On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

I don't know why schools should have a say on how pupils dress, apart from practical things like "bring a raincoat to the excursion" or appropriate clothes for sport lessons. But, even if for argument's sake schools should have this right, why headscarves? Pleated skirts perhaps, as a symbol of oppression. Or all things polyester. There are health reasons against piercings...

Why a piece of clothing that is worn by a discriminated minority, eh?

by Katrin on Tue Feb 4th, 2014 at 02:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

* Cough* (4.00 / 3)

A friendly suggestion - before debate on this particular tangent goes any further, I suggest this, this and this as precursory reading material. At minimum.

The world could spin an extra round on the energy that already has been channeled into diaries and commentaries at ET on dress codes in France vs Someplace Else. Be careful to tread.

by Bjinse on Tue Feb 4th, 2014 at 03:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: * Cough* (4.00 / 2)

The world could spin an extra round on the energy that already has been channeled into diaries and commentaries at ET on dress codes in France vs Someplace Else. Be careful to tread.

Actually, that is what keeps the world going. And you thought arguments on ET were pointless.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 07:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: * Cough* (none / 0)

it is interesting how many comments these threads get.

spirituality is existential, as much so as better energy policies, georgian economics et al. these diaries attempt to approach the ineffable, even in a roundabout way, and notwithstanding the probable preference of some here that they would just shut up and go away and leave us to our de-stag-in-flation interest rates hairsplitting and rational materialism.

i think it makes a nice balance to the drier subjects continually (and copiously) on hand here.

not a fan of flying fur, but if that's the price we pay for heading closer to the characterial core of what makes us human, that's ok (in appropriate doses)...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

In an ideal world, sure, we would all be free to do what we want. Children included.

In the highly stressed and increasingly stratified and fragmented world in which we live, schools have an important role as a refuge from the outside world.

Rich kids experience a world where they get no special privileges; poor kids, a world where they have the same rights and opportunities as the rich kids. Kids from dysfunctional families experience a world where violence is not OK. Kids whose parents keep them inside a particular sub-culture get to experience an alternative; in particular, religion is banned : both in the content of teaching, and differentiation of kids according to their religion or lack thereof.

(I stress this is the theoretical model. The French education system, in particular, is severely dysfunctional, and successf in implementing this model is rather patchy.)

In the stereotypical fundamentalist Moslem worldview, religion is all-pervasive. Separation of church and state is a nonsense; an Islamic government is an ardent necessity. At the other end of the spectrum, immense numbers of Mosems practise an Islam which is compatible with the secular state. All shades of opinion and pracise in between these two ends are, of course, represented. But it is important to note that the fundamentalist view is a well-documented reality, and that it is solidly represented in France.

In this context, it is inevitable that fundamentalists will attempt to send their daughters to school with headscarves (note that I am not alleging that all girls who come to school with headscarves come from fundamentalist families; but it is logically impossible that none of them should be from fundamentalist families, unless one denies the existence of the fundamentalist worldview).

This clearly represents a demand that the religion of the family should be introduced into the school along with the girl and the headscarf. It is, logically, the beginning of a process where further demands for taking religion into account can be expected to follow, if the headscarf is accepted (segregation of the sexes is an obvious one). It is, literally and visibly, the thin end of the wedge.

The French school system, as currently constituted, is incapable of accepting this challenge. The question becomes : should the school system, which conceives itself as a standardised and homogenised environment, be reformed so as to be capable of offering differentiated options depending on the orientations of the parents? (the students, in an ideal world, would be consulted, but to simplify, let's consider that they are minors, so the negotiation is between the education system and the families.)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 06:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

(I stress this is the theoretical model. The French education system, in particular, is severely dysfunctional, and successf in implementing this model is rather patchy.)

I was beginning to think you were having a panglossian breakdown until I read that.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 07:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

eurogreen:

In an ideal world, sure, we would all be free to do what we want. Children included.

My impression, that your and my concepts of an ideal world are worlds apart, and completely incompatible, is deepening.

