That seems to be the elephant in the room. Taking us back to the broader issue, I think we’ve actually gone too far in granting religious exemptions to basic rules and laws. I don’t think you should be able to get out of things like vaccatinations or basic sex education for children by throwing out the R-word.
I’m afraid we’re talking in circles here. The law, as it is written, bans symbols based on their visibility. You can wear some Muslim symbols (I wore one as a kid), and some non-Muslim symbols (such as the kippah) are banned. You can suspect that the whole thing springs from racism. But the law, as it is written, and as it is applied, isnt. I’m not ruling out at all that there was some xenophobia involved in the process, but the feeling that laicité was being threatened probably was a far bigger concern. You’re probably going to find far more Frenches thoroughly attached to the principle of laicité that you’re going to find Frenches hell bent on sticking it to the Muslims.
You said “And the issue was just recently applied to the headscarves”. I dont understand. The law of 2004 just put into the law what was already the practice, at least it cleared things up and didnt restrict itself to purely Muslim symbols (the Conseil d’Etat decision was focused on a specific case, involving Muslim girls).
So, I dont really understand what you mean by saying that it just recently applied to headscarves.
I’m sorry but anyone who tries to claim that this law wasn’t inspired by xenophobia or only “may” have been inspired by xenophobia is in denial.
French lawmakers never had any problems with Jewish kids wearing kippas for decades. They only had problems with the idea of religious headgear when Muslim women started wearing the Hijab in large numbers.
The only reason the current law covers Kippas is because there’s no way the could ban Hijabs but not Kippas without making the bigotry motivating the law blatant.
Capitaine Zombie, I am afraid that given that the issue under discussion is French, I find the words of Anatole France regarding the law in its majestic equality to be quite apropopriate. 
I’d express my conclusions differently - way I’d put it, the express “harm” allegedly being addressed (the prevention of religious postheletization in schools) isn’t significant enough, or reasonably enough connected to the measure taken (in this case, effectively, banning head-scarves, or rather ‘larger more obtrusive religious symbols’ of which the head-scarf is the single most obvious and clearly the motivating target).
That’s the difference, to me, between the french head-scarf case and the cops-and-veils case: there is more of an air of reality to the “harm” alleged, where a cop can’t see the face of the person s/he’s interviewing.
This method of analysis has the benefit of not requiring any conclusions concering the bigotry, or lack of bigotry, of the motives of those proposing the measures …
What about in the middle ground of a situational “ban” on all face obscuring wear?
NZ banks have signs that require anyone entering to remove motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Should this apply equally to veils, whether Islamic or not?
I realise banks aren’t the government; does the answer change if the signs are on a courthouse?
I do understand Marley23’s concerns about apparently equal laws that are actually discriminatory… but at the same time I’m not happy with the idea that religion automatically gets a free pass.
I don’t think religion should get an automatic “free pass”. I think any person, religious or not, should be accomodated in their sincerely held personal choices rather than harassed for them, as long as that accomodation is “reasonable” - that is, doesn’t impose unreasonable costs on the persons being asked to do the accomodation.
The inquiry really has two stages: (1) is the prohibiton or requirement whose enforcement is being sought really necessary to prevent some actual harm or problem (“actual” meaning one severe enough to justify the prohibition)? and (2) is it possible to reasonably accomodate someone’s personal choices through alternative measures, if they contravene the prohibition or requirement?
Yes it is according to the theories of cultural Marxism (aka political correctness).
But that said, I think that the lofty idea of “the war on racism” is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for this century what communism was for the previous century.
Yeah - and this requirement is very easy to understand from a security and identity point of view.
There are also quite easy workarounds if you understand WHY the veil is worn - the easiest is simply being served by a female personal banker in a private room and / or using the ATM.
But I’m with you in spirit - to me, faces should be shown in DL style ID, and if a cop requires it, the “suspect” must lift the veil to prove who she is. Naturally though there is a “reasonable” requirement - such as, could she wait until a female officer is there and they are in a private space, or must it be done right now?
Yes, you. In [thread=556118]this Flying Dutchman thread[/thread] from last year. The OP was complaining that Quebec women, when having their health card photo taken (a time when they need to remove their veil to ensure their identification), wouldn’t be guaranteed access to a female clerk, but might have to come back at another time when one would be available. Or remove their veil in front of a male clerk. You posted this:
But now in this thread’s OP, you say this:
So now you see no problem with requiring veil-wearing women to remove it to identify themselves (presumably even if they have no immediate access to a female officer). Of course Australia isn’t a “French-speaking area” to use your terminology, so perhaps you’re more patient with them and more willing to concede that they’re acting in good faith.
As for your being accused of racism for comments about Quebec, I don’t know what that was about and I probably won’t try finding it. (Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I’ll search for it, as soon as I find the time. ;)) To be honest I thought you were talking about this thread from last year. But if it was 10 years ago, then I guess not.
Now as for the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France, I think Capitaine Zombie and the other participants are speaking past each other. The Capitaine and the other French posters can correct me, but as far as I know there is a big difference between how France and other countries (especially the US) view the place of religion in the public sphere. France guarantees you freedom of worship, but religion must always remain a private affair. Even wearing religious symbols when you’re in a government-mandated setting (studying, or working as a public servant, etc.) is frowned upon, and (as the Capitaine’s posts tell me) seen as tantamount to proselytism. This is the difference between “large” and “subtle” religious symbols: the large ones can’t be missed, so you really express something to the world when you’re wearing them. The subtle ones are more private. They are for you alone.
