The Indian presence at yesterday’s Bastille Day events in Paris commemorated the sacrifices of Indian soldiers who fought and died in World War I and symbolized the current economic, military and political ties between the two nations. But the images of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as chief guest and the Indian troops who marched in the annual military parade, including a group pictured to the right led by a Sikh officer, also brought to mind the French law that continues to keep Sikhs out of public schools and prevents them from getting drivers licenses or serving in the military or public office.
Overlooked back in 2004 when France enacted the so-called French headscarf ban forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols in state schools or government offices, the tiny Sikh community of France has been fighting the law in and out of the courts since then (previous SM coverage). The French President encapsulated his government’s official and unnuanced position on Sikhs in France following last fall’s European Union/India Summit in Marseille. An annoyed Sarkozy, standing next to Prime Minister Singh at the time, took a reporter’s question about Sikhs wearing turbans in France.
Sarkozy, replied curtly, “Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France.” Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, “But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don’t apply only to Sikhs…
Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, “These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever.” (New Europe)
It seems unlikely that Sikhs in France will have much luck in their efforts given more recent developments that could broaden the reach of the 2004 ban. Last month Sarkozy spoke out to support a ban of the burqa, the full-body garment worn by an estimated 100,000 Muslim women born in France (Telegraph). In public comments he said “it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” and that the burqa “is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” (Reuters)
Kamran Pasha, a screenwriter and novelist who writes about Islam recently returned from a week in France and he offers another perspective on the proposed ban.
my own experience in that beautiful country (I lived in Paris for several months in 2007) leads me to believe that the controversy over the burqa is not really about women’s rights. It is about preserving a certain cultural heritage from the onslaught of foreign values and perspectives. The burqa controversy is really about attempting to save a beleaguered French identity from being replaced by a new and alien social tradition that is spreading through the power of demographics. But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one’s hands. (Lifting the Veil)
Given what seems to be another sort of Bastille Day tradition in recent years — riots and destruction in the nation’s suburban estates like those spurred this year by the death of a young Algerian man in police custody, and evidence of employment discrimination against ethnic minorities in France, I agree with Pasha that there is more at play than the stated and maybe more publicly palatable concerns for women’s rights. The desire to prevent changes to French identity and demographics seem the more likely motivations for the 2004 law and the proposed burqa ban.
But fixating on conspicuous religious symbols like the turban or burqa does not feel like an effective way to preserve French traditions and identity, especially when it keeps people out of state schools or other public institutions — just the kind of places where I imagine they have opportunities to study and participate in the culture and traditions that are part of a nation’s heritage.
Similarly, in countries where everyone wears burqa and no bikini, immigrants should be expected to conform as well.
expected??? 🙂 i don’t think it’s quite so polite….
in terms of dress, a lot of it is fashion. consider how relatively modest dress became in europe during the victorian period. toplessness was actually somewhat fashionable in 18th century europe among aristocratic women (their breasts were pert because they had wetnurses). OTOH, covering up of the face or isolation of women in purdah is qualitatively different. humans have an innate ability to recognize and read faces, and if you cover your face you’re losing a lot of important information.
Not to mention the expressive ability of hair, which is why headscarves must be banned 🙂
In addition, armpit and pubic hair must be liberated from the shackles of fascist oppression.They can be pretty expressive too.
‘Elite-Irony’ to ‘no_not_really’: “You’re making a laughing stock of yourself trying to defend the patently indefensible. Your point is indeed mute”
This seems an unnecessarily rude response to someone who is making reasoned points, has not engaged in any ad hominem attacks, and who I feel is commenting quite eloquently on a complex issue.
I just have two points:
First, one issue is whether “non-conspicuous” Christian symbols are allowed whereas all Muslim symbols are banned. I do not know the French law, but if it is the case that conspicuousness is the criterion, then this should obviously be applied equally.
Second, I don’t think enough has been made of the fact that this law is partly in existence to protect the rights of the non-religious. If Sikhs can wear a turban, why can’t scientologists wear a dianetics machine taped to their chest? Why can’t self-declared Jedis (of whom there are many, according to the British census…) carry a lightsaber into government offices? Why can’t I create my own belief system that requires me to wear speedos every day, and nothing more? These facetious examples aside, my point is that assigning privileges, no matter how small, to religious groups of any kind is to say that people whose belief systems involve elements of the so-called ‘divine’ require special rights. Those who don’t believe in God don’t get those rights. Any attempt to discern between ‘proper’ religious and made-up ones (like scientology) is simply state-sponsored theology, which the French of all people would like to avoid (as all countries should) for all the reasons above. In seeing to ensure all have equal rights in the public sphere (schools, government) I agree that certain small gestures that seem reasonable may have to be forbidden by the law, but there is no other way – having a “modesty” criterion (i.e. small, modest tokens are allowed) is always going to leave charges of discrimination, since some religious are OK with that and others aren’t. That is their hard luck, in my opinion, since the non-religious are not accorded the right to display whatever tokens they feel best represents their belief system.
In all of this, I would stress that I do not wish to denigrate any particular religious belief or belief system. I just think liberal democratic politics is not in a position to make special concessions to religious groups or any groups at all (this brings to mind the Abbe Sieyes’ comments about privileges and the etymology of the word).
You are so funny. May I call you Razzy? It’s called decolletage not topless. Maybe you define it as topless. Vive la wetnurses!
What was also fashionable in 18th century Europe (France mostly) – wet dresses. Josephine Bonaparte liked to wear her empire-waisted muslin gowns wet so that it would cling to her body – just as you’d see it on the Greek women in Classical art. Vive la wet t-shirt!
And honestly with half the women around me wearing burquas, guess who just became the cutest girl in the room?! Vive la bess!
All this talk about a non-pluralistic society is such a distraction from the main issue: Should following religion and public displays thereof be encouraged (or allowed) in this-here-day-and-age? If one starts with a more reasonable POV — i.e. religions are merely mass superstitions, then not giving them state approval is perfectly valid. (Of course such diminished status should be accorded all forms of religion, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian etc. BUT EVEN IF THIS ISN’T THE CASE, LET’S START ELIMINATING MASS HYSTERIA/SUPERSTITION SOMEWHERE, DAMMIT!) Who really cares if a religious minority feels oppressed by unravelling their turbans? It’s a trifling matter — far less significant than the oppression I feel at not being allowed to pee in public with a full bladder — I mean, that could have medical consequences. The writer’s statements that Sikhs are banned from public schools is ludicrous. They aren’t banned, their love for turbans is banned. Too bad, so sad.
Two things —
About half the niqabis quoted in the French press (that I have read) are native born white Frenchwomen. The remainder are descendents of immigrants from secular, educated North Africa. France doesn’t have many Saudi or Pathan immigrants bringing the Burka tradition from “home”. For these niqabi Frenchwomen, the Burka is French idea.
Similar things happened among the Sikh community in Canada in the 70s and 80s. Talwinder Singh Parmer arrived in Canada a mild-mannered social worker. He left as a leader of the Babbar Khalsa and a Khalistani terrorist. He didn’t “bring” his terrorism with him — he acquired it while living in Vancouver
Second, context does matter. France doesn’t have “50%” of women wearing burkas. If it did, a ban may make sense. It has a handful. A smart policy response is proportional to the issue being addressed. See the recent Canadian controversy about the possibility of (fully-veiled) niqabi’s voting — never mind that Elections Canada and elections Quebec had no record, or memory, of such a thing occurring.
And Razib, I think it may be time to revive your Sepia Mutiny epithet.
Lavina wrote: far less significant than the oppression I feel at not being allowed to pee in public with a full bladder
Another person who needs to become more familiar with France. Google “le pissoir”.
Yes women sometimes do it too. France really is amazing.
