UN official slams French ban on Muslim headscarf

[rodbarnett]

A United Nations human rights official Monday criticised new French legislation banning religious headscarves in schools, saying the rule could foster discrimination against Muslims.

"The dominant perception ... is that behind the general ban on religious signs in state schools, it is Islam that is being targeted," said Doudou Diene, a special UN rapporteur on racism and xenophia.

The French parliament has passed a law to come into effect in September prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols in the classroom, including Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.

A report by Diene on the situation of Muslims around the world was submitted Monday to the UN Human Rights Commissioner.

"The stigmatisation of Islam, at least in public debate, contains ... a serious risk of fostering and giving legitimacy to hatred of Islam and discrimination against Muslims," he said.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=5898

[cprise]

1. Christians have already adjusted

Muslims may stigmatize themselves, however, by demanding special treatment.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

3. American public schools are a failure

They failed the moment the supreme court ruled that secular values are equivalent to religion and must be removed from the schools.

French do not make the same stupid mistake.

[radwriter0555]

5. I support a ban on ALL religious demarcation in our public schools

completely.

[cprise]

6. Even altarboy costumes???

You cruel, cruel.... um, radwriter. :D

[radwriter0555]

8. alter boys would only be found in a RELIGIOUS school, now

wouldn't they?

NOT in a public school.

;)

[Bush Pouts]

78. Me too

.

[thingfish]

84. That's pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

And impossible to boot.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bush Pouts]

79. What did it say?

.

[radwriter0555]

4. Pity they didn't bother noticing that yarmulkes and giant crosses aren't

allowed either.

KEEP RELIGION OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

[rinsd]

7. "KEEP RELIGION OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS"

For here or there?

[radwriter0555]

9. EVERYWHERE... France is very progressive for being at the forefront of

taking religion out of public and government / taxpayer funded perview.

WE need to follow their example.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. France is discriminating, especially against Muslims

and forcing them to choose between the uber-state or their own religious beliefs.

[rinsd]

12. "France is discriminating, especially against Muslims"

And Jews. Yalmulkes are out too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. But yalmulkes have been around for a long time

This was done expressly out of French anti-Muslim fervor.

[radwriter0555]

81. Yarmulkes are NOT ALLOWED IN FRENCH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and

NIETHER are giant xstian crosses.

NO religious displays are garb is allowed in French Public schools.

Why NOT the same for muslims? What's the diff?

[thingfish]

82. Christian, Muslim, Jew... It's wrong to ban religious apparel, period.

x

[cprise]

14. Uber-state?

Excuse me?

Would you care to elaborate for us?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Sure

France believes that the French state is the ultimate expression of French achievement and expects all new immigrants to totally embrace that aspect of being French. If they don't, then they have their rights taken away.

[cprise]

33. So in other words

If they hold other allegiances above being French citizens, they are held in contempt.

Good.

[thingfish]

83. Spoken like someone without a history.

x

[Sandpiper]

16. For once Muddle, I actually agree with you

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. I wish more saw it this way

For some, all you have to do is put the word France is an article and they will rationalize anything.

[termo]

24. is it a real choice?

we speak a lot of freedom... or lack of freedom.

the 1905 law that ban religious and political symbols was done to protect children from been manipulated.

they have the freedom to do politic and religion outside school.

I do not believe that 100% of children wearing head scraves are doing it without presure from the family or/and the religion ?

:tinfoilhat:

last time I was in morocco, my girlfriend was insulted few times because she was wearing throusers !

you should spend your energy to be sure that all women in the world have equal rights than men have: vote, justice, freedom, etc...

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Children

Don't get to choose. Their families do. That's part of parental responsibility to see that your children follow some sort of value system.

When they get older, they can then choose for themselves.

I am concerned that women have the right to wear or not wear what they choose, which clearly France does not believe.

[cprise]

38. 'Some sort' of value system?

That's hilarious. If society doesn't take an interest in the value system of kids, you get alienation and dysfunctional results like a mixtrure of pop culture and religious extremism.

