France backs school head scarf ban

[Yorick]

Maybe all kids should go to school naked and heads shaved? Then there are no cultural biases. No European imperialism being reinforced, and no African/Asian cultures being repressed.

Or maybe they should just make all the kids wear headscarfs? Why is one culture forced to change, and the other not?

Do french children who go to school in Saudi Arabia or Algiers wear scarfs?

I loved Facemans argument of the topless deal. Fantastic mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

I'm talking about state schools in the UK where the practice is still *universal*. Go to any inner-city London school and you'll discover the white faces mingled with black, Asian and chinese kids in a melting pot of racial diversity - all in school uniforms, all with a common identity.

Originally posted by Yorick: Do french children who go to school in Saudi Arabia or Algiers wear scarfs?

It's fairly clear that you havn't been around the middle east...

Actually in Saudia Arabia they WOULD have to wear a scarf if they entered a public school.

French women WOULD be charged with indecency for wearing shorts or a T-shirt in public and ARE subject to a fine if they are caught without a hijab (as in Qatar). And they WILL draw constant attention from the religious police if they fail to wear an Abaya.

Non-muslim men and women should also be aware that only muslims may enter Mecca and Medina - look for the non-muslim road bypass routes (clearly marked 'non-muslim drivers'). Of course, this is not an issue for women because it is ILLEGAL for women to drive cars in Saudia Arabia anyway.

Oh, and if you're thinking of bringing a bible with you - DON'T. It will be confiscated at the border as it is ILLEGAL to bring non-Islamic religious material into the country. There's tolerance for you, Saudia Arabia style.

But Saudia Arabia has a solution to the problems caused by immigrants - walled and guarded compounds for foreigners, inside of which the state turns a blind eye to many 'immoral' practices like sun-beds etc. Although they do raid them every now and again if a women is seen showing her bare arms by someone in a house overlooking the compound...

Segregation in the most extreme form.

Originally posted by Yorick: I loved Facemans argument of the topless deal. Fantastic mate.

Or to be more realistic, put the argument in reverse. Let's say that the women comes from a south american tribe where going topless is perfectly normal.

Should we just allow her to go topless when she arrives in the USA then?
Or would the state refuse to allow the practice ruling that it would not only be harmful to society but would endanger her personal wellbeing as well?

This is the case in france - where the issue is as much about improving the situation of immigrants as it is at building a common integrated community. And the state is not (as in Saudia Arabia) legislating what religious groups can do in public AND PRIVATE but merely setting the rules of dress whilst inside a public building.

Has no-one ever been to a black tie event or gone to a night-club where dress rules apply? And if you refused to bow down to those rules, didn't you exercise your right NOT to enter the establishment in the first place?

Personally, despite having visited Saudia Arabia many times and liking the country very much - I chose NOT to live there as I could not accept the rules that society placed upon the individual.

It is a matter of choice.


[ 02-12-2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: It's fairly clear that you havn't been around the middle east...

Actually I have visited Dubai.

Actually in Saudia Arabia they WOULD have to wear a scarf if they entered a public school. French women WOULD be charged with indecency for wearing shorts or a T-shirt in public and ARE subject to a fine if they are caught without a hijab (as in Qatar). And they WILL draw constant attention from the religious police if they fail to wear an Abaya. Non-muslim men and women should also be aware that only muslims may enter Mecca and Medina - look for the non-muslim road bypass routes (clearly marked 'non-muslim drivers'). Of course, this is not an issue for women because it is ILLEGAL for women to drive cars in Saudia Arabia anyway. But Saudia Arabia has a solution to the problems caused by immigrants - walled and guarded compounds for foreigners, inside of which the state turns a blind eye to many 'immoral' practices like sun-beds etc. Although they do raid them every now and again if a women is seen showing her bare arms by someone in a house overlooking the compound... Segregation in the most extreme form.

And you are advocating this? What is the difference, in principle to what the French ruling is?

Oh, and if you're thinking of bringing a bible with you - DON'T. It will be confiscated at the border as it is ILLEGAL to bring non-Islamic religious material into the country. There's tolerance for you, Saudia Arabia style.

We'll just have to see about that when I attempt it then.
There is a case arguing that the bible is Islamic literature anyway. People of the book we are.
In any case, I've had close mates take bibles into Turkey and China. Both groups could have been killed.

Or to be more realistic, put the argument in reverse. Let's say that the women comes from a south american tribe where going topless is perfectly normal. Should we just allow her to go topless when she arrives in the USA then? Or would the state refuse to allow the practice ruling that it would not only be harmful to society but would endanger her personal wellbeing as well?

Yeah we certainly should allow her to. She can make a choice. Men are allowed to wander around topless. Didn't you hear? It's now legal in New York. Impossible to prosecute a woman for doing exactly that.

This is the case in france - where the issue is as much about improving the situation of immigrants as it is at building a common integrated community. And the state is not (as in Saudia Arabia) legislating what religious groups can do in public AND PRIVATE but merely setting the rules of dress whilst inside a public building. Has no-one ever been to a black tie event or gone to a night-club where dress rules apply? And if you refused to bow down to those rules, didn't you exercise your right NOT to enter the establishment in the first place? Personally, despite having visited Saudia Arabia many times and liking the country very much - I chose NOT to live there as I could not accept the rules that society placed upon the individual. It is a matter of choice.

