Sofia wrote:Hobit and AU are correct. The scarf issue is a small issue that masks the greater issue of racism in Europe. But, France's brand of racism seems to be defensive, rather than offensive.
Muslims are permeating, and changing the culture of the areas they are migrating to. The scarf issue seeks to dissolve (or control) the level of affect they are having on French culture.
Instinctively, I reacted negatively to this post. Then I read it again.
I think basically, Sofia's got it right.
The "headscarf" issue is a thinly veiled (no pun intended) "channeling" of a more general unease with the growing Muslim minorities. Call it burgeoning Islamophobia.
That phobia is wrong, but not ununderstandable. The European cities
have changed, and this
would create a sense of unease. Or "defensiveness".
Of course, that defensiveness is not going to stop the multiculturalisation of our cities, and acting on it in knee-jerk fashion does nothing to help with the transition. But that some acting on the impulse "to dissolve (or control) the level of affect" the new communities are having was going to happen, is only natural.
In France, because of the typical intensity attached to the church-state issue, this impulse has latched on to the headscarf issue, in a way that for many years seemed incomprehensible elsewhere in Europe. But the use of the issue to somehow put a "check" in place on a supposed 'Islamification' has apparently spread to Germany, Holland too.
One interesting consequence has been that xenophobes who picked up on this French line have had to take a stand against Christian influence as well - for consistency's sake. In the French example itself, for example, I agree with Au; I think Bernard Stasi most certainly intended to convey that he was talking about Muslims, but of course was forced to, formally, be speaking about all religions.
It goes further than mere political expediency, though. I've looked with surprise at how, on the Fortuynist "Livable Rotterdam" forum, militant secularism became rampant. Ever since Fortuyn called Islam "backward" and the favorised argument became that liberal, enlightened Holland should not allow the Muslims to take us back in time, those using it have been forced to denounce those little Protestant parties I mentioned as well, along with Christian schools et cetera.
It is at least an interesting side-effect to see the xenophobes get divided like that, between traditional country-and-tradition nationalists who hold dearly to Christianity, and the new breed standing up against Muslims in name of secularism and the division of church and state ... ;-)
Meanwhile, in my home town:
Quote:The Utrecht alderman on education, R. Verhulst, wants to introduce school uniforms on primary schools in Utrecht. He thinks he will in this way be able to narrow the differences between students and promote integration. [integration being the political buzz word for how immigrants are supposed to adapt to Dutch culture - nimh]
Schools, according to Verhulst should be allowed to decide themselves whether they opt for introducing a uniform. If they do so, this will automatically mean a prohibition on wearing a headscarf. [..] Verhulst: ,,Wearing a uniform emphasizes the unity and equality. A headscarf doesn't fit with that.''
Verhulst thinks that not only special schools [schools on a confessional (Christian) basis], but public schools, too, should be allowed to draft their own dress codes and forbid wearing a headscarf. At the moment only special schools are allowed to forbid headscarves.
Amerikaner mussen nur "Ami" spreche!
