To those of you who support the headscarf ban in France...

[chimpy the poopthrower]

Does the fact that Human Rights Watch has said the law is discriminatory make you change your mind at all?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/26/france7666.htm

"The proposed {now passed} French law banning Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols in state schools would violate the rights to freedom of religion and expression, Human Rights Watch said today. The law...forbids 'signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students,'.

{The law} is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation.

International human rights law obliges state authorities to avoid coercion in matters of religious freedom, and this obligation must be taken into account when devising school dress codes. The proposed prohibition on headscarves in France, as with laws in some Muslim countries that force girls to wear headscarves in schools, violates this principle.

Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses — which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited — do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s educational function."

I have to say I simply cannot understand how some DUers can see this ban as a good thing. Also, I find it ironic that it is the Communist party in France that put up the most opposition to the headscarf ban.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. HRW criticizes many things the west does to Muslims

I would be very surprised if they persuaded a lot of crusade supporters to change sides.

[rockymountaindem]

2. First of all, it's not just about Muslims.

Secondly, France has had a long battle with institutionalized church influence that has not occurred in the US. While such a ban would not be appropriate in the United States (I would certainly oppose one here) I think that we should have some tolerance of France's fear of religious influence in secular culture.

Go ahead, flame away.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

6. No flames. Just reasoned debate.

First of all, the ban is aimed at the Muslim practice of females wearing headscarves, although other items are affected by the ban. For example, a Jewish male student would not be permitted to wear a yarmulke to school. Sikh male students would not be permitted to wear turbans. None of these groups are the majority in France; they are all minorities. Muslims, however, are a large and growing minority, and one that some in France argue are not assimilating quickly enough.

Secondly, headscarves, yarmulkes, and turbans are not simply religious symbols the way a cross on a chain is. As HRW puts it, "For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation." Christians, at least as most Christians in the U.S. practice it, are not obligated to wear any special articles of clothing - at least nothing that is out of the ordinary clothing practices of most modern Americans. I mean, you could argue that the Bible requires us to cover our genitalia and women their breast perhaps, but people in this country do that anyway.

Third, wearing an article of clothing proscribed by one's religion does not infringe on the religious freedom of anyone else. If one student sees another student wearing a yarmulke on Yom Kippur, for example, does that mean the first student is oppressed? It doesn't harm anyone, and it doesn't mean that the school is promoting Judaism simply because they allow a Jewish student to wear the yarmulke.

[IrateCitizen]

152. Because France's history of "religious freedom" is much different

than ours.

The policy of strict secularism evolved out of the aftermath of the French Revolution, as a sustained effort to keep the Catholic Church out of French affairs. Therefore, this strict secularism is as deeply rooted in French culture as freedom of religion is rooted in ours.

Try to take off your American lenses when looking at an issue in the context of another culture.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

156. Is HRW using an American lens?

They cite international law. Besides, other countries have criticized the ban. Iverglas and I are having an interesting discussion about the "French mindset" toward secularism further down the thread, if you care to look.

[IrateCitizen]

165. I already read through the exchange between you and iverglas

By far, the most interesting and informative part of the thread.

Personally, I would agree with much of iverglas's assessment of it. I don't know what lens HRW viewed this through, but many of the arguments on this thread are presented from a highly Americentric POV. Part of commenting on it requires coming to understand the context in which it came about. France's history WRT religion -- and policy toward it -- is very different than what ours is. France also tends to maintain a much more collectivist national attitude than we do here in the States. Such is evidenced simply by the difference in their national motto (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) than those which we have adopted.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

169. Well, since the business of HRW is international human rights...

...I would expect that they do not view things through just an American lens.

I don't begrudge France their desire to have immigrants assimilate into French culture but they are going about it entirely the wrong way. And, as I told Iverglas, arguments that the French are simply trying to prevent the influence of religion on government might be more plausible if Muslims were actually the majority in France instead of a small minority. Besides, France's fears do not excuse this poorly-concieved law. After 9-11, Americans were fearful and allowed essential liberties to be taken away as a result. The fact that we were fearful doesn't excuse the Patriot Act and other measures.

[IrateCitizen]

173. As someone who has only ever spent 1 week in France...

... and who has only read a few articles on this, I don't feel that I'm really qualified to come down on one side or the other on this.

On the surface, I disagree with the ban. At the same time, I can see the motivations within France for installing it.

The problem is, this, like many other issues, is hardly a yes/no situation. There are significant problems with the ban, as well as significant problems that could arise from not installing the ban. Personally, I think that France could do a lot more to avoid the problems arising around this issue if it were to actually provide economic empowerment for the Muslim minorities who emigrate from North Africa -- rather than condemning them to multi-generational existences in the slums on the suburbs of the cities.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

174. Do you have this much hesitation condemning Saudi Arabia...?

...and other countries that force Muslim women to wear headscarves? I would wager you know even less about Saudi Arabia than you do about France, if you are like most Americans. And yet, no one hesitates to criticize Saudi Arabia on this issue. France is also taking away the right of Muslim females to choose for themselves, but instead of condemning this law, we hem and haw and make excuses for France because we Americans "just don't understand" their society.

[IrateCitizen]

178. Not at all equivalent

Saudi Arabia is a society in which women are not only required to cover their entire bodies in public, but one in which women are guaranteed basically NO RIGHTS. They are fully second-class citizens.

In fact, THAT is where I would level my greatest criticism against Saudi Arabia's policies -- that women are denied any real rights in their society. The headscarf is just a corollary to that wider issue.

Moving on to France, while it can definitely be argued (correctly, IMHO) that a headscarf ban would be an imposition on the freedom to express one's religion -- you cannot in any way honestly present this imposition as equivalent to the complete denial of basic rights of which we are speaking in regards to Saudi Arabia. While it is a freedom they should NOT have to sacrifice, the ONLY freedom that Muslim women are being forced to give up is the freedom to wear their traditional headgarb while in a public school. They are not having to give up their basic rights as citizens or people.

If you're going to compare these two, it's important to compare them HONESTLY in the context in which each occurs.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

180. Oh, is THAT all?

"The ONLY freedom that Muslim women are being forced to give up is the freedom to wear their traditional headgarb while in a public school. They are not having to give up their basic rights as citizens or people."

Well, it's interesting to know that you don't see that as a basic human right. After all, why should a girl or woman be allowed to choose for herself which parts of her body she wishes to cover?

It is conventional in parts of Europe for women to go topless on beaches. Imagine if that convention extended to gym class in school as well. Should the government force immigrants from other countries - even America - to remove their tops in gym class?

[IrateCitizen]

181. Nobody forces women to go topless at European beaches

When I was in Nice this past summer, there were probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the women who were going around topless. I must have missed the topless enforcement police handing out tickets to those who did NOT go topless, because I didn't see anyone being FORCED to remove their top.

We all give up freedoms on a daily basis. For instance, although I may feel it is perfectly fine to stroll down the street naked on a July afternoon -- I would bet that if I tried it I would find myself in jail, or at least facing a fine.

What if I am a naturalist, and this is part of my religion? Would the state then be taking away MY rights and freedom to wear (or not wear) whatever I choose?

See, societies balance "freedoms and rights" with what is necessary for the maintenance of civil society. We all do it in different ways. Now, there are certain areas (going to Saudi Arabia again) in which it is very easy to make the distinction between "maintaining civil society" and outright discrimination against a segment of the population. In other instances, this line is not quite so clear. This is one of those instances, as I noted in one of my prior posts, in acknowledging that there will be bitterness now whether the ban is instituted or not. But I guess it's much easier to view such issues as black/white, because it helps us to maintain the illusion that we are RIGHT, and the other view is WRONG.

I also noticed that you did not address any of the points I made above regarding my thoughts on the real issues that might be fueling the origins of this policy -- an embattled Muslim minority condemned to multi-generational poverty in ghettos outside the cities coupled with the reactionary anti-immigrantism of the European RW -- and what might be able to help remove the whole thing as an issue.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

184. Well I WAS going to led this thread sink...

...since people seem to be getting tired of it. But I don't want anyone reading your headline to think I believe women in Europe are forced to walk around topless. ;)

I said it was conventional on some beaches -- meaning customary, common, accepted, and not out of the ordinary. I certainly wasn't under the impression that anyone is required to go topless on beaches. I was posing a hypothetical (and exaggerated) situation to make a point. Muslim women wear the headscarf because it is their religion and their cultural custom to do so. Different cultures can have different customs. Women don't go topless on beaches in the U.S. Does that mean that American women are oppressed? Many American women would feel uncomfortable going topless even on European beaches where no one else considers it unusual. Many Muslim immigrants consider it appropriate and proper to cover their hair, just as American women may consider it appropriate and proper to cover their breasts. When you force a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf, it is comparable in some ways to asking an American woman to remove her top.

I do understand that certain rights must be limited when there is a compelling state reason to do so. I said so to Iverglas in post #148. What irritates me is that some people on this thread are acting as if it is "no big deal" to force a Muslim girl or woman to remove her headscarf. It is very much a violation of her person and her diginity. I realize there are situations that necessitate such a violation -- for example, in the U.S. there are situations where strip searches are warranted -- but that doesn't mean we should commit such violations arbitrarily. Many people on this thread just arrogantly assume that every Muslim woman who wears a headscarf does so because she is being forced to by abusive family members or because she has been brainwashed by an oppressive religion.

I did not address your points regarding social problems in France because I do not disagree with you. Such problems need to be addressed, and it will take a great deal of knowledge and effort to do so. I don't have the answers. I do know that in instituting a headscraf ban, the French government is using a very poor an simplistic method to try to deal with these complex social issues, and that is always a mistake.

[IrateCitizen]

185. And on your last point, I'll agree -- and let it sink

:-)

[Flagg]

168. Besides, other countries have criticized the ban

yep
Saudi Arabia, Iran and.....the Bush administration.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

171. More than just them.

India has expressed fears that Sikhs will not be allowed to wear their turbans. The mayor of London, who you may remember as being highly critical of Bush, has criticized the ban. There are many other critics, if you take some time to research it.

[Flagg]

175. The mayor of London, who you may remember as being highly critical of Bush

electoral stunt.London is the most multi cultural city in Europe.
hello


India: a beacon for Human rights...
sure

[chimpy the poopthrower]

179. Is HRW engaged in an election stunt?

And, incidentally, India is quite progressive in many ways. There are certainly not among the worst human rights abusers. However, I've already said there are more critics than these. Why don't you list all the countries that are supporting this ban?

Besides, if you don't think this law was passed in order to appeal to the worst instincts of the French electorate, you are mistaken.

[Djinn]

193. so how

is celebrating ALL the christian holidays (Xmas, Easter & also Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Day & All Saints' Day) a rigidly secular state?? If they really want to be secular replace those days with "Family" holiday days or whatever to claim that France is secular is way off the mark

[Kamika]

3. No, I think it's great

And first of I'm a pretty hardcore christian, but schools MUST be secular.

And as others have pointed out.. it's for all religious symbols..


We should have the same thing here

[chimpy the poopthrower]

8. Do you believe that Jewish students should be...

...banned from wearing a yarmulke? Do you believe Sikh students should not be allowed to wear turbans? Should Rastafarians students be forced to cut their dreadlocks, which are a part of their religion? Should Amish and Mennonite students who attend public school be forced to dress like the other children? Be careful what you wish for.

[BonjourUSA]

9. Of course yes.

But we very rarely find such a behavior in the French schools.

Just because every body knows the public school is secular. Some cases happened (especially scarves) in these last years and justify the law which is just a recall of our commune way of life and the law of 1905 about the churches and state separation.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

17. U.S. schools are secular too.

But we don't trample on the Constitutional rights of our students. Read my post #7 with links to the ACLU. The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. It is certainly not a right-wing group or a group that is controlled by religious fundamentalists.

America is much more multicultural than France and we have had a long time to deal with these issues. I think we have done a good job of figuring out where one person's freedom ends and another person's freedom begins. This is somewhat of a new issue for France. In this case France should look to the U.S. to benefit from our experience. That's not U.S. arrogance. There are many issues where I think the U.S. would benefit from studying other countries.

[Kamika]

25. hellll yes

ban it all I say. Make schools the epitome of secularism

[chimpy the poopthrower]

28. astonishing...

You have no problem ripping the headscarf off a Muslim student or the yarmulke from a Jewish student? Wow. You know, I remember an incident soon after 9/11 where some woman attacked a Muslim woman and tore off her headscarf. Most DUers I seem to recall condemned this ugly, racist incident. But you would have schools doing it to students.

[Kamika]

33. no problem whatsoever

Aslong as it's in a goverment funded school.

Oh same goes for christian crosses etc

[chimpy the poopthrower]

42. A Christian cross is not the same thing.

Christians are not required by their religion to wear a cross. It is not comparable to a Muslim headscarf, Jewish skullcap, or Sikh turban. It seems very easy for you to say others should give up these things since it doesn't affect yo personally. Would you also force students to eat pork, beef, or other foods that are against their religion?

[Kamika]

43. no

I don't care what people eat aslong as it's nothing illegal.

Oh and should we follow muslims laws, muslim women would not even be allowed to study with guys.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

48. That's not what I asked you.

I didn't ask you if you cared what other people ate. I asked you if you would have a problem with schools forcing children to eat food that is against their religion or personal beliefs. You don't mind schools interfering with students' religion when it comes to head coverings. I just wonder if you feel the same way about school meals. After all, it is a secular school, right? Why should students' religious preferences be accommodated insofar as what they eat?

[Kamika]

49. Ok

No I don't think schools should force students to eat at all, it's up to the students to eat.

But I won't equate eating kosher with wearing a big cross on your neck.. If the school wants to sell kosher sure do it.. it's hardly comparable

[chimpy the poopthrower]

50. Nor would I.

I would not equate eating Kosher with "wearing a big cross on your neck" since Christianity does not require anyone to wear a cross. I would equate eating Kosher with wearing a yarmulke on certain Holy days or, as some Jews believe, all the time. You would not force a Jewish student to eat non-Kosher food, but you would force him to remove his yarmulke, which is just as much a part of his religion.

[Djinn]

194. where do you get your knowledge

of muslims laws Kamika? what is viewed as a religious neccesity in Saudi is different to what folks think in Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan etc.

Do you know that heavilly Muslim country's such as Bangladesh and Indonesia have had (or presently have) FEMALE Prime Ministers, when was the last time the US had a female Presaident????

[LeahMira]

112. And the sky is falling!!!

Christians are not required by their religion to wear a cross.

