France backs school head scarf ban

[Yorick]

Originally posted by dplax: Also technically in France everyone should be equal, which coincides with one of the fundamental theories of muslim peoples religion, that men are superior to women. So basically for France it was a human rights against religion debate where both sides were right in their own way.

I have a preoccupation with people enforcing a "all must be equal" mentality.

What is equal? All humans are not equal. Men, by and large are stronger than women. Women by and large multitask better than men. Though there are exceptions, there are modes of communication that differ. Women lose blood each month.

Even give all that, humans are all different. Sure accord as many equal chances, rights and allowances, but removing the concept of any discrimination, makes selecting employees a minefield.

Say I want to hire a female singer. I am discriminating against men. Yep. Sorry. If you're a man, you don't get the gig.

Say I want to hire a man to play Hitler in a play. I am discriminating against women.

Being anal about discrimination and equality directly overrides artistic creativity. I joined a band that had to fight off a legal move from some woman offended that they only wanted a male singer. What about picking a bride? I am discriminating against men by dating women! HECK!

Discrimination is something we do every day when we select one thing over another. It can't and shouldn't be totally eradicated. Anal political correctness can go waaay to far.

[Skunk]

Interestingly enough the muslim population in France is split approximately 50/50 on the new law (according to the opinion polls).

Personally, I'm in favour of this law. It's nice to see a sensible approach to address the issue of fragmentation in society.

By the way were you guys aware that the hijab is banned in (Islamic) Tunisia?

[ 02-10-2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Personally, I'm in favour of this law. It's nice to see a sensible approach to address the issue of fragmentation in society.

And where does that stop? Do you advocate government DNA programs so all children are blonde haired and blue eyed also? Is making sure people look the same the only solution to fragmented society? Or is perhaps educating open mindedness on ALL sides, so that appearances are not so important - either in defining your spirituality by wearing headgear, or refusing someone the right to define their spirituality by headgear.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks to Skunk for pointing out the Tunsania law -- and kudos to Skunk for having obscure knowledge re muslim practices. Sometimes I may not appreciate them, but such is life.

I agree however with Yorick. Diversity should be celebrated. Cultures should be encouraged, not slammed, in their effort to maintain identity in an ever-homogonizing world.

Note re other thread: this just may include diverse "nuclear families," Yorick.

Finally, I think Yorick makes a good point regarding "equality." While it's a bit offtopic, I note that people are not born equal, so "equality" cannot be, generally, about making people "equal." It's about giving each unique individual an "equal" opportunity for success.

[Faceman]

While I acknowledge the try to separate religion from state, I strongly disagree with this law.
It is a strong crackdown on personal freedom and IMHO outright fascistic.
It's laws and movements like this one that make it so damn difficult for me to be a lefty sometimes. Tolerance swings both ways, and you can't just forbid something because you don't like it and feel that your rationalistic ideology is superior to the religion of somebody else.
Sadly the followers of the Enlightenment have become very similar to a religious movement and especially in very secular countries like france they act as if atheism was the state religion.
I fully agree with Yorick on this, and kudos to his very concise examples, but let me add another thought:
While it may not be the rule, some of these children might be deeply religious and for that feel "sinful" without wearing their head scarf or their Kippa, a position which no state should put its citizens in.
And for something absurd:
Imagine a western girl moved to an African or South American tribe were being topless is normal for women. And now imagine she was FORBIDDEN to wear a top.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is a good piece of advice, but it shouldn't be a law.

[Skunk]

I will probably fail in my efforts to make clear the reasoning behind the new french law but maybe I can give a different perspective to the issue.

When I was a kid, we HAD to wear a school uniform. If you refused to wear it, or a single item, or even refused to do up the top button on your shirt, the school was within its rights to send you home as being 'improperly dressed'.

Sounds draconian to those who never went through (and came out the other side) of the system. But it had very good reasons.

It stimulated unity - we were all the same. Take Harry (father a judge, mother a doctor). He's not short of cash - but he looks just the same as Larry (father a roadsweep, mother a cleaner).

Since no-one is allowed to wear sneakers - no child has to look foolish in front of his peers when they all arrrive in $500 dollar sneakers (and his only cost $30 dollars).

Likewise, you could identify with other members of the school whenever you saw them outside of the school (on a school day) - that added a positive dimension to the process of unity too.

For hundreds of reasons, it was a great system and it was a COMPULSORY system.

