 |
|
|---|
When I was growing up, I wore a school uniform which dictated the following rules on jewellery: in addition to our official school pins, we were allowed to wear a small gold chain with a cross on it; pearl or gold earring studs or small gold hoops, a wrist watch, and a medic alert bracelet. On the issue of make up, we were not allowed to wear any and the school administrator kept a bottle of nail polish remover for those girls who didn't have time to remove it before Monday morning. Any reader who has worn a school uniform is probably already thinking up ways to defy all these regulations. What my friends and I did was to grow our right pinky finger nails and wear bright blood red nail polish on it. As our teachers moved around the room over bent heads scribbling the latest notes our red fingers were duly tucked in holding on to our regulation pens. Hidden from the view of authority we had a sisterhood of defiance and freedom to wear a little nail polish regardless. To this day, you can often find me wearing nail polish on no more than my pinkies.
I was reminded of this life, and symbols of resistance to the regulations imposed on youth by their schools, when France debated and passed a law restricting the wearing of religious symbolism or clothing in their public school system. I was reminded that the more one restricts teenagers, the more some of them will find ways to circumvent the law and to assert their right to be different. But I was also reminded that in a public school system in a secular state, the support or proliferation of religion is not sanctioned. What, I wondered briefly on my own blog, would my political stance on this issue be?
Loathe to impose too many regulations on the young, I nevertheless come away cynically wondering why France does not make their regulations less offensive by imposing a full school uniform on their public schools? It is not unusual in many states for all school children to wear uniforms thus making them equal in the classroom. But then my mind wandered to Malaysia, a country of 60% Muslims, and remembered the many variations of those school uniforms – the one for Muslim girls, the one for non-Muslim girls, the ones for boys... In Malaysia the school children were dressed in regulation uniforms but their religious beliefs were still at the heart of the shape of that dress.
So what is the problem, or is there one, with the decision in France? The problem, as I see it, is as subtle and complex as any human rights issue ever is. The issue is general and personal; political and cultural. It is about how states govern school curriculum and community and how what we teach in schools, both implicitly and explicitly, shapes our political beliefs.
But on a global level, the UN Declaration on Human Rights affords each of us the global right to practice our religions freely. And if that religious practice dictates the wearing of special clothing, then should schools not allow for a special uniform – whether that uniform alteration be the addition of hijab, cross, yamoulke, turban, or other symbolism. The learners, after all, are not teachers and are not converting others by their choice in clothing. I am reminded of studying Arabic at the American University in Cairo and the vast array of political opinions expressed through our teachers' individual choices in clothing – conservative Western dress to conservative Muslim dress. We were subtlety exposed to the full array of opinions, but never once did a teacher try to impress Islam upon us, a group made up largely of un-believers. Perhaps then, it is not just students who can, if they so choose, wear clothing with a religious purpose and remain undaunting in their teaching of a set curriculum? Perhaps even teachers can wear these garments and remain neutral in their treatment of their learners?
I had a second, specific, problem with the media’s focus on hijab. Afterall, the decision in France affects students of all religious persuasions, so why did the international media make the Muslim women seem to be the only ones who had something to lose? But the heart of my problem was not political; rather it was personal. Is the hijab always a religious symbol of Islam? And perhaps my question is rooted in my own position, as a non-Muslim woman who has been adopted into Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern Muslim nations, as a woman who wears hijab and misses it when it is not there. (Yes, that really is me swathed in the orange burqa in the picture.)
In my early years as student of the Middle East, I dutifully listened to and parroted the Western feminist opinion of the hijab, mentally equating it to my experiences with a strictly enforced school uniform. I swore that while I was willing to accept all sorts of aspects of Muslim culture, I would never adopt the head scarf … that symbol of women's "oppression". After many years of direct contact with Muslims, my views considerably altered as I came to know the individuals behind the symbols.
Eventually, I found myself in Pakistan, a country where a mere 10% of the population is non-Muslim. I was profoundly aware that even non-Muslim women, especially the uneducated, wore a distinctly South Asian version of the hijab as part of their everyday dress. And I wondered… can the hijab be more than a religious symbol? Within a year I was offered a managerial position to work in the most conservative part of Pakistan with the Afghan refugee population. In the interview I was asked point blank if I would be willing to "dress like a local". I already wore the Pakistani shalwar kamis, so why not add Afghan chadori, and even burqa, if it meant I could gain acceptance and access to the community? Within a month of my accepting that position, I was out there with the best of them covering my face to the eyes to hide the gaze of men, averting my eyes, and wearing chadori for trips to rural areas. Within a short period of time women and men were taking me into their confidence and I felt that I was truly a part of their community and lives. To be honest, my chadori keeps me warm in the winter and keeps the sun off me in the summer. Frankly, what could be better than that?
