Well, is the wearing of a headscarf outside prayer time a mark of religion or is it not? If it is not, then what’s the problem? If it is a mark of religion, then banning it creates a problem regarding religious expression.
Again, I disagree - wearing a headscarf is a passive activity no matter how you slice it. When I read that the French establishment is saying that it’s actually aggressive, I just keep thinking it’s code for, “that insolent little bitch, acting up - we’ll show her and ban headscarves altogether!”
Religion is indeed personal, but tell that to the Pope or the Red Cross. Tell that to the French who observe Christian holidays. My point being that religion may be present in Western society, but its presence does not compel anyone to believe it. As with Christianity, so with Islam.
Well, then, what about those black-and-white checked scarves you see European boys wearing, the kind like Arafat wears, the scarf with the design which represents Palestine? Are we going to ban them? Why do these sexist French people apply a harsher standard to women’s wear than they do to its male equivalent?
Well, sure; but the answer to the first is “why not, if we so desire” and to the second that the two are not mutually exclusive. Built into a “french first” attitude is the assumption that there is a given norm from which deviations should not be tolerated. In an increasingly mobile society this simply isn’t true. You have probably summed up the french attitude well, but this doesn’t mean it’s right. If the French want integration, it has to include both sides; handing an ostracised minority a pre-packaged symbol of defiance is a giant step in the wrong direction.
Well, this is one isolated example, which does nothing to prove a wider link. Certainly there is likely to be some correlation between scarf-wearing and increased religious devotion, but I don’t accept that a link with violent extremism necessarily follows, let alone a causative link. If someone wants to follow an extreme version of Islam, official censure will likely only spur them on; extremism is born in part of a desire not to conform, so such a direct statement of defiance could not be more convenient to those who seek to brainwash others. Remember, too, that the yarmulke and turban will be casualties of this law, neither of which have even anecdotal connections to violence. It seems sad to take such a scattershot approach to tackling something that need not be a problem in the first place.
It is not. Wearing a headscarf outside of prayer is a cultural thing. Those women who have made the choice to wear the headscarf outside of prayer for religous reasons are effectively saying that they are trying to live their everyday lives in prayer, and for them, every act that they do is an act of prayer in the presence of Allah.
If its a “religous symbol”, then no doubt, it will be covered under the rules.
Look, I can see the French government’s point. I can also see the point of religous freedom, and quite frankly, whilst I can (to an extent) defend what the French government have done, I can see the point of freedom of expression and religion and the like.
From a personal point, I’ve found that blending into one’s surroundings is the best way to avoid persecution and confrontation. It does work. When I’m in the UK (most of the time), I dress like a normal English woman (well, like a somewhat modest English woman). When I go to Pakistan/India to visit relatives, I will wear salwar kameez, and cover my head. By not standing out, you don’t make yourself a target, and surely that’s got to be a good thing?
Er, is it? I’m not convinced at all. And trust me, I’ve seen this, first hand.
Oh, and what about Turkey? They have similar laws in place regarding headscarves in public life…
Well, yes; there’s only one example there. Like I said, I’m more than willing to believe that a greater than normal proportion of extremist women wear a scarf or veil, but I would be frankly incredulous of any claim that wearing the scarf caused the extremism. Conversely, a rise in extremism following the banning of such a core religious symbol would not surprise me in the slightest.
Indeed they do, and I have long felt that Turkey is excessively zealous in this regard. Note that the ban was imposed by a military government fearful of any threat to their enforced power, and AIUI persists only because the present government fears what the military would do were it repealed. This article might be interesting, as might this.
[Flame bait]
One thing I don’t understand here - many of the above posts seem to imply (or outright claim) that certain behavior is bannable by school unless it is religiously motivated. OK - WTF is so holy about religion (pun intended)?
Schools have a right to dictate behavior to their pupils. School is not a democracy! Just as my work place is not. It is out to get a job done, and may demand or prohibit certain behaviors as deemed necessary.
Me? I’m sorry there’s no uniform anymore. Know why? Because way back when (yes, I’m that old :() it was more difficult to distinguish between the “haves” and the “have nots” at school. Everyone was dressed the same, and you couldn’t show off your daddy’s millions with the newest designer clothes…
I think the same actually applies to religion. You are not in school to flaunt neither “My dad is richer than your dad!” nor “My god is greater than your god!”.
