Article

2004-06-29 Europe

European Court Backs Ban on Muslim Scarves

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-06-29 10:14:57 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The point isn't finally the headscarf, is it?

The real issue is that those who wear it are following an order of society at complete odds with the modern world to which they have emigrated. Their world is about shame of the human body, women as a subclass of humanity, and all people having to submit to Muslim values.

Europe is slowly strangling itself with its PC approach to this problem.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 10:50:37 AM|| 2004-06-29 10:50:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm surprised they managed this delay in dhimmitude...

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-29 11:22:18 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:22:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'd stay off the trains in France for awhile.

Posted by tu3031 2004-06-29 11:30:27 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:30:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 jules> The real issue is that those who wear it are following an order of society at complete odds with the modern world to which they have emigrated.

Wrong, and you too tu3031. This decision was about Turkey, not about immigrants.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 11:41:12 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:41:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Then I'd stay off the trains in Turkey.

Posted by tu3031 2004-06-29 11:45:15 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:45:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Bzzzzzt! Wrong, Aris. Does it, or does it not apply to all EU states, all immigrants? Jeez, read the words! Applies to France and "takes precedence over national court rulings"??

WTF?

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-29 11:46:03 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:46:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Jules said that the issue was about immigrants and failure to assimilate to the society the emigrated to.

That was wrong. Unless I misunderstood his comment, in which case let *him* say I misunderstood it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 11:49:10 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:49:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 As a sidenote I fail to understand what the article means *in this case* about superceding national courts. If the decision had been the opposite, I'd understand the point -- nations wouldn't have the right to restrict the headscarves to their citizens, national rulings would be overruled in this respect.

But now the European court said that the nations *do* have this right, so I don't understand what is meant by the "superceding" thingy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 11:53:32 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:53:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Aris:

Whatever the "technical" answer might be as to what this ruling is about, deep down those who are thinking clearly know quite well that its ALL about "immigrants and failure to assimilate to the society the emigrated to".

Wishful thinking on your part doesn't change Islam's *fundamental* inability to blend into secular society.

Posted by Crusader 2004-06-29 11:55:21 AM|| 2004-06-29 11:55:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Crusader> If it's ALL about the issue you are talking about, do you think that Turkey isn't interested at all about the decision?

As a sidenote, people, read the court's reasoning. The secular state of Turkey's constitution seems to have taken into account. This will also help likewise-secular France in its own case against the headscarves, but less fully-secular countries may have much more trouble making the case.

I imagine that Greece wouldn't have a leg to stand on against the headscarf, when daily prayer and religious class-as-catechism is the norm in schools.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 12:01:08 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:01:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris, Your correction about emigrants is due, but my main point is still valid--this insistence on wearing scarfs flows from the Muslim insistence on forcing of religious values onto a secular society (France or Turkey).

Aris, truly, your comments sometimes come across as mannerless and smug, and this alienates the many people who ARE interested in learning from others on this site. I certainly don't know everything--that's why I am here-to weigh the ideas of others and contribute my own. You have to be open to the possibility that others have a good point.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 12:03:54 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:03:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 How very brave and French: Let's pick on the little girls. What good could this move possibly do? The EU won't deal with real problems; instead it takes on the children. I would not be worried that my children are attending school next to someone wearing a headscarf.
Freedom of religion and the freedom of parents to raise their children are good things.
There are very serious problems with the Muslims in Europe. Headware is not the problem.

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Agreed, 5442, but the whole reason behind headscarves is supposed to be modesty (i.e. to hide their feminity and sexuality) and "piety."
Why impute sexuality to pre-pubescent girls way before their time?
Of course, in the Muslim suburbs of France, they say the gang rape stuff so charactestic of Muslim males starts pretty early.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-29 12:19:46 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-29 12:19:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Anonymous5442> The headscarf is the way that good Muslim boys use in order to distinguish the good and virtuous Muslim girls from the dirty apostate-whores whose lives need to be threatened.

It's not freedom of religion. It's not even the much more morally-ambivalent "freedom of parents to raise their children". It's de facto enforcement of religion.

