Belgium joins French move to ban Islamic scarf in schools, offices

[rodbarnett]

Belgium is now in the line to ban school pupils and civil servants from wearing hijab. The emotive demonstrations by about 15,000 Muslims across France on Saturday against its planned law to ban the wearing of hijab by girls in state schools has had apparently no effect on authorities in Belgium.

Inspired by France, two Belgian senators have drafted legislation to ban the veil and other overt religious symbols from state schools. The Islamic groups are outraged at the move. Belgium has nearly 350,000 Muslims mainly from North Africa and Turkey.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_539204,00050003.htm

[SoCalDem]

1. I might be alone on this, but

I actually think it's a good idea.. If a Muslim family CHOOSES to emigrate to a secular country, they should be willing to assume the mannerisms and culture of their new home.. I am sure that there are no restrictions on their mosques. That is the place for their outward signs of faith..

If someone's more restrictive features of their religion are more valued by them than the freedom offered in the secular places, then they should not emigrate..

Emigrating to a different place is the choice made by the individual, and part of the decision process should be the ability and/or willingness to conform to the local customs of their chosen country..

Children should be allowed and encouraged to blend into their new country..not set out to make themselves an obvious outsider..

If the family chooses to be fundamentalist about their faith, then they should be ready to either stay where they are,or to accept the fact that they may never fully assimilate into their community..


Living in California, I see this all the time.. The people who are already where you intend to move, should not have to bend to YOUR ways..

[sushi]

4. No, you're not!

I agree with you. If the ban becomes law and they don't like it they should be encouraged to move back to the country they came from.

As for mosques, they keep building them in western countries, but churches are not allowed in, for example, Saudi Arabia. That is so wrong.

[Kellanved]

5. headscarfes are banned in Turkey as well

With good reason, I believe.

[SoCalDem]

7. I have noticed too, that most of the "dress" restrictions

tend to be on women.. Islamic countries seem to be of the thought that everyone in the world is out to "steal or corrupt" their women.. By forcing the women to hide themselves, they only draw more attention to them..

Do the Islamic men who migrate to other countries carry their prayer rug to work with them, and stop working to pray 5 times a day??

I think that the archaic dress requirements are just a thinly veiled (pun) way to keep their female family members from joining the modern world..

If they are so anti-modernism, then they should never migrate to a modern country.

[The Icon Painter]

14. Stealing and Corrupting Women

This, in turn, makes me think of the bad old days when the southern white man was convinced that the black male was out to blemish the virtue of the white woman. G-d! (If there chances to be such) defend us from our defenders.

[Occulus]

55. to your question

"Do the Islamic men who migrate to other countries carry their prayer rug to work with them, and stop working to pray 5 times a day??"

In a word, yes. Some of them. I've worked with one, and that's exactly what he did. Our employer was powerless to stop him, too, as it's an expression of religion.

I'm against this, if it's proposed in our country, on First Amendment grounds. Why? Because, if we do it to them, next time it could be you or me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. The restrictions to not apply to men who wear beards

Beards, like headscarves, may be worn for religious reasons, for cultural ones, or for reasons of secular personal preference.

It is generally understood, however, that it is important for the state to impose its will specifically on women, for several reasons.

Forcing Muslim girls into madrassas will help reduce the visibility of large non-European ethnic populations, which is seen as a political benefit to those who wish to gain favor with voters who are displeased by large non-European ethnic populations.

Further marginalizing Muslims will be an asset to US efforts to persuade European countries to contribute crusaders to expanding US military operations in regions with a large Muslim population. While decades of Goebbels-worthy demonization have paid off in the US, Islamophobia in Europe is not as ingrained, and in some areas is actually spotty.

By stressing the "the men make them wear it" meme, the law also sends a clear message that only white European men have the authority to decree how women shall dress.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Wow

I don't quite get how you and I can be on the same page on this one and such opposite ends in I/P, but consistently we agree on this area.

Maybe there is hope for the world after all.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

62. That is one scary post

"they don't like it they should be encouraged to move back to the country they came from."

How do you propose to "encourage" "them"?

