![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*stares*
Name of God!
France Vows to Enforce Scarf Ban Despite Threat
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: August 30, 2004
PARIS, Aug. 30 — In a rare display of national unity, French officials, opposition politicians and religious leaders vowed today that they will not allow the fate of two French hostages in Iraq to interfere with a new law on a piece of cloth.
The French government announced that it will implement its ban on Muslim head scarves and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools when they open this Thursday, despite the kidnappers' demand that it is must be abolished.
"The law will be applied," a government spokesman, Jean-François Cope, said in an interview today with Canal Plus television.
François Hollande, the leader of the opposition Socialist Party, joined in a chorus of condemnation of the kidnapping of the journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, saying, "It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the Republic that are targeted."
Several thousand people gathered in Paris this afternoon to demonstrate support for the journalists and the French state. They chanted, "Free the Hostages!" and sang "La Marseillaise."
"We are a country with laws," said Joseph Kaminski-Pipon, a 71-year-old retired doctor from Paris. "It's not up to a group of armed gangs, of outlaws, to settle our problems."
But there was some criticism over the wisdom of the law. "It's a mistake," said Abderazzak Hatimy, a practicing Muslim who works for Air France. "The veil is not a symbol. It's an obligation."
In Cairo, where he began an emergency diplomatic mission to free the two men, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, pleaded for the release of the journalists, portraying them as "men of good will" who have always shown an understanding of the Iraqi people and a "fondness for the Arab and Muslim world."
The Islamic Army of Iraq, the shadowy group holding the hostages, issued a 48-hour ultimatum to France Saturday night over the head scarf ban, although it did not specifically threaten the lives of the two newsmen.
Islamic groups both inside and outside Iraq urged the kidnappers to release the journalists, noting France's opposition to the Iraq war and saying journalists were not combatants.
But Prime Minister Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq said bluntly that the kidnapping proved that France's position on Iraq — presumably its opposition to the war and the absence of troops — offered it no protection from terrorism.
"Neutrality doesn't exist, as the kidnapping of the French journalists has shown," Mr. Allawi said in an interview with several European and American newspapers. "The French are deluding themselves if they think they can remain outside of this. Today, the extremists are targeting them too."
Suddenly, in France as well, there is the realization that its opposition to the American-led war in Iraq has not innoculated it from Iraqi-inspired terrorism. "Nobody is safe," said an editorial in this afternoon's editions of the daily Le Monde.
"No diplomacy can claim to be any kind of Maginot line that would protect us better than our Spanish or Italian neighbors from the death wish that has been at work since the attacks of September 11, 2001."
Indeed, in an audiotape broadcast by a Dubai-based television channel in February, Ayman Zawahiri, the second-highest-ranking figure in the Qaeda terrorist network, condemned France for "defending the freedom of nudity and depravity" and "fighting chastity and decency" with the head scarf ban, adding that such anti-Muslim acts by the West should be dealt with "by tank shells and aircraft missiles."
The fugitive also called the ban "a crime" similar to "the burning of villages with their people in Afghanistan, demolishing houses over their sleeping residents in Palestine, and killing the children of Iraq."
French Muslim leaders, meanwhile, today called the ban on religious symbols a strictly internal French issue and advised all outsiders to stay out.
"The hostage-takers are crazy people and what they are asking is madness," Thomas Milcent, a Strasbourg medical doctor and convert to Islam who runs a popular Islamic Web site, said in a telephone interview. "We don't want anyone to tell us what to do."
Still, the kidnapping has reopened the raw debate on whether the ban is a necessary means to protect the French ideal of secularism or a violation of religious freedom.
Even as the center-right French government and many Muslim leaders called for the strict separation of church and state, some Muslim leaders are calling for female Muslim students to test the limits of the law by hiding at least some of their hair.
In an interview in today's Le Figaro, the employer of Mr. Chesnot, Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the conservative Union of French Islamic Organizations, denounced the kidnappers as "the enemies of Islam."
But he also said that the law only bans "conspicuous signs" of religion. "Discreet signs are authorized. We certainly insist on this point. We hope that the administrative heads will follow the path of compromise, accepting a discreet scarf rather than imposing rules exceeding the law."
Dr. Milcent, who has set up a telephone hot line to advise students how to deal with the law, called the ban "a bad law," one that must be obeyed but is also open to interpretation.
"The law doesn't ban discreet signs," he said. "One can use a lot of imagination with discreet signs."
