France's 'haedscarf ban' law and the hostages : view from a French

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: 1.My issue is that it's not neutrality, but the imposition of secularism over all other worldviews. You see secularism as "neutral" yet it is actually just another worldview like any other. Recent impositions of secularism were in the Soviet Union, China, East Germany and other communist authoritarian regimes, where secularism was the state worldview, and deviance from it was punishable by death, salt mines, persecution, imprisonment etc. I see the ban as a step in that direction. True neutrality is not imposing or emphasising one view over another, not forcibly imposing a worldview as in these cases.

Yes, the way France aims to achieve neutrality in French schools is just another worldview. I never said otherwise. Not the only best way, but one way, our way. And it is one of the fundamentals of French society.

Look, if you come to my place, I won't have to say to you "Please don't pea in the dining room". Because it is part of common courtesy. And yet, if you did, and said that you didn't know it is forbidden, I would have to ask it explicitely to any new visitor. The new law is nothing more than that : making clear what the rule of courtesy is in France, since a few people didn't seem to abide by the cultural contract living in France induces.

What should France do if someone asked to go naked to school because his religion required it ? France would have to edict a 'new law' stating that it is not possible since it would make the rest of the people at school quite uncomfortable. It is as simple as that. The rule has not changed : it has been explicitely reinforced. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Do you suggest that a country changes its principles every time a very few people state they cannot live with them ? What of democracy ?

I am a bit short in time right now - talk later about the rest of your post. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Moiraine.... it's not the same as inviting someone into your house. You're talking about co-owners of the house!! Otherwise you're relegating them a second class citizen status.

This is a consequence of allowing immigration. Multicultural nations like America, Britain, Canada and Australia haven't had to enact laws banning this. In fact, no-one supports it internationally.

(EDIT FOR INCORRECT STATISTICS)

America has 7 million Muslims. In Australia 1.5% of the population are Islamic.
Yet our cultures are not adversely affected. They have changed, yes, but that is what happens with immigration. The immigrants affect the culture of the place! The culture is what changes, the immigrants shouldn't have to!

Maybe it's an "old world" reaction to a "New World" situation.... but then Britain have large Hindu and Muslim populations and haven't felt the need to legislate against Mulsim beliefs.

In any case it's all hotting up now, with the two French hostages being taken in Iraq because of the ban. Muslims ARE seeing it as an attack on Islam, despite Chirac's rhetoric.

I have to say, as a Christian who has many issues with Islam, that I agree and support their right to practice their beliefs. It's not advertising their beliefs, it's simply being allowed to practice them in public.

I hope you guys sort it out, and I also hope terrorist response is minimal. Certainly French Muslims are deriding the hostage takers... will await all this with baited breath.

[ 09-04-2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Do you suggest that a country changes its principles every time a very few people state they cannot live with them ? What of democracy ?

I'm afraid that changing principles is exactly what happens in a democracy, Moiraine. For most of it's 200 year history, America had some established "standard rules" also and these were never questioned by immigrants coming into the country. They were just so happy to be in a free country (relatively speaking) where they could pursue their dream - they didn't mind conforming to the country's culture and laws. But as these immigrants had children, and then grandchildren - the newer, younger generations started demanding that America conform to fit (or at least accomodate) thier culture as well. Teachers in California and South Florida are often required to be bilingual - because it is no longer "politically correct" to expect Spanish-speaking immigrants to learn English. Instead, we have to change to accomodate them.

That is one of the best known examples, but it has led to a climate in which ANY minority group can now DEMAND - not ask, but DEMAND - that they be given special accomodations, status and acknowledgement for their minority beliefs. Refusal by gov't to do so is labeled as "oppression" and "bigotry". So now, you have very vocal minority groups (representing a vast array of cultures, beliefs and lifestyles) all demanding that the government make special accomodations for thier particular wants rather than making them put forth the effort necessary to conform to the majority.

Rant Mode Off

Having said all that, I would like to say that it IS very nice to see you back here again - and is especially nice to have a French perspective given in relation to the headscarf and hostage situation.

It's good to have ya back, Darlin' We missed you. [img]graemlins/1luvu.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Bilingualism is a big part of a culture shifting as a result of immigration. So is culinary options (yummm... sushi!!), fashion, architecture.

Would France ban Mosques from being built because they don't fit into the existing architecture? Sydney has plenty of Mosques, and Buddhist temples that have totally changed the Anglo-Saxon dominant architectural landscape.

Would France ban Islamic food if it outsells traditional French cuisine, and changes traditional French village markets? Like Sushi has done in Australia for example? (Down with the meat pie, long live sushi)

Why should girls clothing be any different?

Cerek good post. I agree it's nice having Claude back in the fray! We NEED the French perspective in here!
[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Mind you... certain versions of the European CASTLE is derived from Islamic architecture.

[Moiraine]

LOL ! Both of you so glad to see me, and then intent on impressing on me how wrong I am !

Again, I never said the French way is the best and only way to implement secularity at school. (I prefer the French word "Laïcity" because it conveys much more than just the attitude towards only religion, it is closer to a cultural attitude towards all opinions in general, religious, politic, and the French way to handle teaching all kinds of different people with all these different opinions in a same place ; it also forbids economic marketing in schools; "Neutrality" would be a better translation). I only tried to convey the fact that laïcity is a fundamental core value in French society. As fundamental as the right to own a gun in U.S. society, and what kind of event would make the U.S. government remove that right ? As such, there is absolutely no way that either a very small minority of French citizens or a bunch of foreign terrorists may force the French government to change it.

