Chirac Backs Law to Keep Signs of Faith Out of School

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:57 am

December 18, 2003
Chirac Backs Law to Keep Signs of Faith Out of School
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Dec. 17 — Ignoring opposition from Muslim leaders within France and beyond, President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday called for a new law banning the wearing of head scarves for Muslim girls, large crosses for Christians and skullcaps for Jewish boys in public schools.

In a speech at Élysée Palace broadcast live on television, Mr. Chirac recalled centuries of history that, he said, defined France as a guarantor of individual liberty, and said the secular identity of the French state was at stake.

If France succumbs to the demands of its religious communities, Mr. Chirac said, "It would sacrifice its heritage; it would compromise its future; it would lose its soul."

Calling secularism a "pillar of our Constitution," he said that he would urge Parliament to pass the law in time for the start of the next school year, in September 2004.

"In all conscience, I believe that the wearing of dress or symbols that conspicuously show religious affiliation should be banned in schools," Mr. Chirac told an audience of 400 guests, including members of the cabinet and Parliament, representatives of the major political parties and religious, human rights and union leaders.

He added: "The Islamic veil — whatever name we give it — the yarmulke and a cross that is of plainly excessive dimensions: these have no place inside public schools. State schools will remain secular. For that a law is necessary."

Mr. Chirac was responding to an official report presented to him last week on the place of religion in French society and how best to preserve the French republican ideal separating church and state.

Among other proposals from the expert commission Mr. Chirac appointed in July was a recommendation that public schools add religious holidays, like Yom Kippur for Jews and Id al-Kebir for Muslims, a proposal that Mr. Chirac rejected in his speech on Wednesday. More holidays would burden working parents, he said, but he added that students should be able to take time off for their religious holidays, so important exams should not be given on such days.

But Mr. Chirac embraced the commission's recommendation to pass a law banning "conspicuous" religious symbols but allowing "discreet" ones. As the argumentative French news media have been pointing out, there is no indication of who will make that determination, or how.

Mr. Chirac also called for a law to prevent patients from refusing treatment by a doctor or health-care professional of the opposite sex; for the development of the teaching of basic religious facts in schools; for a "code of secularism" for civil servants to use as a guide in the workplace; and for the creation of a watchdog agency to monitor violations.

Although Mr. Chirac spoke about the general need to prevent religion from encroaching into the public sphere, it is the increasing demands of France's growing Muslim population and the wearing of the Islamic veil that has infused the issue with new urgency.

Many schools quietly allow girls to keep their heads covered. But there is a conviction, both within the government and among a large swath of society, that the veil is as much a defiant political challenge as it is a religious display.

At the same time, leaders of the country's Christian and Jewish communities have joined Muslim leaders in criticizing a ban.

The struggle to integrate France's estimated five million Muslims into French society is also a hot-button political issue, one that has been exploited by the far-right National Front, which has criticized the Chirac government for not being tough enough on crime and illegal immigration. Regional elections are scheduled for March, and with the country suffering high unemployment and a poor economy, Mr. Chirac's government has been losing popularity.

In his speech, Mr. Chirac acknowledged the alienation of France's Muslim youth.

"I share the feeling of incomprehension, of disarray and sometimes even of revolt by those young French people — immigrants by origin — whose job applications go into the garbage because of the sound of their names," he said, "and who are too often faced with discrimination when they want to find housing or even get into a place of recreation.

"All the children of France, whatever their background, whatever their origin, whatever their belief, are daughters and sons of the republic."

Mr. Chirac's announcement follows the recent unveiling of draft legislation by the German states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg to ban Muslim teachers from wearing head scarves in public schools.

Thoughts?

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:14 pm

My thought: who knew the French had the iron in their blood to become fascists?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:23 pm

I think that is one of the stupidest and most offensive laws I've heard passed in recent times.

That's even dumber than the athiest in the US wanting to ban the word God.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:28 pm

Well - a cout in Denmark has just ruled in favour of a supermarket that have a dress-code where religious head-dress isn't allowed. (for instance muslim scarfs).

visible piercings are not allowed either, neither is "unusual" haircolour - or visible signs of religion (like a cross of christianity) or political belifs.

As for doing such in schools - I'm rather in a torn state of mind.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:02 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
My thought: who knew the French had the iron in their blood to become fascists?

Petain, Laval, and Darnand, for starters: the leading officials and zealous Nazi collaborators in Vichy France. And of course, there are fascists like Jean-Marie Le Pen still around, today. The French Far Right has always been a very powerful force, though usually operating only on the margins of society except during times of political crisis.

But this law isn't motivated by fascism, nor would more than half the French populace (as polls have shown) support fascist legislation. Rather, this is part of a stream of narrow rationalism that's run through France ever since the First Republic of the late 18th century. The continuous meddling of the Roman Catholic Church in French politics since that time hasn't helped quiet fears of the richly sacred influencing secular government; and the French public probably also notes the religious language used by Bush (his speeches are regularly reported by Agent France Presse, their equivalent of API)--signally the impact, real or feigned, of far-right Christian cults on US national politics.