Far as I know, this is true. However, some of them believe that their religion requires them to proselytize. So far, we have managed to keep this proselytization relatively under control in our schools, but the insistence on teaching creationism either alongside or instead of evolution is a trend that needs to be watched, as is the insistence that Christian children be permitted to denounce homosexuality in schools.



It is not comparable to a Muslim headscarf, Jewish skullcap, or Sikh turban.

Among some Jews, wearing a kippah is seen as a requirement, particularly when engaging in study.


Would you also force students to eat pork, beef, or other foods that are against their religion?

And this is where you descend into your "the sky is falling" argument. One could imagine all sorts of religious persecutions taking place given a vivid imagination such as yours. Yes, all sorts of things might happen, but the fact is that they are not happening and there is no reason to assume that they are going to happen any time soon. At least not in France.

IMO, it is the height of arrogance for any American to try to tell the French what to do. It amazes me that some of the same folks who oppose the export of American capitalism to foreign nations are supporting the export of the American version of separation of church and state to France.

*Hang in there, Kamika. You aren't alone!

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. In some ways, it IS falling

Let's just focus on your last argument, that the school system would never force kids to eat things in violation of their beliefs.

OK, you are forcing kids to avoid wearing certain clothing, why not force them (just so they fit in) to eat in the school cafeteria? That would immediately violate rules for kids who are orthodox. Then, heck, why not serve whatever you want -- pork for instance?

After all, if you don't eat it, you aren't fitting it. You are thumbing your nose at French society.

[LeahMira]

116. Correction...

Let's just focus on your last argument, that the school system would never force kids to eat things in violation of their beliefs.

I didn't say that the school system would never do that. I said that it is not doing that. Conceiveably, the schools could insist that students crawl on their hands and knees during school hours, but that isn't happening. Shall you get upset because it could happen?

Why do you insist on hastening to a disaster? Is it simply because the disaster is in the area of religion?

And then, why would you be more touchy about a religious issue than you would be about any other issues?

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. It is reasonable using THEIR logic

They rely on the logic of conformity. If they seek to instill secular values, that would be a similar action.

I don't "insist on hastening to a disaster." This law is already a disaster.

I am actually touchy about freedom in general, not just religious freedom.

[Kamika]

125. wee

now there's two of us :D

But I'll calm down because I got warned in this thread :(

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. The same thing here

Not without open warfare. Thankfully, most Americans understand the need for personal rights.

[DrWeird]

67. Really?

Because you've said yourself before that you were in favor of the ten commandments in public places.

I can't help but wonder you feel that way because your God is better then their God.

[Guaranteed]

109. Absolutely NOT.

NO ONE is telling me what religious symbols I can or can't wear in a PUBLIC school. That is BULLSHIT.

On edit: Seriously, that's grounds for revolution. TOTALLY unAmerican.

[absyntheNsugar]

4. Nope!

We should never be so tolerant that we tolerate INTOLERANCE!

[BonjourUSA]

5. What is the most sign of intolerance ?

To ban the Darwin theory in the syllabus or to ban ALL religious symbols for a free and secular teaching ?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

7. I posted this on another thread.

I realize this is about France and not the US, but here is what the ACLU says about similar issues in this country:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9007&c=13...

"Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools

Student Garb
17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest."


Here is more from the ACLU:

http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/godinschool.html

"Sally and Tom bring their Bibles to school so that they can read them during free time. They also pray together at lunch before they eat. Should school officials allow them to continue these practices?

Yes. Although critics frequently declare that the Supreme Court has 'kicked God out of public schools,' the fact remains that 'students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.' Students may freely practice religion in public schools as long as their behavior neither disrupts school activities nor inhibits the rights of others to freedom of conscience.

Stewart's religion requires that he wear a yarmulke, or head covering, at all times, including while he is at school. His gym teacher, Mr. Hamilton, asked Stewart to remove the yarmulke during gym. Is Mr. Hamilton's request appropriate?

No. Absent a compelling state interest, schools must accommodate a student whose parent or guardian wants the student to wear clothes that differ from those prescribed by school policy if the request is based on a sincerely held religious belief. In addition, if the policy creates exceptions for other students, it must then allow an exception for students' religious beliefs. However, a student's right to have his/her sincerely held religious beliefs accommodated does not include the right to change or eliminate an activity or policy for all the other students. For example, the school's accommodation of Stewart's request to wear his yarmulke would not mean that a ban on baseball caps during gym would now be lifted for everyone else."


And just in case there was any doubt as to the motivations behind France's law, here's what was said by the Prime Minister:

"(Prime Minister Jean-Pierre) Raffarin insisted the law was needed to contain the spread of Muslim fundamentalism and ensure that the principle of secularism on which France is based remains intact.

'We wanted to send a strong and rapid signal,' he said."

[Isere]

11. Amen to that!

It's somewhat useless to argue this topic, I'm afraid. In the US, the concept of freedom of religion is deeply ingrained and most Americans simply don't understand the extent to which France places a high value on its tradition of secularism.

French society is very generous in extending the benefits of its civil structure to all comers. If an immigrant learns French and shows respect for French values, he or she is welcomed as a full citizen. Newcomers receive free national health care (imagine that, folks!), public education, family allowances, maternity benefits, etc.

In France, the concept of civil society means that everyone is treated equally and everyone is entitled to basic human dignities such as housing and health care.

Personally, I have admiration for the French concept of secularism and equality, but I have had a difficult time trying to convey it to anyone here, including my own family.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Some are more equal than others

Either bow to the uber state or you will be forced to. That's the boot of fascism on the neck of minorities. No thank you.

[Isere]

13. Quelle betise!

Forgive me, please, but that is just the silliest thing I've heard in a long time!
Would it be "the boot of fascism" if the US offered health insurance to its immigrants? Would it be "bowing to the uber state" if every US worker had maternity leave? The government of France doesn't require that anyone learn French. I was only trying to say that one is more easily integrated and has better access to jobs if they do.

[arewethereyet]

15. So discrimination later in life is perfectly OK too ! What a country !

And to think some here think France is a great place !

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. The boot of fascism

Is forcing people to give up their religious practices for the uber state.

I am NOT saying everything Frances does is bad. This is.

[bloom]

32. not allowing certain articles of clothing does not equal

"forcing people to give up their religious practices".

It doesn't strike me as all that different as not allowing gang symbols.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Not all that different?

So, you equate religious beliefs with gangs?

I think that says more about your comments than anything I ever could.

[LeahMira]

130. False analogy...

So, you equate religious beliefs with gangs?

No, the equation was with religious practices that include wearing certain articles of clothing as an expression of identity and affiliation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. Gang symbols are inherently negative

As are gangs. Religions are not.

Gang rights are not enshrined in the Constitution. Religious rights are.

[iverglas]

157. says our muddled one

The only fit response to such statements, of course, is: SEZ WHO?


Gang symbols are inherently negative
As are gangs. Religions are not.

*I* think that religions are inherently negative. Somebody gonna PROVE me wrong?


Gang rights are not enshrined in the Constitution.
Religious rights are.

Freedom of association is enshrined in the constitution. Well, it is in mine, anyhow, and who exactly might there be to say that mine is wrong and someone else's is right, if someone else's doesn't include the right to freely associate?

In fact, Canada's anti-gang laws are constitutionally questionable, for precisely that reason. (I haven't kept track of what's become of a challenge to them.)

Of course, like all constitutional rights, freedom of association MAY be interfered with if there is justification. Just like freedom of religion may be interfered with. Or was Muddleoftheroad suggesting that laws prohibiting human sacrifice are unconstitutional?


So gosh -- all we have here are (1) a statement of Muddleoftheroad's opinion, and (2) an incorrect statement of fact (or, at best, a statement of irrelevant fact).


Tsk, tsk, Muddleoftheroad. You presumably agree that the state may step in and prohibit parents from beating their children black and blue and broken. Seems to me like a pretty arrogant usurpation of "parents' rights" by the state, I must say. I mean, by your logic.

In my experience, you draw the lines wherever it suits you, never address the arguments that other people do present for the places where they think the lines should be drawn, and never present your own arguments for where you think the lines should be drawn. (And no, an appeal to the authority of "the constitution" isn't anything more than appeal to your opinion of what the constitution permits or prohibits.)

This makes most attempts at discussion rather fruitless.

But hey, if you actually want to explain why it is okay to interfere in freedom of religion by prohibiting religious fundamentalists of various stripes from beating their children or refusing to allow their daughters to be educated or denying their toddlers essential life-saving medical care, say, but not okay to interfere in freedom of religion by prohibiting religious fundamentalists of any stripe from treating their daughters in the degrading and devaluing manner that dressing them in, say, a burqa to go to public school would comprise -- I'll be all ears.

There are undoubtedly even some things we might agree on. And for those on which we disagreed, we'd at least know what your basis for disagreement, other than your own beliefs, which are really entirely irrelevant and just of no concern to anybody else, might be. And damned if that isn't worth knowing, not to say essential to know, in a liberal democracy where public policy is having to be made.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Freedom

Do you know anything about gangs? Ever live near any?

If not, ask the police about the gang task forces they have to combat the crime. Personally, I've seen it. I don't need a map.

Religions are specifically protected in our Constitution. Clearly our founding fathers believed as I do, that religion is NOT inherently negative.

I don't have to prove anything to you. You can believe as wrong-headedly as you wish.

Yes, freedom of association IS protected, except when it is used for criminal purposes which is the case in gangs.

[iverglas]

183. wrongheadness, har de har har har

Do you know anything about gangs? Ever live near any?

Hey, you ever live near an Italian RC church? I do. I get to get woke up early every Sunday morning by its hideous, obnoxious, loud, offensive bells calling the faithful to worship. Not a damned thing I can do about it. EVEN THOUGH no other organization would ever be permitted to interfere in my private life in that way, and deprive me of the sleep I need if I am to earn a living.

Religions are specifically protected in our Constitution. Clearly our founding fathers believed as I do, that religion is NOT inherently negative.

Who the fuck cares, really? You seem to imagine that someone else does. I can't think of why you'd put so much effort into telling the reading public what you think without ever bothering to tell anybody why they should care, but that's just me.

Whether something is "inherently negative" or not is an issue only in your imagination. I happen to believe that religion IS inherently negative, BUT I WOULD NEVER AGREE TO A LAW THAT BANNED ITS PRACTICE.

Allow me to quote you: You can believe as wrong-headedly as you wish.

And there ain't a thing anybody can do about it, except to demonstrate how utterly muddled (I'm giving the benefit of any doubt) what you believe is.

Yes, freedom of association IS protected, except when it is used for criminal purposes which is the case in gangs.

And I'll bet you can quote the bit of your constitution that says THAT, by heart, right? Or maybe even just give a chapter & verse reference?

Don't you ever get dizzy going around in those circles???

Is freedom of religion protected when it is used for criminal purposes?? What were you folks saying about that female genital mutilation stuff?

One day it's a crime, the next it isn't. Isn't that kind of the whole bleeding question -- WHAT CAN BE MADE A CRIME, AND WHAT CAN'T? What is an unconstitutional, UNJUSTIFIED violation of a right/freedom, and what isn't?

I guess all we ever need to do is ask you, of course, since obviously you have all the answers, and we don't need to worry our little heads about how you arrived at them. Have I got it right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not actually seeing an express recognition of the right of free association the way there is in my constitution, but I imagine that's what you get if you combine free assembly with privacy or something.

But the damned thing is that "being a member of a gang" isn't a crime UNLESS IT IS OUTLAWED. And it really makes not a stitch of sense to say that someone *IS* something "for criminal purposes"; if it were, I could be accused of "being on the street" for criminal purposes, or "being a woman" for criminal purposes. And that's the crux of the issue in that case, for those who understand such things. In liberal democracies, status is not outlawed; acts are outlawed. Outlawing "being a member of a gang" is absolutely no different from outlawing "being a Gypsy" or "being a Pentecostal", in constitutional terms. It's all in the justification, ain't it?

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

188. Hell's Bells

Gosh, bells. How horrible.

Well, I think most Americans by far care about what's in their Constitution. They're funny about that.

I'm glad that you would never agree to a law that banned religion. How gracious of you to never agree to something that is constitutionally forbidden.

I don't know what others were saying about female genital mutiliation. I was saying it should be banned and that the U.S. should exercise its influence around the globe to stop the practice.

I don't claim to have all the answers. One of the reasons for online debate is to hash them out.

Being a member of a gang is not expressly illegal. However, I have never heard of a gang that was not involved in criminal activity. Ergo, the membership is inherently bad.

[iverglas]

189. hahaha

I don't claim to have all the answers. One of the reasons for online debate is to hash them out.

If you could name one thing you don't claim to have the answer to that has been discussed at DU, and/or one instance in which you have ever "hashed out" anything at all (that's as distinct from telling someone else s/he is wrong and you're right, you see), I'd just love to see it. Really I would.

I'm glad that you would never agree to a law that banned religion. How gracious of you to never agree to something that is constitutionally forbidden.

Sweetheart, your constitution is just of so much no concern to me, I can't express it.

And my rejection of the idea of outlawing religion has so much nothing to do with either your constitution or my own that you can't imagine.

Oddly enough, I just don't depend on constitutions any more than I depend on ancient scrolls for my ideas about what is good or bad, right or wrong, naughty or nice.

Constitutions come, constitutions go, constitutions get amended. I don't expect to agree with any of them all the time. It's convenient if I do, but I don't suggest that they're authority for anything other than the fact that they say what they say.


I don't know what others were saying about female genital mutiliation. I was saying it should be banned and that the U.S. should exercise its influence around the globe to stop the practice.

Yeah, but gosh darn it, it's just YOUR OPINION that it's a bad thing, isn't it? How you justify imposing your opinion on people whose religion requires it, I have no clue. As far as I know, you don't. You just say that your opinion oughta be the law.


Being a member of a gang is not expressly illegal. However, I have never heard of a gang that was not involved in criminal activity. Ergo, the membership is inherently bad.

Gosh, then wouldn't you have expected your founders & framers to put something about it in your constitution?

I've never heard of a church whose members were not involved in brainwashing children. Ergo, membership in a church is inherently bad.

BUT THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION for outlawing membership in a church.

And sadly for you, your apparent attempt to justify outlawing membership in a gang, which I think is what you were doing, is just about as pitifully weak as would be my attempt to justify outlawing membership in a church, were I ever to contemplate doing such a thing. "Inherently bad" really just does not cut it when it comes to violating constitutional rights.