Throughout our lives, we are forced to wear uniforms of one sort or another in order to generate this unity.

When we highlight differences, that it the point when that society becomes fractured, when people begin to mistrust eachother and their motives.

They're not like us, they do X (insert as applicable) which is just plain weird/immoral/mad (delete as appropriate)

In France today, immigration came faster than integration. As a result, much of the islamic community lives in it's own islands in each city (usually dominating the worst sections).

Mistrust and misunderstandings have also helped to ensure a passive intolerance that has permeated society from childhood to old-age. Try finding a job when wearing a Sikh turban or an islamic hijab in France - and you'll have a harder time than someone of the same qualifications who doesn't.

All of this begins at school age. It's very hard to teach children that we are all basically the same, when the jews sit in one corner of the class, muslims in the second corner, Sikhs in the third, hindus in the fourth and aethiests in the middle.

It's like a prison where the blacks and whites huddle in corners of their own and if any of them chooses to talk to the other group, their own group starts questioning their loyalty What's wrong with your own kind
Well guess what - we're all basically the same kind - we just don't know it because we're too busy emphasising small differences. VISIBLE small differences which make the differences look larger than they really are.

And if you think that this is an extreme picture - you'd be wrong. It already exists (and I've certainly seen it in the school system in the Netherlands) and on the streets when the kids play. Hardly a white face amongst the morrocans and hardly a brown face amonst the white kids.

By now, I think that most of you know me well enough to know that I'm a staunch supporter of religious rights and will rush to defend islam from hate lies and muslims from abuse. But this law is not about abusing the rights of muslims or other religious groups.

The measure is designed to force INTEGRATION and REDUCE INTOLERANCE. It may seem harsh (especially in the beginning) but it is not out of proportion with the scale of the problem - which is severe.

In the long-term it will benefit the minority communities and will probably lead to a level of integration as seen in the UK within 20 years (which is a hell of a lot more advanced - but still far from perfect).

[ 02-11-2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I understand the concept of school uniforms, but where they are used in secular schools, I've seen them make allowances for religious attire. I would think they should certainly make allowances for REQUIRED religious attire.

Anyway, the women are probably better off in my biased view. Theoretically, I think society must respect these, and most all, religious practices. But realistically, well, absent this particular religious garb, these women will be more likely to self-empowered, strong, etc. But, there I go letting my viewpoint dictate.

Faceman, excellent thoughts -- absent the "fascistic" reference, that is.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Faceman: While I acknowledge the try to separate religion from state, I strongly disagree with this law. It is a strong crackdown on personal freedom and IMHO outright fascistic. It's laws and movements like this one that make it so damn difficult for me to be a lefty sometimes. Tolerance swings both ways, and you can't just forbid something because you don't like it and feel that your rationalistic ideology is superior to the religion of somebody else. Sadly the followers of the Enlightenment have become very similar to a religious movement and especially in very secular countries like france they act as if atheism was the state religion. I fully agree with Yorick on this, and kudos to his very concise examples, but let me add another thought: While it may not be the rule, some of these children might be deeply religious and for that feel "sinful" without wearing their head scarf or their Kippa, a position which no state should put its citizens in. And for something absurd: Imagine a western girl moved to an African or South American tribe were being topless is normal for women. And now imagine she was FORBIDDEN to wear a top. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is a good piece of advice, but it shouldn't be a law.

Faceman that's an excellent post. Hear hear!

