France Will Not Repeal Head Scarf Law

[Kuchana]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/20040830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages_13

France Will Not Repeal Head Scarf Law

1 hour, 59 minutes ago Add World - AP to My Yahoo!


By JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France vowed Monday to press ahead with a controversial law banning Islamic head scarves in schools, despite demands by militants holding two French journalists hostage in Iraq (news - web sites) that Paris revoke the legislation.

Government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope told Canal Plus television France would not compromise its values to win the release of the journalists, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot. Militants claiming to hold them demanded the law be overturned within 48 hours — a deadline that expires late Monday.


"The law will be applied," Cope said, rejecting the militants' warning.


The head scarf law goes into effect when school resumes on Wednesday. It forbids public school students from wearing "conspicuous" religious apparel. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses will also be banned, but the true target of the law are head scarves — seen by authorities as a sign of rising Muslim fundamentalism in France.


French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier arrived in Cairo on a mission to help win the journalists' release. He said his country respects all religions and human rights and noted that Muslim leaders in France also had called for the journalists' release.


"I call for their release ... for all these reasons, and especially because the respect for human life is sacred," Barnier told reporters at the French Embassy in Cairo. Barnier said French officials were going to Baghdad to help the embassy there handle the situation. Asked whether he would go, he said: "Nothing is excluded."


Chesnot and Malbrunot were last heard from on Aug. 19, just before heading from Baghdad to the southern city of Najaf. Chesnot works for Radio France-Internationale and Radio France and Malbrunot for RTL radio and the dailies Le Figaro and Ouest-France.


The abduction shook the notion that France's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq gave some safety to French citizens amid the rash of kidnappings in Iraq. Some Iraqi militants have previously spared French passport holders — even freeing one man in April after he was able to prove his citizenship by showing his knowledge of French geography.


The demand to end the head scarf ban was the first time hostage-takers sought to reverse a nation's domestic law. Insurgents in Iraq have kidnapped dozens of people, but until know their demands have focused on pushing nations' troop or companies out of Iraq.


Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said the hostage crisis showed France cannot escape terrorists.


"France will not be spared — no more than Italy, Spain, or Egypt," Allawi said in an interview published Monday in Le Monde newspaper. "Governments that decide to remain on the defensive will be the next targets of terrorist ... Avoiding confrontation is not a response."


In a video aired on Arab TV station Al-Jazeera on Saturday, militants calling themselves the Islamic Army of Iraq demanded France revoke the headscarf law, calling it "an aggression on the Islamic religion and personal freedoms."


They gave no ultimatum, Al-Jazeera said. The station showed a brief tape of the journalists saying they were in captivity — the first word on their fate since they disappeared.


A militant group with a similar name to the one holding the French journalists is believed to be responsible for the death last week of Italian freelance journalist Enzo Baldoni. Before his murder, the group had said it could not guarantee his safety unless Italy announced within 48 hours that it would withdraw its troops from Iraq.


French President Jacques Chirac vowed Sunday to spare no effort to secure the reporters' freedom and dispatched Barnier to the Middle East.


The foreign minister arrived in the Egyptian capital for meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and with Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League. In July, Egyptian diplomacy secured the release of one of Cairo's diplomats in Baghdad, Mohammed Mamdouh Helmi Qutb, held by militants for three days.


Speaking at the French Embassy in Cairo, Barnier did not directly address the militants' demand but said: "This ultimatum is incomprehensible, given the reality of French society." Barnier also planned to visit Qatar. The Foreign Ministry in Paris said that a diplomatic envoy, Hubert Colin de Verdiere, was heading to Baghdad.

Chirac appealed on Sunday to the kidnappers, implicitly reminding them that France opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"France ensures equality, the respect and protection of the free practicing of all religions," a solemn-looking Chirac said in a televised address. "These values of respect and tolerance inspire our actions everywhere in the world ... They also inspired France's policy in Iraq."