Kids in France form a common identity from the beginning. It is not an afterthought that is sold to them as MTV and designer jeans. French teens can consume these products without having to rely on them for an identity. Parents stay involved in the schools because their responsibilities to children are interrelated.

As for your last comment, neither men nor women have the right to wear whatever they want in public schools, anywhere. Kids even less so.

[Bush Pouts]

80. It is defending SECULARISM

In a world gone religious and worse for it this is a good thing

[rinsd]

11. Separation of Church and State is one thing....

"taking religion out of public and government / taxpayer funded perview."

What you advocate flys in the face of both freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Sorry, can't join on board.

I can't say to someone they are free to practice their religion as long as they do it only at church or in their home.

[cprise]

15. Isn't that a little paranoid?

Or is it just laziness?

What about private work environments? Parks? Public train stations? I guess these and church/home still aren't good enough. We have to let people become walking billboards for religious 'authority' as students and workers on the public's dime. Then we're "free".

That's Pat Robertson's definition of freedom. I'm sure he's also quite satisfied with the USA's extremely high incarceration rate. They're starting to build religious prisons in Florida now (can't limit the 'freedom' of religious prison contractors, ya know). Ah, yes... smell the religious freedom in this, the seat of world Christian fundamentalism facilitated by none other than empty-headed Political Correctness.

[Sandpiper]

17. You seem to have this part down

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

But have decided to dispense with this one

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Chicago Democrat]

19. Prohibition is only in Public Schools

The people are free to exercise in private.

[rinsd]

59. Kind of like...

You're free to be gay in your home but don't dare hold hands in public.

What part of freedom of expression do you not understand?

I know the original context was France and they don't have that, but my post was detailing what the other poster wanted to have here.

[cprise]

20. No, tell that to the French

...see if they care.

Odds are they will be thinking: "I'm glad I don't live in the U.S."


"Free excercise" your religion with your own time and money.

[Sandpiper]

21. I'm glad there are civil libertarians out there

Who don't share your myopic view of the bill of rights

"Free excercise" your religion with your own time and money.

On Edit: My rights are not subject to your approval. And if you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not willing to give them up because my exercising them gets your widdle nose out of joint.

[cprise]

22. "Details, Details.."

Pay no attention to legal details. We are at the start of Bush's glorious new Dominionist Era. Why spoil it?

Giving government and religion opportunities to hijack each other is fun, compassionate... conservative.

[cprise]

23. You see?

Feelings of religious entitlement are a real kick in the pants aren't they?

JUST WAIT until your state/religious entitlements cause a major conflict with people of a different faith. Noses won't be the end of it by any means.

The Middle East is not an appropriate model for governance. NONE of it.

[Sandpiper]

25. ????

The Middle East is not an appropriate model for governance. NONE of it.

And what in the world does this have to do with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Your non sequitir response reveals the depths of your bigotry; not only for religious peoples, but apparently for mid eastern peoples as well.

Hate is not a viewpoint or a political position. It is a disease of the mind.

Your mind is far too clouded with it to hope for any rational exchange of ideas on this topic. I only hope you learn to rid yourself of it.

Until then, adieu.

[termo]

26. press freedom barometer

http://www.rsf.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20

BTW, how many patriot acts before seeing US in red on this map ?

[cprise]

27. Talk about non sequitir

ME: "Free excercise" your religion with your own time and money.

YOU: On Edit: My rights are not subject to your approval. And if you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not willing to give them up because my exercising them gets your widdle nose out of joint.


What does giving up rights have to do with keeping religion out of the government pocketbook? Are you leading-in to a defense of faith-based government malarky or not?

Your non sequitir response reveals the depths of your bigotry;

This fluffy-bunny PC attitude is so predictable; extremists look at it and see "Welcome" then proceed to use it as a doormat. Being generally non-judgemental doesn't mean losing all good judgement, or allowing your brains to fall out for the sake of having an open mind. Speaking geopolitically the Middle East right now contains little more than inspiration for theocrats. Read into that what you will; I expect the outcome will be pretty entertaining.

