Chirac calls for ban on headscarves

[Chris]

Chirac calls for ban on headscarves
Last Updated Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:20:42
PARIS - French President Jacques Chirac wants to shore up the country's secular tradition by banning religious symbols from public schools, a move that some believe will stigmatize Muslims by forcing girls to take off their headscarves.


(AP file photo)

Chirac asked the French parliament to introduce a law, following the recommendations issued by a presidential panel last week.

The 20-person panel, struck to look into the issue of secularism, said all ostentatious displays of religion or political affiliation should be banned from public buildings.


FROM DEC. 11, 2003: Headscarves could be banned in French schools

Warning that "fanaticism is gaining ground" in the country, Chirac said he also wanted to clear the way for businesses to impose similar bans.

"Secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic," Chirac said in an address to the nation. "It is a crucial element of social peace and national cohesion. We cannot let it weaken."

France has the largest Muslim population in Europe – five million people.

Many in France see the headscarf as a symbol of Muslim militancy.

Many Muslims see the headscarf as a mark of modesty and a symbol of their Islamic identity. They oppose a ban, calling it a discriminatory violation of their rights.

The ban, which Chirac wants in place for the start of the next school year in the fall of 2004, would also ban Jewish yarmulkes and large crucifixes.

The law is expected to have enough support from both sides of the political spectrum to pass the French parliament.

Chirac also asked for a law that would prevent patients in public hospitals from refusing treatment because of the gender of the treating physician or medical personnel. The panel's report included accounts of Muslim men refusing to let male doctors treat their wives.

The commission recommended that the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur and the Muslim Eid el-Kabir feast be made school holidays. Chirac rejected that.

 

[Ditto Much]

This goes against my personal belief that if you ignore religion entirely it will slowly lose its power over your population.

 

[Colm]

Roman and Byzantine history makes your opinion seem flawed.

How can one disagree with Chirac? It appears to be all encompassing and restricting everyone rights.

 

[Littlest Hobo]

Chirac is an idiot. If I want to send my kid to school with a head scarf, crucifix, yarmulke, statue of Ganesh, kirpir or anything else religious, that's my business.

This is akin to 'heavy metal causing satanic rituals'. What is Chirac worried about, how to surrender to head scarves?

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
Chirac is an idiot. If I want to send my kid to school with a head scarf, crucifix, yarmulke, statue of Ganesh, kirpir or anything else religious, that's my business.

This is akin to 'heavy metal causing satanic rituals'. What is Chirac worried about, how to surrender to head scarves?

The argument is that PUBLIC schools are funded by all people regardless of religion and are to teach all students regardless of religion. By allowing religous dress and ornaments they are allowing students to create divisions amongst themselves, and making it more difficult for teachers and students to be able to completely ignore religion.

Its more a matter of if church and state are to be seperate than can the state allow relgion in its primary institutions.

 

[Littlest Hobo]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
The argument is that PUBLIC schools are funded by all people regardless of religion and are to teach all students regardless of religion. By allowing religous dress and ornaments they are allowing students to create divisions amongst themselves, and making it more difficult for teachers and students to be able to completely ignore religion.

Its more a matter of if church and state are to be seperate than can the state allow relgion in its primary institutions.

Who cares if it is public school? The parent must be able to raise their child as they see fit (obviously, there are restrictions). This nanny-state garbage has to go the way of the dodo bird.

What's next? Making Sikh's take off their turbans?

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
Who cares if it is public school? The parent must be able to raise their child as they see fit (obviously, there are restrictions). This nanny-state garbage has to go the way of the dodo bird.

What's next? Making Sikh's take off their turbans?

actually its part of this!


Look the canadian view on multi culturalism is not the norm its unique. France never made the choice to respect all cultures and religions equally.

I've decided to start wearing a turban myself. Considring I'm a white catholic its about as rude as I can be to another religion without actually doing anything that couyld be considered legally offensive.

 

[KickIT]

Problem solved.

*c*

 

[Aeryanna]

The ban on headscarves is a little archaic. If it doesn't infringe on anyone rights-which it doesn't, and in no way interferes with children receiving a proper education in a safe environment then they shouldn't be ban. To outlaw hijabs simply because some little girls wore them to school and this disturbed the "delicate sensibilites" a few people is absolute nonsense.

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by Aeryanna
The ban on headscarves is a little archaic. If it doesn't infringe on anyone rights-which it doesn't, and in no way interferes with children receiving a proper education in a safe environment then they shouldn't be ban. To outlaw hijabs simply because some little girls wore them to school and this disturbed the "delicate sensibilites" a few people is absolute nonsense.

France has its own culture and doesn't promote the concept of multiculturalism.

You can't go to an islamic school and wear a crusifix, why is it any different.

 

[Mike Richards]

Hmmmm let's see....