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) joined Middle Eastern religious and political leaders in condemning the kidnappings. Arafat called for the journalists' "immediate release," saying France was a friend of the Palestinian cause, according to a statement issued by the Palestinian news agency WAFA. Other critics of the kidnappings included Egypt's largest opposition group, the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

The European Union (news - web sites) also appealed for the reporters' liberty. Their kidnapping means "not only freedom of expression is again at stake, but also the values of tolerance and respect for others to which all Europeans are profoundly attached," said Javier Solana, the EU's top foreign policy official.

Chirac postponed a Monday visit to Russia, where he was scheduled to hold two days of talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Chirac planned to join the meeting on Tuesday, his office said.

Even French Muslim leaders who opposed the law on head scarves urged the government Sunday not to capitulate and condemned the kidnapping.

"We must not negotiate. It is blackmail which the Muslims of France reject," said Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the powerful Union of Islamic Organizations of France. France's Muslim community of 5 million is western Europe's biggest.

[onnihs]

i'm divided on this issue. one part of me says this is progressive, for it truly is the seperation of church and state; however, it also infringes on freedom of speach (i don't know if these are even addressed as rights in France's version of the constitution).

history has shown us that religion, time and time again, is the #1 cause of war, and subsequently the expiration of human life. it would be wise then, to seperate the state from religious fundementalism, be it islam, christianity, judaism, or what have you.


SIDENOTE: why don't we see any other religions answer back to France with violence? the global community should seriously take a deeper look into religious fundementalism, namely fundementalist Islam...

[Mr.Lum]

This is so stupid. If they want to wear the damn thing, let them wear it. They're not converting people by wearing it. This just reflects the French distain for all things Muslim or Arab. It's not new. This should have been expected. France has always treated Muslims and Arabs like second class citizens and worse.

it would be wise then, to seperate the state from religious fundementalism, be it islam, christianity, judaism, or what have you

What is "fundamentalist" about the hijab? Is the yamulka "fundamentalist" as well? Or the crosses worn by Catholics? This is just a French excuse to make Muslims uncomfortable and leave. It's not a coincidence that most French think there are "too" many Arabs in France or that large numbers of the French vote for far right, almost facist parties with platforms to kick out the Arabs. The French historically have done nothing but oppress people of the Arab culture and Muslim faith. This is totally in character for them. The hijab is not fundamentalist anymore than is not wearing miniskirts to school.

[AngryABCGirl]

It could also be looked as France is more of a Christian state, Christians don't have to wear anything outward as part of their religious requirements, so France is just upholding the standard.

It also causes huge problems in muslim families and causes a community to lose its identity. I thought the headscarf was this huge slap against women's rights until a Pakistani-American friend of mine explained that many women looked at it as a symbol of their ethnic identity and culture and as a strength rather than a burden.

So basically France is saying, "Oh your religious identity is bad because it's different from our seperation and we're gonna take that away, but not pass any laws to protect you guys from hate crimes or give you equal opportunities in society."

[Mr.Lum]

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pdf/media/mr040527-2france.pdf

http://barthes.ens.fr/clio/revues/AHI/articles/english/gastauteng.html

http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=1236&mid=&grp=18&cat=104

http://www.thevarsity.ca/news/2004/03/01/OpinionAnalysis/French.Law.Fuels.AntiMuslim.Sentiment-622299.shtml

So basically France is saying, "Oh your religious identity is bad because it's different from our seperation and we're gonna take that away, but not pass any laws to protect you guys from hate crimes or give you equal opportunities in society."

It's assimilation which leads to supression. The French see the Arabs as cheap labor and as people who do not count. There was a recent case in which a French woman FAKED being attacked by "north African men" writing anti-semitic and biggoted sybols on her body and TIPPING OVER HER BABY CARRAGE on a train. This isn't uncommon either, in various nations in Europe women fake being "attacked" by Arabs, Turks, Kurds and Muslims. Europe is rampant with hate for the other.

It also causes huge problems in muslim families and causes a community to lose its identity. I thought the headscarf was this huge slap against women's rights until a Pakistani-American friend of mine explained that many women looked at it as a symbol of their ethnic identity and culture and as a strength rather than a burden.


