France, the culture wars over head scarves

On 11/12/03 21:33, in article ,
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.

The problem, as I am sure you recognise, lies in the word "some".

I gave the statistics in the original post, it was 49% for dumping the
scarfs, 41% against it.

What is true is that one is not hearing about them in the English press,
but they get French TV interviews so their point of view is known.


I know little about Islam, but I understand that the role of women in
Islamic society is determined by history and tradition more than by
the Koran. Covering-up is a concomitant of religion rather than
something at the core. But it's there, and it is sincerely observed by
many. One encounters veiled women on the streets of Paris.`

I have had several Arab doctoral students, including one woman, a Prof at
the University in Algers.

They don't come in one size, there is a spectrum of behaviors. The wife
of my one Syrian student went to a French school in Damascus, spoke
obviously excellent French and was very westernized. The one Prof
spoke French as her first language, at home. She was a good Moslem,
however.

The proper Moslem woman is modest in behavior, that is about all.
She can dominate her male partner in various ways, but has to be
careful for him not to lose face. What goes on in the family
is another thing, they are not all that subservient. We saw
in the Algerian revolution against the French what role they
could play.

One Beurette interview on TV tonight said she wore a scarf all through
her school period because her father insisted. When she got out
on her own she wanted to be like the rest of the world.

So there is a culture war going on within their own community. And the
situation has become politicized. Some Arab girls are obviously challenging
the system out of rebellion and getting attention.

None of the motives on either side are that pure.


Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
wearing any scarf.

A single instance signifies little.

Symbolic, never the less. She risks being killed as it is.


In either case, the long tradition in France
has that this can not be done in public schools.

A long tradition is not necessarily an honourable tradition.

It is the republican tradition, it is the result of the long war
between the religious Catholic right in France and the anti-clericals.
The cross was removed from the school around 1900.

Public execution was also a long tradition.

And ended. The US has yet to catch up!

French schools generally do not prescribe uniforms for students nor
even, so far as I know, enforce dress codes. In that circumstance, to
single out one particular thing and proscribe it seems targeted and
petty.

Wrong, you can`t wear a cross, a star of David, a skull cap or a
politically declarative button. So it is not limited to one thing.

Earl

Earl Evleth schrieb:

This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.

Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.

Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
and Muslim communities is not exactly true. There is a lot of
pressure from the Muslim religious right for ALL Muslim women to wear the
scarves. One is not a "good" Muslim girl or woman unless one wears one. The
conflict can also occur within the family with the males backing
the wearing of the scarves, the teenage girls, sometimes their
mothers not. That becomes a problem of parental or husband-wife
authority.

So there has been nasty exchanges within in the same community.

A considerable portion of the young musulmanes are for integration
into French culture and don`t want to be identified with the
backwardness implied by wearing the scarves. So we have
a ³sisterly² conflict. There is no solution to this conflict except
time.

With regard to the ethnic French community, there are a variety
of attitudes opposing the scarf wearing.

1) Some, as with the Front National, are basically
anti-immigrant. Ethnically nationalist, they would like all
foreigners to "go home". That most of the young Arab community
in France were born and raised here has not sank into their
mentalities.

2) Some French are basically conformist. Anybody who is born
here and grows up, must receive a French education, speak
and write in France and behave as French. There is no
particular room for ethnic diversity in this group.

3) Some have a strong republican attitude, anti-clerical.
The nation has a large non-religious majority. They
don`t go to church nor have strong religious beliefs.
For them there should be no religious display, no crosses or head
displays from which a persons religious beliefs are
evident in school or in public service. On the street is
a different thing. There are no Christians, Jews or
Muslims in school for this group.

4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
they must be French all educated in the same manner.

So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.

5) French feminists view the scarves as a symbol of religious
repression, so they are against it. This "repression" issue
also exists with a portion of the French left.

On the other side of the fence one has those who are for
freedom of religion and expression.

Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.

Earl

Some weeks back, a Muslim teacher here in Germany had her case thrown
out at the highest court for the right to wear a head scarf in school.
She had previously been suspended from teaching while wearing a
headscarf, and had lost her case before a lower court.
The court effectively did not reach a judgement, but rather stated that
rulings on educational issues are the responsibility of the individual
federal states.

T.

Earl Evleth writes:

Since the Hispanics will eventually take over a portion of the USA
they have a vested interest in not losing their language and culture.

I expect that they will be assimilated into the mainstream, rather than
"take over" anything.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth writes:

When have the outlawed English words? The use of French
is only required in official documents, no other domain.

Sounds like outlawing to me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 11/12/03 22:01, in article , "B
Vaughan" wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:21:58 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:



which applies to Christians also as well as any political declartion (like
political buttons for a particular party, etc).

