This story, from The New York Times on January 26th, is about French Parliament continuing to debate legislation on banning full Muslim head veils in public places like subways, airports, government offices and hospitals. This would be in addition to already banning veils in public schools.
The debate over veils in France leads directly back to conflicting French ideals of secularism and individual liberties.The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Of the Citizen guarantees the right to resist oppression in addition to saying “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.” The debate, for French Parliament, is how much religious freedom is allowed versus the veil being a threat to the public order.
Of course, the debate about the Muslim veil is not new to France. And the growing Islamic and North African community within France is struggling to gain equality and equal treatment in many aspects of French society. For many people, taking away the veil is a direct attack on the imposed threat of Muslims on French culture, not an issue of public safety. Freedom of religion is a human right, and not allowing Muslim women to wear veils in public may directly violate that right.
Read the full article Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/europe/27france.html?ref=europe
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another interesting discussion related to this is the French policy of immigration for those coming outside of the European Union (EU) and moving into France. Unless they are students or seasonal workers, they must take classes and sign a contract of “welcome and integration” (Frosch, 2007). Political theorist Daniel Brunstetter (Assistant Professor, University of California Irvine) recently went through this course and being a theorist, the idea of an explicit social contract of sorts intrigued him. Brunstetter (2009) went on to explore the intents, purposes and outcomes of this law. He focuses on the difficulty of having a focus on individual rights and respecting culture all under the framework of French-ness. Particularly problematic are discussions of integration. Under the language of rights, things that do not match a particular conception of being French are swept aside. Brunstetter discussed the tensions and lasting feeling that one is not fully French remains after signing the “welcome and immigration” contract. The headscarf debate falls into this as the headscarf is conceived to be repressive for women, and then juxtaposed on the condition that “traditional” French women live in (headscarf-free), and finally as rights are deemed to be respected in French life. Because the starting point for an evaluation of rights enforcement/respect is based on a stereotype of French life, it results in the consideration of anything not reflecting French-ness as not respecting rights. In an increasingly interconnected world where movement is easier, we are being led into more rights discussions that question applicability of rights as well as rights assessment across cultures.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Brunstetter, Daniel R. 2009. “The Immigrant Contract: French Republicanism and Contrat
d’Accueil et d’Integration.” Association for Political Theory (APT) Annual Conference. October 24. (http://apt.coloradocollege.edu/0-oldapt/INDEX.HTM) (accessed February 2, 2010).
- To access this paper, you must be a member of APT (sign up on the website link), and then search the 2009 Texas A&M Conference Papers.
Frosch, Jon. 2007. “Would-be migrants must undergo classes in what it means to be French.”
New York Times. August 9. http://tinyurl.com/yg6tphj (accessed February 2, 2010).