Immigration 'Le voile' banned in France.

[howabe]

As some of you may already know, a law has recently been passed in France banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves (voiles) in school. Obviously this has been the subject of much debate and controvesy. Chirac and those in favour of this claim that the voile not only goes against the secular traditions of the French state, but is also, and I quote "an act of oppression" which is forced upon these girls, as well as claiming that by wearing it, they are trying to force their beliefs upon others. The Muslim community obviously argue otherwise, saying that they wear the voile of their own free will; it isn't compulsory at all; and that the goverment has no right in ordering them not to practise their religion.
So what's everybody's feelings on this? Do you think this is right? Bearing in mind that similar events have already happened in other European countries, including Germany, and also that the wearing of Jewish kippas, Sikh turbans, Catholic crosses etc has been banned, not simply the Muslim voile...

 

[Kuro_Tsubasa69]

Well, I really don't see how they could be 'forcing their religions' on others. It's not like they are forcing the others to wear that headband, is it?

 

[Winter]

An act of opression would be banning the custom itself...obviously.

It looks like France is discarding their freedoms faster than the good ol' USA.

 

[Frank D. White]

I Find It Odd That....

almost anything that any government tries to run & or control turns out terrible. Then the government turns around & tries to control little details of our day to day lives and believes it will work out for the good. I can't help but feel these intrusions are ment to distract & divide the peoples attention to how poorly they are manageing things.When government starts running everything they should be, then let them bother us!

Frank

 

[bossel]

similar events have already happened in other European countries, including Germany

Well, Germany is a different case, it is about teachers wearing head-scarves, while in France it's about pupils as well.
I can understand when the state under secular rules prohibits its officials to show a religious affiliation. But to forbid pupils to do so is against human rights, IE freedom of religion.

The problem I have with the German ruling is that it is biased in favour of Christianity. In Bavaria, for example, schools are required to put a Christian cross on the wall in every class room. Only if parents demand their kids not to be exposed to this, a cross will be removed.
In other German states as well the head-scarf will be banned, while Christian or other symbols will be allowed. The states argue that the head-scarf is not a religious but a political symbol (of oppression). We will have to wait & see what the constitutional court says about the new rules.

 

[Matthew C. Perry]

The French have a serious culture rift on their hands brought on by mass immigration from their Muslim former colonies in Africa. They are wise to try to discourage ethnic partisanship as much as possible, but it may be too late at this point. There are so many Muslim immigrants in the country that they may never assimilate.

 

[Maciamo]

Chirac and those in favour of this claim that the voile not only goes against the secular traditions of the French state, but is also, and I quote "an act of oppression" which is forced upon these girls, as well as claiming that by wearing it, they are trying to force their beliefs upon others.

Personally I feel "oppressed" by the mere sight of a pendant in the shape of a cross. The ban is not only for headscarves, but all obvious religious signs, including Christian nun's headscarves, crucifix, big crosses, etc. As there are many many more Christians than Muslims (or Sikhs) in France, I don't see why Muslims are the ones to protest and create all the problems. Maybe is it because they haven't completely adapted to French culture yet. It's a fundamental French belief since the 1789 revolution that religion and liberty are inconcialiable, because most religion are exclusive (i.e. intolerant of other faiths) and want to impose their belief on people. This is at least true for the 3 Middle-Eastern Monotheism : Judaism, Christianity and Islam, eventhough Islam has had tolerant phases and Christianity is much milder nowadays than it used to be even 100 years ago.

During the French Revolution, people fought for liberty and equality, created the first modern European democracy with the declaration of human rights, but also destryed churches, killed the clergy and nobles (who protected them) and started the Cult of the Supreme Being (a form of Deism, in which there is no god, but just a supreme being who created the universe and didn't interract with humans at all).