That's how many nonMuslims look at it, as "repression" but many of them don't know that it is seen as part of the ethnic and religious identity as well. I don't know any Muslim women in my family who were forced to wear it, if they want to they wear it, if not they don't. I don't really see why these outsiders seem to think it is their God given right to deIslamisise the world.

This is typical of France. It shouldn't be a suprise to anyone, I would expect to be treated this way if I were to move to France. The French need the Arabs to keep the economy afloat, but they don't want the Arabs there. They should treat them better. All they are doing is pissing them off and you don't want pissed off Arabs.

http://themoderatevoice.typepad.com/blog/2004/07/france_now_form.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3871447.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3620285.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3482641.stm

[Kuchana]

That's how many nonMuslims look at it, as "repression" but many of them don't know that it is seen as part of the ethnic and religious identity as well. I don't know any Muslim women in my family who were forced to wear it, if they want to they wear it, if not they don't. I don't really see why these outsiders seem to think it is their God given right to deIslamisise the world.

I used to not see the scarf as repression but moreas part of the ethnic and religious identity. But now, what disgusts me is that the scarf or veil is used to deter men from looking upon the woman's face and feeling lust or any temptation. It pisses me off that the potential blame is put on the woman instead of taking into account the man's responsibility. It brings to mind how some religious extremists blame Eve for Adam's downfall. Thus I think the scarf or the scarf or veil impedes a woman's free agency to wear it or not at her own free will. Granted, there are some women who see the positive aspect from wearing the scarf or veil but when both men and women use it as an excuse to rationalize the man's behavior, now that is inexcusable.

[SunWuKong]

I used to not see the scarf as repression but moreas part of the ethnic and religious identity. But now, what disgusts me is that the scarf or veil is used to deter men from looking upon the woman's face and feeling lust or any temptation. It pisses me off that the potential blame is put on the woman instead of taking into account the man's responsibility. It brings to mind how some religious extremists blame Eve for Adam's downfall. Thus I think the scarf or the scarf or veil impedes a woman's free agency to wear it or not at her own free will. Granted, there are some women who see the positive aspect from wearing the scarf or veil but when both men and women use it as an excuse to rationalize the man's behavior, now that is inexcusable.

no offense, but that sounds too much like how western scholars sometimes grossly misunderstand artifacts from other cultures. sort of like how some people might read the origin of Chinese men in the Qing dynasty wearing long pigtails as a sign of obedience to Manchu rule might not know that Chinese men actually regarded their pigtails with pride and as a part of their ethnic identity. that rape and sexual abuse are often blamed on women in many Muslim cultures is one thing, but to my own amateurish knowledge, nowadays the scarf is just a part of the culture and women wear it because it is just what muslim women do.

[Mr.Lum]

Thus I think the scarf or the scarf or veil impedes a woman's free agency to wear it or not at her own free will. Granted, there are some women who see the positive aspect from wearing the scarf or veil but when both men and women use it as an excuse to rationalize the man's behavior, now that is inexcusable.


Should we not wear clothes either? They work in a similar manner. Again, westerners/nonmuslims will do what ever they can to end the practice of Islam whether it be radical or moderate. The French, are extremists. This is an attack on the Muslim and Arab identity, nothing more or less. It doesn't rationalize the man's behavior either. If that were the case, women would wear no clothes at all and it would fine for all different men to have sex with any woman they liked. The only problem I have is when the hijab (different from the viel) is forced or is when Muslim guys start thinking that any woman with out the viel or hijab is a whore. The viel is different from the hijab (viel covers the whole head whereas hijab covers only the head/hair like a scarf the face is clearly visible and many girls I know switch colors and styles every day). I have never met a Western Muslim woman who wore a viel BTW. I know many with hijabs but non with viels. I remember when they tried to ban the girls in my elementary school from wearing their hijabs because little white boys would take them and throw them around the cubbie area. Fucking barbarians. To ban something because it allows for them to be ostrasised and bullied is in my view wrong. and so is banning something because it makes a distinction between them and the dominant ethno-religious group. In this case being the Catholic French.



