France Goes Nuts!

[Tony]

Well, being French myself, I'll try to explain a few details in my miserable english (which gets worse and worse every day ). I hope you will understand a few sentences however...

Some fundamentalist groups are tying to test the resistance of the French Republic. More and more male students (or employees) refuse to take oral exams (or punishments) from women. Some women get certificates (produced to oblige them) which allow them not being at certain lessons, such as biology, civics, sexual and physical education... In public hospitals, some men refuse to allow their wives to be examined by male doctors, and corridors are used as prayer rooms. People try to gather in accordance with their religion. Religious frictions are threatening in french suburbs.

You have to understand that the French want to be a united people. They fear becoming a juxtaposition of foreign communities without common identity.

Most of the french politicians were initially against such a law. A commission headed by Bernard Stasi, after 6 months of study and 120 hearings that collected testimony from all concerned people, made a big report about those issues. The commission members, who were initially against the law too, all changed their mind after their inquiry. In addition, some parliamentary reports were made : they came to the same conclusions. The French Republic is in danger.

More and more women are forced to war veils. That's why 49% of the french muslim women agree with this law (while 43% disagree). They want to be free at least in one place : the free secular public school. The French wants misogyny to keep outside the schools.

They also think that public school has to transcend ethnic, religious and politic determinism, in order to make from each pupil a free french citizen. Religious influences must not enter the school. Of course, liberty of religion is guaranteed, but religion must not be a factor of division or segregation.

Wearing a veil is a voluntary separation from other pupils. It's the sign that you asser your identity, that your beliefs come first. But school, according to the French, isn't a place where you should assert your identity with conspicuous symbols. It's a place where you are supposed to receive culture and education. The teacher wants to teach to pupils, not to followers, nor to living religious emblems. Conspicuous symbols creates a harmful climate, in which religious assertions interfere with secular education. It's no good for a serene education. Wearing a veil is like wearing a flag on your head. It's disturbing.

By the way, at school you have to remove your cap, your hat, and anything that covers your head. Of course, those women say that they feel naked. But what will you answer if one day they demand to wear a burka at school ? Moreover, they have to swim for physical education anyway, and they won't be able to swim with their clothes... But they actually get false medical certificates...

I understand and sympathize with the problem, but this "solution" seems to be more like and act of desperation than a viable solution. How will banning headscarves and limiting free speech solve those problems?

 

[Pad]

Hi,

Pad, I am glad we finally have a Frenchman on here. Most other European countries have been represented for some time, but France seems to have been noticeably absent.

Unfortunately, my English prevents me from discussing seriously (I have to spend a lot of time to write messages)... I just wanted to express a point of vue which is rather representative in France.
The major part of the French support the scarf ban -often for different reasons : women protection, "laïcité", fight against fundamentalism-, but a considerable part of them disagree as well (the debate was passionnate). IMO, both opinions are respectable.
Almost all politicians are in favour of the ban.

We have quite a few muslims here in the U.S., and they wear the scarves. They look rather exotic, but they don't distract me to the point where I forget what I came to the grocery store for.

But nothing ever prevented them from wearing scarves at the grocery store, you know...

Your problems have nothing to do with the scarves, and won't even be begun to be solved by banning them.

Of course the scarf ban is far from solving every problem, and unfortunately the French are likeky to forget the other responses (the commission made a lot of propositions in order to favour integration and to fight against discriminations).
But it's a means of telling the fundamentalists that religion is a private matter, that public school is (and will remain) secular, that the Republic won't yield to their demands.

Thousands of fundamentalists demonstrated against the law, shouted some beautiful anti-semitic and anti-french slogans (claiming that Chirac=porn=Sharon=Jews=French Republic=Hitler)... If the law was withdrawn, it would be a disaster, for the Republic would have despicably bowed before them. They would believe that they are the strongest...

Those girls who are happy to take them off at school will still have to put them back on the second they leave school property.

If they can take them off at school, education will become much serene. Fundamentalist and misogynous pressures will not be present at school, they will not interfere with school education. School is a place where pupils have to learn to live together. They are regarded as future citizens. School is not a place where you can enjoy your liberties first (contrary to a grocery store !), it's a place where you can build up your liberties. Now, when a pupil sees religious -an misogynous- emblems on other pupils' heads, he is subjected to a system. For many French, such an influence, in such a place, is not acceptable.

I understand and sympathize with the problem

I'm glad! Those who think France is becoming facist didn't try to understand anything.

I forgot to add that more and more pupils refuse to study some history lessons (about the Holocaust, or judaïsm,...) and some writers. Some muslim teachers voluntarily don't speak of other religions than islam...

All those issues are connected. The muslim scarf has always been banned by school directors. 20 years ago, nobody wanted to wear it (not even the muslim girls!). There was a general consensus. But for a few years, fundamentalism has grown, pressures have become so deep that nothing but a law could save the neutrality of the school space.

 

[Pad]

I would like to add :

France is home to the biggest muslim and jewish communities in Europe. Now, school is the only place where everybody learns to live together, beyond religious faith. Since conspicuous symbols divide the pupils (faithful/infidel, men/women, muslims/jews/christians/atheists/...), they are not necessarily welcome there...

