The French turban ban – it’s not just for school children any more. [Thanks to Greg and Al Mujahid]
 |
|
Chirac: You can’t drive in my country. But you should take our toxic waste, and buy our goods. And keep that Mittal guy away from us! We’re civilized and you’re the natives, remember? Manmohan Singh: [Must not slap guest across the face. Must not administer thapad with my left hand …] |
France’s highest administrative body ruled Monday that Sikhs must remove their turbans for driver’s license photos, calling it a question of public security and not a restriction on freedom of religion. [Link]
This, of course, is unequivocally full of steaming hooey. Firstly, it clearly is an abrogation of religious freedom for Sikhs. Secondly, it doesn’t even make sense! Unless they’re planning on banning driving while turbanned, this is going to make it harder for the police to compare drivers license photos with the individuals driving.
This ruling is a reversal of an earlier ruling that sided with the Sikh plaintiff on a technicality, and means that any future appeals will have to be conducted at a pan-European level:
The Council of State’s ruling reversed its own decision in December in favor of Shingara Mann Singh, a French citizen who refused to take off his turban for a license photo in 2004… Singh’s lawyer, Patrice Spinosi, has said they could take the case to other tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights. [Link]
 |
|
None of you can drive in my country either! Off with all of your turbans! |
Then again, this entire trip was about jointly selling French goods and French merde, so I shouldn’t be surprised. France is hoping to supply India with nuclear technology, warplanes and civilian aircraft:
France is … hoping to strike key defence deals with India which is in the market for 126 new warplanes, a purchase worth billions of dollars. A deal for the supply of 43 Airbus commercial aircraft to state-run Indian airlines was also signed during the visit in a deal estimated at $2.5bn. [Link]
At the same time, Chirac defended efforts to prevent Mittal from taking over Belgian based steel maker Arcelor, saying that there was no racism involved:
Mr Chirac said on Monday that in principle France had absolutely “nothing against a non-European taking over a European company”. “The concerns that have been expressed are entirely legitimate. I do not understand what the fuss is about,” he said. [Link]
It’s the old dual standard – free trade for you, but not for us, right? Keep this up, Jacques my boy, and you’ll be eating Freedom Fries with your humble pie the next time you visit India …
h_s:
MoorNam was suggesting “change from within” in response to pressure from without. Why not be honest about it, and just call it pressure from without? After all, it’s the French (and MoorNam) who have a problem with these “non-modern” behaviors.
AMfD Some of the Canadian Sikhs are still clinging on to the lifestyle they had in rural Punjab a few decades back kinda like some Pakistani Mirpuris in UK who still believe that they are living in Mirpur. Maybe its more of a Punjab thing than a Sikh thing.
The two major terrorist acts carried out by South Asians in the west (Air India 182 and the London tube bombings) were both carried out alomost entirely by Punjabi speakers. Perhaps the common ground we can all agree on is a prohibition on Punjabi immigration to the west!
1) re: non-white immigration. please note the context in which i responded. “bengali” was the one who set up the dichotomy, i did not. and, i am offering that if given a manichaean choice, i pick a culture & values over a race. i also do not think it is a unpardonable sin for the western peoples to want to remain as they are, religiously, racially and linguistically, just as the various non-white peoples of the world believe in their own self-determination and coherency. myself, i don’t care much about such things, but i know i am not a normal person in many ways.
2) means vs. ends, this is a complicated issue, and whether you find this argument is contingent upon your attitudes in regards to the particular issue and your understanding of the situation on the ground. consider ikram, about 4 years back he expressed the opinion that a uniform civil code, and an assumption of liberal individuality in a western sense, was not viable in india on suman palit’s blog. but, he has also expressed a strong and hard line in regards to liberal individualism in the west. obviously changing location matters for him, circumstances differ.
3) jai, re: the london “riot.” perhaps you know the details, but i have seen enough quotes about “free speech,” even ignoring any violence of lack of, from sikh radicals to get my muslim-dar kicking. i’m not one to make an equivalence between muslim and non-muslim browns, i think repeated national experiences tend to show the latter are somewhat more assimilable…that being said, i was depressed and saddened to see illiberal attitudes among sikhs in england. this matters to me re: religion because a) i’m an atheist, b) like gays, we aren’t liked in large parts of the world (mostly muslim) c) the space that the godless have won in the non-east asian world (east asians have always been OK with godlessness from what i can see) is a relatively new and precious thing to me. of course, the sikhs expressed opinions that many westerners of traditional religious opinions ahve expressed, but, to me, a good immigration policy reinforces a liberal society, rather than enforces the status quo (or, in the case of muslims, tends to destabilize and threaten and already fragile order).