no offense, but that sounds too much like how western scholars sometimes grossly misunderstand artifacts from other cultures. sort of like how some people might read the origin of Chinese men in the Qing dynasty wearing long pigtails as a sign of obedience to Manchu rule might not know that Chinese men actually regarded their pigtails with pride and as a part of their ethnic identity. that rape and sexual abuse are often blamed on women in many Muslim cultures is one thing, but to my own amateurish knowledge, nowadays the scarf is just a part of the culture and women wear it because it is just what muslim women do.


It also sounds like she's talking about something very different. I'm pretty convinced that Americans, French, Germans and most other westerners for the most part today are out to do whatever they can to diminish the Arabs and Muslims. You hear all kinds of horrible things about them day in and day out and some of them are completely false (the Jordainian american woman who wrote a fake autobiograhpy about her horrible middle eastern life but really grew up in Chicago and had never been subjected to what she claim and was found out by an Australian journalist). I think people make such a big deal about the hijab to dehumanise Arab and Muslim males making it easier to kill them.

[Kuchana]

no offense, but that sounds too much like how western scholars sometimes grossly misunderstand artifacts from other cultures. sort of like how some people might read the origin of Chinese men in the Qing dynasty wearing long pigtails as a sign of obedience to Manchu rule might not know that Chinese men actually regarded their pigtails with pride and as a part of their ethnic identity. that rape and sexual abuse are often blamed on women in many Muslim cultures is one thing, but to my own amateurish knowledge, nowadays the scarf is just a part of the culture and women wear it because it is just what muslim women do.

By what means? I accepted and even applauded women for wearing the scarf and/or veil even before I learned about Islam. But after researching the subject further, I found my respect diminished. I've read and heard both accounts from men and women for bringing the woman to accountability for the veil and disregarding the man's part in twarting any temptation from looking upon a woman's face. That's a poor excuse in rationilizing for wearing it.

What do you mean by "some wear the scarf and/or veil because it is just what muslim women do?"

[SunWuKong]

By what means? I accepted and even applauded women for wearing the scarf and/or veil even before I learned about Islam. But after researching the subject further, I found my respect diminished. I've read and heard both accounts from men and women for bringing the woman to accountability for the veil and disregarding the man's part in twarting any temptation from looking upon a woman's face. That's a poor excuse in rationilizing for wearing it.

What do you mean by "some wear the scarf and/or veil because it is just what muslim women do?"

what i'm saying is that plenty if not most Muslim women wear veils because it's what Muslim women do culturally. they may even know that the original idea was to place the responsibility of restraining men's sexual predatory behaviours on women, but they willingly wear their veils because it's their culture. then at the same time, some westerners might read about the origins of the veil they wear and decry it as oppression, while they may not even have lived in that culture to really understand its practices.

[Mr.Lum]

may not even have lived in that culture to really understand its practices.


That is usually the case.

[Kuchana]

That is usually the case.

Oh and you're stating that a person who hasn't lived that culture can't ultimately understand that culture? Rather narrow-minded isn't it? Excuse me?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I don't mean to take a cheap random potshot here, but all I really see is a bunch of hypocracy. Asian people complaining that whites make generalizations about them while making generalizations or disparaging comments about white people themselves. Non-christians on YW categorizing all Christians as fundamentalist dumbasses unable to think outside of the box while essentially knowing jackshit about Christianity besides the fact that Christians believe in the work of Jesus Christ, which is the essence but pretty much does nothing to educate people on the intended Christian lifestyle, etc. etc. Some people don't even know this much and think that Christianity is all about getting to heaven via doing good things in life. Maybe I'm just biased because I'm Christian and Christians have been targeted on this forum than any other religious (or any other group for that matter with the exception of white people)group, and this is after all a liberal-ended forum so maybe I shouldn't really complain or wonder.

