Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/21/2004 View Wed 10/20/2004 View Tue 10/19/2004 View Mon 10/18/2004 View Sun 10/17/2004 View Sat 10/16/2004 View Fri 10/15/2004
1
2004-10-21 Europe
France Expelling Muslim Girls Over Scarves
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by .com 2004-10-21 00:15|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [482 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Pretty damm weak. France dares to critisize the US? What a laugh. There is no liberty in France.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-21 2:33:51 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-21 2:33:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, I agree on this one. Good for France. There is nothing wrong with dress codes. If they don't want a public education, there is nothing stopping them from paying for a private one.

If you don't think that they should be able to limit dress codes - then likewise, you shouldn't complain if your daughter's friends are allowed to wear the ultimate slut attire - or boys should be allowed to wear shirts that say "girls are a bunch of *((&) or any other profanity or lewdness.

Public schools are for the public. Demanding dress codes within the norms of prevailing ideas of decency, void of gang symbols or absent religious symbols is just not that big and promotes a sense of belonging to the community and school - rather than to ones own cultural community.

I think it's silly for everyone to get hysterical over asking children to dress in clothing that does not promote sexual harrassment or ethnic, religous, or gang strife.
Posted by 2b 2004-10-21 10:22:05 AM||   2004-10-21 10:22:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm with 2b, especially since the scarf ban is meant to allow subjugated muslim females free, at least at public schools, from the brainwashing the scarf represents.
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-21 10:30:21 AM||   2004-10-21 10:30:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 And when the Muslims get really, really pissed off, the Phrench will surrender en masse.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-21 10:45:24 AM||   2004-10-21 10:45:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I agree w/you 2b. Some inner city schools had to go so far as barring jewelry because kids were rolling each other in the hallways and after school. In that case it was a safety concern. Heck make'em all wear the same neutral colored uniform for all I care. School's essential purpose has gotten so far away from education it's disturbing, the kids can express their personal style on their own time.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-10-21 11:09:19 AM||   2004-10-21 11:09:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 If it were merely a question of style, I would say, let em wear the scarves. I never liked those arbitrary rules about dress. But Muslim scarves are as much as symbol of gender discrimination as gang clothes are a symbol of violence. France won't confront the problem head-on (because that would be politically uncorrect, sacre bleu!), so they've chosen ths way instead. We'll all see how it plays out.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 11:25:41 AM||   2004-10-21 11:25:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Agree with 2b. Hard to believe.
Posted by Weird Al 2004-10-21 11:48:44 AM||   2004-10-21 11:48:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The history of the scarf in France indicates that it was a form of "signal" to Muslim males that the girl was a Muslim and off limits to harassment and rape.
Posted by Ptah  2004-10-21 12:31:17 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2004-10-21 12:31:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "But Muslim scarves are as much as symbol of gender discrimination as gang clothes are a symbol of violence." (Jules187)

Yeah, and they're also about "infiltrating" and changing Western culture and changing perceptions, and proselytizing for Islam.

The aims of the lower levels of jihad work through loose associations like this: "I knew some Moslem girls (in their hajibs) when I was in school. They weren't so bad. They were pretty nice. Gee . . . our government is being really harsh on Moslems. That's not good. That's too right-wing. We need to be respected in the world. It's unfair to my Moslem school chums I remember. They didn't want to hurt anybody. I know--I'm going to influence my goverment to be nicer to Moslems . . . I might even protest with them . . . "

Posted by ex-lib 2004-10-21 12:35:22 PM||   2004-10-21 12:35:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Ptah and ex-lib-thanks. You point out how it represents a danger to France in a much better way.

Not sure I get your last paragraph, though, ex-lib.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 12:49:18 PM||   2004-10-21 12:49:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Muslim school girls wearing veil is NOT an expression of religious freedom. It is cohercion by adults who want to put them in the muslim mold of women slavery. It is, quite often, cohercion against their parents, like islamists visting them and telling the father: "why is your daughter not weraing veil? Would you be a bad muslim? Perhaps are you thinking to convert?" (remember that this is a veiled death threat°.

Now let's remeember Lincoln's words: "A nation is not free when half of it is slave". That is why veils are intolerable in western countries.
Posted by JFM  2004-10-21 1:36:40 PM||   2004-10-21 1:36:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 So if "veils are intolerable," then what defense is there for wearing a yamulke? Or a crucifix prominently displayed? French laicisme / secularism is no less hostile to non-muslim religiosity. Are you really arguing for an end to all displays of religious affiliation?
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 2:41:34 PM||   2004-10-21 2:41:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Lex-That is why it is so damaging for France (and the rest of us) to put up with political correctness. If the threat of violence and the other ways that radical Islamic thought harms society were addressed directly and firmly, France would at least be fighting the real threat to its culture and nation, rather than a paper tiger.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 2:58:39 PM||   2004-10-21 2:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 France's definition of PC is a dual-edged sword, mon ami. Cuts against believers of all faiths.

