Some more infos I just read in the paper :
-The minister of education stated that the law could result in beards being banned too “if the beard was used as a religious sign” . Not sure how they could decide if a given pupil’s beard is of religious nature or not.
“Bandanas” could be banned too. I’m not sure what bandanas are, but I believe it’s an ordinary headscarf, sometimes used by muslim girls to replace the hijab.
Concerning the sikhs (there are very few of them in France, since it’s not a traditionnal country of emigration for them, there would be pending discussion, still according to the minister, and they would be required to wear an “invisible net” (??? I’ve absolutely no clue what they’re are refering to) instead of a turban.
-The issue of political signs is aparently currently surfacing in the debate. According to the minister, these would already be forbidden by some obscure regulation, which isn’t enforced, and that nobody heard about. So, perhaps they would be actually banned too from now on.
-The main majority party, the UMP, which controls both chambers of the parliament, will aparently allow its members to vote as they wish on this issue, instead of enforcing the party discipline (usually, in France, MPs vote according to their party’s decision). This is quite uncommon, except on very controversial issues. However, though they’re vocal, there’s only a little minority of the UMP’s representants who are opposed to the law. Since a significant part of the left (opposition), traditionnally strongly suporting laicity and women’s rights is in a favor of the ban, the law will, very likely, nevertheless pass, IMO.
Still IMO, there could nevertheless be enough MPs opposed to the ban for the law to be sent to the constitutionnal council before it could be signed (according to the french constitution, if a given number of MPs believe a law is unconstitutionnal, they can send it for review to said council, which has to decide on its constitutionnality before it can be signed into law. The council’s decisions are mandatory. For some reason, until now, I didn’t read anything about this. Perhaps it’s too early. And I’ve absolutely no clue about what the council’s position could be on such an issue.
Also, before being sent to the parliament, the law will most probably be reviwed by the State Council, which acts (in this case) as an advisor to the government. For instance, they can point out ambiguous wordings, possible constitutionnal issues, and more particularily advices about legal issues which could arise in the application of the law as presented to them (and I believe there could be a lot of such issues).
Though this is merely advices, hence though the government can perfectly ignore the State Council opinions, as this Council is also a last resort court in cases involving the public authorities, they have a good insight of the possible problems, and its opinions have some weight. They aren’t necessarily publicized, though. By the way, it was this council which stated in last resort some years ago that the hijab couldn’t be banned in public schools, except for safety reasons. But I don’t remember at all why exactly they ruled this way, and, depending on whether it was on a legal or on a constitutionnal basis, it could make a difference. I studied this case years ago, but my memory is defaulting me, and my notes are buried somewhere…
It could be. But anyway, there’s nothing in french law which prevent public institutions from making decisions which would, in practice, prevent somebody from practicing his religion. It’s a non-sequitur. I vaguely remember a case involving a jewish student who had been excluded from some public college because he refused to attend courses during the sabbath. It seems to me that in the ruling, the State Council stated something to the effect that puclic schools weren’t under any obligation to take into consideration the religious beliefs and practices of their students, let alone to pander for them (but it’s a blurry memory, and I could be somewhat mistaken).
**clairobscur, ** because I’m both extremely nosy and always looking to increase my French vocabulary, do you have any links to stories on the subject? I’d appreciate it.
Sorry, but I didn’t search anything on the net about this topic. Though, here are the links to the two articles in “Le Monde” I was refering to in my previous post :
Thanks! It will take me some time, and probably a dictionary, to make my way through that stuff. If you happen to stumble across the actual French text of the law defining what is prohibited, I’d appreciate seeing that, too.
Islamophobia? Bigoted ? huh?
–a phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear .Bigotry is an IRRATIONAL hatred.
Unfortunately, my fear of Islam is based on purely rational facts:
–devout muslims are trying to kill me.
Just a couple weeks ago, the highest authorities in the USA placed the entire country on terror alert, and also cancelled a half dozen Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles. Someone in my family almost bought a ticket on one of those flights. So I can truly say, as a FACT, not a phobia, that my family’s life was endangered by a devout muslim,probably living in Paris or Los Angeles.
I know, of course, that 99% of the devout muslims are not trying to kill me. But the 1% still make up many millions of people, spread all over the world and united in a cult of evil which they believe is the truest form of Islam. They have perverted a great religion–but the muslims living in Paris, LA, and everywhere else are tainted by associating themselves with the perverts who almost succeeded in killing my loved ones on that flight.
