Yep. Assuming that if I’m driving around in a rubber halloween mask when pulled over and it’s OK for the officer to ask me to remove it for ID purposes then any inconsistent application because the headgear is cultural / ethnic / racial / religious is inappropriate in a country that believes in equal treatment of its citizens. (IMO).
I don’t know if you were, but what I find especially interesting is that what you criticized Quebecers for in another thread is exactly what you’re suggesting in this thread’s OP. Make of that what you will.
While I don’t have a problem with the law being discussed in this thread, I think that’s a judgment we can only make in context. If a law is written to apply to everyone but has a real impact on only a small group of people, the law can still be discriminatory. We had that discussion during some of the recent debates about same-sex marriage. A law that prevents everyone from marrying a person of the same sex applies to all citizens, but it still discriminates in a manner a lot of people consider unfair.
I agree - the issue here is whether allowing a police officer the authority to require a veiled person (almost always going to be a Muslim woman) is okay, or whether some “reasonable accomodation” ought to be made, like (in Canada) allowing Sikhs who wish to be Mounties to wear a “regulation turban”.
The first issue is whether the concern about veiled women is a real one, or if the measure is just invented to hassle Muslims - for example, I was against the French headscarf ban because it seemed to have no real concern behind it. I think this veil issue has a real concern behind it. Cops do need to know who they are interviewing.
The second is whether some middle ground - “reasonable accomodation” - can be made, that addresses the real concern but does not require removing the veil. In my opinion, the likely costs and inconveniences of “reasonable accomodation” (such as equipping cops with fingerprint scanners) are going to be so significant that it is not actually “reasonable”. Other methods of positive ID require expensive equipment and also generally closer contact with the subject. They are not truly “reasonable” replacements for visual ID.
Therefore, in my opinion the measure is okay and not on its face an expression of bigotry.
The French ban on burka (veil is ok out of school) started exactly the same way. With the case of a woman driving (very badly) with a burka. Not that it justifies anything about the ban, but it didnt just start out of nothing (and besides, Sarkozy’s policies are very centered about newsbits).
Moi? I’m not playing coy, but I can’t recall criticizing ‘Quebecers’ in another thread (the one that earned me the “racist” epithet was, maybe, 10 or 11 years ago - is that what you’re referring to?)
The issue isn’t how it started, but the actual “harm” addressed by the measure in question.
In the case of the French measure, on its face it prohibits the wearing of all symbols or garb in schools that demonstrate affiliation with a particular religion, so on its face it appears non-discriminatory. However, it was widely understood by all to be targeting the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls. It’s an example of the sort of measure described by Marley23 that is ‘on its face’ neutral but actually is targeted.
The “harm” in this case was expressly whatever harms may accrue from being identifiably religious in school, and had nothing whatever to do with identifying persons. To my mind, that wasn’t sufficient justification for the measure.
Albeit my intent is not to hijack the thread into a headscarf discussion - merely to illustrate what I consider to be the method for analysis of the legitimacy of a particular measure.
I’m not sure if I understand properly what you mean.
The restriction on wearing noticeable religious symbols in school isnt something recent, it is quite tied to the concept of laicité. It clashed with some Muslims in the late eighties because there were more of them going on the recrimination and affirmation of their faith road. But school isnt the place for that.
It targeted the headscarf simply because as late entry to the laicité game, it hadnt been through the grinder yet, like Christianism or Judaism (that said, I think I had some fellow students that had kippahs).
So, if you’re talking about the headscarf, it is an old thing now, and quite accepted.
I thought you were talking about the recent burka ban.
Which was it?
I’m talking about this.
It’s pretty recent - 2004. It created lots of controversy, both in France and abroad.
What are you talking about.
The bigoted banning the wearing of the Hijab from schools is less than ten years olds.
As you note, the French never had problems with Jewish student wearing Kippas but they got absurdly upset at the thought of Muslims wearing Hijabs.
It seems to have created far more controversy outside of France than within. In effect, it just translates the decisions of the Conseil d’Etat (the late eighties case I was refering to) into the law. You may feel that it was entirely targeting Muslims but since it applies to all (you cant no more wear a kippah in school than a veil), at the very least, regarding how the law is applied, it applies to all in the same way. It is limited to school (no proselytism in school is definitely at the heart of the concept of laicité). The wiki page is a bit full of shit, if you dont mind me saying so. In the end all the major parties voted for it. Kind of hard to recognize that and say “It was one of the most controversial political issues in France for several decades”.
The burka ban greatly expanded on this though, as the ban applies to any public place. And that’s a problem in French law, bans usually need to have some restrictions either in time or space.
Agreed -
Of course, there were exceptions for small religious symbols, and it couldn’t be helped that some groups often use small symbols and some don’t - and that the headscarf wasn’t one of the small ones. C’est la vie I guess.
I was wearing a hamsa when I was a kid, nobody gave me any shit about that. Laicité trumps everything.
That argument isn’t credible when there are exceptions for some religious symbols and not others.
I dont think you understood my previous post (if what you meant is some religions’ symbols are authorized and that of another are not).
I fail to see the relevance. Small crosses and stars of David (and hamsas, you say) are acceptable under the law and headscarves aren’t. How is that in keeping with a secular society?
Well I really dont see how a secular society would have any problem with banning religious symbols, either discriminately or indiscriminately. But laicité isnt secularism. Laicité recognizes religions, it just bans proselytism out of the public sphere. You’re allowed to have your religious opinions, not make a display of it.
That said, the concept was somehow reviewed since the start of the whole headscarf affair, there’s also mixed in it now the concern that kids shouldnt be used by their parents as placards for their own religious beliefs. IIRC it is ok to wear religious symbols once you get into college.
Normally, the concern for free will isnt part of the laicité concept. It’s certainly becoming one now.
If some religious symbols are banned and others are allowed (such as through convenient exceptions in the law), then the society is favoring some religions and discriminating against others. That’s sectarianism, not secularism. Banning all religious symbols would be heavy handed and intrusive, but if it made no exceptions and expressed no preferences it would arguably be secular.
And wearing a necklace isn’t proselytizing, but covering your hair is. And the issue was just recently applied to the headscarves. I suppose we’re intended to treat all that as a coincidence, but unfortunately it ends up looking a lot like the French public banned headscarves from schools because they were uncomfortable with them but didn’t object so much to other religious items.
Moreover, the only reason they banned kippas was because if they banned hijabs but not kippas then the bigotry motivating the decision would be pretty blatant.
As has been admitted, the French hadn’t had any problem with Jewish kids wearing Kippas for decades but started freaking out when Muslims started, in large numbers wearing hijabs.
What’s especially sad is that if the French had been nicer to the Muslim immigrants rather than treating them like shit they wouldn’t be having such issues.