They spread these ideas to the rest of Europe and eventually to the world (through colonies). Even American ideas of independence, declaration of human rights and constitution came mainly from French thinkers of the time, whose influence on the population prompted the French Revolution. Nowadays, French people still believe firmly in those rights, including that Religion and State must be clearly separated, and that religion is a threat to individual liberties. It may be difficult to understand for outsiders (including immigrants, especially those coming from very different cultures, like Africa). But Every country has this kind of firm beliefs in something that may seem odd or scary to others. For Americans, it could be the rights to possess guns, or swearing on the bible in court. For Japanese, the belief that Japanese are unique and clearly distinct of (even superior to) their Asian neighbours. leading some to say that Japan is not part of Asia or other nihonjinron theories.

But as we think of Muslims coming to France and protesting on the ban of religious symbols in public schools, would the government of their country allow Christians or others to display religious symbols that clearly go against Muslim faith ? Probably not. So why do they expect to "win" against the French government, supported by a majority of the French population ? This is something intrinsicly part of the French culture and mentality, and if they don't understand that, they are to be criticised for not adapting to their country of adoption.

The Muslim community obviously argue otherwise, saying that they wear the voile of their own free will; it isn't compulsory at all; and that the goverment has no right in ordering them not to practise their religion.

That is not just a matter of free will, but religious obligation, or, for many younger girls, parental obligation. Actually, a significant part of Muslim girls and women are happy at the decision of the French government, because they were forced by their father/husband to wear the headscarf or veil (by the way, "voile" means "veil", not headscarf).

 

[Maciamo]

Well, Germany is a different case, it is about teachers wearing head-scarves, while in France it's about pupils as well.
I can understand when the state under secular rules prohibits its officials to show a religious affiliation. But to forbid pupils to do so is against human rights, IE freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion means freedom of belief (in your head), as long as you don't impose it on others. That is exactly how French are thinking. They do not intend to ban religion altogether, but on the contrary to protect each individual's rights to think what they want, without being influenced by displays of religiousness by a part of the population. Another reason is to protect Muslim girls/women from discrimination (which exists, and the government knows it). As long as they are not wearing headscarves or other religious symbols, people won't know they are Muslim, and they will be safe and free to practice their religion. It is naive to think otherwise. Protesters are fighting for their doom, both creating the feeling that Muslims or very religious people are always troublesome, and creating ressentment for wanting to impose their religiousness on others, which will eventually lad to discrimination against them.

They might not be fully aware of how French society works. At least the government is trying to help them, but they can't understand that. Don't forget that Chirac has been elected as the defender of immigrants and freedom when he called the French to vote for him instead of racist J-M LePen.

 

[Maciamo]

almost anything that any government tries to run & or control turns out terrible. Then the government turns around & tries to control little details of our day to day lives and believes it will work out for the good. I can't help but feel these intrusions are ment to distract & divide the peoples attention to how poorly they are manageing things.When government starts running everything they should be, then let them bother us!

I would normally agree with you on this, but in this case, it was a wise decision. It is just too difficult to understand for outsiders of the French culture or society, eventhough I think it applies everywhere.

Most French people support the government on this, and I would as well. Religion has been the cause of wars and conflicts throughout history. Freedom can only exist if religion is kept a private matter, which means not exhibiting it in public. The French have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others regarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

Please read my other comments above.

 

[Matthew C. Perry]

The French have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others regarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

LOL... I hope you are saying this with tongue planted firmly in cheek. On the surface at least, you sound like a stereotype of the French elitist snob.

 

[jeisan]

the original post made it seem that it was just the muslims being targeted. after maciamo explained it i can see the point in it and agree with the ban. though something like that would never fly in the states, because well promoting jesus is big business here, he has everything from bumper stickers to t-shirts. wouldnt people be able to get around the law by claiming that their clothing or whatever isnt religious? also what about music and anti-religious things?

 

[bossel]

Freedom of religion means freedom of belief (in your head), as long as you don't impose it on others.

The problem I see is that in some religions (or their offshoots) the adherents are expected to show signs of their belief to the outside world. Therefore if somebody believes it is necessary to wear a head-scarf in public, they should be allowed to do so.

