open Democracy News Analysis - France's Headscarf Law, - Comments

adrianabublles on "France's Headscarf Law"

adrianabublles — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:03:32 +0000

Victim said: “So-called multiculturism, in reality multi-cliquery, is in reality fascism in its very essence, a preocupation with clique membership combined with a total disregard for the rights of local communities to their well-earned stability”. Excuse me but please provide some proof for this statement. I am sure it will be quite difficult to produce. The very existence of a country like Canada counters this very claim. It is the promotion of such intolerance that has lead to countless wars and persecution. The ongoing cycle of violence is a good example. About the head scarf ban…outright persecution stems from the French governments’ discrimination against school girls who wear a veil. Their ‘crime’ is covering themselves and guarding their modesty. Muslim women are forced to uncover themselves. The lewd are given precedence over those who are modest. What stability is this?! The French government actively encourages the legalization prostitution. It appears as though they persuade their youth to emulate their beloved cabarets dancers. The common trend now seems that those who choose to cover themselves modestly are persecuted and attacked. This “well-earned stability” is not very stable at all.

dawoudclarke on "France's Headscarf Law"

dawoudclarke — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:41:07 +0000

The holocaust came about because of many complex reasons. Among them is the perpetuating of nationalistic myths by people of influence, people like Rupert Murdoch (an aussie). These myths are self congratulating and emphasize the difference or 'otherness' of people from minorities, the holocaust wasn't an anomaly of 1930s Germany it was something which took place in Europe for over a thousand years. Jews were considered to be different and inclusive or 'cliquey', perhaps. If people were inculcated with tolerance and understanding as opposed to being evangelized with nefarious xenophobia then their would be much less intolerance. There is a long history of racism and prejudice towards subcontinental Muslims in Britain and the result has been a ghettoized mentality amongst young Muslims in places like Bradford. Ever since 2001 Muslims have been viewed with an acute sense of suspicion, if Muslims could feel that they can practice their religion without being stigmatized then they would naturally feel a sense of trust and cooperation towards wider society. Nothing would be more detrimental to Muslims participating in civil society than the state interfering with their religion. Can we not bring ourselves to admit that some people may have different beliefs and customs without being subversive or anti-democratic?

victim on "France's Headscarf Law"

victim — Fri, 13 May 2005 00:14:07 +0000

Petitvin expresses the reality brilliantly. So-called multiculturism, in reality multi-cliquery, is in reality fascism in its very essence, a preocupation with clique membership combined with a total disregard for the rights of local communities to their well-earned stability. Robirley's preceding post makes the standard simplistic equation of two VERY different things: (1) integrated undivided diversity and (2) harsh fracturing into diverse cliques of rigid conformities. The latter is utterly incompatible with liberty, fraternity, democracy, cooperation, honesty, sincerity, happiness, progress, and social stability. It is the route to the next Holocaust. Enoch Powell has yet to be proved wrong, sad to say.

Paul Wilson on "France's Headscarf Law"

Paul Wilson — Sat, 07 May 2005 22:20:57 +0000

"if One is to be secular One may as well be (and definitely according to Islam is) an atheist/non-Muslim." I would be interested to hear what others say here, but my understanding of a "secular society" is one that is not based on any one religion, but allows citizens to practice any religion or none. Almost by definition, the above scenario requires that religion is kept to the private space, and the public space is run on common protocols that are mutually agreed.

asaf.khan01 on "France's Headscarf Law"

