France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Side 3]

This is absolutely horrible. France has been going way too far lately, and it's obvious that they are targeting Muslims specifically. And to anyone who defends this: how would you feel if the government policed the way you dress? I know that as a Catholic, I would be horrified if one day the government said I couldn't wear a crucifix because it isn't secular. France shouldn't be able to get away with trampling on religious and personal freedoms just because the people they're trampling on are Muslims.

Just a reminder, this is a country that allows kids of any age to drink alcohol at home, but it won’t let girls choose to wear hijab to school.

Because "at school" and "at home" are absolutely the same thing.
Also, OMG THEY DRINK ALCOHOL, boo fucking hoo.

Yeah man, underage alcoholism is totes rad! It's not like that can fuck up a child's development or anything!

[Celestiam]

This kind of situation arises because whereas LREM (controlled by Macron) controls the National Assembly, the right (The Republicans) controls the Senate. So you'll typically see the Senate adopt these kinds of amendments.

I very much doubt it's going to make it through the National Assembly unscathed.

Incredibly high, as th body that will make it a law is already known to be majority in favor of it.

The National Assembly, in favour? Where did you read this?

Even the Minister of Interior (and he's a closet right-winger pretending to be a Marcheur imo) is opposed to this, previous attempts to enter this amendment in the NA were rejected, and in 2019 the Senate did effectively the same thing, and the amendment got pulled out by the Assembly (it had the same composition). What makes you think the National Assembly has volte-faced on the issue?

I wouldn't call the chances "incredibly high", there's decent odds that the NA will remove or water down the Senate's amendment. And since this isn't equal bicameralism, the National Assembly has the final word. So no, I wouldn't call it a done deal.

Still, you're right to open this to discussion, if more people discussed this there would be a higher pressure on the National Assembly to do the right thing and strike that amendment out.

[Salus Maior]

Burqas are one thing, but Hijabs are literally just headscarves. There's zero real objection to them.

[Nakena]

To be fair Turkey had been doing this for many decades until Erdogan came to power.

[SD_Film Artists]

Because "at school" and "at home" are absolutely the same thing.

It's not like the state has much ability to control what happens at home - even things which are banned "at home", such as corporal punishments, are basically not enforced, unless it's really extreme cases, because there is no just way for the state to even know about it. A law banning minors to drink alcohol at home just be a purely symbolic thing that wouldn't change anything to reality.

Actually the state can do something about it and yet it doesn't- which is exactly the problem! Teenagers across Britain and France are being denied the right to make a cool escape from American cops during a busted house party; instead being forced to drink completely legal alcohol like law-abiding posers. Even if a law is implemented it wouldn't be dramatic and racial like the US but instead it'll be- 'Oi! Come 'ere u cheeky wanker.. ' ou, ''ici! Tu putain! J'ai un Famas pour ta jambe..'

[Salus Maior]

To be fair Turkey had been doing this for many decades until Erdogan came to power.

Yeah, Turkey isn't exactly what I'd call a model country to follow.

[Kilobugya]

Burqas are one thing, but Hijabs are literally just headscarves. There's zero real objection to them.

None of those laws are about burqas or hijabs. They are dogwhistles. Ways to attract votes and shift the public debate to topics the right-wing parties are comfortable with, using Muslims as scapegoats.

[Great Brytain and Ireland]

The nation has the right to force non-native cultures to conform and assimilate into the native host culture, regardless of people’s sensibilities. As a European, I support this, not out of any general opposition to supposed ‘free expression’ but in opposition to the cementing of parallel societies. If France desires to Gallicise the Muslims, France has the right to do so.

[Nakena]

To be fair Turkey had been doing this for many decades until Erdogan came to power.

Yeah, Turkey isn't exactly what I'd call a model country to follow.

Well they had their reasons to do it. Specifically to keep political islam at bay and under the boot. One of many measures aimed at that.

[Jabberwocky]

Banning hijabs sounds like something American Republicans would consider.