Rights and freedoms are conflicting with each other, and they must constantly be weighed against each other. We are of course never free to do all we want. In an ideal world there would be justice in the weighing-rights-business.

eurogreen:

This clearly represents a demand that the religion of the family should be introduced into the school along with the girl and the headscarf.

This extraordinary claim CLEARLY needs to be backed up by evidence. Your solution, the ban on headscarves, solves a problem that exists in your fantasy.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 09:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

My remark about an ideal world was a mildly ironic reference to your remark that children should be allowed to wear what they like in school. Of course, you immediately listed a bunch of restrictions on that. One more, one less... Apparently only religious motives are supposed to override all others, in your world view (I felt naked not being allowed to wear jeans to high school... you no doubt felt the same... guess what, we got over it!)

As for the problem that, according to you, only exists in my fantasy... This puts you in the position of denying the existence of the fundamentalist worldview. That, based on my experience, is astoundingly naïve.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 09:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

Ah. I wasn't saying that children should be free to wear what they like in school. I was (and am) saying that it is none of the school's business. It was my parents who banned the jeans, not the state or the school. Have you grown up with school uniforms? Horrible totalitarianism. Authoritarian rightwingers try to introduce that here, but it is new and not very successful.

eurogreen:

As for the problem that, according to you, only exists in my fantasy... This puts you in the position of denying the existence of the fundamentalist worldview.

Er no. The fundamentalist worldview doubtless exists. So do spiders. I don't deny that. But, a problem? It takes decades of dumbing down enough people before you get a critical mass of fundamentalists, and France isn't exactly the Bible Belt.

And what has the headscarf to do with fundamentalism? And how can a ban, the loss of freedom, be a measure against fundamentalism? And can you please make clear if you are against religion in the public, or if you want to influence ("moderate") religions? The fog thickens the more you write. The only thing where you are consistent and clear is ban ban ban.

If you want a right of the state to influence religion, you are against a separation of state and church. Say what you want.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

It takes decades of dumbing down enough people before you get a critical mass of fundamentalists

You don't need a critical mass. Any religious distortion by fundamentalists of whatever stripe is already too much.

If you want a right of the state to influence religion, you are against a separation of state and church.

Please stop spouting obvious nonsense. By that 'logic', if I don't want prayer in schools I'm arguing against the separation of church and state because I'm in conflict with religious people who do want prayer in schools.

Which is clearly rubbish.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

If you want a right of the state to influence religion, you are against a separation of state and church.
Please stop spouting obvious nonsense.

Do we really need to go yet again through the difference between

freedom of conscience
separation of church and state
secularism

and the fact that the application of each of these principles varies by country and not all of them necessarily go together?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Safety manifest (none / 0)

Perhaps that should be a staple post every time a discussion hinging on religion manifests. Like a safety manifest. Listen folks, buckle up, but please pay attention to these few security measures. Paper bags for vomiting are situated on your left. Or on your right, depending on the stance your argue for.

This would save a lot of energy for all Tribbers involved - although this would also slow down the earth's rotation, so there's that.

by Bjinse on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

You don't need a critical mass. Any religious distortion by fundamentalists of whatever stripe is already too much

I must say you are a pretty fundamentalist sort of atheist.

ThatBritGuy:

By that 'logic', if I don't want prayer in schools I'm arguing against the separation of church and state because I'm in conflict with religious people who do want prayer in schools.

You must decide if you want a separation of state and church, which leaves the religious groups free to be as fundamental as they please. Or you can have an interlocking, which is mutual. Then the state can influence and "moderate" religion. It is more or less how religion is regulated in Germany. A church is something that is founded by Paul or by Luther, everything else is a sect and not quite. There is the Islamkonferenz of ministry on one side and Muslim organisations on the other, trying to adapt the concept to Islam.

What Eurogreen wants is no influence of the church on the state, but influence the other way round. It won't work. What you want is unclear.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

What Eurogreen wants is no influence of the church on the state, but influence the other way round.

... words in my mouth?

Where have I said I want the state to have influence over religions?

On the contrary. If religious organisations were to have exactly the same status as any other non-profit group, as I advocate, then there is no mechanism by which the state can have influence over religions in particular. Everyone is subject to the same laws. If any religious group wishes to situate itself above the law, and the state represses that, it's not repression of religion.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

eurogreen:

... words in my mouth?

Sorry. What then do you mean when you say you don't want fundamentalist Islam, but one that is compatible with the French secular state? For me that is a demand of the state on religion. And with the illusion that it works one way only.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

What I want is distinct from what I expect the State to do on my behalf. I dislike fundamentalist Islam, and I believe its practice to be incompatible with the French secular state. This is because fundamentalist Islam is incapable of recognising any authority higher than Islam itself, and therefore rejects the authority of any secular state. This is factual, and not fantasy on my part.

However, I don't wish for the state to somehow intervene to "reform Islam", or interfere with its practices, insofar as they stay within the law. That would be unwarranted interference. I would prefer fundamentalist Islam to wither away, within France at least.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I believe some state intervention would be justified to level the playing field. I believe that the established churches (mainly Catholic, in France) benefit from an unwarranted subsidy, and I would be in favour of redistribution which would facilitate the provision of places of worship for Moslems (this seems to be so uncontroversial that it has warranted no comments so far!)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

eurogreen:

fundamentalist Islam is incapable of recognising any authority higher than Islam itself, and therefore rejects the authority of any secular state.

Say "deeply held beliefs" instead of "Islam". So do I. So did Rosa Parks. Or countless conscientous objectors. And you? Is there nothing you believe in and are prepared to break the law of the secular state for?

eurogreen:

What I want is distinct from what I expect the State to do on my behalf.

Intriguing. How do you expect your wish to come true? Ah, I have got it: probably you pray for divine intervention. ;)

eurogreen:

However, I don't wish for the state to somehow intervene to "reform Islam", or interfere with its practices, insofar as they stay within the law. That would be unwarranted interference. I would prefer fundamentalist Islam to wither away, within France at least.

I can agree with that, provided the law is fair (which bans on women's clothes are not), and provided you don't single out Islam with your focus on fundamentalism.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 01:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (4.00 / 2)

Say "deeply held beliefs" instead of "Islam". So do I. So did Rosa Parks. Or countless conscientous objectors. And you? Is there nothing you believe in and are prepared to break the law of the secular state for?

Sure. We could make lists, and I bet we would agree on most of the points.

But I don't reject the authority of the state which governs the territory in which I live. If I did, I would be a revolutionary, an anarchist, or a libertarian.

People have a right to be those things, and they have a right to agitate for the overthrow of the state, but when their activities fall outside the law, they are repressed by the state. I consider this legitimate, to the degree that I consider any given state to be legitimate. I am not a revolutionary in the context of France.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:16:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

So you assume the veil had a nexus with "rejecting the authority of the state", but of course you have no evidence that in reality this plays a role in a relevant degree.

And that's what you want to ban women's clothes for. I repeat: women's clothes, not acts of overthrowing the state. Really, what next?

But at least you no longer pretend your ban was about liberating women.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

So you assume the veil had a nexus with "rejecting the authority of the state"

A statement such as "The school has no right to determine what my daughter should or should not wear. My religion is the only authority on that question" is typical of arguments of parents with respect to the issue.

This is consistent with a fundamentalist Islamic world view, which we both acknowledge exists in France. It is therefore empirically likely that rejection of state authority is among the motives of parents (though sophisticated parents will avoid advocating such a thing publicly). It is, in any case, logically impossible for you to prove the contrary.

But at least you no longer pretend your ban was about liberating women.

Oh, but I do.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 06:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

The statement is entirely consistent with insistence on religious freedom, too. The school--which is compulsory--has no right to determine that children must violate rules of their religion. You deny that this conflict is existing, with your theory that veils had a nexus with Islamist-revolutionary intention (such a nexus is existing, but to which extent is pure guesswork).

If you still want to liberate women by banning their clothes, why not ban pleated skirts? You could liberate many more women with that.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 06:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (4.00 / 2)

The statement is entirely consistent with insistence on religious freedom, too. The school--which is compulsory--has no right to determine that children must violate rules of their religion.