asaf.khan01 — Sat, 07 May 2005 16:05:29 +0000

The Leander, I have never made any argument for the Chador, or the Niqab (the bedsheet with eyeholes), although I am now used to people making assumptions about me just because my name is Asaf and I favour Islam. Although you were joking about any Islamic requirements for wearing materials that block out both light and radar emissions, it is interesting to note that Muslim men and women (especially in the middle east) are generally less likely to contract skin cancers than Europeans especially from the Mediterranean region(W.H.O.). The arab countries have always had the tradition of both sexes covering up even in the heat of the sun as, believe it or not, One burns less when covered. This has nothing to do with the Islamic dress code though, the dress code is more to do with preserving modesty and preventing temptation, than preventing UV damage to the skin. Islam is realistic about sex and the different sexual desires of men and women. Recent psychological studies suggest men think about sex every few seconds, and women don't (as often!!). As I believe God to be the creator of all things I believe he would have known this little fact, perhaps explaining the dress code. The Islamic dress requirement for women is that they are not allowed to show more than their faces, hands and feet. This does not mean that a lycra catsuit would be Islamically acceptable, as there are also requirements that the shape of the body must not be revealed by the close fitting of clothes. This probably explains why the vast majority of practicing Muslim women choose the all encompassing chador of Arabic origin as it best fulfills the requirement, and One can wear whatever One chooses to or not to underneath. Obviously One can find clothing from all countries across the world which can fulfill the Islamic dress code from a Laura Ashley dress or a Nuns habit. Men are also required to cover, and not reveal the shape of their body from the navel to just over the knee. The question of why I (I'm assuming you were referring to me) do not want to fit into Europe isn't easy to answer. First of all I feel I have every right to criticise the land I live in and praise it whenever needs be, just like any White British person can and does. There is also the issue of there not being any actual Islamic countries, although there are countries with large Muslim populations (it's like saying Birmingham is an Islamic city just because it has a big Muslim population). So therefore for Muslims there is little difference between living here or living in a Muslim country as Muslim countries are often more morally bankrupt than Western countries. This is because they are not Islamic. Of course like everybody else I want an easy and peaceful life but life in the UK and Europe (I would imagine) is not easy for those who are religious especially Islamic. On the one hand we are asked to be secular and on the other we (Muslims) recognise the hypocrisy of the secularist, if One is to be secular One may as well be (and definitely according to Islam is) an atheist/non-Muslim. So I suppose Muslims would love to stay in Europe but they cannot give up their beliefs. As for myself, I have a mixed race family and although I am critical of Western/European cultures and societies I also realise that that very criticism falls on everybody from my mothers side of the family, and yet I love them dearly. I have cousins who live with their partners outside of wedlock and have children also. I have relatives who are homosexual, I have relatives who drink alcohol and eat pork. Just because I don't like what I see doesn't mean I am malignant and hateful. As the family, in Islam, is paramount. Several members of my family have already left the UK for good and settled in different Muslim countries. There is also the question of how many of the top ranking jobs in the middle eastern states are occupied by Westerners, many expatriate British and Americans. In Saudi Arabia alone their are over 7 million non Arab (Western)workers in a country of around 22 million. This, in relation to the British Muslim population is quite a statistic. These Western workers in the Arab lands have their own compounds where they break laws Arabs have to live by, like gambling, drinking and public nudity. Why is it Westerners in Muslim lands rarely respect their laws? There are countless cases of Western criminals in S.A. being given much lenient sentences than native Arabs or sometimes being set free altogether, for a crime an Arab may have been beheaded for. I am of course just talking about Saudi Arabia, throughout the Arab lands there are more (if not the same amount of) Americans and Western Europeans there, than their are Muslims (regardless of nationality) in Europe and America. Of course in both cases each (well the vast majority) were invited over to work, in both cases each has difficulty accepting the local norms and tradition, and in each case both expect special allowances made for their communities. Hopefully I shall also leave the UK as I hope all Muslims should, for good. However, I am not willing to leave in a haste, wasting what I have worked for just to end up in a mud hut somewhere in a desert. The fact is one cannot find a better standard of living and learning than here in the UK (that's my belief). Muslims are permitted to 'travel as far as china' in the search of employment and knowledge, they are not supposed to set up families there. I have no intention of starting a family here. I have no problem with other Muslims staying in the UK as long as they do not try to be a part of this society whilst also holding onto their traditional beliefs and cultures. There is no such thing as multiculturalism, it is impossible. The purpose of a Muslim coming to these lands is so that ultimately he/she can use their wealth and knowledge to better their own lands. So in conclusion it is fine (Islamicly speaking) for Muslims to come to non-Muslim lands, live, work, pay taxes, gain knowledge, make advancements in their communities, praise and/or criticise what they see. It is not fine for Muslims to intend to integrate, assimilate and stay permanently in non-Muslim lands.