Personally, I’m more sympathetic to the American or Canadian (and I assume Australian etc.) philosophy which is that religious symbols you wear on you are a private expression of your faith. But of course this means that the government doesn’t have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn’t cost too much upon us. If it isn’t unreasonable. And I’m also not willing to condemn the French position as racist or xenophobic. It’s based on a sound philosophical basis, only one that I disagree with.
(And also, Capitaine Zombie, and the other French posters I’ve seen use this terminology: as far as I know “Frenches” isn’t a word in English. You say “Frenchmen” or “Frenchwomen”, or “French people”.)
Aren’t you tired of blaming everything you disagree with that has to do with Muslims on “cultural Marxism”? I’m starting to wonder if you’re a bot.
I don’t think this accurately states the American/Canadian position, which is, essentially, that folks ought to have the freedom to wear whatever symbols they want, absent some compelling reason why they should not, which always has to be justified by the government: this is part and parcel of the freedom of self-expression, in addition to the freedom of religion.
Thus it is not the case that: “… the government doesn’t have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn’t cost too much upon us …”. Rather, the government must make a case as to why it ought to have the power to enact the ban in the first place. The question is, what compelling reason is there to ban the thing the government wants banned? Once this question is answered, then the issue of whether some “reasonable accomodation” can be reached - one that doesn’t infringe too much on individual freedom.
The French position allows the government powers to restrict individual freedom in favour of a social policy. The argument is that they are just pursuing this social policy, and are not thereby being bigoted when they require Muslims to adhere to it. The counter-argument is that the social policy wasn’t triggered by non-Muslims wearing symbols, like kipahs. I make no comment on that, only to note that the whole notion of allowing this sort of government power over individuals in the first place strikes many, at least in North America, as not a good idea, whether it is triggered by bigotry or not (the point here being that it is easy to abuse - which is why the distrust of government powers over the individiual exists in the first place - and, arguably, it is being abused in this instance).
I’m not talking about banning anything. But if, say, a woman wants to have her identity card picture taken while wearing a full-face veil, and the rules state that a person’s face must be clearly visible on identity pictures, then she is the one who’s asking for something special. The rules aren’t “banning” her wearing her veil while having her picture taken.
You were, I thought, talking about “… the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France …” [emphasis added]. Were you changing the subject between paragraphs?
In any event, the same analysis applies. In the case of ID cards, the government has a clear and compelling purpose in restricting personal freedom: that the wearing of personal religious garb prohibits identification. Since no reasonable accomodation can be reached, in that case (quite unlike the example of the “ban on religious symbols in France”) the restriction - removal of the veil - is justified under this analysis.
An ID photo taken in a veil is not an ID photo. The rest of us can be identified by the police. What makes them different ? If they do not want to have a drivers license photo without a veil, they should not be allowed to drive. A passport photo should have the veil removed too.
I understand religious objections, but when their belief makes an ID not an ID, a price has to be paid. A decision has to be made. If you want the right to drive a car, you need a photo ID that actually can identify you. It is your choice whether you drive or not.
Anyone in the family can wear your veil and drive illegally if they choose to. I am not saying that it happens, but it certainly can.
Quick reread of the thread makes me say you summed that up right. Both in how we were talking past each other but also your last sentence is a better and more concise way of expressing laicité and the place of religion in French public sphere than my long posts were.
My Spider sense was actually tingling when I was writing “Frenches”, I dismissed it, I should have known better. Duly noted. Though, I think I’m the only one making the mistake.
I’m wondering if there isnt a word used that would be close to Frenches, but not Frenchies, and meaning French people (Frenchmen/women sounds like I’m trying to highlight the genre, and French people sounds too long for me).
Any suggestions? (please, dont answer “Assholes” ;)).
Just French. Re-read the sentences with no final “-es” on the words and it scans fine in either Brit or Yank English.
No plural mark even if we are talking about multiple French (gah, just writing it without a S makes me cringe) ?
It is plural already. You don’t write “a French” - a single French person is a Frenchman or woman or person. Plural is French.
In the U.K. after the Underground bombings two Islamic terrorists (male) disguised themselves as female Muslims (veiled) ,when on the run.
They were counting on police being shy of asking them to show their faces because of the hassle of being accused of racist or religious harassment.
Luckily they didn’t get their way.
As to being asked to unveil only in emergencies, what would a shopkeeper be expected to do if they saw a veiled shoplifter who ran from the shop ?
They wouldn’t even be able to give the police a description.
And you can imagine the screams of outrage from the racism industry,if shopkeepers refused entry to people wearing full face veils to their premises.
I recall that in Dublin when I last visited, banks had signs by the door saying that people needed to take off full face motorcycle helmets for that very (practical )reason.
As to culture, if you choose to live in, or emigrate to a country whose majority culture is at variance with yours then you must expect to adapt your preferences to those of the majority culture when called on to do so, not expect to have priveleges over and above those of the rest of the population.
If I go to Saudi I do not complain because I can’t drink alcohol, I may not agree with, or like that law, it may not be a part of MY culture, but it is the majority culture of the country that I’m in and I can always leave.
Another point about pandering to various cultures is that the people who want extra priveleges because they’re so deeply committed to their culture, is that they seem to cherry pick the parts they want (Hijabs etc.) while being quite happy to enjoy the benefits of the mainstream that suit them.
Even though these are against their supposedly deeply held cultural values.
As in drinking alcohol, driving and education.
You can’t have it both ways.