Hate is not a viewpoint or a political position. It is a disease of the mind.

True enough. But PC and facile post-modernism are just as much afflictions of debate, and of the mind. This cognitive diarrhea is what differentiates the American Left from most other Leftist movements.

"Save the Headscarves!"

[chimpy the poopthrower]

34. Keeping religion out of the government pocketbook?

Are you still talking about the French headscarf ban? I wasn't aware that the French government had been paying for those headscarves. (sarcasm)

[cprise]

40. Yes, the discussion branched at msg #11

.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

41. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The French government is not paying for the headscarves, so what is your point? Yes, the French government funds public schools. Does that mean you lose your rights once you enter a school? What about a public bus or train?

[thingfish]

73. You're talking to a wall, dude.

An incredibly thick wall.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

75. You may be right.

But the depressing part is that a surprising number of DUers seem to support this ban. Or maybe it just seems that way. :shrug:

[rinsd]

61. Paranoia?

On this site? Surely you jest ;-)

"Or is it just laziness?"

"What about private work environments? Parks? Public train stations? I guess these and church/home still aren't good enough. We have to let people become walking billboards for religious 'authority' as students and workers on the public's dime. Then we're "free"."

Are we now discussing French law or the wishes of the poster I was responding to? And how is allowing people to dress according to their religion on the public dime? Surely enforcement will cost more.

"That's Pat Robertson's definition of freedom."

BS....it should be everyone's vision of freedom. You have the right to express yourself and your religious beliefs even if I do not ascribe to them or even if I am opposed to them.

"I'm sure he's also quite satisfied with the USA's extremely high incarceration rate. They're starting to build religious prisons in Florida now (can't limit the 'freedom' of religious prison contractors, ya know). Ah, yes... smell the religious freedom in this, the seat of world Christian fundamentalism facilitated by none other than empty-headed Political Correctness."

So the fact that "abuses"(in your mind) have occured the notion of religious freedom and the expression thereof should be thrown away?

Because that is Pat Robertson's view of freedom.

[Chicago Democrat]

18. Its religion neutral, therefore its equally applied

It applies to Christian and Jew, Buddhist and Muslim.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. It's not religion neutral

It was designed specifically to target Muslims and only threw in other religions as cover.

[cprise]

32. You don't see Christians and Jews going to school dressed like nuns

...or wearing any other religious garb that renders the 'hairless' look.

Schools there have banned ostentatious religious signs since the 1930s, and it wasn't aimed at muslims then.

[mainer]

35. VANITY FAIR has a TERRIFIC article on the headscarf issue

Everyone should read this month's issue (the one with Keira Knightley on the cover). It talks about the terrible plight of Muslim women in France -- and exactly why banning headscarves was meant to protect THEIR rights. That this is actually a women's rights issue, and many, many French Muslim women are for it.

What I didn't know (and what Vanity Fair pointed out) is that many Muslim women in France are practically enslaved by their fathers and husbands. Seventeen-year-old girls are forced into arranged marriages, without their consent, when their families take the girls on "vacation" to Algiers, where they're forcibly married off to men they don't know. The girls are so young they have nowhere else to go, no recourse against what their fathers demand. Girls who rebel are sometimes hunted down and murdered by their brothers.

France is only now coming to grips with the needs of these women.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

37. and banning headscarves in schools is going to change this how?

If French girls and women are being abused, why doesn't the French government address that problem directly instead of taking away the rights of the supposed victims?

[cprise]

43. And a girl trying to escape this pattern

...should be forced to go to a school district where the dress habbits of most students scream: We're Muslim traditionalists, and you are an infidel?

You are mistaken about 'taking away rights'. Public schools are derelict in their duties if they don't enforce a dress code.

"why doesn't the French government address that problem directly"

Very American. Identify a social problem then use the police/courts to tear apart ethnic families in their homes. Real nice. Gold star for you!

How about just creating a space free of divisive signals?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

47. What in the world are you talking about?

Your posts make absolutely no sense. You say, "Very American. Identify a social problem then use the police/courts to tear apart ethnic families in their homes." Well, if the "social" problem is that a girl is being beaten by her family or forced to marry against her will, which is what we have been discussing, then yes -- I do think that is the time for the police, the courts, children services, etc. to get involved whether or not the parties involved are "ethnic" or not.

You seem to think that the problem is simply that Muslim culture is inherently evil and that its cultural practices and values must be stamped out in order to protect those who may be victimized by it.

Tearing the headscarves off of innocent Muslim girls who choose to wear them will do nothing to address the problems of abuse and oppression we have been discussing. And is it so inconceivable to you that at least some Muslim girls way want to wear headscarves?

Public schools in the U.S. may enforce a dress code but they may not do so in a way that infringes on civil rights. Many other countries have similar standards, and I happen to agree with that system.

[cprise]

53. You're contradicting yourself

"then yes -- I do think that is the time for the police, the courts, children services, etc. to get involved"

Then you're "stamping out" Muslim culture. And breaking up families. And creating a class of disenfranchised religious/cultural convicts.

Actually, I think Muslim culture is for you such a narrow concept that the pocketing of a headscarf during school hours leaves you with nothing else to identify as "Muslim".

[chimpy the poopthrower]

55. See my post #54 (nt)

[mainer]

58. Have you read the article?

Why don't you try reading it yourself? The French government has indeed tried to address the issue, but without much success due to the insular nature of the communities. But it's MUSLIM WOMEN ACTIVISTS who are the driving force in this ban. They feel that, just for a few measly hours a day, while in the classroom, Muslim girls should be able to taste the freedom of not being forced to wear a head scarf.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

63. I have not read the VF article.

Do you have a link for it?

But why do you assume that all French Muslim girls would be happy to remove their scarves? I keep certain parts of my body covered at all times when I'm out in public. I would probably cause quite a fuss if I went out in public without covering certain parts of myself. Does that mean I am oppressed? Does that mean I long to taste the freedom of walking around uncovered, even at work or school? It would be very upsetting for me if I moved to another country and people started saying I was oppressed and victimized just because I cover certain parts of myself. And it would be downright traumatic if I was forced to uncover those parts of myself I have always kept covered.

edit: P.S. You say that "The French government has indeed tried to address the issue, but without much success due to the insular nature of the communities." Isn't it a bit naive of France to assume that they could solve such complex and serious issues so easily? Of course they haven't eliminated these problems! All they can do is keep working on these issues just like every other country in the world must do. But I fail to see how a headscarf ban in schools is going to help at all. IMO, it's going to do more harm than good.

[Neecy]

39. I recommend the article as well

Because it demonstrates that the headscarf issue is only a small part of the whole, and it's an effort to bring French Muslim women under the protection of French law.

Perhaps it wasn't the perfect first step, but it's an issue of a large segment of French society living under Islamic law vs. French law. Banning the scarf from public schools (which seems to be lost here - they aren't being banned from private religious schools) is saying that Islamic law stops and French law prevails in public institutions.

I wonder if the critics of France here would consider what would happen if the United States faced the same challenges of a large segment of the population rejecting US law in favor of Islamic law, and as a consequence women can be kidnapped, forced into marriage as children, subjected to violence and death for not conforming to Islamic law, etc. I think it would be as much of a human rights issue here as it is currently in France, and some effort would be made to protect women under US law. This doesn't even begin to address the issue of anti-Semitic violence that's driving French Jews out of France.

It's a complex issue for sure, but it's simplistic to simply condemn the headscarf ban without acknowledging the background (and certainly, job discrimination against French Muslims is a huge problem as well, so not every hand is clean here).

[chimpy the poopthrower]

42. The U.S. already faces those issues.

Women and girls in the U.S. ARE killed, kidnapped, abused, and forced into marriages against their will. Do you think violence and oppression against women was invented by Muslims in France? We have laws and social services to deal with such things here. However, we do not try to solve the problem by banning headscarves, Sikh turbans, yarmulkes, and other religious articles from those who choose to wear them, unless there is a compelling state interest for doing so.