The school has no opinion on the religion of its students. It does not recognise, acklowledge or make concessions to anyone's religion, and is therefore incapable of determining that children must violate rules of their religion. That is religious neutrality.

The statement is certainly consistent with religious freedom, but goes far beyond it into religious privilege, by its insistence on the idea that in any conflict between the rules of the school and the rules of religion, religion must prevail.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 07:03:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

So you assume the veil had a nexus with "rejecting the authority of the state", but of course you have no evidence that in reality this plays a role in a relevant degree.

Eurogreen lives in France and has expressed his support (and even a relative climbdown) for the French pursuit of the secular state.

So arguing from the French point of view, the headscarf will automatically have a nexus with rejecting French authority in their public schools - as long as the community that wishes to wear the headscarf openly connects it to an expression of religion.

I feel that the argumentation on this thread, which is getting to the point of going in circles, suffers from making proper distinctions about considered frameworks. Katrin can rail against ban on headscarves, but for France this ultimately entails a rejection of the French Jacobin groundwork and the secular state. She could question or reject that as well, on grounds of her interpretation of human rights, but tough, that's not for her to change as long as people interpret differently - and people in France (and ET) clearly do. Shouting 'you're wrong about it!' won't help. You get Gallic shrugs in return, and the French are exceptionally skilled at that.

by Bjinse on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 07:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

The ECtHR is going to decide on that. Will the French shrug that off too?

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 07:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

Not likely.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 07:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That depends (4.00 / 2)

of course, on the verdict of the court. :)

Although I don't know about more ECHR court cases specifically on headscarves in French schools. Which one do you mean? There was this of course, which was a clear victory for France. And this one is still running, but that is related to the burqa ban, not headscarves at public schools.

by Bjinse on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 08:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That depends (none / 0)

Right, I am mixing that up with the case of the face veils. Don't know which ban is more abusive anyway.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 08:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

No, the burqa law will be repealed if it is condemned by the European court. It was a political gimmick in the first place.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 08:38:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (3.00 / 2)

for France this ultimately entails a rejection of the French Jacobin groundwork and the secular state.

Of course. Ultimately Katrin wants a rejection of the secular state. Hence the exotic hair-on-fire insinuations about 'atheist privilege', and the framing of any disagreement as a personal attack.

This is what theists do. They don't want any higher authority than the one they claim for themselves. Secular authority is 'totalitarian' and 'oppressive' by definition.

This is SOP, and shouldn't surprise anyone with experience of theocratic politics.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 09:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (4.00 / 3)

In a thread already close to providing more heat than light, I find it unhelpful to speculate on the motives of other participants.

What we can say for certain is that Katrin argues a position which is inconsistent with the maintenance of the secular state. Whether this is due to accident, sinister designs on the secular state and rule of law (yes, the two go inextricably together), or merely irrelevant collateral damage in pursuit of a different objective considered more important is neither something which can be divined from the position argued nor particularly pertinent to the discussion.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 02:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

What we can say for certain is that Katrin argues a position which is inconsistent with the maintenance of the secular state.

And that's why I said 'theocracy.' Because for all practical purposes, that's what theocracy is - a move to dismantle the secular state and its aspirations[1] to a level ground for all participants, and replace it with ethical and judicial systems that privilege religious traditions over secular ones.

Let's have the Wikipedia definition:

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

Arguing that policy should allow a religious group to have privileges which aren't available to other participants meets that definition, don't you think?

And considering we've been insulted as 'atheist fundamentalist sectarians' and 'Stalinists', and it's been insinuated that no one in this discussion has any real interest in progress or basic human rights - purely because we don't immediately accept an argument that pretends to be about human rights, but is clearly really just an argument for theological privilege based on a very selective view of what human rights actually mean in practical politics - I think the comments have been more restrained than they might have been.

Which definition of theocracy did you think I was using?

[1] Well - former aspirations, anyway.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

Arguing that policy should allow a religious group to have privileges which aren't available to other participants meets that definition, don't you think?

