Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

Setanta wrote:

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

<grins>

well, I can follow your line of thought ...

"He's a xenophobe",

for example, sounds a lot more harmless and vague, simultaneously, than

"He hates foreigners",

But then you never say, "He's a xenophobe".

What you say, for example, is "xenophobia is on the rise in Austria". Or, if you're a politician, "fighting xenophobia will be a first priority for our government" <grins>.

And there, it's a little easier to see the use. I mean, what are you going to say? "Hating foreigners is on the rise in Austria"? Cause it's not just hate, it's fear too, and prejudice, it's hostile or defensive policy as well as outright violence - how else are you going to group all that together and describe the phenomenon as a whole, without using a word for it?

Islamophobia is the same, but then specifically about Muslims ;-)

(Twenty years ago, it would all just have been called "racism", but that really was silly - cause as often as not, race didn't even enter the equation.)

Oh, and that politician isn't going to say, "fighting foreigner hate will be a first priority for our government", either, cause he would never be elected <grins>. But that kinda more proves your point than mine ; ).

0 Replies

Where i come from, we would just say "so-and-so is hateful . . . "

I'm fully well willing to admit that this is simply a personal reaction. When i encounter terms such as that, which i believe are often coined for the purpose of obfuscation, i tend to avoid them as much as possible. I get the image of the academic type, gesturing with a pipe, and cooly discussing that which in the heat of anger results in beatings, rape, murder, arson . . .

On another level, i would doubt the provenance of the term, as it implies hatred of Islam, and i rather doubt that the majority of either Europeans or Americans are sufficiently well informed about Islam to form an opinion. "Muslimphobe," or Musselmanophobe" are even more awkward, but more to the point.

I just don't like the damned word, 'k?

That's the problem with this planet, too many damned feriners . . .

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

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.

Yeah, I am a tricky one, what with my refusing to concede a point I don't see the merit of and all.

I make peace when I think we have arrived at a mutually agreeable position. I recall a discussion we had about democracy/westernization in the Middle East, for example, where I gave you the last word because you summed it up rather beautifully.

Quote:

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.

Okay. My point is this: You oppose the French law, saying that it is rooted in xenophobia and directed at Muslims. I see that these two issues - xenophobia and the French law - overlap somewhat. However, I think the concept of the French law and the motivations of the French law are independent of each other. Just because it is borne out of dubious motivations doesn't neccessarily mean the concept is wrong. I, for one, think the French law is a step in the right direction. All I am saying is that you should make that distinction.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. In conclusion, eat me.

0 Replies

Another charm school drop out, just what we need . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

On another level, i would doubt the provenance of the term, as it implies hatred of Islam, and i rather doubt that the majority of either Europeans or Americans are sufficiently well informed about Islam to form an opinion. "Muslimphobe," or Musselmanophobe" are even more awkward, but more to the point.

Yeh, I was just saying that too, a few posts above ...

Setanta wrote:

When i encounter terms such as that, which i believe are often coined for the purpose of obfuscation, i tend to avoid them as much as possible. I get the image of the academic type, gesturing with a pipe, and cooly discussing that which in the heat of anger results in beatings, rape, murder, arson . . .

I hear ya!

And I wish I could do without abstractifications like that (how's that for a word) - but I have to use a container term like "xenophobia" a dozen times a day, and I haven't found a reasonably practical alternative yet. Suggestions welcome by PM <winks>.

IronLionZion wrote:

I make peace when I think we have arrived at a mutually agreeable position. I recall a discussion we had about democracy/westernization in the Middle East, for example, where I gave you the last word because you summed it up rather beautifully.

Oh, I remember that one! I was all shades of worried about that.

We were in some kind of discussion, a pretty good discussion I think in fact - I even referred some other people there - and then I put up this long-assed post. A good post, an' all (or so I thought), but long - and you just dissappeared! Never came back to say anything about it, good or bad. I was positive I'd just scared you off or bored you to death or something. Huh. Well, live and learn. I guess we all have different ways to express appreciation ...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Another charm school drop out, just what we need . . .

I love you. Yay.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Oh, I remember that one! I was all shades of worried about that.