4) as for european barbarity, i think that that barbarity is a function of tools, and not particular nefariousness. europeans took the slave trade to new heights, but they also abolished it. i would rather be a pauper on the streets of an american city than a lord in dhaka, that is the simple truth that expresses my reality. perhaps i am on the only one here, surely there are many on these boards that sometimes express triumphalism of india, etc. to each his own.
Ennis writes:
Can we do without the snide accusations? It does not behoove you…
I don’t have a problem with Sikhs who choose to wear turbans. However, Sikhs cannot demand to follow their culture at the expense of breaking laws that are made for everyone in the land. If France makes a law saying no headgear allowed for Sikhs (but allows it for Arabs), then I would oppose it tooth and nail. If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that’s common to everyone – regardless of race, religion etc.
In America, Hindu temples have been told by the local Fire Departments that there should be no smoke generated indoors due to any religious activity. Which means no havans, no agarbattis, not even diyas in some cases. Are Hindus whining and snivelling about it? No. Do you see lawsuits or cries of religious discrimination against them? No. They understand that even churches and mosques come under the same Fire Department codes. But due to the nature of religious practice, Hindus are affected more so than the others. And yet we accept it.
Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak out of any Sikh when the King was in India a few weeks ago for Republic Day.
M. Nam
If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that’s common to everyone – regardless of race, religion etc.
Cute!
The ban on headgear is not overtly discriminatory but an example of insidious discrimination because no ethnic French citizens will be adversely affected by the ban. If ethnic french citizens were adversely affected, you might have a point. But when all headgear is banned and the only people around with permanent headgear are the Sikhs, it sure reeks of discrimination and bigotry.
ethnic French citizens
what do you mean by ethnic french? eg., “root french,” or inclusive of all the descendents of the europeans who immigrated in the 19th century? anyway, the sikhs should really bitch at god, because it seems that muslims were made to cause trouble for them. the french don’t give a shit about sikhs, they are just trying to smother a culture of radicalism and separatism which uses the hijab as a social identifier. true, there are issues regarding individual expression, but the consequences can be as liberating as allowing raiders starter jackets in an american school riven by gang tension.
Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak out of any Sikh when the King was in India a few weeks ago for Republic Day.
western nations are held to a higher standard.
Moornam Saudis are wackos. The French are more reasonable than saudis. Indian Government has no leverage with saudi arabia. There is a some leverage with the french. It would not hurt to see if they can make some concession.
If people are given a choice of living in 2 countries only, France/Saudi Arabia. Most people will chose france. It is b/c one society is more reasonable.
This is why it makes some sense to see if the french will accomodate them I agree that the number is too small for the french to really worry about. and indians have to appriciate that the french are fighting another social battle. Their society went through a huge transformation following WWII, from 90% of population being religious to 10% and now face a large number of immigrants whome are religious and belong to another culture. The sikh immigrants have to weigh that aspect too here. Which France did they(or their parents) wanted to emigrate too.
I do see your point on no protests in india regarding saudi arabias king being the guest of honor on republic day parade. Hell few years before that it was iran. If we are going to celebrate democracy and constitution lets bring in countries which are democratic on such days! And why the likes of arundhati,communists,bjp,akalis did not make a big dead about that is not known to me.
Saudis have caused more trouble for india by funding madarsas, pumping up pakistans airforce(check out who flies saudi arabian airforce’s plane)
Their society went through a huge transformation following WWII, from 90% of population being religious to 10% and now face a large number of immigrants whome are religious and belong to another culture.
before we forget, the french have not been a highly religious culture, especially at the elite levels, since the mid 19th century. in fact, the influx of religous catholics from spain, italy and poland in the 19th were a cause of concern for secular root french of that day. france is a country of immigration, and has swallowed and emulsified several waves of people. the problem with sikhism as ennis chooses to identify it is that its strong bent toward orthopraxy, a particular set of markers, is that the french state puts forward the orthopraxy of laicism which direct conflict with a variety of other praxies…the idea that the french state is particularly biased against islam or sikhism is false, the french state has smashed catholicism, and the revolutionaries were wont to say that “to the jews as individuals everything, as a people nothing.” that isn’t american liberalism, but it is a liberalism of a sort.