Maybe it’s high time atheists start protest movements against governments on how their religious rights are trampled upon and how they are oppressed by too much God talk. 🙂
A famous British writer who lived among Arabs and Bedouins in the 19th century, took note of differences between those tribes whose women veiled and those whose women did not veil their faces. He thought the veiled ones were of more “questionable” virtue than those who went unveiled. The men in the unveiled tribes were always delighted to hear the Englishman talk of the “immorality” of those other tribes. They seemed to have had a real rivalry going on. As the British traveler seemed to have little interest in women except to sometimes help them with what he thought was more work than enough, one wonders how he came to these conclusions.
Regarding modesty: in Europe, bodices went up and down, giving rise to the popularity of bodice-ripper paperbacks in the 20th century, long after bodices were out of style altogether. What did not change was skirt length. Wet nurses or not, breasts were functional and most men had seen their share growing up. While nice breasts were admired, they only became a purely sexual attraction in the 20th century. It’s really kind of sick. From ancient times to about 1915-20, women wore skirts to their ankles or longer. Not just in Europe, but almost everywhere in the world where a tunic or skirt type of garment was worn, women wore them covering the legs. Can you imagine a knee-length sari? Shudder. Shah Nazir’din of Persia was so impressed with the short skirts worn by ballet dancers during a performance in Paris, that he offered to buy the entire troop, with the ladies still in the tutus. This was declined so he went home and dressed his entire harem in Persianized tutus. The style caught on throughout the land and you can see old engravings of Persian women in the late 1800s wearing traditional nunlike headscarves and skirts that barely cover the knees, stiffened with crinoline. Short skirts were a gradual innovation, starting with children around 1800, and finally adults, circa 1920. Before the mid-1600s, even arms were not usually exposed.
Notions of modesty are culture based and change gradually. Sometimes it’s just style. One anthropologist I read thought that everybody needed at least a g-string to feel dressed. Absolute nudity is a drag. So in the end, while I believe in assimilation of dress, I think it is behavior at a more important level that makes people welcome or unwelcome. Indians in the country I was visiting did not have a bad reputation at all and I experienced no sense of aversion, but most people I met had known mainly educated Hindus, Bahais, Jains and Parsees for some reason. I was surprised they could make such distinctions, but they seemed to be aware of them.
If a ban is implemented after 50% women wearing burkhas, it wouldn’t make sense. It’ll lead to civil war. sj@104 makes good points. The argument in support of wearing conspicuous burkhas/turbans/knives cannot be made in terms of “religious people can wear whatever their religion demands”. If at all one wishes to support this, it can only be argued that people can wear whatever they please. In a secular republic, religious people will not have any special rights as opposed to the non-religious. Now, how many people are ok with wearing whatever they want in the public??
It’s inevitable that there would be certain norms in each country according to its culture and history. It’s only natural that the tax-payer supported institutions are expected to follow those norms. The individuals are perfectly free to not join such institutions if they do not want to conform to those norms.
sj
thanks for your eloquent response.
A French Person.
I think that is almost the right question, but not quite — by “public” we don’t mean on the street, but situations in which one is representing the state or acting in a state capacity. In any such situation, public revenue and public mandates are involved. As has been repeatedly pointed out, there is a useful public/private distinction well-established in liberal political thought. The general rights to freedom of speech, expression and thought include religious speech, expression and thought just as much as they include other sorts of beliefs and preferences. But – to draw in the American case – just as it wouldn’t be appropriate for the head of state to presage all public statements with a Christian prayer, or for post office officials to wear placards around their neck with bible verses, it is not appropriate for Frenchmen and women to act analogously in their public sphere (I acknowledge that defining “public” is very hard, and my argument might even flounder on that point).
Interestingly, I’m reading Samuel Huntington’s “Who Are We?” right now, and it makes the case that America’s national identity is and always has been “Anglo-Protestant”, that it is possible to adhere to and assimilate with such an identity regardless of race, ethnicity, ideology and even religion. I don’t agree with its thesis, and this shows that there are anti-multiculturalists (who I don’t think are racist or stupid, just conservative) who are pole away from these sorts of questions. This is why it is annoying when avowed liberals will get lumped in as racists or bigots for holding slightly odd positions about the acceptability of religious symbolism in the public domain – they are better and more committed defenders or minorities than the nativists. As for whether the French position is anti-multiculturalist itself, well I just can’t agree — they are pushing religious expression (and here, I include expressions of atheism) into the private sphere such that no one religion or small set of religions is given undue influence.