In 2001 and 2002, I donned a burqa at anti-war protests and carried a sign which said, "I have the right to live in peace, too." The hijab, I have learned, is my friend much more so than my enemy. It protects me from the evil of surveillance – by officials, by the unwanted gaze of strangers, by anyone I chose to remain anonymous from. It is not a symbol of my religion, but a symbol of my strength, of my politics, and of my desire to protect my privacy in the public sphere.
On this level, I can understand the outrage of French women who wear hijab. But on the other hand, I remain torn and believe that the place of religion in the public schools of secular states is to be minimised. Like French society and other secular states, I struggle everyday with the same question of how to reconcile the roles of organised religion in the public and the private spheres. The answers are not yet in clear view, but they are getting there. And in that light, I can now say that if I were a French parliamentarian, I would most likely have voted against the resolution. But who knows? Tomorrow I may change my mind.
I wonder what would be the outcome, if French government starts to implement this law:
-would it be possible for French government to implement these law while these women can still practice Hejab? Lot of Moslems think Hejab doesn’t have a specific style, these women can just wear a hat to cover their hair. Would French government say any thing that covers their hair is a symbol of their religion? It might be easy to recognize a cross as a symbol for a Christianity but it wont be easy to legally distinguish whether a scarf is covering all the hair or is used as a sun protection or is a fashion, unless they want to prohibit all of them.
- If it comes to a choice between Hejab or education, do these women think that their education is more important and they can abandon Hejab? Or do they think Hejab is more important and they should forget about education? Or do they think they are both equally as important so they should leave France?
-Can’t Islamic countries just raise enough money to provide a private education for all these women?
Like Ghazal said it does not seem a practical law too. How one can say a rock style bandana is OK but a samll scarf is not.
A great Mufti of AL-Azhar however says it is OK for muslim women in non-muslim countries to leave their Hijab because of government regulations. (can see in http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/711DA539-898A-43E2-9F3D-85DF43B624CD.htm)
Maybe like what many Turkish girls do, some of French muslim girls never give up their veils and try to countinue their education in other countries.
Ghazal throw out some good questions here... and i think the answer is a "wait and see" one. All of these scenarios are possible! I feel sure that some religious groups might try to appeal this in the courts...
I was reminded after I wrote this, btw, that there is a strange parallel with 1979 Iran here. In 1979 Iranian women were forced to put on the hijab just as French Muslim women are being forced to take it off today. In both cases women who disagree are trying to find ways around the laws within the construct of their society and their abilities... But it does seem a bit surreal, doesn't it?
Clearly the French feel threatened, and that is why 70% of them support the ban. Why is there tension? What are the root problems here? That is what should be examined.
I think these 2 "root" problems would be a good start:
a) France being able to integrate millions of Muslims. The problem include language, location (muslims often live in ghetto sub-urban areas where educational and employment opportunity are non-existent), etc. Unlike America, Canada, New Zealand etc, European nations were not built as immigrant nations, and there wasn't a real integration strategy. And, at the "people level", national identity is not as post-modern as some intellectuals/technocrats in Europe imagined.
b) The violent Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to be in charge of all mosques in France, and still is. More or less, all sunni terrorist groups in the world sprang out of the violent ideology of the Muslim Brotheroood. This of course makes integration practically impossible: it fuels anti-Muslim sentiment which obviously fuels anti-French sentiment in the Muslim population, and then its a cycle.
Both root problems have to be "solved" for the overall situation to be improved
Economist magazine(Feb 5th issue) has a nice article
called "The war of headscarves" which compares the
radically different approaches of France and UK about
ethnic and riligious minorities.
While in the UK there are muslim police women who war
veils especailly deigned for their uniforms, France
banns Hijab.
The idea of article is that UK officially sets up
support groups for minorities to help them find jobs,
get better education ,perform their special and
ethnical events,etc. Having recognized the
differences, it helps the minorities to find their
proper share of palce in the whole community and not
getting isolated.
While France's kind of Secularism requires the
government to try to make such signs of diffrence,
disappear.
I personally prefer the approach of UK, but I can't
deny that these differnt attitudes have deep
historical roots and one can't easily say "learn from
each other".
I used to think dress code should be determined
democratically but now I prefer to think "minimum
dress codes".
While I acknowledge what "JFTD Master" says about the fact that France is known for having tensions between it's Muslim population and the Non-Muslims, it is important to remember that this ban is not just about the hijab. It is about all religious symbols worn as clothing. It affects all public school students in the country. The international media has done a good job of turning the issue to a "Us" vs. "them" Muslim/non-Muslim issue, but if that were the case then crosses, yamulke, turbans, knives, and Buddhas, and other religious symbols would still be allowed.