The French Parliament passed the religious symbol ban early this year by an overwhelming majority, underscoring broad public support for the French secular ideal but deepening resentment among a swath of France's Islamic population.
The law, which also applies to Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, says that in public elementary and high schools the "wearing of insignia or clothes by which pupils conspicuously display their religious affiliation is prohibited." It also calls for "dialogue" with any student that violates the ban before disciplinary action is taken.
I'm not going to pretend I agree with the practice of threatening hostages to make a political statement. That's bullshit. And I suppose I can understand why you might risk somebody's life rather than abandon your principles - but let's take a step back from the drama of the situation to examine these principles:
"It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the Republic that are targeted."
Lovely words. Democracy. The terrorists, as we all know, hate democracy, and democratic laws, and religious freedom.
Wait. The law in question... what was that?
The law, which also applies to Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, says that in public elementary and high schools the "wearing of insignia or clothes by which pupils conspicuously display their religious affiliation is prohibited." It also calls for "dialogue" with any student that violates the ban before disciplinary action is taken.
That law may have been made in a very democratic fashion, but there is such a thing as the "tyranny of the majority". You can't wear a "non-conspicuous" head-scarf like a "non-conspicuous" cross! And, while I don't know of any Christians who believe they are required to wear crosses, I do know Muslims who believe they are required, by their religion, to wear scarves.
But now, of course, instead of looking at the problem rationally, it's going to be all about "don't give in to terrorists, they're just big bullies". Stupid, on all sides.
France Vows to Enforce Scarf Ban Despite Threat
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: August 30, 2004
PARIS, Aug. 30 — In a rare display of national unity, French officials, opposition politicians and religious leaders vowed today that they will not allow the fate of two French hostages in Iraq to interfere with a new law on a piece of cloth.
The French government announced that it will implement its ban on Muslim head scarves and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools when they open this Thursday, despite the kidnappers' demand that it is must be abolished.
"The law will be applied," a government spokesman, Jean-François Cope, said in an interview today with Canal Plus television.
François Hollande, the leader of the opposition Socialist Party, joined in a chorus of condemnation of the kidnapping of the journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, saying, "It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the Republic that are targeted."
Several thousand people gathered in Paris this afternoon to demonstrate support for the journalists and the French state. They chanted, "Free the Hostages!" and sang "La Marseillaise."
"We are a country with laws," said Joseph Kaminski-Pipon, a 71-year-old retired doctor from Paris. "It's not up to a group of armed gangs, of outlaws, to settle our problems."
But there was some criticism over the wisdom of the law. "It's a mistake," said Abderazzak Hatimy, a practicing Muslim who works for Air France. "The veil is not a symbol. It's an obligation."
In Cairo, where he began an emergency diplomatic mission to free the two men, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, pleaded for the release of the journalists, portraying them as "men of good will" who have always shown an understanding of the Iraqi people and a "fondness for the Arab and Muslim world."
The Islamic Army of Iraq, the shadowy group holding the hostages, issued a 48-hour ultimatum to France Saturday night over the head scarf ban, although it did not specifically threaten the lives of the two newsmen.
Islamic groups both inside and outside Iraq urged the kidnappers to release the journalists, noting France's opposition to the Iraq war and saying journalists were not combatants.
But Prime Minister Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq said bluntly that the kidnapping proved that France's position on Iraq — presumably its opposition to the war and the absence of troops — offered it no protection from terrorism.
"Neutrality doesn't exist, as the kidnapping of the French journalists has shown," Mr. Allawi said in an interview with several European and American newspapers. "The French are deluding themselves if they think they can remain outside of this. Today, the extremists are targeting them too."
Suddenly, in France as well, there is the realization that its opposition to the American-led war in Iraq has not innoculated it from Iraqi-inspired terrorism. "Nobody is safe," said an editorial in this afternoon's editions of the daily Le Monde.
"No diplomacy can claim to be any kind of Maginot line that would protect us better than our Spanish or Italian neighbors from the death wish that has been at work since the attacks of September 11, 2001."
Indeed, in an audiotape broadcast by a Dubai-based television channel in February, Ayman Zawahiri, the second-highest-ranking figure in the Qaeda terrorist network, condemned France for "defending the freedom of nudity and depravity" and "fighting chastity and decency" with the head scarf ban, adding that such anti-Muslim acts by the West should be dealt with "by tank shells and aircraft missiles."
The fugitive also called the ban "a crime" similar to "the burning of villages with their people in Afghanistan, demolishing houses over their sleeping residents in Palestine, and killing the children of Iraq."
