First, WhyNot, from what I am reading, I think that French "laicity" means the State protects its people from the influence of Religion. In the USA, "secularism" means that the State is forbidden to interfere in religious affairs--we protect Religion from the State. I will debate your arguments, but I want you to know beforehand that I see the French trying to handle a problem that Americans simply do not touch. I will describe some problems that arise in America from, perhaps, too much freedom of religion: We have tragic cults where people commit suicide when a comet passes overhead, or religious leaders of desert communes who tell mothers to bring their children there and not permit the father to see them...We have the White Church of the Creator which (yes it is a legal religion) believes that whites are a superior people. Suicide is illegal, of course, as is inciting others to commit any crime, but our interpretation of secularism means the State is usually forbidden from interfering until a crime has occurred. We accept this cost to our society as sad and unavoidable side-effects of total religious freedom. Uniforms: Requring a uniform is different from disallowing a headscarf, because all people are required to wear the uniform, and no group is singled out...what you describe in Australia exists in some parts of the USA also. It is just when there is a "headscarf ban" that problems come. Plus, the examples you gave of dress-conformity are not laws, but social convention, obeyed out of respect. This is very different from legal obligation. American ladies are required to cover their breasts in public...yes, there are dress-related State laws. But none single out a group. The antivoile law should never have been titled such by the media. There is no way outsiders could ever respect a law that seems to so obviously target one minority in a population. Democracy: A democracy only survives as long as its majority understands that it must respect the needs of the minorities. Certainly "democracy" means majority rule--if people accuse France of un-democratic behaviour, they are making a semantic error, but their meaning can still be understood: It is unethical to marginalize any other citizen or group of citizens. To use your example about outrcy from other parts of the world: France criticized America before the war--She warned us of future disasters if we made an unwise choice. It is this same friendship that drives us to criticise you. Best wishes, tanya

Very interesting, Seb Quek, that's the first I've heard about a 'case example' comparable to France. When was that imposed? Can you recommend any reading/articles that followed it? I'd be very interested to hear from people who were at school at the time, and how it affected their lives. Ro

Hm, s.ingram, thanks for correcting me about the nationalities of the bomb people. It is unfortunate that I used this to start my argument, since now maybe it won't hold any weight. To be honest, I am not sure whether you agree or disagree with most of what I said. Chirac: hmm. I did not talk about him. Fishing: ok, I will accept that there are more than one reason for violence in the world. But I maintain that the lack of economic success of immigrants into the occident is a big source of unhappiness and disillusionment, and a major factor in conversion to fundamentalism. This was a main thesis of a professor in African Studies here--when asked to explain why the 9/11 terrorists were well-educated middle-class people and not the poor, mindless indoctrinated masses we imagine hiding out in the Afghan hills. Ottomans: yes I have heard of them...give the US public schools _some_ credit please. ;-) Just because I was wrong about one thing doesn't make everything I say uninformed... Uniforms: We have them in parts of the US too. I think I supported this. I just bristle at a law titled "the anti-hijab law" (even if the title was only named such by the media) Headscarf: Yes, I confirm that this is not required in Islam. The verses addressing this are in the Book of Light (Surat Al-Nur) 24:31 :: basically commands women to cover their bosom, and suggests use of the headscarf for such cover. and 24:60 :: old ladies with no hope of marriage can (but shouldn't) discard these covers. Religion or irreligion: I actually don't like talking intellectually about what should and shouldn't be, or what the Koran _really_ says. This will figure itself out in time, and no Western interpretation of these verses will change the views of those who want to make a hijab requirement part of the sharia. The reality of the situation is important to me, and I don't think that a hijab ban will heal fundamentalism. Here is how I view laws, if this is interesting to you: 1) What is the purpose of the law? to curb expansion of fundamentalist Islam because Muslim girls who do not want to wear the veil now can cite obedience to State law as their reason. 2) How shall it be enforced? expulsion/suspension of disobedient students. (?) 3) Speculate on effects of enforcement of this law: desired: a) moderate Muslim girls will be at school sans-hijab. b) religion will again be a private matter. other (if disobeyed): a) crowds of fundamentalist youth will walk the streets because they are suspended from school. b) Fundamentalist parents will home-school their children. that is all. best, tanya

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.

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.

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?

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.

'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, 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.

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.