MoorNam wrote: If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that’s common to everyone – regardless of race, religion etc
A law that applies equally to everyone is not necessarily an equal law. The Canadian gvt could pass a law providing gvt services in English only to all Canadians. But that would not be providing equal treatment to the 5 million unilingual french speakers.
A law taxing skirts only could apply equally to men and women buying skirts, but its burden would not fall equally. (Unless you count a Lungi as a skirt. I think I’d support a ban on lungis for aesthetic reasons only).
A law banning headgear in schools does not hamper Catholics or Protestants. It affects some Muslim women, but can be accomodated. It hits Sikh men hard. Equal law, unequal application. Sometimes that’s OK, but only if there is a strong public interest behind the law. I don’t understand the principle of laicite behind the French law, but I freely admit I don’t understand France one bit.
Moornam also wrote:
Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak
Ah. The ‘look over there’ argument. If you do not spend your life denouncing every bad thing in the world, you have no right to denounce any bad thing.
More seriously, there is actually a good reason for having different approaches in different situtations (Razib — who the Hell remembers the crap comments they wrote on blogs four years ago! Still, you’re right.).
For example, Multani (the Sikh Kirpan kid in Quebec) was prohibited from going to a public English school only because his parents are immigrants. It’s part of Quebec’s illiberal language laws — laws I have no problem with.
What’s the difference? Over the past 30 years, the language laws have been extensively debated and modified to limit the damage, while still achieving the goal of protecting the French language. Quebeckers are aware the law is illiberal, they’ve specifically exempted it from the purview of the constitution.
Case by case — what a mess. But that’s the only way to go.
(Another example of accomodations for Sikhs. The International boxing authorities demand boxers have no beards for health reasons. But they allow mustaches and sideburns. The Canadian boxing federation refused to make an exception for Sikhs. Canadian Sikh Boxer Pardeep Nagra went to court. With the support of the Canadian gvt, he won an exception for Sikh beards, and was able to box. Thoughts?)
For what its worth, I did display my disgust at Saudi-Arabian Monarch being invited to India , here but then I am not a Sikh and most of my posts are rants (written in bad english 🙂 )
who the Hell remembers the crap comments they wrote on blogs four years ago!
i do. i’m a bitch for finding inconsistencies. for example, you got mad at “duende” on my blog in 2003 for posting something about how all muslims need to take responsibility for the actions of some muslims. then later that year i recall you posting something how americans needed to take responsibility for what the american gov. did in the past, even if their ancestors weren’t there when the deed was done. the inconsistency is minor, and to some extent islam:american citizenship are not analogous since the latter is must more legally structured, but i think the principle does work to illustrate a contradiction, and i do think americans (like i) need to accept the good and the bad with the corporate identification with the american state. similarly, if you call yourself a muslim, i do think that you need to accept that you can’t disavow people willy-nilly, unless you want to totally fall into nominalism and reject any group recognition in the face of the state (which i would favor, but most muslims seem to what some recognition that confers upon them legitimacy). this is why i firmly reject the label muslim when people try to pin it on me because of my origin.
in any case, everyone is filled with inconsistencies and assumptions. most stupid flame wars erupt over assumptions unstated. but another problem is that some people are just really dumb, and unfortunately now that SM has 10,000 uniques per day we are dipping into the lower half of the IQ pool now & then….
and by the lower part of the IQ distribution, i am mean there are people who sometimes express opinions to me that seem merely an inversion of the eurocentric paradigms they decry. but they can’t even conceive of that reality because they are totally unaware of the slimness of their data set.
Moor Nam – just very briefly – the French do allow crucifixes even though their law is against religious symbols. For crucifixes, the ban extends only to “large ones”
And who told you that there are no havans in America?
Again, tersely. There are two issues that arise here. The first is whether the law is neutral on its face, i.e. whether it applies to all groups. The answer is no.
Christian schoolchildren are prohibited from wearing crucifixes of a “manifestly excessive dimension,” not all crucifixes. Similarly, secular scarves aren’t banned, only religious ones.