I agree, it's a huge over-reaction, and Chirac is simply spreading his political wings and flying whatever way the political weather listeth. But there's bound to be a great deal of pressure now brought to bear in the background by the RCC, Jewish and Islamic movements in France with plenty of money, prestige and power, so we'll probably see the law overturned before the next major election.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:19 pm

Hm, i didnt see all that problem some have pointed...

Its important to cut the elements of what is it about. Childrens, in the public school.
Upleveling the question to principles, i may be wrong, but i identify the conflict as:
1) Freedom of expression(of religious belief) of the childrens
and
2) Isonomy(<--Exist?), that end into anti-segregation priciple.

See, that the rule is directed to childrens, in the space of the school. And, it prohibitive target all kind of major religious expression(what mean that it isnt against an specific religion).

I dont know much of sociology, but obviously there is a sense in make children look equal to others of their age. In portuguese, the clothes that some group use is called "uniforme"(the clothes of the childrens in school, the clothes of the army, clothes of the ppl working in the fastfood restaurant) as the roots of the word make us notice, it is to make them look in the same format.

I do believe its important such kind of uniformization(diferent from massification), in that specific area, it stimulate social agregation and a confort in relationship of being similar. Its very important to read that not as a "everybody will be equal here, same religion and thoughts"(massification) but "in this place of school you all are students, with equal oportunities, equal chances of relationship".

As it couldn't be diferent, i found myself in this contradition: Segregation lead to Racism or Racism lead us to Segregation?(read "racism" here in a lato sense, not related only to race)
Whoever can preciselly awnser that will find the point.

To permit the segregation, that would be obvious with major expressions of religious belief, and teach the tolerance to the diferent. Or, to permit the tolerance to the diferent in the knowledge of the fact that, besides of alter elements(such as money, religion...), they are similar, they are students and they are there for their relationship and study.

Zygmunt Bauman use to say that the diferent make us feel unconfortable by the fact that it is impredictable. And i think that is easier to make the means predictable than nulify the unconfortable of the human feeling.

Since the law is restricted to the school, and everybody can still express their religious belief, i dont see too much of problem.

And, besides of the fact that i think that the law is interesting, there is a diference in the isolated law and its senses and aplication. I remember i read somewhere an important decision of the Supreme Court of USA long time ago. In one state, that i cant remember now, they were creating schools for white childrens only. That was obviously an agression to the constitution, but defending the legalization of such places they said that create a school for white only would not be against the constitution if in the same rate there were created schools for non-white childrens only.
See, the law was perfect, even the logic was perfect. But, the racism and segregation was there.
And, i dont see intencions of segregation in this specific case. Actually it seems just the modern concept of agregation in a limited ambient that is the school.

The question of the law is problematic and dificult, there is no absolute awnser, just sides... very fragile and questionable sides.

Whoever want to look deeper in the question, there is an filosopher named "Dworkin"(USA) that is very elucidative in this question. Besides of I never had readed any of his books, he is a reference in other authors works.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:56 pm

I am not gonna commet on this because i will make racist remarks and upset many of the european posters. All i need to say is he is violating the EU Human Rights Chater. The rest is for the lawyers to handle.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:31 pm

Speration of Church and State. I personally see nothing wrong with this, as each religion will still be able to wear 'discrete' symbols of their faith. While I understand the veils and turbans (for lack of proper knowledge of their names) are a part of the Muslim faith, there are certain things to take into consideration in public school, where such a seperation exists.

Especialyl considering the amount of racial tension in the world, with many people ignorantly accusing all Muslims of being terrorists, I see this in the best interest of anti-racism.

This is probably the closest to the right I've ever thought, but I think Chirac has the right idea in this instance.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:37 pm

Originally posted by Xandax
Well - a cout in Denmark has just ruled in favour of a supermarket that have a dress-code where religious head-dress isn't allowed. (for instance muslim scarfs).

visible piercings are not allowed either, neither is "unusual" haircolour - or visible signs of religion (like a cross of christianity) or political belifs.

As for doing such in schools - I'm rather in a torn state of mind.

Schools have always had the prerogative to enforce a dress code.

garazdawi · Post by **garazdawi** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:30 am

Wouldn't it be better to spend resources teaching the children to accept other religeons than to force everone to look the same? Now teaching the children is going to be a long process and we are not even halfway there yet, we are however much more tolerant to other religeons than we were in the 19th century. And since that's more than 100 years ago it's pretty safe to say that it will take a couple of more genereations before we realise that we are not all that different. I do not belive that forcing everone to be the same helps in this struggle for greater understanding.

