Europe's Yarmulke Ban
As far as I know there is no European yarmulke-specific ban. But there are numerous headscarf, burqa and veil bans in place or under consideration.
Yesterday I saw a pod on Current TV about Britain's consideration of a headscarf ban, pushed by politicians like Jack Straw. It wasn't the most detailed of their segments, but it showed some of the deep xenophobia behind this movement. As a side note, for those who haven't watched Current TV, they have some very powerful stuff. They filmed in North Korea, revealing how seriously weird and screwed up that place is and showing a wry humor in the process. Their earlier coverage of Haiti was excellent. Their coverage of the Iraq and Afghan wars from the point of view of both our soldiers and the citizens of those nations has sometimes been extraordinary. They have some crap, but some of their stuff is well worth watching.
Back to the headscarf ban.
In France a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools has been in place since 2004. I don't like their law, but it has one advantage of including all "conspicuous" religious symbols. My question is has it been equally enforced? Have Jews been prevented from wearing their Yarmulkes openly? What about crucifixes?
Some German states have headsarf-specific bans, preventing school teachers from wearing them. One wonders world reaction had they made it a yarmulke-specific ban!
In Italy, some local politicians have been sneaky and used antique anti-mask laws to target people wearing burqas. There is some legitimacy to this approach because the focus is on anything that hides the face. One can argue that it shouldn't be illegal to hide one's face (Joseph Merrick might have objected to such laws), but if enforced equally, there is at least a facade of not targeting Muslims.
But now Britain seems to be considering one of the most xenophobic and unfair ban. Jack Straw proposed a Muslim headscarf ban because the wearing of such clothing "harmed community relations." Of course advocating the banning of such clothing ALSO harms community relations, but I have yet to hear anyone advocate the banning of Jack Straw. In fact many British newspapers and politicians are backing Jack Straw's proposed ban on headscarves.
In the CurrentTV pod many of those interviewed supported the ban specifically because the wearing of headscarves is different and therefore separates those people from "normal" society. Of course the same could be said of yarmulkes, crucifixes and the like. Or punk clothing. Or just about anything that so-called "normal" people feel threatened by.
Now I personally find a religious requirement for women to cover themselves up offensive and sexist. But I find it even more offensive to ban a method of dress simply because it is perceived as not "normal," which in this case means not conforming to the majority tastes. Isn't one of the foundations of Western democracy that we have rights to define ourselves as individuals, not merely as members of the dominant culture? What forms of dressing differently are acceptable and what forms aren't? Should Jack Straw be calling for a yarmulke, turban and crucifix ban as well since Jews, Sikhs and Catholics are also minorities in Britain?
I see no reasonable purpose behind most of these bans except to harass Muslims.
Meanwhile, here in the United States, our first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is being sworn in using a Q'ran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. We, of course, have our own crazy xenophobes like Virginia Republican Virgil Goode who claims that if Kieth Ellison is allowed to do this we may see the very fabric of our culture dissolve. Personally I have more faith in the robustness of our culture and the benefits of diversity than the very frightened Goode seems to. I welcome Keith Ellison, Q'ran and all. And I think it says something very promising about America that he is being sworn in with Thomas Jefferson's Q'ran! A Muslim being sworn in using a Q'ran owned by one of America's atheist Founding Fathers really kicks butt.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
headscarf | religious freedom | veil | xenophobia | France | Germany | Kieth Ellison | United Kingdom
Preaching to the Choir
Submitted by Teacher With a Tude on 4 January 2007 - 4:41pm.
BUT WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
...from childhood obesity.
...from untoward examples (my favorite book to argue is Catcher in the Rye - because once I convince the parents that despite the foul language and cigarettes, that Holden's message is one of abstinence for all the right reasons, they usually shut up).
...from bullies.
...from each other.
...from their parents.
...from themselves.
...from the internet.
...from peanuts and other allergens.
The drug dogs are useless. Weapons? The latest on our campus is the handy-dandy pocket screwdriver - just short enough to be "legal," to avoid weapon's prosecution.
Zero-tolerance policies. The kids get kicked out of school. They get sent to the alternative centers. The money doesn't follow, so we have a building full of drug-addicted (including nicotine) students with no resources to do anything about it and state mandated testing required (this will take WEEKS of my time to coordinate and administer, which means I will be unavailable to counsel or work directly with students).
I refuse to give up. The alternative is unacceptable.
