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

[Moiraine]

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

I came back from summer vacation yesterday and was quite busy at work, and I don't currently have Internet at home (disagreement with my phone line provider, hopefully it'll get fixed soon). So I didn't get a chance to post a French viewpoint in the 'headscarf ban' topic, and I see it's now closed.

Ziroc, I hope my posting of a new topic on the subject is OK ? If not, remove this thread or close it, fine by me. I would really like to clarify a few points from an 'inside France' viewpoint, but abiding by the Ironworks rules comes first. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The first point to understand is that laicity at school is a very fundamental rule of the French republic. Meaning that school must be a neutral ground, where people from all cultural and religious and political and class backgrounds and beliefs can talk together and learn to live together.

I would also add that it is maybe the only topic on which the entire rainbow of political sensibilities ALL agree upon. The rule is that deeply ingrained in French culture.

It doesn't mean that people are restrained from practicing their religion (or their political engagements, for that matter. 25 years ago, back when I was at school, the debates turned more around politics than religion). It means that people are supposed to not flaunt their beliefs on the neutral ground that is school. That they are supposed to make the necessary compromises required to make communication possible in a vast group of people with widely different backgrounds and beliefs. Does that sound unreasonable ?

Two remarks. The first is that until last year, no additional law seemed required, although there have been Muslims coming to and living in France for decades. Were those bad Muslims ? Are the huge majority of French Muslims who nowadays agree with the 'neutral ground' school rule bad Muslims ? Their call to say, not mine. But about the hostage taking, the head council of the French Muslims clearly expressed that they AGREE with the law : "«Nous vous demandons au nom d'Allah, au nom de notre religion, de notre présence, au nom de notre adhésion à toutes les questions justes, nous vous demandons de relâcher les otages français ainsi que leur chauffeur.» «La loi [sur l'interdiction du port des signes religieux à l'école] est une loi désirée par les musulmans, qui vivent sans brimades en France, ne souffrent pas de leur situation (...) et nous avons transmis ce message aux oulémas» (Sorry for quoting this is French, you'll just have to do the translation by yourselves, for a change ).

The second remark is that back in the time when people wore hats when outside, it was considered deeply unpolite and disrespectful not to remove your hat at school in the classrooms. Maybe the fact that the Islamic veil is a kind of hat had its part in strucking a cord in the French society ...

Until last year, no law was required because people living in France and people coming to France tacitly agreed with the values of the country. The fact that suddenly, after 40 years of Muslim immigration, all of a sudden a very few but highly vocal Muslim people started yelling 'repression' smacks, IMO, of blackmail. Should the French Republic facing blackmail lie down and show its belly and agree to open the door to the shattering of on of its most fundamental values ?

Is it unreasonable for a Republic to ask its citizens to make the necessary compromises on the neutral ground of school necessary to being together ? The new law states that people must not wear 'flaunting signs' of their beliefs. Yeah, there is a gray area : when does a sign start to be 'flaunting' ? But you have to put the line somewhere, and consider the people smart enough to know where to stop. Catholic cross or jewish David stars or Muslim Fatma hands medallions never were considered 'flaunting'. But what if someone suddenly states that his wearing a full-size cross like Jesus' is essential to his religious self and he cannot be parted of it on account of non religious repression ... ?

Back when I was in high school, I was in the same class than the daughter of the local Rabbine. And she refused to take notes on Saturdays mornings on account of her religion. And she tried to have the date of a public exam change because it was to take place on a Saturday. Well, if 7 different pupils come back and each says he cannot work on a specific day of the week and each has a different day, what then ? So, see, if you start allowing people not to make those compromises necessary to living in society, you open the door to the very shattering of the Republic ...

Anyway, guys, I thought one's religious beliefs were in his or her heart and mind and soul. Not on his or her head ! What the law forbids is the EXTERNAL FLAUNTING of one's beliefs, not the beliefs themselves !

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 ? I find Ziroc's ban of religious discussions in here is quite in line with the French law, and for quite the same reasons. Maybe it is more my French cultural background that has so far made easy for me to get along in here more than my personal nature. Would at least show that the French way of raising its future citizens is not so bad after all, wouldn't you agree ?

[Davros]

Welcome back Claude, and thanks for putting over a badly needed French perspective on the topic. I have missed your presence here - glad to see you back, and I hope you had a wonderful vacation. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[wellard]

A Fascinating post Moiraine. Long live secular ideals. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Just read a BBC report that claims only about 70 people went against the ban... A great success, well done France.

[Moiraine]

Hi, Davvy, Wellard ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Posting from work, I haven't had the time to read all 7 pages of the previous topic, only the first one, but from what I read, it seemed to me that the French viewpoint (which seems so evident to me !) wasn't really understood, so I felt I should try to explain.

EDIT : Groan ! I managed to make a spelling mistake in the title ...

[ 09-03-2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Timber Loftis]

So, how was the national month of rest for you? Did you travel in France or internationally?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, how was the national month of rest for you? Did you travel in France or internationally?

Hi Timber ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] Actually, the 'national month' was only 2 weeks for me. I stayed in France (I live in the Eastern mountains, so I went to the Western sea, big change of scenery.

We met two Dutch students at a camping, and we had a nice evening talking. They told us the French are arrogant - we asked "why ?" - they answered that most French won't bother speak English. So the only French people who are told they are arrogant are those who do speak English and so are supposedly not so ... :

Went to the beach (a lot), visited a castle and bought some Cognac. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

They told us the French are arrogant - we asked "why ?" - they answered that most French won't bother speak English. So the only French people who are told they are arrogant are those who do speak English and so are supposedly not so ... :

LOL. How very funny. Only two weeks, huh? Cherish it -- I can't get even one this year. I've only seen the Eastern Mountains from the other side -- over in Geneva -- it looks lovely.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: 1.The first point to understand is that laicity at school is a very fundamental rule of the French republic. Meaning that school must be a neutral ground, where people from all cultural and religious and political and class backgrounds and beliefs can talk together and learn to live together. 2.Anyway, guys, I thought one's religious beliefs were in his or her heart and mind and soul. Not on his or her head ! What the law forbids is the EXTERNAL FLAUNTING of one's beliefs, not the beliefs themselves !

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.

2.That depends on the religious belief though doesn't it? Certain religions have dietary requirements. If we force them into eating certain foods we deny them the right to live their beliefs. Some religions are yes, all about the heart and mind. Others are very strict behavioural codes. I knew of a guru who died of a heart attack because someone cut his hair while he was meditating. Through no fault of his own, he was "defiled", completely reversing the positives he perceived his meditations to have gained.

Therein lies the issue. Some faiths that have no dress code, or physical requirements are affected. But if a school has a short hair policy for males, a Sikh is horribly affected. If a school presents pork as a required meal, Jews and Muslims go hungry. If they have a headgear ban, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hassidic Jews are affected, while everyone else isn't either forced into choosing bewtween compromising or forced to leave the country.

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 ? I find Ziroc's ban of religious discussions in here is quite in line with the French law, and for quite the same reasons. Maybe it is more my French cultural background that has so far made easy for me to get along in here more than my personal nature. Would at least show that the French way of raising its future citizens is not so bad after all, wouldn't you agree ? [/qb]

I would have to agree with your anology.... and that's enough said. A generalised law, does not equate generalised imposition or penalty.

[ 09-03-2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

What is a haedscarf by the way??

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: What is a haedscarf by the way??

You bitch!!!