In Nazi Germany, millions of good, decent people allowed a perverted leader to defame their nation. Fear and hatred of the Nazis was not a phobia-- it was a rational and legitimate reaction – to treat all Germans as evil, because they accepted evil leadership, and did NOTHING to prevent the perverts in brown shirts from building a war machine and destroying their great country.
I look forward to the day when I can see a devout muslim and know that he too took active steps to disband the war machine, and prevent the perverts from destroying his religion.
In the meantime, my family’s lives need protecting.Islamic women wearing head scarves have murdered dozens of Israelis, and hundreds of Chechians. They tried again last week on Air France.
Sorry, Aldebran–I would love to meet you as a friend, and chat over coffee.(I think you live in France?)
But taking an Air France flight to meet you might just get me killed, by somebody dressed just like you, who claims to believe in the same things you do.
If the Germans had outlawed the swastica and other symbols of Aryan terror in the earliest days, it may have helped prevent a great nation from descending into evil. Aldebran–until you and a billion other good people get organized and prevent yourselves from descending into evil–I have to protect my own life first.
Banning the symbols of Islamic terror is a start.
(I agree with you, aldebran, that banning the scarf may be a stupid thing to do, because it won’t work as a practical tool --it may just inflame the fanatics even more. But it is worth trying for a while, and see if the rest of the muslim world starts to finally understand that they have a huge problem with their fanatics, which they must solve if they want to be accepted as equals in the West. If the day comes when ayatollahs and mullahs start preaching tolerance and love, I’ll be glad to let the girls cover their hair in school. And I hope that day comes soon, before it’s too late.
I mentioned that. It is certainly seen as a command by those who are convinced it is a prescription that can be found in Al Qur’an itself.
Indeed. It is for them exactly the same thing as making an other woman do a complete struptease in public.
I asked the question when talking about the upcoming discussion in Belgium about the same hidjab issue.
But I’m afraid that if one single politician or school director would state that Jewish headcoverings form a problem similar like hidjab is in their view, the “anti semitism” screamers will cover streets and frontpages and other media wherever you look.
Seen the emotions one can feel among most EU’ers - and EU politicians especially -whenever the word “anti-semitism” only comes to their mind, I really don’t see that ever happen.
But of course I feel some slight temptation to get involved in lightening that fuse. Just for the fun to watch the firework
Yet there is no danger that I shall ever give in to start playing such games, if only because of the fact that it would feed once again the exploitation of the Holocaust suffering by the Zionists.
.
But of course I feel some slight temptation to get involved in lightening that fuse. Just for the fun to watch the firework
Salaam. A
[/QUOTE]
okay,. lets light the fireworks!
May I politely point out that no Jews wearing a kippa on their head have flown airplanes into buildings, and then proudly claimed that they are going to do it again?
(and don’t mention the King David hotel, in Jerusalem 1948–the radical Jews who did that were condemned by the Jewish governing council, which helped arrest them, and later actually shot at them (on the Altelena ship) in order to prevent those radicals from getting weapons.)
I would venture a guess, however, that at least a few Jews wearing kippot have murdered people because of their nationality, ethnicity, and/or religion and vowed they would do it again. The victims just weren’t French or American citizens.
I think if French Muslims were politically as well-organized as French Jews, French political debate would be a very different scenario.
P.S. Since the France – U.S. flights were cancelled as a precautionary measure based on unspecified intelligence, and to my knowledge no details regarding the nature of the alleged threats to the flights have been released, I think it’s a bit premature to assume fundamentalist Muslims were responsible, much less hijab-wearing women.
Sine Nomen you must lead an impressive social life since you’re able to speak with authority on what most women want. My Iranian friends tell me that for most women in Iran, the scarf is an absolute obnoxious thing forced upon them by law. For many other woman (and children especially, children being the rub of this case) in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, France, etc. it’s an equally obnoxious thing forced upon them by convention and obnoxious patriarchal, demeaning customs left over from the middle ages. But since you know most women, I guess they must be a small minority. On the other hand it’s extremely ignorant to call it “an innocent article of clothing”. As the debate the ban has resulted in clearly reveals. Anyway I’m sure you’ll look more favourable upon the ban, when you learn that secularism is the foundation of French society, and has been a cornerstone of French identity and their view of what the state should be ever since the revolution. By the way Sine Norman (Aldebaran et al.), what do you yourself know about the Hijab? Have you tried wearing it? In public? For long time? As for the gratuitous frog insults. All this American Francophobia is really getting a bit old (why don’t you just stick to the axis-of-weasles insult and be done with it)
Well, I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you Eva, but you’re not the centre of the universe (that’d be me) or all things measure (that’d be my wife). What worked just dandy for you might not be so hot across the globe, in another culture, a couple of decades removed and in a drastically different political climate. Anyway, you don’t think the line “too exposed” doesn’t leave a whole lot of room to arbitrary decision? No less arbitrary than where to draw the line on religious expression and repression of children?
