France Goes Nuts!

[bignickel]

I don't understand this assertion, although I've read it many times... I think it's a misconception. Nobody is the sovereign of France but the French people (the principle of the Republic is : "government of the people, by the people and for the people"). The state belongs to the French. Therefore, the rights that come from the state come from the people too. The French constitution begins as follows

Well, as Rick said in 'Casablanca', "Well, I was misinformed."

The difference is, that the French conception of liberty is not exactly the same as the American one. In France, when free speech threaten human rights, it is accepted to be limited.

I was going to point out that the third sentence on Article 1 and first sentence of Article 2 seemed to contradict each other, but it looks like you beat me to it.

On the other hand: this is a public education issue, not a constitutional issue. With Luke's example of students cornering others and proselytizng to them: the French recognize displaying your religious affiliation as the same thing.

'Do it on your free time, not on mine' seems like a reasonable request by the people who are educating French students.

 

[ehobbs]

If anything the other way round. I think that large crosses and jewish skull-caps were already banned; this law defines the muslim headscarf as a religious symbol.

What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?

Ed

 

[Flo]

Well, I said earlier in this topic that the only way France can solve their problem with Muslims is not by banning scarves, but by either removing the Muslims from their sight or by restricting their speech.

You don't understand the problem and the context. Outside of some racist nuts, nobody in France want the Muslims out or silent. What is wanted is Muslims in, free to practice their religion, but to the extent that it respects the common law. When the religious practices advocated imply discriminatory practices against a part of the population, they cannot be accepted in state-funded institutions.

That is the way we do it in America. Kids can wear their crucifixes and headscarves, but they can't corner other kids in the hallways and try to recruit them into their religion.

And that would be the way everybody wish it could be done, if it was only a religious problem instead of a purely politic one. I'm afraid that none of the fundamentalists who advocate headscarves or (pretend to) wear it "voluntarily" would abide by that kind of rule. The law is the direct result of the increased political demands of a tiny fraction of muslim immigrants in France. Girls, the scarf, and so called attacks against religious freedom have been instrumentalised by a minority with a purely political and rather nasty agenda: making sure there cannot be any integration of the muslim population and thus maintaining a reservoir of recruits for "jihads" to come.

As for Muslims persecuting other Muslims, banning headscarves won't solve that problem either. In fact, it will only drive the problem underground out of sight.

Sure, let them eat themselves and wash our hands of the mess ...

 

[Flo]

What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?

Ed

It used to be that wearing a scarf was only a fashion statement. Thanks to muslim fundamentalists, wearing a scarf has become a militant/religious statement , and there is less freedom for all as a result, which is the goal of all fanatics everywhere

 

[Luke T.]

You don't understand the problem and the context. Outside of some racist nuts, nobody in France want the Muslims out or silent. What is wanted is Muslims in, free to practice their religion, but to the extent that it respects the common law. When the religious practices advocated imply discriminatory practices against a part of the population, they cannot be accepted in state-funded institutions.

We are having a similar phenomenon occurring in the States right now on the issue of gay marriage. Most Americans do not want gays to be able to be "married," but many are willing to accept "civil unions." The gay minority wants "marriage" because that would entitle them to the same tax breaks, inheritance laws, and so on, that heterosexuals get. The friction has built up between the minority and the majority to the point that there is now a growing movement to actually amend our Constitution to prevent gay marriages. Ridiculous. That trivializes our Constitution and will not solve the problem, either.

And that would be the way everybody wish it could be done, if it was only a religious problem instead of a purely politic one. I'm afraid that none of the fundamentalists who advocate headscarves or (pretend to) wear it "voluntarily" would abide by that kind of rule. The law is the direct result of the increased political demands of a tiny fraction of muslim immigrants in France. Girls, the scarf, and so called attacks against religious freedom have been instrumentalised by a minority with a purely political and rather nasty agenda: making sure there cannot be any integration of the muslim population and thus maintaining a reservoir of recruits for "jihads" to come.

