That is the question the French grappled with recently. Given their usual preference towards Muslims (or at least against US involvement in Iraq) I was very surprised to read this article.
- "The French parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on Islamic headscarves and all other overt religious symbols from state schools. The bill was carried by a massive majority of 494 votes to 36. Polls suggest most French people support the ban but it has outraged some Muslims and other religious communities. President Jacques Chirac has said the ban is necessary to preserve the national principle of secularity."
So the question is - Is it right to ban Islamic headscarves and other religious signs in schools? Or will such a move alienate, rather than integrate, communities such as Muslims?
I'm not sure myself so what do you think?
This post and other fine reading also appeared at BlogBloke.com
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - johnboy
France isn't pro-muslim or even anti-US.
It's just very, very, Pro-France.
It also has a huge muslim population (and growing real fast with potential to be a majority in our lifetimes)
But in particular this head-scarf push comes from a long tradition of anti-clericism that dates back to the french revolutions.
(And a more recent tradition of compulsory integration.)
They'd long since banned prayer and crucifixes in government schools before they set their sights on head scarves.
Now I can't speak for America, but from my visits I'd say that would be a controversial move, no?
And the integration issues would run very far afoul of my reading of your constitution.
(note: I'm an Anglo-Australian).
2 - Mac Diva
I'm inclined to say 'no, the scarves should not be banned,' but will need to think about this some more. Banning the scarves suggests an intent to persecute Muslims. Also, it is not clear to me what harm the scarves are doing. In California, where Chinese immigrants were seen as very threatening, there used to be laws banning queues -- long braids worn by Chinese men. The sole purpose of those laws was to harrass people. That is the kind of legislation to be avoided.
I don't have a problem with banning some cultural practices immigrants bring with them -- clitoridectomies, for example. But, actual harm to people is clearer. Also, that kind of ban protects the new population instead of penalizing it.
3 - TDavid
Since I'm not a France citizen my opinion matters nadda, however I will say that I think that generally there are too many regulations in schools.
Don't wear this, do this, don't say that, do this, don't do this.
I realize the school is a place of learning and distractions can be a very real issue, but sometimes letting kids be kids I think is getting lost in the shuffle. They have to also learn some social skills to make it in the real world beyond school.
If it makes children feel positive about themselves to wear headscarves, then that is conducive to learning and should be allowed. If they don't like wearing the scarves and only do it for religious purposes, well that is a whole other discussion.
However if you have other kids teasing them over the scarves, well, then that has to at least be a consideration.
Maybe this should be a school by school, area by area decision, voted on by the parents who's kids attend the schools in question with the deciding votes going to the school board or whatever the French equivalent is to that.
4 - Dirtgrain
Keep in mind that this is the same country that is trying to stop the infusion of English words into its language and culture. Good luck to them on this one.
Who would have thought that the free-spirited French would turn puritanical? Looking at the big picture, what has caused France to become so controlling and restrictive?
5 - Jim Carruthers
Given that the original action in France on founding their secular republic was to execute priests, bishops and cardinals, behead the leaders of their government, and base their country on liberty, equality and fraternity, and furthermore that their national symbol is a bare-breasted woman, I think you Yanks should just mind your own business. That they have a regular vote on what woman should bare her breasts to represent the nation is alright with me. Pay attention, you could learn something USA.
I don't agree with the law, but I think public schools should be secular, though I think the law is the wrong way to do it. However, that is for the citizens of the republic to decide.
Also given that France has been fighting Islamic terrorists and other countries as a result of ill-concieved imperialist incursions (Indo-Chine much?), instead of mocking or abusing France, the USA might try to learn from their mistakes.
Since the US refuses to recognize Spanish as an official language, maybe some pot blackage is going on?
6 - Shark
"Looking at the big picture, what has caused France to become so controlling and restrictive?"
Five Million Muslims, maybe?
7 - Mac Diva
There was a report on the topic on the CBS evening news. The French government is saying that they are doing this for integration. Their reasoning is that if people are subject to the same rules, such as dressing alike, they will become alike. The Muslim response is that there will be more private schools for Muslims if the law passes, frustrating the goal of integration.