Since the ban we’re discussing is mostly about children, the rights of women are fairly much irrelevant. It is children, girls down to the age of six it’s about. Children are not, in any meaningful way, able to make the free informed choices you expect of them. Especially not confronted with a massive wall of expectation, customs and conventions. Many Middle Eastern immigrants in Denmark (it’s mostly the immigrants themselves that are in favour of a ban) also maintain a law can help those parents that want to break out of the traditions but are unable to find the strength within themselves to escape. They can use a ban, pointing to it and say: “we can’t help it. The law says we shan’t cover up our children”. You might think everybody is some kind of superhuman Ayn Rand creature, able to make free choices regardless of inhuman pressures from the outside world. But mostly we’re not. And I didn’t even mention the apple.
Well it’s more than just head scarves. E.g. here’re two students that insist on the right to bear the full head to toe covering Burka (at least they seem to be, if not adults, then at least not small children). But since you’re opposed to banning the one I don’t see how you can oppose the other.
No but she may be frozen out, cast away by family, friends and community. Or in worst case the victim of an “honour” murder. It’s naïve to assume, just because there is no state sanctions, these girls face no sanctions at all or that they’re completely free to choose their own way.
There you go with the frog bashing again Nomen. Anyway it doesn’t hold water to save your life. The French have every right to choose not to attend a public school. All schools in all countries have some kind of dress code (written or unwritten). Some with school uniform, some restricting the sexiness of clothes, some restricting signs of gang, club, political allegiances, etc. These religious bans are no different in substance.
Bib am I mistaken in assuming a Muslim should follow the law of the land. This is a claim I often have heard, and one of the arguments the pro-ban middle eastern immigrants are making.
. . . . .
Some random ruminations
France is very committed to the concept of the secular state. Ever since the revolution it has been a cornerstone of their whole society. There is no reason to assume this ban is not mainly about preserving what they consider the best way to organize life. For them to consider a growing religious influence in the state or a blurring of the edges is something like for Americans to consider abolishing their constitution. But lets just go for the horns. Of course, the law is also meant to combat a rising Islamification of society and the public sphere. A thing I personally on the whole consider a good thing (as I would were it a rising Hindification, Budistification, Hara Khrisnafication, Scientologification, etc.)
There is not clear delineation between what, by some, is considered natural clothing and what is considered abnormal. The scarf, the black full body covering, the Burka (and always this increasing restriction and isolation), revealing clothes, topless in the schoolyard, etc. or acceptable restraints based on religious belief; corporal punishment, exempt from gym-classes, swimming, any physical activity, exempt from classes teaching other religions, Darwinism. And yet we, as a society – if we want to be a society, must have some rules that define accepted behaviour. That someone wants them to be somewhat less restrictive than other makes then no less arbitrary or ethnocentric (you use it as an insult. Is it always bad?) or indeed Islamphobic. Many European countries, I don’t know about France, already have laws against parents (and teachers, etc.) using corporal punishment on their children. I consider the full length covering and the Burka to be so extremely restrictive to the girls as to merit the same categorization. It is simply and abhorrent thought to force a girl to wear such a tent when of am age where she should run around and play not be so restricted as to be barely able to move or see. But even the scarf is not so innocent. It insinuates sexuality, sexual purity and sexual powers than must be restrained. A six year old girl can do worse than having a way premature sexuality imposed on her. Also perhaps for some it’s exclusively a religious garment, but there’s no escaping for many others it’s also very much used to send a political message.
The ban seems so much more controversial in America than in Europe. I consider this a genuine difference between European and American culture. Your passion for religion and all things religious. But I, as an European, see no reason why religion should be so special protected, uniquely defended, exempt from laws restricting other areas of life.
I am. Even when discounting the time I spend in Western nations, I am since I was old enough to walk for the greatest part of my life covered from head to toe, including when I’m in public.
I am by preference also dressed the same way whenever I’m in my home, be that in my country or in the West.
Now, since you see yourself as such a great authority in knowing what women must feel and do: Were you ever forced to walk naked in a crowd?