The real problem here is not limited to France's relations with the muslims. It's that French culture, politics and law do not permit the notion of cultural separateness. France's deeper problem is its hostility toward the individual who refuses to go along with the prevailing culture.

The real solution for France is the American one: true tolerance for diversity. In this country, if you want to live with your fellow hasidim or mormons or jehovah's witnesses or survivalists or lefty-crunchy weirdos, you can do so without being considered un-American or having your children branded freaks by the law, the courts and the schools. Result: cultural cohesion, religion, the individual and patriotism are all stronger here than in France, which is beginning to resemble the US during the 1970s.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 3:12:51 PM||   2004-10-21 3:12:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 So if "veils are intolerable," then what defense is there for wearing a yamulke? Or a crucifix prominently displayed? French laicisme / secularism is no less hostile to non-muslim religiosity.

That's a feature, not a bug. To ban only the headscarfs from the schools is to say "Islam doesn't belong here, Christianity and Judaism do" and is giving the fanatics what they want - the excuse to claim Islam and Western civilisation are incompatible mortal foes. The excuse to preach ghettoing and radicalization of moderates.

To ban all prominent displays of religion from the public school system is however to make it clear that the state will remain secular, that religion is a private matter, and that the schools will be a refuge from attempts to enforce religious conformity through dress.

In short, Jules, by having it not be a direct attack on *Islam*, I see it as an even more direct attack on *Islamofascism*.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 3:14:38 PM||   2004-10-21 3:14:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 the state will remain secular, that religion is a private matter, and that the schools will be a refuge from attempts to enforce religious conformity through dress

In other words, that the state will declare its unrelenting hostility toward, and superiority to, the family ties and spiritual beliefs of any community that defines itself primarily through its faith. A brilliant solution to the problem.

France is screwed on this. Any muslim who considers his relation to God to be more important than his devotion to the French state will naturally resent this crude, overbearing and foolish posture that drapes itself in progressive politics.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 3:23:13 PM||   2004-10-21 3:23:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm not religious, and I love my country, but I will not follow the dictates of a state that tells me to piss on my father and his beliefs. I'm sure any self-respecting French muslim with an ounce of backbone feels the same way toward the French state. Screw those pompous, foolish bastards.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 3:25:30 PM||   2004-10-21 3:25:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Well, if they are not comfortable with French laws, they can always leave, an alternative that will disappoint few native French, I suspect.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 3:30:24 PM||   2004-10-21 3:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 In other words, that the state will declare its unrelenting hostility toward, and superiority to, the family ties and spiritual beliefs of any community that defines itself primarily through its faith.

Religious conscience is a matter of the *individual*, not of any "community". That's what the fight against ghettoization is all about: The fight against headscarfs is the fight against a radical Islamist community forcing children to conform to its dress style.

A community that tries to force its individual members to conform to its beliefs has lots of opportunities of doing it *without* the public school system providing it an extra venue.

If a community of nudists that defined itself through absense of clothing wanted to send its children to school in the nude, the public school system would still have the right to say "nope, you shan't".

Any muslim who considers his relation to God to be more important than his devotion to the French state will naturally resent this crude, overbearing and foolish posture that drapes itself in progressive politics.

And any muslim girl who finally has an excuse to escape the pressure of bullying Muslim fanatics will be grateful to the French state. Doesn't it say something that only a handful girls have been expelled out of a population of millions Muslims in France?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 3:34:26 PM||   2004-10-21 3:34:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm not religious, and I love my country, but I will not follow the dictates of a state that tells me to piss on my father and his beliefs.

And I am sure that nobody asked you to.

I'm sure any self-respecting French muslim with an ounce of backbone feels the same way toward the French state.

Which is why a majority of French muslim women *supported* the headscarf ban, I am sure.

Doesn't it also say something that most French muslim women *wanted* the headscarf to be banned from schools? The answer is that it had never been their choice to wear it, ofcourse.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 3:39:24 PM||   2004-10-21 3:39:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 The fight against headscarfs is the fight against a radical Islamist community forcing children to conform to its dress style.

so if most young women wear short skirts and tank tops, and my daughter wants to wear them, and i say she cant because we're traditional jews and consider that immodest, then the state has the right to REQUIRE short skirts and tank tops, in the name of laicism?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-21 3:45:32 PM||   2004-10-21 3:45:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Liberalhawk> In your theoretical world, if you said that she can't wear *any* clothes, because you find clothes an abomination upon the sainted nudity of the human body, the state would be able to force her to conform to wear clothes when in school.

But I'm more about the practical side of the issue than the strictly hypothetical side of it. In a perfect world everyone would be allowed to come as they want and their freedom of dress or undress wouldn't be restricted.

But in the modern-day world where the war with Islamofascism is occuring, the headscarf is being used as a means to *restrict* the freedom of the members of the specific Muslim community. So in *practice*, I believe that the ban actually increases the freedom of these girls, doesn't diminish it.