I have no sympathy for the headscarf.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 12:21:53 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:21:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 How very brave and French

Why is everyone in this thread ignoring that the headscarf-ban was first done in Turkey, and that even the decision mentioned in the article is about Turkey first and it involves France only through precedent-setting?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 12:25:32 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:25:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris, you may be correct, as to what the scarf means to certain people. The note from Jen (and in part) from Aris from underscore my point: Leave the little girls alone. Go after the real problems. There are real problems. I have heard of the gang rape problem: Do something about that. If the Muslims truly cannot live with the rest of the society, then you might have to throw them out. (I must admit that such an idea bothers me; I am just at a loss as to how to deal with these situations.)

And, from what I hear from Greek friends, Aris' mention of "dity apostate whores" is not over done language when it comes to Muslim treatment of non-muslims. The stories I have heard and read are heartbreaking.

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 12:29:14 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:29:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Fair enough: First done in Turkey. However, I do believe it is inaccurate to say that this is merely going to France through precedent. Chriac brought this idea up a bit ago as a sop to the right wing. However, to make it "French" he also proposed banning Jewish caps and crosses.

Second, how would refusing to permit headscarves make Muslims stop abusing their neighbors?

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 12:37:32 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:37:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 The tragic part of the "dirty apostate whores" thing is that I've read that young Muslim males have formed gangs where they just lay in wait to rape their own girls and thus Muslim girls have no choice but to become "dirty apostate whores."
Apparently, the French police are so afraid of the Muslim banlieu (suburbs) that they don't even go into them anymore to uphold the rape and assault laws.
So the horny Muslim males have the run of the place.
Truly a terrifying situation--France has a societal cancer that is going to kill them.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-29 12:46:16 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-29 12:46:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Second, how would refusing to permit headscarves make Muslims stop abusing their neighbors?

As I said, in the given circumstances of the rise of Islamofascism, de jure "permitting them" becomes de facto "forcing them", because little Muslim girls and their families would be afraid *not* to wear these things.

Now they have an excuse towards their peers, and towards their families also -- "the state doesn't permit us".

This measure is not meant to hurt the little girls, it's meant to help them against both peers and families. The way I see it atleast, and the way I believe it is meant.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 1:01:40 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:01:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Folks need to read up on the head scarf ban in Turkey, and why Turkey considers it to be such a threat to secularism. It's not just picking on little girls. Head scarves are a fairly recent thing in much of the Muslim world, associated with the rise of fundamentalism, and a form of pressure to conform to the fundamentalist movement.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-29 1:05:52 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:05:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 But now the European court said that the nations *do* have this right, so I don't understand what is meant by the "superceding" thingy.

Well, that's easy. The court bowed to the wishes of the French, the court's raison d'etre, so to speak. What a shitstorm it would cause if the decision went the other way.

On the other hand, I have to defend the French on the head scarf issue. On the surface the head scarf encroaches on their separation of church and state doctrine. At the deeper level, there is the question of whether the state takes precedence over religion (as it should, IMO).
This has nothing to do with freedom to follow your religion. Many here are asking if American Muslims are Muslims first and Americans second. Well, see what is happening in France, and learn. The head scarf is an early test case for the French, and provides an example to watch carefully for everyone else.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 1:14:55 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:14:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Aris, your point is well taken in 19. I also understand with your point about giving some cover for those who would seek to avoid confrontation with their neighbors. Virigian is correct about it being a fairly recent thing. Rafael is correct about questioning the degree to which Muslims are Americans.

All that being granted, I still don't think this will solve any problems. First, if I am a Muslim who does not force his daughter to wear the scarf, I may still be abused by my neighbors. I have become a collaborator.

Second, in this context, "secularism" is effectively an imposed religion - especially since it is opposed directly to a religion. There is a difference between the law prohibiting people from forcing their neighbors to conform to an idea and permitting people to express their ideas.

Third, the problem is not whether a person holds a particular religious position, or whether that person's religion prohibits them living peaceable in a country. If Muslims want to disagree with the tenants of the country, fine. The problem is killing everyone who disagrees.