Or are you insinuating that the other French people of other religious persuasions don't care about their religious freedom as much as the Muslims?
And a note to Fardaa:
Yes! Indeed... the UK situation models the Canadian quite closely. Of course I wonder, too, why the French went down another path. But historically they've liked to be the devil's advocate of international politics, so why not also local social politics as well?
Julia a historical note: Hijab was not forced in Iran in 1979. It was either in the 2nd or 3rd year after the revolution that hejab was forced (I do not remember the exact date)
Ah... Alis in Wonderland... thanks... slip of the typing fingers, I meant "after 1979". You are quite right... *hangs head in shame*
"it is important to remember that this ban is not just about the hijab. "
- It would be unfair to ban in some public places the religious symbols of only one religion, and so they banned them all, that of course is true.
But I think it would be fair to say that the underlying reason was NOT tension between the French and Christianity / Judaism / Sikhs, wouldn't you agree?
"Of course I wonder, too, why the French went down another path."
- It would be interesting to read up on that, to find out why. I dont know why it happened historically, but somehow the French version of the "separation of church and state" is more like Turkey's "secular republic" than the American version.
If France wants to ban teenagers from wearing religious symbols or clothing.
They would have been more prudent to tell the kids that they must wear such items. Then as Julia mentioned the kids would rebel and find ways not to wear them.
I just wish nations like France would spend the same amout of time devising ways to help the downtrotten and bring peace to their nation and others, as they do on begnin matters such as what teenagers are wearing.
FOR the record in highschool I wore a uniform at a Catholic highschool and defied it by wearing a skinny unregulation tie and a cardigan that my mother knit in a cool yet funky fashion, as well as slippers rather than shoes (velvet shoe-like slippers that appeared to be shoes when my pant legs covered them. Unbeknownest to my teachers).
And I turned out fine. I think it was the rebellion that made me well-adjusted. Though my contemporaries might argue the converse.
After thinking it over, I guess I have to weigh in on the side of the French Government. My senior year in High School was spent in a Catholic Convent. We too, had our little rebellions, but in general, distinctions of class, money, even ethnicity were absent. It seems that barred from being able to use our appearance to "make a statement" about who we were, we were able to actually see each other more clearly. It was a welcome relief from the two public High Schools I had attended previously.
I strongly disagree with the "american woman". The head scarf is different from the stereotypes that send a false message about one's personality. It is a sign of one's believes and state of mind that should not be removed for the reasons mentioned. You want to force the girl not to wear the head scarf so that you have the surprise factor of discovering her ideology later when you talk to her? No body knows why the french did it exactly, but from all the discussion in the news, I can definitely be sure that it was not for the reasons you are mentioning.
I think France is seeking here a form of social engineering under the name of protecting the secularity of the state. The massive support for the ban comes from the deep roots of the so-called "French Secularism", a phenomenon observed nowhere else in the world.
The 1789 revolution brought the church and state into a head-on clash as Vatican defied the republican order Paris was trying to impose across Europe. The result was the marching of French troops twice - in 1798 and 1809 - in Rome. Church assets were confiscated and the cleric were made to pledge allegiance to the republic. Religion has never been encouraged or respected by the ruling parties in France ever since. The third republic stepped forward and decreed the separation of Church and state at the beginning of the 20th century.
This little bit of history can explain how the French society has managed to quit its "addiction" to religion, something many other countries, including the US and even Canada, have failed to do so far. This may be considered harsh but I very much like to compare religious faith to chemical drug addiction. Like drugs, religion makes people feel good, especially at first exposures, as it nullifies many pains of conscious life by promising a wonderful afterlife. Like drugs, it is hard to quit religion; once in, it is often rather hard to take away from a faith. Like drugs, religion makes people high. How else, can someone with a sane state of mind crash oneself, and some 200 other people, happily into a tower? How else, can one possibly march deliberately in a "crusade". "Patriotism", maybe, but I consider that a weak form of religion too. Any type of zealous, illogical submission to an ideology can be considered a religious involvement. The most famous of these submissions, "Christianity", "Islam", "Judaism", and the like, due to their thousands of years of evolution in philosophy and their wide range of answers for mediocre minds, form the counterpart of the most addictive and debilitating of the chemical drugs. However, unlike drugs, religion can be used to incite people to do many things mindlessly and this is what makes religion more dangerous, and more important to challenge, than drugs.