French Muslim leaders, meanwhile, today called the ban on religious symbols a strictly internal French issue and advised all outsiders to stay out.
"The hostage-takers are crazy people and what they are asking is madness," Thomas Milcent, a Strasbourg medical doctor and convert to Islam who runs a popular Islamic Web site, said in a telephone interview. "We don't want anyone to tell us what to do."
Still, the kidnapping has reopened the raw debate on whether the ban is a necessary means to protect the French ideal of secularism or a violation of religious freedom.
Even as the center-right French government and many Muslim leaders called for the strict separation of church and state, some Muslim leaders are calling for female Muslim students to test the limits of the law by hiding at least some of their hair.
In an interview in today's Le Figaro, the employer of Mr. Chesnot, Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the conservative Union of French Islamic Organizations, denounced the kidnappers as "the enemies of Islam."
But he also said that the law only bans "conspicuous signs" of religion. "Discreet signs are authorized. We certainly insist on this point. We hope that the administrative heads will follow the path of compromise, accepting a discreet scarf rather than imposing rules exceeding the law."
Dr. Milcent, who has set up a telephone hot line to advise students how to deal with the law, called the ban "a bad law," one that must be obeyed but is also open to interpretation.
"The law doesn't ban discreet signs," he said. "One can use a lot of imagination with discreet signs."
The French Parliament passed the religious symbol ban early this year by an overwhelming majority, underscoring broad public support for the French secular ideal but deepening resentment among a swath of France's Islamic population.
The law, which also applies to Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, says that in public elementary and high schools the "wearing of insignia or clothes by which pupils conspicuously display their religious affiliation is prohibited." It also calls for "dialogue" with any student that violates the ban before disciplinary action is taken.
I'm not going to pretend I agree with the practice of threatening hostages to make a political statement. That's bullshit. And I suppose I can understand why you might risk somebody's life rather than abandon your principles - but let's take a step back from the drama of the situation to examine these principles:
"It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the Republic that are targeted."
Lovely words. Democracy. The terrorists, as we all know, hate democracy, and democratic laws, and religious freedom.
Wait. The law in question... what was that?
The law, which also applies to Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, says that in public elementary and high schools the "wearing of insignia or clothes by which pupils conspicuously display their religious affiliation is prohibited." It also calls for "dialogue" with any student that violates the ban before disciplinary action is taken.
That law may have been made in a very democratic fashion, but there is such a thing as the "tyranny of the majority". You can't wear a "non-conspicuous" head-scarf like a "non-conspicuous" cross! And, while I don't know of any Christians who believe they are required to wear crosses, I do know Muslims who believe they are required, by their religion, to wear scarves.
But now, of course, instead of looking at the problem rationally, it's going to be all about "don't give in to terrorists, they're just big bullies". Stupid, on all sides.
no subject
The students are private citizens. The government doesn't have the right to impose a religion upon them, or prohibit them from the free expression of religion. Jewish or Muslim students who seek to obey their religious practices by covering their heads are not trying to proselytize. They're just following their religious practices, which they are required to do *at all times.* This is basically the government telling them they must dress immodestly or disrespectfully. I don't see how the government has a justified reason to step in and forbid them from an individual expression of their faith. At least, that's not the way it would work in the US. But maybe France understands "separation of church and state" differently. (I know that there have been laws in the US prohibiting *teachers* from wearing religious things, like crosses, yarmulkes or headscarves. I don't think the court has upheld those laws, however. Nor to my knowledge have there been laws prohibiting students from wearing such items.)
The compromise I could see would be the government authorizing a kind of "school uniform" - in order to reduce possible sectarianism. So having a standard head scarf or yarmulke.
no subject
no subject
The students are private citizens. The government doesn't have the right to impose a religion upon them, or prohibit them from the free expression of religion. Jewish or Muslim students who seek to obey their religious practices by covering their heads are not trying to proselytize. They're just following their religious practices, which they are required to do *at all times.* This is basically the government telling them they must dress immodestly or disrespectfully. I don't see how the government has a justified reason to step in and forbid them from an individual expression of their faith. At least, that's not the way it would work in the US. But maybe France understands "separation of church and state" differently. (I know that there have been laws in the US prohibiting *teachers* from wearing religious things, like crosses, yarmulkes or headscarves. I don't think the court has upheld those laws, however. Nor to my knowledge have there been laws prohibiting students from wearing such items.)
The compromise I could see would be the government authorizing a kind of "school uniform" - in order to reduce possible sectarianism. So having a standard head scarf or yarmulke.
no subject