I dunno. Aren't we supposed to punish the criminals and not the innocent? Seems to me I hear that line alla damned time in the gun dungeon. Punish people for what they DO, not who they ARE, right? IF they commit a crime, then you go after them for that.


Oh, btw, your opinion about how disruptive church bells are to people in the vicinity just isn't of any consequence, y'know? There are a lot of women who are HAPPY that their genitals were mutilated, and I have no doubt that there are people whose lives are severely negatively impacted by church bells. You aren't any of those people -- mutilated women or people rendered sleepless by church bells -- so I don't know why you imagine that your opinion should be the deciding factor about who gets mutilated or who gets woke up ... or anything else at all.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

190. Coming from you

This response is quite humorous.

Unlike you, I consider the Constitution to be an important document. Fortunately, most in America and even most on DU agree.

As for female genital mutilation, no, it's not just my opinion. But heck, what's a little hyperbole among bitter enemies, eh?

Outside of a few wacko cults, I've never heard of a church that IS involved in "brainwashing children." Passing along your beliefs is not brainwashing.

We punish people for what they do in our society. When they join criminal organizations -- the Mafia, gangs, al Qaeda, etc. -- then they provide support and protection for those criminal activities.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

14. And how do headscarves threaten those things?

I'm glad that France has free national healthcare and all the other good things you mentioned. But what does that have to do with headscarves? Do you really think that allowing schoolchildren to wear headscarves and the like will bring about the downfall of France? No. This is about a minority group making the majority uncomfortable. I keep hearing how MOST of France is not religious in any way. So what? Isn't it important to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

[iverglas]

115. France is not the US; the world is not the US.

In another thread on this subject, I responded to this comment:

The French need to lighten up. By banning head scarves, they may actually harden opposition to assimilation into the larger society.

as follows.

Good point. What it does raise, though, is the difference between the French approach to "citizenship" and, say, the Canadian approach. I use "citizenship" in the French sense, as distinct from "nationality", the formal kind of citizenship. A citoyen(ne) ("citizen") is not someone with a French passport, it is a member of French society.

The French approach is that everyone be French, first and foremost. Membership in any other group -- religious, cultural, whatever -- is subordinate to membership in France. There is no "mediation" between the state and the citizen. Assimilation is definitely the objective when it comes to immigrants -- they are to
become members of France first, and members of any other group second.

The Canadian approach, "multiculturalism" (which means something different in Europe), is somewhat the opposite. We do not strive for a melting pot, as in the US, but for a "mosaic". From the very beginning, the country was an association of groups: the French and the English; the initial constitutional bargain was between those groups, not between individuals and the state.

On the other hand, as Isere points out, this "distinguishing" of themselves from the broader culture can result in their suffering disadvantages as a result of discrimination and simply a lack of facility with the majority ways of doing things.

We recognize individuals' membership in their own groups as important. In fact, it is increasingly recognized, at the international level and in the human sciences, that membership in a "culture" is essential for an individual to flourish. And research has found that the ability of individuals to integrate into (which is different from being assimilated into) a new society is enhanced where they have affinity groups (cultural, religious, linguistic) to "mediate" their integration -- to shepherd them into the broader society, to explain it to them and them to it, to facilitate their ability to function in it, their feeling of membership and acceptance in it, and their commitment to it.

I'm pretty firmly opposed to the wearing of headscarves, period, and particularly by children in schools. I believe that it is counter to the value of the equal worth and dignity of every individual that is fundamental to Canadian society. I believe that it is a misogynistic expression of contempt for women and demeaning to women and girls, and negatively affects girls' personal development and growth as full human beings.

But that, obviously correct as it is, is just my opinion. And it only applies in an "all other things being equal" situation, which we aren't in. Girls in the cultural or religious minorities that impose this dress code would be further alienated from the society they live in if their cultural/religious practices were banned in the public places where they spend their time, the schools. They would not feel equal, they would feel lesser, not respected. The part of them that is central to them would have been rejected by the majority.

They would feel isolated and excluded from their milieu, not integrated into it. The link between the individual and the society would be weakened, not strengthened. An individual who feels accepted by society is much more likely to be engaged with and committed to that society than an individual who is rejected for reasons that are truly central to his/her personality, i.e. his/her religious and/or cultural beliefs and practices.

But French society is different, and in fact does formally and informally recognize individual equality quite thoroughly. And France needs to ban headscarves in the schools in order to weaken the individual-cultural/religious group link and strengthen the individual-state/society link -- in order to preserve individual equality, the equality of all individuals in their relationship with the collectivity. It should be noted that France takes the same approach to the majority RC religion: individuals' religion is separate from their "citizenship", and is not expected to intrude in the individual-state/society relationship.

France is genuinely, and quite validly within its own model, concerned that some minority groups are insisting on being the main point of adhesion and allegiance for their individual members, supplanting the state/society in that role -- and that actually operates against the individual's equality. Within the French model, that could spell a disastrous breakdown of the state and society.

But the model itself, and the actions taken to reinforce it, are arguably contrary to human psychology. Individuals need affinity groups, particulary individuals for whom such a group is already their point of connection. France simply may not be able to supplant religious/ethnic/cultural affinity groups, now that there are such large and well-organized instances of those groups, in the space of a generation.

Within the Canadian model, "tolerating" cultural/religious expression by individuals, and actively fostering the link between individuals and their religious/cultural groups, is regarded as more likely to strengthen the individual-state/society link. We are, in a sense, the other end of the spectrum, with the US in the middle, taking no formal position in either direction and simply exercising pervasive informal pressure to conform, while allowing non-conformity.

Canada has learned from sad experience what the result of doing the opposite will be. Our attempts in the last century to "assimilate" First Nations people into "Canadian" society were an abysmal failure. Aboriginal children ("Native American" in the US) were placed en masse in residential (usually Christian) schools, forbidden to speak their language or engage in their spiritual/religion practices, kept away from their families and communites. And we now have a generation of Aboriginal people adrift, truly rootless in society. Without connections to family, community, culture -- including the controls that those groups exercise over their members to shape their behaviour -- they had no base for developing as individuals. Spousal and child abuse, alcoholism, crime, suicide -- symptoms of unhealthy personality development -- are the fallout from trying to remove the individual from the culture, and the culture from the individual.

So yeah, I'll take the present-day Canadian approach. But that, too, is a cultural choice.

Canada is, culturally, far more collectivist than the US, for example, but *our* collectivism is historically a sort of collectivity of collectivities. France's collectivism is more unitary -- there is one big collectivity, to which all individuals belong.

And one factor that is never mentioned in all of this is that in France, virtually no thought is given to race. We should all recall how many African-American artists emigrated to France in the early part of the 20th century, because they were accepted as individuals there regardless of their colour.

Culturally, France does not distinguish among people based on factors as irrelevant to their membership in the collectivity as race, to nearly the extent seen elsewhere, and the general public simply does not look members of racial minority groups negatively based on their race as happens in the US, for example. The individual is equal, inherently and a priori. And this is a good outcome of the de-emphasis of sub-groups within the collectivity.

What they do object to is individuals' actions that insert their private group memberships into the public sphere, and splinter the solidarity of the collectivity by identifying themselves as members, first and foremost, of a sub-group.

I may not agree with this approach, but I wouldn't even think of discussing it, let alone criticizing it, without knowing and understanding a lot more about why it is taken and how it relates to the society's entire model of itself -- and the benefits that that model does produce that are absent in some societies where there is more so-called "freedom".

.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

141. Iverglas, you make some interesting points.

At the very least I am grateful you did not try to argue, as others have, that the purpose of the ban is to protect the autonomy of Muslim girls who do not wish to wear the scarf, or to protect the non-Muslim students from the "oppression" of having to see someone wearing an article of clothing that makes the person's religion identifiable. The motivation behind this ban has nothing to do with supporting the freedom of Muslim girls and it has nothing to do with what Americans would call separation of Church and State. (Arguments that the French are simply trying to prevent the influence of religion on government might be more plausible if Muslims were actually the majority in France instead of a small minority.) The law is, as you acknowledge, about assimilation of immigrants, and French officials have said as much themselves.

Where we part ways is with your insistence that one must be an expert on the sociology of France in order to have a valid opinion on this matter. Of course it is always preferable to approach issues with as much background knowledge as possible, but that isn't always practical. And sometimes it is a distraction. I believe that human beings everywhere are, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "endowed...with certain inalienable rights." You can talk all you want about what makes France different from the U.S. or Canada, but I don't think anything can excuse the denial of basic human rights. If that were true, there would be no point in having international human rights organizations like HRW or Amnesty International, as every violation would invariably be justified on the basis of a country's "idiosyncracies" that outsiders simply can't appreciate.

In my opinion, wearing a simple article of clothing in order to conform to one's religious and cultural concepts of modesty is an important right that should not be restricted unless there is a very good reason. France's desire to hasten the assimilation of some of its immigrants does not strike me as a legitimate rationale for such an invasion of personal choice. In fact, the problem in this case is not merely that France lacks "a very good reason." The problem is that France has no reason at all other than a circular one. France's reason is inherently flawed because they are denying religious expression for the sake of denying religious expression.

Consider Saudi Arabia. I know very litle about Saudi Arabia, just as I know very little about Islam. Most Americans probably know as little as I do, if not less. Yet Americans are almost universally opposed to Saudi Arabia's practice of forcing girls and women to wear headscarves whether they wish to or not. Some apologists for Saudi Arabia can try arguing that we don't really understand their culture, just as some apologists for France can try arguing that those of us who oppose their ban do not really understand France. It is true that the term "banlieue" that appears in this thread holds no personal meaning for me beyond its standard definition in a French dictionary. But I can tell you that I have no problem whatsoever saying that both Saudi Arabia and France are in the wrong when it comes to this particular issue. Some things you just know are wrong.

For example, I "knew" that Alan Dershowitz was wrong when he suggested that the U.S. consider allowing torture in certain extreme circumstances. It didn't matter to me that I had always considered him one of the "good guys" up to that point (just as I have always considered France one of the "good guys" on the international scene). I know that legalizing torture under any circumstances is wrong; I know because my stomach and my heart turn away from it. You say that the idea of headscarves is personally offensive to you. What is offensive to me is the government ripping those headscarves off the heads of girls and young women against their will. As oppressive as it is to force women to cover parts of their bodies, I consider it even more of a violation (and actually less justifiable) to force women to uncover parts of their bodies they wish to cover.

I can just imagine a 14-year-old French Muslim girl, raised in a home where her mother, grandmother, aunts, etc. all wore headscarves. She herself has been wearing a headscarf since a certain age. Now, when she is likely at the most vulnerable, self-conscious, and confusing age in her entire life, when she is already going through changes to her body, psychological changes, and everything else that teenagers must endure, now her own government is telling her she must uncover a part of her body that her culture has always kept covered. No one is saying "It is your decision as to whether you wear a headscarf." Instead they are simply saying, "Take off your headscarf." You might as well tell an American girl that age to take off her shirt. Such an idea sickens me. And it is certainly, as you acknowledge, counter-productive toward the stated purpose of the ban, which is to encourage assimilation.

I might also point out that very few of those who have posted on this topic have done so in the context of French sociology, culture, or history. (And even those who have have often failed to acknowledge France's desire to encourage assimilation as the primary motivation behind this law.) Many of the people posting on this topic seem to feel that such a ban would be desirable even in the U.S.! That scares me. Especially considering that the people on this board are supposedly more progressive than the general population. That is part of the reason this topic has so captured my attention. Not (as some have suggested) because I am a France-hater!

Iverglas, although we disagree on some things, I appreciate the thought that you put into your post. I do feel I have gained a bit of insight into the French mindset.

[iverglas]

145. "insight into the French mindset"

And thank you for the comments too. This does happen to be something about which I know something. I always recommend the Metropolis Project websites for interesting research in areas like this -- the effects of human migration in today's world.

At the very least I am grateful you did not try to argue, as others have, that the purpose of the ban is to protect the autonomy of Muslim girls who do not wish to wear the scarf, ...

Well ... I didn't say it expressly, but I kind of implied it. A society has basic values, and needs to protect those values. One of the most basic is the equality of individuals. This value is more important outside the US than in the US, at the international level and particularly in all comparable societies (like Canada and Europe).

I ran across an interesting quotation the other day:

When it shall be said in any country in the world, "My poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness": -- when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government.
Rights of Man, <1> p.250

The thing is that all of the countries in question *can* boast of all of those things to a far greater extent than the US -- all of the things that speak to the equality of individuals. By standard measures of income inequality, the US is the most unequal -- inegalitarian -- of all the advanced democracies. We have social security nets -- healthcare, old age pensions, income supports, social support services -- far and away better than in the US. And we *also* have "freedom". And yet, based on its "freedom" alone, USAmericans "boast" of their constitution constantly, while doing virtually nothing to achieve the goals that *we*, like Tom Paine, regarded as what it's really all about.

A society that does value equality, and aims to provide egalitarian access to its benefits to all its members, does need to guard against inequality-producing activities. Children have to be provided with equal access to education and equal treatment in the schools, as a bare necessity. Since children are different, they can never be treated the same -- the "same treatment" will be different treatment for different children. They must, at bottom, be treated as having equal value.

It is arguable that permitting parents to dress their daughters in a way that underlines the girls' inequality and lesser value -- which is what the hijab most certainly does -- denies those girls equal treatment in society. Just as permitting a restaurant owner in the US to deny service to African-Americans denies African-Americans equal treatment in society.

The motivation behind this ban has nothing to do with supporting the freedom of Muslim girls and it has nothing to do with what Americans would call separation of Church and State.

Only if we skip the middle step. In order to maintain a society in which everyone is equal and has equal value, each individual's adherence to the values of that society, one of which *is* individual equality of value, is important.

"Separation of church and state" is *not* a USAmerican value exclusively. France is a secular state, and rejected church-state intermingling a long time ago. And in fact, while it may be proclaimed as a value in the US, it is not practised as it is in other places. No politician in Canada or France(no serious politician) would even think of making the religious references that spew from the mouths of *all* of your politicians, *constantly*, including your Democratic leadership candidates.

Where the public emphasis is put in other societies is on equality -- non-discrimination on the basis of religion. Religion is not taught in the schools, not because this would somehow intermingle church and state, but because it would violate the equality rights of the children attending public schools, their right to equal treatment and equal access to the benefits offered by the society, to be preached at in someone else's religion. The presence of the ten commandments in a courtroom would violate the equality rights of the people who go there to obtain justice, and who are entitled to be treated on an equal basis with everyone else there.