"As for mosques, they keep building them in western countries, but churches are not allowed in, for example, Saudi Arabia. That is so wrong."

Exacly, so why do you want to act in the same 'wrong' manner?

Do "they" all come from Saudi Arabia? Maybe some of "them" will have to go back in the womb to get to where "they" came from.

Are you for the same treatment of Jews?

Zionists for the separation of church and state...indeed

thanks

Bill

[PsychoDad]

11. Not all Muslims are emigrates.

And the desire to wear a head scarf should not be the criteria for being treated as a second class citizen.

Using your logic, all the European emigrates to this country should be forced by law to wear the clothing of the people who were here first... Also with your logic you state that it's quite all right for a country to force the wearing of the berka on women who visit or move there.

An act I find just as reprehensible as the forcing of not wearing. The issue is simple. Freedom of choice.

[Spentastic]

12. I agree with you

About the emighration issue. I don't believe that is valid. However it would appear to me that the rules are equal.

No overt religious symbols in school.

How are Muslims being singled out as second class citizens?

[PsychoDad]

15. I didn't say just muslims...

I imagine this law would also apply to the forced removal of a nun's habit wishing to attend college?
What about little old ladies with head scarves? Will they be seized upon?

Lots of possible second rate citizens here... mostly women.

[Spentastic]

16. Are convents state schools?

I don't think so. Do little old ladies attend school? If they wish to run for public office they will have to forego overt religious displays. In a secular state this is appropriate.

Is this not a case of pressure being removed from all who come from religious backgrounds? I find it extremely unlikely that God is going to hold it against them.

[SoCalDem]

19. As I understand it, the Koran only tells women to dress modestly

There is not an order to cover their faces.. The more restrictive dress codes come from the "interpreters" of the Koran..

It is surprising that only they women are "in danger" of being seen.. The men seem to be protecting themselves so that they can control their urges,, by not seeing women.. :)

I had a good friend who went to school in Beirut, just as the war was breaking out, and she wore miniskirts.. One day as she was boarding a bus, she felt what she thought was a rock kicked up by traffic, hit her in the leg.. When she sat down she saw all the blood and realized that someone had shot her with a pellet or small calibre bullet.. When she got to school, she went to her teacher (a man) who sent her to the nurse and scolded her for dressing in a provocative way.. told her that she deserved it.. This was 1966 I think..

She said that the arabic men scared her, because they all ogled her, even when she did not have a short skirt on.. Her Dad was a Getty Oil exec and they sent her to finish school at the Sorbonne..

[PsychoDad]

24. The more restrictive dress codes come from the "interpreters"

This is true. But I should have the freedom of choice to decide which school or scholar to follow.

Not to have it dictated to me by the state.

And I am genunly sorry for the experances of your friend. Islam does not condone such actions anymore than christanity. As a muslim I am ashamed that such actions were done in our name.

In my opinion - The idiotic,thoughtless and criminal action of a few do not necessitate the state dictating the way a religion is observed.

[SoCalDem]

28. I know that there are "low lifes" in every part of society and

that the majority of ANY religion are wonderful people .. It's just that the most vocal and outrageous ones are the ones who garner most of the attention..

My good friend who is in Iraq now, and arranged for us to send boxes to Iraqi families is Islamic, and I never even knew it until he went to Iraq with the CPA.. I have known him for 9 years..I don'y know if he is Sunni,Kurd or Shi'ite.. I just know that the ba'ath party people were his enemies..

I have many friends , some of 20+ years, and I don't know their religion.. It does not matter to me one teensy bit :)

[formernaderite]

64. Maybe an ignorant question on my part....

I've noticed a few female Muslim teenagers in shopping malls, who wear the headscarf but otherwise dress in what I'd call provocative western dress. This ranges from very tight jeans and tight belly shirts, to short skirts and sheer blouses. Maybe I'm a bit of a prude, but I don't let my own teenage daughter go to malls or school dressed that way. Most Muslim women who wear a scarf also seem to dress very modestly....what's the difference in belief here?

[PsychoDad]

38. The question is...

If a nun wishes to attend classes at a college, outside of the convent, should she be forced to remove the habit? Forced to hide her rosery?