We were in some kind of discussion, a pretty good discussion I think in fact - I even referred some other people there - and then I put up this long-assed post. A good post, an' all (or so I thought), but long - and you just dissappeared! Never came back to say anything about it, good or bad. I was positive I'd just scared you off or bored you to death or something. Huh. Well, live and learn. I guess we all have different ways to express appreciation ...

Oh, I read it thoroughly. I had a few things to add, but I took a little hiatus around that time. I may revisit it in the future, seeing as it is one of the few fruitfull conversations I've had here. It was a good post.

0 Replies

Well, that's always nice to hear. I hope you'll find a few more (fruitful conversations) around here ... there have been some.

0 Replies

Hamburger wrote

Quote:

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 ".

That’s a good interpretation Hamburger (are you still being eaten in your part of Canada btw?) It may be that the French authorities think that way…all Governments know best by definition, or assume they do. But its important to remember we are talking about schoolchildren here, not adults. The state does have a right, in fact a duty, to protect the young from abuse.

The question is "is it abuse?". In the case of adults, the presumption of abuse in the above statement is clearly preposterous. But with children the situation is surely different. Children have certain rights of course (being free from molestation and abuse being one) but they don't have the same rights as adults. They don't have the right to vote. In my opinion they should (ideally) be kept free of religious indoctrination until they are mature enough to make meaningful decisions for themselves. I know this is another can of worms, who's to say a particular individual is "mature" enough to vote? Is it an abuse to christen a child?

The more I think about it the more I have sympathy for the French position. There may be many school girls who wear the hajib as a free expression of their faith. (But note its not required by their faith).
There will be some who wear it as a deliberate act of defiance against secular authority. But there will be others who would prefer not to wear it and feel pressured into doing so. For them it is a form of abuse.

Furthermore, if, as the French have, a constitution clearly based on the principle of separation of church and state, then that constitution itself is abused and undermined by turning a blind eye to such practices. Is the Constitution worth fighting for? The Americans have a view on that. In Britain of course, we are mature enough to realise the pitfalls of such documents, and wisely leave ours unwritten. :wink:

0 Replies

meanwhile a thoughtful contribution by the grand mufti:

"Sheikh al-Sheikh said Sharia condemned unveiled women in no uncertain terms and that the mixing of men and women was the root of all evil.

Significantly, he reminded Saudi rulers that the founding father of the conservative kingdom was himself an adamant opponent to women removing the veil or mixing with men, except close relatives.

Sheikh al-Sheikh was equally enraged by the press coverage of the conference, which showed pictures of unveiled women.

The mufti quoted a famous saying by the Prophet Muhammad, which is widely cited by militant Islamist groups to justify violence against ungodly societies."

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Furthermore, if, as the French have, a constitution clearly based on the principle of separation of church and state, then that constitution itself is abused and undermined by turning a blind eye to such practices. Is the Constitution worth fighting for?

I've always understood "the separation of church and state" to refer to the state, not the individual.

The separation of church and state does not prohibit expression of religion in public - it prohibits the expression of religion by the state. Basically, the separation of church and state proscribes, well, exactly that - the church should not meddle with state affairs, and the state should not intervene in church affairs.

Thus, the church should not start saying what public schools should teach - and public schools should not start teaching about what religions are good or not.

How that can be used to rationalise either the state or the church to start intervening in individual affairs - like the state trying to "save" children from their parents' religious rules in the way you talk about here, and so on - is lost on me.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I've always understood "the separation of church and state" to refer to the state, not the individual.

The separation of church and state does not prohibit expression of religion in public - it prohibits the expression of religion by the state. Basically, the separation of church and state proscribes, well, exactly that - the church should not meddle with state affairs, and the state should not intervene in church affairs.

Thus, the church should not start saying what public schools should teach - and public schools should not start teaching about what religions are good or not.

How that can be used to rationalise either the state or the church to start intervening in individual affairs - like the state trying to "save" children from their parents' religious rules in the way you talk about here, and so on - is lost on me.

Only adding here that

the "Loi de séparation de l'Église et de l'État" (December 9, 1905), says in its first article «la République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes...», while the second starts with «La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte...»