Before I respond in full to **Winston Smith’s ** post (which may have to wait until later, because duty calls at the moment), can someone tell me at what age observant Muslim girls are expected to wear the hijab? It’s at puberty or thereabouts, correct? I’ve never seen a preteen girl wearing one, although they are otherwise pretty plentiful around here, even in downtown Chicago.
Here I went and assumed you were a man, an indication of my despicable male chauvinism no doubt. Well I’m charmed to make your acquaintance miss A. and oh but I don’t claim any authority on women for as all males know: they are a mystery, best, like cats, approached with extreme caution. But I do consider them somewhat humanesque even of genus homo-sapiens, and as such entitled to the same rights and bearing the same burdens and restriction as man. What I do not consider them is a special creature onto themselves, that should be secluded, isolated and protected like a flower. Nor do I call a prepubertesque girl a sexual creature that must be covered up to the protection of her environment. And if a woman has been led to believe it’s like being naked being forced to abandon her burka, I consider that a wretched tragedy of brainwashing. And would gladly help any law that could prevent such a travesty from repeating. As for your question, no I personally have never been forced to walk naked in public. Come to think of it, I actually have never been completely naked in public (outside beaches), for, as you now must know, there are rules that regulate the clothes I’m allowed to wear and not wear in public as in school.
Oh. I see where I went wrong. The Hijab is both a male and female clothing. Of course I’m still equally charmed now that you turn right back and grow a member. Well then I have personal experience wearing it from a dude I know who went on an Egyptian cruise and bought such a one for me. Not my idea of great fashion sense, but then we all have our different tastes. I guess you win by technicality, now can we return to the issue?
While I’m here: “A six year old girl can do worse than having a way premature sexuality imposed on her” -> “A six year old girl can do worse than NOT having a way …” and in case you wondered, yes “obnoxious” is my new word for today (not that that in any way reflect on my personality – I’m obnoxious every day).
Goodnight
Rune
Goddamn motherfucker stupid server is so frigging slow it keeps me up when I ought be tucked up comfortable in my bed. I blame SDMB for my poor work performance tomorrow. Now all I can do until I can send this wretched post, is sit here adding words to an already overloaded message. . . . .
[QUOTE=Aldebaran]
I am. Even when discounting the time I spend in Western nations, I am since I was old enough to walk for the greatest part of my life covered from head to toe, including when I’m in public.
I am by preference also dressed the same way whenever I’m in my home, be that in my country or in the West.
(aside)
Here I thought you were a man also, can’t cite but I seem to recall you having two wives. (aside)
I have seen young girls, prepubesent, covered from head to toe, including their faces. Do they have a choice? I think not.
While your fear that devout muslims are trying to kill you may or may not be justified, I’m sure 0% of the girls’ who are affected by the issue are amongst those who’ll attempt to kill you when the time comes. Very few muslim terrorists are school girls for some reason…
… You’ve taken a figure of speech (“most women”) and blown it way out of proportion with a semantic argument. It doesn’t matter exactly how many women feel this or that way about wearing the hijab - the fact of the matter is that there is a perfectly valid feminist rationale for wearing it, and so you can’t use the symbol-of-opression argument as a case for banning it.
As for French secularism, unless laicite doesn’t in fact translate to secularity, or the French have some vastly different notion of the word, forcing women to not wear an article of clothing in state schools is ridiculous and does not make society less religious. Regardless, it is wrong.
Pointing out that I think the French are contradicting their own principles is frog-bashing? Guilty as charged. Saying that the hijab ban is no different than banning gang symbols or overly-racy clothes is ignoring the context. France is facing immense problems with making its immigrants “French”, and the choice between defining French as a cultural and religious norm, or as a democratic and republican ideal.
Try again. I, for one, am an atheist, and oppose this purely on the grounds that it violates the freedom of expression. I think the difference has less to do with religiosity and more to do with the difference between favoring a culture and favoring an ideal.
As to nun and their habits, a point raised a while ago, the German president wants them to stop wearing habits. so don’t be surpised.
Why do so many live-and-let-live people have to stop others from doing perfectly innocent things? Do some headscarf-wearing muslim women blow themselves up killing innocent people? Sure. Do kippa-wearing guys kill innocents? Sure. Do crucifix-wearing people kill innocents? Sure. Do these sybols represent per se these atrocious act? No way.
Are “real” people really offended by headscarves or crucifixes or is it only politicians and busybodies?
What’s next? I’ll give you a stupid example but that might end up being true.
In Catholicism, priests wear different colours in Mass during different times of the year. Now it is “green” time. Will someone say that Catholics can’t wear green (or red or purple or white depepnding on the time) in a public school because it is a religious symbol.