Both of these, incidentally, because it saves kids from being picked on - either because they are part of a group (beat the **** out of this filthy rich kid!) or because they don’t belong to it (Hey! lets beat up on this poor kid who can’t afford Levi’s). Please apply the same logic to religion - it will save wear and tear on the kid!
I never said wearing the scarf caused extremism. What I said was that, whilst for many it is a well-informed decision, many others are “brainwashed” into wearing scarves, where they otherwise might not have, by extremists.
Noone Special - you’ve made my point fairly clearly. The fact of the matter is, having open symbols of your faith (look at the Jewish kids who were beaten up), does make you more of a target. If you remove the religous symbols, then you can’t tell the difference between a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or an aethist, and religion ceases to be the main issue, and people, believe it or not, get on better with each other, because one’s religion does not become a pre-occupation. As a school girl, I was more readily accepted by everyone than some of my more obviously Muslim friends. Why? Because, although I have beliefs, I didn’t play them up obviously, and so, people couldn’t make an instant judgement on the type of person I was just by looking at me. And believe me, instant judgements are passed on those who wear headscarves/hijab.
Oops, I forgot to answer this. You are right, blending in can be a useful way of avoiding persecution. However, this option is already open to all, as you yourself prove. As I said earlier, some people just happen to put more value on dress as a form of religious adherence than you do, and for them this value outweighs the problems they encounter as a result. Taking a paternalistic decision that they must blend in for their own good is surely as oppressive as any patriarchal insistence on the veil.
If it is not causing the problem of extremism, then, it is difficult to see why that might constitute a reason to ban it. Sure, there may be many worrying reasons why someone wears a scarf, but banning it seems to me to solve none of them; rather, it attacks the most trivial symptom in preference to the more difficult remedies.
Okay, so we’ll make everyone dress exactly the same. Now what are we going to do about these tricky people who have different coloured skin? Short of painting them white, segregation is about the only thing I can think of. Tricky. Once we’ve sorted that out, we’ll have to standardise haircuts, because those are a great source of mirth for bullies. Music tastes will need to be sorted out, too; I propose only allowing Busted stickers until such time as a new Standard Pop Idol is duly elected by a fair and free vote.
I’m hearing a lot about what school is not the place for - religious expression, displays of wealth, etc. and so forth. This could carry on for a very long time, but it seems to me to miss the point. School is a place for children to learn. If personal expression X does not intefere with that, then it should be allowed. Where are children going to learn the important fact that people are different, if not in school?
It certainly CAN be a good thing, if that’s what you want.
Ultimately, I believe people should have a maximum of personal freedom as long as no one is being harmed, and I can’t understand how anyone is being harmed by a 10-year-old muslim girl who wants to wear a headscarf (for personal safety reasons, for “religious” reasons, because her friends do, because her older sister does, because mommy does, because daddy wants her to, etc.). If you are claiming that the GIRL is being harmed by her manner of dress, then I would argue that her self-destructiveness will merely come out in other ways and your dress code has pointlessly restricted personal freedom.
Its called a uniform. It causes a uniform external appearance which means that superficiallity is reduced. A person can be judged for who they are, not what the fuck they wear. Its worked wonderfully in Britain for a damned long time.
I propose you need a lobotomy for even suggesting Busted and taste in the same sentence without a negative. (Sorry, trying to inject a bit of levity here)
But in some cases, personal expression X does interfere. In the case of religous symbols, it leads to people getting pre-defined notions of what you may well be like without actually getting to know you. You are judged on your appearance solely. Now, I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s a Bad Thing.
Well, it’s certainly existed in Britain for a damned long time; I wore one too. On the other hand, the US seems to get by without for the most part. There are arguments for and against, and the competitive fashion costs one is actually a good one. I’m unaware of bling bling yarmulkes, however, so I don’t really see why a simple headscarf or skull cap need be excluded from a sensible uniform. The latter is usually black IME so is hardly ostentatious, and the former could be in the school colours if really necessary.
I certainly do, but is it your problem, or the problem of the one judging you in 5 seconds? And if you don’t like it, are you free to conform with your dress? Yes, you are.