In theory it's horrid ofcourse -- "Gah, religious freedom is restricted" and all that. In practice the opposite seems to be the case.

lex> One last thing -- it might be better if you thought of it as less "Pissing on your father and beliefs" and more as "Giving you an excuse to make your own choices *without* appearing to piss on your father and beliefs".

"Daddy, *ofcourse* I would want to wear the headscarf as you want me to, and as those nice jihadis have been urging our family to make me do, but the big bad school won't let me. Love and kisses."
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 3:58:45 PM||   2004-10-21 3:58:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Doesn't it also say something that most French muslim women *wanted* the headscarf to be banned from schools? The answer is that it had never been their choice to wear it, ofcourse.

In other words, a million or more French muslim girls who want to wear the veil and honor the faith of their parents are prevented by the state from doing so-- in the name of "liberating" them.

Never let it be said that modern France is unwilling to go to war to liberate the oppressed.

Sure, Aris, black is white, night is day, and a complete state prohibition on behavior is actually liberation. Will France's brave cultural warriors also liberate those older students who don't wish to pursue courses of study chosen by their parents? Surely this is a far greater imposition on individual freedom.

Obviously the attack on the veil is little more than an attack on the separateness of religious minorities. Which is of course a completely stupid, heavy-handed way to cultivate and integrate those minorities in the mainstream.


Posted by lex 2004-10-21 4:33:40 PM||   2004-10-21 4:33:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Lex, the key to your argument is that the law forbids headscarfs and large crosses. Small crosses OK, Small head scrafs not. I think Yarmulkas got thrown out too.

Freedom from religion not freedom of religion.

Nonetheless, a good idea if it starts to civilize or extirpate Islam.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 4:43:36 PM||   2004-10-21 4:43:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Let's argue this from the converse position and see where we end up (everybody can try to fit their arguments into this scheme, ougtha be fun)

Let's say a court in France is headed by a judge who in private life is a strict Islamicist. His biases start creeping into decisions about rape, workplace harassment and discrimination, etc.

How do you address the problem?
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 4:46:17 PM||   2004-10-21 4:46:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "Daddy, *ofcourse* I would want to wear the headscarf as you want me to, and as those nice jihadis have been urging our family to make me do, but the big bad school won't let me. Love and kisses."

What a shallow, smug little ass you are. My point is obvious to anyone but the smug or an orphan. For your benefit I'll try to make it clear one more time: regardless of one's beliefs, and whether or not one shares the views of one's father, there is a core human ethical principle that seems to escape you and that is enshrined in every civilization's moral code: honor thy father.

For this reason children are required by the moral communities in which they're raised to signal, by way of all kinds of overt gestures, their respect for the parents who have taken such tremendous pains to raise them and give them grounding in a moral community.

If that community is a communist state, and if your parents are communists, then it is right and proper for you to show respect for the sacrifices your parents have made to uphold their beliefs. You don't throw away your red kerchief and piss on it, regardless of what you may think, because your love for and loyalty to your parent takes precedence.

The same is true for those us raised in, and refusing, that other one true holy and apostolic faith. It may come as a shock to a smug little shit like yourself, but around the world there are millions of people of strong minds and strong wills who have more respect for their parents than they ever will for any bureaucrat or pseudo-intellectual.

And for this reason, intelligent and truly progressive democracies respect and provide a decent space for this, the most important human sphere of all. Which is why France's idiotic and clumsy measure will succeed only in breeding hatred and contempt.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 4:47:11 PM||   2004-10-21 4:47:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Impeachment.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 4:48:29 PM||   2004-10-21 4:48:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Lex-either you got distracted by the "screw your mother" part of Islam, or else you intentionally disregarded the rest of the sentence "honor thy father and thy mother".
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 4:49:31 PM||   2004-10-21 4:49:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I like that, Mrs. Davis.

And your reason for impeachment is?
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 4:50:02 PM||   2004-10-21 4:50:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Lex,

Do you really mean to say that in the absence of this measure there would be no hatred or contempt of France and French culture by Muslims who forced their daughters to wear scarves? These cultures are at war and this is a small battle. Which side are you really on?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 4:51:22 PM||   2004-10-21 4:51:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Bringing disrespect to the laws. The nice thing about impeachment, as I understand it, is that it is fundamentally a political act, not one that arises as a result of previously enacted legislation. Thus, Clinton was guilty of breaking the law, but a political decision was made not to convict him.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 4:54:17 PM||   2004-10-21 4:54:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Lex, the key to your argument is that the law forbids headscarfs and large crosses. Small crosses OK, Small head scrafs not. I think Yarmulkas got thrown out too.

The law is clearly designed to shame and stigmatize religious minorities for whom visible symbols of faith are important.

Marxist-leninism is also a catechism with its own Church, its saints and sacraments and a body of dogma that's at least as backward, superstitious and oppressive as that of any confession. Does the French law also ban the wearing of Che Guevara T-shirts? Somehow, I doubt this pernicious faith is mentioned.