[cprise]

44. Yes, our way fosters alienation and a high crime rate

Put minorities under the legal microscope and make them scapegoats in the war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc... but let them clutch to their breasts as tightly as they wish any manner of strange and offensive visual appearance.

[Neecy]

45. question...

What large segment society within the United States systematically forces girls into marriage, kidnaps them to a second country to force them into these marriages, or brutalizes them for not conforming to a strict interpretation of religious law?

I've never heard of such a massive problem here. It exists in France. I'd say there IS a compelling state interest there.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

48. And how will the headscarf ban help?

That is the central issue you still have not addressed. Explain to me how this law will help to curb violence against women and girls in France.

As for the U.S., there are cults and religious sects where girls are forced to marry. Weren't David Koresh's Branch Davidians one such group? I believe forced marriages are also a problem in some Muslim communities. Child abuse and domestic abuse are unfortunately problems all over the country. Kidnapping is a federal crime.

Like cprise, you seem to see the problem not with the crime itself nor the individuals committing the crime, but with the culture that you believe fosters the crime. It seems to me that you think Muslim culture is inherently evil, that the only reason for a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf is that she is forced into it. Your solution for dealing with crime in French Muslim communities is to stamp out Muslim culture, beginning with a ban on headscarves. Why not just close down all the Mosques? Then Muslims will leave France altogether and there won't be a problem with violence in French Muslim communities.

[cprise]

52. You see it as a matter of crime and punishment

David Koresh? Not only did the US foster an environment favorable to people like him (people needing to choose between pop consumerism and religion), but we also handled the situation in the worse possible way. Another great example. Bravo.

Even in heavily Muslim neighborhoods, these girls can avoid the opression and being singled-out in school and concentrate on their studies. That's a start, and its a whole lot better than making Muslim communities a regular feature on C.O.P.S. and populating the jails with Muslim men.

"Your solution for dealing with crime in French Muslim communities is to stamp out Muslim culture, beginning with a ban on headscarves."

Bullsh!t. And have a nice day.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

54. And you still have not explained to me...

...how banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in school is going to reduce the amount of violence in French Muslim communities?

Yes, I do consider assault, such as a girl being beaten by her family or by strangers, to be a crime. The police and courts do need to get involved, although social service agencies also play an important role. There are many thoughtful ways to address the issue of violence against women in Muslim communities that go beyond simply locking up the offenders, but banning headscarves in school is not one of them, in my opinion. If you consider it a well-thought out solution rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction by those who wish to punish the Muslim community as a whole for the actions of a few, please explain the reasoning behind it. Simply saying "bullsh!t" is not much of an argument.

[cprise]

60. I've already explained it

Other religions in France have made accommodations to secular culture in the public schools. Islam will be no exception, especially where devoting half your head to a religious garment is concerned.

Public facilities will not allow staff and students to create a peer-pressure environment for the dominant religion in the neighborhood, and so remain a relatively safe space for women. So social service agencies, like hospitals and schools, will indeed help and thank you for mentioning that. It is not a 'solution', it is a start. What they will not do is go into the home simply looking for offenses.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

65. I thought schools were already a safe space.

The violence we've been discussing takes place outside of school, doesn't it? Schools already are (or were) a safe space.

Do you think those Muslim girls who would like to wear a headscarf but are now forced to expose themselves in school will continue to consider schools a "safe space"? Do you think that those Muslim girls whose parents now decide to keep them home instead of sending them to school will be grateful to the French government for "protecting their freedom"? Do you think that the Muslim community will now be more likely to assimilate into the dominant French culture rather than feel victimized by this law that was clearly aimed at them (as is widely acknowledged in France)?