 

[Pad]

I understand and sympathize with the problem, but this "solution" seems to be more like and act of desperation than a viable solution. How will banning headscarves and limiting free speech solve those problems?

As I said, it won't solve those problems, but not doing it would be worse still. Actually, scarves are already banned.

Banning them isn't a limitation of free speech. When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation...

 

[Tony]

When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation...

But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.

 

[bignickel]

I would once again like to point out that France is NOT like the USA.

Until you've been to France, you will not fully appreciate the issue. I was there only a week, but I could see in a few days the differance between French and American society.

French society is not like American society: they are French first, ethnic second, class third.

This is very differant from America, which is ethnic first, class second, and American third.

Until you go to France you will not appreciate this. What will startle most Americans who pay attention is how well blacks are integrated into French society. This was a big eye-opener for me. They were sprinkled in to every crowd, just like everyone else of non-gallic origin.

That's when I realized what America was: it is full of ethnic groups (who call themselves American) fighting amonst themselves for power in business, politics, and entertainment.

The French do not want themselves to become that. The fundamentalists in France are driving things that way. Since when do members of the JREF cowtow to fundamentalists?

In my home state of Missouri, the fundamentalists are trying to get 'Intelligent' Design into our public schools. This is completely unacceptable. Who the heck are we to insist the French let religion into their schools as well?

 

[Nikk]

"Rescued from ignorance?" And you are the expert on who needs to be rescued?

I think a belief in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic god, in the terms they are normally presented, is ignorant nonsense. One does not need to be an expert to see this. The French state respects the right of muslims to practise their faith but is under no moral compulsion to permit this nonsense to interfere with social stability.


Some Muslims think you are ignorant and should be "rescued" and made to dress in an offensive manner to you. How would that make you feel?

In their own countries they can impose whatever rules they want. If they offend me I won't bother to go there.

As citizens of France they can attempt to enlist public support for their viewpoints like any other group of citizens.

There is a wider question here of the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into a particular society. My feeling is that if you emigrate to a country with a radically different and homogenous culture you have no reason whatever to expect that culture to adapt itself to your own ethnic peculiarities.

Immigrants to France who embrace its culture are generally welcomed and I am afraid I have little sympathy for immigrants who want the benefits of western society but are not prepared to pay the price of acceptance i.e. to adapt their culture and religion to the new environment.

 

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:

It's legal, but in practice people are allowed to wear headscarved and yarmulkes.

But why are the followers of my Church Of Buttnakedness then not likewise accomodated?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:

Students are not banned from wearing religious symbols in our schools. They can wear a crucifix, or star of David, or yamulke, or headscarf, or the colorful knit hat some American Muslims like to wear, or whatever.

Can my fellow Buttnakeders ophold their vows to always be without clothes? Why not?

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.

So, the type of discrimination is just different.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:

Pad, I am glad we finally have a Frenchman on here. Most other European countries have been represented for some time, but France seems to have been noticeably absent. Maybe you can do something about all the Danes...

And while you're fixing the problem with the Danes, could you have a look at the Americans as well? Thanks.

 

[pgwenthold]

There is a wider question here of the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into a particular society. My feeling is that if you emigrate to a country with a radically different and homogenous culture you have no reason whatever to expect that culture to adapt itself to your own ethnic peculiarities.

Immigrants to France who embrace its culture are generally welcomed and I am afraid I have little sympathy for immigrants who want the benefits of western society but are not prepared to pay the price of acceptance i.e. to adapt their culture and religion to the new environment.

It is also worth noting that about the only place where this is not the case is in the US, where the concept of freedom allows one to maintain their own cultural ways (for a large extent). However, this is really only a recent phenomenon (great american melting pot and all that) and is still met with substantial resistence (english as an official national language, for example).

 

[Luke T.]

Luke T.:Can my fellow Buttnakeders ophold their vows to always be without clothes? Why not?

Buttnakeders want to wear less clothes, not more.

So, the type of discrimination is just different.

The clothes are for uniformity, which I thought you were for. The dress lengths are a discrimination against skin, I guess.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:

Buttnakeders want to wear less clothes, not more.

Indeed. Can they do so?

The clothes are for uniformity, which I thought you were for. The dress lengths are a discrimination against skin, I guess.

My point is that rules for school uniforms in the US prohibit some types of clothing. Rules in France prohibit another type. What pray tell is the difference?

 

[Luke T.]

Luke T.:Indeed. Can they do so?

Noooooooo.

My point is that rules for school uniforms in the US prohibit some types of clothing. Rules in France prohibit another type. What pray tell is the difference?

The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons.

 

[bignickel]

The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons.

As has been stated: the rules in France are for SECULAR reasons too.

It just that they are being more SECULAR about their public schools than we are.

Remember Luke: they come from country whose basis of law is the Napoleonic code: the rights of the people come from the state.

If you would like to persuade them to switch over to our model (state gets it's rights from the people), then go for it. The Bill of Rights is a pretty neat document, if redundant, and the more countries that have it, the better, I figure.

