US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[KrazyHorse]

The teacher rule would be Constitutional, IMO (US Constitution probably, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms possibly not). Would be wrong unless the mode of expression was too blatant/evident (i.e. a yarmulke or a scarf is okay, full burkha or huge cross on a tshirt probably not).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by 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).

Towels should be the only mandatory cloth in any human society

[DAVOUT]

It is easy to look the other way when problems result from the integrism, but they exist anyway : for security reasons, headscarfed girls cannot access laboratories; parents refuse their participation to sport activities, and their attending certain course such as biology. As a consequence, they will not been allowed to pass certain exams. The public school is not a superstore where you buy what you want, it is a standarsized teaching factory whith national programs and exams.

Within the public school all children are equal and uniform; outside they are free to be as different as they like.

And adult women are free to wear the headscarf all day long, but not on their identity card. And at the hospital they have no right to demand a female doctor if no one is available. All these behaviours exist too.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by 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.

The fact that a law has been reversed did not prevent Prosecutor Yang to condemn the Crédit Lyonnais.

40 years ago you were much more authoritarian that we could be today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When they are displayed that clearly, they are beyond personal.

No... they are still personal, even if displayed clearly. Doesn't matter one iota.

For us, that rule would be no problem, since the teacher is an agent of the state.

Under the Constitution, yes. Under Title VII, however, the teacher could easily argue religious discrimination (individual disparate treatment), unless the employer could show not wearing the headscarf was a bona fide occupational qualification.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Not at all, I was just illustrating your statement :




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.

Under cover of the Smith act, which banned organizations dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government. NOT to organizations that, for example, would have their members violate the law as acts of civil disobedience. And even so that law is, IIUC, repealed and the actions taken pursuant to it condemned by all "right thinking" tolerant people.


So no, not on par, you're just 50 years behind us - at least.

[lord of the mark]

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?

At least in the US attendance at school is MANDATORY - is it not in France? So if parents cant afford private schools, and dont have the resources to homeschool (does that even exist in France) they have no choice but to send their children to public school, or face the truancy laws. Therefore the state MUST accomodate religious diversity in school, or else it is effectively suppressing the practice of religion/

As for nudism, I would suggest that the state would have to demonstate that nudism presented a direct threat to order - not a difficult thing to demonstrate, I suspect - NOT merely that it was proselytization for a religion or political group.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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

Personal beliefs doesnt mean hidden and secret. And again, havent crosses worn by students been acceptable in France since 1905? (despite wearing of such clearly NOT being religiously mandatory for Catholics)?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

Ditto for long sleeves. I can assure you there are jewish communities where girls who wear short sleeves, even in the summer, are considered sluts. And I am quite sure feminists of all stripes would (rightly) consider that oppression as well. Are long sleeves in warm weather to be banned as well? This has no end -to be consistent you must ban ALL fulfillments of religious based laws of modesty that go beyond the consensus of "the Republic".

BTW, how do you know that children who attend Catholic schools do so out of choice, rather than pressure from their relatives? Are you to ban Catholic schools as well?

If you are to take an unpopular practice, and ban it (everywhere or somewhere) on the justification that in SOME CASES it might not have been a choice, you might as well drop all pretense of liberalism. If you truely think these girls are being abused, you should do something about it, whether they wear scarves to school or not. IF not, you have no basis for denying them choice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The public school is not a superstore where you buy what you want, it is a STANDARDIZED teaching FACTORY whith national programs and exams.

Within the public school all children are equal and UNIFORM; outside they are free to be as different as they like.

STANDARDIZED - FACTORY - UNIFORM

Dear Freedom-minded Brits, Norwegians, Finns, Swiss, Poles, etc - be VERY careful what you're commiting yourselves to.

[Ned]

Chirac could accomplish his objective in a religion-neutral manner by requiring all kids in public schools to wear uniforms with no permissible deviations. Just such a requirement was held to be enforceable by the SCOTUS in connection with the military where a captain wanted to wear his Jewish skullcap indoors. If France went this direction, I am sure STATE would have no problem with what it is trying to do here.

But, since this is a direct attack on freedom of religion, it IS offensive to basic US constitutional law and IS contrary to American foreign policy that advocates freedom of religion. Simply saying that the Muslim headscarf is offensive to some and therefor must be banned is offensive to most Americans regardless of France's long struggle with the Catholic Church. It was exactly this kind of intollerance that caused many to flee Europe (and elsewhere) to settle this new land centuries ago and establish the principle here of freedom of religion.

I must say that I am increasingly viewing France as a not quite a modern civilized society. There seems to be a lot of religious intollerance openly displayed even by its president. This is the same problem we had with Milosovic and his ethnic cleansing was it not?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Chirac could accomplish his objective in a religion-neutral manner by requiring all kids in public schools to wear uniforms with no permissible deviations. Just such a requirement was held to be enforceable by the SCOTUS in connection with the military where a captain wanted to wear his Jewish skullcap indoors. If France went this direction, I am sure STATE would have no problem with what it is trying to do here.

But, since this is a direct attack on freedom of religion, it IS offensive to basic US constitutional law and IS contrary to American foreign policy that advocates freedom of religion. Simply saying that the Muslim headscarf is offensive to some and therefor must be banned is offensive to most Americans regardless of France's long struggle with the Catholic Church. It was exactly this kind of intollerance that caused many to flee Europe (and elsewhere) to settle this new land centuries ago and establish the principle here of freedom of religion.

I must say that I am increasingly viewing France as a not quite a modern civilized society. There seems to be a lot of religious intollerance openly displayed even by its president. This is the same problem we had with Milosovic and his ethnic cleansing was it not?

just to clarify - i see a great difference between the headscarf law and ethnic cleansing - and a society can be completely civilized, and even completely democratic, even if somewhat illiberal.

Also I DONT think its the general business our state Dept to meddle in the internal affairs of other democracies - though given the current struggle for the hearts and minds of muslims around the world I can see this as one area to make an exception.

[Imran Siddiqui]

i see a great difference between the headscarf law and ethnic cleansing

So do the rest of us... Ned is a bit... off his rocker, would be proper words.

[Ned]

Lord of the Mark, I think there is little doubt that the French are motivated by a reaction to the Muslim community and want to keep Muslim practices if not the Muslim themselves away from everyone else. At least in part, if not in major part, this is why Milosevic wanted to forcibly remove Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo and replace them with Orthodox Serbs. I remember a statement early on in the conflict that what was going on in Bosnia (and Kosovo) was merely an extension of the Serb's ancient war against the Muslim Turks. Now the French are justifying their actions against the Muslims on a basis of their own ancient struggle with the Catholic Church.

But the underlying facts remain the same. There is a significant intolerance in France, as there was in probably still is in Serbia, to Muslims.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

i see a great difference between the headscarf law and ethnic cleansing

So do the rest of us... Ned is a bit... off his rocker, would be proper words.

The only difference between the two is degree.