My analogy was not intended to address the location of the behaviour,
but the fact that you seemed to justify the French policy by a
statement that more Muslims opposed head scarves than approved them.

If you reread my original posting I did not take a postion but was
laying out the position of others. I thought that was necessary
for people to understand what the culture war was about.

I think I otherwise indicated that I am worried about Arabophobia
in France, and that this would make things worse. But I wanted
to stress the there is conflict within the Arab community
in this whole issue.

France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.

I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
law and how the EU situation might have changed it.

Maybe the issue doesn't get much press in France.

Well, after I wrote this I remember that my Syrian students children
were born in France and he gave them Arab first names. That
was allowed.

The French don`t get excited about first names, there is always a
Jean-Pierre grandfather to name the baby boy after. My wife reminded
me that there are some commonly used Breton first names. So the
idea that first names are controlled that strictly must be false.

I myself would find it objectionable that parents can't choose any
name they please for their child. (I know that not only France has
these restrictions.)

The problem is that parents name their kids stupidly at times and
their kids end up not likely their first name. My father was
Earl too, I was a Jr. I never liked that. My wife detests
her first name.

The irony with my Arab student is that his first name is Emile.
French first names were used in Syria. But he want his sons,
born in France and French citizen, to have Arab names. Tarek, one of them
does not like his Arab name and goes by the first name of Gillaume now. He
is a business man and does not want to advertise his Arabness but his
Frenchness.

So you are concerned about the "rights of the parents" but nobody
ever things about the kids who might not like what their parents
selected! One woman we know has a first name of "Sunshine", hates it.
Parents can be stupid.

There is another side of the first name coin. The French take into
account the parental stupidity factor. The first rule is "don`t
socially handicapped the kid" with some cutsy name. Some names go out of
style. My wife`s Grandmother a "Mabel" did not want any grandchild named
"Mabel". Mabel is not now an "in name". So, for boys, "John" is safe,
and there have been "Johns" in family history since 1450. Long lasting
like "Jean-Pierre". But forget Scott and Eric and whatever is currently
popular.

Earl

On 11/12/03 23:11, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Sounds like outlawing to me.



Bank robbery is outlawed, using English is not.

Earl

Charles Hawtrey wrote:


Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

English only is not for the preservation of culture and language. It's
to stop unneccesary expenses in having to print all government forms and
documents in multiple languages. There is not need for it. When I
travel to Mexico I do not demand that they talk to me in English and
give me only English papers to fill out. Sometimes they do, sometimes
they do not. I will learn the spanish needed to be able to communicate
properly in another country.

The English only movement is not to prevent spanish from being taught.
It's only for official government communications and documents. How
many languages should be printed up and who pays for it?

Go Fig wrote:

Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
driver's license ?

They can wear their full dress anywhere they please but if they want to
drive, they'll need a form of identification. The scarf needs to come
off for such purpose.

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...

Wrong, you can`t wear a cross, a star of David, a skull cap or a
politically declarative button. So it is not limited to one thing.

We discussed this issue in a seminar on a course I'm teaching.

I think the students reached a consensus that hijab isn't quite the same as
the other religiously significant items of dress, Wearing a crucifix or
kippa is a sign of religious devotion. The former is ceratinly not a
requirement of Christianity nor is wearing or not wearing one seen as an
issue of morality. While not all Muslim women wear hijab, those who do
perceive it as a requirement of modesty and therefore as an issue of sexual
morality. The "beurettes" who wish to wear a headscarf would probably regard
a demand to remove it not as the equivalent of a Catholic girl taking off a
crucifix but of taking off her blouse.

Alan Harrison

"Alan Harrison" wrote:


"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...

Wrong, you can`t wear a cross, a star of David, a skull cap or a
politically declarative button. So it is not limited to one thing.

We discussed this issue in a seminar on a course I'm teaching.

I think the students reached a consensus that hijab isn't quite the same as
the other religiously significant items of dress, Wearing a crucifix or
kippa is a sign of religious devotion. The former is ceratinly not a
requirement of Christianity nor is wearing or not wearing one seen as an
issue of morality. While not all Muslim women wear hijab, those who do
perceive it as a requirement of modesty and therefore as an issue of sexual
morality. The "beurettes" who wish to wear a headscarf would probably regard
a demand to remove it not as the equivalent of a Catholic girl taking off a
crucifix but of taking off her blouse.

Earl has made the point that some wear it for political reasons, and I
accept that this is probably true. But one can't practically
discriminate between those who wear it for religious reasons and those
who wear it for political reasons. It's a classic student outflanking
move; they do that sort of thing all the time in relation to all sorts
of things.

It might be annoying but, in cases like this, it might be best to
gather up one's annoyance and find a more suitable object for it.
Something like chewing gum in school. Now, that's a real pain.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED