Fairweather Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Hey all you posters out there who would like us to be a more 'enlightened' nation.....like France? Radical secularism, or plain old French style intolerance?: Friday December 5, 05:00 PM Chirac stokes Muslim veil debate By Sophie Louet TUNIS (Reuters) - President Jacques Chirac has denounced Muslim headscarves on schoolgirls as offensive and expressed concern about Islamic fundamentalism as momentum builds up in France to bar all religious symbols from public schools. Speaking on a visit to Tunisia on Friday, Chirac said the strictly secular French state could not let pupils wear what he called "ostentatious signs of religious proselytism" and saw "something aggressive" in the wearing of traditional Muslim veils. Chirac's comments to pupils at the French lycee in Tunis sharpened the shrill headscarf debate in France, which has seen diffuse popular concerns about Islam, women's rights and Muslim immigration develop into a broad movement to ban the veil. More than 60 prominent French women, including actresses Isabelle Adjani and Emmanuelle Beart and designer Sonia Rykiel, issued a petition on Friday, urging a ban on "this visible symbol of the submission of women". "We cannot accept ostentatious signs of religious proselytism, whatever they are and whatever the religion," said Chirac, who is due to receive a special report on enforcing secularism next week in preparation for a possible ban. "In our public schools, a veil has something aggressive about it which presents a problem of principle, even if only a small minority wears it." Critics say banning a bit of cloth ignores the root cause of problem, the failure to integrate France's five million Muslims -- mostly of North African origin -- into French society. Muslim women and girls argue that banning them would infringe on their freedom of religion. Only a handful of schools have expelled girls for insisting on wearing veils, but polls show a majority of voters favour a ban and parliamentarians are ready to pass one into law. Referring to Islamic fundamentalists, who many anti-veil activists say pressure girls into covering their heads, Chirac also spoke out against "certain schools of Islam that are not compatible with secularism". He said all religions had known in their history "times when suddenly there is a deviation or drift that leads to excesses that stoke useless fights and totally oppose the essence of religion, which is love and respect for others". Chirac stressed he had no dispute with the large majority of French Muslims, many of whom are born in France and have full French citizenship, and admitted that Paris had to do more to ensure they are better integrated into French society. Political momentum against the veil picked up on Thursday when 30 parliamentarians came out in favour of an even more explicit ban than Chirac hinted at, substituting the word "visible" for the more debatable term "ostentatious". Some conservative politicians are wary of a total ban on religious symbols since it would also bar neck chains with a Christian cross or Jewish kippa skullcaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 The Wall Street Journal put this best in an editorial yesterday: "The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic extremism, Their targets, which will now confront the full force of l'etat, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim headscarves in French public schools." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mtguide Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 (edited) Probably the highly sensitive French fashion victim/haute coutoure/rudeness reflex that's been kicked into gear,here.Bot I mean,really, we just CAN'T have all zees weemen running around NOT buying ze Givenchy and Chanel and Estee Lauder and Elle,now CAN we,mon ami; bot of COURSE,zat would be so absolutely DISASTROUS,and WHY zey do not realize eet ees SO tacky,and oh,I must go lie down...(ah!;who ARE zees peeple!) ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Sacre bleu!Le pisseur Americain!!" Now,Peeyair,y'all ain't wonna them there sekyewlur hyewmnists are ya,there? Edited December 19, 2003 by Mtguide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 This is a really tough thing to call. I can see arguments on both sides of the issue. Secularism is very important to continued peace and harmony, yet religious freedom must be upheld as well. Where do you draw the line? I'd say no to veils, but yes to head scarves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Chirac is a political disaster for France. As if the country doesn't have enough problems without a fucking idiot leader alienating them from the United States. I look for a much more congenial, U.S. friendly French leader in the future. Chirac can suck a dick and die for all I care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Chirac is not acting on his own trask. He has a lot of backing on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Fuck that Catbird, HE signs the checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 He's a politician. His campaign contributors sign the checks. They wag the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I believe that governments should be agnostic, not atheist. Secularism, when approached from an atheist standpoint almost becomes its own religion. Better to allow individuals to worship and not get involved, unless the worship negatively effects others. How does wearing a small cross, or a star, or a crescent around one's neck negatively effect others? How does a scarf negatively effect others? Typical Frogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Fairweather, your leading question does no justice to either the French as a people or to the idea of freedom. Perhaps the question should be more specific such as do the French place limits on 'extreme' expressions of religious ideology? If the offending expression of religion clashes with the popular ideas of gender equality, then shouldn't the secular position overrule? If the offending expression is supported then doesn't that amount to official endorsement of the ideology behind the expression, which in this case appears to indicate the lower status of women by subjecting them to modify their behavior rather than the behavior of men? In other words, was the call for women to veil themselves in public something that was propagated by a rigidly patriarchial system? What limits do we as Americans place on the limitation of religious expression and does this infringe on our right to religious freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 If the offending expression of religion clashes with the popular ideas of gender equality, then shouldn't the secular position overrule? The frogs' real problem with it is that the Muslim girls don't put out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Not sure if this is true or not but I heard that the reason the French eat snails and such is that the French countryside was devastated during