[Mr.Lum]

Oh and you're stating that a person who hasn't lived that culture can't ultimately understand that culture? Rather narrow-minded isn't it? Excuse me?

No, but it is usually the case that nonMuslims tend to get their information from antiMuslim/propaganda soources or base their assumptions off of newscasts. And I do think that one needs to live in a culture to truely understand it. I don't think it's narrow minded, I think it's common sense. I would never have known how brutal Fijian nationalism is had I not stayed in Fiji for 3 months, nor would I have understood the things that nonFrench people must deal with in france had I not gone there or why so many Protestants dislike Catholics had I not sat throught their services or why I wore my taqiyah unless I had gone to mosque or why women wore their hijabs. Part of the reason students of other cultures are sent on trips abroad is to understand the cultures they are studying. What good is a scholar of Arab nationalism if he has never been to an Arab nation? Or a student of anthropology without at least some field experience?

I don't mean to take a cheap random potshot here, but all I really see is a bunch of hypocracy. Asian people complaining that whites make generalizations about them while making generalizations or disparaging comments about white people themselves. Non-christians on YW categorizing all Christians as fundamentalist dumbasses unable to think outside of the box while essentially knowing jackshit about Christianity besides the fact that Christians believe in the work of Jesus Christ, which is the essence but pretty much does nothing to educate people on the intended Christian lifestyle, etc. etc. Some people don't even know this much and think that Christianity is all about getting to heaven via doing good things in life. Maybe I'm just biased because I'm Christian and Christians have been targeted on this forum than any other religious (or any other group for that matter with the exception of white people)group, and this is after all a liberal-ended forum so maybe I shouldn't really complain or wonder.

Just so you know, I am christian. I was force baptized as a Lutheran after 10 years of being raised Muslim by my father. At present I am a practicing Quaker. It tends to be Christians and Westerners in general who come up with reason that other religions and cultures are bad with out understanding them or having done proper research into it. It's no different from immams who talk about how evil americans are without ever having been to America or read any texts by Americans or Christians. I find that in the Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist and other "mainstream" Churches there is a victom mentality that is also found in radical Islam and other religions which contributes to them not being able to understand other faiths because they are the enemy and out to get them. And all enemies are bad.

[SunWuKong]

Oh and you're stating that a person who hasn't lived that culture can't ultimately understand that culture? Rather narrow-minded isn't it? Excuse me?

huh? i don't think that's narrow-minded at all. having actually lived in different cultures myself, i'm all the more convinced that you have to live it to ultimately understand it, as well as the idea of cultural relativity (not to be mistaken for moral relativity, whose existence is questionable).

I don't mean to take a cheap random potshot here, but all I really see is a bunch of hypocracy. Asian people complaining that whites make generalizations about them while making generalizations or disparaging comments about white people themselves. Non-christians on YW categorizing all Christians as fundamentalist dumbasses unable to think outside of the box while essentially knowing jackshit about Christianity besides the fact that Christians believe in the work of Jesus Christ, which is the essence but pretty much does nothing to educate people on the intended Christian lifestyle, etc. etc. Some people don't even know this much and think that Christianity is all about getting to heaven via doing good things in life. Maybe I'm just biased because I'm Christian and Christians have been targeted on this forum than any other religious (or any other group for that matter with the exception of white people)group, and this is after all a liberal-ended forum so maybe I shouldn't really complain or wonder.


not sure who you are referring to here, but:

1) in this particular thread i did not specifically say "white" people. i specifically said "westerners", which could include Asian Americans if they are nothing but westernised.

2) i don't actually find generalisations bad. it is stereotypes that are bad, and there's a difference between generalisations and stereotypes, the latter being based on incorrect perceptions of reality. for example: most Asian Americans were born outside of the US - true, as it says so in the US census. most black people are great at basketball - false, the perception comes from the fact that most NBA players are black, that does not mean that the sample of the black American population has more good basketball players than bad basketball players.

