france sticks to headscarf law

Any law, anywhere, that is aimed at taking away the civil liberties of any group or individual eventually backfires. It was tried in Canada against certain sections of the East Indian community, it was tried in Turkey,as well as other places. It failed all over as it will in France.
Religious freedom is an integral RIGHT in the civilized world. To tamper with that right is NOT.

Peace, I'm not sure where you're going on this, but it seems you're defending the thugs because France is invoking a dress code in their schools that's denies religious freedom, regardless of it provocative potential. You're dealing with kids here, you know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have openly opposed the head scarf law as well. What these terrorists are doing, though, is horrific, and frankly I doubt they are even concerned with the law. Not everyone that opposes abortion is in favor of blowing up clinics, and not everyone opposed to imposed French secularism sympathises with terrorists.

I have to say, though, that Manopeace's unsympathetic diatribe sounds more like "They are getting what's coming." I think it has more to do with tactlessness than callousness in his case.

Arafat has now called for the journalists to be released. Sometimes he really means it, sometimes it is just for show. I have a feeling that this time, given that France involved, he is sincere. Were it American's or Jews, he'd hold the terrorists coats.

um, ok. i wrote a blog a few days ago about the group that executed italian journalist enzo baldoni being the same group that currently hold the the french hostages. so, this was more of my continuing in that vein. i do realise that it may seem to be 'out of the blue' for me, but i actually do follow these issues quite closely.

my intention was to reproduce a news article, as i have done, that showed the insistence of the french govt to stand by it's law regardless. i didn't offer my support in any way, and my title was actually supposed to sound shocked, not supportive.

i realise i may have erred in not adding my own opinion regarding this, but i honestly felt that my stance on the issue was clear. i didn't quote this as my opinion because it is not.

this was merely fact reporting. i was up late. i was stunned by what i read. it seemed that with france refusing to bow to pressure, the journalists may meet the same horiffic fate as the executed enzo baldoni.

please rest assured that such invasions of civil liberties will never rest easily with me. i was just following up my own 'story'. i abhor both acts of terrorism and children being used as pawns in this way, and would never defend it.

that's not to say i don't understand that i made that unclear in this post. my apologies. thankyou for the comments.

vanessa/mig XX

I have to say, though, that Manopeace's unsympathetic diatribe sounds more like "They are getting what's coming." I think it has more to do with tactlessness than callousness in his case.

Once again Baker has commented on what I DID NOT SAY. I am opposed to the law...so where do you read that I support it? And BTW...this is the second comment I've seen from you attacking me after you swore you would never reply to anything else I said. Make up your mind young man, and please read what I say before you attack it.

I wasn't replying to you, manopeace, I was replying to stevendaedelus. I never said you supported the law, I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply said that perhaps you are just tactless, and not as callous as you sounded.

P.S. I was even on your side, in a fashion, if you consider tactless better than callous...

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. He still hasn't clarified his position.

France does not have much choice in the matter really. Either it allows terrorists to dictate which laws it can and cannot have, or it upholds the legally enacted laws and faces any terrorist consequence. Whether someone agrees with or disagrees with the French law is immaterial. Imagine if terrorists kidnapped Americans and demanded an anti-abortion law in the states or they would publically behead them. No country can be seen to enact or repeal laws under terrorist threat. Especially laws which the vast majority of the country supported.

For reference I do support the French law, and totally agree with the European court of justice that this law does NOT impinge on religious freedom.

Paul.

Peace, I'm not sure where you're going on this, but it seems you're defending the thugs because France is invoking a dress code in their schools that's denies religious freedom, regardless of it provocative potential. You're dealing with kids here, you know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do not support the law in France. I do not assume that all young Muslims that wear the headscarf are terorists or potential terrorists any more than I think all young Jews with scullcaps or Christians with crosses are. I am simply stating that the practice of ones religion is a given right in the civilized world and trying to limit that practice is not a right.
And btw Baker, sorry for the misunderstanding. I really think that if we both open our hearts to each other we can be friends.
I tried to post this last night but there seemed to have been a problem with the server.

The law is idiotic, but the only consequence from the actions of the terrorists, besides the unfortunate demise of two innocent victims, will be united opposition to the terrorists. Some might have justified the actions of terrorists before, when they mainly attacked countries involved in the Iraqi war, but now it should even be clear to them that not only are these people are simply terrorists, but that no amount of appeasement will appease them.

it seems the issue has divided into two things:

1/ as governments cannot possibly allow their lawmaking to be dictated to them by terrorists at the threat of execution of a citizen/s, how is this escalating situation to be addressed ?.

2/ the right of a government to decide what religious or spiritual practices and are legally permitted is also in question as a separate issue in this area.


the contributions so far have been valid and to the point, and i sincerely apreciate them. i'm fiding it difficult to seperate the two, and would welcome any attempt to address either or both, as i willingly admit i am at a sad loss for any answers.

thanks so much everyone for your contributions here.

vanessa/mig XX

The trouble is the terrorists have completely removed France's ability to backtrack and re-appraise the law, even if they wanted to. God forbid, if these terrorists kill the journalists, and later France decides to ease the law, how will that play to people who lost loved ones?

Nope, even if the hostages are released unharmed, I think the terrorists have backed France into the position that they can't soften this law.

Aburdly counter-productive, if they ever really had a point in the first place.

Mignuna,
to focus on your two points,

1) The French cannot budge on their laws here. They can try all sorts of diplomancy, but their hands are tied. All French citizens understand this and the French muslims are now calling on people to obey the new law in the face of the terrorist demands.

2) The French support their constitution which gaurentees secularism in schools. This means that the people support the right of religious free education above the right to express your religion within schools. This is the French people's democratic right to decide this and must be respected by people whether or not they agree with the decision. It's worth stressing that his only applies to state schools, and private religious schools are of course not affected. Children outside of school are also not affected. A foreigner telling the French how to run their state schools is like someone in England telling the US that the right to bear arms is stupid, causes more deaths and should be removed.

Paul.

The trouble is the terrorists have completely removed France's ability to backtrack and re-appraise the law, even if they wanted to.

good point, baker. france may have even 'semi-voluntarily' reached this point through continued attention and perhaps eventual compromise.

God forbid, if these terrorists kill the journalists, and later France decides to ease the law, how will that play to people who lost loved ones?

exactly. the retroactive fuss would be awful.

All French citizens understand this and the French muslims are now calling on people to obey the new law in the face of the terrorist demands

thankyou, paul. the view of the french people is still a little strange to me. that could be my 'australianism', i suppose. i just cannot imagine a similar understanding here.

This means that the people support the right of religious free education above the right to express your religion within schools.

ie: basing the banning on the right to have an environment entirely free of 'stricly' religious 'ornamentation'.

A foreigner telling the French how to run their state schools is like someone in England telling the US that the right to bear arms is stupid, causes more deaths and should be removed.

the shame of it being that rationality is something we do not share with these people. thanks so much for this addition, paul.

vanessa/mig XX