I can just imagine a 14-year-old French Muslim girl, raised in a home where her mother, grandmother, aunts, etc. all wore headscarves. ...

And that is the real crux of the issue, from the non-USAmerican standpoint. Is the child being treated equally by being compelled to remove the hijab? Or is it rather, as you say, like compelling another child to remove her shirt?

That's precisely why Canada encourages the expression of differences -- because people are different, and the "same" treatment *does* affect them differently.

But -- there are limits to the expressions of differences that can be accommodated without undermining the basic value of equality.

I believe that human beings everywhere are, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "endowed...with certain inalienable rights."

And yet we violate them -- we interfere in the exercise of them -- every minute.

If someone's religion called for human sacrifice, would we have to stand back and allow it? Ah, I hear you cry -- that would violate someone else's right to life. Bingo. But it would still violate the first person's freedom of religion to prohibit it -- s/he has a sincere, honest believe that s/he must sacrifice a human life in order to go to heaven, having been raised in that belief. Prohibiting him/her from doing that will save someone else's life (who knows, perhaps even a willing victim's), but damn the person in question's soul to eternal hellfire.

Who are you to decide that one person's mortal life is worth more than another person's immortal soul? Isn't that what freedom of religion is *for*? -- so that we can all save our own souls in the way we believe most effective?

A person who believes that his/her god forbids the intermingling of the races must still serve people of other races, in whatever business or institution s/he operates or works in, in the US. Violation of freedom of religion, pure and simple. And, to phrase it in USAmerican lingo, a law compelling someone to act contrary to his/her religion is surely a violation of the separation of church and state.

Every single right we have is subject to interference by the state where we regard it as justified (that issue being determined by the constitutional courts, applying the constitution, in the last resort). The US people and courts have decided that having criminals killed by the state is a justifiable violation of the right to life -- that right, in the first place, being a right not to be deprived of life/the right thereto without "due process"; it simply isn't absolute to start with. No right is.

So sure, it's very easy to look at something and say "that's a rights violation!" Speeding laws are a violation of the right to liberty.

For example, I "knew" that Alan Dershowitz was wrong when he suggested that the U.S. consider allowing torture in certain extreme circumstances.

Well, sometimes the extreme circumstances are nigh on impossible to imagine, but one never knows when they might arise. You know the old rights riddles: if you had had perfect knowledge of the future, and you had the opportunity to kill Hitler as he lay in his cradle and knew that if you did, millions of people would not die the horrific deaths that they surely would if you let him live, would that have been justification for killing a baby? Is it justified to kill someone who you are *really sure* is on the verge of killing you? If torture is the only way to find out where the bomb is that is going to wipe out human life on planet earth, is it worth a shot?

The real reason why torture and other ways of tricking or extracting evidence from people was originally outlawed, of course, was not a concern for rights, but a concern for truth -- people under torture, or hearing threats or promises, will say just about anything, and it's not in our best interests to act on information that may be false. But someone who really *does* have information -- and again, let's say we have perfect knowledge and know s/he has it -- might just give it up under enough pressure. And the world would be saved.

I often say that I can imagine circumstances where it *might* be acceptable (to me, and by our common rules) to compel women to continue pregnancies against their will. If there had been a nuclear war, if the human race was in danger of extinction, if pregnancy was rare, *maybe* the interest of the species in survival would override her interest in autonomy.

I suspect that where you differ from Dershowitz (and I could have similar problems with a counterpart here, Irwin Cotler, a renown civil libertarian and now Minister of Justice, who supported some Patriot Act-like law) is in the cut-off point, not the principle.

After all, you would probably not agree to permit children to be beaten by people who claim -- and honestly and sincerely believe -- that it is required by their religion, and the children's salvation will be jeopardized if they are not beaten.

The problem is that France has no reason at all other than a circular one. France's reason is inherently flawed because they are denying religious expression for the sake of denying religious expression.

I'm hoping you'll see the flaw in your own statement. One could just as easily say that you have no reason at all for prohibiting the practice of human sacrifice as a religious ritual, that you are denying religious expresion for the sake of denying religious expression.

You can offer a reason -- the desire to protect human life, the right to life. But that's just circular. The fact that you believe

that human beings everywhere are, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "endowed...with certain inalienable rights."

... is nothing more than a statement of your belief. It isn't a great universal truth that has been revealed to you by the master of the universe; there are no such things, and there is no such thing.

The French happen to agree with you, as do most of us. There are "rights", which we define, that we agree to treat as "inalienable", or in more modern terms, "inherent". ("Inalienable" means they cannot be taken or bartered away; it doesn't speak to where they come from. And saying "endowed with" simply begs that question.)

And in the modern world, equal treatment within society is one of those rights. It was liberté, égalité, fraternité, after all. The fact that égalité (let alone fraternité -- solidarity) -- is not valued highly in the US does not mean that equality rights are not as "inherent" as any other rights. And modern constitutions, like Canada's, do expressly recognize the right to equal treatment.

In the US, there is undeniably a consensus that there is such a thing as too much religious "freedom" -- people may not sacrifice other people, or sacrifice animals inhumanely, or pray aloud in the classroom, etc. The exercise of that right, where it infringes on the exercise of another important right in a way that is commonly regarded as unnecessary (despite what any individual practitioner might think) is restricted.

Ditto in France. It's just that France applies slightly different considerations, most importantly the value it places on the right to equal treatment.

The emergence of sub-groups within a society, which hold values that are in conflict with the society's values, and to which individuals give allegiance before and above their allegiance to the society, can and in many cases does threaten the ability of the society to treat all individuals equally.

The approach that France takes, and the means it uses, in pursuing its objective of equality and equal treatment is, often disparagingly, called "assimilation". It's really just a fast track to the same goal as is held in the US and even Canada -- to secure the allegiance of all individuals to the society's common values. In the US, it is done by informal pressure to conform -- the denigrating of minority cultures, the marketing of the mass/majority culture, the rhetoric of patriotism. In Canada, it's somewhat back-door -- to secure allegiance to the common culture by stressing that the common culture itself welcomes and encourages the expression of minority cultures.

But conflicts arise in every approach. Canada is sometimes charged with going too far in the opposite direction from France -- with allowing expressions of minority culture that actually undermine the values of the common culture (for instance, the comment that was made about facilitating religious practices, in public education institutions, that undermine sexual equality values).

In some ways, the US is as bad as France in its active opposition to minority cultures by formal means -- "English as the official language", the treatment of Native Americans, etc. And informally, France has historically been more welcoming to minority culture than is the US -- it simply requires the expressions of those cultures to be private and not to interphere in public life.

The US approach is also contrary to the value of equality, and actually undermines the society's ability to secure its members' allegiance to its values, by rejecting their values and cultural practices and coercing conformity, even if not "officially". Surely the rootlessness of young members of minority cultures, who have none of the constraints and guidance that a culture exercises on and for its members, particularly the young ones -- and who also do not feel valued by the majority culture -- and the effects of that rootlessness, are obvious in any USAmerican city.

Migration raises huge issues for the cultures into which people migrate, and almost inevitably problems and conflict. There are myriad possible approaches to preserving the values of the majority culture and the benefits that adherence to those values produces for its members while not violating the rights of the minority culture members to an extent that is *unjustified*. None of them can be called "right" or "wrong", a priori, both because there is no authority to be appealed to in order to determine what the values in question "should be" and because we do not have perfect knowledge of how what we do will promote or impede the implementation of those values.

In this instance, there really is disagreement as to what the values in question are -- USAmericans really do not believe as firmly in the equal worth and dignity of individuals, and do not value equality and equal treatment and equal opportunity and equal benefit, to the extent that Canadians and Europeans do. So any judgment of what France does in attempting to implement those values is necessarily coloured by the negative attitude of a USAmerican to the values themselves.

And that really is the "insight into the French mindset" that is largely missing in this discussion. For a little more of that, I always recommend Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: The Forgotten Leg of the Trilogy, a speech by a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada -- Google's cached html version, for those like me who have problems with pdf files; and Three Generations of Rights:

Particularly helpful in this regard is the notion of three "generations" of human rights advanced by the French jurist Karel Vasak. Inspired by the three themes of the French Revolution, they are: the first generation of civil and political rights (liberté); the second generation of economic, social, and cultural rights (égalité); and the third generation of solidarity rights (fraternité). Vasak's model is, of course, a simplified expression of an extremely complex historical record, and it is not intended to suggest a linear process in which each generation gives birth to the next and then dies away. Nor is it to imply that one generation is more important than another. The three generations are understood to be cumulative, overlapping, and, it is important to note, interdependent and interpenetrating.

That is not to say that the French do not have *other* elements to their "mindset" that might not be as commendable. But this one simply cannot be ignored, or dismissed as being not "right" because it is different from someone else's. Being different doesn't mean being right, of course, but it also doesn't mean being wrong. Those are subjective evaluations in all cases, but a society does make those evaluations by some kind of consensus, and there is indeed wiggle room: there will be "good" and "bad" about *any* basic choice made by *any* society. I would never want to be governed by the choices made by USAmerican society in this respect ... and what's important to point out is that we just don't know what USAmericans might want if they understood the other choices available to them, which for the most part they simply don't.

And then, even if we speak from the starting point of the values and objectives of French society, it can absolutely be debated whether this particular effort is sufficiently consistent with those values, and sufficiently likely to achieve those objectives.

And the hijab ban can be criticised on both fronts, absolutely undoubtedly. But neither the French nor I would be much interested in a criticism that ignored or rejected out of hand the considerations that guide such decisions in France.

And btw, if there are any genuine French folks in the vicinity, I do wish they'll speak up occasionally, and from a perspective of explaining rather than defending ... which might be easier if the posture they're responding to isn't always an offensive (pick your meaning!) one. ;)

Mutual understanding is a very good thing. Judgmentalism (and I am not pointing any fingers) seldom does anyone any good except to decrease the opportunity for understanding and the fruitful discussion and solving of problems that might come from it.


.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

148. I agree that rights are not absolute.

That is why I stated that the right to wear a headscarf, yarmulke, or turban should not be restricted without a very good reason -- what U.S. legal terminology might refer to as a "compelling state reason."

Human Rights Watch stated that "Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function." So it seems that most countries acknowledge there are circumstances under which religious practices can be limited.

But what is France's compelling state reason for banning headscarves in school? Why not ban them on city streets, or any other public place? There's no difference except that France knows it could never get away with such a thing. France would like to extinguish the practice of wearing headscarves and sees the younger generation as "a better bet" for accomplishing this. And why does France wish to extinguish this practice? In order to weaken Islam as an influence on some of its citizens, so that they will see themselves as French first, and Muslim second.

You seem to think that is an acceptable goal. And you seem to think it qualifies as a compelling state reason. I do not. That is why I say that France's reason is circular. France could prohibit the wearing of Sikh "swords" (I don't know the correct terminology) on the basis that children cannot be allowed to carry weapons to school. France could prohibit the wearing of Taliban-style burquas for any number of reasons - that it interferes with social development, that it is abusive to the wearer, that having students so hidden creates a security risk, etc. But France cannot limit a religious practice for the sole reason that it is a religious practice.

Your example of prohibiting human sacrifice is not at all similar to France's headscarf ban. The problem with allowing human sacrifice is that a person is murdered as a result. That is why we cannot allow it. The fact that it keeps a person from practicing his religion is merely incidental. If girls in France were wearing headscarves simply because it was fashionable, no one would care. It bothers people only because it is associated with an unpoular minority religion.

Your analogy of restaurants denying service to minorities is also far off the mark. Some girls may choose to wear a hijab, and some girls may be made to wear one by their parents. So a better analogy would be a minority choosing not to go into a particular restaurant or being forbidden to by his/her parents. Your analogy would only make sense if it was the school that was forcing girls to wear headscarves -- or forcing them not to! If France's motivation was to prevent girls from being made by their parents to wear the hijab, why not pass a law creating an "age of consent," if you will, for dress? At this age of consent, minors would have the right to determine their own style of dress, and parents would have no say in what their kids wore - even if it went against the parents own standards of modesty or decency. That would be a fairer way of doing things, but most parents would not support such a law. But a headscarf ban is fine with them, because it is not their own standards that are being disregarded - just some minority group no one likes anyway. And if a Muslim girl wants to wear the hijab, that is just too bad for her.

You point out that many countries are more successful than the U.S. at providing for the basic happiness and well-being of their citizens. You also point out that the U.S. places much more emphasis on religion than other countries. You may be right about both those things, but that does not mean there is a cause-and-effect relationship, as you seem to imply there is. Unlike you, I don't see spirituality as the necessary enemy of freedom and equality. I don't agree with the view that religion must be suppressed in order to improve the social good. You say that the U.S. is not the only country to have the concept of separation of Church and State, and I never thought we were the only ones. Yet, the way you explain France as interpreting that concept, it seems to be a very different concept indeed.

[iverglas]

177. I have apparently failed to help

And why does France wish to extinguish this practice? In order to weaken Islam as an influence on some of its citizens, so that they will see themselves as French first, and Muslim second.

You seem to think that is an acceptable goal. And you seem to think it qualifies as a compelling state reason. I do not. That is why I say that France's reason is circular.

The plain fact that all reasoning in such matters is circular. You can only single out France's because you do not think that it is an acceptable goal to secure the allegiance of the individual members of a society to that society's decided values and objectives. What makes your opinion better than theirs?

And yet I can't believe that you don't believe that. It's quite simply that you choose to portray the values and objectives you think merit state action, to secure allegiance to, in a positive light, and the values that another person or society thinks merit state action, to secure allegiance to, in a negative light. And thus define your own as "compelling", and someone else's as being grounded in some sort of ulterior motive.

And that's exactly what is widespread in the US, for instance, in respect of Canada's universal health-care system. WE have adopted it because of OUR common values and objectives, but those values and objectives are misrepresented. Our system is portrayed as a violation of "freedom" and as being motivated by some stalinist desire to coerce everyone in sight into subjugated conformity, and to deny the rich the fruits of their labour.

"Freedom of choice" is DEFINED as the compelling value in the US; the ability of some people to obtain the best health care money can buy is DEFINED as the compelling objective.

They aren't DEFINED that way here. "Freedom from illness and the poverty it leads to" is DEFINED as the compelling value; the ability of everyone to access the best level of health care that a society can provide to *all* its members is DEFINED as the compelling objective.

Neither definition is RIGHT. These are things that are defined BY CONSENSUS -- *and*, in a liberal democracy, with respect for the rights of minorities to dissent in ways that do not make it impossible for the majority's values to be applied and objectives to be achieved.