Should my pagan brothers and sisters be forced to hide their pentacles or crystals when they enter a government building?

I would say no. That is their right to choose.

[Spentastic]

40. Guess what

I'd say no but only because they are not conducting state business :P

If they are conducting business on behalf of the state then I'd say yes :P. They are free to put them back on the minute they leave.

Acting as an agent of a secular state surely requires that one acts in a secular manner.

[burrowowl]

54. Until recently nuns and priests in Mexico

could not wear religious garb outside the church or convent grounds.
In France, people don't wear their crosses at school either.

[SoCalDem]

13. You are right.. they are not all emigrees, but

in a secular society, outward and obvious signs of religion do not belong in the workplace or school..

Whether someone just arrived or has been there a while, should not matter in the larger view..

Religion is private..not public.. unless you are in Iran or some other fundamentalist place.

[PsychoDad]

18. Religion is private..not public..

This the the western "McReligion" view ... where god is best only thought of once or twice a week at most. Islam is a way of life. A way of life which covers prayers 5 times a day, the abstaining from pork. the giving of charity and the wearing of hijab. I guess a muslim living in a non-muslim country should be expected to give all that up because her non-muslim neighbore don't act or dress that way?

Religion as a way of life... what a strange concept.

BTW- I would never advocate the dictation to you as to what your religion or your observance of it should include.

[SoCalDem]

20. Belgium and France are "western" countries? No??

:)..

[PsychoDad]

26. Yes.

And they are attempting to force western "ideals" (I'm not even sure about using that word) upon muslim women.

The western Ideal that I like is freedom of religion.


BTW SoCal, I love yer little pic :)

[SoCalDem]

27. He looks just like My Marvin

I could not resist it..

BTW.. I am not bashing Islam.. Just that I think we are all safer, if religion of any flavor is a private thing :):)

[PsychoDad]

33. I understand.

I am just against in your face evangelizing or prostelytizing where it is unwanted.

I just do not see where small crosses, mogan davids, tao signs, pentagrams, eyes of horus' or a piece of cloth over the head as being somehow disruptive or threatening to the religion or lack of religion of another.

Sort of like saying wearing red is wrong because it is symbolic of Christ's blood, or green because it is associated with islam.

[Spentastic]

31. Freedom of or Freedom from?

In this case the state is simply ensuring that religion is not a cotributory factor in state business. What is done outside state institutions is not affected, If the French were to ban headscarve in public places there would rightly be a massive outcry.

I'm concerned that what you are essentially saying is that your freedom of religion trumps the States desire to be free of it.

[PsychoDad]

35. the States desire to be free of it

"I'm concerned that what you are essentially saying is that your freedom of religion trumps the States desire to be free of it."

I would have to say you hit it right on the head. The first admendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

My right to practice supercedes the state's desire to control and subdue my free practice of religion.
But this applies to the US, not Belgium

[Spentastic]

37. Exactly

If you were in France would you abide by the wishes of a secular state or oppose it?

I think it's a very difficult issue and I'm not sure that there is a right or wrong answer in this debate. Personally, I believe that a secular society must have limits on the encroachment of religion into state business. The individual private expression of religion should never be infringed upon.

[PsychoDad]

39. Muslims are required to abide by the laws

of the country they live in. If I lived there, I would abide by the law... but, as France is a democracy, I would at the same time work to change the law.

So, you see, I could abide and oppose at the same time. As many of us in the US do on many differnt issues. :)

[Spentastic]

41. Nicely done

I love religious people like you. Love em.

Big respect to you.

[rman]

23. what's the problem with headscarfs anyway?

they also mention veils, and i can understand the problem with veils (covering the face) but a headscarf is not a veil.

For a muslim, wearing a headscarf is as fundamentalist as it is for a christian to wear a cross; it isn't fundamentalist.

Also, muslims wearing headscarfs does not mean you have to wear a headscarf as well.