The Polarization Effect. I started a topic by that name in the Community section of this forum.

Sure, let them eat themselves and wash our hands of the mess ...

This scarf law will do just that. That's what I am saying. I am not advocating you wash your hands of them, I am saying that is what the law will bring about. Polarization.

The law is concentrating on the symbol of the problem, and not the problem.

 

[epepke]

Where there are school uniform policies, it only relates to the color of their pants and shirts. For girls, there may be a limit put on how short their skirts can be. And there is the usual policy about foul language on a T-shirt in most places.

Not quite true.

I recently found out that Leon Country school dress codes do ban hats, bandannas, and sweat bands. The ostensible reason is from way back when bandannas and baseball caps worn sideways were symbols of gang membership.

Exceptions are made for skullcaps and headscarves.

 

[Pad]

On the other hand: this is a public education issue, not a constitutional issue. With Luke's example of students cornering others and proselytizng to them: the French recognize displaying your religious affiliation as the same thing.

You're absolutely right.

Originally posted by ehobbs

What if a non-muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf just because she thinks it's a cool fashion accessory?

Can a Muslim woman wear a non-muslim headscarf?

Are all headscarfs now considered religious symbols?

If her headscarf is just a fashion accessory, she has to take it off (like she would take off her cap...)

Originally posted by Luke T.

The law is concentrating on the symbol of the problem, and not the problem.

A symbol, in a school, is important. I would not like seeing swastikas in the classrooms...

 

[Tony]

If a national-socialist teacher wants to militate in favour of nazism at school and isn't allowed to, is it free speech limitation ?

Yes.

 

[Pad]

Yes.

...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

 

[epepke]

...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

That's a strange assertion.

It is, clearly, a free-speech limitation. That one may not like it does not magically make it not a free-speech limitation.

There exist many free-speech limitations; the most obvious is copyright law.

 

[Tony]

...so you would accept public schools to be invaded by neo-nazi militants ?...

Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs?

 

[Grammatron]

Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs?

That's an interesting question, I think you should start a thread on this topic.

 

[bignickel]

Pretty easy to address Nazi teachers, Tony.

How about tackling the one about students wearing swastika armbands?

DOES a school have the right to have some control over the environment that students are learning in?

If not: Was "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" a large influence on you growing up.

 

[Tony]

How about tackling the one about students wearing swastika armbands?

I dont have a problem with it. As long as they are peaceful.

DOES a school have the right to have some control over the environment that students are learning in?

They have the right and responsibility to maintain the peace and ensure the free exchange of ideas.

If not: Was "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" a large influence on you growing up.

Never seen it. Before my time.

 

[Grammatron]

Never seen it. Before my time.

You are missing one of the best slow motion pool fantasy scenes ever filmed

 

[Tony]

You are missing one of the best slow motion pool fantasy scenes ever filmed

I think I’ve seen a few shots of it in various places. Is that the one with the girl in the red bikini?

 

[Grammatron]

I think I’ve seen a few shots of it in various places. Is that the one with the girl in the red bikini?

Yup

 

[Luke T.]

And here we are, learning about France, eating pizza.

 

[bignickel]

I was referring more to the classic scene where Spicoli gets a pizza delivered to him in class.

Ray Walston's response to that is what we're debating here, folks.

I would submit that when it comes to blackshirts marching in French schools (again):

"I dont have a problem with it. As long as they are peaceful."

and

"They have the right and responsibility to maintain the peace"

are going to contradict themselves. By default.


If you can't see that, I recommend Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and "Collapse of the Fourth Republic."

 

[Pad]

Did I say that?

Recognizing the right to free speech isn’t the same as acceptance of the message. We have commie profs in our universities, why not nazi profs?

No matter whether a prof is nazi or not. I was asking : would you agree to profs militating in favour of nazism inside the classroom?