Ever since last month, when the taking of two French hostages in Iraq “had (the) unintended consequence” of uniting France in favour of the headscarf ban, i’ve been following how this affected le brown, specifically French Sikhs. here‘s an update:
A French administrative court has ruled on an appeal brought by three Sikh boys who have been excluded from classes for wearing the under-turban.
However, it referred the matter back to the boys’ school, and said the issue should be resolved by further mediation between the school and its pupils.
The court recommended mediation in order to prevent setting a legal precedent that Muslim students could use.
France introduced its new law banning the wearing of all religious symbols from state schools from September.
France’s small Sikh community says the under-turban is a valid compromise.
…The French authorities admit that when the law was drafted, nobody consulted France’s small Sikh community.
This lack of planning has resulted in significant confusion, since some schools accept the “under-turban”, while others refuse to appear hypocritical, since the ban affects ALL religions, not just Muslims. Yarmulkes and large crosses are also not allowed, though fear about increasing Islamic Fundamentalism among French youth is what inspired the law in the first place.
How odd. The big difference between civil law countries (like France) and common law countries (like UK, and US) has been how they treat legal precedent. Civil law countries are code-based (i.e. statutes, and legislation.) Common law countries, obviously, also have statutes which are interpreted by judges, BUT give great weight to precedent from other cases.
What I’m getting at: I don’t think a ruling by the administrative court would set a precedent that could be used.
I also don’t know what “large crosses” are. Crucifixes are OK. Somebody doing a life size stations of the cross? Probably too large. But how about a smaller, tasteful 2 foot crucifix on the walls? I suspect that’s fine. So why not wear one?
They’re full of shit. They’re afraid of arabs not assimilating, but it’s hard to do when they’re not given the incentives to — they’re pushed off in ghettos, discrimated against, and not given the same government support as other poor French. They’re rational actors — why wouldn’t they act separate if they’re treated that way? But b/c of the far right parties, nobody can touch this issue, so it’s all drama and theater.
I too am against this silly ban but the French do make one point that does make some sense. How do you provide freedom of religion to a young man or woman who does not want to wear a veil or a turban but do so because they are forced to by their orthodox immigrant parents? This after all is ostensibly the reason they gave for the ban in the first place and if I remember right they said they had polling data to back up the fact that this was a real issue.
They might as well pass a law letting kids date freely, stay out late and eat candy for breakfast. That argument is hardly a problem unique to religion, it would be an attempt to legislate morality.
I too am against this silly ban but the French do make one point that does make some sense. How do you provide freedom of religion to a young man or woman who does not want to wear a veil or a turban but do so because they are forced to by their orthodox immigrant parents?
Not the case. Is the French government going to tell Catholic kids that for the sake of secularism, they all need to go out and have sex right now? They ARE indeed banning this for the reason Anna stated : increasing fundamentalism among French youth. Why do you think they are going so easy on the Sikhs? They aren’t the ones the French are most afraid of. Crosses and yarmulkes are innocent casualties in this latest battle, banned due to political correctness : they have to at least make it LOOK like it affects everyone. Most of these young people are choosing to wear the foulard on their own (or are being pressured to by clerics for political reasons, depending on which side you are on).
The French government passes it off as “secularism is important and a value of the Republic and as such, and religion should not be promoted in schools.” On the surface, this makes sense. But when you really look at it, what it serves to do is destroy an integral part of CULTURE. In Maghrebi society, religion and culture are really one and the same thing – you can’t separate it.
To put it simply: Islam really freaks the French out, and they just don’t want to see any sign of it. They wish that the North Africans would just act like white people (they call it ‘integration’), or go home. THAT is the reason behind the headscarf ban.
And I could write a whole other post on how they DO need to be concerned about increasing Islamic fundamentalism, but how they kind of brought it on themselves… but that is another post for another day.
Hello. I think the headscarf ban is a ridiculous law and cannot imagine any other country introducing it. Does anyone have any information about the headscarf ban that they can actually back up? With quotes or statistics etc. I have an important school exam for which my topic is l’interdiction du voile and therefore need a certain amount of actual “evidence” before I can make a point. Especially statistics. If anyone can help, please don’t hesitate to email me.
Thanks, Aliyah
you dont understand. the ban does not relate directly to the oppresion of young people, but a positive aspect will be more freedom for those who choose it. this will help combat racism and provide young people in France with a future.
Here are some religious facts,the tenth guru of sikhs guru gobind singh started sikhism and like all other religions there were rules and regulations about how a person can be a complete sikh.Mentally,physically,intellectualy,spiritually etc.In physical appreance he said sikhs will bring order in there lives by ordering there appreance so he said a true sikh will wear five things starting from letter “k”(these five things have significant religious importance) and always cover there heads.Its same like christian drinking wine in a church during marriage or budhist using a prayer wheel. Guru Gobind Singh said,”Rehni rahe soyi sikh mera,oh sahib mein uska chera” which means –If you’ll abide by all the rules of sikhism and devote your life to every rule then you are my god and i am your servant”.And i am sure muslims have some strong reasons too.so you see French lawmakers dont read history books and they dont care about “why”. Religion is the most sensitive issue people shoudnt make any judjements without learning about “why”.Thank god french government didnt say anything about long hair of sikh gentlemen because from last few hundred years many kings have tried to convert them to there relgion by force by pulling there hair out by brute force and pulling them off including head scalp or some killed little children and sew together there body parts like a necklace and forced there mothers to wear them while they were in there custody in dark dungeons. So my point is religion is not that some moron stands up and say from today no headscarfs or turbens. THANKS Note:Religious facts not in detail please read about “sikhism” at http://www.sikhs.org.