Now; I disapprove of forcing women to wear that sort of dress on religious grounds. In fact, I find it obnoxious (although, aside, Western society seems to expect women to wear makeup and look "good" at all times... so are we any better?).
However, I'm not sure banning the dress is a good solution - akin to punishing the victim...
Absolutely, I was talking about this with my wife yesterday.
It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man), so how is a women covering her breasts any different than a woman covering her head? I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant, and then in order to receive an education you are forced to break with a core tenet of your religious and cultural beliefs, and as a poster below pointed out, feel naked in your new school.
> It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man)
Is it? there are tons of topless women on French beaches. I don't know about specific laws but nobody goes topless or naked while walking in a city (in France or elsewhere). I don't see this as a great restriction on my freedom. Actually, more worrying IMHO is that if a woman were to go topless in the street, she'd get more trouble from some (religious and macho) guys than the police.
> I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant
Sorry, but I don't find it scandalous to ask refugee or immigrants to make minor adjustments to their lifestyle. Every society has some common value that it wants to preserve, and as a French, I want as little intrusion of religion in public life. In particular, religion has no place in public school in my opinion, and i really hope it stays this way.
I'm actually having trouble finding any exact law, so in the interest of accuracy, I'll admit I could be wrong about French law here. This Wikipedia article says
"Chest and private parts must be covered except near bathing zones. Burqa banned."
Another article I read mentioned that a particular city recently explicitly banned male toplessness, which seems to imply that the above statement about covering the chest only applies to women.
Another Wikipedia article here states that the activist group Topfreedom has protested in France, also implying that the covering the chest only applies to women.
Can anyone point to the specific law? The Wikipedia article on clothing laws doesn't have a source. I was going off what I've been told by French friends, but I'd like to know conclusively.
Perhaps the idea could be seen differently not as a ban but an enforcement of anonymity. Like its hard for me to judge you based on your username (depends on the username), but if we had profile pictures that wouldn't be the case.
I don't really agree with France on this, but could the ban have positive effects by reducing prejudice by anonymity (look at this person vs. look at this muslim person) vs teaching tolerance.
For most Muslim immigrants, their facial features and skin color are probably as much an indicator of their background as a head dress, not to mention things like accent that will ultimately give someone away. I really don't buy any argument for these policies. Being realistic, it was definitely a move to antagonize the Muslim population in France.
Every modern nation's conception of liberty differs. In no country does liberty mean that anything goes. And while many westerners (particularly Anglos) like to define liberty as "anything goes which doesn't negatively effect me", that only begs the question of where that line is to be drawn.
In France the pithy definition of political freedom is "liberty, equality, fraternity". Equality and fraternity are qualifiers on what liberty is supposed to mean, recognizing a collective responsibility component and thus helping to articulate where the line is to be drawn for when individual liberty conflicts with the long-term requirements safeguarding political liberty.
French laws don't ban Muslim dress, per se. They ban face coverings, which is only typical of some very conservative Arabic cultures. And they do so because a religious or cultural mandate that requires such dress is in direct opposition to the ideals of equality and fraternity, which are considered necessary for maintaining the liberty of the society as a whole.
We can disagree with that interpretation on many levels. But it's not illogical, per se. I don't doubt that the way it's been articulated and enforced has been corrupted by anti-Muslim and anti-Arabic animus. But it is what it is and fundamentally seems consonant with French political theory.
In the U.S. religious freedom is considered much more sacrosanct. In particular, Americans see safeguarding religious liberty as fundamental to political liberty; whereas I think the French notion is that safeguarding secularism is far more important. The reasons are historical and totally obvious--just reflect on what you learned about American and French political history in high school. In France the Catholic Church was one of the impediments to democracy. Whereas a large number of American colonists came here because of religious persecution abroad, and our political system evolved to protect religious denominations from the government and from each other.
You understand the distinction between Islamic veils/headscarves (which clearly imply religious affiliation) and clearly non-religious, headscarves worn by many style-conscious, but secular, women?
Your misunderstanding may come from terminology - a headscarf need not be religious at all, and headscarves which are not religious (it is easy to tell the difference) are NOT banned.