To appeal to ONE'S OWN DEFINITIONS is circular. No matter whose definitions are being appealed to.


Your example of prohibiting human sacrifice is not at all similar to France's headscarf ban. The problem with allowing human sacrifice is that a person is murdered as a result. That is why we cannot allow it. The fact that it keeps a person from practicing his religion is merely incidental.

It is "incidental" BY YOUR DEFINITION. The person who believes that s/he is thus prevented from saving his/her immortal soul and doomed to burn in eternal hellfire is going to define it a damned sight differently. THAT person values his/her (and likely everyone's) immortal soul salvation over anyone's mortal life. YOUR argument is circular. It just happens to have been the one accepted by your society.

France could prohibit the wearing of Taliban-style burquas for any number of reasons - that it interferes with social development, that it is abusive to the wearer, that having students so hidden creates a security risk, etc. But France cannot limit a religious practice for the sole reason that it is a religious practice.

Well this is really a new one -- where on earth did you get the idea that France is limiting a practice "for the sole reason that it is a religious practice"?

If this were indeed France's reason, would it not be outlawing all church services? They're religious practices too; why would they not be outlawed if what France wants to do is outlaw religious practices?

France's reason is that it is a religious practice that undermines the social values, and interferes in the achievement of the social objectives, of French society. THAT is why wearing the hijab in school, and not other religious practices, are outlawed.

That is still NOT to say that it is justified -- OR that it would NOT be justified to outlaw OTHER religious practices, that are permitted at present, for the same reason. But THIS particular religious practice is regarded as being a serious threat to the social cohesion that is essential if a society is to apply its values and achieve its objectives. If there are sub-groups that are of a significant size, are well-organized, and are actively opposing those values, that cohesion can be expected to be lost, or at least eroded to the extent that the objectives cannot be achieved.

What if, for religious reasons, all the members of a group wanted to opt out of public unemployment insurance schemes, or public old age pensions, or the public health care plan ... or paying taxes? Where would YOU be drawing the line then? When would you stop saying "they're just outlawing opting-out for the sole reason that it is a religious practice"?

And if a Muslim girl wants to wear the hijab, that is just too bad for her.

Yeah ... and if a Christian fundamentalist wants to stop paying taxes ...?

The fact that something is "a religious practice" DOES NOT mean that it has no effects on a society, and that the society may never prohibit or proscribe it.

If France's motivation was to prevent girls from being made by their parents to wear the hijab, why not pass a law creating an "age of consent," if you will, for dress?

Oh, gimme a break. Should we do that with child labour laws too? Should we allow ten-year-olds to consent to their parents sending them to work in the factory? Fourteen-year-olds? How about consenting to incest?

The fact that some parents compel their daughters to wear the hijab against the daughters' will is NOT the reason for the prohibition. The fact that some parents do that is simply one aspect of the undermining effect of this "religious practice" -- that a sub-group is opposing the values and objectives (sexual equality) of the society.

But of course, yes, the state does have a responsibility to prevent abuse of children, and forcing children to dress in ways that interfere with their exercise of equality rights is arguably such an abuse. Certainly permitting parents to keep girls out of school would be, right?

If girls in France were wearing headscarves simply because it was fashionable, no one would care. It bothers people only because it is associated with an unpoular minority religion.

It is quite simply false, and hugely disrespectful, to characterize what "bothers" people in France about the hijab on schoolchildren this way. I did think that I'd made a decent stab at explaining exactly why it is that it bothers them (NOT that there might not be other reasons -- I don't hear anyone claiming that the French are perfect super-humans), but it seems I've failed.

Very simply: it bothers them because it is a practice that arises out of

(a) adherence to a value REJECTED by the society (the inequality and inferiority of women), which makes some individuals subject to that value rather than the commonly agreed-to "equality" value, thus interfering with those individuals' exercise of their rights; and

(b) primary allegiance to a group other than the common society, which can more than reasonably be expected to lead to a type of society that has been REJECTED by its people, a fractured society in which the benefits of solidarity, like universal social programs and equal opportunity for all, cannot be achieved.


You point out that many countries are more successful than the U.S. at providing for the basic happiness and well-being of their citizens. You also point out that the U.S. places much more emphasis on religion than other countries. You may be right about both those things, but that does not mean there is a cause-and-effect relationship, as you seem to imply there is.

Actually, I did not imply such a thing. What I did imply, if I didn't state it clearly, is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the USAmerican elevation of the value of "freedom" to the supreme and untrumpable position, among the hierarchy of values, and the lack of equality in US society. Equality does not necessarily equate to "basic happiness and well-being", but in a prosperous society it does it pretty much does.

Unlike you, I don't see spirituality as the necessary enemy of freedom and equality. I don't agree with the view that religion must be suppressed in order to improve the social good.

And since I never said any such thing, and never implied any such thing, and never said anything that could be interpreted in such a way, I really have to object.

I would have thought it obvious, from what I have said about the Canadian approach, that I support the Canadian approach -- which involves permitting far more public expression of religious belief than in either the US or France. The Sikh dagger in the schools is one instance of that tolerance. YOU might say that concern for safety overrides that religious freedom; WE say that there is no evidence that it is a safety concern and therefore religious freedom trumps.


You say that the U.S. is not the only country to have the concept of separation of Church and State, and I never thought we were the only ones. Yet, the way you explain France as interpreting that concept, it seems to be a very different concept indeed.

Well, actually, the concept I was explaining was "equality rights", and yes, that concept is very different in the US from what it is in its counterparts in the advanced democracies.

.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

186. I didn't realize you were trying to help me.

And all this time I was trying to help you. ;)

You ask me what makes my opinion better than France's. Well, what makes your opinon or my opinion better than, say, the Taliban's? You argue that the ban is consistent with France's common values and objectives. Couldn't the same be said of the Taliban's policy of forcing women to wear burquas? You are the one who pointed out that the U.S. is not the only country to have the concept of separation of Church and State. And I agree. I was starting with the assumption that even though France may be different from the U.S. in many ways, we still share many of the same concepts of human rights. When France, Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and other such countries get together and draw up statements regarding human rights, I assume that, at least to a certain extent, we are all "speaking the same language."

You are correct that HRW watch does not cite the specific international laws that are violated. That is one reason I did not dwell on the "legal" aspects. Another is that I am not an expert on international human rights law (although I assume HRW is). But at the very least, I expect France to adhere to the human rights ideals that most developed countries consider to be basic. One of those is the idea that states should not trample religious freedoms without a compelling reason. When I said France was using circular reasoning, I meant with respect to that particular concept. If you are admitting that France does wish to trample this particular religious freedom, then there isn't really much more to discuss.

I argued that France "cannot limit a religious practice for the sole reason that it is a religious practice". I meant they cannot do so without violating the ideal just discussed.

You said "Well this is really a new one -- where on earth did you get the idea that France is limiting a practice 'for the sole reason that it is a religious practice'?

If this were indeed France's reason, would it not be outlawing all church services? They're religious practices too; why would they not be outlawed if what France wants to do is outlaw religious practices?"

I should have clarified that France wants to limit one specific religious practice, not all. And that religious practice belongs to an unpopular minority group, not the majority (as would be affected if church services were banned).

I don't know, Iverglas. I've seen you talk sense on other threads, but you seem to be becoming more and more incoherent on this issue. Your analogies miss the point. I guess one thing we can agree on is that France is banning the headscarves in school solely because they see it as a threat to their values. We just disagree on whether this is a good or bad thing. I have nothing left to say on this thread.

[iverglas]

187. well then buh bye

I don't know, Iverglas. I've seen you talk sense on other threads, but you seem to be becoming more and more incoherent on this issue. Your analogies miss the point.

Ah, perspective is everything.

What I see is people so blinded by their own monolithic, better-than-thou view of the world that they are unable (or unwilling) to even consider that it is not THE ONLY VIEW, and that they have no more basis for calling theirs the best than has anyone else.

You ask me what makes my opinion better than France's. Well, what makes your opinon or my opinion better than, say, the Taliban's?

Nothing -- except overwhelming consensus among the community of nations and the human race. Like I said, there ain't no authority. And I didn't see you coming up with one.

When France, Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and other such countries get together and draw up statements regarding human rights, I assume that, at least to a certain extent, we are all "speaking the same language."

Yes, we are. And all of us wonder why the US does so little -- both domestically and abroad -- to achieve the objectives that the rest of us formally recognize as part of that language.

The US just doesn't get to define "religious freedom" for the rest of the world. And you haven't seen me denouncing the US for not permitting Sikh boys to carry daggers in class, have you? Up here, it's an unjustified violation of religious freedom; down there, it's apparently "justified". Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide what's justified for someone else?

But at the very least, I expect France to adhere to the human rights ideals that most developed countries consider to be basic. One of those is the idea that states should not trample religious freedoms without a compelling reason.

Indeed. But what you and everybody else are doing is simply failing to acknowledge the reasons that exist. Acknowledging them and concluding, after considering the facts and arguments, that they are not GOOD reasons is one thing. Refusing to acknowledge them is an entirely different thing.

I should have clarified that France wants to limit one specific religious practice, not all. And that religious practice belongs to an unpopular minority group, not the majority (as would be affected if church services were banned).

And you simply keep on saying that this is THE REASON why France has done what it has done, without once acknowledging that there are OTHER REASONS for it.

That just isn't civil discourse. It isn't civil to tell me that the reason I want to outlaw human sacrifice is that I hate Aztecs, when I have stated that the reason I want to outlaw it is that I want to protect the lives of Aztecs' proposed victims. And that's pretty much what you are saying about the French -- that they want to ban a religious practice out of hatred (or its more polite cousins, prejudice or bigotry or whatever it is you're not quite saying out loud). And you're saying it without addressing the facts and argument presented to rebut that conclusion.

You would be perfectly free to tell me that my stated reason ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for me to do what I propose, but NOT to tell me that I have stated no reason.

That's all you're doing in the case of France. You are ASCRIBING *a* reason to France, and the French, for an action. You are simply refusing to acknowledge that other reasons have been stated.

I guess one thing we can agree on is that France is banning the headscarves in school solely because they see it as a threat to their values.

Well, no, I really did say TWO things, and here you are portraying me as having said only one, and that one not even what I actually said.

I said that certain activities, when undertaken out of allegiance to a sub-group in a society that is placed above the society itself in the individual's hierarchy of allegiances, can undermine the general adherence to the values that the society has chosen to adopt and apply.

AND I said that if this occurs, the society as a whole may find itself unable to achieve the OBJECTIVES that it has chosen to adopt and strive for.

An activity that is grossly contrary to the value of the EQUAL WORTH AND DIGNITY of all individuals, and to the principle that all individuals should have equal opportunity, is precisely one such activity. When it is undertaken out of allegiance to a sub-group that does not subscribe to those values and principles, the consensus of the society is in danger of being broken, with society fracturing into smaller groups that adhere to conflicting values and principles on the fundamental nature of the relationship between individuals and society -- the equality of individuals, in this case.

If a sub-group defined by religion rejected racial equality, and its members behaved in a manner that reflected their adherence to the sub-group's values and was contrary to the society's values in that respect, that WOULD be an analogy, whether you like it or not.

If the sub-group consisted of members of two races, one of which it regarded as superior, and sent the children of one race to school in clothing that was designed to make a public statement of their inferiority -- say, an unobtrusive dog collar -- that would be an analogy.

And are you suggesting to me that this would be permitted in the USofA? Or should be?

If not, I guess I'd once again be seeing an example of the growing DU attitude that demeaning racial groups and advocating violations of their rights is verboten, but doing the same to women is just fine.

This is one tiny example of what enabling the supplanting of social solidarity by sub-group allegiance can lead to. While the hijab is in fact a direct expression of women's inequality, it is also a more general expression of an allegiance to a sub-group's values that is plainly growing in France and threatening social solidarity.

And that's where we come to the OBJECTIVES, the ends to be achieved through social solidarity -- all the social benefits that the French enjoy, and that depend on widespread adherence to the values of the society in order to continue.

Or so they believe -- and we can no more PROVE them wrong than anyone could prove that killing baby Hitler would not have prevented WWII.

On that point, we seem too often to forget that Europe KNOWS what a lack of social solidarity leads to. And to be all too willing to ascribe evil motivations to Europeans when what they are more than arguably trying to do is PREVENT the kind of evil that comes from breakdowns in that solidarity. When a group rejects the societal consensus as to the society's values and objectives on a point as fundamental as the equal value of individuals, it not only jeopardizes the social consensus, it jeopardizes its own security.

And no, that isn't victim-blaming. The absence of solidarity in the past has not resulted from a sub-group's rejection of common values, but from the fact that the common values did not include that principle of equal value.

It makes no sense whatsoever to insist that a society adopt the principle of the equal value of individuals and then permit activities undertaken in allegiance to values in fundamental conflict with that value.

And it makes no sense for a society to adopt the principle of egalitarian sharing of benefits and then permit activities that undermine the social solidarity on which the implementation of that principle depends.

But oh, well, I guess I'm talking to the air.

It would have been nice if someone had looked at where HRW actually went plain, flat out wrong in its analysis. Because it surely did.

.

[iverglas]

182. about that HRW opinion -- and what's wrong with/about it

Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses—which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited—do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s educational function.

I'm not clear on what "international law" HRW is citing.

There's the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
The right referred to there is a right against discrimination.

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Again, a right of non-discrimination, and a right to believe and practice.

Ah, here we are, a site that cites those and other relevant instruments:

http://www.pdhre.org/rights/religion.html

including the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
which contains the same provision as in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_intole.htm

Article 1

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

And HRW hasn't quite accurately represented this bit of that, if that was what it was doing.

"Public order" -- ordre public -- has a meaning in the French and other European languages, and in Europe, that isn't familiar to us, and is *not* conveyed by translating it as "public order"; the English used in international instruments often reflects that difficulty, and very commonly fails to convey the intended meaning. But that meaning is, very definitely, what "public order" means in that instance.

And "public policy", as it is used in specific contexts in English, is the closest equivalent. For instance, in our legal systems, a contract which is "contrary to public policy" (e.g. to commit a crime, or for a gambling debt) is unenforceable.

This is quite an important point. We *do* interefere in religious practices for reasons of "public policy", and HRW *has* misrepresented what these rules state.

And what it means is that if something is contrary to the fundamental values of the society, it may be proscribed or limited. Just like the ability to enforce contracts for the commission of crimes may be, and is.