years of war including many religious wars, e.g., the Crusade against the Albigensians in the south of France. Consequently, they were reduced to eating these odd creatures to survive. Can anyone shed any light on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I had dinner with an older guy in Northern Germany once. I ordered some delicious mussels, because I knew his wholesale food company delivered them. When they came, he said "I can't stand the smell." I told him I couldn't believe that he didn't like mussels. He told me that as a small child outside Hamburg, he had to forage with his family on the coast in order to eat during WWII. "I'll never eat another mussel" he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I bet that doesn't stop some from eating other things that smell occasionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I'd say that, yes, the French do love freedom, but they define it differently than Fairweather does. And guess what, part of being a free society lies in defining that freedom according to your own criteria. I have problems with this policy as well, but we here in Canada define and express our freedoms differently than the French, so who am I to say? The British do a lot of things that most Americans - particularly Fairweather - probably wouldn't tolerate (National Health, restrictive gun control, hereditary monarchy, Bangers & Mash). Funny I don't hear Fairweather questioning whether they "love freedom" just because they do things differently than Americans. Why are they allowed to express their freedom however they like, but the French are expected to adhere to the standards of others? Or is Fairweather just Frog-bashing because he's still pissed that France didn't jump obediently into bed with W over Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Murray, I'd say it was the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 You could apply Murray's flawed logic to any country. Iraqis loved freedom under Saddam as well, they just expressed it differently. Puh-lease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Iraqis loved freedom under Saddam as well, they just expressed it differently. Wow, that's quite a leap - equating a 200-year-old western liberal democracy (France) with an oppressive military dictatorship. Who ever said anything about the Iraqis being "free" under Saddam? But that's the beauty of straw men - once you get them set up, it requires no effort at all to knock them back down again. My point was that in France, as in any country, the exercise of one's freedoms will eventually bring you into conflict with someone else's excercising their freedoms. Different countries manage these conflicts differently, according to whatever criteria they chose. In the United States the preference is to leave as much responsibility as possible to the individual, and to constrain the individual only to prevent demonstrable harm to others. That's a perfectly legitimate yardstick, and it's used to varying degrees the world over. In France, there's a greater emphasis on collective rights at the expense of individual rights. There's nothing particularly sinster about this, it's just the way France's social and political structures have evolved over several hundred years of history. In Canada, we tend to split things a bit more in favour of the individual than they do in France, but we also have a strong sense of collective responsibility which manifests itself in things like universal health care, stricter (by US standards) gun-control legislation, and broader social assistance programs than the US. In all three countries, these differing approaches have been arrived at freely, through the broad consent of the populace. Just because the results are different doesn't necessarily mean that any one of these three countries has any greater or lesser love of the freedom that allows them to make these decisions. I'd also like to point out that, so far, the French are simply discussing an idea. They've put it out in the public forum, and they're kicking it around to see how it will fare, and at some point they'll make a decision to adopt this new policy, or they'll modify it somewhat (as is already happening within the space of a single news story), or they'll abandon it and move on to something else. It looks to me a lot like a group of people freely debating an issue in an effort to bring it to some sort of resolution. It's almost...democratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Catbird Said (in part) Secularism is very important to continued peace and harmony....... I think this guy agrees with that notion: Now, I'll admit that your original, complete sentence was wholly balanced, but I strongly disagree with the liberal notion that secularism is in any way a more peaceful path for the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Now, I'll admit that your original, complete sentence was wholly balanced, but I strongly disagree with the liberal notion that secularism is in any way a more peaceful path for the masses. Perhaps arguing miltant religous belief on all sides (atheism, christianity, islam, etc.) leads quickly to discord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Yes, I believe 'militant' religion should be suppressed, as should 'militant' communism, or 'militant' secularism. I think Chirac's view that headscarves are somehow militant is way over-the-top though. Now, boys wearing 'saggy britches' to school.....that's another story! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Wow, that's quite a leap - equating a 200-year-old western liberal democracy (France) with an oppressive military dictatorship. France has a 200 year old liberal democracy? Check that. Remember that short funny guy with the hat (arguably the father of the modern French NATION i.e. from the latin "natio" meaning the people). Yeah anyway, liberal democracy is not how I would describe much France up to 1815. Sure he insituted many major reforms and took huge steps forward dem,octarically. But not exactly liberal democracy. After 1815 it is my recollection that the Monorchy was reinstalled for some years to come. Democracy was tried, and often failed in 1800 France. Remember, Napolean III was actually elected President (1848-1852) of France and subsequently took power as Emperor (1852-1870). However,your point is well taken. That said for the most part I agree with your post. Fairweather's point on Stalin is very well taken. Let the frogs be frogs. I really could cares less about them. Other than their seat on the Secuity Council, they are nothing. And that was a gift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 they got the security council seat cause they have nukes - remember mururoa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Is mururoa like roratunga? Or are they both just fun to say? C'mon try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Is mururoa like roratunga? Or are they both just fun to say? C'mon try it. that was kinda fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.