8 - Jim Carruthers
Also, since much of English is rooted in French (hint, "infusion") I think some sort of standard metric is preferable to newspeak 'murrican style. Or are you just getting frustrated that no matter how loud you shout, they refuse to speak American? Quel dommage.
And when Muslim dudes are the ones clamoring to wear a hajib, then maybe I'll consider their arguement.
9 - Jim Carruthers
I should have put this in a previous comment, but I had to visit le pissoir.
What occurred to me, and is related to a secular republic which benefits all citizens, is why do we allow children to engage in religion?
We don't allow them to drive, marry, own guns, vote, operate nuclear weapons, drink alcohol, buy lap dances, watch audio-visual representations of consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, create and enforce contracts, engage in government sanctioned murder in the military, and much more.
So why do secular states allow children to engage in the dangerous, brain-damaging activity of religion when we have determined that they are not developed enough to engage and participate in much less harmful activities?
Hell, yah, the days when young'uns have to get fake ID to go to preach-easies will be good days.
10 - Ms. Tek
I don't mean to but in but I do have to make a correction here.
I speak English and understand and speak some German. English is a Germanic language. English has more in common with German, Dutch, Swedish, etc than it does with French. This is why French grammar and vocabulary often proves difficult for English speaking students.
French has more in common with Spanish, Italian, etc...
I'm not trying to be a snot, I just study languages. As I said, I speak some German, even less Dutch, and a wee bit of Japanese.
This is a very good tree of language:
http://softrat.home.mindspring.com/germanic.html
This will show you how similar the languages are.
http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/Publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/en/germaans.htm
English in and of itself has taken words from other languages because in reality, we just don't have as many words to express things. This is why it sounds funny when the French use a lot of flowery words to describe things. That is just how you speak in French. (I studied French for a little bit but had a shit teacher so quit). English is full of words that were taken from form other languages. The funny thing is now the reverse seems to be happening.
The French are very concerned about keeping a French identity therefore they try to make sure that new words don't get introduces from other countries, etc. There was a stink not to long ago about the word "email". I don't recall what the French word for it is but I do know that in all official French documentation, you will not find the word email as that they banned it.
Strange but true.
11 - Jim Carruthers
As with many languages, there is "official" usage. They didn't "ban" "email" in France, the Academie defined the correct usage.
It's the same as you don't spell colour in the States, or Shrub can't say nuclear.
And I didn't claim exclusive Latinate roots of English, but French is an important part of the history of English (wars, royal inter-breeding and arguements over which is the "french disease" and which is the "english disease".
Anyways, no matter which way you say it, religion has no place in participation by les citoyens in the republic or dominion.
12 - Shark
First person that comes in at 3 A.M. and robs the local Sept-Onze wearing a Hijab/Burqa--- and they'll ban 'em nationwide.
13 - Ms. Tek
Jim, I beg to differ.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1002708,00.html
People may still use the word in everyday, personal, speech, but it is incorrect to use it in any publication of a official nature.
So sayth the French Ministry of Culture.
Also
"Also, since much of English is rooted in French (hint, "infusion") I think some sort of standard metric is preferable to newspeak 'murrican style."
It seems to me from that quote, we were dipping into actual language here. Once again, you said "French" not latin. Even so, latin does make up some of the English language and actually influences some grammar. Still, the Germanic is the vast majority and basis of English.
Perhaps this diagram can explain it better than I can:
http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum_c.shtml
I just don't want the wrong information out there since when it comes to languages, Americans for the most part are very ignorant. They are required to do two years of it and it is harder and harder to find German or French as an offering. It's spanish, spanish, spanish. Even more distressing is that latin does not seem to be taught in high school anymore (very helpful for vocabulary one needs need college).
For the longest time, from the fall of the roman empire until I believe the 1700s, latin was used in conversation between goverments because no one could understand each other, but latin was considered something that an "educated" person must learn. You might want to look up some of the history of the Tudors and writings between Spain and the Catholic Church for some examples.