Secondly, it isn’t neutral its application. The areas chosen are areas where majority religions do not have a stake. If they really wanted to ban religious symbols, they could ban wedding rings in the classroom, since these have a Christian origin. They do not. Instead, they choose things which are unlikely to offend the majority, but which offend the minority.
An example of a law which is neutral on its face but not in its application would be a law that says that you have to work 7 days a week. This would be neutral on its face – applied to everybody – but clearly designed to target those religions which keep the sabbath.
As for Saudi Arabia, it doesn’t claim to be a liberal democracy like France does, so I have lower expectations. The French are hypocrites, despite the differences between Laicite and Anglo-Saxon Freedom of Conscience.
From The Economist on the subject of the head covering ban for school children:
“For what its worth, I did display my disgust at Saudi-Arabian Monarch being invited to India , here but then I am not a Sikh and most of my posts are rants (written in bad english 🙂 )”
there was muted grumbling by some, but not from the communists or leftists, in India over the fact that the Saudi King would not be visiting Gandhi’s samadhi because it allegedly violated his religious beliefs. not that I think every foreign head of state who visits India should be obliged to visit Gandhi’s samadhi, but imagine if Bush had given the same reason? those protests would have been even louder. as it is they protested his visiting Gandhi’s samadhi, so i guess he would have lost either way.
with regard to the Sikh turban controversy, it’s not surprising that the indian government hasn’t said anything – whether it should is another matter altogether. when the russian orthodox church leader recently said Lord Krishna was an evil demon because he opposes an ISKON temple in Moscow, the Indian government kept quiet. that’s fine. when shown evidence of widespread discrimination against Hindus in neighboring countries, the government kept quiet. ok. but when the danish cartoon controversy broke out the indian government saw fit to complain to the danish government and basically urged them to apologize and ensure that no other Danish newspapers print such offensive cartoons. so not sure why the Manmohan Singh government has chosen to remain quiet over the turban issue.
“in India over the fact that the Saudi King would not be visiting Gandhi’s samadhi because it allegedly violated his religious beliefs”
Whose God is it anyways,
RC did complain on SM, I think I remember. I read the news through his link.
I can attest to that. The temple my family atteneded allways held an outdoor havan b/c of fire/smoke regulation.
“RC did complain on SM, I think I remember. I read the news through his link.”
hi Kush, i guess i didn’t express myself properly. i meant there wasn’t any real groundswell of criticism over the Saudi King’s decision. not that i think there should have been, that’s his personal religious belief. however, i do think that if Bush or any other leader not so popular with a certain section of India’s population had decided to do the same, the outcry would have been a lot louder.
Because they are secular govt. :-)) (Sorry, couldnt resist)
what do you mean by ethnic french? eg., “root french,” or inclusive of all the descendents of the europeans who immigrated in the 19th century?
I meant the latter.
Ennis: Are you a lawyer/went to Law School?
Ikram
Man….What is up with all the hostility towards the Lungi???? Cant we all (Lungi-ed and non Lungi-ed) just get along????
Razib makes points that most people will agree with in the mainstream of all of the ‘savage people’ living in the West. About the need for adjustment and compromise.
The point when he dissapears with his brown face up his brown ass is when he ascribes to entire communities the attributes of a minority. From his extrapolation of the disturbances at the Birmingham Rep to a conclusion that Sikhs in Britain are a cancerous threat to civilisation it is a plain sail to the rhetoric of the extreme right. As well as being a cancerous lie. In fact, the same arguments are made time and time again by people against Muslims (for obvious reasons), Jamaicans for the gang culture, riots and drive by shootings, Africans for isolated cases of child abuse, Jews and others for various reasons. For twenty years whilst the IRA were bombing across the mainland the Irish were the scum of the Earth to be expunged and expelled (a common racist trope of the English this hatred for the savage Irish)
Abberations in a general narrative of prickly co-existence, manageable, fixable? Nope – Razib has spoken – and the hordes of barbarians are breaching the walls of Rome!
I cannot for the life of me figure out why a turban would prevent a Sikh from being misidentified on his drivers licence. Can anyone explain to me? It is not covering his face, and if he needs to show the licence whilst he is driving he will be wearing a turban, and if identifying is by facial perspective, what is the problem? It just doesnt make sense to me.