Until here and now, this has always been the reason for the possibilty of e.g. church services in schools, barracks, hospitals prison etc as well as e.g. religious broadcasts in the (formerly state) tv.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And I wish I could do without abstractifications like that (how's that for a word) -

Dunno, but I'll let you know 10 seconds after I've patented it.

Laptop - wearing a stripey jumper, a black mask and carrying a bag marked "swag"

0 Replies

This is a largely American site--you can wear a sweater, but not a jumper.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

the "Loi de séparation de l'Église et de l'État" (December 9, 1905), says in its first article «la République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes...», while the second starts with «La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte...»

But realpolitik dictates otherwise. Evidence the Vichy government's policies (and publicly espoused policies) that are demonstrably pro Catholic. Given that France, at that time, was predominately Catholic and that religion was a major factor in the lives of most, one can wonder if this was (a) a manipulation of a suspeptible populace or (b) a real and genuine desire to do the "right thing"

One may well argue the latter but in either case the division of state and religion is blurred to a simple 20-20 vision soul like myself.

Laptop - wondering who paid Petain's wages

0 Replies

The Vichy government dates from late 1940, the law Walter quotes is dated 1905. Your chronology is flawed, apart from your response being simplistically specious.

0 Replies

Quote:

I've always understood "the separation of church and state" to refer to the state, not the individual.

I don't understand exactly what you mean here.

I assume you mean that the state has no right to interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of the individual. That sounds fine in theory. But what if the religion in question is devil worship? Or involves animal or even human sacrifice? The state has a duty to intervene in such cases.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The Vichy government dates from late 1940, the law Walter quotes is dated 1905. Your chronology is flawed, apart from your response being simplistically specious.

Ah, so laws are only operable/enforceable for a limited time? I think we both know THAT position to be specious

So do tell when this law was replealed....>............< please insert the date here.

I ask only because I believe it still to be active, but I will bow to better judgement.

0 Replies

Laptoploon wrote:

But realpolitik dictates otherwise. Evidence the Vichy government's policies (and publicly espoused policies) that are demonstrably pro Catholic. Given that France, at that time, was predominately Catholic and that religion was a major factor in the lives of most, one can wonder if this was (a) a manipulation of a suspeptible populace or (b) a real and genuine desire to do the "right thing"

I'll go slowly.

The law was not promulgated by the Vichy government, therefore, my observation that your chronology was flawed.

The Vichy government did not control the entirety of France, but rather, administered, under close German scrutiny, the southern half (roughly) of the former territory of that nation.

Given that the law was in effect both before and after the creation of a puppet administration named Vichy after the city in which its administrative headquarters were located, the reference to Vichy had no meaning in either the context of a discussion of the specific legislation, or the larger discussion of the general topic.

Any public statement made by the Vichy administration was a statement from the Germans, for whom they were a public mouthpiece. Such policies were anti-Jew more than pro-Catholic, Catholicism never enjoyed the hold on the people of France which it has had elsewhere, even before the French Revolution.

It is not, and never has been, a given that "religion was a major factor in the lives of most" . . . this is a statement from authority on your part, when we have no reason to assume that you are an authority on the subject, and when even a cursory examination of the history of that nation will show that religion was never a major factor in the lives of most of its population. There are and always have been ultramontane Catholics in France; they are and always have been a very small, if very vocal, minority.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The law was not promulgated by the Vichy government, therefore, my observation that your chronology was flawed.

Firstly I have to apologise. I'm in the middle of cooking dinner and I really shouldn't be posting. If 'er indoors gets home and dinner isn't at least "bubbling away" I'll be in serious trouble.

The point I will make now (and I will deal with the rest of the post later) was that if the Vichy government didn't promulgate that particular law (nor did I suggest they did) and are therefore unconstrained by it, neither did the present government, so for someone to use it as a supporting/dismissive argument for the present government must be, in your opinion, as flawed in their arguments as mine. Persumably we will se a post that supposts my opinion?

I'll be back in a bit....got the roasties and the cheese sauce to sort out.

Laptop - under pressure

0 Replies

Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know