[Vassenor]

The nation has the right to force non-native cultures to conform and assimilate into the native host culture, regardless of people’s sensibilities. As a European, I support this, not out of any general opposition to supposed ‘free expression’ but in opposition to the cementing of parallel societies. If France desires to Gallicise the Muslims, France has the right to do so.

Remember, countries totally collapse without forced homogenisation.

[Kilobugya]

As a European, I support this, not out of any general opposition to supposed ‘free expression’ but in opposition to the cementing of parallel societies.

The political party that introduces this amendment is that same one whose mayors proudly refuse to respect the SRU law (law that imposes 25% of social housing in all cities above a certain size) and prefer to pay a fine rather than welcome poor people in their cities. They are the same who send their children to expensive elite private schools instead of public schools. They have absolute no right to speak against "parallel societies" when they are the ones responsible for them.

[SD_Film Artists]

Banning hijabs sounds like something American Republicans would consider.

Only if they're gay anti-gun hijabs.

[Celestiam]

Burqas are one thing, but Hijabs are literally just headscarves. There's zero real objection to them.

None of those laws are about burqas or hijabs. They are dogwhistles. Ways to attract votes and shift the public debate to topics the right-wing parties are comfortable with, using Muslims as scapegoats.

There's certainly an element of that. Elections are in 2022, and although it's in over a year that's all you're hearing about on French radio and TV.

The right needs some talking points that aren't healthcare, economics, welfare, or anything else in which they are the minority.

[Side 3]

The nation has the right to force non-native cultures to conform and assimilate into the native host culture, regardless of people’s sensibilities. As a European, I support this, not out of any general opposition to supposed ‘free expression’ but in opposition to the cementing of parallel societies. If France desires to Gallicise the Muslims, France has the right to do so.

And if the Muslims don't want to Gallicise and fight back, do they also have the right to do so? This doesn't get rid of parallel societies, it creates them. France is just polarizing the Muslims and creating an us-vs-them mentality.

[The Tsunterlands]

So how does secularism translate to "need to protect people from seeing religion exists"?

So this is a really interesting point as it reveals how different societies interpret secularism.

English Liberals (as in the original liberals of the 18th and 19th century) interpreted secularism to be freedom of religion - ie you are free to practice which ever religion you want without fear of discrimination. Bare in mind England at the time was filled with various loosely organised protestant sects were power was concentrated at the bottom and where religious conflict (sometimes violent Protestants supressing Catholics, but also just an institutional bias towards the Church of England against Methodists, Quakers ect) was generally between different sects.

French Secularism emerged from the French revolution where the Catholic Church was seen to be a part of the regime oppressing the peasants so French secularism, Lacite (idk how its spelt), is seen as "freedom from religion".

[Risottia]

Because "at school" and "at home" are absolutely the same thing.

It's not like the state has much ability to control what happens at home - even things which are banned "at home", such as corporal punishments, are basically not enforced, unless it's really extreme cases, because there is no just way for the state to even know about it. A law banning minors to drink alcohol at home just be a purely symbolic thing that wouldn't change anything to reality.

Seesh, those are just excuses: you are clearly hating on Muslims for allowing 17-years-old to have a glass of Côtes de Provence with their jambon-beurre at home.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, Turkey isn't exactly what I'd call a model country to follow.

Well they had their reasons to do it. Specifically to keep political islam at bay and under the boot. One of many measures aimed at that.

Yeah, and obviously that didn't work, did it?

"Political Islam" not only endured in Turkey, but now it's in control. And I imagine part of their seizing control is because the Muslim Turks were discontent under the secular measures and so were never endeared to secularism.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

The nation has the right to force non-native cultures to conform and assimilate into the native host culture, regardless of people’s sensibilities. As a European, I support this, not out of any general opposition to supposed ‘free expression’ but in opposition to the cementing of parallel societies. If France desires to Gallicise the Muslims, France has the right to do so.

Yet when Serbia or Iran or Turkey or literally any other country that the US doesn't like does it is suddenly oppression that must be fought at all costs...