There are some practical realities that also govern the opposition to long hair, turbans and beards in the modern US military. Both the Afghan and Iraq wars have shown that head trauma to soldiers is an increasing problem, from snipers,IED concussions and shrapnel. Also almost all soldiers have night vision gear, cameras and other additional electronic warfare support equipment attached to their helmets via standardized interfaces. And the helmet itself is designed to be a close fitting head covering to provide the maximum protection against sound, shrapnel and gunfire. In addition soldiers increasingly have to wear CBRN protective breathing equipment and masks in areas where hazardous chemicals are in the environment, designed to fit closely over the face. To quote examples of how bravely Sikhs fought in WWII, when pretty much all a soldier wore was a simple helmet and carried a rifle is not a valid comparision. And to make special helmets and protective gear for people with turbans would be cost prohibitive and impractical when you are supplying equipment standardized to meet the majority of soldiers. Making exceptions like this would only serve to endanger missions and raise the casualty rate.
The Sikh tradition of wearing the turban with the kesh should compared with practices in other traditions such as the hijab or yarmulke. I hope that Sikh friends on this site will pardon me for any offence I may cause from ignorance, for there is no intent to do so. While the kesh may be the most important of the 5 Ks for a Sikh, the Gurus (and almost every Sikh I have ever known) have ever ruled anyone as beynd the fold for not observing the 5 Ks or even subscribing to a different faith. Beyond observing the maryada of a Gurdwara – keeping one’s head covered, contributing one’s share to the upkeep of the gurdwara, behaving with decorum and solemneity – one isn’t required to do anything else. Right conduct, the oneness of humanity, kindness, compassion, courage, honesty, and justice is all that every Guru has emphasised. Simple as this may seem, it is very difficult and requires discipline. It is profound because it is lofty while being within reach. Yes it is said that we must keep our hair unshorn, to be complete as we have been born, keep it clean, unlike an indecorous renunciate. But has that ever meant that one who is shorn will not be allowed into a Gurdwara, cannt read the Granth or sing the Gurbani, or is condemened forever? Never. It is true that in the past terrorists have tried to impose a dress code on Sikhs in the troubled days of the past. But this is in no way different from the actions of Ram Sene goons in Mangalore beating up women at a bar, or the Majlis in Hyderabad manhandling Taslima Nasreen.
Now in the real world, Sikhs do wear a helmet when it is necessary. NS Sidhu, BS Sandhu, Maninder Singh, Harbhajan Singh – have all worn a helmet. Sikh aviators in the Indian armed forces as a rule wear helmets and others who work with special forces keep their hair trimmed or are clean shaven. Some Sikhs in the Indian Navy keep a beard (as is the naval custom) but keep their hair short, wearing the turban only for ceremonial occasions. And of course not to forget the Sikh who played in the Canadian Football League who always wears a helmet!
and that the burqa “is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.â€
A couple of issues:
I am sure (I hope) most people will agree with me that any law which tramples on the sincerely held religious beliefs of people should be narrowly tailored and should be in defense of a very important and compelling government objective. This Napoleansque pronouncement by Sarkozy is pure and simple grand standing. – He starts with a priori that the burqa is a sign of the subjugation of French women and so the French government should ban the burqa to prevent the subjugation of women. How do we know that? Is he quoting some study on the impact of Burqa on Burqa wearing French women. Is there a commission which has held hearings and heard from sociologists, shrinks, mental health workers on the impact of Burqa on French women? What is the profile of the Buraq wearing French women? Are they mostly on government rolls? With graduate degrees? Maybe the Burqa is making them more productive, more educated? – If we do find out that the Burqa is in fact causing mental health or other problems in French women, is outright banning it from French soil the most effective solution and narrowly tailored solution? What about other activities which have a similar impact? Are they all going to be banned? What compelling government interest is being addressed and promoted? – Can the subjugation be addressed without this across the board trampling on religious liberties ban? How about maybe criminalizing the men/family who force the women to wear Buraq? Is forcing of Burqa common in France? How about maybe disallowing the adonement of Burqa in public servants instead of every square inch of France? – What’s the magnitude of the problem. Is the Burqa wearing population increasing? Some reports suggest that the total number of women who wear Burqa is less than 0.1 % of the French population.