I guess it figures I should have put in a Busted disclaimer - just to make it clear, I’m not a fan, although do you realise they write all their own music and play their own instruments?
Well, yes, they could, and in many places (my old school for one), its been done, and that’s great. But the UK attitude is vastly different from the French one.
Yes, but why the hell give anyone the opportunity to pre-judge you?
Yes, but why the hell make a whole law just because you think some people should want to fit in more? You’re presenting a great reason why someone might not want to wear a scarf, but a lousy one for banning even those who want to, no matter how much you think it would be for their own good.
No no, you don’t understand me dammit, when they sing about hating your teacher it’s like they touch my angsty teenage soul. And Avril Lavigne, she’s great too. She’s a real skater; she can do an ollie.
Yeah, I probably am. However, I can see very clear reasons why not having any display of any religous symbols in public life is a damned good idea. Religous freedom is all well and good when one lives in a tolerant, multi-cultural society. When one doesn’t, one either has to put up with hatred and try and change things, or adapt. In this respect, I would say that Britain is far more tolerant than France
Hmmm… :dubious: Sorry, can’t make much more comment here, I’m not with current pop “culture”. Give me the Strokes any day.
Schools can and, IMHO, should try to “level out” those external facets of appearence that can be easily done.
Easily - that’s the slippery slope part. It’s easy to enact a uniform. I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Sure, you can force uniform haircuts, too - but thats more intrusive (you can’t grow your hair back for home). Stopping at the uniform is avoiding the slippery slope
done That’s the straw man part. Some of your “suggestions” cannot be done - like painting blacks white. Or taking off everyone’s glasses! Putting these “suggestions” on par with the idea of regulating what one wears to school is disingenuous.
So - a pupil who wears a uniform, with no religious symbols on or around it, is free to change clothes after hours and dress as (s)he pleases. Any other physical “levelers” (that is - don’t bring up intellectual conformity, please!) that don’t affect after-school behavior may also be, IMO, good ideas
These are not even remotely comparable situations. No one in France is being forced to wear a headscarf against their will. If they don’t like the hijab, they can join a different mosque, or find a different religion. In a free country, no one is forced to make any sort of religious observation. Which is why I have a problem with this law, because here we have an ostensible free and democratic government passing laws about how its citizens are allowed to practice their religion. As an atheist, I’d expect you to be the first person in line to decry this sort of legislation, because when a government starts meddling in belief, ninety-nine times out of a hundred it’ll be the atheists who get the pointy end of the stick.
As for your protestations about your fair-mindedness, you have at least convinced me that you believe that about yourself. For the moment, I’m reserving judgement on just how accurate your self-image really is.
So the solution to this is to punish the victims? If people are getting attacked for wearing yarmulkes, in what possible way is it fair or just to pass laws against the people being attacked?
Well…then maybe I was wrong with my terminology. What I called a “hijab” is a piece of cloth covering all the hairs, the ears, and the neck, but letting the face uncovered
Here’s a picture. Actually, aparently, the word “hijab” is used for both the kind of garnment appearing on this picture (which was the garnment I was refering to) and the headscarf+ veil over the face Angua was refering to.
Well…then maybe I was wrong with my terminology. What I called a “hijab” is a piece of cloth covering all the hairs, the ears, and the neck, but letting the face uncovered
Here’s a picture. Actually, aparently, the word “hijab” is used for both the kind of garnment appearing on this picture (which was the garnment I was refering to) and the headscarf+ veil over the face Angua was refering to.
Though this kind of collective rapes have made the headlines for quite a long time here, there aren’t related to a girl merely not wearing a headscarf, since wearing it is rather uncommon amongst young people even in these disfranchised neighborhood mostly poulated by immigrants. There are usually more “subtle” reasons for considering a girl “easy” hence “asking for it”.
However, you’re right in saying that many girls clearly state they wear a headscarf in order that the boys will let them alone. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily out of fear of being raped.
However, if it was the only reason why high schoolers choose to wear a headscarf or hijab, it would point at wearing it being only a tool of oppression, and not an issue of freedom of expressing one’s religion.
(Sorry, trying to inject a bit of levity here)