No, it doesn't. There is a difference between arguing that religious groups should be accorded some undeserved prerogatives and privileges, and arguing that religious doctrine should be the deciding factor in all, or even most, lawmaking and jurisprudence. In the same way that there is a difference wage labor and chattel slavery.

There are many perfectly habitable half-way houses between "not secular" and "theocratic." The US is not secular. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy.

I think the comments have been more restrained than they might have been.

Tu quoque was a weak argument in third grade, and it's not gotten better since.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 07:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

I must also most strenuously object to the insinuation that Katrin is a theocrat.

Words have meanings, and turning words like "theocrat" or "fascist" into common terms of abuse is Unhelpful.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 03:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (4.00 / 3)

Oh, but Katrin allies herself with theocrats <ducks>

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

Katrin:

eurogreen:
What I want is distinct from what I expect the State to do on my behalf.
Intriguing. How do you expect your wish to come true? Ah, I have got it: probably you pray for divine intervention. ;)

Let me give you an example. I want women to find me handsome and sexy. I don't expect the State to provide this for me.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:51:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

Ah. Perhaps you should advocate a ban on not finding you handsome and sexy. I have recently heard that bans are so efficient.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 06:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

So I'm a fundamentalist for supporting separation of church and state?

I'll let Voltaire, Diderot and the writers of the US constitution know they were fundamentalists too. I'm sure they'll be as amused as I am.

Your attempts at framing and rhetoric are getting very obvious.

which leaves the religious groups free to be as fundamental as they please.

Providing their actions aren't criminal, and they don't try to influence the state for their own exclusive benefit. That's where their freedoms end.

I hope I don't need to add that this principle shouldn't apply exclusively to religious influence, but to any behind-the-scenes influence on policy by vested interests for their own exclusive benefit.

The 'exclusive benefit' point is the crucial one.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

So I'm a fundamentalist for supporting separation of church and state?

I didn't say so.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 01:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

The fog thickens the more you write.

I'm genuinely sorry about that. For me, on the contrary, the more you make your world view explicit, the better I understand our differences.

For example, your post above contains a revelation for me :

I wasn't saying that children should be free to wear what they like in school. I was (and am) saying that it is none of the school's business. It was my parents who banned the jeans

Funny how we internalize the restrictions on freedom we most suffered from (Stockholm syndrome, or something). I suffered (mildly) from the dress code imposed by my school; my parents would have been more liberal (probably). However I recognise the legitimacy of the school in having a dress code. You suffered from restrictions imposed by your parents; you (I'm guessing : please don't be offended if I get it wrong) are happy for this model to be perpetuated by other parents.

More importantly, though, we have identified a philosophical difference with respect to the role of schools.

For me, school is free of charge, compulsory, and has a standard program determined by the state. What's more, there is a compulsory delegation of parental authority to the school; parents don't get to determine the content or the methods of teaching, or the standards of behaviour to which students will be held, or what may or may not be worn.

I'm interested in your view : is it only the last point, the dress code, that we disagree on? Or is the compulsory delegation of parental authority a problem for you?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

It is the last point, the dress code. I have no issue with compulsory school, compulsory science and sex education and the like. I do have an issue with compulsory prayer or dress codes or militarist indoctrination and the like. Special dress codes for pupils are unnecessary.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uniforms (none / 1)

Have you grown up with school uniforms? Horrible totalitarianism.

Although I haven't, I have felt similarly - until I moved to South Africa and experienced at first hand how school uniforms are a godsend for children and families with poor backgrounds.

Perspective matters.

by Bjinse on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

I really like school uniforms. Grew up with them too. Makes life a lot simpler, filters out some inequality from school.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

Reminds me of Jeff Goldblum's wardrobe full of identical sets of clothes in The Fly.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

Isn't the inequality visible enough in other things?

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 1)

If so, why make it even more obvious by supporting competitive consumption?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0)

How am I supporting competitive consumption?

My question was a genuine question, not a challenge, by the way. I have no experience with school uniforms. Pupils don't meet each other only when in the classroom. Don't they get a pretty clear idea of the relative wealth or poverty of the children around them?