Of course we will never find any answers to the above. Sarkozy will set up a commission and the commission will be similar to the farcical commission set up to study the impact of hijab a few years back where scholars and experts who disagreed with the Hijab ban were never called in to testify.
Sort of makes me glad we have the First Amendment. A Reminder: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
To 116, I think you make some good points, especially on the desire for evidence-based policy. But I have a question: should “religious beliefs” be accorded any more respect, tolerance, and legal protection than any other kind of belief? Does it make a difference that they are “sincerely held”?
Citing the First Amendment is not going to do much for the intellectual case, since “free exercise” can be interpreted however one likes. If enacted in post-independence India, such an amendment could have been used to block the outlawing of caste-distinctions on the basis that it would prohibit the enactment of provisions for the “Dharma of the Four Social Classes” in the Laws of Manu (I use this just as an example). An early supreme court case on the free exercise clause said that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices”, and I think that applies here (the case was from 1878, so I’m not endorsing the generally bizarre legal reasoning that went on at that time).
Citing the First Amendment is not going to do much for the intellectual case, since “free exercise” can be interpreted however one likes. If enacted in post-independence India, such an amendment could have been used to block the outlawing of caste-distinctions on the basis that it would prohibit the enactment of provisions for the “Dharma of the Four Social Classes” in the Laws of Manu (I use this just as an example).
If India had the First Amendment, the proponents of outlawing caste-distinction based discrimination would cite to the important government objective of protecting the civil rights of the lower caste people in India. I would imagine that those people would of course have to first establish that there is discrimination against lower caste people, that the discrimination does hurt the lower caste people, that outlawing it can fix the problem etc. Unfortunately, in France none of that will be done as they march down to ban the Burqa.
As a side issue, how exactly are caste based distinctions outlawed in India. The lower caste people get reservation so the distinctions are recognized by the Government. I would imagine that the part which was outlawed was probably the caste based discrimination by private and state actors in employment, public access and housing areas etc. To have an opinion which accords a lower status to a lower caste person is probably not illegal in India.
If the rule is simply to keep the head covered why not simply wear a helmet in lieu of a turban?
And it shouldn’t be. Maybe it’s the contrarian in me, but I have always been more easily persuaded by arguments as to why something is the right thing to do rather than “It’s the law! Do it or I will punish you!”
Threats like that just make me inclined to disobey.
Also, IMO, the evolution and interpretation of laws relating to the free exercise of religion in the US have traditionally been very Christian normative. So not all religions are accorded the same deference. For example, what constitutes a compelling state objective versus a fringe religious practice will be different in a Christian majority nation like the US as compared to Japan or Iran.
That of course is changing now and that is why we are seeing a lot of problems with Sikhs and especially Muslims in the US. Check out this new Oregon law: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/07/school_exemption_in_religious.html
You’re right, I was imprecise there.
Actually, I don’t think this properly engages with my case. What I am saying is that allowing the display of religious symbols on the basis that they are religious symbols that ought to be accorded respect is, ipso facto, “discrimination” against those who hold beliefs not predicated on the divine. The harm lies in the privilege accorded. I would note that I am not using Sarkozy’s case here, which is about “subjugation”. I agree wholeheartedly that he and others ought to consider with open-mind what does and does not constitute subjugation. But they ought to do this without unduly “respecting” i.e. privileging religious belief over non-religious belief.
I agree. But my point was that, if I am in a country where all or most of the women wear head scarves, I would do the same, if required, to fit in. Most likely I would not even go to such a country in the first place, but if I somehow ended up there for a short period of time, in order to assimilate, I would conform as closely in mannners of dress that I could. And if that meant covering my entire face, then yes, perhaps I would even do that. Though as far as I’m aware, there is no country where most of the women are doing that, not even Afghanistan.