How about we work at it from both sides?
Testing
Submitted by mole333 on 4 January 2007 - 5:05pm.
I am not one of those liberals who dismisses all standardized testing. I actually think some kinds of mandated standard is important. For example, I'd love it if all kids are required to have a minimum knowledge of evolution, one of the absolute MUST KNOW aspects of biology. They can believe in it or not as they choose, but you can barely understand biology without an idea of evolution.
But, having said that, I think there is far, far more emphasis on the standardized tests (at least in NYC) than is healthy and no proper followup when testing can identify problems. Money and resources are often allocated to all the wrong places.
I am a huge fan of public schools. I think the basic idea is great and it really needs to be a high priority in society. And I am always in awe of anyone who can teach in public schools and make it work for both themselves and the students. I admire you. Also have a friend (delinquent in his days but now able to play the good school teacher) who teaches in the NYC public schools. We need such folk. I made some effort to find a job in public schools last time I had to look for a job. One brand new, small school really wanted me. But I don't have credentials. They basically want me to get a master's degree. Shit, I have my PhD and I'm not about to go back to school at my age! Discussing all the supposedly myriad options of what I could do to fast track, all turned out either to not really exist or would be huge pains in the ass. By contrast, that East Harlem private school I mentioned before would have hired me and put me to work in no time. I understand the need for standards for teachers too, but I've got the subject knowledge and I've done plenty of teaching and tutoring along the way, including some teaching of teaching techniques when I trained people for a college class. My need for income to support my family and lack of time for taking night classes or anything because I have a family means none of the public school options were appealing to me.
Were I to teach I would do the private school route which is somewhat hypocritical of me. But at least the East Harlem school targets a community that is really in need and so is still fighting the good fight.
But where are the yarmulkes in all this!
Xenophobia
Submitted by Teacher With a Tude on 4 January 2007 - 5:33pm.
The Europeans, in general, are considerably more outwardly xenophobic than we are with regard to public policy.
I am not saying that we are NOT xenophobic here, only that we make an effort to hide it.
The number of anti-semitic activities in Germany, France, and other european countries is increasing. Technically, that would include the Arabs, since they are also Semites. I only know that I am grateful that I live HERE when I hear about the events on NPR.
I seem to remember a case in this country where a Sikh was fired for refusing to cut his hair or shave. I'll have to go back and research it to see if he won or lost the discrimination case.
Perhaps our litigious nature protects us after all.
Sikh
Submitted by mole333 on 4 January 2007 - 5:46pm.
I think the Sikh case was the post office, but I am not sure.
Sadly, hate crimes are on the rise in the US as well, including an increase in anti-Semitic actitions. There was a sharp rise after 9/11, though I think that there was finally a small decline the last year there are records. I think intolerance is on the rise everywhere, be it thanks to Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists or just plain old racists.
But legislating community dress codes seems like a really bad way of dealing with the problem.
Both Sides?
Submitted by JJ Ross on 4 January 2007 - 5:22pm.
Is there more than one side? 
Besides militant extremists who would welcome the end of the world and seem to want to have a hand in blowing us all up in one undifferentiated blaze of (their) glory, I mean . . .
Mole333 is saying (unless I'm projecting like crazy, which could be!) that we need both to protect everyone's liberty to differ within groups AND insure sufficient security such that we all can enjoy being different together in one happy group, if we choose.
We do have a bunch of contradictory specific solutions being pursued though, don't we? I wonder if different populations and interest groups are standing in different positions around this massive conundrum, and so each experiences only one or two integral facets of it, like the blind men -- one feeling the elephant's trunk as very sensitive and flexible, versus the guy getting dumped on from its opposite end and concluding it has no redeeming qualities and it's time to kill it and burn the carcass.
So, if you and I and everyone all around this massive problem first worked on getting those blindfolds off some of the folks standing nearest us, that alone could be a major contribution toward building the consensus the entire human population will need to live happily and safely alongside the elephants?
Close
Submitted by mole333 on 4 January 2007 - 5:39pm.
I am not sure I would even make this particular issue one about security. Although some include the "mask ban" arguement, I think basically how Muslims dress is not a security issue. In fact, encouraging them to dress distinctly could, arguably, be a positive security measure! For those who feel threatened by Muslims, having them dress distincively would help identify them. Kind of like letting them wear their own yellow stars, as it were, to make an extreme comparison.
In reality I see a bunch of frightened people who jump at any shadow that seems vaguely different. Living in NYC you just can't live like that because it is hard to define just what is "normal" in a place like this. I LIKE diversity and feel people should be able to dress anyway they want. Hell, in NYC women can go topless legally...not that anyone seems to do so. Some people would see that as somehow frightening as if such legal liberality would be taken as licentious license (wow...it's rare I can inadvertently hit such an alliterative streak). But somehow we manage here in NYC with such a law and with many people who dress, act and look quite distinctive.
I really see no justification for any of the anti-headscarf laws. France at least is scrupulously keeping church and state separate, which I am all for...but I don't think it has to extend to legislating acceptable outer wear. I can see somewhat more justification when it is a public official, including public school teachers. I don't necessarily LIKE it, but one could argue that as a representative of the state a clear absense of religious messages should be maintained. That is what some nations are doing. Though once again, how equally is it enforced?
But where are the yarmulkes!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 4 January 2007 - 5:36pm.
Sorry to jump over that, "school" is like the air I breathe so I don't stop to explain why it's everywhere . . . imo "school" has become the stage upon which we act out every aspect of society's conflicts, agenda and pathologies. You name it, we throw it at the schools and watch to see what happens. That does include yarmulkes and veiled women specifically -- social upheaval and pushing against each other in food, fashion and ideas seems to be primarily a school issue in fact, because that's where the government-captive population is all day! Everybody demands that the school reflect HIS image. That alone makes it awfully close to a religion . . .
Sharpest Debate at School
Submitted by JJ Ross on 4 January 2007 - 9:53pm.
The debate about religious dress is often at its sharpest in schools where personal and religious choice conflicts with uniform policies intended to eliminate difference and promote social integration.
Muslim classroom assistant suspended for wearing a veil
""Increasingly bitter debate" about that school assistant
Last year, a British teenager took her school to court
And then there's this, the story I was remembering this morning and which I argue doesn't make it ANY better for being broader or politically cutting the other way:
Students barred from wearing Christian chastity symbol in UK school
And this comment seems to fit here:
It doesn't matter to me whether it's an expression of faith or not. The way I see it, religious freedom is simply a sub-category of freedom of speech/expression, and it is this higher freedom that is really of more concern to me. So a school should have no business saying that ONLY jewelry with a religious significance can be worn; this is discrimination against the non-religious, and it places religious freedom over all other freedoms.
But even if they have this rule, they should apply it consistently to all religions, and it's not their business to pick and choose which items they think are legitimate expressions of faith and which aren't (this strikes me as extremely arrogant).
God: proof that imaginary friends are not just for children.
Construct a New "Us"
Submitted by JJ Ross on 4 January 2007 - 11:12pm.
Found the other thing knocking around in my mind, that the author of the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam, advises we should construct a new "us" instead of trying to standardize:
In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: “What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.â€
A most ingenious paradox
A most ingenious paradox then - the only principled way to preserve minority and individual differences that threaten group norms, is to standardize ever more thoroughly, extend the ban to include EVERYONE's individual choices and differences, thus making everyone the same!
I might comfort myself that America is a haven for the egalitarian individual, that our ideals protect us from any such absurd Euro-socialist government excess, if this weren't so real as what's gone terribly wrong with our own liberal ideal of "public school" in recent decades.
Institutional School is much further down this road than most liberals I know can fathom, far along toward the even-handed backhanding of all individuality -- and far past the usual religion, race and ethnicity differences. When we finished destroying small neighborhood schools and forbidding most toys and games, hugs, aspirin, flags and gang colors, recess, proms and field trips (and even family trips that take kids out of school at any time), along with a whole list of disturbing words and drawings and fiction on or OFF campus, we still weren't standard enough to feel safe. We bought metal detectors and brought in drug dogs. We certified and fingerprinted everybody, just to be fair. Then we began to define every imaginable difference as an exceptionality needing extra treatment from the group, or deviance requiring expulsion from the group.
But wait, there was more we could do! Progress toward the even-handed backhanding of all individuals as a group marches on! Now schools are beginning to ban all purses and class party CUPCAKES, no exceptions so it's quite fair -- the one ring rules them all, everybody loses to the one normalized group, gazing like dull-eyed zombies in the direction they've been pointed, where nothing's left to see but the lowest common denominator (as printed in the answer key on page 497 of the standard text.)