Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

I do think so as well:

Is that when the so-called "Old Believers" had to flee? There is still a community of Russian (or Ukrainian) Old Believers on the many, inaccesable islands of the Danube Delta, in Romania - beards and all ...

Nihm, the accounts i've read have all referred to young Muslim girls wearing their scarves in defiance of already existant policies, claiming exemption because of religious scruple. Chirac reacted after this pot had been simmering for several years. What i have read is that there were court challenges to "dress code" policies by Muslim immigrants and their supporters long before Chirac felt obliged to deal with it on a national basis. As the original parties to those law suits were claiming an exemption to existant policies, that looks very much to me like an attempt to obtain a privilege.

As for what we do about people who dress differently, count me out. I'm making observations on a situation upon which i can have no effect. As for the government's argument, i believe that it runs that the wearing of the scarves (or of yamulkes or crosses) would be a defiance of locally established policies which have been based upon the important tradition of secularism in schools--not necessarily an objection to the appearance as to the willful political statement the wearing of the scarves makes.

The issue never came up before the Muslims arrived. Crosses, bandannas - no problem. IMHO, they've took this as a stick to beat the Muslims with.

Let me explain how I see it. The problem was that it was Le Pen and his Front National who took up the anti-immigrant schtick in the 1980s, and the rest of the French body politic admirably closed ranks against this new political force, seeing how it endangered French society (as well as their own political positions). And with the ban on anything Le Pen-like still in place, mainstream politicians have had much more trouble finding ways to pick up on and play into growing popular resentment of the immigrants than those here or in Italy or Austria.

Then the headscarf issue - pardon me, the issue of defending the French secular state against religious intrusion - came up, and handed both left and right the perfect way in which to capitalise and satisfy the new xenophobia, without ever having to take up dubious Le Pen-like mottos on immigration or even cultural diversity itself.

Thus far, decisions were up to individual school boards, there was no forbidding, national law (as far as I've gotten it right). Ever more school boards started (note: started - as in, something new) banning headscarves; at which ever more Muslim girls started protesting; and thus, a national debate ignited which indeed has gone on for something like a decade.

I guess the government wanted to settle the issue once and for all with a law to apply to everyone - but as the articles on bandannas and so on show, it might turn out they've only multiplied its scope and volume.

What I like least is that it'll still be up to the school boards to decide what is an "ostentatious" religious sign or not - the left-wing opposition had wanted to ban all "visible" signs - arbitrary, school-by-school decisions are looming here, and I can guess whom they will be slanted against.

We both agree that the change was motivated, at least in part, by Islamophobia. But this has nothing to do with the question at hand - namely whether or not the law is discriminatory/racist. Regardless of the underlying motivations, the fact remains that the law is not racist or discriminatory because it applies equally to everybody. Thats all I'm sayin.

Hehheh, so it applies to everybody, but it's directed at Muslims, shall we agree on that? ;-)

Some great posts here, thanks everyone, I'm not too proud to admit I'm actually learning something!

In an ideal world, everyone would wear as much or as little as they wanted. But we don't live in an ideal world. And I think its better to sacrifice the personal freedom of children a little bit in an effort to eliminate antagonism between religious groups.

No one is suggesting that adults cannot wear what they want. On the other hand if a religion specifies that say a turban must be worn, and that really is so important, then surely the family should make other arrangements for educating their children.

Not to get all semantic on your ass, but I think directed is the wrong word. I would say it is motivated partly by Islamophobia, but is directed at everybody. The principle is sound - whether you like it or not. Attack the racism and discrimination in France if you want, but don't try to shoehorn that argument into this issue.

No, but as it is not germaine, i'll try to be brief. During the reign of Petr's father, Alexei Mikhailovitch, he brought in a new Patriarch, Nikon, after a purely theological debate had been boiling over for years. Nikon came with a brief to reform the Orthodox church. Alexei was actually the man who began the "westernization" of Russia--Petr drew more attention to his efforts because of his brutality and his imperious nature. Alexei was a man who took things easily, and made incremental, but relentless change. Petr wanted to completely change his society overnight.

Nikon was cut from the same cloth as Petr. He wanted to root out all abuses of the church immediately. Priests were forbidden to marry, for example, but the practice of having a "housekeeper" who was a bed warmer as well was winked at. Nikon began with "priests' whores" and then moved on to the sexual abuses, both homosexual and heterosexual, in the monasteries. The local priests were quick to rally the peasants to their defense, and when Nikon decreed (talk about your tempest in a teapot) that one should cross oneself with two fingers as opposed to the traditional three-fingered method, the priests had a ready-made outward symbol of defiance. Peasants and religious fanatics being what they are, millions in Russia were quite literally convinced that they would go straight to Hell if made to cross themselves with only two fingers. These were those who became known as the Old Believers.