[Maeve]

25. the argument I've seen from the anti-hijab people

Is that the hijab is a sign of women's repression and therefore unacceptable in a progressive society. The fact that it is religious is immaterial in a secular society--and they are banning some religious jewelry as well (if I recall correctly, small crosses or stars of David, etc. would be allowed as long as they aren't "in your face")

Not saying I necessarily agree with the position, just reporting.

[rman]

43. then what about voluntarily wearing a headscarf?

isn't prohibition by government also repressive?

I'd say the right to either wear or not wear a headscarf as you see fit, is quite different from the government forbidding the wearing of a headscarf.

[Maeve]

45. The argument is that the choice is not their own

That they are being forced (religiously, psychologically) to subjugate themselves and the state cannot sanction this.

Personally, I think it's a bit over-the-top it this case, but some think that any sign of possible subjugation of women should be opposed by a progressive society.

[rman]

52. but the state can sanction prohibition, forcing women not to wear

a headscarf.

Probably a number of muslim women are being forced to wear a headscarf, but certainly not all. The ones who do want to wear a headscarf, should be free to make that choice. The French and Belgium government take away that choice.

Besides, this is only one of several (unrelated) arguments i hear. Another argument is that school and workplace should be religion-neutral, which has nothing to do with women being forced to wear a headscarf.

Yet another (by the French PM) is that headscarfs are sign of agression. To me this is a ludicrous argument, yet people seem to have accepted it as valid.

[PassingFair]

59. My take on it is this...

Religious bigots wanted the headscarfs GONE. The gov'ment had no choice but to call their bluff "All overt religious symbolism must go".
It's silly, really, but as an outspoken rationalist, and one who thinks all religions are equally indefensible, it's fun to watch.

[RememberTheCoup]

61. Should Yarmulkes be banned? Ash on foreheads?

This type of thinking is mistaken, and I am shocked by your idea that if they don't like it, they can find another country to live in. Am I really on DU? The head scarf is not an expression of faith. It is an expression of modesty proscribed both by faith and by culture. Suppose you went to a country that considered it an expression of Christianity to wear any clothing at all? Should you be forced to walk around naked simply to prevent others from being able to identify your religion? Should American schools ban yarmulkes worn on Jewish Holy Days or Catholics from observing Ash Wednesday? I am really disappointed to see DUers taking this position.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Gonna backfire ...

Like American conservative fundamentalist Christians, many sects of Muslims thrive under oppression. It catalyzes their sense of being unjustly victimized.

If your country is a "liberal democracy," it should sure as hell act like a liberal democracy. Banning schoolkids from wearing scarves is stupid.

You'd think that in France, the fashion industry would be falling all over itself to create haute couture Islamique.

--bkl

[sushi]

6. It's not oppression

It's separation of church and state.

[Spentastic]

I wonder

Perhaps its a case of actually standing up for what is required in order to maintain a "liberal democracy". In order for the state and its institions to function equitably it's essential the NO religion be influential in state matters.

The issue has already been hijacked by vested interests. Since when did this become solely about banning the hijab? It's not, Jews are affected, as are Christians and Satanists probably wouldn't get away with wearing their goat masks to school either.

This is not about oppression of religion. It's about ensuring that the state is free to go about its business without influence from religion. I fully support the French in this respect.

[PsychoDad]

42. I know very few Satanists who wear goat masks.

But most all of them do wear a silver reversed pentagram. Should they be forced to hid that when they go into a school or public building?
I think they have as much right to wear that piece of jewelry as a Christian a cross or a muslim a head scarf.

[Turley]

3. I'd avoid Sabena flights for the time being

.

[Kellanved]

8. That will be very easy

:evilgrin:

[Turley]

17. OK, OK

Avoid flying whatever Sabena calls itself this days. (BrusselAir?, Manikin Piss Air?)

[mainer]

9. US schools ban gangwear, some students wear uniforms

Schools often enforce dress codes. Seems to me this would fall along those lines, to minimize conflict between students of different faiths.

[SoCalDem]

10. Uniforms are the answer.. and banning all jewelry

simple..cheap and effective..

If the purpose of school is to learn, then these issues should be easily resolved..