That phrase really isn't there just for the hell of it, and while the USAmerican or other movers behind HRW's statement may not have understood it, they weren't free to ignore it and issue pronouncements in disregard of it.

I'm sure no one wants to take my word on this, learnèd as it may be and in fact is (I'm a recognized expert in the relevant fields, blah blah).

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr00-01/english/bc/bc63/papers/b1774e01.pdf

The issue here was a similar one -- freedom of association.

Our legal advice confirms that the proposed restriction is consistent with the requirements as to freedom of association as guaranteed under Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Freedom of association is not an absolute right under ICCPR. Article 22 of the ICCPR provides that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right "other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

... Legitimate aim

The proposed restriction pursues a number of legitimate aims, particularly the interests of 'ordre public' and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The term 'ordre public' means more than public order and has been described as 'the sum of rules which ensure the functioning of society or the set of fundamental principles on which society is founded'.

Damn, that's kinda what I just said.

And here:

http://www.eurofound.eu.int/emire/FRANCE/PUBLICPOLICYLAWANDORDER-FR.html

ORDRE PUBLIC
PUBLIC POLICY/LAW AND ORDER

1. Term which emphasizes the special importance of certain mandatory rules, signalling that they cannot be departed from by anyone and that in principle the courts must apply them automatically.

2. In labour law, rules which rank as "d'ordre public", i.e. a matter of public policy, may normally be contracted out of (see "inderogability" ) only if the alternative provision is more advantageous for employees (see favourability to the employee ).

3. In rules relating to aliens, the meaning approximates more closely to "law and order", designating a reservation of sovereignty in the name of which the executive authorities may take steps obliging an alien to leave French territory.

And asking google for "ordre public" "public policy" will provide links to lots more guidance.

And the explanation I have given of what I understand France's "motivation" to be falls pretty much squarely under that rubric -- i.e. that is the *rationale* for the law, even if the law cannot be justified on that basis. Too bad Human Rights Watch focused its attention only on the bits it considered irrelevant, and ended up saying something so basically irrelevant itself.

.

[kodi]

18. no

the predicating circumstance is the use and definition of the term "unwarranted infringement."

the underlying intellectual predicate of these two words is the recognition that there are such things as "warranted infringements" of rights.

the French government, a democracy, believes that the infringement of the right to display religious garb and symbols on the clothing of students in a secular state funded school is necessary for a higher societal goal.

whether one believes or not the French are correct that restricting religious garb brings about a more civil society, the discussion is not only about the restriction of personal displays of religious faith by children in public schools, it must include what the state is attempting to do by placing the restriction.

these two competing issues are what must be balanced.

in all these posts supporting head scarves i have yet to see anyone actually discuss what the French government's fundamental basis is for the ban and why the state's interest is over riden by personal freedom. instead, what is represented is only the religious aspect on the individual, not the impact on a society of the behavior.

supporters of allowing religious garb freedom should recognize that the logical extension of their position predicates the freedom of 17 year old kids in high school who are members of the white Christian identity religious movement being allowed to sport tee shirts with the phrase "all blacks are inferior."

sure, those kids are displaying their religious convictions, but there are other factors besides personal freedom involved in such a situation, and i doubt that any of the people bemoaning the head scarf ban would rally to teen agers wanting to wear clothing in public schools that displays such slogans, even if they were based upon deeply held religious convictions.

[republicansareevil]

19. I quote again from the ACLU

"Students may freely practice religion in public schools as long as their behavior neither disrupts school activities nor inhibits the rights of others to freedom of conscience."

I suppose you think that "higher societal goal" of the French government is analogous to a "compelling state interest" in the U.S. A tee-shirt such as you described would IMO be considered harassment and therefore would not be tolerated. The implementation religious freedom issues in U.S. schools is a lot more elegant than the clunky reasoning you employ. Individual cases are well thought out and distinctions are made between situations that may seem similar but have important differences. For example, a student can bring a Bible to school, read it during his/her lunch hour, even discuss it with other students. But the student may not religiously harass other students.

[kodi]

20. so your logic is that religious freedom ends at one's nose.

and you would restrict those tee shirts even though they restrict both free speech and religious freedoms.

you have made a distinction that the affects of the religious displays are the predicating circumstance for allowing or banning the dress and that the critical factor is not the dress itself, but what it generates in others, viz., if no one else is harmed by the displays then it should be allowed.

the french also take that stance, but they do not define the affects on others of the religious garb as narrowly as you have, and that is the difference.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

30. Not true.

I think of the case in the U.S. where some states were arguing over whether Muslim women should be required to remove their headscarves for driver's license photos. Some people were saying there was a compelling state interest because it helped with identification. Some people disagreed. However, the debate was over whether there was a good enough reason to infringe on the women's rights.

France is not arguing that there is some compelling reason to infringe on the students' and their parents' rights. They are simply insisting that the right does not exist because the schools are "secular." That is what I disagree with. France is not saying that students have the right to wear clothing that conforms to their religious beliefs unless it starts to constitute harassment of others. They are saying that an article of clothing that conforms to one's religious beliefs is by definition a case of harassment. It's not simply a matter of them drawing the line in a different place; there is no line.

[kodi]

36. nonsense

your remark below is false and is not what drives the french in this situation.

"They are saying that an article of clothing that conforms to one's religious beliefs is by definition a case of harassment."

they are stating clearly in their position that the presence of religious symbols and garb in public schools are potentially distruptive to the society.

this is the overriding factor in their decision.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

44. disruptive for the simple fact that it IS associated with a religion...

...and not for any other reason. Thus, it is not comparable to the U.S. where we try to weigh personal freedom against state interests. It's not a matter of France weighing these two concerns differently than we might. They do not even acknowledge the personal freedom to begin with.

[kodi]

54. you are unaware of the historical thralldom of france by the jesuits?

their history is replete with religion interfering with their secular society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. It's been a while

For that to be a problem. France is just mad because some of its citizens don't think everything about France is supreme to their own beliefs.

[kodi]

57. its not a problem because the French won't let it happen again

and your remark that blames this on Francophilia is laughable were it not so misinformed concerning french history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Not misinformed

The French demand that all immigrants become like them and secularize. That is the uber state -- a form of worship prevalent in France and many fascist nations.

[kodi]

76. yes, as usual, you are grossly misinformed

the french do not demand that emigrants "become like them" any more than americans demand it. they do insist that religion remain outside the government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Resorting to personal attacks

Makes your argument weaker, not stronger.

[LeahMira]

114. Like yesterday...

It's been a while...
For that to be a problem.

What you seem to disregard is the fact that not all nations are so forgetful of their history as we are in the U.S. Perhaps that's because we have so little of it... only a tad over two hundred years.

At about the same time as this country was founded, Voltaire was rebelling against the tyranny of the clergy and the church. Much of his thinking, and that of Francis Bacon, is responsible for how this nation used to be before we became terrified to examine and/or criticize an idea simply because someone claimed that it was integral to their religious belief.

Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.

[iverglas]

122. and ditto Quebec

It seems to be those societies that have been most oppressed by religious forces that most enthusiastically embrace secularism.

Until the 1950s, Quebec was still in that thralldom ... the RC church and right-wing politicians cooperated to keep people uneducated and poor, but very religious (and, it should be noted, very intolerant of other religions).

Then came the Quiet Revolution. Quebec is now more secular in many ways than the rest of Canada -- while an overwhelming majority still self-identify as RC, Quebec has, for instance, one of the highest rates of cohabitation without marriage, even where a couple has children; Quebec women, by law, retain their names at marriage; and civil unions are available for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. And the RC church no longer attempts to meddle in public policy and more than it does anywhere else.

Quebec takes a somewhat more France-like approach to its "cultural communities" than does the rest of Canada, being more anxious to assimilate newcomers into Quebec culture and society, which are indeed still under threat in North America, as citoyen(ne)s.

As well, Quebec has some of the most progressive "collectivist" social policies, such as a universal, nominal-fee childcare policy. Secularism goes hand in hand with this more collectivist approach, it seems.

The US is of course not "secular" in this sense, despite that separation of church and state business -- individuals very much do identify with their religious sects first, before the general community, particularly among the Christian right. And that anti-secularism is obviously a major barrier to the kinds of things that solidarity leads to, like universal social programs and decent wages ... and longer life expectancy and better health.

.

[fujiyama]

61. It's kind of funny...

but I remember -- it was either in elementary or middle school -- a student wore a shirt that said "I'm an underachiever and proud of it", with Bart Simpson on the cover. There were a few other incidents like that regarding tee shirts.

The question is, to what extent is free expression allowed at schools? I personally have been somewhat ambivilant regarding the French headscarf ban -- leaning more toward the system we have here, where the state will not restrict religious expression, as long as it doesn't interfere with other school activities or anyone else.

I personally prefer having a completely secular educational environment. I think it's a more conducive learning atmosphere, but I understand to many, religion is an integral part of their lives, and unfortunately most children are indoctrinated in their parents beliefs at an early age. However, I see no way the state can impose secularism on the will of the people.

I just don't see how such things are enforced. To what extent will we restrict a student's appearance at school? Will we start checking to all males have short hair to avoid dreadlocks? Will all females be required to have their hair shown?

There are certain restrictions that certainly make sense. I read that in Toronto, Sikh students can can carry a kirpan with them, which is a small dagger . I'm glad we aren't going that far, since weapons obviously shouldn't be allowed in class. I can't see how wearing a turban is a big problem though. Of course, I may be mistaken here, but don't French public schools also have unforms?

Ultimately, I believe the French law will have the opposote effect of that intended. It will radicalize some of the immigrant groups that haven't been very well assimilated as it is. In turn it will force those families to place their children in religious schools, which simply segregates them further from the rest of society.

[iverglas]

121. you're exactly right

whether one believes or not the French are correct that restricting religious garb brings about a more civil society, the discussion is not only about the restriction of personal displays of religious faith by children in public schools, it must include what the state is attempting to do by placing the restriction.

these two competing issues are what must be balanced.

Just as, as you point out, they are in the US. The fact (as set out in a response to your post) that the two societies reach different conclusions is not proof that either of them is "correct".

France and the US have different "societal goals". In the US, the never-endingly chanted mantra is "freedom". As long as people are "free" (and forgive me for overstating the case just a tad), it doesn't matter that they are hungry or sick or have no roof over their head. The society has fulfilled its mandate by leaving them alone to be free.

Not every other society runs on that model; in fact, few other comparable societies do. Canada, Europe, and many other nations place more emphasis on "human security" in that old liberty vs. security scenario. The purpose of society (and the state) is not seen as simply leaving people alone. It is seen as providing people with a decent share of the benefits available within the society, and some assistance to enable them to participate as members of it.

France provides its members with hugely more benefits than the US does; "solidarity" is not just a left-wing motto in countries like France. Solidarity is the commitment of the society to its members, and of the society's members to one another and the society as a whole.

That solidarity, it reasons, cannot be maintained if individuals splinter themselves off into groups to which they are more committed than they are to the overall society, and identify with those groups more than they do with the collectivity. Their allegiance to the collectivity will be weakened, and the collectivity's allegiance to them will be as well. And the values that the collectivity has adopted and puts into practice may be undermined by competing values, and the benefits it has worked to provide for its members may be jeopardized.

And yes, as Isere says, individuals identifying themselves as members of a smaller group first and of French society second does lead to discrimination against the individual members of the group -- whereas at present, discrimination on the basis of, for example, race does not exist in France to nearly the extent it does in the US. It can also reasonably be expected to lead to the members of those groups rejecting things that are fundamental to French solidarity, like universal state schooling, and all the other universal programs it has (that the US does not have) that produce the quality of life that the French want for themselves and for one another.

There *is* a "social goal" involved in the banning of religious paraphernalia in the schools, and it is to preserve the equality of individuals and the solidarity of the collectivity. France values those things above the minimal "freedom" lost when religious paraphernalia in the schools is banned.

As I said in another post, I may not agree with France and I may think that in the present circumstances, with an influx of immigrants who have a far stronger allegiance to their religious/cultural groups than other French citizens do to theirs, it might have to adjust its approach precisely in order to preserve its solidarity. But "freedom über alles" is not a worthwhile contribution to the dialogue, which is a dialogue within France. And the ACLU, whose rallying call that is, really does not get the last word.

.

[Scout]

21. here's how I think it is a good thing...

"I have to say I simply cannot understand how some DUers can see this ban as a good thing."

I think about the girls and young women in the public schools in France who may not want to wear the head scarves, but are FORCED to wear by their parents, their society, their culture. Here, at school, is at least one place where they can be free of it without punishment and retribution.

[philosophie_en_rose]

22. so inflict majority culture upon them instead?

Didn't the US try this with Native Americans? Forcing them to give up their culture, replacing it instead with the majority's idea of culture?

What is the harm in allowing children to wear head coverings to school? Unless there is a tangible harm, then they should be allowed to wear what they like. It's simply stupid to suggest that people in the minority be forced to dress like the majority, even if it makes others uncomfortable.

I agree that enforced religion is bad. I adamantly support the separation of church and state. However, allowing students to independently wear symbols of their culture is not an endorsement of religion. Praying in school, proselytizing, or demeaning student's for religious purposes is horrendous, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a kid wear's a yarmulke to school.

This will force children to go to private schools.

[Scout]

23. Forcing them to give up their culture, replacing it instead with the major

that's not what I said ... I'm talking about those who already DO NOT WANT TO WEAR THE SCARVES but are being forced by their parents to wear them ... now, at least they can have the freedom to not wear the scarves in school.

They may be relieved to have an "excuse" to disobey their parents with regard to being forced to wear the scarves when they don't want to.

[Bridget Burke]

26. But what if they want to wear the scarves?

Some do, you know.

[Scout]

34. and some don't

those who do want to wear the scarf can wear it everywhere but during school ...

[chimpy the poopthrower]

58. And why shouldn't they be allowed to wear it during school?

If this law is designed to prevent Muslim girls from being forced to wear the hijab against their will, it doesn't really do any good, does it? Because, as you've just pointed out, the girl can still be "forced" to wear the hijab the rest of the time she is not in school. The law does nothing to protect her from that "oppression".

And your argument that those who wish to wear the hijab can still do so "everywhere but during school" is laughably disingenuous. It treats the forced removal of headscarves during school hours as merely a minor inconvenience rather than the primary issue. It reminds me of those who say that a law against same-sex marriage is not discriminatory because it still permits gay people to marry... as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

27. Do you extend this concept to all cultures or just Muslim?

Do you feel that parents should not have the right to decide what is appropriate dress for their children? But you are not really arguing for the children's autonomy because even those who wish to wear yarmulkes, headscarves, turbans, etc. are not allowed to do so. You have replaced parental "oppression" (if you wish to view it that way) with government oppression.