Finally, why doesn't the EU take on the real problems. The headscarf ban (even if it is a good idea) still won't stop the more fundamental problems with Muslims in the West. Their are a good number of these people who want to kill us. Muslim eschatology is truly fascinating. Provoking a war with Europe ("the Romans" or "Rome") is a necessary event before Allah intervenes in history.
Read it yourself:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 1:30:32 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:30:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 My question on this issue is not based on the matter of Islamism/headscarf/etc, but this: Does the ECHR have jurisdiction over the totality of Europe or just with member states of the EU? Does a non-EU or even EU country have the right to ignore the Court's decisions?

Considering how EU opponents to Turkish admission to the body must make the average Turk ticked off at the EU, is it expected then that Turkey (or Norway, Switzerland) should abide by any decision by the ECRH?

Today's Instapundit has several links to Turkey/Bush/Chirac/UK/EU Constitution. Damn confusing is all I can say.

Posted by Michael 2004-06-29 1:47:45 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:47:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I could give a rat's ass what muslims wear or catholics wear for that matter. The point is that once again the vaunted birthplace of western civilization has opted for appearance (literally) over substance. Have a problem with terrorism - make'm go bareheaded - that'll fix the problem.

Posted by Mercutio 2004-06-29 1:51:04 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:51:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Rafael is correct about questioning the degree to which Muslims are Americans.

The degree to which Muslims are Americans first, and Muslims second. (These may not be mutually exclusive, but I'm only considering the case where they may be).

...permitting people to express their ideas.

There is also a difference between people expressing their ideas with their own money, and doing it with public money.

If Muslims want to disagree with the tenants of the country, fine.

That is ridiculous. So if a Muslim disagrees with democracy, and counsels people against voting, intimidating those that do...this is supposed to be tolerated??? This is the sort of people we want in our country???

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 2:19:31 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:19:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Right, Rafael, it gets sticky there. What if this Muslim is a company boss and disagrees with the tenet of equal rights under the law or equal opportunity for all or basing no employment decisions on race, gender, or religion? Is he free to discriminate against non-Muslims and women, despite their ability and talent for doing the job? Yes, we have gender and religious conflicts in America all the time, but we have laws to remind us that our country will not sanction discrimination. Imposition of Muslim cultural norms on non-Muslim societies has opened up a Pandora's Box of conflict and strife.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 2:37:19 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:37:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Rafael: The right to freedom of speech permits even painfully stupid speech. Idiots are free to argue that we should have slavery and a king. I think the problem comes with the use of the word "questioning". Intimidation goes beyond talking. We can tolerate stupid speech; but not violent actions.

Second, I would like it if Muslims decided not to vote.

Third, you are right about expressions with private or public money. However, protesting on a public space is not using public money to protest. If it were, the government would be required to forbid all speech in public spaces.

Finally, I think the underlying nature of your concern is correct: These people (or at least a great many) seem to want to go beyond speech. In point of fact, Muslims are not merely Amish girls with a different accent. If they were, there never would be a problem.

The real difficulty comes about because the Islamofacists seek to use our freedoms (speech, travel, privacy) as means to kill us. We can stop speech, travel, privacy, but then we loose something very important.

I do not want to trash the Bill of Rights, and I do not want to be killed.

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 2:53:04 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:53:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Michael> AFAIK, Turkey has accepted to place herself under the European Court of Human Right's authority. In exchange it gets trade agreements, benefits, financial aid, etc, etc.

Sure, it can disobey the court, nobody will physically force her to obey. But Turkey *will* lose all the things that the EU is already giving her (even without Turkey being a member state).

I am not sure what is the status of other non-member countries in this respect. Checking the verdicts of the European Court I see that countries like Ukraine, Croatia, are also listed, so it may be indeed that pretty much the whole of Europe has chosen to abide by the court's decisions.

Rafael> France has been condemned by the European Court many times. Check for "France" in the listings:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 3:26:07 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:26:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Just for a reality moment
(and don't hold it against me please)
my schul bans the wearing of not NFL constumes
just one team in particular.... any guesses?

6th Grade Raider fans are the worst! LOL!

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-29 3:26:36 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:26:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 If Muslims want to disagree with the tenants of the country, fine.

as long they dont disagree with landlords of the country ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:28:24 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 ship - in my shul one guy wears a Redskins Tallis - no one messes with him!