Freedom from religion not freedom of religion.
I'll be the judge of what if anything I wish to believe, thanks. I find your statism repellent. Smells more like fascism to me.

Nonetheless, a good idea if it starts to civilize or extirpate Islam.

I don't wish to "extirpate" Islam. If you want to "civilize" France's muslims, then respect them, respect their families, give the younger muslims real economic opportunities by liberalizing your labor markets, creating real competition and real opportunities to grow businesses and pursue intellectual careers without stifling bureaucracies and regulations.

Posted by lex 2004-10-21 4:56:21 PM||   2004-10-21 4:56:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Note-the AH dictionary has in its usage section that impeachment means:

...":formal accusation of wrongdoing".

What is his wrongdoing?
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 4:56:45 PM||   2004-10-21 4:56:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Lex-you give them this, and in turn they behave in a civilized manner? Why do you believe that? Will there suddenly be fair treatment of women? Why would you believe that? Or impartiality when dealing with people of other religions? What evidence is there to believe that?

Respectfully, I think it's a bit messier problem than your solution would handle.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 5:00:14 PM||   2004-10-21 5:00:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 We are not at war with muslims because they tell their daughters to wear scarves. There are of course decent muslims who insist on their daughters wearing scarves no less than there are decent jews who insist on dress codes for their own women.

France's hysteria over a scrap of silk is utterly ridiculous. The point is not the clothing, and outlawing the clothing will not in any way address the real problem, which is a self-perpuating cycle of political resentment, economic failure and social rejection by a French culture that stigmatizes the religious, regardless of their faith.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 5:03:03 PM||   2004-10-21 5:03:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 We are not at war with muslims because they tell their daughters to wear scarves.

True. We're not even at war with France over Islam. I think our real problems with France have something to do with reciprocity, loyalty, honor, and the golden rule. But you and I agree about one thing: the scarves are merely the symbol of a bigger problem-lack of Muslim assimilation into France. We differ in that it sounds like you are saying with more religious expression they would be more integrated and less violent; I would assert the opposite-Islam aggravates social inequality and alienates peoples of differing beliefs (at least the Islam that pushes itself to the forefront of religious authority today).

Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 5:10:50 PM||   2004-10-21 5:10:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Lex,

Your assumption seems to be that the French should accomodate the Muslims instead of the Muslims assimilating to French culture. I see no reason why the French should have to operate a multicultural society if they choose not to. They are just saying that if you want to go to school, this is how you behave. No one is telling them they can't go to mosque or wear a headscarf at home or out to a public place.

I can tell your argument is starting to break down when you start throwing fascism around. Let's keep the discussion above that level or simply agree to disagree.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 5:11:38 PM||   2004-10-21 5:11:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Here we are again with political correctness. The same political correctness who wants us to tolerate (wearing veils in class) what wouldn't be tolerated in Turkey or Tunisia. The same political correctness who, in the name of multicuturalness has allowed female genital mutilation in Western countries instead of doing the proper thing, enforcing our laws and protecting the child. Today the veil, tomorrow stoning of adulterous women, the day after shariah and later dhimmitude.

Ah, and about lex and others who think this will enrage the moderate muslims, I would say that "moderate muslims" who want their girls veiled don't belong in France. They can go to Saudi Arabia, to Waziristan or still better, to hell. Here in the West, we have some values, like "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights". If those guys aren't happy with them , then the door is open.

BTW: I think Mexaican immigrants whould be free to practice Huizipilotchli's cult where you live.
Posted by JFM  2004-10-21 5:13:11 PM||   2004-10-21 5:13:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Lex> No, lex, I'm sorry but I really don't see the "honour thy father" as quite all universal as that, and I certainly don't see "obey thy father" as that. It's parents that have the primary legal and moral obligation towards their children's welfare, not vice versa.

There are a million abusive fathers out there, and I see no moral obligation to have children honour those abusive fathers.

In other words, a million or more French muslim girls who want to wear the veil and honor the faith of their parents are prevented by the state from doing so-- in the name of "liberating" them.

Well, no, it was in the name of protecting the secularism of the state. I'm saying that said "liberation" is the result of the ban. When a gang forces you to wear its symbols, you ban the symbol from school. When Islamic fanatics force people to wear a headscarf, you ban the headscarf. Anything to prevent the forced segregation of the two communities that the fanatics desire to create.

And a million or more? As I just told you most muslim women *want* the headscarf banned, because it was never a wish of theirs -- regardless of whether you see that as "respect" or not. It seems to me that you are using the word respect to mean "obedience" instead, and you aren't interested in whether said girls actually *want* to obey it or not.

Said million girls can "respect" the faith of their parents as much as they want outside school property. If they wanted to sacrifice goats to the goddess Asherah in honour of their parents' faith, let them do that outside school property also.

What a shallow, smug little ass you are.

Oh, *extremely* so.

If that community is a communist state, and if your parents are communists, then it is right and proper for you to show respect for the sacrifices your parents have made to uphold their beliefs. You don't throw away your red kerchief and piss on it, regardless of what you may think, because your love for and loyalty to your parent takes precedence.

That's kinda the opposite of what nice Jesus said, where he said comes to bring not peace but a sword, to divide families, to divide children from their parents. Respect of your parents' idolatry is not a virtue in monotheistic religions.

It may come as a shock to a smug little shit like yourself,

How *kind* of you. Little cocksucking family-conforming community-establishmentarian fascist.

but around the world there are millions of people of strong minds and strong wills who have more respect for their parents

If their parents are deserving of that respect, good for them. But quite irrelevant really, since there are many parents who don't, and many parents that would force their daughters to dress according to Islamic traditions, so separating them from the other children by force.

In case you are wondering -- I'd be in favour of banning the burka in school also.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 5:13:23 PM||   2004-10-21 5:13:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 I see no reason why the French should have to operate a multicultural society if they choose not to.

Here's why: because it works. Because it's the only effective means of transitioning an alien culture in the span of one generation into a truly assimilated one. And because France's idiotic policy is guaranteed to stigmatize and shame these families without addressing the real problems.

Posted by lex 2004-10-21 5:15:30 PM||   2004-10-21 5:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 family-conforming community-establishmentarian fascist.

A sally at wit!

Run along, little one. I've no time for you.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 5:17:02 PM||   2004-10-21 5:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 And because France's idiotic policy is guaranteed to stigmatize and shame these families without addressing the real problems.

Wow, it *stigmatizes* these families by having them be like everyone else.

Admit it -- you don't even know what stigmatizing means.

And in your quote, you left out the "cocksucking", btw.

And for someone who supposedly has no time for me, you certainly had a lot of time to ramble again and again and finally break down in insults, irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 5:22:42 PM||   2004-10-21 5:22:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Lex, you think a multi-cultural society works. Maybe it does in the US. Maybe the it doesn't in France. Or maybe the French don't want one. Or don't they hjave the right to decide for themselves?

Everything I have read indicates it takes three generations for an immigrant family in the US to fully assimilate. It would be truly astounding for it to take only one in France.

I cannot undertake a defence of the entire French immigration and assimilation policy because I agree it is a disaster. But I also see that the French have a perfect right to implement the policy they have regarding the scarf and that there are good reasons to do so.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 5:25:54 PM||   2004-10-21 5:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 ...it takes three generations for an immigrant family in the US to fully assimilate

Depends what you mean by "fully assimilates"... but from personal experience I can tell you this is definitely not true.
Posted by Rafael 2004-10-21 5:34:43 PM||   2004-10-21 5:34:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 What Rafael said. The key to assimilation of the children is ensuring that their parents not be humiliated by the host culture. Doing so has the reverse effect on the kids.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 5:37:57 PM||   2004-10-21 5:37:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 AAAGGHHHH - I can't believe I'm agreeing (in part) with Aris! The apocalypse is nigh!
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-21 5:43:43 PM||   2004-10-21 5:43:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 That would be one part of it, but I don't think it's the key, for adults anyway. I would say speaking the language of country, willingly socializing with the people, and obeying the laws of the country are key. Time isn't so much the essence as the embrace of the people and the acceptance of their beliefs.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-21 5:47:57 PM||   2004-10-21 5:47:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 ..but from personal experience I can tell you this is definitely not true.

I second that. My parents were imports, but I'm not.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-21 5:53:33 PM||   2004-10-21 5:53:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Assimilation works so easily and effectively in the US precisely because we've avoided nonsense like this anti-scarf business. We attract religious minorities and other spat-upon types from around the world who seek nothing more than to work hard and be left in peace.

France's policy is guaranteed to attract and perpetuate resenters, by and large. Our multicultural policy is guaranteed to attract strivers.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 6:13:12 PM||   2004-10-21 6:13:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 For the immigrant to America, the deal is that you can support your family and be given the freedom to practice your faith without state interference. This is a superb deal, and one that every multicultural democracy should try to emulate. It eliminates state mischief and also gives a huge incentive to productive individual behavior of the sort that creates prosperity and stability.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 6:16:13 PM||   2004-10-21 6:16:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Worse than agreeing with Aris is defending the French. I need to reexamine everything.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 6:31:06 PM||   2004-10-21 6:31:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Re your last point, lex: bang on! This is the brutal and authoritarian French state trying to cure a psychiatric patient through cosmetic surgery. They simply don't understand their Muslim minority, and, worse, seem to have no desire to. At the end of the day, which country has had least success in assimilating its Muslim sub-population out of the US, UK and France? Laissez faire is a concept apparently alien to the French. If they wanted to achieve alienation rather than assimilation, they could hardly be doing better.

