Well…I suspect that this will be taken as an evidence that the law isn’t geared against 13 y.o. girls wearing a headscarf, but instead a major tool of war in the grand cosmic struggle against extremism and terrorism… :rolleyes:
Actually, that was my point. I meant that if french president A handle in a particular way a crisis, it doesn’t mean that french president B will handle it in the same way just because he’s french. I wanted to point out that besides the prejudiced opinions, there’s some sort of belief at work according to which “the french” are expected to always react in the some “french” way. Which make as much sense, when speaking about political issues (it might be different for table manners) as expecting that Bush will have the same behavior as Carter because they’re both american presidents hence will handle issues in the same eternal american way…
I understand your point that the terrorists are probably not asking for passports before they snatch folks off the street, but you’d think they’d be smart enough to have a list of countries that are currently keeping their heads down and steering clear of this mess (and especially of the major powers that are doing so)…and if they snatch folks from the list, wisely just dust them off and return them unharmed.
It might win them some gratitude if nothing else and perhaps strengthen the resolve of such neutral countries to stay out of it. Certainly the last nations I would want to piss off would be China, Russia, France and Germany, so if you snatch folks from any of those it would be wiser to simply hand them back, then to risk totally pissing them off with gods know what consequences. Perhaps they will simply be merely saddened by the murder of a journalist or two…or perhaps they will react violently (especially China, but democracies are notoriously unpredictable on stuff like this). Why take the chance when the US and the UK is already in the game up to their elbows?? The last thing I’d think a terrorist organization would want would be even the potential of MORE major powers whole heartedly joining in.
-XT
I’d also request some cite. At that time such situation would’ve been quite unlikely, given that a war was going on:
(from this site)
Also, since there had been terrorist attacks against France well before that, various groups hijacking planes and bombings in Lebanon, it wouldn’t have made sense to essentially go funding one of their major supporters. Apparently some Corsican separatists received Libyan money, too.
But did you know that the US paid tribute to Tripoli until 1801 to avoid their ships getting pirated, instead?
I’ve never heard of France paying tribute to Libya in the '80’s (I assume this means the 1980’s), so unless Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor comes back with a cite or to amplify his point, lets just say this is done, ok?
I think most Americans are aware of this, yes. Look at the date and think for a moment and the reason becomes fairly obvious. In fact, that very situation is why we HAVE a navy today. 
-XT
BTW, I guess we’ll know something by tonight, as that was the deadline the terrorists gave for France to reverse its stance (something France has already said they refuse to do). Any speculation on what France may do in the event that these terrorists murder these two French Journalists? If memory serves France has a top notch counter-terrorist/commando group…and historically they haven’t really taken such things lieing down. Will the French remain aloof still, or will they attempt to go after this group covertly…or even overtly…if French nationals are murdered? How will the French people react?
A friend of mine who lives in Paris says she really doesn’t know, though she doubts there will be much of an outcry for the government to actively go after these terrorists. Is this pretty accurate?
-XT
[Moderator Hat ON]
Fleshed out the title a bit for clarity.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Thanks. It made sense to me, but I can see where it could be confusing or non-informative.
-XT
Did you read enough to know that this law bans all types of religious apparel which have been inflammatory in their public school system? Jewish skull caps and large crosses are also banned. This is identical to banning gang colors and gang-wear and its done for the same reason.
I don’t know the French’s constitutional position in regard to religion, but I think in the U.S. this would be a completely sustainable (and consititutional law). We cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion - so in deciding to ban certain clothing (that has proven inflammatory in a fire-in-a-crowded-theater type way) I think we cannot take it’s religious context into account…if it is inflammatory, we can ban it on that ground and cannot even consider that it is religious.
I think France may stand fast on this one, in fact the way they are playing it now – having French Muslim leaders condemn the kidnappers – may actually yield some positive results, though the extremist group involved is very extremist.
The French initiative banning overt religious displays in select public places is IMO a bit of social engineering with good potential for the longer term, even if highly controversial and fraught with initial difficulties. Some of us recently discussed it here:
Whats the possibility of me living to see a Muslim dominated Europe? (link to post 214 on page 5, which is where the topic of headscarves and other religious symbols gets going).
If it wereup to me, I would announce that the law (banning headscarfs) was to be modified:
“henceforth, headscarves for muslim girls are allowed…the headscarf must NOT exceed 1.2 square centimeters in area”…that should satify everybody!