Yoga Fire # 119 – “If the rule is simply to keep the head covered why not simply wear a helmet in lieu of a turban? “
Great point. Or, why not wear a cap, which numerous Sikhs do in the west, so as not to stand out. Also, in India many Sikhs, particularly those engaged in blue collar work, go around sans any head covering, with their long hair, either tied with a rubber band or just tied into a bun on the top of their head.
I have been reading a lot of editorials on the enquiry into the banning of the burqa, and almost all of the editorials relay this sentiment. However, many of the Muslim women at issue are from former colonies of France and I cannot help but wonder, in some way, that this is some sort of uncanny “punishment” for a republic that was formerly a coloniser. This quote from Kamran Pasha could just as easily have been applied to colonial times when France conquered those lands.
I think it’s interesting when you compare the concepts of freedom of religion in the US vs those in France – the former allows religious symbols on the basis that no religion should be deemed lesser or greater than any other, while the latter believes that, truly, religion has no place in government. I don’t know which is worse, esp. given the professed separation of church and state in the US and the fact that it is not, actually, practised.
What are you, the fashion police? It’s not about how you feel, its about their right to freedom of expression.
because it is not accepted here. if people stopped getting in a tizzy about head coverings etc the customs would actually dissipate. the more you want me to change, the less i will want to compromise. it is paradoxical actually. i sort of support it but full-fledged burqas make me uneasy. and then there was this case locally where a lady who was sexually assualted wanted the right to wear afull-niqab before going in court to face the thug. i sort of support it, but it’s such a fine balance my hed hurts.
aside on religious indoctrination. [segway from ikram’s comment on parmer]. in grad school i had this fellow student who was sikh, from india. we were chatting. he told me if he didnt get a work visa after the program he’s going to apply under refugee class claiming religious persecution if sent back to india. told me it is common place. well, he got a job but according to him this is fairly common. down the road the story becomes reality for their kids who like to believe that their mercenary parents are noble activist types. nothing wrogn with that – most religious tomes seem to document human traits in miraculous tone and temper. the khoof, just so you know can convert wine into water, but it requires bodily passage.
Khoofi is talking about this case
Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman made the decision after the woman asked to wear the veil while testifying against her alleged assailant and defence counsel contended they needed to see her face to gauge her demeanor on the stand. Niqabs are traditional Muslim veils that cover everything but the eyes.
Justice Weisman said her desire to wear the veil was more a matter of comfort and that the woman’s religious beliefs were not that strong.
The sort of idealized, total disregard for religion that sj posits is academically interesting, but Weisman-style analysis is how policy is made in the real world.
Christopher Caldwell did a bit of work on this topic in 2000 with an Atlantic Monthly article called The Crescent and the Tricolor. At the heart of this article and the problem is France’s idea of citizenship and its Islam policy. At least le khoof may find it interesting.
intersting. but extending the new religious freedom act to schools should be unnecessary. i can’t believe no one has challenged the original law banning religious displays by teachers. i really doubt a conervative/libertarian court would uphold it. maybe justices who practice an extreme form of judicial restraint or those who believe in an expansive establishment clause, but i doubt they are the majority.
plus the original law would have to be neurally applied (otherwise its slam dunk unconstitutional), which means christians would suffer a disparate impact, given they are the majority, so i don’t think that lends credence to the notion “Christian normative” interpretation of the free expression clause.
sounds like o’relly’s “secular progressives” at work again, imposing their values on the rest of us.
that should be neutrally applied, not neurally. though i think any application of it would be anal
Another Gem from the Khoof-ster !!!
YSL wonders about the fashion police:
It is about how you feel. I for one would wonder, today its these tents and they are defensive. Tomorrow, they get vocal, organize and demand that I too walk under a tent and if I don’t have one, share one of theirs. Ugh. Still, I cannot think of a legal way France can ban head scarves. Can I as a non-muslim wear a head scarf in France? And if not, why the hell not. And if yes, then why can’t muslim women.
if women can’t wear tents, what’s preventing men from pitching them?