Nikon had been brought in to revise Orthodox doctrine in Russia to bring it into accord with theology of the Orthodox church in Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. But he took Alexei's mild demeanor as evidence of weakness, and he attempted to make the authority of the church supreme--which proved a "fatal" mistake. It did not actually cost him his life, but he was deposed in 1666--six years before Petr was born. Alexei retained the reforms, however, and Petr rationalized the organization the church to serve the greater interests of the state, the overriding theme of his reign. This served, of course, to simply drive the Old Believers further into the deep woods. Initially, Alexei had sent troops out to round up the Old Believers, as they were mostly from among the serfs of estates, great and small, and therefore were considered as the absconded "property" of the estate holders. Many village priests with flair and charisma lead these groups of believers into the woods. Rasputin was at the end of a long line of this tradition of the charismatic village priest. In many cases, these Old Believers, if surrounded by soldiers, would barricade themselves in their churches, and then immolate themselves--not unlike Karesh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas a decade ago. When, in 1703, Petr decreed the foundation of the city of St. Petersburg, and called for 100,000 serfs to do the labor (perhaps as many as 50,000 died in the enterprise), many land owners were reluctant to part with their labor, and called for the Old Believers to be rounded up, especially as many were in the north woods to the east of Lake Ladoga. At first, Petr had sent troops to round them up in the manner of his father, but he was in the midst of the a war for survival with Sweden and could ill-afford the military distraction. He was a practical man as well, and he eventually sent New Believer clerics to talk to these communities. Like many such communities of religiously fervent peasants throughout history (not at all unlike Dutch peasants of the same era), the Old Believers who had succeeded in erecting their "godly" communities in the woods had done so by unrelenting hard work. Petr recognized their potential value to the greater interests of the state. As the legal excuse for rounding them up had been an obligation for military service (it would have been difficult if not impossible to say that this or that man or woman came from any particular estate from which peasants had gone missing), he offered them a deal--provide skilled laborers for the Tsar's shipyards in St. Petersburg, or the timbering operations in the woods to the east which supplied the shipyards, and their communities could continue unmolested. They made the deal, and the Old Believers have survived to this day.

(Edited to note that if this is being brief, it's a good thing i didn't hold forth at length upon the subject.)

Before I would agree that anything is motivated by Islamophobia, I would like to know what the word means. If it means fear of Islam, then I don’t associate with it. I'm not frightened of it, I just don’t like it. As I don’t like some Christian cults, or Jewish extremist groups.

And before someone jumps in and says an irrational dislike is a phobia, my dislike is not irrational. There are specific aspects of Islam that I find abhorrent.

I don't suggest you have an irrational fear of anything, Our Steve . . . but i would find it difficult to swallow a contention that you are an entirely rational . . . wait a minute, allow me to extract my hoof from my mouth, and i'll get back to you . . .

That's quite possibly the nicest thing youv'e ever said to me Set :wink:

So - anyone - what is your definition of Islamophobia?

Err ... never try to make peace with ILZ, cause he never will. He'll answer every attempt to find the common ground by profiling exactly the points at which he differs most from you.

Anyway, lookit, its not hard to "shoehorn", as you call it, the issue of discrimination into this question, in the least. We're not lawyers - we're A2K. "This issue", here, is the law, how it came about, what motivated it, what overall problems underlie it or are signalled by it, what its consequences will be, how it compares to American notions, how it will be applied, how it will affect intercultural relations in France - all of that. And xenophobia plays a clear role in several of these aspects.

The law is targeted - or "directed" - at Muslims, even if it will, of course apply to everybody. The motivation of the law was discriminatory: Christians wearing crosses was always OK, but muslims wearing headscarves became a problem. Now they couldn't very well adopt an explicitly discriminatory law covering only Muslim thiings, and I appreciate that they didn't - but the Christians here are "collatoral damage" at best. So what, you may say - but laws do not function in blissful isolation. Their use is determined by context, and the vaguer the law, the more determined its use is by context. The context, here, is at least partly one of Islamophobia. And that will be felt in the law's application.

The law's wording, after all, is vague enough to allow for great variation in application. It will be up to individual school directors to decide which "signs and dress" are "ostensibly" showing religious affiliation. "There is no definition" on when bandannas are to be banned, for example - "it will be left to the discretion of the heads of schools." The minister himself noted that, "Signs could be invented using simple hairiness or a color [..] Creativity is infinite in this regard."

I.e., this law does not set a clear, common standard for all that can be applied indiscriminatorily: case by case, the directors will decide - and they are even specifically encouraged to be wary of "creative" improvisations, and thus be creative themselves in definitions of what is "ostensible" - even hair styles could be defined offensive. And if we agree that the motivation of the law is at least partly Islamophobia, you can bet your bottom dollar that definitions will be shaped and applied especially towards Muslims.