Would those who support the French ban also like to see the same blanket ban on perceived religious symbols imposed on schoolchildren in their own country?
Posted by Bulldog  2004-10-21 6:48:05 PM||   2004-10-21 6:48:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 â€¦make'em all wear the same neutral colored uniform for all Iಞ I support that, that is not discriminatory. Banning all religious symbols is discriminatory agaist all religions. If you put them all in a manditory uniform it is not.

"A small cross is OK." Well it is today.

"The history of the scarf in France indicates that it was a form of "signal" to Muslim males that the girl was a Muslim and off limits to harassment and rape." This is probably true and may be the real unspoken reason so many girls and their parents have resisted this ban.

Despite all the arguments I think the ban is stupid and shows how unfree France really is.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-21 6:53:11 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-21 6:53:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 ...Except personally, I don't like the term multicultural (state/society/democracy etc.) Too often used by West-haters to justify entrenching immigrants' cultural separateness and resisting assimilation. But from the context, it's obvious you're not advocating that sort of thing.
Posted by Bulldog  2004-10-21 6:55:09 PM||   2004-10-21 6:55:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Correct, BD. I like your concept of laissez-faire as well.

For what I have in mind, a better word perhaps is pluralism: I mean the state's refusal to mandate a particular view on religion (eg secularism) or other deeply personal, private matters. But this does not bless separateness as a permanent good; it merely makes the decision of the children to adopt the majority culture a voluntary one, and in so doing makes it far more attractive than a forced decision.

Had the state forced me to renounce my father's Irish Catholicism, I probably would still be a believer today, out of sheer Irish bloody-mindedness. But no one persecuted me, and I reached my own conclusions.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 7:05:43 PM||   2004-10-21 7:05:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 makes the decision of the children to adopt the majority culture a voluntary one

In theory that's all nice and good, in practice the decision of children to adopt the "majority culture" and abandon the headscarf actually meant they ran a high risk of being raped by Muslim gangs.

You people still seem to talk with the impression that the headscarf was always a matter of choice rather than all too often a matter of fear and coercion.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-10-21 7:30:11 PM||   2004-10-21 7:30:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Gosh..for the first time ever, I think Aris provided the best argument on the thread:

In your theoretical world, if you said that she can't wear *any* clothes, because you find clothes an abomination upon the sainted nudity of the human body, the state would be able to force her to conform to wear clothes when in school.

Lex: I'm guessing you went to school in a primarily white middle or upper class neighborhood and have never stepped foot inside a school located in a minority neighborhood. It's very clear that you have not.

You are right about one thing, though, for people to get all hysterical over a scrap of silk is stupid.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-21 8:00:15 PM||   2004-10-21 8:00:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 who are you and what have you done with the REAL Aris?
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-21 8:10:20 PM||   2004-10-21 8:10:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 2b having steped into a few "minority"/poor schools is one reason I support uniforms for all students. Even schools in middle class and wealthy schools. No accessories, no jewelery, no 300 dollar sports shoes. A standard and sturdy uniform everyone wears no exceptions. Kids are at school to learn. Lots of styles of dress get in the way of that job the kids are there to carry out.

Further addressing the "Headscarf"/religious symbols ban. Getting all wigged out over a freeking head covering is nuts. If you don't address the real isssue which is discrimination you don't do anything. Banning headgear is just againt all religions which encourage or mandate a style of dress. Uniforms for all would have be undiscriminatory. It's about infringing liberty not secularizing school. A manditory uniform does the job of secularizing if that is what the state (France) wants without damaging real religious freedom. The French ban is stupid and counterproductive. The method is wrong even if the goal may be correct.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-21 8:25:12 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-21 8:25:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 lex,

If there is such a laissez faire policy in the US, why are there so many parochial schools?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 8:31:41 PM||   2004-10-21 8:31:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Mrs Davis is correct and everyone wears a school uniform usually.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-21 8:43:04 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-21 8:43:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 SPOD: I agree with all of what you said.

A manditory uniform does the job of secularizing if that is what the state (France) wants without damaging real religious freedom. As you say, that would be a better way for them to go.

Mrs. D. - good point.
Posted by 2b 2004-10-21 8:48:17 PM||   2004-10-21 8:48:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 I find this whole discussion is missing the main two points.

1) No one will be assimilated UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE! My mother was 1st generation American and had not a hint of her German ancestors visible (except for an unfortunate taste for sauerkraut)

2) America is different that virtually all other countries! If I moved to Japan I could NEVER be Japanese. If I moved to France I could NEVER be French. These are countries where your identity is genealogical or geographical or tribal. To be an American is philosophical. If you buy into the American dream you become an American regardless of your accent or you choice in food or clothing. This is a free choice by free individuals. The worst that is happening to new immigrants to the US is that they are being ghettoized by the multi-culti industry and their own "leaders" who are in it for their own power trip.