110: Can you imagine a knee-length sari? Shudder.
actually yes. They are everywhere in rural Maharashtra and further South.
Ah, the specious slippery slope argument. To those who demand that others wear a burka/niqab, I’d say the same thing: It’s not about how you feel, it is about their right to freedom of expression. The nice thing about this credo is that it applies symmetrically — both to the religious and the non-religious.
Typical Imperialist attitude… I will MAKE you be free… And what if a women WANTS to wear a burqa?
And since when is secularism about repressing religious rights? Isn’t that the opposite? I think France has it all backwards… being Secular should mean accepting all religions, allowing those religions control over their own choices, while maintaining a secular set of laws and rights for everyone… common sense laws for everyone..religious beliefs and choices for the people who so choose. If a women chooses to wear a burqa or a headscarf, or a bikini, why can’t we just accept her choice as her own?
I think the reading that France is more interested in preserving it’s own national heritage is a good interpretation of what is really going on here. It’s all that easy for the Christians to comply with the ‘secular’ laws because most of them don’t have any rules regarding their outward appearance. I wonder if they go around peaking down people’s shirts to make sure they are not wearing a cross?
“The religious experience should not afftect one’s ability to have friends and be socially accepted. As it turns out, you know as well as I do that as soon as you provide some excuse for “clics” in an environment with kids you are likely to bias their entire learning experience. You may want to call it bigotry, we mostly differ on that point.”
Why is it the argument is… you need to have friends so stop looking different already! How about we educate our children about different religions and cultures in the world so they can UNDERSTAND each other and base acceptance on that, rather than trying to make everyone assimilate to one idea of normative dress?
One Love: “People can practice their religion and still conform in manners of dress style to the “host culture” if you will. What’s wrong with that? I do it. Why can’t they?”
Do you do it because you choose to, or because you are forced to?
“Still, I cannot think of a legal way France can ban head scarves. Can I as a non-muslim wear a head scarf in France? And if not, why the hell not. And if yes, then why can’t muslim women.”
Maybe if the woman wears a sign that says “I am wearing this headscarf for fashion only and not for religious purposes” then she can wear it… 🙂
ak “I think it’s interesting when you compare the concepts of freedom of religion in the US vs those in France – the former allows religious symbols on the basis that no religion should be deemed lesser or greater than any other, while the latter believes that, truly, religion has no place in government. I don’t know which is worse, esp. given the professed separation of church and state in the US and the fact that it is not, actually, practised.”
What about India? The largest democracy in the world… it has secular ideals as well. Interesting that I haven’t seen India’s way of dealing with many religions in a large democracy come up in this conversation yet….
One Love: “The fear is not conversion of natives to Islam but influx of Muslim immigrants who are unwilling to assimilate. Then they have babies and raise them in an un-assimilated manner, many of whom grow up to become un-assimlated adults.”
What’s going on here… when did the borg take over?
And yes. I’m a dork.
Yoga on Fire..”If the rule is simply to keep the head covered why not simply wear a helmet in lieu of a turban? “
I suppose it depends on whether there braid fits inside a helmet?
I read somewhere that the whole turban thing in Sikhism is historically rooted in a time when only royalty could wear turbans, and by wearing a turban, they were defying hierarchy and it became their symbol of equality. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the specific symbolism of the turban itself then different from unshorn hair? I thought there were 7 K’s that all meant something… unshorn hair, comb, kirpan, turban, special underpants, the specific bracelet, and I guess I am missing number 7. But I thought each has its own specific meaning?
It is frustrating to re-read the gaping lack of empathy, understanding, and inclusion that drives the French policy. It is not rooted in a concept of secularism, but rather, in the false presumption that a particularly “French” (Christian) aesthetic is politically and religiously neutral, and further, that this image is somehow more valuable, more republican, and more conducive to a multiethnic polity. Neither is this policy rooted in a desire to ensure children have a “neutral” educational experience — this policy is based in conformity and in making life intolerable for its religious minorities. The comments that repeat throughout — that religion is private and thus should not have any physical manifestation — is a normative argument, not a factual argument and not a historical argument. No one has asked France to conform to the religious practices of its less powerful minority communities; instead, it has asked France to uphold principles of freedom of religion, including the free exercise of one’s religious life. This same principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the European Union’s own human rights documents. The language of “don’t move here” is xenophobic and rooted in a very specific, white/Christian idea of who a Frenchman/woman is and who s/he looks like. It ignores a longstanding history of diversity, that while small, has existed throughout French history.