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 01:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 1)

That's not so true in an urban school with a big or mixed catchment area.

Strong views on something you have no experience with...

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

"No experience" with school uniforms, but of course I know what uniforms are. That's why I am shuddering.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (4.00 / 2)

And religious garb is not a uniform?

This is not a rhetorical question: The Jacobin opposition to religious garb in schools is, I think, very much a dislike of seeing private groups maintain a uniformed presence in institutions that the state considers its turf.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 03:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

By "religious garb" do you mean uniform clothing that an organisation prescribes for its members like monks' habits, or do you mean covering the body to the extent a religion demands? The two are different, and only the former would be a uniform.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (4.00 / 2)

The former, of course.

But for the purpose of the present discussion, this is a distinction without difference - the religious prescription in question goes quite a bit beyond "keep hair covered" and well into the territory of specifying the nature and appearance of the garment used to cover it.

(It should go without saying that the Jacobin view on private uniforms in public institutions is hypocritical as long as business suits are tolerated attire in parliament. There can be no real doubt that the business suit is a uniform of a private group actively hostile to the state.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 1)

Because what inevitably happens is 'I got £200 trainers for Christmas and you didn't' competitions.

Incidentally, I find it completely bizarre that you're against school uniforms, but for religious uniforms.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

*Choice* (none / 0)

What is bizarre in that?

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

And when you are in uniform in school you can't say: 'I got £200 trainers for Christmas and you didn't'? Hm. How odd.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

Of course you can, and uniform (that I lived with for years without liking it) does not ensure absolute... uniformity.

It does however provide a general sense that the individual schoolchild is one of a group of similar people of equal value.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 03:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 1)

Which - you eventually realise as an adult - is one of the better outcomes.

Depending on the school, it can mean equally valued or equally devalued. Still - at least there's some notion of equality there.

The opposite is true for religious wear, which has the clear implication that the wearer is somehow either superior or inferior to those who chose to wear ordinary clothes, depending who you ask.

Just like any other uniform, including the ubiquitous business suit.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

That's exactly what I saw when school uniforms (by that time nothing more than blue coats donned atop normal street clothes) were abolished in Hungary while I was still going to school. Which made me re-think the issue: when the uniforms were first abolished, I was happy, not because of any perceived authoritarianism but because wearing them seemed a hassle. Note that pioneer uniforms (which were to be worn during public celebrations) were another matter entirely.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

Not to the same extent, and it means the arms race is, at least, not happening in school.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 02:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No fantasy (4.00 / 2)

This extraordinary claim CLEARLY needs to be backed up by evidence. Your solution, the ban on headscarves, solves a problem that exists in your fantasy.

Too bad. This is no fantasy, nor is evidence needed when discussing this in relation to French state schools. The headscarf is more than a debate about a piece of cloth, but a symbolic pebble in the ideological pond of the French secular state. As Jerome was (is?) wont to say: there are no Muslims in France.

As someone outside of France, it took me a number of years to grasp that point.

by Bjinse on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fantasy (none / 0)

Bjinse:

As Jerome was (is?) wont to say: there are no Muslims in France.

Really? Citation?

(No, I really don't want to get into this "debate", but that takes the cake. Or maybe it's snark?)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fantasy (4.00 / 3)

There are no Muslims in France.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fantasy (none / 1)

OK, I forgot that one. But here are two quotes from Jerome in that thread that explain his meaning:

Jerome a Paris:

The fact is that more Americans (as a percentage of the relevant population) say they are Christians first and Americans second than French people say they are Muslim first, and French second.
So when "Christians" is the widely accepted word to describe white Americans, I'll stop complaining about the word "Muslim" being used to describe France's Arab and African communities.

Jerome a Paris:

the relevant question is "are Arabs integrating in France," not "are Muslims integrating in France.
Racism and other integration obstacles are linked to their being Arab, not to their being Muslim. The label "Muslim" is one that's only been used since 9/11 and is part of the vocabulary of the War on Terra.
Thus, we should not help promote that narrative.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fantasy (none / 1)

Jerome a Paris:
the relevant question is "are Arabs integrating in France," not "are Muslims integrating in France.

