It appears that the French are about to stir up a hornet’s nest.
It seems to me that banning these items brings up more than a question of church and state. It brings up the question of individual rights to wear whatever he or she wants to. Next thing you know Florida will be passing a law against men my age wearing white belts or knee high black socks. Okay, that might be a good idea, but what the French are doing is not good.
You get the impression the French Parliament is made up of people who were involved in student government?
Jeez! Dress codes!
I get the feeling most people in government were on student councils. The results tend to follow from there.
We have our Constitution, the French have theirs. This decision is not going to affect anything that happens in America.
Why is it “not good”? Are you just concerned for the civil liberties of the French people? That’s valid, but I’d say let them worry about that. Like I said, they have a constitution, and a representative government, and if the law is bad they’ll change it.
Or are you saying it will inspire terrorists? Because I agree that would definitely be bad.
I get the impression that no Western country is more serious about the idea of separation of church and state than France. Of course we have SOCAS here, but the French are deeply suspicious of religious institutions, perhaps because of the nation’s bloody history, and the association of religion with monarchy. Is that accurate? (Question is for anybody.)
Since the mid-18th century, France has gone from a monarchy, to a limited dictatorship, to an oligarchy, to a military dictatorship, to an empire, to another republic, to a military dictatorship, to another republic, to a Nazi puppet dictatorship, to another republic, to another republic. The present government is called the Fifth Republic, which was founded by Charles de Gaulle back in the 50’s. I doubt that they therefore have much of a history concerning the separation of church and state, especially dating back to the monarchy.
Due to decolonization, which took place after WWII, France gave citizenship to all of their former colonies. Because of this they have a very large Moslem population. This new law is a attempt to make them into good Frenchmen and that is not good, whether it is considered separation of state and church; a violation of individual rights or an attack on one groups customs. The legislature said it was an attempt to make them fit into the general population better. If there is anything in France’s history that it is based on it would be Francophony.
This is not good because in America you have no public dress codes whatsoever, and no one would look twice if say some woman exposed a breast during a public football game.
What’s that then? The Dummy’s Guide to French history? Whether you doubt it or not the French consider religious influence in public life, and especially schools, abhorrent and separation of state and church (even to something resembling anti-clerical attitudes) to be a cornerstone of their state since the revolution. This is not a new law but a clarification of a law which has existed since the start of last century. Other European countries have similar laws, but of course now the Frogs talk about it we’re suddenly dancing with the devil in the lowest pit of European decadence and courting time honoured traditions of European fascist mentality. Why get your knickers all twisted? Why not accept that the French and Americans have different opinions on what constitutes acceptable public dress codes as well as integration policies. I’m OK. You’re OK. I’ll have my Foie Gras and Saint-Emilion, Bordeaux. You can have your Big Mac with freedom fries. How’s that for a novel idea?
It’s not like this hasn’t been discussed here before…
It seems to me like a case of inventing plausible legislation in order to justify an existing prejudice, and I really don’t get how it can be described as contributing to a separation of church(or religion) and state - quite the opposite, in fact.
I agree with mangetout. And I think it’s outrageous.
However, I would like to see whether, a few years after the law is passed, the Islamic (and Sikh and Jewish) communities accept it as a fact of life, or whether it will be rescinded before it gets to that point.
France is simply trying to preserve its culture. Why are North Africans going to France, if they have no desire to assimilate into French culture? Mere job-hunting? Ridiculous. If a person is emigrating to another country, they should damned well be prepared to accept the social and cultural norms of their new home as their own.
Regardless, I doubt that Allah/Jehova/God gives a flipping damn if a person is wearing a particular trinket or not.
You’re neglecting that thousands of Muslims in France are second- and third-generation, who have grown up in France as French Muslims. The hijab is part of their culture, which is part of France’s now. As would the kippa be to French Jews, and the turban for French Sikhs.
As for preserving French culture? Have you been to France? There’s no chance of French culture being eradicated, ever.
Well personally I agree with this, but millions, of many faiths, wouldn’t.
Then, you’re totally wrong. The republicans always had to fought reactionnary governments and ideas which were backed by the most influential catholic church. Hence, the Republic was build by opposing the church, not by ignoring it. There’s indeed a long story behind the french-style laicity, from the revolution to WWII. The oposition of the church and the papacy to republican ideas, the catholic/royalist “chouans” revolts, the persecution of the non juror priests, the backing by the church of the restored monarchy, the seizing of church properties, the 1901 and 1905 laws about the relations betweeen the church and the state and about associations and religious congregations, which stired up troubles, the “black hussars of the republic” (republican primary school teachers) and their legendary opposition to the local priests, the catholic and reactionnary “Action Francaise” , very influential until WWII, etc, etc…
As a result, the separation of church and state especially in schools is particulary strict in France, and the concept of laicity deeply rooted in people’s minds (and traditionnally, especially in teacher’s minds). I precisely read an article yesterday where an interviewed specialist of Islam was stating, asked about the negative reactions re this proposed law in muslim countries, responded (bad translation ahead) :
“But the most violent reactions actually came from the UK, to a lesser extent from the USA, and not only from muslim countries and populations. It’s the conflictual history of the french-style laicity which isn’t understood, nor by muslim countries, nor by our european neighbors. From this point of view, France is more similar to Mexico, Soviet Union or Turkey than to countries like the UK, Italy or Germany”
Anyway, there has been another recent thread on this topic, so I’m not going to discuss this issue again and repeat myself.
Not really important for the issue at hand, but you’re wrong again. France didn’t give citizenship to people living in its formere colonies (with the exception, to some extent, of the algerians). Muslims people living in france (or their parents, grand parents) came as immigrants after the decolonization, and acquired french citizenship. It’s a nitpick, though.