I don't agree with integrated societies. I believe in multiculturalism. I agree with Sikhs being allowed to wear their headgear, Jews and Hassidic Jews allowed to wear their caps, hats and coats, and do what they must on a sabbath. I agree with Muslims from Africa and the Middle east wearing their long shirts, light pants, hats and the like. Every morning I eat islamic food for beakfast, and enjoy the teas, stews and Al-Jazeera television playing in the background.

I agree with encouraging Gaelic, Lapp, Ainu and Pitjanjarra languages spoken as minority languages. I believe in allowing gays to wear leather, nuns to wear habits, monks to wear robes, businessmen to wear suits, blacks to wear hiphop baggy pants, caps and thin scarfs, women to wear dress, pants, or robes, men to wear dresses pants, robes. Whatever.

I celebrate and enjoy the myriad colours, smells, tastes and sights the diverse cultures and individuals on the planet bring with them when they move to New York, or Sydney.

I believe in multiculturalism, and that true "integration" occurs when differences are celebrated, encouraged and shared.

[Yorick]

I think part of the subliminal issue is that France once had to defend against perpetual Islamic invasions from the Spanish Moors. Perhaps in the French psyche, this is perceived as another invasion of sorts. Cultural rather than with arms. By immigrants and refugees, rather than warriors.

How do you erase hundreds of years of fear? Spain was ruled for 600 or more years by the Islamic Moors.

Moiraine? Are you reading this? What do you say? Is a remnant of collective cultural fear at least in part driving the "concern" with the rise in Islam? You would know better than I.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually I have visited Dubai.

Then your eyes were closed to culture around you, or you would never have asked whether a french women could be prosecuted for not covering up.

Originally posted by Yorick: And you are advocating this? What is the difference, in principle to what the French ruling is?

Obviously I was not advocating Saudia Arabian law - I was merely bringing you up to date the state of play in the country.

As for the difference in in principle between the french ruling and current Saudi Arabian law, I thought that my text adequately explained this, but to be succinct:

The proposed French law is designed to INTEGRATE the foreign population and remove barriers (physical or otherwise) that prevent non-native french from participating fully in french society as EQUALS with full rights to practice whatever religion they so choose. The new law only affects those entering public buildings.

Saudi Arabian law is designed to SEGREGATE the foreign population and create barriers (both physical and otherwise) that prevents non-native Saudis from participating fully in Saudi society as EQUALS. It also hinders the right to practice religion and intrudes upon the individuals rights and freedoms both in private and in public - it does not simply limit itself to state owned buildings.

Originally posted by Yorick: Yeah we certainly should allow her to. She can make a choice. Men are allowed to wander around topless. Didn't you hear? It's now legal in New York. Impossible to prosecute a woman for doing exactly that.

Not entirely true. If the women opens up a fruit and veg shop and serves the customers topless she WOULD be charged in New York as it would be considered part of her business activity (which remains illegal).

Which brings me on to another point. Here in the Netherlands, prostitution is now legal. Should a professional Dutch prostitute go to New York it would be ILLEGAL for her to continue her profession. Her culture is therefore NOT being respected there - why not?

It seems that society has it limits to what it will allow those born in another culture to do - even in New York.


There is an important principle in a FREE society.
That is, that the exercise of your personal freedom should not over-ride the personal freedom of others nor endanger the life and limb of others.

Consider this in the context of the french ruling - where law makers have decided that society must be protected from adverse effects of an ever-growing fracture which has itself already lead to death, injury and destruction of property.
The new law does NOT prevent religions from being practiced, it does NOT prevent individuality (individuals are otherwise free to dress as they choose) and it does NOT treat one group differently from another.
All in all, it was a carefully considered measure to tackle an ever growing (and very severe) social problem.

Originally posted by Yorick: I think part of the subliminal issue is that France once had to defend against perpetual Islamic invasions from the Spanish Moors. Perhaps in the French psyche, this is perceived as another invasion of sorts. Cultural rather than with arms. By immigrants and refugees, rather than warriors. How do you erase hundreds of years of fear? Spain was ruled for 600 or more years by the Islamic Moors.

I **REALLY** don't think that the Moorish invasions of the 8th century had any bearing on public opinion today.


[ 02-13-2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Dundee Slaytern]

Strictly speaking. The wearing of the headscarf for Muslim women is not for religious purposes. It is more of a... cultural thing.

Over here, headscarves have been banned from school for several decades already, and with approval from the Muslim community.

Of course, there are some who disagree, but they are in the minority.

However, Sikhs are still allowed to wear their turbans, because it does have religious significance for them. They are also allowed to wear their ceremonial dagger, so long as it is not concealed.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: I **REALLY** don't think that the Moorish invasions of the 8th century had any bearing on public opinion today.

I was asking Claude, not you.

Collective memory in the collective psychology of a people is a factual reality Skunk. Some cultures have collective memories that go further back than others.

As per the Islamic cultures idea that the Israel/Palestine situation is an extension of the crusades. I believe the counties of Edessa and Jerusalem lasted longer than Israel has thus far, and yet faded into oblivion.