As far as head scarves... Its hard for me to say. I am for separation of church and state, however if someones religion means they must cover their head, that really does not harm anyone. They cannot be preaching but covering one's head will not hurt anyone.
14 - Shark
"...if someones religion means they must cover their head, that really does not harm anyone. ...covering one's head will not hurt anyone."
What if they practice Santaria and want to sacrifice a live chicken at recess?
Just wonderin' ...
15 - Ms. Tek
They don't. We are talking about covering their head. They are not forcing someone else to cover their heads as well. There has to be some flexibility and that to me does not seem unreasonable.
Now, if they sit on the playlot and tell other people that they must cover their heads as well, then they are wrong and should be expelled. You have to be a little bit tolerant. I personally don't like it but they have a right to do that.
Killing a chicken and wearing a head scarf or turban or Yakima in no way equate. Apples to oranges. It would be like saying, "what if a catholic kid decided to have a mass at recess (it would be hard anyway, he needs a priest, but you know what I mean). Religious cerimony and religious garb are not the same.
NOW, if you want to really enforce this however, there is another way around this:
Uniforms.
Still, I went to Catholic school all my life. In high school, we had a few muslims. They wore uniform pants and a scarf as oppsed to the catholic school girl skirt the rest of us wore. Some even left the room to pray at the times in an empty classroom. We all got along just fine.
16 - BB
I'm surprised nobody has considered this. If we are going to have true separation of church and state and fairness to all religions, then if we are going to ban the lord's prayer, or Jews cannot wear skullcaps or Catholics cannot wear crucifixes or rosary beads, it should go without saying Muslims cannot wear their religious paraphernalia as well. If you are going to keep religion out of the schools does that not make sense? That was my impression of where the French were coming from. According to the news item the president of France said "the ban is necessary to preserve the national principle of secularity." Am I wrong here?
17 - Mac Diva
But, do schools ban the paraphernalia of other religions in France? Haven't been in years and that was before the big influx of immigrants. Anyone know?
Here in Oregon, we had a controversy over having girls from Somalia and Ethiopia surgically castrated. That was not a hard issue for me.
18 - CW Fisher
Here in DeKalb Illinois we castrate the kids down at Jake's Piercing. All kinds of genital piercing going on in there -- who knows what kind of genitals they been spiking in there, but they're not doing it for religious reasons, and the Muslim girls probably aren't either, strictly speaking. It's religion, it's culture, you get the grandmother involved, oy. Very complicating to mess with. It's all unknowable. You just simply can't mess with it. You can a little. These days I think it's important to pick our fights and walk away from stuff that doesn't matter. Not that I'm above the fray. I grew up a Methodist, had the uniform, Sears, you betcha. So I know what this is about. CW
19 - Shark
I believe France could get around the controversy by avoiding the religious issue altogether: simply ban all Instruments of Torture from the classroom.
This would cover the Muslim outfits, the Jewish yamika, and the Christian cross in one fell swoop.
Aside: I've always thought it strange that most folks don't have a problem with a display showing a bloody, half-naked man nailed to a roman torture device...
AS THE MAIN (ubiquitous) SYMBOL in their houses of worship (or around their neck!).
(for the curious, I'm a member of the Church of the Latter Day Pokemon; our main diety is Pikachu, and boy, is he cute and cuddly!)
20 - Ms. Tek
I believe France said no crucifixes and Yakima's either.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901040209-586181,00.html
21 - bhw
In the US, separation of church and state refers to the state establishment and/or promotion of religion, not whether or not free individuals can wear religious clothing or symbols on government/public property.
France can do whatever it likes. If the US tried to pass this type of law, I'd be apoplectic, and I'm a FIRM believer in the separation of church and state. It's just that the first amendment refers to both the freedom from religion [gov't sponsored] and the freedom OF religion [for the citizenry]. Gotta have both.
The government doesn't establish a religion by allowing all relgious clothing to we worn; it would if it restricted some but not others.
