“The BBC reports”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3403775.stm that the French government’s proposed ban on the Islamic headscarf and other symbols of religious adherence in schools has upset the 15,000 Sikhs who live in and around Paris. If they insist on wearing the turban they risk being denied access to education. Even with the law merely a proposal, Sikhs are already being refused admission to institutions of higher education.
{ 31 comments }
Anthony 01.18.04 at 5:20 pm
This is a great shame, given that the Sikh turban is obviously not being used as a political tool to undermine secularism.
Barry 01.18.04 at 5:41 pm
And undoubtedly the warbloggers are up in arms at this latest proof of French anti-islamicism.
Simon Kinahan 01.18.04 at 8:21 pm
I did wonder how they were going to make that work. If headscarfs are important to Muslims, turbans are vastly more significant for Sikhs. I think I concluded that there just couldn’t be many Sikhs in France. Obviously I was wrong.
troll 01.18.04 at 8:49 pm
If you think they’re so harmless, how do you explain this?
Conrad Barwa 01.18.04 at 9:51 pm
If you think they’re so harmless, how do you explain this?
You are kidding right? Apart from anything else the spectators in the photo seemed to be everything buy “gleeful†and the context seems weird. If you actually knew something about Sikhs and the significance of why they wear turbans; some of the inanity of your remark would be obvious.
Belle Waring 01.18.04 at 10:26 pm
Here in Singapore, the Sikhs are exempt from a ban on ostentatious religious displays in public schools (i.e., on the tudung or headscarf). There are lots of religious schools to which devout Muslim parents can send their daughters at what I understand is minimal cost, but many still resent the policy. This is a hand-me-down from the British, under whose rule Sikhs were likewise exempt. I saw the continuation of the policy defended last year on the pretty good grounds that Sikhs have never made any trouble in Singapore.
Dan the Man 01.18.04 at 11:55 pm
The French should’ve banned headscarves for only women. Some people might claim this is discrimination on the basis of sex, but it’s pretty obvious even now that dress codes for men and women differ. For example it’s hardly abnormal for schools with dress codes to say that women must wear skirts and not pants but not allow men to wear skirts.
Ikram 01.19.04 at 12:10 am
There was a hilarious quote from the head of the commission that recommended the ban, to the effect of
what, I didn’t know there were Sikhs in France. They should have come before the commission. It’s too late now
Its a collision of bigotry and bureacracy – and you can’t beat ’em both.
Barry — Though some warbloggers, particularly instapundit, have been conspicuously silent on this topic, some who follow the party line have muttered their disapproval. In fact, I have not seen anyone, including anyone approve of the ban, other than a commentor or two on this blog.
Anthony 01.19.04 at 12:58 am
Ikram, there was Theodore Dalrymple’s comments sometime ago:
and Butterflies and Wheels also made a different point:
troll 01.19.04 at 1:34 am
Sorry, forgot to add: :>)
Ikram 01.19.04 at 6:43 am
Anthony — Neither makes a lot of sense to me. Dalrymple is wrong on the facts, and BaW is making no firm statement.
Dalrymple confuses niqab (face veil) with hijab (headscarf). The french ban includes headscarves. And he does not explain how banning hijab (or, for that matter, niqab) will decrease forced marriages. By looking at a woman’s hair, can Dalrymple determine the state of her marriage? Quite a talent.
(I’m not going to address Dalrymple’s outright religious bigotry. Obviously, it does nothing to enhance his credibility. Though I recall he used to write apologia for Empire, so I’ve never really been enamoured with him).
As I’ve stated here before, goverment-mandated wardrobe is not a way to increase women’s choices. Public education, legal aid, shelters — all of these would practical measures. A national dress-code is not.
As for BoW — anti-religious sentiment is not restricted to the pure-laine Francais (do they use that term in France as they do in Quebec?). There are women of European dissent impacably opposed to Christianity. It doesn’t mean the government should ban churchgoing.
Head over to the blog below for a real-life example of a Pakistani woman denying the blogger a job because she covers her hair.
http://abezavecrat.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down to January 13.)
Dan the Man 01.19.04 at 7:21 am
>As I’ve stated here before, goverment-mandated wardrobe is not a way
>to increase women’s choices. Public education, legal aid, shelters —
>all of these would practical measures. A national dress-code is not.