Regarding Manpreet’s comment, I cannot speak for French Sikhs, but the notion that only “fundamentalists” wish to follow their faith is repugnant and ignorant. For some communities, there is no choice between a “religious” life and a “non-religious” life. You cannot be one thing behind closed doors and another thing in public simply because it would make it easier for the mainstream to digest brown-skinned people if they looked more like them.
Sarkozy’s continual refusal to acknowledge that the French policy is a gag, and that it has real and terrible impacts on religious communities, is disingenuous and worthy of criticism. Anything less than that is simply an attempt to justify — once again — why France believes in religious equality and freedom for some, but not all, its citizens.
LinZi, there are 5 K’s (articles of faith). The dastar is also an article of faith, but does not fall under the “5K” umbrella. This does not mean one is more or less important than the other.
ak, to be crude, the basic difference is that France believes in freedom from (non-Christian) religion, while the U.S. believes in freedom of religion.
I think Sarkozy has a real point. However, much like Obama, his approach suffers from an excess of nuance. What is needed is a good ol’ fashioned Dick and Bush muscularity: I don’t see how secularism will last in France with marauding people sporting rampant tents unless outmarriage is mandated. The time of benevolent pussyfooting around the concerns that traditional laws regarding rights and coercion are inadequate to protect French civil society is long past.
I suspect you’re kidding, but I’m not. If you look to history, and look past the current pacifistic front of the French/Europeans, you will see that they are stone-cold killers. They developed killing into an industrial science. If I were a minority in Europe, I would freaking assimilate ASAP, before the ethnic cleansing machine is geared up again (heard of Srebenica)?
Not since Summum. The govt can push certain “permanent” religious symbols on the public. All hail judicial minimalism by empathetic justices!
moral of this thread and several other threads on SM: some people have way too much time on their hands. i am really jealous—seriously, there should be a law against grad students posting.
It would be for our own good…
i have three theories for this. two uncharitable, one charitable to the US and france (too much time on my hands as well).
first, i think many “nonimmigrant” ppl are reluctant to acknowledge india for several reasons. one, india is different from the US or france—in the sense that even the most die hard secularists in the US and France consider their countries to be largely christian in population—tolerant to others maybe, secular in law maybe, but still de facto christian. india, even in the eyes of the loony right, is not currently hindu (different issue that they want it that way, but they wouldn’t say today india is a hindu nation)—muslims and christians have been around for over a millenia.
the second theory is the twin perceptions in the US and France that they are successful secular societies, and/or that india is just finding its bearings, relative to the US and France. the former of these perceptions is more prevalent among the righties, the latter more prevalent among the lefties. it is a little weird to me this even exists—india has problems and history on a much bigger scale than either the US or France where the question is assimilating the 5% “others”, who do not even have a big history of conflict in the respective countries to begin with.
the last theory is a positive one: the US and France, post industrialization, have never been colonized. they do not feel the need to compare themselves to everyone else. in india it is instinctive (for the diaspora, for the self proclaimed intelligentsia and definitely the academics)—perhaps the biggest negative remnant of colonization is the absolute loss of confidence. more often than not, solving your problems without others leaning over you may actually be a good thing. you may trip at times, but you will get somewhere—if all you do is handwringing, you will get nowhere.
all in all, it is easy to criticize france for one particular law. but in the larger context, for all their faults, they are nowhere near the worst societies in the world. i would think there may be a correction down the road—the pendulum comes to the right place by swinging both ways. we also often forget immigration is a two way street—we may question either side from time to time, but they both have to work it out any way it works—the solutions of one country rarely apply to other countries.