| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| France’s Headscarf Problem |
| 2003-04-23 |
| How should a western democracy accommodate Islam? | 23 April 2003 The French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, is the first man for a long time to hold that post who has shown the courage and determination to confront France’s growing social problems. He has put policemen back on the beat; he is testing drivers of crashed cars for the presence of cannabis in their urine. But he made a rod with which to beat his own back in creating the Union of French Islamic Organizations as an intermediary between French Muslims and the French government. He hoped that moderates would control the new group, but instead it has given extremists a platform from which to voice their demands. Last weekend, he brought down the extremists’ ire by re-opening the question of the wearing of the headscarf by Muslim girls and women in a speech to the new Islamic union. The fundamentalists booed Sarkozy, though a smattering of the women in the audience applauded when he remarked that the law required that photographs for the compulsory identity card should be taken bareheaded: that is to say, without a headscarf. He was implicitly asserting the supremacy of the law of the state over any religious custom. The Conseil d’Etat had not long before ruled that the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls at school was legal (it had previously been banned), provided that it gave rise to no conflict. This, of course, was asking for the circle to be squared: and conflict over headscarves duly started up again in several schools almost at once. But, in a spirit completely contrary to the Conseil d’Etat’s ruling, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced his intention of prohibiting by law the wearing of the headscarf in the exercise of any public function. He did so in name of the difference between the public and the private sphere, and of the secularism of the state. The wearing of the headscarf has clearly become a matter of the deepest symbolic significance in France, a matter over which it is not impossible to see hundreds or even thousands eventually being killed. What might appear to an outsider as a trivial disagreement is actually one of great philosophical importance—a fact that both parties to the disagreement instinctively understand. Some of the women who attended the meeting of the Union of French Islamic Organizations (not, presumably, those who applauded Sarkozy) have sent a letter to the prime minister, saying that they are both fully Islamic and fully French citizens, and that they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, if he persists in his planned legislation. In other words, they intend to hoist western society by its own petard. The Agence France Presse reports that scarf partisans are duplicitously using a double tactic and a double language to impose their views on Muslim women—their ultimate goal being the destruction of the liberal-democratic state itself. On the one hand, they appeal in public to the doctrine of universal human rights, which are observed only in states such as France; on the other, in private, they use the traditional male dominance of their culture—including the threat of violence—to impose their views on others in the name of Holy Writ. After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so. In short, Islamic extremists use secularism to impose theocracy: a tactic that calls to mind that of the communists of old, who appealed to freedom of speech with the long-term aim of extinguishing it altogether. The parallel is all the more exact, because just as Moscow financed the communists, the Saudis finance many of the Muslim extremists. France’s headscarf problem illustrates the limited ability of abstract principle to decide practical political questions. There are good abstract arguments, appealing to human rights on both sides, for allowing and disallowing the wearing of the headscarf. But the question can only be decided sensibly based on the study of social realities. In Britain, for example, there was (for a very short time) a problem about Sikh men who wanted to join the public service and yet continue to wear their turbans. Officials solved the problem very quickly: they designed turbans that fitted in—very smartly, in the event—with various uniforms and modes of dress. No one felt, or feels, intimidated or threatened in the slightest by this concession to a religious custom. The same cannot be said of the appearance on our streets of Muslim women so completely covered that even their eyes are hardly visible through the slit in their headdress. The reason for the difference in reaction rests not on abstract principle but on concrete social context. The women who appear in such costume are often subject to forced marriage, and no one can tell whether they wear Islamic costume from choice or through brute intimidation. Moreover, they are members of a religion with a strong aggressive, proselytizing, and imperialistic streak—a religion that ultimately recognizes nothing but itself, not even the secular state, as a source of authority. There is clearly an urgency to the settlement of the scarf question in France: and let us hope for France’s sake that Sarkozy, Raffarin, and Luc Ferry (the Minister of Education) are familiar with those wise lines of Kipling: And we’ve proved it again and again,. I say maybe 5, 6 years tops before France is completely under Shari'a laws. *Originally, I found this at LGF, hattipped to Brenda. |
| Posted by:Celissa |
| #14 Ok,Celissia. But where do you stand? Should it be the woman's choice? Or should it be forced(under threat of violence or otherwise)by a women's husband and Sharia? And Womens Rights in general? |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-24 07:24:28 |
| #13 The Scarves vs. the ID Card Issue is the first of many confrontations in France. The Mullah's et.al will milk this one for all it is worth. The French will eventually cave in because the M's will push it for all its worth and, well, is the govt going to use riot police to enforce this one? Then another issue will come up, etc. etc. This is just the beginning of, well, basically jihad or the gradual takeover of France by Islam. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-23 21:26:59 |
| #12 It is high time for the Western Democracies to declare that that it is a cultural imperative to achieve energy indepence. And then we may have to resort to Cultural Apparthied. As coldly brutal as that sounds it does not mean death camps or any of the racist policies of the former RAS. Quite simply the Isalmic World for the Muslims, The Subcontinent for the Hindus, East Asia for the Buhdists, Taoists and Sinto. Europe, North America and South America for the cultures that dominate them now. Sub-Saharan Africa is a tougher call due to influences of both European and Islamic colonizers over the centuries. But I doubt that such a world would ever come to be due to the fact that Islam feels it is destined to be the World on day. And a rather poor screwed up world too. I may be ignorant of them but what major accomplishments has the Islamic world brought to the planet in the last 500 years |
| Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-04-23 17:11:36 |
| #11 I look at it as an act similar to banning gang colors and insignia. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-04-23 16:57:35 |
| #10 Meanwhile, in Turkey... |
| Posted by: Pink & Fluffy 2003-04-23 16:50:14 |
| #9 "But, in a spirit completely contrary to the Conseil d’Etat’s ruling, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced his intention of prohibiting by law the wearing of the headscarf in the exercise of any public function. He did so in name of the difference between the public and the private sphere, and of the secularism of the state." France has big issues with its Muslim population, mostly because it has put the Muslims in enclaves which are now thoroughly out of its control, which isn't good for the people living in those enclaves or for the French as a whole. That's what leads to the gang rapes and other issues. Headscarves have nothing to do with that, and banning them isn't going to fix it. If headscarves are banned in public places, the gangs will still rape the women who aren't wearing them. I agree with liberalhawk. You take off the scarf when it is necessary for identification purposes, but otherwise the state has no business being concerned with it. They should concentrate on securing the safety of the residents of their ghettos rather than dictating fashion. |
| Posted by: Kathy 2003-04-23 15:43:33 |
| #8 val - very simple - you remove the headscarf when you check ID (for example at airport checkin, or checkin to a govt building or public event then they can put the headscarf back on. The law Raffarin proposed would have banned all wearing of headscarves at all public events - and not for security, but for secularism. I mean its one thing to make a boy take off his kippa to check for headlice - another thing to ban it at all public events. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-23 15:24:17 |
| #7 Liberalhawk what are you talking about? The issue that Sarkozy specifically brought up WAS the headscarves. The article itself is directed at what happens when when there is a cultural tradition conflict with that of a society's rules and regulations. The fundamentalists booed Sarkozy, though a smattering of the women in the audience applauded when he remarked that the law required that photographs for the compulsory identity card should be taken bareheaded: that is to say, without a headscarf In the case of the ID card, well its kinda moot to have an ID card if theres no way to identify the person via the card isnt it? (Namely the headscarves involved are meant to cover up the entire face except the eyes) |
| Posted by: Valentine 2003-04-23 15:10:53 |
| #6 celissa - have you noted - in France the muslims live in ghettos, rampage in anti-semitic demos, and are a problem for French foreign policy. While here in the good old USA our muslims are more integrated, are mainly loyal, and are not the kind of issue they are in France? Granted their numbers are fewer and their origins different, but do you think our American approach to pluralism and positive assimilation just might have something to with it? Maybe the French arent the model for absorbing immigrants? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-23 14:54:17 |
| #5 "Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced his intention of prohibiting by law the wearing of the headscarf in the exercise of any public function. He did so in name of the difference between the public and the private sphere, and of the secularism of the state. " IE not just about ID's but at any public function. And not in the name of security, but in the name of the secularism of the state. And there are some people who get bent out of shape at liberals for not wanting creches placed on public property - but think that defending the secular character of the state requires telling individuals how to dress. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-23 14:50:26 |
| #4 if scarves must be removed for security/ID purposes thats one thing. The paragraph i quoted makes no mention of id's or security concerns - again " No one felt, or feels, intimidated or threatened in the slightest by this concession to a religious custom. The same cannot be said of the appearance on our streets of Muslim women so completely covered that even their eyes are hardly visible through the slit in their headdress. The reason for the difference in reaction rests not on abstract principle but on concrete social context." the social context he then describes is not a reference to ID or security issues, but the content of Islam (as he understands it) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-23 14:46:57 |
| #3 IE its ok for sikhs to wear turbans and jews to weap kippot, but not for muslims to wear muslim headdress cause - well - theyre muslims. I think what he's talking about is the refusal of Muslims to alter their "beliefs" to assimilate and adhere to French law. France is going to end up in "Human Rights Court" because Islamic women want to wear veils for their ID cards. That's ridiculous. Viewpoints on Islam vary. You are free to hold yours. I base my views on the Qur'an, the translated sermons I've read and continue to read, and the actions of Muslims around the globe. Fundamentalism is true Islam. Refusal to believe that doesn't make it any less true. |
| Posted by: Celissa 2003-04-23 14:39:53 |
| #2 He hoped that moderates would control the new group, but instead it has given extremists a platform from which to voice their demands. Moderate Muslims...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-04-23 14:22:37 |
| #1 "Moreover, they are members of a religion with a strong aggressive, proselytizing, and imperialistic streak—a religion that ultimately recognizes nothing but itself, not even the secular state, as a source of authority. " IE its ok for sikhs to wear turbans and jews to weap kippot, but not for muslims to wear muslim headdress cause - well - theyre muslims. And islam aint really a religion, but a political viewpoint. And those guys who call themselves muslims and claim to disagree with that political viewpoint are either lying, or are not really muslims. I didnt take this one on in LGF - but here we're on saner ground. If anyone rapes of forces someone into marriage they should be punished for that - period. Which is indeed the law in the United States of America, where I live. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-23 14:22:13 |