Dress codes in schools don’t have to solve any problems whatsoever. Obviously dress codes for schools are supposed to impose a certain kind of conformity. This is just as much as true of dress codes which ban the showing of the navel as banning the head scarf.
Ikram 01.19.04 at 7:47 am
Anthony — Sorry, I may have misconstrued your point. I stated that I had read no defences of the French dress-code. You pointed out two. Thank you for that.
(I should have said that I had read no English-language defenses. There have been plenty in the French press. Most calling upon some mystical concept of Frenchness that is quite beyond my ken.)
Dan — A ban on the name Dan would also impose uniformity in schools — a no-Dan unformity. The important question is one of policy inent, or purpose. (In my old school, boys could not have long hair. I suppose sex differentiation was important in Texas.)
So what purpose would a ban on the name Dan, or headcoverings, serve? And is a name-ban or a dress code the best way of accomplishing that purpose? Perhaps Nick Sarkozy has the answer to those questions, and I’m not yet aware of it.
Anthony 01.19.04 at 8:22 am
I wasn’t aware of a fundamentalist religion called Dan.
It is worth also considering this casein Italy, which tells us something about methods being used in Europe by some activists.
A Muslim activist got a court order to have crosses removed from an Italian School. This somewhat undermines the argument that these types of decisions are exclusively anti-Muslim actions.
An Italian court has ordered a crucifix removed from a classroom — setting off a debate in a secular but culturally Catholic nation that is home to the Vatican and where a law still requires public schools to display a cross.
The ruling Saturday highlights the country’s awkward relationship with its growing immigrant population, whose presence belies the notion of Italy as a solely Christian nation.
Islamic activist Adel Smith, an immigrant from Egypt whose father was Italian, filed suit challenging the legality of the cross in the elementary school attended by his two sons in the small town of Ofena, 90 miles northeast of Rome.
“Above all, Italy is a secular country,” Smith said. “The Vatican is one thing, the Republic of Italy is another. The decision of the judge was independent and impartial.”
raj 01.19.04 at 11:27 am
Well, there is nothing that says that the Sikhs are compelled to stay in France. They remain there voluntarily. As they used to say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
daithi mac mhaolmhuaidh 01.19.04 at 2:03 pm
Yeah raj. Except for the fact that they are, you know, French, and might want to live in their own country.
Dan the Man 01.19.04 at 3:07 pm
>Dan — A ban on the name Dan would also impose uniformity in schools
You’re being a dufus. Banning “Dan” would be not part of a dress code at all. Duh. Banning headscarves is no more an infringement of rights of Muslims than banning the showing of the navel is an infringement of rights of Britney worshippers.
As for the purpose it’s sort of obvious. It’s to “teach” the girls that there’s nothing with showing the hair in public in front of men and getting them use to doing so so they are less inhibited in front of men.
Ikram 01.19.04 at 6:02 pm
Anthony — Adel Smith is half Scots, not half Italian. And, as you describe, he is a gadfly who focuses on symbolic, not real, issues. He’s similar to that American that is attempting to eliminate references to God in their Pledge of Allegience.
If your point is that some Muslim are annoying jerks, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Otherwise, I don’t see why a court case on the state’s advocacy of a particular religion bears on French restrictions on personal religion freedom. Perhaps you could make your point clearer.
Dan — You made a flippant one liner, I responded with an equally flippant 2 paragraphs. But perhaps neither of us is very funny.
To address your points — Hair-covering, for some, is not an optional symbol of relgion, it is an integral element of the religion, like mass or ritual bathing (mikva?). Banning it is certainly in infringement on their freedom of religion. (What is and isn’t a well-founded relgious belief has been the subject of a few judicial decisions in the US. I don’t think Britney would qualify.)
As for what I take to be your main point: I can understand the state interest in providing opportunities for women’s empowerment. I don’t see how being comfortable showing your hair to men is a key factor in women’s self-esteem and self empowerment. If, as you imply, Nick Sarkozy wants to encourage strong independent women who can stand up for themselves, co-ercive hair-display seems entirely besides the point.
Perhaps you could explain to me why hair-display is so crucially important that it must be legislated.