The headscarf to muslims is not really a religious symbol like say a priests clothes or a nuns habit. It is a piece of clothing that is required (considered mandatory by most schools) to be worn by a woman to preserve her modesty. In that viewpoint, it is like pretty much every other piece of clothing . Are pants or tops religious symbols?
Does it clearly imply religious affiliation, or cultural affiliation? Either way, it's such a petty and arbitrary distinction and I'd guess that a Muslim girl in a French school wearing a regular head scarf would still get hassled and forced to remove it.
The ban in France is for face-covering only, and it applies to anybody (male/female).
There are serious reasons for this, both cultural- and security-based.
Head scarves are allowed in France, to the best of my knowledge.
EDIT:
The law bans "the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools" [1]
So you can wear a head scarf as long as it does not imply religious affiliation. As a matter of fact, head scarves have been present in high fashion (Azzedine Alaia,etc) for a while.
[1] Wikipedia: The bill passed France's national legislature and was signed into law by President Jacques Chirac on 15 March 2004 (thus the technical name is law 2004-228 of 15 March 2004) and came into effect on 2 September 2004, at the beginning of the new school year. The full title of the law is "loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics" (literally "Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004, concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools").
It was widely debated. I'm still not sure what was the best thing to do.
At some point, you also have to ask how far we can tolerate things in the name of religion. Just because something is of religious nature doesn't mean that it has to be accepted.
If you are passing laws saying that girls are required to show their hair in school, and compromise their family moral values, as a mandatory display if secularism, you have gone to far in creating a bizarre new state religion.
Just because something is preferred by a subpopulation's religion and culture, doesn't meant it is a proselytic threat to the freedom and safety of others.
The French heafscarf law is populist demagoguery that threatens the integrity of the French Constitutional principles, and is near-universally condemned as bad law by legal scholars
It's not really the thread for this kind of debate, but I feel compelled to reply :)
> If you are passing laws saying that girls are required to show their hair in school
That's not what the law is about. It bans religious signs in public schools. It's not specifically about muslims covering their hair.
I can't speak for all the French, but I think it's fair to say that overall we like religion to stay in the private field.
Little anecdote here. When I was in high-school (25 years ago), some American mormons offered to visit our English class to teach English. Our teacher agreed on the condition that they don't wear their uniforms, and don't mention any religious topic. They declined.
Just to say that the laws we are discussing here go far beyond "populist demagoguery" or xenophobia and maybe it's misunderstanding French culture to think it is.
> and is near-universally condemned as bad law by legal scholars
That sounds like an argument of authority. I don't know what law scholars say but I think a country should be able to legislate on the place of religion in public schools, and the way it has been done seem pretty fair to me.
When I was school, there were about 10% of north african immigrants in my classes (most of them muslims) and never the headscarf had been an issue. Back then, you actually didn't see any headscarfs in street, except maybe for older muslim ladies. I'm not sure what has changed since then but it has became commonplace (and as an atheist, I'm pretty sad about this).
I would consider the US approach fairly liberal, where everyone is free to do as they want as long as they're not affecting other people with their actions.
France goes to the extreme level of saying "You can't even wear your religious clothing inside the school, even if you feel naked without it."
Having been brought up in a French system and then going to a US college, I must say I strongly prefer the French system.
I guess Americans would take offense to this view, but I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture, or something.
It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.
It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.
As an American, I think of nothing when people wear hijab or whatever, and trust me, I am an atheist who think religion is irrational and that humanity would be better off without it.
Maybe the French would be better off thinking nothing of it when someone wears religious clothing, just as we are starting to think nothing of it when people are gay or transgender or whatever.
I think the difference is that the French perceive obvious religious clothing similarly to someone wearing a T-shirt saying "I vote republican/democrat" in huge letters -- though I don't know, maybe that'd be considered fine too in the US (US schools, that is)?
I see it as clearly unnecessary/voluntary (so it's quite different from being gay like in your example), so it's an attempt to advertise, which leaves a bad taste in a place like a school.