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:29:39 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:29:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Reading further on this, I think I have confused the institutions -- it seems that the European Court of Human rights concerns itself with the signatories of the European Declaration of Human Rights, and it's not connected intrinsically with the EU itself -- except in the sense that all EU members *must* bind themselves to abide by it.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/EDocs/DatesOfRatifications.html

Apologies for the confusion.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 3:30:04 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:30:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Liberalhawk: How great a shame I feel at the misplacement of a vowel. Incidentally, Santa Monica (CA) has a law which makes it illegal for landlords to call their tenants names. Tenants are free to abuse their landlords.

Posted by Anonymous5442 2004-06-29 3:31:41 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:31:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris I'm visit you're namesake Ken's pasture this early am.

I've snagged one scarlet snake, almost snagged an indigo snake and brushed up against an interested cow. I suggest you move here. I was forced to detain several cow patties for further investigation.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-29 3:32:42 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Shipman> No goats? Awww...

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 3:34:20 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:34:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 OOps LH
Bad spellin I meant Skool not Schul! :)

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-29 3:34:28 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:34:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 No Aris the mushrooms in question don't grow in goat dung.. tho prehaps they could. But our mushrooms are very local adapted.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-29 3:35:57 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:35:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 You're all right to worry about the political implications of this:
wearing the headscarf isn't to conform with some law in the Koran, it's a political tool the Muslims use to begin infiltrating a culture and using classic principles of Liberalism to get the dictates of shari'a incorporated as de facto mandatory laws.
(Note that there are now schools in New Jersey that are going to set aside Muslim holidays for the school system...then there's the Muslim prayer call that is now allowed outside of Detroit.)
Turkey was quite right to ban the headscarf and its wearers and their Muslim adherenets pose a threat to secular Turkish government.
In France's case, it's too little, too late and in this case, has even negative consequences as it hurts both Jews and Christians by banning their jewelry.
Their Muslim populations were out of control some years ago.
Happily for the U.S., 9/11 probably happened just in time before they got a firmer foothold here.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-29 3:39:50 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-29 3:39:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Bad spellin I meant Skool not Schul! :)

Same origin - Yiddish Schul literally means school, from the German word - a translation into Yiddish of the Hebrew Bet Midrash, House of Study (of the Torah)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:56:57 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:56:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Note that there are now schools in New Jersey that are going to set aside Muslim holidays for the school system

Public schools closing for religious holidays, outrageous ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 4:15:49 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:15:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Lh, Christian and Jewish holidays are,of course, fine.
Muslim ones are not.
Islam is not part of our culture and never has been.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-29 4:17:02 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-29 4:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Jewry and Popery were not parts of our culture either, they came to sully our Protestant culture, doncha know?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 4:25:18 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 ...schools in New Jersey that are going to set aside Muslim holidays for the school system...

Better alert the nurses' stations to set aside extra bandages for all the little ones slicing open their foreheads and flagellating themselves on school property for the glory of Allan...

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 4:40:02 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:40:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 only Shia do that Jules.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 5:25:19 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:25:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 "When some in my country speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith, their words are heard abroad and do great harm to our cause in the Middle East," Bush said.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 5:25:49 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:25:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Only Shia do it--how are you going to allow the practices of one sect of Muslims and not the others? PRACTICAL APPLICATION MATTERS.

When some in my country speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith, their words are heard abroad and do great harm to our cause in the Middle East...

Bush either realizes that speaking about the idea of religions in conflict is ahead of most people's time, or has taken the first incorrect steps of his presidency.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 5:40:40 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:40:40 PM|| Front Page Top

01:16 Anonymous5539
11:36 jules 187
11:10 ConservativeView
12:43 The Doctor
09:22 Anon1
09:15 Anon1
09:05 Anon1
08:58 Anon1
03:09 Super Hose
01:16 Anonymous4617
01:08 Rafael
01:05 Rafael
00:54 Aris Katsaris
00:40 Rafael
00:26 Rafael
00:04 Fred
00:00 Frank G
23:47 joy
23:41 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:32 Pappy
23:27 OldSpook
23:27 Aris Katsaris
23:15 OldSpook