The place for religion of ANY kind is in the home and in the church/synagogue/mosque/chapel/cathedral...NOT in school and NOT at work :)

[PsychoDad]

21. Sorry, I disagree...

My Islam is a way of life. I practice it weither I'm at school, work, or home. I for one do not dispose or alter my values and principals because I'm in a differnt enviroment.

And I am thankful that I still live in a country that will allow you or I too choose.

[SoCalDem]

22. I did not realize that you were Islamic, but here's a question

Do your daughters/wife wear the head scarf?? Do you pray 5 time a day at work??

[PsychoDad]

29. Ok, here are the awnsers.

I do pray at work and at home. If I know I am going to be traveling a distance I attempt to work some time into being able to do my prayers. There is some flexability in when they can be done and also for making up missed ones. :)

My wife wears hijab when out of the house, or in home around men who are not family. my 13 year old daughter does not wear hijab except to masjid. These are their choices to make, and I respect both of them.

[rman]

44. "These are their choices to make"

Exactly. And these are not choices to be made by any government.

What do you think, SoCalDem?

[FAndy9]

30. Bad, bad, bad.

This move is throughly dissappointing by the French and Belgian authorities.

As the other poster said, religions can be a way of life.

There are a lot of points that anger me about this. One being, of course, that, while YOU might consider it a repression to wear headscarves, consider that the people who wear them now feel opressed for being restricted to excercise their right to dress whichever way they feel without going beyond certain "decency" standards.

This is NOT a case about religious oppression, that is a fully subjective term and it is none of our business to regulate it.

And it a also a completely selective form of excuse to say that such symbols can be "disruptive". For one what we´re making an environment where we won't have to be tolerant of other's dress (which we should be if we ever plan to advance as a society). Not only that, but who's to say that dressing as a goth or as a fan of some music group or political ideology isn't as or more disruptive than religious wear?

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't flamboyantly display our beliefs like fashion; but it's MY opinion, and if someone wishes to do otherwise, they're within their right.

Clothing is a form of expression too. To deny it is, shall we say, evil.

A huge regression of rights. Idiotic regulation. Pretty soon they could be banning political symbols or fashion items for the same reasons.

If you care, i'm an agnostic, at times very much anti-religion. But the "progress" of my ideal should be based on society's wish to go forward, not on repressive legislation. Some things you just shouldn't be enforced by law.

[Bridget Burke]

32. He hasn't answered your rude question,

But I'll volunteer that I work in a large institution with employees of all faiths. Many are Muslim; some of the women wear scarves. There is a Muslim prayer room set aside for the daily prayers.

The anti-veil rulings in Europe have less to do with feminism than xenophobia.

[SoCalDem]

34. My question was not intended to be rude.. I was genuinely curious

about Islam in the US.. We have lots of sikhs and hindu here, but I do not recall seeing women here wearing scarves.. I don't think Psychodad took it as rude..

It was a straightforward question about whether the men follow the tenets of Islam as fervently as the women are expected to :)

I asked, he answered :)

[Occulus]

57. I work with a woman of Islamic faith

and she's never seen without the scarf. I think hers is more stylistic, though.

I'd wonder if something was wrong if she showed up without it. And it's very fashionable-looking, to boot. She certainly doesn't seem forced to wear it, in much the same way a Christian woman would not be forced to wear a pin or something.

It's more along the lines of, "What am I going to wear to work today?" It's just part of her outfit.

[PsychoDad]

36. I didn't take it as rude

:)
I welcome questions. A question is the first step to understanding. And understanding your neighbor is the first step to peace.

[leesa]

46. As long as they ban ALL cross or other religious pendants and

t-shirts and other religious items. I think this is BS because I'll bet money they don't ban necklaces or other jewelry with crosses or star-of-Davids, etc. What does it possibly hurt if they cover their heads?

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Appernetly in France they are banning 'large crosses'

But if you were a cross on a necklace under your shirt, who will know? The head scarves are kind of hard to conceal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Perhaps the Islamic terrorists will redirect some of thier efforts

toward Europe rather than focusing on Israel and the United States.

