US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[KrazyHorse]

Re: US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

Originally posted by DanS
Don't know how it's any of the Bush administration's beeswax, but this does seem like a worthwhile argument. It illustrates the difference in our views of the separation of church and state

The difference being that in this case your view is right and theirs is retarded?

And it's everybody's beeswax.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Are you admitting that the French approach is McCarthyite?

Not at all, I was just illustrating your statement :

Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Mac Carthy slightly impinged of the communist party affairs, and on the life of hundreds of American citizens for political reasons. I assume that this was made under the cover of the US law, and I conclude that as far as authoritarianism is concerned, we are at par.

[Fake Boris]

OK, two things for Oncle Boris today:

Spiffor and Davout:
The scarf can be seen as a symbol of women's submission towards men in Muslim societies, but so can be bras or high heels in the Western world. More precisely, the "beauty dictatorship" imposed by the "free" market in magazines could be seen as culturally different way of implementing a similar rule. Just go back a few decades earlier and think of the corset. I think we have a definite case of cultural relativism with a blatant lack of self-criticism.

I won't deny that some Muslims may use their religion as a tool to justify oppression. Still, religion remains a cover. In the same way Christianism has evolved along with our values to become what it is now (where I live, in Canada, I know many priests who support woman priesthood, gay marriage, right to abortion, and contraception), can Islam be integrated into our Western world. Remember, just 50 years ago, Catholic zealots were preaching against women's suffrage "because it was against the natural order of things".

So, you want to forbid the symbol behind the oppression, denying that real emancipation will come through the free-thinking that should be taught in school. Whatever is the reason why women choose to wear the scarf, we want them to be free of their choice. This can be achieved through legal protection (prosecuting physical abusers) and tolerance. Banishing the scarf won't kill the reasoning behind it; nor can we even pretend to know it by reading in each and every individual's mind. Heck, I've even heard of women who wore it as a feminist symbol, to protest against excessive erotisation of the woman's body.

Banishing the swastika won't kill racism and intolerance. No one had to forbid the Christian cross to defend women's suffrage. Even more, forbidding religious symbols could be seen as intrusive, and nurture increased fundamentalism and obscurantism.

My conclusion: teach them our values of freedom, and let them make the bloody choice. They can wear any symbol they want, as long as it is not a threat to security (read: sikh daggers).


And to LOTM:
No, Christianism can be about as intrusive as Islam on one's regulation of everyday life. Just think of Lent vs. Ramadan. I assure you, any religion's oppressivity only lies in one's willingness to be abused! (ok, that may not be completely true of the Inquisition... )

[DanS]

The difference being that in this case your view is right and theirs is retarded?

Hey, you said it, not me!

[DAVOUT]

Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

[DanS]

DAVOUT: That's not a good comparison. As LOTM says, McCarthy was repudiated a whole long time ago and the laws that enabled his work were judged unconstitutional.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

So? Why is it the State's business to interfere with a person's religious beliefs at school?

It's not like they're asking the government to pay for their headscarves or yarmulkes...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Presumably that view is NOT held by the women who wear the scarves. Isnt it upto them to decide whether wearing such scarves is submission or not, NOT for feminists

The problem is that it is often unclear whether the Scarf is 1) a free choice, 2) a 'free' choice dictated by the circumstances such as by the girls who can only do this not be considered sluts, or 3) something forced upon the girls by their relatives or religious leaders.

Besides, the new feminists in France are not the same as the 70's generation of feminists. They are from the "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" network ("Neither Whores Nor Submitted") and they oppose the general atrocious climate of mysogynia in the ghetto, in which the Scarf takes a part. More than intellectual middle-class women, these new feminists are firsthand concerned, as they struggled their way adainst the "normal" role they should have been attributed as either Sluts or Submitted.

[Mazarin]

lotm, Though I'm not from France, I can't see any problem with people from other countries critisizing laws they don't agree with. The French posters will most likely agree on that one.
I'm torn on this issue, especially since we've had a similar problem in Germany not too long ago: The Federal Constitution Court (not sure on this translation) said that it was ok to forbid teachers to wear headscarfs. I personally tend to see the headscarf as a symbol for women's opression; the fact that it may have been different in the past doesn't change this because things can acquire and change symbolic meanings depending on the way they're used; OTOH, the freedom to express religious opinions is quite an important one.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So? Why is it the State's business to interfere with a person's religious beliefs at school?

Because schools are the State's thing, and that the State does the regulation of what expression and clothing is allowed, and what is not?

If I tell you nudists cannot come naked at school, will you whine so much?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The argument raised by the partisans of the headscarf is that it is a religious obligation. I have no opinion on that point, but hight muslims authorities contradict it. And considering that the minority making of the headscarf an obligation also claims that the religious laws prevail on the civil laws, it is not without interest to check first if it is really a religious obligation.

What does that matter? As long as some people believe it is part of their religious obligation, who cares what the 'authorities' think? Religious beliefs are highly personal.

Something of no small importance, that gets widely overlooked, is that any obvious sign of political belonging gets banned as well.

That's dumb as well. I have no problem with kids walking around school with Nader or Bush or Gore buttons in the 2000 elections. Why should the French?

Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

Yes, it is a restriction on the free exercise of religion while at school, we get it... but it still restricting free exercise of religion, and we see that as intolerant.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because schools are the State's thing, and that the State does the regulation of what expression and clothing is allowed, and what is not?

If I tell you nudists cannot come naked at school, will you whine so much?

Because nudism is disallowed in public as well.

Deliberately going after political and religious expression is stupid and dangerous.

The State is subsidising the education, not what people are wearing while they get it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What does that matter? As long as some people believe it is part of their religious obligation, who cares what the 'authorities' think? Religious beliefs are highly personal.

When they are displayed that clearly, they are beyond personal. That's precisely the beef, and that's what falls under the law.

[KrazyHorse]

Although if I had my way I'd allow public nudity, with minor exceptions (I don't want to sit on a seat after somebody else has had their bare ass on it, for example).

[DanS]

The Federal Constitution Court (not sure on this translation) said that it was ok to forbid teachers to wear headscarfs.

For us, that rule would be no problem, since the teacher is an agent of the state. Depending on the circumstance, wearing a scarf might run afoul of our non-establishment tradition.