Judging from the demonstrations in Paris, head-covered Frenchwomen seem plenty strong, empowered, and willing to take to the streets to challenge their government in classic gallic style.
Perhaps that was Sarkozy’s intent — by banning the headscarf, he wanted to mobilize women against the ban, and make them more vocal and more politically active. What a cunning plan!
Ophelia Benson 01.19.04 at 7:11 pm
“As for BoW — anti-religious sentiment is not restricted to the pure-laine Francais (do they use that term in France as they do in Quebec?). There are women of European dissent impacably opposed to Christianity. It doesn’t mean the government should ban churchgoing.”
But that’s a very bad analogy. The hijab is a gender-specific item, so it’s no good discussing the issue while ignoring that fact. And then it’s also no good discussing it without keeping in mind that the gender in question is often treated as subordinate – is the ‘subaltern’ or ‘Other’ gender, so it’s no good talking about yarmulkes and such either.
Dan the Man 01.19.04 at 8:34 pm
>To address your points — Hair-covering, for some, is not an optional
>symbol of relgion, it is an integral element of the religion, like
>mass or ritual bathing (mikva?). Banning it is certainly in
>infringement on their freedom of religion. (What is and isn’t a
>well-founded relgious belief has been the subject of a few judicial
>decisions in the US.
This is France we’re talking about. In some places saying that you’re doing something for religious reasons may give you special rights which you never had if you’re doing the exact same thing for non-religious reasons. In France this is obviously not true. You can call this infringing on freedom of religion if you want to, but all that would mean is that someone’s religion does not give someone special rights.
>I don’t think Britney would qualify.)
Britney’s attitude toward what she wears is part of the “secular humanist” attitude toward men/women and sex. And since some people are willing to claim that “secular humanism” is a religion comparing it to the hijab is perfectly appropriate. And some US judges have found secular humanism to be a religion.
>As for what I take to be your main point: I can understand the state
>interest in providing opportunities for women’s empowerment.
This has nothing to do with empowerment. This has everything with the French wanting to shape kids’ attitudes towards themselves and others. It is pretty clear that the hijab is part of the more broader attitude of some interpretations of Islam which requires a certain amount of distance between men and women. It’s equally obvious that French society rejects such requirements and believes it to be utterly wrong. In this case the French government is trying to get the kids to believe the same thing it does. And it is quite normal to expect a government to try to teach kids its own values.
Conrad Barwa 01.20.04 at 12:54 am
And it is quite normal to expect a government to try to teach kids its own values.
Which is what exactly? That secularism is a key value because it encourages citizens to place a primary loyalty to the state over and above that of religion? That it encourages a cross-cutting cleavage across denominational lines to unify all citizens no matter what religion they belong to?
I could go on in the vein, and they are all laudable aims; however it is difficult to maintain given the coded racism and Islamaphobia that is strategically whipped or acqueisced to by many mainstream parties. The record of the Raffarin govt. policing, law and order issues, housing, social welfare and inter-communal relations does not fill one with confidence about their good intentions. Given the links to the Driote Liberal by some prominent UMP figures, I am also sceptical about the depth of adherence to lacitie by these self-styled champions of secularism. One would think the social contract between the citizen and the state could only hold inside the classroom, if it was also honoured outside; but in an environment where rising urban unemployment, aggressive policing, and ethnic tension is undermining it on the outside; I can’t help feeling that attention is being directed in entirely the wrong area here.
Scott Martens 01.20.04 at 1:37 pm
Ikram – for what little it’s worth, Sarkozy is not, in fact, in favour of the ban on headscarves. He spoke out against it, claiming that since headmasters have the authority to ban it individually, there was no need for a divisive law. These aren’t the reasons I would have given to oppose it, especially since a French court has already ruled that headmasters don’t have the power to ban headscarves, but with case law having such ambiguous status in the French courts, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
Sarkozy is widely seen as trying to set himself up to take down Chirac and has taken a number of positions contrary to the President. It looks to me like there is a sort of good-cop/bad-cop thing going on here, with Sarkozy as the good cop and Chriac as the bad. But I don’t follow French politics close enough to be sure of my judgment.