[Flagg]

49. Bring 'em on !!!!!

we'll show our 'mericans friends how to win the war on terror

[starroute]

48. Does France still limit your choice of first names?

The last I knew, French parents were only allowed to give their children first names from an approved list -- most of them traditional saints' names. Without a name from that list, the child could not be registered for purposes of government benefits, taxes, school, etc. The Bretons in particular, who have their own Celtic language, were up in arms about this.

It's possible this has changed in recent years -- it's hard to imagine even the French government insisting that a crop of little Moslem girls have to be named Catherine or Marie. But even if it has, France's standard approach has always involved limiting freedom of choice, not expanding it.

[Flagg]

51. sorry but that's utter BS

there was a controversial case a few years ago about parents who'd named their child Mégane Renault which happened to be the name of a car.
they won the case as I recall

and that's about it


if you were to visit a French primary school you'd hear names like Mohammed, Hicham, farid, Jamel, youssef etc....


God is not as popular in France as He is the US and is only a theory btw

and there aren't 5 millions muslims in France, there are 5 millions French citizens from Arab descent. Some of them are muslims, some are jewish, some christians and a whole lot of them don't give a flying fuck about religion like most French people.




oh and germany may introduce a similar law in a few weeks btw

[starroute]

60. It seeems to have changed, but it was certainly true in the past

I just did some hunting and found a Google thread from 1991 on the issue:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1811449529d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=21545%40paperboy.OSF.ORG

It looks like a law of 1993 liberalized the situation. But according to
Wikipedia, it's still the case that, "In some jurisdictions, mainly
civil law jurisdictions such as France or Quebec, the functionary whose
job it is to record acts of birth may act to prevent parents from giving
the child a name that may harm it, such as a bizarre or obscene one."

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Given_name

[jvaska]

50. .

i've been hearing about this for some time in the making (because i'm currently living in belgium)...

girls, in particular, do not participate in physical education classes because of the scarves...they refuse to remove them even for the purpose of participating...and for this reason, i'm completely for the ban...

i do happen to live in a turkish part of brussels too...i see woman dressed in many different ways every day...

[bspence]

53. These guys are nuts

Their attitude is anti-religion. That's totally wrong for the world. You must be tolerant of what people want to do for their religious beliefs, but don't SPONSOR a certain religion (like the Bush administration wants to do).

I can't believe the dopes in France and Belgium are actually doing this. Picking on little kids who want to practice their religion. Talk about mentally scarring!

[RainDog]

56. I'm not sure how I feel about this issue

because I can see valid arguments on both sides. but being agnostic, or whatever, I tend to side with those who see the scarf ban as an infringement of religious liberty.

parents always make choices about religion for their kids, whether it's sending them to a fundamentalist school in the south here, to teaching them to see all faiths as an expression of our small place in a large universe.

this only seems to become an issue for the state when something like a Christian Scientist does not want to seek hospital treatment for their diabetic child, for example.

in that case, when a child's life is at stake, then it seems that the state trumps the religious belief because the weight of all current learning lends credence to intervention to save the life of a minor who is forced to go by his or her parents' religious rules..

I think it's the intervention of religion into politics, rather than the other way around, that becomes problematic.

No one seems to mind the Amish and Mennonites here, who wear distinctive dress, live a different way, teach different views. But they also do not try to impose their way of life on the rest of this country via the ballot box or by "evangelizing."

Both Chrisitianity and Islam had been "evangelizing" religions, and I think that's where the real issue comes in...the feeling that someone wants to impose their world view upon you.

Obviously not all Christians nor all Muslims seek to convert the world to their view. It's just the ones that do that give the rest of them a bad reputation and make people uneasy about their displays of piety, imo.

[thingfish]

58. I find this recent trend to be absolutely disgusting...

... and, unfortunately, in keeping with a long-standing European tradition of bullying immigrants. Not allowing Muslim women to wear the head covering in public places would be an indefensible attack on individual human rights and liberty.

This move is designed to slow the flow of Muslim immigrants to Europe, and for no other reason. Any other reason authorities give to defend this ridiculous move is pure smokescreen.

(They need to take the scarves off so they can do GYM CLASS?!?! Give me a fcuking break.)