The French politicians, aware of the importance of the achievement of their society in getting away from religion, find it rather depressing that their third or fourth generation of predominantly northern African immigrants, suddenly refuge to religion in search of their so-called "identity", all the while their parents and grand-parents have reasonably well integrated into the French lifestyle. Quite naturally, they use every available leverage to fix the problem. Keeping the children, drug-free five or six hours a day for some twelve years may help and is probably the best they can do under the French constitution.
Many may find such acts of social engineering rather unhealthy and in contrast to foundation of democracy and liberalism. However, democracy, meaning nothing but the ruling of the most popular idea is completely incapable of promising sanity. Take the example of Iraq. If the Iraqi people are given freedom of choice, their majority in absolute jubilation walk in the footsteps of their neighboring Iran, making themselves a fabulous theocracy of which Iranians have failed to get rid of after 25 years of struggle. In fact, supposedly functioning democracies may severely decay if some benevolent magical force does not protect the sanity of the majority. Everyone knows about an example of such a democracy, the lovely United States of America, in which, among the many other things, the majority of people, due to their democratic choices, carry on their shoulders the guilt of death of hundreds of thousands of people around the world, without even noticing it.
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]I do not agree with your views on religion in general. They are among the outworn 19 century 'classics'. In the heart of religions, I mean those with one or more anthropomorphic deities, is actually an extremely humane and realist vision of life to be found.
IMO, the fact of the harshness of life and the unbelievable grandeur of the world compared to feeble humans gives power to a self-destructive 'instinct' in man. We all have it to some degree. Abstracted religions like Buddhism or many anti-rational mysticisms are the result of this and that's what makes them attractive at first sight. Buddhist Nirvana or Sufist 'fanaa' is death! The aim is to take humans with their intelects and rational powers and turn them into non-conscious "tree"s again. An analogy would be like whales as mammals 'trying' to be fish again! The rest is verbal manipulation of feelings. For example they speak of "'surpassing' duality'" or "'freeing' yourself from the bounds of the cage of the material world". These are jibberish, but terms like 'surpassing' or 'freeing' or 'cage' cause instinctive responsens on our psyche. And beyond this preliminary ice-breaker lies the 'pleasure' of actually 'dying', not having to endure this life anymore.
I see religion, organized, ritualistic with anthropomorphic God(s), as a human struggle AGAINST such nihilistic tendencies. They seem primitive, but in it is a reverence of REALISM within THIS WORLD-and they are one of the-if the not the major-basis of modern world and its exuberance.
There God or Gods are REAL, not abstractions. In a sense it is the REALISM that is worshipped in the image of God or Gods.
There is perhaps an analogy (stretched too far?) here with Physics and Mathematics. From a 'classical' Mathematician's POV, Physics is messy and hard to grasp. Why don't they just systematize the damn thing so that we would know what we are talking about!
However that is exactly the greatness of Physics. Because it is an investigation into the REALITY OUT THERE. Mathematical 'axiomatization' can not replace it. As anyone of those who have studied Physics know, you learn step by step. Many ideas are still taught in the language and worldview of the era and context they were naturally developed. This makes life hard for a beginner, but the result of the struggle is an understanding that no mathematician can even come close to.
It is interesting to see the nihilistic tendencies of radical Islam in this light.
Just recently the first Palestinian female suicide-bomber had it written in her will that her highest dream has always been that 'her body parts fly all over the place.' See what I mean?
Although from a 'realist' origin, Islam is much more 'abstract' than its predecessors and a complete transformation to an 'otherworldly' doctrine. this is usually taken as an advantage by its proponents: "Have you read the Bible? Isn't the stories there childish?" Not in my view, if you look at everything in the correct context.
As for France, the French secularism is as fanatically religious as any of the religion's you are trying to deride. the whole Leftism, esepcially of course Marxism as its peak, are quite religious in nature, and religious in the medieval, or perhaps more correctly the anti-rational and anti-realist, sense of it. A look at French politics, the nausating hypocracy and lack of moralism there, is a good sign of what that kind of 'secularism' leads to. You make fun of the American religiosity. It might be useful to remember that this 'religiosity' was the most advanced liberal idea AGAINST the medieval religious dominance when it started and grew.(Especially since it began by reviving somewhat the 'realism' of more ancient religious relation towards the world. Maybe that's why it is hated so much, huh?)
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]Besides where as France and many parts of Europe decay and degenerate in their (temporary?) high class secularism, it is America that is aggressively porgressive and open to the future. How ironic!
Sorry, its of course gibberish, not jibberish...
(shakes the headand murmurs behind his teeth)
Wow! My mind is officialy blown. I need to take a moment to repair some synapses.
Quelqu'un, are you a French national?