From my reading, it appears that if not a majority a large minority of Muslims don't want to assimilate in France; they want the French to assimilate to them. See the encroachment of Sharia courts in Canada for the trend.
Posted by AlanC  2004-10-21 9:01:51 PM||   2004-10-21 9:01:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Alan,

Thank you for making that explicit. Regarding the ghettoization of immigrants it should be noted that enthusiasm for Ron Unz' proposition to outlaw bilingual education was very high among Hispanics who wanted to assimilate.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 9:27:01 PM||   2004-10-21 9:27:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Alan C - so true - I just started on VDH's Mexifornia - same points so far
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-21 9:42:32 PM||   2004-10-21 9:42:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 No one will be assimilated UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE!

OTOH, that's very true :) If it takes generations to assimilate, there's probably something else going on there.
Posted by Rafael 2004-10-21 9:42:53 PM||   2004-10-21 9:42:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 
Posted by .com 2004-10-21 10:03:14 PM||   2004-10-21 10:03:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 well, PD, the cover's slightly less graphic LOL
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-21 10:08:28 PM||   2004-10-21 10:08:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 That's hilarious! Especially the "X" signature.
Posted by Rafael 2004-10-21 10:09:58 PM||   2004-10-21 10:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Would Kerry agree with the policies of one of his supporters, Chirac, in allowing Muslims to be booted out of French schools? How un-P/C.
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-21 10:25:01 PM||   2004-10-21 10:25:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 "What have you done with the Real Aris?" Oh, it's the same Aris. Personally, I just have to read what he says SLOWLY. I think he, and others, have pretty much figured out that the French are in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation.

Here's what's the real kicker: What do muslims do to non muslims when they are in the majority? Put them down, suppress the minority's visibility and the visiblity of their religion. dhimminitude.

So what are the French doing when they ban the scarf, but allow small crosses or stars of david? THE MUSLIMS SEE THIS AS REVERSE DHIMMINITUDE. The visibility of THEIR religion is being suppressed because they are minority, in the same way that they suppress the visibility of non-Muslim religions when they are in the majority. In a remote sense, they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

Is this a good thing? The perverse side of me says "damn right!", but that's not the side I want running my life: Dhimminitude is an unjust state of affairs that shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of who does it and to whom it is done.

IMHO, the solution has already been mentioned: uniforms with no jewelry and no accessories. No scarves, no crosses, no stars of david.

Here's how I'd handle the Christian and Jewish protests: Neither religion requires an external show of loyalty. The Jewish symbol is circumcision, but Jewish boys don't go around with their pants down showing that they're good jews. Paul did mention wearing the scarf, BUT ONLY IN CHURCH. He regulated all other practices, customs, and habits, by asking the question "Does this give a message contrary to what I believe?" A potential problem are the Catholic priests, who may want their followers to wear a visible sign in order to assess relative strength, in the same way Muslims judge how much power they have by seeing what fraction of women wear scarves. IMHO, the cross has become a fashion accessory long divorced from its base, and so useless for judging how popular christianity is.

The point is this: The muslims NEED THE SCARF more than the Christians and Jews need their clothes accessories, because the former has a purpose apart from clothing, while the latter's religions give them the freedom to regard THEIR accessories as mere clothing. However, Judaism and Christianity lay great emphasis on Magnimanity: the virtue of letting go and yielding in areas that are minor or of no REAL consequence. Integrity and courage are the virtues of NOT yielding in areas that are major or of great consequence. Wisdom, as the saw goes, is the virtue of knowing what's major and minor, what's of great or of no real consequence. It's always a good time to live those virtues, but in this fight, practicing them may be necessary to save the nation...
Posted by Ptah  2004-10-21 11:03:17 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2004-10-21 11:03:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Ptah...well said!
Posted by 2b 2004-10-21 11:51:07 PM||   2004-10-21 11:51:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 It takes 2 generations to assimilate if kids are in public school with english only as the main language being spoken.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-22 12:18:51 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-22 12:18:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#74 Three questions that go to the motivation behind this ridiculous law:

1) if the aim is not to divide children from their parents but to uphold "secularism" by eliminating overt displays of religiosity, then do the French schools also disallow kosher food? Do they force the muslim children to eat pork?

2) If the French schools do not remove religiosity from the cafeteria, then why not? Why the exclusive emphasis on clothing? (A little clothing fetish, peut-etre?)

3) if, as some would like to believe, the aim is not to stigmatize religious minorities but to "liberate" children from their tyrannical parents, then why limit such liberation to religious families? Why not intervene also against parents who insist that their children pursue courses of study contrary to the child's wishes?

On the last point, I see that France is now mandating that kids study English-- presumably because English is the language of global capitalism. Suppose an intelligent child with no inclination toward a business career and no wish to work outside his home town prefers not to study English but take up another language instead. Ah, but here the state interevenes for your benefit! So much for the "liberating the children" argument.