Actually I once had this theory that all human prejudice and dislike of different cultures will exits until we find som intelligence that is so different from us that we transfere all of our prejudices upon it instead. This intelligence could be in the form of aliens or AI robots or whatever.

As I said that's just a little theory I came up with in one of my philosophy classes...

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:58 am

Even if you use the separation of church and state argument, I don't see how that applies. As I understand it, that is an idea that is meant to discourage the government in question from taking a stand that openly supports one religion over another.on't think it's applicable in a way to expressly forbid any person from following their own religious beliefs. In that way, I agree with the stand here in the US that says schools should not hang the ten commandments in a public school, But that to me doesn't translate to passing legislation that would limit a persons right to practice whatever their religion's doctrine may be.

Dress codes are one thing in my mind, but I can't reconcile that with the idea that such a code could be used to make someone transgress a vital part of their religious beliefs. Now I am not an expert on Muslim belief, but if it is in fact a strong part of that religion to dress this way, I don't think it's right to force an individual to put aside their religious convictions. Esp when public schools are the only option for many families, and the law requires attendance. Again, I am not that familiar with any educational system outside the US, but I don't see how you can look at a person, tell them that they must transgress their doctrine in order to go to school.

Just my two cents worth anyway

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:58 am

I agree with fable.

This is not born out of fascism but rather a misguided idea of enforcing secularism across the board. Another thing that might have added to the case for a ban is the fact that many women?s groups, including Islamic ones, have argued that forcing women to wear a veil is oppressive.

As some might know I am virulently anti-religious but I think this proposed legislation is both wrong and misguided. I see no reason why the Freedom of religious expression should be taken away ? and if there are good reasons - why do they hold only in schools!?

I also think that this is extremely counter-productive. Young muslim girls that otherwise might rebel against the outdated and oppressive faith of their parents are now more likely to rebel against the French state and wear the veil. In Iran we see a slow move towards a more secular society. According to a friend of my father, a refugee from Iran, many younger people are starting to question the strictness of the faith they have grown up under.

If we are to similar attitude changes in young muslims in Europe it will not do to set up the state as the oppressor. Rather let the state stand for tolerance and freedom and the relaxing of religious attitudes we have seen among white Europeans will hopefully also be adopted by those of other faiths and origins.

Forcing women to wear a veil is wrong ? forcing women not to wear a veil is also wrong.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:04 am

Originally posted by CM
I am not gonna commet on this because i will make racist remarks and upset many of the european posters. All i need to say is he is violating the EU Human Rights Chater. The rest is for the lawyers to handle.

Having read some of your other posts I can?t believe that you would fall to the level of making racists remarks.

I would love to hear you reasoned arguments on the topic however.

I am inclined to agree by the way that this legislation should it be passed is certain to be challenged on human rights grounds.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:58 pm

I would also agree that this legislation is motivated more by the strong tradition of secularism that has largely prevailed in France since the Revolution.

However, it should also be noted that the extreme right in France continues to exert a significant presence... it would not surprise me if the French administration took this into account when they drafted the legislation......

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:52 am

placeholder

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:53 pm

Chirac is a fool in every sense of the word.
This law is rediculous, he violates international agreements at every chance he gets and doesn't seem to care about anyting other then France. I really don't like the idiot.

The guy's a dinosaur.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:34 am

If he was smart Chirac would instead promote the wearing of head-scarves, and make a killing for the French fashion industry flogging off yet another hideously overpriced fashion accessory.

Fascism sucks, in all its incarnations. This law is stupid and intolerant. I don't hold with any of the aforesaid beliefs, but people ought to be able to excercise their freedom of religion IMO. If that means wearing a head-scarf then let them wear head-scarves, or whatever.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 10:42 am

Originally posted by garazdawi
Wouldn't it be better to spend resources teaching the children to accept other religeons than to force everone to look the same?...

Right on.

As for my comment at the top, it was really meant as a joke more than anything else, though some seem to have taken exception to the use of the word fascism. I guess I view any gross violation of individual rights (such as this by Chirac) as fascist if it is combined with some notion that the reasoning behind it is for the greater good of the people. (Grand tradition of secularism, my butt.) That's what fascism is: the primacy of the state over the individual.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:13 pm

I think this is a henous at subtle attempt at religious persecution. It is one thing for a government not to endorce a state religion...that is something I strongly agree with..but to suppress an individual's right at personal expression of their faith is giong beyond repressive. It is a moral assault on millions who hold their faith and it's practices as sacred. something as simple as a babakin, or cross in no way should be seen as disruptive to the learning atmosphere. I heartliy agree that those energies should be geared to teaching tolerance...not making it seem as though somehow the wearing of a skull cap is wrong. This law should be challenged on any and every level.

BTW...Aethisim as as much a religion as any other. One can not know that there is NO higher power anymore than one can prove that their is. He has simply endorsed on faith ovre the rest IMO.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:45 pm

Atheism is not a religion.