I don’t see why that would be a particularly good idea; culture exists as an artifact of society, not as some kind of monolithic governmental regulation, at least in democratic nations, anyway.
If the Muslims were trying hard to persuade others to wear these headscarves against their will, I could see that it might require intervention, but this legislation is just a silly, arbitrary infringement of personal liberty.
I happen to agree with this, but I don’t think it is the job of government to decide it for me.
While I do not agree that this proposed law is a good idea, I do understand the motivation of the French government. They are attempting to kill two birds with one stone, and their reasons are not stupid or arbitrary. But the law is poor policy because it goes after red herring, when efforts would be better spent addressing root causes of the “troubles” involved.
France has a large population of Muslims. Currently, they comprise 8% of the population (5 million out of 40 million). They are younger than the general population, and have a higher birthrate. In USA Today yesterday, the author of a story on the issue (“Effort to ban head scarves in France sets off culture clash”, pg. 7A) cites demographic experts for the proposition that these factors could combine to make Muslims a majority in France within 25 years. By comparison, in California in 1970, Hispanics made up less than one-eighth of the total population; thirty years later they were up to approximately one-third (32.4%). Without some change in the trend, France will be a majority Muslim nation certainly by the middle of the century.
This creates two fears in France’s conservative population. First, it causes Francophiles to worry that the culture will be swept away by the growing Muslim population. France guards its “culture” zealously, even to the point of insisting on made up French words for things with perfectly good terms from foreign languages. Second, it raises the spectre of a democratic takeover by Muslim fundamentalists, or, worse, significant disturbances caused by fundamentalist organizations. Neither is a pleasant thought to much of the European population of the country.
The French are not starting at shadows in these fears. Algeria, original home to many of the Muslims in France, had to set aside democratic processes in 1991 to avoid allowing a fundamentalist party control of the government in the only attempt at free and fair elections since independence from France. It’s army no doubt had the example of Iran firmly in mind when it annulled the results and refused to allow the Islamic Salvation Front to take control of the legislature. While the roots of fundamentalism in Algeria take hold in a substantially more fertile soil there than presumably exists in France, this does not give much solace to French legislators who see aggressive attempts by fundamentalist Muslims to govern through imposition of sharia in other countries and cannot be certain the same would not occur in France.
France’s approach to the removal of religion from government is substantially different than the approach used in America. The French government often works hard to remove any trace of religion in political or governmental efforts. The bill in question is limited to the wearing of obvious religious symbols in the public schools, which are, of course, a governmental system. The secular nature of these schools is jealously guarded; fear that the Catholic church will attempt to impose Catholic principles through influence on curriculum or policy is the main motivator. As long as the wearing of skullcaps or turbans didn’t carry much political meaning, the central government didn’t worry too much about these displays of religious attachment. Presumably the government doesn’t consider the Sikh or Jewish population a threat to French culture.
Recent increase in the usage of the hajib has forced the government to turn its attention to the growth of Muslim fundamentalism in the country. While it is not clear that every schoolgirl who wears the hajib is an adherent to more fundamentalist Muslim principles, there is ample evidence that the increased usage reflects an attempt by some of the Muslim population to assert its “Muslimity.” As a spokesman for President Chirac said Wednesday the 28th, “The decision to ban conspicuous signs (of religion) in school is a decision that respects our history, our customs and our values.” In short, France will not let fundamentalist Muslims debate religion and foster growth of an un-French culture through what its people wear in school.
As Americans, we have a somewhat different opinion generally on the value of allowing different cultures to express their identity in public schools. Usually. Just don’t get started on the issue of prayer, the Ten Commandments, or anything else attached to basic Christianity in public schools. 
Still, while one can debate the positive or negative values of the French legislation, one cannot dismiss the motivating fears as baseless. And while we might object to the concept of homogenizing one’s culture, that concept is a pretty common concept in Europe, as numerous occurrences in the last decade have reminded us.
I object to the legislation for a different, and, I think, much more valid reason: it attacks a symptom, not the root cause. I liken it to the concept of requiring uniforms in public schools to avoid invidious cliques. Just as banning Tommy jeans from schools doesn’t stop the formation of cliques and gangs, banning headscarves won’t stop the growth of fundamentalist feelings in France. Indeed, I think it will tend to foster such feelings, by making the Muslim population feel further “put apon.”
Fundamentalist Muslim political efforts often rise out of a sense of powerlessness and helplessness. In France, Muslim immigrants often face the same socio-economic difficulties faced by immigrants to America initially, namely poverty, unemployment, discrimination and lack of political empowerment. Indeed, as noted in the USA Today story, first-generation female Muslim immigrants usually gave up the hajib in an attempt to become a part of their new country. They enjoyed the new freedoms enshrined for women in French culture. But as they suffer continued economic difficulties, second-generation Muslim girls and boys feel less prone to “adapt” to being French. True, some of the upswing in usage is caused by the assertion of authority by males in the society, but such an assertion is itself a reflection of increased desire to reflect a more basic Muslim culture. Banning the headscarf in school does nothing to reduce the pressures that yield such a desire. It won’t make the girls more “French.”
And, in the process, it complicates life for population groups that weren’t a concern previously. Not only will it affect older Jewish boys, it attacks a cornerstone of Sikh religious belief. The wearing of the turban is not some fringe issue, arguably not neccessary. It is fundamental to the profession of faith by a Sikh male. Christianity doesn’t even have a concept enshrined in its practices that can compare. A law that doesn’t correct the ills it addresses, and which causes ills as a collateral casualty, is a bad law.