3) i am, in fact, Christian. i used to go to church every week as well as attend bible study every week. there are some great Christian people, but let's face it, there are a lot of dumb-ass Christians who have their heads up their asses.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Turkey needs its army dissolving the government every couple of decades to back up an anti-headscarf law against their own ethnic group. Hell if I see how France is gonna be able to pull off the same kind of law without the same kind of force if they keep importing cheap Arab labour.

[Mr.Lum]

French leaders pray for hostages
The French interior minister has joined Muslim leaders at the main mosque in Paris to pray for the release of two French journalists abducted in Iraq.
Worshippers applauded as Dominique de Villepin spoke of the unity of French Muslims and non-Muslims.

French Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur described the men as "our countrymen" and urged the kidnappers to free them.

The kidnappers have demanded that France repeal a ban on Islamic headscarves in French state schools.

The law introducing the ban is due to come into effect on Thursday. The government has refused to withdraw it.

The BBC's Angus Roxburgh, in Paris, describes Mr de Villepin's visit to the mosque as highly symbolic.


HEADSCARF BAN
Ban proposed in December 2003 and backed by parliament in March
Due to come into effect at start of new school year on Thursday
Lays down that "conspicuous" religious items may not be worn in schools
Forbidden items will include Muslim headscarf, Jewish skullcap and large Christian crucifixes


He says French Muslims attended to demonstrate their solidarity and their Frenchness - and to distance themselves from the Iraqi kidnappers.

Meanwhile, an influential Sunni Muslim organisation in Iraq, the Committee of Ulema, said it had failed to make contact with the kidnappers and feared the journalists might be killed.

A group calling itself The Islamic Army in Iraq says it is holding the two men - Christian Chesnot of Radio France Internationale and Georges Malbrunot of Paris daily newspaper Le Figaro.

Arab TV station al-Jazeera showed a video on Monday in which both men, speaking in English, called for the law banning headscarves to be overturned - and for French people to demonstrate for its repeal.

"We might die at any moment if this law is not repealed," Mr Malbrunot said.

The Arab League has said its contacts in Iraq believe the kidnappers have extended their deadline for the headscarf law's repeal until Wednesday evening, and not Tuesday as previously reported. The original deadline was Monday evening.

Arab condemnation
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has held meetings in Jordan and Egypt during a visit to the Middle East to seek support for attempts to get the men released.

Jordan has said it will use its contacts in Iraq - developed in freeing its own kidnapped citizens - to try to resolve the crisis. At least nine Jordanian hostages have been freed in Iraq in the last two weeks.


HAVE YOUR SAY
This is opportunism at its height, it is just posturing and flexing of muscles on the part of the kidnappers
Matt, UK


Arab leaders across the region - including Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi - have urged that the two men be freed, describing France, which strongly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, as a friend of Arabs.
The law banning headscarves in schools is a central policy, designed to maintain France's tradition of strictly separating state and religion.

It forbids state school students from wearing "conspicuous" religious apparel. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses are also banned.

Dozens of foreigners have been abducted by militants in Iraq in recent months.

Most groups have employed kidnapping with the aim of driving out companies, individuals and troops helping US forces and the new Iraqi government.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3613466.stm

Published: 2004/08/31 21:14:39 GMT

© BBC MMIV

[Napoleon Chynamite]

2) i don't actually find generalisations bad. it is stereotypes that are bad, and there's a difference between generalisations and stereotypes, the latter being based on incorrect perceptions of reality. for example: most Asian Americans were born outside of the US - true, as it says so in the US census. most black people are great at basketball - false, the perception comes from the fact that most NBA players are black, that does not mean that the sample of the black American population has more good basketball players than bad basketball players.
Although I know what you are talking about, I'm not sure whether to agree that generalizations are okay and stereotypes (by your definition and standards) are not. If I understand your post correctly, you're saying that the generalization that most Asian Americans are born outside the U.S. is technically okay or at least more understandable or acceptable than saying that most black people are good at basketball, since the former is more grounded in fact or statistics while the latter is not. However, whether they are generalizations or stereotypes, the reinforcements of both potentially lead to discriminatory attitudes and actions towards the groups in question. I would hardly think that treating Asian Americans with contempt or engaging in discriminatory hiring practices as a result of harboring the view of all AA's as perpetual foreigners with insufficient command of the English language (actions resulting from 'generalization) is more justifiable than treating black people as good for nothing but sports or athletic entertainment and thus allowing such views to permeate into, once again, actions such as seeking for potential employees (actions resulting from 'stereotyping').