[Scout]

35. all cultures

"But you are not really arguing for the children's autonomy because even those who wish to wear yarmulkes, headscarves, turbans, etc. are not allowed to do so."

I don't think any of them should be allowed.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

47. Then don't pretend this is about parents oppressing kids.

You implied that you supported the ban because it would prevent parents from forcing their children to wear certain articles of clothing. And yet you have no problem with the government preventing those same kids from wearing those articles even if they wanted to.

[Scout]

53. in school, right

I support school uniforms too.

add
if you want your kids to wear a religious uniform, then go to a religious school ... secular school, secular uniform. It's really not that complex.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

164. Not in the U.S.

I can't tell if you're still talking about France or the U.S., but in the U.S. even public schools that require uniforms are not allowed to prevent students from wearing, say, yarmulkes with their uniforms, unless there is a compelling state reason.

[kodi]

24. what a goofy analogy

the native americans were here first, the french did not emigrate to france and force conquered muslims to conform. the muslims emigrated to france.

if you wish to use the american experience as an analogy, it would be that the native americans would have forced western europeans to conform to native american customs, not the other way around as you cite.

and in hindsight, knowing now what we do about the near extermination of native american cultures by western europeans, the native americans would probably have done what the french are attempting to do to preserve their culture.

[LeahMira]

120. And this is a problem?

This will force children to go to private schools.

We do have private schools in the U.S., and they have a viable role in education.

As someone already mentioned, we do not know how the students themselves feel about this "no veils" regulation.

[blondeatlast]

51. But those who want to wear them (yarmulkes are banned as well)

are not permitted to do so.

The forcing is coming from both sides.

:eye:

[BonjourUSA]

29. Read, thank you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=404491&mesg_id=405840&page=

[chimpy the poopthrower]

59. BonjourUSA, I read and responded to your post on the other thread.

:hi:

[corporatewhore]

31. this is crazy what if a non muslim wanted to were a scarf on her head

cause she was given a hair cut by her younger sister (i have had this done to me and i did were a scarf cause i was embaressed)

[Kamika]

40. Would get removed too.

sorry

[shanti]

37. i do not support the ban

and i think it's a slippery slope problem. i think everyone should be able to wear/show symbols of their beliefs if they want to. does this mean that rastas with dreadlocks cannot wear them, for instance? it's their religious belief. or what about wearing crosses? are we just supposed to be in lockstep with everyone else? let 'em wear what they wish!

now, my problem is when the schools push their own religious agenda to the students in secular schools.

[RichardRay]

38. Not a religious/secular issue

It's not an issue of secularism, it's France's struggle with Islamic fundamentalist political power. If they are forced to include yarmulka it's only to cover their butts (so to speak).

The Sikh's had a deal by which turbans would not be included in the original law. Nobody is worried about Sikh fundamentalism, so turban's were OK. I don't know if that survived in the current version.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[chimpy the poopthrower]

45. OMG

That has to be one of the most racist things I have ever read on here.

And the rest of Europe is not uniformly supporting France in this. Do some research and you will see many European nations condemning this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Yeah, gotta stamp out those subcultures

This whole thing sounds very familiar to France -- say about 65 years ago.

[Astarho]

52. Where to begin?

The worst part is that there are big Sub cultures forming in those countries (mainly the big immigrant countries like Germany and France)...

There have always been subcultures in Europe, since cultural and political boundries rarely line up. Germany and France have always had their own subcultures, ask any Alsatian, Basque, Breton, Frisian, Sorbian, or Occitan.

not learning the language...

Brezhoneg a ouzit?
Palatz vos occitan?

And let me tell you.. ANY subculture in a country is a threat to it.

So that's why they spent so much time trying to wipe them out?

You are right, there is racism in Europe, but it did not start with recent immigration, it goes back hundreds if not thousands of years. the reactions against immigrants is just a recent aspect of it.

However they would do themselves a favor by not trying to force assimilation on them, it only makes them more determined to fight for their culture.

[DebJ]

56. Who wins in a divide and conquer strategy like this??? Ain't the people!

[_Jumper_]

62. Care to provide evidence to support your claims?

What you said is said about American immigrants too, of course, without any supporting evidence.

For the record, I oppose the headscarf ban but do believe that France's Muslims need to assmilate.

[Darranar]

64. Assimilate in what ways?

[_Jumper_]

66. Response

They should believe in basic French values (chiefly democracy, secularism, and equal rights ) and should assimilate into French culture at a level sufficient to enable legitimate interaction between them and the majority.

[noiretextatique]

70. amazing....

you never fail to astonish :wow: integration in america :wtf: segregation is still the norm in america, for the most.

[Fight_n_back]

63. Why is the question framed in this way?

Yamulkes, large crosses and Sikh turbans are also banned but I always hear it as the "headscarves" law.

It is a rediculous law but I would prefer to focus on rediculous US laws.

[_Jumper_]

65. Because it was aimed at Muslim fundies, not religious fundies in general

n/t

[Krakowiak]

68. as an atheist....

I am well aware of the need for the protection of the rights of religious freedom for the minority from the majority. What individuals choose to wear should be their business, not the state's.

This ban is oppressive and all those that respect freedom shouldn't stand for it.

[Guaranteed]

110. THANK you.

I can't believe this board sometimes...all these frickin' atheists think it's alright to force people to abandon their religion and personal identity. I have NO idea how they reconcile this with being "liberal."

I'm not religious myself, either, but I'm a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties. I appreciate your principled stance.

[Vernunft II]

69. The headscarf is a tool of oppression

to keep muslim females in bond, much like cutting their genitals as it´s done in large parts of Africa. Everybody claiming that wearing that thing is a religious obligation has simply no clue. Leading progressive muslim scholars agree that there is no place in the Koran demanding this. It´s a relic from patriarch times to oppress the female half of the population.

I wholeheartedly support this ban. The indoctrination of children to this insanity must stop. It´s on the same scale as when US schools do not allow Evolöution to be taught. We must not allow religious nutcases to poison the minds of the children.

There are muslim girls and women all over Europe who are never allowed to leave the house without this thing and who get their throats cut by their own family when they go in the streets without. The headscarf ban is to support all these oppressed people in their fight for a little bit of the freedom we all take for granted. If the state can´t grant even the most basic freedom to those who live within it´s borders than who could ?

I find it appalling that so many people here support the supposed rights of religious hardcore fundamentalists while the rights of millions of females who want nothing more than a life like we all enjoy are trampled. I thought this was a progressive place ?

[rman]

71. "muslim girls and women who are never allowed to leave the house"

Just how does a ban on headscarft address that problem?

And if the issue is that muslim men allow muslim women no choice wrt wearing a headscarf, then how is a law that also allows no choice going to help?

How can anyone be so sure that no muslim women wears a headscarf by choice?
If there is such a problem then why not make a law that says (muslim) women should be allowed the choice?
As a matter of fact there probably already is such a law; not specific to muslim women and headscarfs, but a general law that says no-one may impose their will on another person. So it'd be simply a matter of upholding that law, instead of making another more specific one that in and by itself is imposing the will of the government on these women.

[Vernunft II]

72. Lemme try to explain...

The headscarf ban was made in order to create at least a few hours a day (the school hours) of indoctrination free time. By banning it the state allows those girls to strip off the constraints of their religion and of their home and be what we consider normal here in Europe.

You can´t expect a 14 year old girl that´s completely economically dependent on her family to stand up against her parents and tradition. Not to mention all the males of the extended family clan who think they are morally obliged to kill her once she stained family honor by smiling to a boy her age or similar crimes that surely deserve that she get´s her throat cut.

Since the government can´t break up families and lock up everyone who follows medieval superstition the french government decided to do what they can and at least free the schools of this. Since in France, like in most european countries, kids are obliged to visit at least 8 years of public school (there are hardly any private schools in Europe) they can enforce that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Indoctrination free? It is just another form of indoctrination

You must set aside YOUR beliefs and accept OURS.

The state should not encourage a 14-year-old girl to "stand up against her parents and tradition." That is not their business. It is the business of the family.

As I expected, what you argue for is young people setting aside their religion and traditions because YOU and the state do not like them.

Your comment about "medieval superstition' points to an anti-religious bias that is both offensive and extreme.

[Vernunft II]

74. And I´m sure you know the curriculum of european schools ?

The State SHOULD encourage to question authority. ALWAYS. It´s bad enough when parents fail to teach that to their children. If the State fails as well humanity is doomed. If you don´t agree to such basic things then I really do not understand what the Hell you´re doing on a progressive website such as DU.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Sorry, I don't like authority

And I don't like authority interfering in how I raise my children or how someone else does so. I don't believe in the uber state.

It is NOT the business of the state to interfere in the legal ways a family raises its children. If you believe it is, then you are a poster child for all that the right fears about the left.

[Vernunft II]

77. I am convinced that everyone should learn to question and challenge

authority at an early age. When both parents and the State fail in providing that, where are we going then ?
If that scares the right it should. Religious indoctrination and blind obedience is what they want and need to thrive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Then you should teach your kids that

Let me teach mine what they need to learn and let the schools focus on academic courses, not indoctrination.

Your argument against blind obedience is kind of ironic since you are defending blind obedience to the state.

[Vernunft II]

88. I do ? I certainly do not...

You are deliberately misinterpreting what I write.

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. You advocate blind obedience to this rule

And this rule advocates state superiority over religion.

[mainer]

78. female genital mutilation is a religious practice, too

So you are against the government interfering with that? Even though it is considered a necessary part of certain faiths?

If you are advocating total parental authority, then you would also have to advocate female genital mutilation, since it is a religious practice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. If you note my post

I said "legal" ways a family raises a child. Female genital mutilation is a despicable practice and IS already illegal in the West.

I am not advocating total parental authority. There is no compelling state need to interfere in religion here other than prejudice.

[mainer]

85. female genital mutilation USED to be allowed in Europe

until western countries finally decided to outlaw it. Perhaps you don't recall that for some time, there were cultural activists in Europe who felt we shouldn't "interfere" with African parents who wished to practice their religion through this mutilating procedure. They were defenders of it, just as you are defenders of head scarves. They thought we should "respect" religious practices. It took time before the countries finally realized genital mutilation was an injustice.

So perhaps we are at the same juncture with headscarves. Western countries are waking up and realizing it needs to be made illegal, too.

[Vernunft II]

87. Someone who understands my point :-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Yeah, headscarves and genital mutilation

They have a LOT in common. LOL.

[Vernunft II]

94. They do, they are different grades on the same scale

Tolerance is a good thing but one can take it too far. Tolerating oppression is wrong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Exactly, why tolerate state oppression?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

99. And to go back to my original question...

Why do you suppose that major human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch are condemning the ban? If the ban is a tool against oppression, as you claim, I wonder why they aren't supporting it?

[mainer]

101. perhaps you should go back to WHY there's a ban...

It did not start because the French government wanted to stomp on Muslims. It started because MUSLIM WOMEN activists felt the need for it. Its genesis was in women's rights, not in anti-muslim fervor.

Perhaps you are not aware of how miserable are the lives of many muslim women, even in Europe.

Women's rights activists felt that, for just during the hours of the school day, girls should be allowed the freedom of their restrictions. The French government is NOT telling girls they can't wear their headscarves out in public. The girls can wear their headscarves everywhere except inside the classroom.

I suspect that it's the men who are angriest about this ban. They are angry that they're losing their control over female bodies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. SOME Muslim women wanted it

Others did not.

No, the issue is religious freedom, which the French uber state is taking away.

Women SHOULD be free to choose. Children are not. Parents make basic choices like this for their children.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Slavery used to be allowed in Europe, too

I have only met one person ever who advocated for female genital mutilation. I laughed out loud at her.

Somehow headscarves are not on the same level. If the uber state gets to THAT point of micromanaging our lives, then there will be revolutions all over the place.

[Vernunft II]

86. It´s illegal because someone made it so.

It´s very legal and happening every day in Africa and Arabia.

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. And very wrong

We have laws against abuse. We also have laws against slavery, which also happens every day in Africa.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

82. Muddle said...

"It is NOT the business of the state to interfere in the legal ways a family raises its children."

Note the word LEGAL. Abuse is not legal.

edit: Oops, Muddle, we're in sync. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. I'm not used to people defending my posts

Except in I/P. It's nice. Thanks.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

92. And I'm not used to agreeing with your posts

;) These discussions have caused me to reassess my opinion of you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. The mutual admiration society

Meets at 10 a.m. in the lounge. ;)

Seriously, this issue really changes the alliance structure around here. Ask DuctapeFatwa about THAT. We always disagree except on this.

[corporatewhore]

134. How about Questioning the authority of the state?

[LeahMira]

123. Children have rights too.

The state should not encourage a 14-year-old girl to "stand up against her parents and tradition." That is not their business. It is the business of the family.

You have not read the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

124. I don't see any such respect from France

Parents have a right and an obligation to impart their beliefs and values to their children. Any attempt by the state to interfere in that is unwanted and unneeded.

The convention says STATEs must respect those rights, not parents.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

79. Do you realize that you are advocating...

...restricting the freedom of females in order to control the behavior of men? It is just as wrong to make a law banning headscarves as it is to make a law requiring them. In some countries that require headscarves and other coverings for women, the leaders claim that it is done for the protection of women -- to keep them from being raped. You are making a very similar argument: that in order to prevent Muslim girls from abuse, it is necessary to restrict them from wearing headscarves, even if they wish to.

You say that the ban "allows" Muslim girls to "strip off the constraints of their religion" and be "normal." It's interesting that you consider adherence to a religion other than your own to be an abnormality. But the law doesn't allow anything; it forces girls to "strip" off their headscarves (a more suitable term then you may realize since it is a basic part of their cultural concept of modesty and decency).

Not all cultures have the same concept of modesty. In Europe is not uncommon for women to go topless on public beaches, but many American women would feel very uncomfortable doing the same, even if they were in Europe surrounded by people who are perfectly used to it. Fortunately no one is passing laws to force women to go topless on beaches in order to "protect" women from the "constraints" of the culture in which they were raised.