Now you said before that such stuff is merely a problem with the law's "implementation", not with the law itself - but if a law has a hole that big - if a law is formulated in a way that gives too great a leeway to its users to be discriminatory in its application, then that is a problem with the law itself - anywhere. Thats why there's been such criticism on this law, not just by some random grassroots activists.

Before I go and be creative about definitions, lemme refer you to a more official source. Usage is relatively recent, so its probably not in the dictionaries yet (?). But the EU monitoring centre on racism & xenophobia published a report - several, even - about "Islamophobia in the EU". They're here. They're all in PDF, so I cant open them here (my computer wont install Acrobat, for some reason) - but I'm sure such a report would have a definition of what "Islamophobia" is in its introduction or something.

Thanks for the link nimh. But the report did not define Islamophobia as far as I could see. Listed some pretty disgusting attacks against Muslims though.

Found this


Islamophobia - prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West"
From
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Islamophobia

Not a very good definition if you ask me. Its surely the subject who has the fear, not the object as in the example above.

Steve - perhaps best to look up the definition for "xenophobia" and replace foreigners / aliens / strangers (whatever it says) by "muslims". Cause thats how its used, I think: to describe a specified kind of xenophobia.

<thinks> Thats trippy. When you think about it, the word is really not constructed well. It should really have been something like "Muslimphobia" -- fear/aversion of a religion is something different than fear/aversion of (this or that kind of) people. But "Muslimophobia" probably didn't sound right ... ;-)

I believe, as well, that labelling a thought is an exercise in reducing its impact.

"He's an islamophobe." (irks me to type that non-word)

"He hates all Muslims."

To my mind, the second statement is clear and unequivocal--and expresses the detestable character of the subject's attitude.

I think i'll pass on the use of islamophobia--as an added benefit, i'll never have to use the ridiculous term again.

CHIRAQ BANS HEAD SCARF
picked up the book "sixty million frenchmen can't be wrong" at the library a couple of days ago. (i am assuming everyone knows about the existencce of this book. the book was published in 2003. the authors lived in france for two years and received a grant from "the institute of current world affairs" to help them with their expenses.) have not finished reading the book but do want to share a few things i picked up in reading it. here goes :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"assimilation is a very positive concept in france. assimilation means being integrated into the whole politically, culturally, socially, liguistically and economically. no one in france really associates it with a loss of cultural heritage, ethnic identity, or mother tongue. the policy was implemented as a complement to centralization and citizenship. right after the revolution of 1789, the french granted citizenship to protestants and jews on the basis that these groups had assimilated french culture and mores. when france refused to grant citizenship to muslims in algeria, it was because they did not regard them as assimilable"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"assimilation played a fundamental role in france's state-building process. at first it was a method of breaking ties to local cultures. its objective now is to break immigrants' ties to foreign cultures. ... the french state has pretty much succeeded in convincing the french that communities with any kind of self-rule will lead to anarchy.in strictly REPUBLICAN circles, this stance translates into virulent hostility to local languages, sects of all sorts, and even private charitable organizations. the catchy phrase they use for getting rid of these things is ERADICATION DES PARTICULARISMES - the eradication of local differences." ... they do regard any attempt to build a community life around religion with suspicion, as those ties may rival ties to the french state."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and perhaps most important on this subject : "in the summer of 2001, the french parliament passed a law that allowed the french government to attack religious leaders who were alleged to have committed abuses against their followers. ... both physical and moral ... its ultimate justification comes from the belief that IT IS THE STATE'S DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AGAINST ABUSE, EVEN IF PEOPLE CONSENT TO IT - my emphasis)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems to me what the french state is saying to young muslim schoolgirls who wish to wear a headscarf is; "we know that you are being abused by being forced to wear a headscarf. you may think that you are wearing the headscarf of your own free will - but the state knows better ".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the authors stress often that france is a republic and not a federation, therefor all power rests with the central government. it apparently means that local governments have only a very limited amount of power. some examples they cite : the police forces of all larger cities and towns are STATE POLICE (they call them the FBI in uniform); the city of paris does not have its own/independant police force; ... the commune(local community) builds and maintains elementary school buildings and houses teachers, but the teacher is on the payroll of the french government, and the curriculum comes from the ministry of education(and of course there is apparently only one for the whole of france). it's roughly the same division of labour for the churches : the commune takes care of the building, the ministry of culture is responsible for what's inside - stained glass, sculptures, and other artifacts - and the parish buys furniture and provides community services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the way i see it, it has taken centuries to forge A FRENCH STATE out of many different tribes, fiefdoms, religions and language groups and the state is not willing to risk any intrusion into its powers by any group. in all i find this book a pretty fascinating read. since i have not spend more time than a couple of one-day visits in france i can't speak of any personal experience; if the writers are correct in their assessment of FRANCE AND THE FRENCH , it is certainly much different from the canadian or united states style of government - a federal style. hbg