Chirac asked the French parliament to introduce a law, following the recommendations issued by a presidential panel last week.



The 20-person panel, struck to look into the issue of secularism, said all ostentatious displays of religion or political affiliation should be banned from public buildings.

....Absolutely retarded

[/B]FROM DEC. 11, 2003: Headscarves could be banned in French schools [/B]

...Retarded as well

Many in France see the headscarf as a symbol of Muslim militancy.

...I see guns as more of an international priority

Many Muslims see the headscarf as a mark of modesty and a symbol of their Islamic identity. They oppose a ban, calling it a discriminatory violation of their rights.

Me Too!!!

The ban, which Chirac wants in place for the start of the next school year in the fall of 2004, would also ban Jewish yarmulkes and large crucifixes.

....but small crusifixes are ok

The law is expected to have enough support from both sides of the political spectrum to pass the French parliament.

...The Arrogant pigs to the right...and the crap-eaters to the left

Chirac also asked for a law that would prevent patients in public hospitals from refusing treatment because of the gender of the treating physician or medical personnel. The panel's report included accounts of Muslim men refusing to let male doctors treat their wives.

.....Fawk it...let'em die!! Are muslim men that retarded???

The commission recommended that the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur and the Muslim Eid el-Kabir feast be made school holidays. Chirac rejected that.

Of course he did....after all the first step to recovering from being a Nazi is admitting you're one!!!

(yes I think holidays are out of control everywhere in the world)

 

[Mike Richards]

Everyone should join the Church of Logic!

Keep believing what you believe but practice Logic everyday. It makes sense!!

 

[Aeryanna]

"France has its own culture and doesn't promote the concept of multiculturalism.

You can't go to an islamic school and wear a crusifix, why is it any different."

Because the whole point is its supposed to be a public school- not a christian school. If it was a christian school that would be a different matter. The fact is its a public school then it should reflect a public perspective not just a christian one.

 

[Mike Richards]

Originally posted by Aeryanna
"France has its own culture and doesn't promote the concept of multiculturalism.

You can't go to an islamic school and wear a crusifix, why is it any different."

Because the whole point is its supposed to be a public school- not a christian school. If it was a christian school that would be a different matter. The fact is its a public school then it should reflect a public perspective not just a christian one.

Can I go to a Public Library and wear a Crucifix? Yes. What's wrong with wearing one in school? The more you Separate these beliefs the more hostile people become.

 

[2canplay]

Since the Revolution France has tried to stay true to their Republican values.

Religion can be a threat to secularism and republican values because some religions suppress the "equality, fraternity" aspect of republicanism. For instance, the French are offended by Berka's (sp?) - they see it as a supression of a basic human right, and in my opinion they are correct. They do not believe that anyone has the right to infringe on women's equality based on religion.

As a republic, they have a responsibility to protect everyone, and that supercedes religious beliefs.

 

[Aeryanna]

Sorry, I guess I didn't make my last post clear. I was responding to DittoMuch's post. Let me try that again: I'm saying that people should be allowed to wear the headscarf in a public school simply for the reason that its public. It isn't a christian school where the presence of a headscarf could be queried. As a public institution it should reflect the feelings of the public at large and as such a broader perspective should be taken on the issue. The idea of wearing a hijab should not be looked at from the prespective of a christian school making the decision. Hope that clarifies it a bit.

 

[Mike Richards]

Originally posted by 2canplay
Since the Revolution France has tried to stay true to their Republican values.

Religion can be a threat to secularism and republican values because some religions suppress the "equality, fraternity" aspect of republicanism. For instance, the French are offended by Berka's (sp?) - they see it as a supression of a basic human right, and in my opinion they are correct. They do not believe that anyone has the right to infringe on women's equality based on religion.

As a republic, they have a responsibility to protect everyone, and that supercedes religious beliefs.

i AGREE

 

[Mike Richards]

By today's civilized standards killing, harming, demoralizing and/or segregating is illegal. Religion shouldd not (based on friggin logic) interfere with this. Evolution depends on Law & Order. If some Muslim men wish to demean women by considering them lesser than men then they will eventually be weeded out of the gene pool naturally (hint hint look at civilization in Afganistan vs. North America or Europe) but until that happens there will be stupid fundamentalists who can't even interpret they're own religion's teaching properly!!!

 

[Mike Richards]

Sorry I don't mean to rant but Morons (in whatever form) annoy the hell out iof me!!

 

[Ditto Much]

there are two ways to insure equality between religions. the first is to try and accomidate all they're wishes. The other is to not try and accomidate any of them.

France has picked the second option.

Canada has picked the first.


Every now and then a student in France will stand up and say, "hey s/he is wearing a crucifx! why the hell can't I wear my ..."