Again, this is idiotic legislation that does not even conform to its own logic. It will do nothing to address the real problems that France has with its muslim minority-- problems which, as Bulldog points out, the French neither understand nor care to try to understand.

Makes one sympathize with the muslims. Perhaps the hardworking strivers among them could emigrate to the US, leaving the French to deal with the resenters.
Posted by lex 2004-10-22 9:59:23 AM||   2004-10-22 9:59:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#75 Makes one sympathize with the muslims


BZZZZT! Wrong answer.
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-22 10:04:55 AM||   2004-10-22 10:04:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#76 Perhaps the hardworking strivers among them could emigrate to the US, leaving the French to deal with the resenters.

They probably do.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-22 10:05:56 AM||   2004-10-22 10:05:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#77 Was wearing a six-pointed yellow star an area of major or great consequence?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-22 10:12:00 AM||   2004-10-22 10:12:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#78 Integrity and courage are the virtues of NOT yielding in areas that are major or of great consequence.

I don't disagree with this idea, Ptah, but we are talking about Islam here, which is long due some self-examination and change. It might not be a bad idea to identify a few issues of "major consequence to Islam" and then revisit whether you are comfortable yielding to the integrity and courage of Muslims in France to handle those issues in a way compatible with modern, democratic societies.

Among which, as a woman, I might list honor killings, child custody, property rights and other inheritance issues, divorce processes for women, polygamy, obligatory genital mutilation, apostasy, and segregation of sexes...
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-22 10:26:52 AM||   2004-10-22 10:26:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#79 Frank G-
"Makes one sympathize with the muslims"
BZZZZT! Wrong answer

Go ahead and make common cause with lamebrained, heavyhanded statists is it makes you feel better, but I'll take the side of individual dignity.

I will point out once more that one does not end honor killings and misogyny by shaming and stigmatizing schoolchildren over a piece of clothing.

This has all the intelligence and subtlety of, say, US schools' banning latin music that's sung in spanish from being played on schoolgrounds.
Posted by lex 2004-10-22 10:33:16 AM||   2004-10-22 10:33:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#80 ahhh yes, individual dignity has so much to do with Islam and women. Accomodating the sick repression forced on women from birth by Islamic society is individual dignity? I'll pass. Perhaps the school nurse can help with the genital mutilation?
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-22 10:37:39 AM||   2004-10-22 10:37:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#81 Of course it doesn't happen through banning clothing. Yes, we all recognize that there is shaming and stigmatizing of girls for not wearing head scarves. But rather than challenging that head on, you are basically saying France should acceed to that pressure and let the practice of SHAMING WOMEN THROUGH THE WEARING OF HEAD SCARVES TO CONTINUE. Those who are that orthodox about their religious beliefs must have understood on some level that the country they were emigrating to has a different set of moral norms. France is not obliged to change its social structure so that the new immigrant group's biases are soothed. The Muslims in France need to accept the terms of life in their new homeland or find a country where the government's ideals are more in line with their own.
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-22 10:47:02 AM||   2004-10-22 10:47:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#82 Neat. 18 and 81 say the same thing. At least we've got consistency.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-22 10:49:16 AM||   2004-10-22 10:49:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#83 Not the first nor the last time you and I agree, Mrs. D.

:)
Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-22 10:55:34 AM||   2004-10-22 10:55:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#84 lex...your "separating children from their parents" argument doesn't hold water. And it again shows that you've only been exposed to a relatively homogenous lifestyle leaving you to not fully able grasp the issues occuring in poverty prevalent schools. It shows.

Let's look at your "separate from the parents" at an angle that you CAN understand. Would you agree that we should stop all Halloween parties? After all...some parents consider these to be against their religious beliefs. So allowing those children to participate would "separate the children from their parents".

How about teaching evolution? How about teaching sex education? These issues separate some children from the beliefs of their parents. Should we do away with that too?

The bottom line is that, in many schools they face issues of which you are clearly blissfully ignorant and the purpose of a PUBLIC, taxpayer funded school is not just to teach children to read and write, but to become good citizens - able to function in the host society.

Wearing the headscarves may indeed separate some children from their parents - but so too do ideas of going to college, not using drugs, learning to be honest, or being accepting of the beliefs of others.
Posted by 2b 2004-10-22 6:01:03 PM||   2004-10-22 6:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

16:00 Crerert Ebbeting3481
17:02 Crerert Ebbeting3481
18:01 2b
12:17 Ptah
12:00 Ptah
10:55 Jules 187
10:49 Mrs. Davis
10:47 Jules 187
10:37 Frank G
10:33 lex
10:26 Jules 187
10:12 Mrs. Davis
10:05 Mrs. Davis
10:04 Frank G
09:59 lex
08:32 Tom
08:20 Frank G
06:51 Shipman
01:17 eLarson
00:54 Kalle (kafir forever)
00:52 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:50 Asedwich
00:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:18 Sock Puppet of Doom

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
54.210.61.41

Merry-Go-Blog









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com