do it, I don’t have a problem with this rule which is applied in public schools only.
)