French cabinet backs scarf ban

[Oceans11]

The French cabinet has approved a law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols in state schools.
The move comes before a parliamentary debate starting on Tuesday, which is expected to end in the law's approval.

The bill follows an official report on state secularism which was backed by President Jacques Chirac.

Large crucifixes, Jewish skullcaps and other signs of faith - probably including Sikh turbans - will also be banned if the proposals become law.

The bill proposes that "in schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden."

Protests

Mr Chirac told the closed cabinet meeting that France needed to act to head off danger to the nation's secular foundations.

We have just given the Islamists and the militant fundamentalists a massive gift of gold

Francois Bayrou,
Union for French Democracy
"To do nothing would be irresponsible. It would be a fault," he said, according to government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope.

Not acting would mean "leaving teachers and school principals alone in the face of growing difficulties", he added.

The bill has its first reading before the National Assembly, parliament's lower house, on Tuesday.

The proposals have led to protests by Muslim groups in France and around the world.

Many of France's five million Muslims see it as an attack on their religious and human rights.

'Misguided'

But Mr Chirac's stand reflects popular opinion in France where some 70% of the electorate have said they back a ban on religious symbols in schools.

French opposition Socialists have described the proposals as misguided and unclear.

Former education minister Francois Bayrou, of the Union for French Democracy (UDF) - the coalition partner of Mr Chirac's Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) - said he would oppose the law because "the disadvantages outweigh the advantages".

"We have just given the Islamists and the militant fundamentalists a massive gift of gold," he said on RTL radio.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3437133.stm

 

[PatPatriot]

What a real enlightned society of tolerance and freedom of expression!
Chalk one up for the ragheads,they just took away the symbolic expression of about 50 other religions.
Hell, don't be surprised if you see some contruction workers disassembling the eiffel tower...because ChIraq is afraid it will get knocked down by the desert rats.

 

[JohnnyDetroit+]

Chirac should be more worried about the documents floating around that the French did not back the war due to the same reason we did, "oil"-->

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac


BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization

 

[xpanda]

I find it odd that since the French government is banning all religious symbols, that the media focuses solely on the headscarves. Since the Iraq war, it seems to be politically correct to be Islamic sympathisers, I suppose.

At any rate, the law is completely retarded, but I guess the French don't have a 'freedom of religion' or 'expression' provision in their equivalent of the Human Rights Act.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Religous rights and human rights cannot coexist.

 

[xpanda]

Interesting statement. Care to elaborate?

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Sure,

Religion is strictly left up to interpretation, interpretation of text by a patriarchal hierarchy that will never put women or minorities on the same level as white men in regards to Catholicism or Arabic men in regards to Islam. Because of this, you either further the human rights of women and minorities from the inside of a religion… will never happen, or you take away people’s religious rights and promote everyone’s human rights.

 

[xpanda]

No religious law should have the freedom to supercede legal or civil liberties, for sure. I don't quite understand, however, how allowing someone the choice of religious expression would infringe on the civil liberties of others. Indeed, denying a person the choice of religious expression is infringing on the civil liberties of the individual. Unless, of course, France has national dress code laws already in place.

Chirac is going to far with this one.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Yes and no.

If you want a purely secular society committed to human rights, you have to first break down religious rights, build up human rights, and then allow people the right to worship and express their religious affiliations. If not, the commitment to one's religious affiliation will always supercede human rights and law.

 

[Oceans11]

The communists had a more extreme solution to remove any conflict with their particular ideology.

Ban religion entirely.

Banning Sikh turbans will cause problems, those guys are pretty serious.
Even the Taleban didn't have a problem with Sikhs, mainly because they do not involve themselves in publicity and conversion.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you want a purely secular society committed to human rights, you have to first break down religious rights, build up human rights, and then allow people the right to worship and express their religious affiliations. If not, the commitment to one's religious affiliation will always supercede human rights and law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh Oh I get it so long if it is a goverment brand of human rights, that way we can break down religious rights...great idea Mein Furhrer,haven't we been down this road before??
Great idea...I like it when everyone is equel and goverment tells you exactley what equel is...Jesus H. Christ, get a clue!

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Patricia,

Please tell me in your own words... How is it that religious rights make everyone equal? The clues are evident to anyone who has read history... religion destroys societies and erects barriers.
Let me guess... you have a little jesus fish on your bumper. You are probably just another cafeteria christian, believing in only what is convenient for you. Tell me, who would do a better job at securing human rights, the UN or the fvcking pope?

 

[xpanda]

Milwaukee: not that I disagree with you on the ill effects of religion (recovering Catholic over here) I don't see how banning elements of religious expression which are not deemed illegal can be aiding human rights in any way. If anything, it's the opposite.

If there is to be a true separation of Church and state, then the state needs to allow for the freedom to choose (and express) one's religion (or non-religion for that matter.) Societies destroyed by religion have been societies ruled by religion -- not the issue in France. Yes, the religious right is ****ed up, but that shouldn't make it illegal to ban the wearing of a c****, etc. It has always been the position of the right to impart laws which impede on personal freedom -- this law is authoritarian in nature.

 

[Oceans11]

The French are certainly walking a cultural tightrope, it will be interesting to watch.

The thing is, if parents and a particular religious organisation (whichever one) can interfere with and manipulate the child in its' pre-adolescence stages, why shouldn't the state block this, at least to some extent?

Goebbels admired, and used as a basis for his own system, the Catholic system.
Ram it down their throats and into their heads from day one, and even if they reject your doctrine for a while, many return later on in life.
Put an indelible stamp on their psyches at the childhood stage.

This law will show youngsters from the earliest stages in their developing social lives, you don't actually have to live like that, if you don't want to.
No wonder they are so pissed off.

(Believer in God. Believer in no religion. Ex-Catholic)

 

[xpanda]

The thing is, though, eek, is that religion is not, in and of itself, a painfully erroneous philosophy. It is the would-be powers over the congregation, who have historically abused their position, that create problems. So, that in mind, how is Chirac behaving any differently? Is he an atheist trying to promote his own agenda?

In any event, what he is up to borders on lunacy. The state has no more the right to control religious expression (within the confines of criminal law) than it would to deny religious choice ... if a headscarf or other such religious ornament somehow infringes on the civil liberties of a passerby, then perhaps the passerby is the one with the problem.

Live and let live. How hard is that?

(Ex-Catholic, borderline Atheist, tolerant Human.)

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Q: How do you make religions and cultures give their followers human rights when it goes against their religious doctrine?
A: You take away their their religious doctrine.

 

[Oceans11]

The direct interference is only at the pre-maturity/adolescence stage of the individual, and is applied equally to all individuals, and only in State schools.

The religious expression of adults is not interfered with in any way, only their ability to manipulate children, who are too young to choose anyway, is restricted, and only in State schools.

The technical rights and wrongs can be debated forever, into infinity.
At the end of the day, it will not actually harm those children.
Only parents and adults with religious motivations are 'harmed'.

Its definitely a new approach for a Western nation.
Forcing Politics onto children is an accepted taboo, but forcing religion on to them apparently, is fine.

[This message was edited by eek on January 30, 2004 at 07:12 PM.]