Schools are not exactly social service agencies, although they do have a role to play. For example, in the U.S., if a child comes to school covered with bruises, or has many unexplained absences, the school has a responsibility to notify authorities so that the situation can be investigated. I imagine France has a similar system. That is certainly much different from going into people's homes and simply looking for offenses, which is not something I would ever advocate in any country.

I must also disagree with your assertion that "Other religions in France have made accommodations to secular culture in the public schools. Islam will be no exception, especially where devoting half your head to a religious garment is concerned." This ban certainly does not affect all religions equally. No Christian sect that I know of requires its followers to wear crosses. Yet, a 17-year-old French Christian girl can still wear a small cross to school, even though it serves no other purpose than to publicly proclaim her religion. But a 17-year-old French Muslim girl can no longer wear a scarf over her hair even though she considers it a religious and cultural obligation, and is not intended as a public proclamation of her religion but as an expression of modesty. How would you feel to be forced to expose a part of your body you had always considered private?

[thingfish]

74. What about the women who choose to wear the headscarf?

?

[Neecy]

66. this is how the ban (might) help

I've already mentioned that I'm not sure the ban was the best step that could have been taken. I don't live in France and I can't answer that with any certainty.

Still, it does one thing: it establishes the primacy of French law, rather than Islamic law, in public places. It places all children, while in school, under the protection of French law while they're in attendence in a public school.

I'm not advocating "stamping out Muslim culture". I'm advocating civil law over *any* religious laws. Like it or not, a large percentage of the French population is demanding to live under Islamic law in publicly-funded institutions. That's where I believe it's appropriate to draw the line.

The Branch Davidians ultimately did come under US law. I think it's better to work at solutions rather than the violent end result of the Davidians. Perhaps that's exactly what France is trying to avoid.

[Flagg]

67. "I don't live in France "

neither do the poopthrower and muddy btw

[Neecy]

69. I'm not sure anyone on this thread does...

So it's difficult to judge the exact situation, or how the perceptions might differ. I've spent quite a bit of time there, but it's still impossible to view the situation without using an American prism. I think we're all applying an American model to the situation, which isn't quite valid.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

71. Flagg, do you exempt yourself...

...from commenting on or holding an opinion on human rights violations or other important issues in any country other than your own? I think it is ridiculous to say that because we don't live in France, we can't possible understand the situation. It's another country, not another planet.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

70. I don't see this as French law vs. Muslim law

I need to leave soon, so this will probably be my last post for a little while.

Let me put this first in U.S. terms. Civil law applies everywhere in the U.S., not just in public institutions such as public schools, but even in private homes or in religious institutions such as churches or mosques. For example, a man cannot legally hit his wife even if he believes his religion allows it, not even if he is inside his home or his church. Religious "law" is always superceded by civil law. However, some activities that are allowed in a church, are not allowed in a public school. For example, you may lead a prayer in a church, but you may not lead a prayer in a classroom (although you can still pray on your own as long as you do not infringe on others' rights or obstruct anyone's education). That doesn't mean that civil law is dominant in public institutions and that religious law is dominant in religious settings. Civil law is still dominant everywhere. All it means is that the civil law prohibiting an establishment of religion would be violated if a teacher led a prayer in a classroom but that the same law would not be violated if a clergyman led a prayer in a church.

Now, although civil law is dominant everywhere, part of that civil law includes something called a Bill of Rights. Government cannot seem to favor any particular religion and it cannot infringe on religious freedoms without a compelling state reason. As the ACLU says, you don't lose your religious freedoms when you walk into a public school. Students are allowed to pray in school, to wear yarmulkes, headscarves, turbans, and other religious garb. In short, they keep their religious rights unless it starts to infringe on the right of others or cause some other problems. An American Muslim public school student who wore a headscarf to class would not, IMO, be demanding to exist under Islamic law rather than civil law. On the contrary, she would be acting fully within civil law. But if, say, the principal of the school forced her to remove it for no reason other than that it offended him, he is the one who would be in violation of civil law, NOT the student.