Every now and then a student in Canada will stand up and say, "hey I'm a native and your religion offends me, shut up with your damn christmas"


I believe both countries believe in equality. ts a matter of the amount of tolerance associated with adapting to equality. Personally I think our method makes more sense, but we are a very unique country.

 

[PosTMOd]

Yay... maybe my wish that all religion be banned is on the way...

 

[judge wopner]

some great points.

its a tricky argument as growing up in canada makes you think the rest of the world embraces our multicultural viewpoint.

sadly few nations do.

w/ france, i dont agree w/ the headscarf ban, but one question:

can a truly devout muslim who fully intends to wear a headscarf at all times knowingly accept citizenship in a country that has banned such religious expession in public?

isnt it like getting a gym membership knowing full well men and women will share the same pool and equipment, then go in saying its a violation of your religious beliefs to swim at the same time with the opposite sex and demand a change?

i think the muslim population of france sold out their so called devoutness when they opted for immigrating to a western nation that has been notoriously secular for a long time. believeing they could raise their kids amidst this is no affont to human rights,

a woman wouldnt just immigrate to afganistan thinking she could walk around wearing whatever she wants non, there are certain rules there that superceed your religous notions.

j

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by judge wopner
some great points.

its a tricky argument as growing up in canada makes you think the rest of the world embraces our multicultural viewpoint.

sadly few nations do.

w/ france, i dont agree w/ the headscarf ban, but one question:

can a truly devout muslim who fully intends to wear a headscarf at all times knowingly accept citizenship in a country that has banned such religious expession in public?

isnt it like getting a gym membership knowing full well men and women will share the same pool and equipment, then go in saying its a violation of your religious beliefs to swim at the same time with the opposite sex and demand a change?

i think the muslim population of france sold out their so called devoutness when they opted for immigrating to a western nation that has been notoriously secular for a long time. believeing they could raise their kids amidst this is no affont to human rights,

a woman wouldnt just immigrate to afganistan thinking she could walk around wearing whatever she wants non, there are certain rules there that superceed your religous notions.

j

Yeah but its not that clean!!


Se france was a colonial power and in many of its colonies it offered citizenship in all of france.

These people are just as french as anyone born in france!!! They are just as much a citizen and many of them are eductaed and live in various parts of the world. These people didn't imigrate, they simply moved!!!

 

[judge wopner]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Yeah but its not that clean!!


Se france was a colonial power and in many of its colonies it offered citizenship in all of france.

These people are just as french as anyone born in france!!! They are just as much a citizen and many of them are eductaed and live in various parts of the world. These people didn't imigrate, they simply moved!!!

youre partially true.

the dutch were the only big colonial power to offer complete and total citizenship to its colonies, so an indonesian was considered dutch plain and simple and could come and go in holland like anyone else.

again if youre a muslim and its legal to wear your headress in Algeria, one would think if your convictions are so strong, would you not have to consider your move to france known certain laws may bar you from representing your religion fully.

citizenship is not a right as such, it requires certain obligations.
if a canadian citizen takes up arms against canadian military forces, you are tried for treason etc etc.

so dont come to france if you insist on wearing a head scarf. practice your religion where its tolerated.
its very simple.
people who bring up their kids and want them to wear it, send them to private schools like everyone else does.
whats next, public schools should also separate boys and girls so that the muslim will be happy.
or better yet, why not make all women cover themselves so that the muslim men can be happy as many believ women should not show their heads in public.

.....

 

[Aeryanna]

Originally posted by judge wopner
youre partially true.

the dutch were the only big colonial power to offer complete and total citizenship to its colonies, so an indonesian was considered dutch plain and simple and could come and go in holland like anyone else.

again if youre a muslim and its legal to wear your headress in Algeria, one would think if your convictions are so strong, would you not have to consider your move to france known certain laws may bar you from representing your religion fully.

citizenship is not a right as such, it requires certain obligations.
if a canadian citizen takes up arms against canadian military forces, you are tried for treason etc etc.

so dont come to france if you insist on wearing a head scarf. practice your religion where its tolerated.
its very simple.
people who bring up their kids and want them to wear it, send them to private schools like everyone else does.
whats next, public schools should also separate boys and girls so that the muslim will be happy.
or better yet, why not make all women cover themselves so that the muslim men can be happy as many believ women should not show their heads in public.

.....

Lets just assume for a minute that a large proportion of the muslim population in France (Approximately 5 million people) came from another muslim country such as Algeria, Morroco, Libya etc. At the time these people moved to France, such a law had not been passed and we can probably go so far as to say that it wasn't even an issue. That being the case, they moved to France on the assumption that they would be free to observe their religion and wear their headscarves in all public institutions. They had absolutely no way of knowing that France would suddenly try to change the law, 20,30, 40 or even 50 years down the road, they aren't fortune tellers. It would be a completely different matter if this law was already in effect prior to their relocation. It wasn't. This law only came into question now.