Another Damned Medievalist 01.20.04 at 3:46 pm
I suppose it all depends on how much a society really values individual freedom, doesn’t it? My understanding of the regulation is that it bans all religious headgear, thus affecting some Muslim women, Sikhs, and Orthodox Jews of both sexes. People can whinge all they want about this just being an imposition of a dress code, but it isn’t. It’s about the fact that some religions are unacceptable or perhaps make many westerners uncomfortable. Dress codes are about a certain degree of conformity, and ensuring appropriate attire for certain circumstances. This is about the state refusing basic services to particular groups of people unless they are willing to deny the demands of their religions (and/or, in the case of the hijab, cultural tradition).
It’s not about empowerment, either. If it were, the French would put a ban on fashion magazines and stick-figure models. How can telling people they have to make this type of compromise to fit in be empowering? If the intent was to get young women and their families to reject the hijab, wouldn’t it be better served by encouraging Muslim women from non-hijab-wearing cultures to serve in more public/professional positions, where they can serve as examples and mentors?
I miss living in Europe for many reasons, but this isn’t one of them. It’s certainly not perfect here in the States, but there are times that these things hit home. The past few times I’ve been out to the market, I’ve noticed something interesting. In the Seattle area, we have a fairly large East African immigrant population, and hijabs are fairly common. Recently, though, I’ve also seen women in burkahs, following their husbands by about ten paces. My reaction was visceral — I can’t think of many things that, to me, at least, symbolize the oppression of women more clearly. My first thought was, “Dammit, they’re in the US now — why don’t they get rid of those things?” — This was followed a nanosecond later by, “That’s right, they are, you dolt — and they don’t have to, because they have every right to believe and dress as they choose.” I agree that there’s a great argument to be made that these women don’t have a choice, but that’s beside the point. All we can do is create societies where people are free to choose; the more we encourage and support that freedom and make sure that people know it won’t be taken away on a whim, the more likely it is that they’ll take advantage of it.
drapetomaniac 01.20.04 at 5:14 pm
The hijab is a gender-specific item, so it’s no good discussing the issue while ignoring that fact. And then it’s also no good discussing it without keeping in mind that the gender in question is often treated as subordinate – is the ‘subaltern’ or ‘Other’ gender, so it’s no good talking about yarmulkes and such either.
the hijab is gender-specific, muslim-specific, religious-believer-specific, etc. who decides which of the many aspects of hijab wearing are most salient to a ban, particularly when it affects religious sikh men as adversely as hijab-wearing girls?
but i understand: it’s not ok for muslim parents to treat girl children as Other, but it’s perfectly ok for the govt to treat muslims and sikhs as Other. do you wonder why you incite contempt?
Dan the Man 01.20.04 at 5:54 pm
>Dress codes are about a
>certain degree of conformity, and ensuring appropriate attire for
>certain circumstances. This is about the state refusing basic services
>to particular groups of people unless they are willing to deny the
We are talking about a dress code for students in a school. We have no idea what you’re talking about.
>demands of their religions (and/or, in the case of the hijab, cultural
>tradition).
So some people believe religious people deserve special rights which non-religious people wouldn’t have. Why should the rest of us support such outright discrimination against non-religious people?
By the way, here’s a simple example of “denying the demands of their religions.” In high school all of us had to take a swimming class. This required us to dress in swimming suits around or in a swimming pool with members of the opposite sex. Now according to some standard interpretations of Islam this would be wrong. So suppose some Muslim girl told whoever’s in charge that she couldn’t be in the swimming class because this required her to dress in a swimming suit around or in a swimming pool with members of the opposite sex which would be a violation of her religion. Should the school have to accomodate her religious beliefs because otherwise we would be “denying the demands of her religion?”
Here’s another example – this time from elementary school. In elementary school we had to take a square dance class. Typically we danced with a member of the opposite sex. Now according to some standard interpretations of Islam it would be wrong to be in the square dance class – especially dancing with a member of the opposite sex. So suppose some Muslim girl told whoever’s in charge that she couldn’t be in the square dance class because this would be a violation of her religion. Should the school have to accomodate her religious beliefs because otherwise we would be “denying the demands of her religion?”
yabonn 01.20.04 at 10:11 pm
A few remarks, from france :
“And undoubtedly the warbloggers are up in arms at this latest proof of French anti-islamicism.”