 

[Nikk]

It is also worth noting that about the only place where this is not the case is in the US, where the concept of freedom allows one to maintain their own cultural ways (for a large extent). However, this is really only a recent phenomenon (great american melting pot and all that) and is still met with substantial resistence (english as an official national language, for example).

But is that really true? Are immigrant's "cultural ways" very different and do they maintain them to any large degree?

To you as a native there will be all sorts of subtle differences between groups that a foreigner will find insigificant. The vast majority of immigrants seem to integrate quite well and are largely assimilated within three generations. They may retain some cultural quirks, distinctive foods and a romantic attachment to the old country but that hardly constitutes a separate culture.

This seems comparable to the UK where there are significant differences between England, Scotland and Wales but not enough to constitute distinctive cultures by most standards.

France has a muslim minority of about 10%. I really wonder how the US would cope with 28 million muslims, many of whom have made it clear that they substantially reject your values, both secular and religous and a tiny minority of whom are conspiring to commit atrocities on your territory.

 

[Luke T.]

Until you've been to France, you will not fully appreciate the issue. I was there only a week, but I could see in a few days the differance between French and American society.

I've been to France. Long enough to realize the crew of my ship could take over the northern part of the country during the summer and the French wouldn't notice for, like, a month. They are all on vacation then. We could have built half a million condos and colonized the place in that time. It would have been Texas and Mexico all over again. Something to keep in mind if we ever get short of space.



Maybe that's what the Muslims did. The French all came home one September morning and found they had lost their country to them.

I did my part to help maintain the popular image of the Ugly American. I asked the maitre d' of a fancy sidewalk cafe where the nearest McDonald's was. He slapped his forehead so hard in anger he left a dent!



Hey, Pad, don't worry about your English. It is way better than my French. The only French word I know is "taxi."

 

[Flo]

The rules in the U.S. are for secular reasons, the rules in France are anti-religious reasons.

$


(Another French here.)

No, the rules in France are for political reasons. The brouhaha about the scarf and respect of "laïcité" has not much to do with religion.

What the muslim fundamentalists are trying to do is to make sure integration cannot take place, first by making sure the part of the immigrants who traditionnally are doing better at school and at integration into the French society, women, will be prevented to do so.

Their second goal is to make the French (and other occidental governments) yield to them its authority on civil matters when it concerns muslims, for example by closing its eyes on blatant discriminations against women, like categorising girls into "good scarf wearing muslims" and "sluts" (and I can tell you it is open season on the latter in some areas where the fundamentalists are allowed to rule), and making sure women won't have the same opportunities than men.

The message of the law is that this is unnacceptable, especially given the fact that those fundamentalists are for the most part not originary from the usual immigration countries, and try to establish rules that are not prevalent in the countries of origin of most immigrants to France for the last century.

The error of the law lies in the fact that the legislators didn't call a spade a spade, and let religion slip into the reflexion (especially because the Catholic church is trying to reassert as much influence as it can in society these times).

Nevertheless, I think, like Pad, that this law is necessary and cannot be reversed short of conceding a victory to a bunch of clear ennemies of free speech.

I've been to France. Long enough to realize the crew of my ship could take over the northern part of the country during the summer and the French wouldn't notice for, like, a month. They are all on vacation then. We could have built half a million condos and colonized the place in that time. It would have been Texas and Mexico all over again. Something to keep in mind if we ever get short of space.

That's what YOU think ! You would have been drunk on all the Calvados, Gnôle and assorted alcohols we hide in our cellars, and almost dying from food poisonning through eating all the strange organs we keep in our larders by the time we returned from vacations !

 

[Pad]

Originally posted by bignickel
Remember Luke: they come from country whose basis of law is the Napoleonic code: the rights of the people come from the state.

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 :

PREAMBLE

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.

By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

Article 1

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.

TITLE I - ON SOVEREIGNTY

Article 2

The language of the Republic shall be French.
The national emblem shall be the blue, white and red tricolour flag.
The national anthem shall be La Marseillaise.
The motto of the Republic shall be " Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ".
Its principle shall be : government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Article 3

National sovereignty shall belong to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.

No section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.

Suffrage may be direct or indirect as provided by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal and secret.

All French citizens of either sex who have reached their majority and are in possession of their civil and political rights may vote as provided by statute.

Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and positions.

Article 4

Political parties and groups shall contribute to the exercise of suffrage. They shall be formed and carry on their activities freely. They must respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy.

They shall contribute to the implementation of the principle set out in the last paragraph of article 3 as provided by statute.

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.

Originally posted by Tony

Originally posted by Pad

When a pupil is told to shut up in the classroom, it's no speech limitation...

But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.

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

Scarf is like a flag, like a noise, and school is not a place for proselytism. School is not a place for political demonstrations. It must be a place safe from religious and political influences. One can wear religious symbol at school, provided that they aren't conspicuous.

 

[Luke T.]

But banning religious and political speech by a government institution is.

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

Scarf is like a flag, like a noise, and school is not a place for proselytism. School is not a place for political demonstrations. It must be a place safe from religious and political influences. One can wear religious symbol at school, provided that they aren't conspicuous. [/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.