But first, some background on the topic:
On 11 December, a Commission to reflect the application of the principle of laicité appointed by President Jacques Chirac, published its conclusions on secularism in France. The
commission recommended, among others, to draft a law on laicism and to include in it a
provision stating "clothing and signs manifesting some religious or political adhesion are
forbidden in schools. Forbidden religious clothing and signs are conspicuous signs such as big
crosses, veils or skullcaps." Medals, small crosses, David's star, Fatimah's hands or small Korans are not considered signs manifesting religious affiliation. President Chirac endorsed the proposals of the commission in his speech of 17 December.
The recommendation of the commission to ban headscarves and other religious symbols from
schools triggered prompt opposition from three French Christian Churches -- the Catholic,
Protestant and Orthodox Churches -- as well as from the Muslim and Jewish communities.
Strict separation of the state and religions has been pronounced state policy in France since
1905.
Read more for my opinion on the matter!
I have recently seen educated people defend this ban, under the notion that people wearing headscarves are somehow oppressed. The comparison was made that women in the 19th and early 20th century were oppressed, even if they didn't think they were at the time. This falls flat once you consider the notion that the exercise of religion, including adorning oneself in religious garb or symbols, is a concious choice. Indeed, suffragettes and feminists fought for the freedom to leave the housewife work and join the professional workplace, but that doesn't mean that women who choose to be housewives in this modern age are oppressed or oppressing themselves.
I was even surprised to see this from the same educated individual:
"In the POV of European feminists clothing like the hijab is inherently sexist and discriminatory. They hate it. No woman wearing a hijab can become anything in the West because she is letting some old, dusty religious leaders tell her how to adorn her head!"
Now that's bizarre enough, because the point of feminism before it became distorted, was to give women the right to choose their own path, professional, housewife, conformist, non-conformist. It was also to remove focus from a woman's appearance, and re-focus on a woman's education. It occurs to me that a woman who chooses of her own free will to wear a head covering is both freely exercising her religion and at the same time being a good feminist by exercising her choice to remove her appearance from the social interaction equation.
But it gets even more strange:
"Also it *is* against the law in France to wear religious symbols at public offices be it school, the parliament or what have you. It is their way. Respect it.
There are many customs in islam and judaism that are brutal and backward in the eyes of westerners. The headscarfs and the methods used to kill animals for food are some of them. We have not fought for women's rights or for human or for animal rights or for freedom of thought or for freedom of speech to just give it away. Many good people have fought and died to protect these rights."
For Freedom to exist, it has to be exercised. Exercising freedom of thought and women's rights by choosing to be religious and choosing traditional ways is a valid exercise of those rights. The choice has to exist even if some don't like the options, or else there's no freedom at all. People have to be free to make 'bad' choices as long as those choices don't interfere with anyone else's choices.
But here's where it scares me. Someone posed this to the individual, saying "... But if, for example, a religion feels its unseemly for a woman to wear pants, if you disallow them to wear the long skirts at school they feel are appropriate and make them wear pants, in THEIR view, you've just asked their daughter to dress like a whore. That's beyond just making them adhere to a rule, that's potentially assigning grave insult to their children."
The individual responds:
They should have thought about that before they moved to a secular society.
Read that again. Now breathe. WHOA. A free secular society should not subvert or undermine the values of parents. If parents raise their children religiously, that is their right, and it isn't up to a government to interfere, especially in the name of secularism. -- At least, not in a free society.
Let's be clear: Adherents of a religion have no right to force their beliefs on anyone else, and non-religious folks have no right to force their beliefs on anyone else-- and above that, governments professing to be secular and free have no right to dictate either.
Now, I'd also like to briefly address the subject of French Bashing and the US Presidency under Bush with regard to religious freedom and Islam. France came under fire from US residents with regard to their resistance to support an Iraq invasion. Some of the France Bashing was on the whole, a little immature. Most boycott efforts are generally not going to make a dent, but people should be free to spend (or not spend) their money how they please.
In this case French Bashing is warranted. How can a country that values freedom set forth with the intention to restrict that freedom? As much as Liberal-minded folks recoil from President Bush, all of his speeches in which he has mentioned religion have included his specifically making sure that people understand that Islam and its practitioners are not an enemy, and that religious freedom is an American value, one cherished and held by freedom loving countries around the world.
I hate quoting the UN, only because it has contradicted itself and proven to be useless more than useful, but for those that rely on it as a source of light on these subjects, here goes:
All central international human rights instruments provide for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to its manifestation, observance, and practice. This is guaranteed, for example, by article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to this provision, limitations to this right are acceptable only if “they are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” No derogation from article 18 is allowed, even in time of public emergency. When commenting on this provision, the UN Human Rights Committee has pointed out that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief as protected by the ICCPR covers a broad scope of activities, including the wearing of distinctive clothing. The UN committee has also emphasized that restrictions to this right must be non-discriminatory in character and that they must relate directly and be proportionate to the aim they were introduced for.
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22 -- The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art.18), July 30, 1993.
Summary:
My basic test to find what level of government involvement in the lives of citizens should exist is my "ain't nobody's business if they do" test. What business is it of anyone's if a woman wants to wear a head covering because that's what her beliefs require? What business is it if she wishes to because she's modest? No one's.
"But wait," you say, "What about security, ID purposes?"
"Easy," I say. "Have a woman photograph an ID of the woman without the head covering so that no man sees her face. Give her that ID only to present when requested by security/government personnel. Make a duplicate ID with the head covering for her to present on all other occasions."
This way, there is an ID for purposes where the government wishes to require it (and discussions about how much or little ID should be required, we'll save for another time) and the woman still gets to practice her beliefs and wear her garb as she chooses.
And that's all I have to say about that.