Give them a little time. We were closet antisemites pandering to the muslim minority just a few weeks ago. Even they need a little time for that big of a flip flop.
“There have been plenty [defenses of the ban] in the French press. Most calling upon some mystical concept of Frenchness that is quite beyond my ken.”
So, judging by the french press, wether france is full of mystical nationalist loonies, or you haven’t, indeed, understood well.
For the sake of the argument, let’s suppose the second is true and let me explain.
France is that country that built itself (between a few other things), pushing back religion, and other superstitions. Now, most of the people here think religion should be kept a private matter, and vote for people agreeing on that.
I’m pretty sure that’s the “mystical concept of Frenchness” you refer to. Oddly, we refer to it merely as a “secularist tradition”.
“It?s not about empowerment, either. If it were, the French would put a ban on fashion magazines and stick-figure models.”
Ah but yes, it is too, related to empowerment. It’s about not accepting women hair to be sexualised. Hence the “ni putes ni soumises” thing.
“That it encourages a cross-cutting cleavage across denominational lines to unify all citizens no matter what religion they belong to?”
Well yes. That too. Basically why many people think secularism is ok.
“My understanding of the regulation is that it bans all religious headgear”
All ostensible religious signs. Little crosses, fatma’s hand, crescents, david stars ok, anything bigger not. Applies in schools, not universities (or anything “above 18”). They thought about extending it to political symbols too.
“In high school all of us had to take a swimming class. [] Now according to some standard interpretations of Islam this would be wrong.”
Case occured. Now i guess these girls are “free” to drown if they fall in water.
Same in the hospitals : “no male doctor for my wife, whatever the urge”. The law is supposed to help in these cases, cutting the arguing, and establishing who is in fault.
Ikram 01.21.04 at 4:40 pm
Yabonn — Thanks for the clarification. You are right, I don’t understand the French interpretation of secularist tradition.
I think Scott Martens had a post a while ago about how national traditions need to accomodate changing circumstances. French secularism made sense in the context of the conflict with the Catholic Church — it was abotu increasing freedom.
It makes much less sense today, when the French state is in conflsit with the personal beliefs of a poor and marginalized community. (In fact, today’s interpretation has more than an tinge of ethnic bigotry, and that can’t be what secularism is about.)
I don’t understand is why France does not re-interpret its secular tradition. Canada used to be a British Protestant outpost of Empire. Today it is a bilingual multi-cultural middle-power. In the future, it will be something entirely different (that middle-power thing is a fraud). France can change too, and I think it ought to. Better for progressive Frenchmen to re-interpret secularism than to allow LePen to do it for you.
(As an aside, I find your statement that the French state desires to desexualize hair to be very funny. Are you telling me that hair in France is not already sexualized? Or that the state will soon engage in a campaign to desexualize breasts and legs? What’s so special about the sexual status of hair?)
Another Damned Medievalist 01.21.04 at 7:59 pm
Dan the Man — if you truly think this is all about a dress code and not a form of religious discrimination, then I’m sorry for your ack of understanding. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed the increasing trend in France (and in much of the west) towards anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, and anti-Semitic attitutes and violence? Many people here seem to think that the government’s job is to forcibly create a homogenous society — at least that’s the impression one gets if one reads the postings about swim classes, etc. As long as the allowances made do not adversely affect the student population as a whole, I don’t see the problem. As someone who teaches for a living (and actually does support the idea that public education’s mission includes the instillation of civic values), I see these circumstances as opportunities to teach about the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds of the students and broaden everyone’s understanding of the wider world in which we live. But hey, if you guys think it’s a governments job to insitutionalize racism and hatred of the Other, rather than to protect its citizens and their rights to live and believe as they please (to the point that they themselves harm no one), I can only hope that most people don’t think that way.
Dan the Man 01.21.04 at 10:07 pm
>Dan the Man — if you truly think this is all about a dress code and
>not a form of religious discrimination, then I’m sorry for your ack of
>understanding.
I wasn’t talking about what this is all about. I let people like you think about it for the rest of us.