I am extremely sympathetic to this view as an American, but I think it is worthwhile to think of this from a native Frenchman's perspective. There has been a mass influx of "foreign" Muslim/Islamic peoples there over the past twenty-odd years that do not share western secular values for the most part, and are happy to impose their own views on the native population. If you were a native Frenchman, or a person in a similar situation in Europe, how would you feel about women wearing the hajib? I don't think it is that black and white.
There has been a massive influx of people into the States who don't necessary share American values as well. The Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Irish, Mexicans, etc. Virtually any group you can think of.
I know the feeling, in my eyes excessive display of religious affiliation in clothing tends to come over as a certain kind of smugness: "according to my values, i am infinitely superior to you godless crowd". Hardly the most respectful message to send, a bit like the difference between a vegan and a preaching vegan.
Still, if you'd want to put up legal barriers to displays of religion, you'd certainly need to find better reasons than "it makes people seem very arrogant" ;)
Schools, being places of science, might mandate non-religious clothing in the same way monasteries and temples should be free to set clothing regulation inside their premises.
> "I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture"
But prohibiting the wearing of religious clothing IS pushing political views.
French culture has some inconsistent, fascist, illiberalisms, especially in the differences of making fun of Christianity vs. making fun of Judaism, or similarly with Christianity vs. Islam. (govt demanding firing of Sine). Actual progressive liberalism should at least include listening to other viewpoints, being open to new ideas and generally being sensible and constructive. But narrow, identity-politics labels aren't all that useful in reality and end up inventing wedge-issues and false dichotomies. (There are some people looking for common ground while others are looking for Sayre's law fights.)
Sine was basically implying the religion was nothing but a tool of social climbing in that particular case. That's just an incredibly nasty, low and personal thing.
While I don't agree with the French approach of regulating dress, one of their arguments is that you do affect other people with your choice of how to dress, and that people should not have to be subjected to certain overt expressions of religion in certain contexts, with schools being a particularly sensitive topic because of their position in passing on the ideals of the republic.
I think they go way too far, and a that some of it is bigotry hiding behind the excuse of secularism, but it illustrates that determining what sufficiently negatively "affects others" to be worth sanction can be used to reach widely different conclusions..
That means if I am a pastafarian (Google it if you don't know it - and yes, at least in Germany it is a approved religion) I can't put a noodle riddle on my head (because it is religious clothing for pastafarians) - or can NOBODY, just because it is religious clothing? And yes, you might not believe it, but in Germany there is a ruling that you are allowed to take your passport photo with a noodle riddle on your head because it is your religious headwear...
I think we should throw all this religion in the toilet and flush.
The starting point of this in France is the idea that we should throw all this religion in the toilet and flush.
The principle governing French secularism - laïcité [1] - has its origin in freeing people from being subjected to the influence of the Catholic church. It's a such a direct reaction to religion being pushed onto people in the public sphere by putting in place restrictions aimed at severely curtailing religious influence in government and education.
In this context, it's worth noting that Turkish secularism was explicitly modelled by Ataturk on French laïcité. E.g. Turkey, like France, is constitutionally a secular republic.
Culture can be affected by draconian laws also. I believe religious clothing designed to oppress women is regressive and detrimental to Democracy. Please read this:
That's funny that you mention democracy and oppression of women. Ancient Greeks of Athens and the other city states kept their women cloistered out of public. Women had no rights and were basically chattel in these societies.
Democracy is like technology, morally neutral yet capable of great good or terrible inhumanity.
But my point was not that one system is 'better' or 'worse' but that religious head-wear should not be seen as some inalienable right that we have to accommodate to remain a free society. Even if many young Iranian women may feel 'naked' without it, it only took the religious dictators there one generation to make them forget how it used to be.
How is your anti-type of liberalism any different from how non-liberals are treated in western countries? Non-liberals are increasingly not tolerated by liberals (see recent SJW issues) the world over and increasingly face heavy fines/punishment if they don't follow the liberal culture.
I think you're using the common US political definition of "liberal" (which is close to a synonym for "progressive" or often even just "Democrat"), whereas at least to the point of your grandparent comment, my interpretation is that the definition being used is more like "classical liberalism"[0]. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a common and unfortunate confusion that makes these conversations extremely muddy.
They've basically turned their culture into a new religion