I understand that a lot of people view the head-scarf as a sign of oppression, but I know of Turks & converted Germans who freely chose to wear a head-scarf for they believe in its religious necessity.
Other Muslims don't believe in this necessity & don't wear it.

The problem is that some are forced to wear the head-scarf. But I don't think to prohibit its use entirely will really help a lot. Anyway, I still think the general ban goes against the right of religious freedom.

 

[bossel]

slightly off topic

Obviously it's not only a problem for authorities if people wear too much (like a head-scarf), but also if they don't:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3493408.stm

Maybe what the world needs is a bit more tolerance.

 

[Keeni84]

The PROBLEM isn't relgion. The problem is lack of respect for other religions and ignoring the problems that this causes.

Getting rid of head scarves or Christian crosses is not going to make religion go away. What happens when the young girl goes out into the street and is confronted with people who dislike her for her religion? (whether she be wearing a "voile" or a Christian cross.) Just because you get rid of it in the schools does not erase the problem.

Maciamo: you say you feel oppressed when you see a hint of a pendant or a Christian cross? What about those who feel oppressed because they cannot express themselves freely? What makes you more important than them?

Freedom of religion means freedom of belief (in your head), as long as you don't impose it on others. That is exactly how French are thinking. They do not intend to ban religion altogether, but on the contrary to protect each individual's rights to think what they want, without being influenced by displays of religiousness by a part of the population. Another reason is to protect Muslim girls/women from discrimination (which exists, and the government knows it). As long as they are not wearing headscarves or other religious symbols, people won't know they are Muslim, and they will be safe and free to practice their religion. It is naive to think otherwise. Protesters are fighting for their doom, both creating the feeling that Muslims or very religious people are always troublesome, and creating ressentment for wanting to impose their religiousness on others, which will eventually lad to discrimination against them.

Eh? So it's better that people just "not know" than to actually be tolerant? What happens when the young girl goes out into the street and is confronted with people who dislike her for her religion? (whether she be wearing a "voile" or a Christian cross.) What happens when a Jewish boy puts on his star of David after he leaves the classroom? Just because you get rid of it in the schools does not erase the problem.

The French have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others regarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

 

[howabe]

The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

Whereas the UK had coexistence between races as far back as the Early centuries BC, between the Saxons, the Celts, the Romans and the Norse, with only the odd Civil War or two... We have all the human rights of America, with only a small percentage of the racism.

 

[Keeni84]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

Go figure.

 

[Maciamo]

I understand that a lot of people view the head-scarf as a sign of oppression, but I know of Turks & converted Germans who freely chose to wear a head-scarf for they believe in its religious necessity.
Other Muslims don't believe in this necessity & don't wear it.

Wearing a headscarf is not a religious obligation/necessity required by Islam. It's just a matter of wanting to show your adherence to Islam, so just a personnal choice (or family/country obligation).

Some countries like Saudi Arabia or previously Afghanisthan socially oblige women to wear a headscarf (and veil), while some other Muslim countries don't. If France decide to oblige people not to wear anything to preserve social order in a multi-religion and no religion nation, that is certainly a reasonable decision.

Freedom is good, but there need to be some rules/laws to maintain social order, otherwise it's anarchy. Listenning to you, you visibly confuse liberty (or "rights") with anarchy. Well as long as you understand that Muslim are victims of active and serious discimination in a country like France.

Anyhow, I suppose that before judging whether it is right or wrong, you fully understand what this is about. The ban is only for public schools and public institutions (government, etc.). That means that everybody will still be free to do what they want in the street or in private schools.
In other words, the government, which manages public schools, is just introducing a new dress code. Each private school is free to decide their dress code (banning jeans, sport shoes, piercing, tatoos, fluorescent clothes, etc. or even imposing a uniform and the girl's maximum hair length like in Japanese schools). Why couldn't public schools have a rule about not displaying religious symbols at school ? Seems perfectly normal to me.

Personally, for the aforementioned reasons, I would prefer to see the ban extended to all society. But this is not going to happen.