the leander on "France's Headscarf Law"

the leander — Sat, 07 May 2005 02:58:59 +0000

> 'Anything you're likely to throw back at me will be > as a result of dogma, rather then scripture.' > > That kind of makes your theories as unfalsifiable as > those of Freuds. Doesn't give much scope for > dialogue. > I said *likely* the result of dogma, leaving open the door for you to disprove it, if you can quote chapter and verse where in the Koran it states that women must wear bedsheets with eyeholes made from an unknown weave that absorbs both light and quite possibly radar emissions (Ok, that last bit is a joke) then I will happily stand corrected. > I just wanted to make the point that the whole reason > for the Islamic dress code is so that Muslims are > singled out and identified as Muslim. There are > numerous accounts of the Prophet telling people to > dress in a way so that everyone can tell what you > are. If you must insist on having a belief, at least > be proud and unafraid of identification with it. I doubt many would argue with you in some respects of this, however, throughout Asia, Muslims have adapted their dress in such a way as to be different, yet not so different as to be alien to the native dress, this can be seen again across africa also. Islam has in the past adapted to its environment showing an enviable amount of flexability, yet in europe you see almost a complete reversal of this trend. Its been said often in the press that first generation imigrants of 50 years ago or so often changed from foriegn attire to something more british in aspect, so as to aid with fitting in. But that the children and grandchildren, who were born here and as such did not grow up in opressive regimes such as found in the middle east have reverted to more "traditional" dress. I personally find this idea fascinating, I know many moderate muslims over here that wear (what I can only describe as) a hybrid between western and traditional muslim clothing - modest yet fashionable and quite frankly its a cut above anything that most non muslims wear, it has an elegance that we as British lost a long time ago, is clearly identifyable as Muslim without looking like the wearer just got off the boat. But, I have also seen in increasing numbers people wearing what I described earlier as tents with eyeholes, I describe them as that because of the outward appearance. If you make yourself so alien as in an attempt to maintain conservative values, you will leave yourself open to those who consider you a threat, if only for being different (I strongly suspect that this attitude is so the world over). The Sikhs have a dress code, they have to wear their turbuns (sp?) yet they ballance this with wearing western or at the very least clothing easily accepted to western eyes. I do wonder if you truly don't want to "fit in" or be a part of Europe, why do you stay here? I'm serious in this question, why do so many Muslims both native and foriegn living in the UK and the rest of Europe attack the rest of us for being "the enemy" whilst at the same time readily accept any aid given them by the state. Why would you choose to live in a society that you seem to dispise so much? I mean in the UK you can't even say for the weather...

asaf.khan01 on "France's Headscarf Law"

asaf.khan01 — Fri, 06 May 2005 16:14:15 +0000

'Anything you're likely to throw back at me will be as a result of dogma, rather then scripture.' That kind of makes your theories as unfalsifiable as those of Freuds. Doesn't give much scope for dialogue. I just wanted to make the point that the whole reason for the Islamic dress code is so that Muslims are singled out and identified as Muslim. There are numerous accounts of the Prophet telling people to dress in a way so that everyone can tell what you are. If you must insist on having a belief, at least be proud and unafraid of identification with it.

the leander on "France's Headscarf Law"

the leander — Fri, 06 May 2005 13:30:02 +0000

This law is an interesting one, and shows the difference in stance that different European countries have taken in their efforts to give children a more level playing field, for instance, take two children of Arab or asian extraction, one Muslim, one Bhudist, put them in say... A typical English school uniform, now tell me, which is the Muslim just by looking. You can't, and that is the point of this particular law, you complain about being singled out, well, heres a way so that you can't be singled out (beyond the usual school bullying). What happens? Muslims all around the world are up in arms crying about how Muslims are being victimised... Yet this effects all cultures and religions that demand a certain style of dress or overt outward signage advertising a given religion. This law effects Sikhs, Jews, Bhudists, Christians every bit as much as it does Muslims. Yet you don't hear them bitching about it nearly as much... Its also interesting to note that all of the above groups seem to have a much easier time intergrating into Europe then Muslims aparently do. I wonder why that is? As for "Being Tollerant only when it suits" I would point out that in Europe, you can build your Mosques so long as you have planning permission, just as the Jews, Sikhs, Bhudists, Christians, Hindus etc etc etc can build their own places of worship, with no guidlines or demands on when or how you worship. The last time I checked, such rights were not available in Muslim Theocratic states. To all the Muslims in this thread I would say this: If the worst that the state is asking you to do is take off a hat or scarf when you're indoors in school, then you're doing far better then non Muslims are when in most Middle Eastern countries. I will end on this final note, again addressed to the Muslims in this thread: The Koran has specific passages that state clearly that practicality comes before all else, including modesty. Anything you're likely to throw back at me will be as a result of dogma, rather then scripture.