[ 02-12-2004, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: I will probably fail in my efforts to make clear the reasoning behind the new french law but maybe I can give a different perspective to the issue. When I was a kid, we HAD to wear a school uniform. If you refused to wear it, or a single item, or even refused to do up the top button on your shirt, the school was within its rights to send you home as being 'improperly dressed'. Sounds draconian to those who never went through (and came out the other side) of the system. But it had very good reasons. It stimulated unity - we were all the same. Take Harry (father a judge, mother a doctor). He's not short of cash - but he looks just the same as Larry (father a roadsweep, mother a cleaner). Since no-one is allowed to wear sneakers - no child has to look foolish in front of his peers when they all arrrive in $500 dollar sneakers (and his only cost $30 dollars). Likewise, you could identify with other members of the school whenever you saw them outside of the school (on a school day) - that added a positive dimension to the process of unity too. For hundreds of reasons, it was a great system and it was a COMPULSORY system. Throughout our lives, we are forced to wear uniforms of one sort or another in order to generate this unity. When we highlight differences, that it the point when that society becomes fractured, when people begin to mistrust eachother and their motives. They're not like us, they do X (insert as applicable) which is just plain weird/immoral/mad (delete as appropriate) In France today, immigration came faster than integration. As a result, much of the islamic community lives in it's own islands in each city (usually dominating the worst sections). Mistrust and misunderstandings have also helped to ensure a passive intolerance that has permeated society from childhood to old-age. Try finding a job when wearing a Sikh turban or an islamic hijab in France - and you'll have a harder time than someone of the same qualifications who doesn't. All of this begins at school age. It's very hard to teach children that we are all basically the same, when the jews sit in one corner of the class, muslims in the second corner, Sikhs in the third, hindus in the fourth and aethiests in the middle. It's like a prison where the blacks and whites huddle in corners of their own and if any of them chooses to talk to the other group, their own group starts questioning their loyalty What's wrong with your own kind Well guess what - we're all basically the same kind - we just don't know it because we're too busy emphasising small differences. VISIBLE small differences which make the differences look larger than they really are. And if you think that this is an extreme picture - you'd be wrong. It already exists (and I've certainly seen it in the school system in the Netherlands) and on the streets when the kids play. Hardly a white face amongst the morrocans and hardly a brown face amonst the white kids. By now, I think that most of you know me well enough to know that I'm a staunch supporter of religious rights and will rush to defend islam from hate lies and muslims from abuse. But this law is not about abusing the rights of muslims or other religious groups. The measure is designed to force INTEGRATION and REDUCE INTOLERANCE. It may seem harsh (especially in the beginning) but it is not out of proportion with the scale of the problem - which is severe. In the long-term it will benefit the minority communities and will probably lead to a level of integration as seen in the UK within 20 years (which is a hell of a lot more advanced - but still far from perfect).

I couldn't disagree more.

I believe the fundamental notion of public schooling seriously needs addressing, but that's another topic. However, I will say, it seriously fails to allow for those that don't fit into it's narrow contraints. My primary and secondary scholling seriously failed me. I learned more outside school. On my leaving paper I answered an essay topic I read the night before for FUN rather than the question the rest of my class spent weeks studying. 78% was the mark.

The same school had a "short hair" policy, to enforce these antiquated ideas you're espousing about uniformity. And I do say antiquated, because they originated in old world European cultures, rather than New world multiculturalism. France is now dealing with multiculturalism it seems.

It's fine if in a rich all boys English private school everyone looks the same in white shirts. That is if most have white faces and light hair. Put a lad from the Congo in there, and they'll stick out like a sore thumb, their dark skin looking darker against the white shirt.

Anyhow, this is 2004. Cultures have merged all over the globe. We don't need suits and ties developed in Europe to be the enforced uniform for a hot weather culture on the other side of the globe.

But back to the hair policy. I broke it. I grew my hair. To cut a long story short, the school changed it's policy. I refused to cut it, and provided all sorts of written reasons why not week in week out. The policy meant my brother was able to grow his hair down to his waist in the years that followed.

When he was in his final year, the school got a new Principle and reversed the decision, going back to a short hair policy, but made a public declaration they were exempting my brother because of the "emotional duress" it may have caused him to cut hi waist length hair. The drummer in a band Leonis and I were in, (he in Leonis school year) was one made to cut his hair, and was very pissed off!

So in short, this little personal anecdote is meant to highlight the fact that uniformity not something I agree with. Nor same sex schooling, nor the current system of public education. If all the Jews huddle together let them. If the Hindus huddle together let them. You are against huddling together for religious/cultural differences, when there would be tribal lines drawn in other areas, Say the sports jocks hanging out, or the musician/actors hanging out. Or the rich, or the good looking, or the slow.

That is a problem with schools. Unnatural minisocieties.

If you're going to have schools, let kids huddle together if being publicly Jewish gives them a sense of belonging and helps them learn. Let them wear their headgear, or grow their hair if that's how they express their developing personlity. Why repress the budding individualist. The girl who wears the headgear, could use school as a place where she CHOOSES to remove it away from her parents, instead of driving home a repressive appearance rule that focusses on her faith.

[Chewbacca]

School uniforms have become more the norm in some disctricts here. They help curb gang violence in the inner-city as well as obscure social class (read:money) differences as well.

I can see how the French ban is designed to promote the end of class fragmentation based on religion and/or culture. I can also see how reaching a compromise sensitive to various religous and cultural customs seems very difficult.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't- situation in my opinion..