[Kilobugya]

French Secularism emerged from the French revolution where the Catholic Church was seen to be a part of the regime oppressing the peasants so French secularism, Lacite (idk how its spelt), is seen as "freedom from religion".

Not really no. Yes there was a lot of hostility from French Republicans against the Catholic Church (and for good reason) from the French Revolution to the early 20st century (and even afterwards), but it never translated into a will to impose "freedom from religion". Laïcité always meant absolute neutrality of the State towards religion - no public financing of religion, interdiction for people wielding state authority to show their religious affiliation, no laws specifically in favor of one religion. But it never meant that _citizens_ couldn't practice or show their religion. That's a very recent trend, and only against "minority" religions like Islam, mostly, as I said above, as a political strategy for right-wing party that need to shift the public debate from topics such as welfare, healthcare, economics, climate, education, ... in which their positions don't have a majority.

[Celestiam]

French Secularism emerged from the French revolution where the Catholic Church was seen to be a part of the regime oppressing the peasants so French secularism, Lacite (idk how its spelt), is seen as "freedom from religion".

That might be the origins, but the Republicans and RN are increasingly making laicité about Islam. I mean, Nadine Morano didn't have a problem saying France was a judeo-christian country, for example. I feel like the principle of secularism is increasingly serving as a Trojan horse for the right to push its ethnocentric policies.

[Nakena]

And if the Muslims don't want to Gallicise

Then they still would have the suitcase.

Yeah, and obviously that didn't work, did it?

It didn work because the sucessors of Atatürk and İsmet İnönü didn continued their harsh crack down on Islam and went soft. They also didn offered an religious alternative to Islam really so much.

"Political Islam" not only endured in Turkey, but now it's in control.

Thats because the TSK went weak which led to their own undoing. The coup of 2016 was the last chance to turn the tide.

And I imagine part of their seizing control is because the Muslim Turks were discontent under the secular measures and so were never endeared to secularism.

Political Islam and Islamism in Turkey rose since at least the 1980s when the Evren regime was a bit too friendly towards them as they saw them as counter force to communism etc. Vistulange knows probably way more about this but its a topic for another thread.

[Kilobugya]

That might be the origins, but the Republicans and RN are increasingly making laicité about Islam.

It's even more obvious for RN - their mayors put nativity scenes in the city halls during Christmas with public money, despite that being a clear breach of state neutrality and official support towards Christianity. They don't care at all about laïcité. They just hate Muslims (and Blacks, and Jews, and communists, and gypsies, and gays, and ...).

[Nakena]

French Secularism emerged from the French revolution where the Catholic Church was seen to be a part of the regime oppressing the peasants so French secularism, Lacite (idk how its spelt), is seen as "freedom from religion".

Not really no. Yes there was a lot of hostility from French Republicans against the Catholic Church (and for good reason) from the French Revolution to the early 20st century (and even afterwards), but it never translated into a will to impose "freedom from religion". Laïcité always meant absolute neutrality of the State towards religion - no public financing of religion, interdiction for people wielding state authority to show their religious affiliation, no laws specifically in favor of one religion. But it never meant that _citizens_ couldn't practice or show their religion. That's a very recent trend, and only against "minority" religions like Islam, mostly, as I said above, as a political strategy for right-wing party that need to shift the public debate from topics such as welfare, healthcare, economics, climate, education, ... in which their positions don't have a majority.

But isn't the french state literally paying the priest of catholic churches and also maintains their buildings etc? Or I am wrong. Also political islam is notoriously difficult to assimilate into the french republic, as there were only a few hundred (or thousend) people who renounced muslim status under Sharia in favor of full french citizenship in French Algeria.

[Celestiam]

That might be the origins, but the Republicans and RN are increasingly making laicité about Islam.

It's even more obvious for RN - their mayors put nativity scenes in the city halls during Christmas with public money, despite that being a clear breach of state neutrality and official support towards Christianity. They don't care at all about laïcité. They just hate Muslims (and Blacks, and Jews, and communists, and gypsies, and gays, and ...).

Yeah good point - forgot about those

Definitely agreed.