>Perhaps you hadn’t noticed the increasing trend in France (and in
>much of the west) towards anti-Islamic, anti-Arab,
I’ve noticed, but I wasn’t talking about that.
>and anti-Semitic attitutes and violence?
Jews in the West are much more afraid of Anti-Semitic attitudes of Arabs and Muslims than of non-Muslims or non-Arabs.
>Many people here seem to think
>that the government’s job is to forcibly create a homogenous society
>– at least that’s the impression one gets if one reads the postings
>about swim classes, etc.
Uh, no. But if you’re going to send your kids to public schools it is certainly to be expected. You sound like Christian fundies who whine about sex education classes or teaching about evolution.
>As long as the allowances made do not
>adversely affect the student population as a whole, I don’t see the
>problem.
And I don’t see any reason why we should change how and what we teach merely because of complaints from conservative Jews, Muslims, or Chistians.
>As someone who teaches for a living (and actually does
>support the idea that public education’s mission includes the
>instillation of civic values), I see these circumstances as
>opportunities to teach about the diverse religious and cultural
>backgrounds of the students and broaden everyone’s understanding of
>the wider world in which we live.
Bah, you can still teach that.
>But hey, if you guys think it’s a
>governments job to insitutionalize racism and hatred of the Other,
>rather than to protect its citizens and their rights to live and
>believe as they please (to the point that they themselves harm no
>one), I can only hope that most people don’t think that way.
What utter nonsense. If anything, it is you who are trying to insitutionalize racism and hatred of the Other. If some Islamic (and non-Islamic) country decided there should be segregation of the sexes in public schools I wouldn’t have any problems with that either. I would think it’s pretty absurd to try to get them to change – after all sex differentiation might be quite important in their society, and I think such a position is fairly reasonable. To the contrary it is you who are trying to get our society to conform to some other people’s values rather than simply accept that they’re different. And I think it’s certainly appropriate for our society to teach them our values just as it’s appropriate for other society to teach them their values. Of course there is always one way if they don’t like our values – private school.
yabonn 01.21.04 at 10:49 pm
ikram,
“It makes much less sense today, when the French state is in conflsit with the personal beliefs of a poor and marginalized community.”
First, secularism is really a defining point of france. As much as holy cow as the constitution in u.s. or the royals (erm… maybe not the best example here. habeas corpus maybe?) in u.k.
So changing it would mean “dump old france, make new one”, no less imho. As the communautarist alternative is not looked upon with envy here, i don’t see it happening.
Then, it is precisely the fate of the marginalised and poor that motivated, in big part, the law. The “ni putes ni soumises” say that in some suburbs your are a whore if you don’t wear the veil, and that, there, being a whore justifies rape.
I don’t know the precise involvement of this movement in this law, but i’m pretty sure that kind of revelations plays a part in its wide acceptance in france.
That’s the real problem too, and not that veil bs : that this is the situation in some parts of france.
“Better for progressive Frenchmen to re-interpret secularism than to allow LePen to do it for you.”
Le Pen is out of this picture : this is not seen as a racist/undercover racist law, and progessives usually support it. Its loudests opponents are not arabs or muslims, but religious people.
And even the poor militants muslim could only gather 5 or 10 thousands drones last time in paris. As far as french demonstrations usually go, it’s meager.
“I find your statement that the French state desires to desexualize hair to be very funny. Are you telling me that hair in France is not already sexualized?”
I didn’t say the french government wanted to desexualize hair. I said one desired effect of this law will be that hair won’t/will stop to be sexualized. Being sexualized here would mean that being barehead means the girl is a whore. “Ni putes ni soumises” translates into “neither a whore nor submissive” : i don’t want a veil, neither to be considered a whore.
As a sidenote, nudity, otoh, would tend to desexualize corpse in general -never been there, but i guess nudist camps are not full of priapics.
Ikram 01.22.04 at 12:46 am
Yabonn — This thread is getting quite dated, and will soon no longer be on the main page. Let
Le Pen is out of this picture : this is not seen as a racist/undercover racist law …
And even the poor militants muslim could only gather 5 or 10 thousands drones last time in paris.
This may be a linguistic issue. Is ‘drones’ a technical term used in the French press for strikers and demonstrators? Or is a derogatory term for some other group?
Comments on this entry are closed.