Many people say that we cannot judge France against U.S. standards because the two countries are so different. I don't believe that. First of all, most countries that comprise the most powerful members of the UN share similar beliefs with regard to human rights. If that were not so, the UN would not be able to author international statements affirming human rights. France is certainly not so different from the U.S. when it comes to the "rights of man". Most of the ideas that make up the foundation of our system came from France only a couple of centuries ago! Besides, we don't show the same hesitation in judging the actions of countries even less like us than France. When we see a Middle Eastern country that compels all women to wear headscarves, we have no problem condemning that nation. We don't simply excuse them on the basis of cultural differences. I feel a lot more confident in my understanding of France than I do most Middle Eastern countries.

When you talk about establishing "the primacy of French law," to me that sounds a lot like "showing them (the French Muslims) who's boss!" ...especially when this headscarf ban is cited as a response to recent incidents of violence against girls in Muslim communities. Of course French law should protect French children from abuse everywhere, and not just in public schools. I don't consider a headscarf to be a form of abuse, but I realize there is room for disagreement. I would probably consider it abusive if a French girl was made to wear an Afghanistan-style burqua. I could be in favor of a law that banned such garb for children even if it violated the parents' wishes. So, I don't see religious freedom as an absolute; I realize there are cases where the state may step in. If the headscarves started becoming larger and heavier, or if children started wearing them at a younger age, I could see placing limits on that for the sake of protecting the children. But the issue for most people who favor the headscarf ban seems to be the symbolism of it, not issues of comfort or safety for the wearers.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

36. Sikhs weren't even considered

Here is a related story from January:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040113/world.htm#4

Some excerpts:
"French panel did not quiz Sikhs on turban ban

New York, January 12
The French official commission that recommended passage of a legal ban on Muslim headscarves has said nothing about turbans worn by the Sikhs, but acknowledges that no community member was interviewed during its investigations."

(snip)

"'I’m 100 per cent French, I speak French, I was born here,' (a NY Times story) quoted Dhramvir Singh, a 17-year-old student who wears a dark-blue turban to school every day, as saying. 'But it’s impossible for me to take off my turban. If they force me, I’ll have to drop out, and never be able to do anything except a job that no one else wants.'

He said he had no identity card — a violation of French law — because he refused to remove his turban for the official photo, according to the report.

Others recalled Sikh soldiers who fought and died for France in World War I with their turbans on."

(snip)

"(The NY Times story) quoted a senior official at the Ministry of the Interior responsible for religious matters as saying: 'I know nothing about the Sikh problem. Are there many Sikhs in France?'"


The original NY Times story is no longer available unless you pay a fee:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F1EFF3E540C718DDDA80894DC404482

Seems to contradict claims that the French government consulted with representatives of major religions and that almost everyone was in favor of the ban. :eyes:

[cprise]

46. Oh Jesus

Take the turban off.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

49. Well, I think that sums up your attitude very well.

It's very easy for you, isn't it, to simply demand that people abandon all remnants of their religion, culture, and heritage?

[cprise]

56. I love this

LOL!

Activists and scholars should pay close attention.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

62. I was responding to #49

And I will spell it out: Your posts (49 being a prime example) demonstrate how the Left can also fall into a pattern of sanctimonious, black-and-white thinking.

Once everything becomes black-and-white, the Right wins hands down.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

64. I see.

However, I actually think that your posts are the ones displaying sanctimonious and simplistic thinking whereas my posts are more rational and multi-faceted -- for example, your post #46 as a response to my post #36. But I don't want to get into a micro-debate here about whose posts are more intelligent, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. ;)

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flagg]

50. gee, get over it already

[chimpy the poopthrower]

51. "Get over it"

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

[Zynx]

68. It was a ridiculous thing for France to do.

That's just secularity gone mad into the realm of limiting individual freedom.

[fedsron2us]

77. What is a 'Muslim headscarf'

and how the hell do you distinguish it from any other type of head scarf which might be worn as a fashion accessory or to keep out the cold ?

[Moderator]

85. locking

Sorry, just too many PAs, it's turning into a flamewar.