[SunWuKong]

Although I know what you are talking about, I'm not sure whether to agree that generalizations are okay and stereotypes (by your definition and standards) are not. If I understand your post correctly, you're saying that the generalization that most Asian Americans are born outside the U.S. is technically okay or at least more understandable or acceptable than saying that most black people are good at basketball, since the former is more grounded in fact or statistics while the latter is not. However, whether they are generalizations or stereotypes, the reinforcements of both potentially lead to discriminatory attitudes and actions towards the groups in question. I would hardly think that treating Asian Americans with contempt or engaging in discriminatory hiring practices as a result of harboring the view of all AA's as perpetual foreigners with insufficient command of the English language (actions resulting from 'generalization) is more justifiable than treating black people as good for nothing but sports or athletic entertainment and thus allowing such views to permeate into, once again, actions such as seeking for potential employees (actions resulting from 'stereotyping').

you are talking about two entirely different thing. generalising a group of people doesn't mean you have to treat them with disrespect. that most Asian Americans are born outside of the US is a statistical fact. that does not mean one must then treat every single Asian person one meets as if he does not understand a word of English.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

you are talking about two entirely different thing. generalising a group of people doesn't mean you have to treat them with disrespect. that most Asian Americans are born outside of the US is a statistical fact. that does not mean one must then treat every single Asian person one meets as if he does not understand a word of English.

My point though is that regardless of whether something is a generalization or stereotype, the harmful effects from so-called groundless 'stereotypes' that have led us to say that 'stereotypes are bad' occur just as easily from 'generalizations' grounded in statistical fact.

[kuilong]

The feminist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises is for the ban, arguing that for girls this young (the ban doesn't include tertiary education) the decision to wear the hijab is probably more made by their families than by themselves.

Is the yamulka "fundamentalist" as well? Or the crosses worn by Catholics?

Just for the record, kipa (yarmulkas) and large crosses are also banned under the law, and smaller religious symbols, like Stars of David or Fatima's Hands are permitted. I'll agree with you, though, that the ban is primarly directed at hijab-wearers.

There's also the argument that's sometimes made, that the government will find it easier to prevent anti-Muslim violence if Muslims aren't so prominently marked apart.

[hooligan]

The feminist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises is for the ban, arguing that for girls this young (the ban doesn't include tertiary education) the decision to wear the hijab is probably more made by their families than by themselves.

Just for the record, kipa (yarmulkas) and large crosses are also banned under the law, and smaller religious symbols, like Stars of David or Fatima's Hands are permitted. I'll agree with you, though, that the ban is primarly directed at hijab-wearers.

There's also the argument that's sometimes made, that the government will find it easier to prevent anti-Muslim violence if Muslims aren't so prominently marked apart.
What I think is more important is that they're given the choice whether or not they can wear the scarf. Let's not let a government dictate what you can or can't wear.

[kuilong]

What I think is more important is that they're given the choice whether or not they can wear the scarf. Let's not let a government dictate what you can or can't wear.

So are you also against school dress codes (some of which are decided by municipal governments)? Or are you only against the national government getting involved in such things?

Remember that the ban only applies to kids in primary and secondary school.

[Mr.Lum]

Just for the record, kipa (yarmulkas) and large crosses are also banned under the law, and smaller religious symbols, like Stars of David or Fatima's Hands are permitted. I'll agree with you, though, that the ban is primarly directed at hijab-wearers.



I know they're banned, but he was talking about the hijab.


Remember that the ban only applies to kids in primary and secondary school.

If you attach shame to it there, you allow that shame to be carried over for the rest of their lives.