Cerek, you just helped me to point that the French way and the U.S. way and every other way are not perfect, they both induce unwanted consequences. My only goal in posting the above was to try to explain the French viewpoint; I was not saying that "my way is the best and only one", and I hope all of you reading my post will give back the same courtesy to France.

Yorick, I KNEW you would point the 'inviting into my house' ! Yes, Yorick, it is the same : when you are an immigrant, you first come to the house of others to make it your own, then you settle in and vote and act in politics if you want some things change. The huge majority of the French Muslims saw it that way. Some of them were pro the law and some aginst, but currently they all unite in saying that whatever good or bad, the French law must be abided by.

Sure, the immigrants did, do and will change the French society. But it must happen in a democratic way. Cerek, the democratic way to change the rules is to vote and politically act to implement changes. Then, if a majority of people agree with you, the rule changes. But you don't try to change the rules through blackmail, is what I meant. If you blackmail, doesn't it mean that you know you don't have enough people supporting you to democratically make the change ?

You just tell me both what your government would do if someone stated his religion compelled him to go naked at all times ...

Yorick, you make a substantial mistake : France doesn't forbid anyone to practice his/her religion, not even in public, not even at school - the rule is that they may not FLAUNT it at SCHOOL. From the priciple that religion is a private choice. If a Muslim wants to pray, he/she can ask for a private room to do so. And all schools provide meals with no pork for Muslims and Jews, and can accomodate other religous needs. It is a matter of courtesy really.

Laïcity goes far beyond secularism at school. It also forbids the flaunting of political beliefs. It also forbids companies from sponsoring school material, or come to schools to talk of their products. I have read somewhere that it is not the case in the U.S. - as a French, I would find very very shocking if my kid would study in a book branded "MacDonald's". But hey, if it works for you people, fine. [img]smile.gif[/img]

One last remark : before yelling at French laïcity and saying it is all wrong, remember that the French people, from their history, have come to associate "religion" with "oppression", while the people crossing the oceans to live in the new worlds associated "religion" with "freedom". I believe that this helps explaining the wide cultural gap between French culture and U.S. and Australian cultures. I keep that in mind whenever I come here and discuss with very religious people from across the Big Ponds. Keep in mind that for most French people with European roots, allowing unchecked religious expression in schools would mean a huge backwards step. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have actually seen a woman cry, because when she was young she had actually fought the obligation from the Catholic Church that compelled the women to wear a headscarf in public before WWII, and now she was seeing it coming back with despair ...

[ 09-06-2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Last, allow me to say I had thought you Ironworks people would be ahead on understanding all I said above : are not all of you making compromises by abiding by the Ironworks rules in order to come here and talk with each others ?

The difference is that people are not obliged to come to an internet forum, while they are obliged to go to school. If they are obliged to remove their head scarves to go to school, and their personal religious beliefs insist on head-scarves, then their religion is being oppressed. In the defence of the 'head-scarf ban', I would say that religious beliefs should not take precedence over national laws. We don't allow people to amputate shoplifters hands.

[Aerich]

Howdy, Moiraine. We haven't "met" before, but I'm glad to see some views come in from the country under discussion.

While some people here might not like it, there is a logical rationale behind the headscarf ban. It's a touchy issue, but that's the direction your country has chosen to go - for understandable historical reasons. You made a great point about French history; that it views or even equates religion with oppression. To draw a comparison with the USA (expanding further on your points), New England was largely settled by Puritans who emigrated to achieve the freedom to express and practice their religion.

Interesting story from BC - we did have a leetle controversy about a ritual Sikh dagger, as I recall (it's part of the maturation ceremony). IIRC, the orginal decision was to allow it to be worn to school, if it was firmly fixed in the sheath - e.g. could not be drawn. The dagger was eventually disallowed, I think, after some parental complaints.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Moiraine, but hasn't there been a headscarf ban before? I took a comparative course on law and religion two years ago, and we read an article on headscarf issues in France.

[Moiraine]

Hi Aerich. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

I have been on Ironworks for quite a while, since the 'blue board' time, but I have not been very vocal this last year. [img]smile.gif[/img]

To answer your question, I am not a lawyer, so I may not be as precise as you would like, but to my knowledge, from the "Separation of church and state" fundamental law edicted in 1905, there has not been any additional law since. But there has been a "circulaire" (I don't know how these awful lawyer words translate , I think this one could possibly be translated as "memo") from the Council of State in 1989, as an answer to the problems having arisen from a few Muslim girls wearing a headscarf at school.

The original law edicted in 1905 was a kind of revolution in itself : it removed the status of "State religion" that the Catholic Church had had for more than 1000 years. I shudder to imagine how current Muslim people would have reacted if they had been compelled to get Catholic teaching at school, to go to Catholic churches for masses, to pay with their taxes for Catholic priests, ... !

[Aerich]

Ah, the article I read must have been commenting on the circulaire, then, not a ban current at the time. I'll have to dig it up and read it again.

You make another excellent point about the removal of the Catholic Church as the state religion. For sure, Moslems (and many Christians, agnostics, atheists, etc) will be happier with a ban on everybody rather than an overt emphasis in schools on one religion. I would be too. There's enough problems around teachers' political views and the extent to which they expound on them in the classroom - just think of the outcry if they could freely state all their religious views...

Btw, what's the status of the two hostages?

I think the hostage-takers' demand is a "red herring" anyway. I can't see that they really care that deeply about the "plight" of Moslems in France, or really think that their attempted blackmail will work. IMO, that demand was an attempt to stir up French Moslems against the government, perhaps creating domestic political turmoil. It could also be that the kidnappers got the wrong guys (or at least the wrong nationality) and are trying to get the most results from their mistake.

[ 09-10-2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]