22 - Dirtgrain
My point about the French's restrictions on use of English words is that it is completely ignorant of the way in which language--and culture--develop. Throughout history, cultures have shared, borrowed, assimilated and mingled. No one could have stopped that. Many have tried (Cromwell, Hitler, The Taliban), and they may have a noticeable impact, but they don't come close to succeeding. Imagine a man standing before a damn. Cracks begin to form on the wall of the damn. He plugs one with his right hand. Then another with his left hand. He uses his knee and a foot. But the cracks keep coming, farther and farther apart. He becomes frantic, struggling to find the biggest cracks--the most important to stop (I think I have seen a Popeye or Loony Tunes cartoon on this scenario). It is a lost cause; the water gets through no matter what. Apply this scenario to what the French are doing. They cannot control culture--no matter how many hands they have. Banning the integration of a certain language, restricting how people dress, or other such initiatives will most likely not work. And if they come close to succeeding, what will they become? The Taliban (although the Taliban also failed miserably in their attempts to harness culture).
I believe that it is stupid to restrict, regulate and contort the natural development of culture; culture simply evolves. Inevitably such forcing comes down to a few imposing their will on the many. Who gets to decide?
As for the development of the English language, I use "A Brief History of English," by Paul Roberts, in my class. Roberts points out the following:
In vocabulary Old English is quite different from Modem English. Most of the Old English words are what we may call native English: that is, words which have not been borrowed from other languages but which have been a part of English ever since English was a part of Indo-European. Old English did certainly contain borrowed words. We have seen that many borrowings were coming in from Norse. Rather large numbers had been borrowed from Latin, too. Some of these were taken while the Anglo-Saxons were still on the Continent (cheese, butter, bishop, kettle, etc.); a large number came into English after the conversion (angel, candle, priest, martyr, radish, oyster, purple, school, spend, etc.). But the great majority of Old English words were native English.
Now, on the contrary, the majority of words in English are borrowed, taken mostly from Latin and French. Of the words in The American College Dictionary only about 14 percent are native. Most of these, to be sure, are common, high-frequency wordsâ€"the, of, I, and, because, man, mother, road, etc.; of the thousand most common words in English, some 62 percent are native English. Even so, the modem vocabulary is very much Latinized and Frenchified. The Old English vocabulary was not.
It is ever changing, the English language. How long have English teachers been complaining about "ain't?" It stubbornly survives.On the head-covering issue, I wonder what Sikhs would do. Some Sikhs, based on religious reasons, grow their hair long without ever cutting it. What would they do with it?
We have had similar problems to those of the French. There is a law in New York that prohibits the wearing of masks in public. Some wondered if this should apply to Muslim women. And there was that lady who wanted her driver's license photo taken with her head scarf.
23 - jadester
a difficult (if not to some people that important) issue.
I would say a couple of things. Firstly, if traditions of other religions are also banned, then although it is discrimination, it's indiscriminate discrimination (or however you're supposed to say it) - i.e. other religions are kept separate from schools too. Although for me, i think it is stupid to ban all religious stuff from schools. I don't agree with forcing religion on children either, mind, as this is just the other end of the extreme scale. I believe our children should be exposed to as many different religions as possible. In my opinion, it helps you learn, and more importantly, think, about others.
Secondly, on the issue of wearing a mask o a driving license. I believe this is one of those "special situations" were the law must be considered more important than religion. A big part of the point of having a photo on e.g. a driving license (or, hang on, the only point) is for ID purposes. If your pic on the card is of you wearing a mask, someone with just a similar upper-head can nick your license and use it
it's a simplification but that's my opinions at present, anyway.
24 - Ms. Tek
The woman who wanted to wear the facescarf... I think she was in florida.
She was overruled because
a) In Saudi Arbia, IDs still show the face. They just get a woman to take the picuture.
b) This woman had had pictures of her taken after she converted that showed her without said headcovering.
25 - bhw
Right. Besides, the whole point of the photo is to IDENTIFY the person.