 

[bossel]

Getting rid of head scarves or Christian crosses is not going to make religion go away. [...] Just because you get rid of it in the schools does not erase the problem.

The ruling in France is not about "making religion go away", neither is it about religious tolerance in society. It's about separation of state & religion & in France they have a rather distinct position regarding this issue.

The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues

Hmm? Do I smell "ethnocentrism"?
Human rights are no US invention. Even the ancient Greeks had already something like that. The modern concept of human rights developed over time, but esp. in the 17th & 18th century in Europe.
More advanced? Like in Guantanamo Bay?

 

[Maciamo]

Getting rid of head scarves or Christian crosses is not going to make religion go away. What happens when the young girl goes out into the street and is confronted with people who dislike her for her religion? (whether she be wearing a "voile" or a Christian cross.) Just because you get rid of it in the schools does not erase the problem.
...
What happens when a Jewish boy puts on his star of David after he leaves the classroom? Just because you get rid of it in the schools does not erase the problem.

I understand your point, and that's why I would personally extend the ba to all society. But the reason the government did this is justly because lots of children at schools don't choose to wear these symbols. They are just forced by their parents. Who do you think protests in the streets ? Obviously the frustrated parents (esp. fathers), as they are feeling like loosing a part of their authority.

Maciamo: you say you feel oppressed when you see a hint of a pendant or a Christian cross? What about those who feel oppressed because they cannot express themselves freely? What makes you more important than them?

I am not wearing any atheist signs or a tshirt that says "I hate Christians and Muslims". When I see a Christian cross or other monotheistic religious signs, I feel like they are telling me : "My faith is the only truth and you are wrong. Believe in God Almighty !". I feel this way because Judaism, Christianity and Islam alll 3 have written explicitly in their holy book that their God is the only true god, and that others are mistaken. Anybody who professes to be adherent of one of these 3 religions (there may be others too) cannot be tolerant of other beliefs systems without losing their faith or lying. Because I am a logical person, display of religiousness in the case of intolerant monotheistic religions is for me (and should be for other rational beings as well) a sign of prejudice towards others and shameless proselytism.

The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).

I am sorry, but "the Americans" who declared the human rights and independence where almost all British-born (with a few Germans). Today's American population includes people from all the world, and those of Anglo-saxon descent barely represent half of them. There are very big differences in mentality between ethnic, religious and regional groups. Politically the difference betwen states like Massachussets, Vermont, Texas, California or Ohio are startingly.

France hasn't changed much ethnically. Furthermore, France is a very intellectual country, while the US isn't (by Europeans see it as a redneck country). And human rights can only be understood and applied politically by an educated and rational population. Such an ideal society does not exist, but it is obvious that a higher proportions of French than American people like discussing politics and philosophy. There are lots of bright intellectuals in the US, but they only represent a little percentage of the total. Debating poltical or philosophical isssues (like human rights, religions, etc.) is France's national sport. America's national sport is showing that you're "righter" and stronger (but not cleverer) than your neighbour.

But have you ever been to France or do you speak French before even comparing ?

 

[bossel]

Wearing a headscarf is not a religious obligation/necessity required by Islam. It's just a matter of wanting to show your adherence to Islam, so just a personnal choice (or family/country obligation).

I'm well aware of the situation in France & I know that the head-scarf is not necessarily a clear religious obligation proscribed by the Q'ran.
But (a big but), the question is what the people believe! If they believe it to be obligatory they should be allowed to wear, just like any Sikh should be allowed to wear the Kara (or the Turban).

Anarchy? Not that I'm too opposed to anarchy, but in this case it is none. People are free to follow their religion & its rules as long as this doesn't infringe someone else's rights.
If you say that those who don't like to follow the new rules just can go to private schools, this is flawed logic, I think. What about those who can't afford private schools?
Esp. in the case of Muslims they might be actually driven into the arms of religious fundamentalists who offer them education for free or for a very low fee in their religious schools.