There's also the argument that's sometimes made, that the government will find it easier to prevent anti-Muslim violence if Muslims aren't so prominently marked apart.

I've heard that as well, I thnk that just shows how welcome in France they are. They should start at the root of the problem, the biggots.

The feminist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises is for the ban, arguing that for girls this young (the ban doesn't include tertiary education) the decision to wear the hijab is probably more made by their families than by themselves.



I bet it is. So is the descision to be Muslim. I don't see their point.

[asvenus]

co-sign to Mr Lum...
the issue here is about what it means to be living in a so-called democracy and being 'free'...it is quite ironic that the country that is credited with creating the modern nation state, secular and democratic and introducing such concepts as 'liberty' etc is the same one now choosing to discriminate against people who are supposedly part of their country

where do we stop with these laws though, the fact that it is the hijab is just something to capture peoples imagination and eflect away from what is really happening, the state impinging on peoples supposed freedoms more and more...France or any other country dont give a damn about the hijab or womens lib or anything like that...it is simply a tactic to develop ways to control and monitor the population more intensively and strictly....

i personally wouldnt wear hijab because of what i associate with the concept of it, but many Muslim women wear it as part of their culture and many women are wearing it now as an active form of political resistance and defiance..i think women wearing hijab now are not some weak, repressed women, i think alot of them are really brave

[rasheedgonzales]

my apologies if anything in my post is a repeat of something that’s been said above. i haven’t read all of the posts put up to this thread... i’ve only read about the first half of them and thought i’d comment as i went.

He said his country respects all religions and human rights...
France ensures equality, the respect and protection of the free practicing of all religions.both statements are b.s. if that what they say were true then they’d let the muslim girls wear their hijabs and fulfill their religious obligation. by banning them from wearing them, they’re restricting their practice of islam and effectively makes their claims null and void.

as for the kidnappings, then what these extremists are doing is wrong. there is nothing in islam that sanctions such actions.

regarding all the talk about funadmentalism... i personally think that a lot of people misuse this term. in reality, there’s nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist – unless of course the fundamentals you’re adhering to are wack to begin with...

the fundamentals of any religion are what make that religion what it is. changing them changes the religion. adhering to them means you’re fulfulling your religion’s tenets. what these people are – i.e., groups like al-qaa’idah, hammaas, hizbullah, etc. – are religious extremists. they’ve gone past the religion’s limits and have exceeded it’s boundries. and what causes their extremism? their lack of adhering to the religion’s tenets – its fundamentals.


France has always treated Muslims and Arabs like second class citizens and worse.it’s kind of ironic how their national soccer team’s best player is an algerian.



It pisses me off that the potential blame is put on the woman instead of taking into account the man’s responsibility.while many muslims (the majority of who don’t really know their religion well) will blame women for not covering up, islamically, every human being is accountable for their own actions. so if a man looks at an uncovered woman, that’s on him and he gets the sin for doing so. the woman will be blamed for not covering herself up – according to islamic regulations – and that’s her problem. the man will be blamed for staring at her and that’s his problem. the islamic prohibition for men looking at non-relative women is a general one – whether the women are covered or not. so if the guy looks at a girl he’s not supposed to be looking at, he does so out of his own weakness and desires. in the qur’an, God states that both men and women are supposed to lower their gazes from each other and that its for their own protection.


the viel is different from the hijab (viel covers the whole head whereas the hijab covers only the head/hair like a scarf the face is clearly visible and many girls I know switch colors and styles every day).actually, islamically, the hijab (which linguistically means veil) refers to the muslim woman’s dress in totality; her headscarf, face veil (if worn), skirt, shirt, overcoat, etc. it’s just that today, many muslims use it to refer to the khimar, which is what you described above.

[Mr.Lum]

actually, islamically, the hijab (which linguistically means veil) refers to the muslim woman’s dress in totality; her headscarf, face veil (if worn), skirt, shirt, overcoat, etc. it’s just that today, many muslims use it to refer to the khimar, which is what you described above.






Thanks for clairification!