That sounds dangerously close to denying the Arabs/Muslims the right to self-identify. Which is par for the course since French Jacobinism as a matter of state policy denies the existence of French "identities" below the Nation.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Additionally (none / 1)

Jerome a Paris:

Of course there are Muslims in France
it's just not their predominant characteristic, not their defining one, and it is incorrect to label them as such.
There are tennis players in France, but it's not a label that's often used to define groups and assign violent political meaning to.

I've always seen this as the key quote of Jerome where things began to click together (for me, anyway) how France 'works'. Provocative as it was (is!), I found it a rather effective meme, it sure sticks to the mind. BTW, Jerome and I have discussed amiably over this phrase during one of the ET-meetups.

by Bjinse on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 01:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fantasy (none / 1)

As someone outside of France, it took me a number of years to grasp that point.

As an immigrant, I probably embraced the French secular notion rather too zealously. I have largely got over that excess. Meanwhile I have advanced my understanding of Moslem culture and mindset (through personal contact, and also reading Moslem authors, watching TV, listening to music, learning Arabic...)

It gives me better insight about why the French system fails Moslems so miserably. But few clues as to how the situation can be improved. The litany about how colonialist, racist, islamophobic etc attitudes keeps them down is true, but it is not the whole story.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some comments about headscarves : (none / 0)

How does the French school deal with dietary restrictions for medical, ethical and religious reasons?

Swedish schools are pretty accomodating on all these grounds (though I would say that is pretty recent). I even saw an article with a parent who had brought up her kids on all organic food suing the municipality. I even think she won, which means organic food for her kids. I think that started about twenty years ago with offering vegetarian food which also meant giving a no-beef and no-pork alternative.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some elements of response (4.00 / 3)

Inevitably, it's a political football. There is no legal obligation to provide canteen meals at all at schools, nor any obligation that they should conform to any specific alimentary regime, religious or not. But there is nothing preventing schools from offering a halal option, and many do. But given that pork is by far the cheapest meat, and that school canteens have limited budgets, it's not an easy one for canteens to resolve.

From Le Monde :

Tous les observateurs reconnaîssent qu'il existe une hausse des demandes de menus spécifiques dans les établissements scolaires depuis une dizaine d'années. Globalement, la demande est passée, en un peu plus de trente ans, du "sans porc" au "sans viande", puis plus récemment au "halal". Ces nouvelles revendications émanent des parents de confession musulmane. "Les modérés demandent que leurs enfants ne mangent pas de viande ; les ultras, qu'ils mangent halal", disent les acteurs de terrain.
La problématique se pose moins pour la communauté juive et les repas casher, notamment parce que 30 % des enfants juifs - issus des familles les plus pratiquantes - sont scolarisés dans les établissements confessionnels.

All observers agree that there is an increase in requests for specific menus in schools over the last ten years. Overall, requests have shifted over the last thirty years, from "without pork" to "meatless" and more recently to "halal". These new claims come from Muslim parents. "The moderates ask that their children do not eat meat, the ultras, that they should eat halal," according to sources.
The problem is less acute for the Jewish community and kosher meals, especially because 30% of Jewish children - from the most devout families - are enrolled in religious schools.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some elements of response (none / 0)

More or less the same here. No pork in Hamburg's schools though, and it is possible to get meals for some medical conditions, but that's it. If parents don't like that, they must give their children lunch boxes.

by Katrin on Wed Feb 5th, 2014 at 01:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Net Zero Energy - August 24, 2024

Not one of us!

Kamala Harris Surge?

Recent Diaries

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Russia Kills Traitors .. Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Trump Victory, Communism, Divine Intervention

City Agriculture - September 4, 2024

President Sees US NATO Policy Succeed in UA

Turkey Turns 'East' Towards BRICS

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

How War in Europe Boosts the U.S. Economy

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

Remember the Fallen

September 2024

The Politics of Masculinity - New York Times

Occasional Series