I’m know your question is rhetorical Anand. This notion of turbans being a security threat smells of cartloads of steaming um, xenophobia and the need for ensuring docility and humility amongst France’s feared brown citizens.
As for Razib’s charming take on the immigrant/racial minority/barbarians at the gates issue – after I scraped my jaw off the floor that he can keep going with it for so long I realise that there’s really nothing more I want to say to engage those opinions. And then I start to wonder, after reading so many of these posts, how much of a dialogue is ever being reached. The lefties keep preaching to the converted about injustice and inequality and hegemonic systems and the
rightwingnutjobspeople on the right will continue to hi-five each other on racial profiling and societies which are determined to be kept as pure as the driven snow.brownfrown
The trouble I have with Razib style rhetoric is this – it throws the baby out with the bath water. It condemns totality for incidences and problems within, even when recurrent, do not represent the fullness of a people. It stigmatises individuals with the mark of irremediable problem. It dissuades reformers and liberals from within by marking them with the sign of the devil. It destroys nuance and understanding and places minorities inside a rhetoric of disease and threat.
In the UK this narrative has applied to people of all racial and religious minorities. Not just brown or black minorities – Jews and Irish too. The Irish analogy works well – millions of people of Irish descent live in the UK. But for thirty years Irish terrorists were bombing and killing and maiming thousands of people in Britain through the Republican campaign. There were supporters and apologists for this inside the Irish community in Britain. But most of them were horrified and sickened by that violence. They were stereotyped and in some cases persecuted.
I have too many memories and knowledge of the Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jamaican and Irish communities to accept this barbarian-totality narrative. It brutalises and denies people the space to dissent from within. You are not going to help the majority to reform their communities from within when you mark them as scum to begin with.
And those who gloat because their own community has not been given this attibute yet beware, it can happen to you too. That is a good point Al Mujahid makes above.
Well put, Anand. To step off my angry race-issues soapbox for a second, and to state what I thought was the obvious; it really is a disservice to everyone concerned to essentialise communities and start atributing certain “characteristics” to them. Not only do these stereotypes all-to-often become part of the dominant rhetoric, but it often serves to silence or stifle voices of dissent and heterogeniety amongst and within communities. And after a while, if you keep accusing people of being a certain way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social constructs, discourses and “false consciousness” are all an important part of “identity” formation after all. As is resentment and oppression. So West or Rest, this constant harping on about crazy “immigrants”, especially in the context of current massive global demographic shifts (I’m not even touching the ethical issues involved) is really an assbackwards way of going about things.
brownfrown
The most insidious aspect of this ass backwardness (great phrase!) essentialising is the aspect you describe – the devilry made and cutting away of the ground beneath the feet of individuals within minority communities. Let me give you an example from the UK and the personal experience of one of my friends.
In the UK the exam pass rate for black boys of Jamaican descent at school is the worst out of all ethnicities. This is a problem that various black thinkers, academics, journalists have begun to address in community media, forums etc. They do so at risk of being called an ‘Uncle Tom’ for suggesting that reasons other than racism by the majority white community might be to blame for this, especially in light of black girls of similar age performing well. When arguments are made by some outside the community that black boys are incapable of achieving academic success and are pre-destined for a life of low employment levels and criminality, and that this is a predisposed attribute, irremediable, you basically stab in the back those black intellectuals and activists who are starting to get to grips with the complex issues involved here. Their agenda is compromised and they are stigmatised because the Uncle Tomists who stick their heads in the sand have ammunition and armour to beat the reformers with.
I see the same dynamic with people inside all desi communities in the UK. Most of all it annoys me because it seems so self evident to me that a simple appreciation of the rhetoric and underlying attitude is plain and obvious that this is so. Why can’t it be appreciated? Rather than engaging and helping, you transform it into something else, and use it as a stick to beat entire peoples with.
It’s a no-brainer. And it comes across as so CRASS to think like that.
word up!
it like half the problems (scientifically its been judged to be exactly half) come from making ass-u-m-ptions. Maybe not on grand social scales, but interpersonally most of the drama we get from people around us if from judgementalisms
If religon is so important with muslims with their head scarves, jews with their skull caps and sikhs with turbans its better to stay in your own country…