asaf.khan01 on "France's Headscarf Law"

asaf.khan01 — Tue, 03 May 2005 17:15:05 +0000

Just a small point: according to Islamic Law, Muslim women and men have obligatory dress codes. Muslim men are not allowed to show any part of their body below the navel or above the knee. Muslim women are not to show any part of their bodies except the face hands and feet. Whether non-Muslims agree with this dress codes or not does not have any bearing on the fact that devout Muslims will always fight for their wish to dress as prescribed by their faith.

agingqueen on "France's Headscarf Law"

agingqueen — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:49:43 +0000

I agree with the above poster. This law allows for legalized racism. I thought that we were above that. I suppose not.

jomilgibreel on "France's Headscarf Law"

jomilgibreel — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:17:36 +0000

It's all nonsense. Who is hurt or who cares what Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc wear as their free choice? This law is bigoted and bogus and is aimed at marginalising Muslims (more than before). Even though this law applies to all religions equally - I can see that most are obsessed by Muslims etc. G-greg you are really sad. Did you have a problem childhood?

g-greg on "France's Headscarf Law"

g-greg — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:45:02 +0000

Superb ! You have just shown how you are. And yes, I am very hateful towards your type of people. But you also make me laugh.

asaf.khan01 on "France's Headscarf Law"

asaf.khan01 — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:33:54 +0000

G-greg, your entire post is plebeian. The French are hateful imperialists. The French can f**k right off especially when it comes to Algeria, don't try to tell me that the French aren't usurpers like the rest of you Europeans. The Muslims who come to France and become French and adopt your animalistic-bathe-once-a-year-and-fornicate-with-animals-or-children lifestyle are obviously not Muslims-DUH. I apologise to anyone other than crooked-yellow-toothed greg who read this post and was offended but that was my exact purpose as he has been very hateful toward myself in other posts.

g-greg on "France's Headscarf Law"

g-greg — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:11:53 +0000

Yes ! Quite so ! Bravo ! The French are the most un-islamist country in the world - and that's quite a pride ! We are atheists, we honour and respect women, we eat pig. And - but don't repeat - there are plenty of french Jews too. And yet, millions of Muslims come and live in our country and live happily and peacefully there. And, even worse for you islamists, they tend to abandon their islamic customs and become normal French. And, even some times, Muslim french girls wear strings and expose women forms in beaches. About your statement of "women not attracted physically by men", it is certainly because you are an ugly man. Normal men do attract women ! And men expose quite some parts of themselves on beaches too, for female gratification. An advice : don't go to french beaches, your vision of the world could receive a severe correction.

asaf.khan01 on "France's Headscarf Law"

asaf.khan01 — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:31:49 +0000

The French by and large are the most base, perverted and beastial nation on Earth. They are threatened by the modesty of a woman but encouraged and liberated at the sight of an exploited woman. The French feel no need to ban Muslim men from growing beards which in Islam act as a veil for the male face. Nor do they feel the need to ban Muslim men from wearing prayer hats or robes, the issue that got the whole 'religious items out of school' ball rolling was the female hijab, this has nothing to do with preservation of liberty but everything to do with the exposure of the female form for male gratification. Men are attracted by a multitude of things about the female form, women on the other hand are not as attracted to male physicality as men are of women. If this was not the case then surely men would expose more of themselves even in the height of winter as I see many women do.

France's Headscarf Law,

petitvin — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:49:46 +0000

I agree with the Headscarf Law. The identifying marks or clothing has been throughout the ages a signal for marking territory. Look at the gangs and their colours for example. How many people have died in gang wars over colours? The normal community at large wants to feel safe in their own historical (where they were born, raised and shall die)environment. You see a person in "colours" you either cross the street to avoid that person, turn back or lower your eyes so that you hope that he/she might not notice you and allow you to go on your way without incident. The same goes with the headscarf or skull cap. You are aware they are different, you are aware that "they" have differences to your historical and environmental way of life. You are careful what you say, what you do what you eat and what you drink for fear of offending those differences. All of a sudden you are uncomfortable with your natural and historical environment. Your surrounding become unfamiliar and in many cases doubt your own beliefs because we know theirs are so strong. Alternatively they do react the same way. It becomes territorial. The colours gang protect their areas and if you wear the wrong colour serious things can happen to you. Their territory is marked and they will try and influence you to join their gang or else. Isn't this happening all over the world? It is. Pre-school stop teaching kids Christmas songs for fear of offending and wanting to be politically correct. This has happened in many countries around the globe. My scarf/skullcap/colour my territory.