What do French highschools do about muslim girls on sports teams? Do they allow hejabs on the vollyball teams?
Perish the thought that nayone should see an adolescent girl’s ankles!!
They extended their deadline for 24 hours.
The french governement is using massively all its links with the muslim word, in and outside France. They got statements condemning the hostage taking by religious leaders in every corner of the muslim world one can think of (including Irak) , french muslims organizations organized a protest in Paris, french religious leaders gave interviews to arab TVs, Al Jazeera has apparently launched an unprecedented (by comparison with the previous cases) campaign, asking for instance its correspondents in muslims countries to get interviews of clerics condemning the hostage takers, and giving a lot of coverage to the issue, and I just heard while I was typying that Al Arabia is doing the same.
So, it seems that the french strategy is very clear. Trying to have the hostage takers feeling that every muslim under the sun is condemning them, in the hope that they will back off and free the hostages. Depending on how self-rigthteous they are, and on what kind of contacts people the french envoys have met could have with them, it might work…
Well, I guess the good news is that at least a few of the groups have let their captives go (like the group that kidnapped those workers from Turkey). Perhaps this time they will as well…I really hope they do. Certainly extending the time frame is a good sign, no?
-XT
Yes. But it’s not a secret that skullcaps and big crosses and whatnot have been banned as a side effect of the will to ban specifically hidjabs (because a particular religion couldn’t be specifically targeted). There are plenty of reasons why it was a popular law, like the left thinking it was a symbol of the oppresion of women, the teachers who tend to be have a stong atachment to laicity disliking public display of religion, people supporting integration by oposition to communautarism, people feeling threatened by muslim customs entering the public place, people thinking that it’s a way of fighting muslim extremism, muslim women or women of “arab” origin who had spent their life fighting against the practice, etc…
Actually, it’s probably not constitutionnal. There has been a number of cases of girls excluded from schools because they refused to remove their hijab since the beginning of the 90’s (so this issue is’nt a novelty), and the jurisprudence of the highest court competent for these cases (the “Conseil d’Etat”) has been consistently that religious symbols could only be banned if they could be considered as proselytism (say a “Love Jesus” T-shirt could have been banned), or if there was a valid reason to ban them, in particular a safety issue (for instance, the hijab could be forbidden for girls operating machines, or during PE courses). Most of the recent cases before the law was passed precisely were cases refusing to remove their headscarf during PE courses.
Unfortunately, the “Conseil d’Etat” and lower courts traditionnally never check the constitutionnality of a law (except when it contradicts a treaty). They theorically could, but their consistent stance is that the constitutionnality of laws can only be assessed by the “Conseil Constitutionnel”. But this constitutionnal council can only be refered before the law is enacted, either by member of the parliament or by the president. Since in this cases the political parties unanimously supported the law, this Court never was involved. So, now that a law has been passed, the courts in all likehood will at most discuss the details of particular cases, but not the principle.
I will note besides that it seems to be going to be a major headache for school principals. The law is quite vague, so they’ll have a hard time interpretating it and writing school regulations. We’ll have to wait until next month since students are still in vacation, but a number of case have already be discussed. Will wearing a bandana be acceptable or not? Could a sikh wear a kind of “net” on his head instead of a turban? How big a cross? Does an “ankh” count as a religious symbol?
At least one major muslim organizationn asked the girls not to comply and to go to school with their headscarf. Another has asked them to abide. We’ll see how it turns out. By the way, the Jews and the Catholic church are unhappy with this law, too.
I used to think that a law should be passed on this issue, since there was cases after cases of schools banning hijabs and ending in front of courts. But I expected a law which would follow the existing jurisprudence of courts not an overkill law like this one. They saw a fly a apparently only had a hammer.
I think these guys will be freed when the ransom is paid. I strongly suspect that these principal filled terrorists are only looking for a payday. They saw a target of opportunity, and took it. If they had principals, they would have freed them as soon as it was clear they were french, due to the French opposition to the war.
Honestly, I don’t think they thought much beyond, “Hey two WHITE GUYS - likelihood is that they’re AMERICAN.”
They couldn’t be gasp profiling, do you think??
:rolleyes:
But more specific to the OP - I think France is basically going to tell them to go eat snails…