You also claim that the Koran does not require women to wear headscarves. Isn't it nice that you have the definitive interpretation of the Koran? You really ought to start on the Bible next -- we'd all like to find out what the "correct" interpretation of that is. Surely you must realize that not all Muslims interpret the Koran the same way, just as not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way. I'm no expert on the Koran. It may very well be that the headscarf has more to do with tradition than with holy text. So what? Tradition is just as much a part of religion as holy texts are. Some religions have nothing but tradition.

Finally, you say that the French government is doing this because "the government can´t break up families and lock up everyone who follows medieval superstition." You are correct that the government cannot and should not lock up people for their religion. You sound disappointed that this is the case. However, the government certainly can intervene and even "break up families" when child abuse is involved. We do it in the U.S. all the time. Ever heard of Children Services? Ever heard of the police? If adult Muslim women are being forced to wear headscarves against their will, and are being abused, the French government should certainly address that problem, just as they would if a Christian or atheist French citizen was a victim of domestic abuse.

However, I would not characterize as abuse the parental enforcement of religious or cultural values. Is it abuse when American parents drag their kids to Sunday School when the kids don't feel like going? Is it abuse when a father insists his son wear a yarmulke even if the kid think it looks "dorky"? Is it abuse when parents forbid their 13-year-old daughter from wearing some outfit to school because they feel it is too revealing? Even if you do think that minors who reach a certain age should be able to decide for themselves what they can wear and whether they will follow the practices of their parents religion, the French ban does nothing to ensure such autonomy. It merely replace the assumed forced will of the parents with the forced will of the state.

Muslim girls who do not wish to wear the hijab but are "forced to" by their parents are no different from youths anywhere in the world. Parents invariably insist on a more conservative and modest style of dress than kids want to wear. Parents implementing a dress code for their children does not constitute oppression in my opinion. I'd certainly rather have those decisions made my parents than by the government, especially when matters of religious customs are involved.

[Vernunft II]

84. I don´t think you really know what you´re talking about.

That headscarf is not a fashionable affection, it´s the burka light and I can´t believe there are actually people here defending that kind of thing.

I think it is abuse to force any form of religious belief on a child. Some people think that because they made it they have to form it in their own image. "Freedom" is more than being able to buy an SUV...

[chimpy the poopthrower]

89. If you think it is abuse, then why are you advocating that the govt do it?

Why aren't you arguing instead for the child's right to choose? And at what age do you feel children should have this right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. LOL

It is NOT abuse for families to pass along their values and beliefs to their kids.

You really ARE an uber statist, aren't you? You want the state to raise the kids, instill values (or the lack thereof), etc. Are we allowed to actually meet them before you take them away?

[Vernunft II]

97. q.e.d.

[LeahMira]

131. No, it's not, but...

It is NOT abuse for families to pass along their values and beliefs to their kids.

Families can certainly pass along their values and beliefs to their children, but children also have the right to reject the values and beliefs of their parents.

Some parents in the U.S. teach their children that the earth was created in six days, and on the seventh day the Creator rested. Many children, when taught evolution and given the opportunity to examine the evidence, come to the conclusion that evolution more accurately presents information that makes sense and that they can use to their own advantage.

It may be necessary for these children to live a sort of double life, believing what they do but conforming to parental wishes under certain circumstances. That's a shame, because I can't imagine any parent wanting to keep a child from achieving all they can achieve.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. They can reject it when they no longer live at home

But when they live with their parents, they can't.

Personally, I find no conflict between evolution and the biblical story of creation. How long is a day to God? Heck if I know. It makes perfect sense to me that God, who ordered the heavens also made an order to life here on earth.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[chimpy the poopthrower]

144. Stop pretending.

Stop pretending this ban is all about taking the choice from parents and giving it to kids. The ban is about taking the choice from parents and giving it to the state. Muslim girls don't have any more freedom now to decide for themselves than they did before the ban. They may very well have less. There might have been many instances where Muslim parents told their daughter they hoped she would wear the scarf but the decision was hers. No such generosity is coming from the state.

[OldEurope]

104. Do you think,

pressure from the other side will help these women? I mean, can you change the men´s minds by forcing the women to act against them? I think it would be more helpful to show the women other ways out of their prison, for example get them a better education.

And there is one other thing: we as modern Europeans consider the headscarf as a means of oppression, but many Muslim women say, for them it´s a symbol of their religion. Isn´t it an essential part of freedom of religion that the believer decides what is a religious symbol? How can you say it´s not a symbol of their believe, if you aren´t a muslim?

And the last one: my granny never ever had dared to leave the house without her headscarf. She was not a Muslim, she just felt a bit naked without it. Do you think she should have been forced to throw away the headscarf as a symbol of oppression?

[Vernunft II]

106. Religious freedom ends where basic human rights are violated.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. What basic human right is violated?

The right for kids not to wear a headscarf or yarmulke?

You must be desperate.

[Vernunft II]

111. LOL

I give up. I have work to do here...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

103. It didn't change my mind at all...

...because I never thought it was such a great idea in the first place.

[MrPrax]

105. Thumbs Up to the French!!!

"Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses — which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited — do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals"

That's bull--public displays of religious symbols is to demonstrate piety; in diverse societies, this can be a caustic mix.

"I have to say I simply cannot understand how some DUers can see this ban as a good thing."

Oh really? ON the whole, moves to control religious expression have yielded tremendous benefits for modern socieities...especially in the area of 'human rights'.

Outfits like HWR, Amnesty should be a little more realistic rather than play the 'agent of chaos' nonsense of supporting movements that would utlimately erase them as organizations...

Public health? jeez...they are really are grasping at straws...

[chimpy the poopthrower]

108. Public health?

I don't understand what you mean by that. HRW is saying the ban does not meet the criteria under which religious freedoms can be restricted. Public health is one of the criteria the ban does NOT meet. They aren't saying that the ban itself is a threat to public health. LOL!

Incidentally, isn't the "thumbs up" sign an insult in France? Sort of like the two-finger gesture in Great Britain? I could be mistaken on that...

[MrPrax]

127. Huh?

I am confused by your post?

The French has precisely what this ban was for and so HRW bringing up THEIR criteria is--um--irrelevent?

And indeed an example of USING public health concerns to BAN religious practises (I.E. sikh turbans being ban for the health, excuse of not conforming to Workplace standards regarding hard hats or motorcycle helmets--can indeed be seen as racist)

The French and their tradition of anti-clericalism are making NO such excuses...

HRW should stick to what is being actually said and not introducing 'red herrings'...

The banning headscarves, incidentally, is part and parcel of the secularist regime in Turkey and is quite extensive and for many of the same reasons as why France is doing it?

Go figure...

[chimpy the poopthrower]

128. You are misrepresenting HRW in order to make them look foolish.

Here is the quote, with number formatting added by me:

"Under international law, states can only limit religious practices...

1. when there is a compelling public safety reason,
2. when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others,
3. or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction).

Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses...

1. do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals;
2. they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students;
3. and they do not undermine a school’s educational function."


HRW never claimed that France was using a public health argument. They merely listed the three circumstances (under international law) in which states can limit religious practices and then went through them one by one.

[MrPrax]

135. HRW isn't wrong...

Their well-intentioned,unrealistic and wrong and the last 50 years on terra firma should have convinced HRW, the UN General Assembly, etc etc that 'blank human rights' have not worked...in fact they are routinely ignored.

In this case, one of many many million cases where human rights are DENIED or IGNORED, it is justified...

HRW et. al. want to live in a perfect world--

I was just reading about the Puppet leader of Afghanistan--imagine, he is willing to give women the right to vote, so long as it is directed by their husbands or 'owners', I suppose--imagine that...

Hey want to know something..THAT'S against International Law...say why don't we place sanctions against Afghanistan---DOH!!!!
Hey while we are on the subject--let's not trade with countries that have HUGE numbers of completely innocent political prisoners? Let's ban the ones that have massive numbers of 'children labourers'? Why does the IMF still had out cash to countries that trade their GDP for bullets? etc etc etc

Let's get some priorities...one being that concentration camp set up by the US government on Cuba...(the 'laws' here are much older than the Human Rights Charter or any of the admendements added to it by the General Congress of the UN over the years)

So France is evil...

I can't stand Hitchens these days, and he is definitely an Muslim hater, but he did make an interesting point--not about Muslims, but about us.

We believe in equality between the sexes (international and national law), yet in government-financed buildings, universities and private ones as well, Muslims have been able to set up "SEGREGATION" prayer rooms and in fact other minority religions have as well...

So what is it going to be? Some rights are just not compatible...
especially the ones where you give free speech to folks that ultimately want to eliminate 'free speech' and everything else...

(I won't even go into the laughable scene of some 'feminists' on campus going 'PMS' on their progressive men for using a word like 'chick', but will valiantly defend medieval religious practices like headscarf 'garbage bags' and separate, but equal prayer rooms for the various 'throwbacks'--LOL)

[Flagg]

117. chimpy the poopthrower and Muddleof the road

you should really consider a visit to a French banlieue...







http://www.fuckfrance.com
these people agree 100% with you

they agree with other stuff too....

Enjoy and thank me later




Human rights watch disagree?

well we invented the Rights of Man so maybe we know something they don't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. I don't hate France or worship it either

It is not above reproach or criticism.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

129. No, thank you.

From the name of that site I can imagine it is hate-filled. Since I do not hate France, why would I wish to visit such a site? I haven't said a single negative thing about France, only about one specific law.

Are you one of those who believe that to criticize the actions of a country is the same as expressing hatred toward that country? If so, then perhaps instead of directing others to hate-filled web sites, you should look for ones more suitable to your own beliefs. There are plenty of right-wing sites full of people who believe that liberals must hate America because we dare to criticize Bush and condemn travesties like the Patriot Act.

[iverglas]

137. hahaha

you should really consider a visit to a French banlieue...

Yeah ... but first they'd have to figure out what it was!

Maybe if they think "ghetto" they'll get an idea.

Here's a clue: http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/condpref.pdf

"Urban marginality" in France just happens on the outskirts of the cities rather than in their cores.


... btw, I was fascinated to find, at your fuckfrance link, vindication for my objection to Conan O'Brien's rubber-dog show on the streets of Montreal: http://www.fuckfrance.com/read.html?postid=590913&replies=22&page=1
Posters there agree with me that the Canadian yobs in the studio audience were laughing at the victims of the dog's bigotry, *not* at its bigotry ... and also, in large numbers, agree with the yobs' own anti-québécois bigotry ...

.

[corporatewhore]

126. A hijab is not a tool of oppression A woman muslim professor at UT

that i know is a very liberated woman She is very smart intelligent and beautiful.She proudly wears her hijab as an expression of her beliefs and culture.Just as my other friends wear necklaces of goddesses to express themselves and beliefs.She is not forced to wear her hijab by her husband or father.Muslim woman do think for themselves contrary to what some people think from reading this board.
Some of it i think might not even be for religous purposes bbut for self and cultural identityI used to wear a Virgin de Guadalupe pendant when i was exploring my latino heritage and wanted to express my love of it Frida Khalo did it in he dress when she changed from wearing European fashions to the tradtional indigenous mexican styles would you like to force her to dress like a european too?

[DrWeird]

136. How about dresses and skirts.

After all, they were "tools of oppression" and women were forced to where them. In some places they still are.

Should they be banned?

I fail to see how forcing someone to not wear the hijab is any different then forcing someone to wear the hijab.

[amazona]

138. no but I understand their reasoning -- still think they're wrong

It is not a head scarf ban, it is a ban against bringing all religious symbolism into the public schools. We probably need to have something similar in the U.S. before we completely lose our secular heritage. Either you think a society where religion and state are separate is worth preserving, or you don't. In the U.S. we apparently don't, and we will lose our freedoms, our environment, and pretty much everything we hold precious as a result. There are damn few secular nations, it seems to me; France's heritage from the Enlightenment is well worth preserving. I have watched Christian extremists gain ascendency in the U.S. for 40 years, and I am not foolish enough to assume that Muslim extremists are any more attractive.

Clearly there can be differences of opinion in this matter but I personally think France is on the right track.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. So, in summary

You advocate taking away rights to preserve rights?

[Vernunft II]

143. Yes

The right of children to grow up without fear and oppression outranks your right to unload medieval superstition upon them.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Kamika]

149. good words

agree

[Vernunft II]

191. Thanks Kamika

I´m glad there are at least some people around here who understand.

[linazelle]

140. Is this another thread that won't die?????

Please let it die. Please.

[Flagg]

160. I'll second that

LOL

[ButterflyBlood]

150. nope

headscarves are still a symbol of oppression

[chimpy the poopthrower]

151. Are yarmulkes? Are Sikh turbans?

[ButterflyBlood]

153. originally missed the point

but I agree with Kamika.

[Kamika]

154. no they're not

But to ONLY ban the muslim scarf would be racism

[ButterflyBlood]

155. discriminatory, but not racist

Muslims are not a race.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

158. So yarmulkes and headscarves are what...?

...collateral damage?

You don't like headscarves. That is your opinion. You say they represent oppression. That is also your opinion. You wish to inflict your opinion on everyone else by banning headscarves even from people who wish to wear them (I won't even limit this to France since you have said we should do the same thing here).

And if yarmulkes and turbans have to be included just to keep everything nice and legal, that's fine with you too.

Can I assume that you are not Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh? If you were, I can't imagine that you would go along with this so easily. It's alwasy easy to trample rights when it's someone else who's affected and not you.

[ButterflyBlood]

159. Didn't she say that she's Christian

and yet still didn't mind banning crosses?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

161. Crosses are not the same.

No Christian sects that I know of require anyone to wear a cross.

[ButterflyBlood]

163. and some religions require female genital mutilation

but that doesn't mean we should allow that.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

167. Hopeless.

:boring:

[Vernunft II]

192. Indeed....

[Kamika]

170. are jews required to wear yarmulkes? or david stars?

I'm saying ban 'anything' religious from public schools.

And yes I'm christian and not so little either

[ButterflyBlood]

172. as far as I know, they are not required to at school or in public life

I have Jewish friends and have in high school, and have never seen them wearing yarmulkes at school.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

176. Some are.

Just as not all Christians have the same religious practices, not all Jews have the same religious practices. According to what I have read, the most orthodox Jews believe that a yarmulke is required for men at all times because one is always in the presence of God. I don't know much about Sikhs but at least some Sikh men seem to wear their turbans all the time. I don't believe any Jewish sect requires one to wear the Star of David, but I may be mistaken.

[ButterflyBlood]

162. btw, check out this site

it's a fundie christian site which encourages kids to proselytize at school: http://www.yesgod.org/witness.htm

note the first suggestion. Some people try to use religious wear to proselytize, which does not belong in school.