Immigration 'Le voile' banned in France.

[Minty]

ANYWAY, separation of church and state is good. However, I don't understand how allowing children to wear religious symbols in school is going against church and state. Those children are not forcing anyone to do anything, just like non-religious people coming to school with no religious clothing on are not forcing people to stop being religious. I don't get it.

Infants don't have a religion. They have it dictated on them by their parents. You might feel you have a responsibility, but when your child is born it doesn't come into the world a Muslim. It's a baby with a blank slate - you will dictate your mindset system on him or her.
Infants shouldn't be made to exhibit around garments or tokens promoting the religion of their parents. They should be left to grow up and make up their own minds. After all, if you've picked the wrong god, you're sentencing your child to all kinds of terrors in the afterlife, right?
Muslim men hold the power in their society. Putting a veil on a girl is only the first step in the course that will see her became worth less than a man in the general public she lives in.

I found 1 source that says you have to pay fees to attend private schools & it stated that ~15% of French pupils attend private basic schools. This corresponds to another source I found which says that 14.4% are on state-subsidised private basic schools & 0.2% on entirely private ones.

My only sources right now is what I heard and saw in France. But I know very well the Belgian educational system, which is almost identical to the French one, except that religion is allowed in private school (indeed most schools are outright Catholic). 99% of schools are state-funded, and among these I would say that 80% are private (indepedent in management, though state financed and thus free) and 20% public (all with the same programme and mostly lower-class and immigrant pupils). As I said, the only real private schools for which you have to pay are the very exclusive and snobbish ones.
majority of the Muslims in France are from Tunisia, Morocco...etc. In their countries especially among young people, they don?ft wear head scarves. They dressed in mini skirts and other modern fashions. But ironically when they come over to France they want to wear them.

Ok I live in France I don?ft have a website to give you but this is something I know from locals here. With private schools there is a little cost but not much something like 20 Euros a month.

 

[bossel]

Infants don't have a religion. They have it dictated on them by their parents.

That's a problem all over the world. But that's not very relevant to the question whether they wear religious symbols or not. They will be brainwashed even without symbols.
What's more, infants in Islam do not need to wear a veil.

They should be left to grow up and make up their own minds.

I agree, but that won't work, parents are notorious tamperers.

 

[Minty]

That's a problem all over the world. But that's not very relevant to the question whether they wear religious symbols or not. They will be brainwashed even without symbols.

I think if they don?ft hang on to their religious symbols and customs so obviously they would be more assimilated and be more accepted into the French societies. Then through the French's influences from schools and from work they will be less brainwashed by radical Islamic ideals and be more like French.

France's identity is a secular one, in which everyone is French and not seen as an Algerian or Moroccan or Turkish French, but just French. That is actually a venerable goal to have, to assimilate citizens fully and call them French. In order to keep this principle alive, they prohibit the discriminating estrangement, of Children/Infants in the Schools. They want assimilation and not for France to live as disassociate societies in one nation.

They banned all religious items (although the Muslims here want to make it out like they're the only ones mannered) from schools and other governmental agencies. That means that every adult can wear whatever they want, and every child can wear whatever they want at home, at the mall ?cetc just not within the governmental buildings.

The school of the republic does not tolerate any religious symbols worn, if people want to wear their religious symbols they can go to private schools.

What's more, infants in Islam do not need to wear a veil.

I am born in Malaysia (a multicultural country with roughly 63 percent Malay who are mostly Muslims, 28 percent Chinese whom religions varies from Chinese traditional, Buddhism, Taoism to even Christians and 9 percent Indians who are mainly Hinduism and Buddhism in Malaysia that is); the Muslim children there do wear veils.

Actually it's not a requirement of Islam for the females (young or otherwise) to wear the veil. The covering up of Muslim women diverges vastly and is ethnic rather than pious. The passage in the Koran at the stem of this enunciates:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should no display their beauty and ornaments..." (Qur'an 24:30-31).

Some ethnics construe this to imply the females must be clothed up completely; others don't grade any grandness on it at all.

 

[bossel]

Then through the French's influences from schools and from work they will be less brainwashed by radical Islamic ideals and be more like French.

Doubtful. They are under the same influences, with or without the veil. Actually, this prohibition is more an argument to be used by Islamists than anything else: "See, they don't accept us, they don't respect our religion."

In order to keep this principle alive, they prohibit the discriminating estrangement, of Children/Infants in the Schools. They want assimilation and not for France to live as disassociate societies in one nation.

Maybe the French government should start with this policy by getting rid of the ghettos. That is where you have "disassociate societies".

the Muslim children there do wear veils.

Don't know much about Malaysia, but in general, Muslimas only have to wear veil (or burqa or whatever) from their puberty onwards. IE, when their body develops "female forms."

Actually it's not a requirement of Islam for the females (young or otherwise) to wear the veil.

That's open to interpretation. This is what makes religion so funny.

The covering up of Muslim women diverges vastly and is ethnic rather than pious.

The way that they cover themselves, but not whether they should be covered. This is commonly accepted by a vast majority of Muslims.

Some ethnics construe this to imply the females must be clothed up completely; others don't grade any grandness on it at all.

As I said, it's always funny to see how open to interpretation all those holy books are.

 

[Minty]

Doubtful. They are under the same influences, with or without the veil. Actually, this prohibition is more an argument to be used by Islamists than anything else: "See, they don't accept us, they don't respect our religion."

France is the country of the French, they have right to say how they want their country to be, it?fs like if you live under your parents roof they have right to set house rules, if you don?ft like to abide those rules, move out.

Fun facts: majority of the Muslims in France are from Tunisia, Morocco...etc. Back in their countries especially among young people, they don?ft wear head scarves. They dressed in mini skirts and other modern fashions. But ironically when they come over to France they want to wear them. They don?ft really want to ask for ?grespect?h of their religion from the French, they are just doing this to piss the French off.

Moreover if women who are not Muslims are to visit Muslim countries in the Middle East, they are made to wear head scarves while visiting these Middle Eastern Muslim countries.

So why France should not allowed headscarves to be worn in the classrooms in the schools of the republic of France?

When you are in foreign countries or immigrated to a foreign country you abide and respect their rules. When I go to Thailand to visit their temples I need to wear appropriate clothing even I am not Buddhist.

Maybe the French government should start with this policy by getting rid of the ghettos. That is where you have "disassociate societies".

There will be very exquisite curricula established in order to give the immigrants equal chances. There will also be triple amount of fellowships offered to these immigrants and their children. Moreover there will be triple amount of boarding schools readied to receive the best students from these ghettos. They will then be able to go to Universities and get good careers.

Thirty million Euros will be invested into these ghettos for renovations.
For helping immigrants to find Jobs, indoctrination arrangements or graduate fellowships have been established.

In order to attract more corporations into these ghettos, Tax free zones have been created. As tax free zones increase the number of co operations, jobs will increase too.

They will help the immigrants to be able to get jobs outside of these ghettos as well, that way the French government can achieve evenness in the multicultural French society today.

 

[bossel]

France is the country of the French, they have right to say how they want their country to be, it?fs like if you live under your parents roof they have right to set house rules, if you don?ft like to abide those rules, move out.

Wrong. Many of those Muslims are already French citizens & believe it or not: as French citizens they have the right not to like the rules & to campaign for these rules to change. Even if they are non-French, they still have the right to disagree with the rules. That's democracy for you.

But ironically when they come over to France they want to wear them.

You're sure that's the same people who allegedly wore mini skirts in North Africa?

They don?ft really want to ask for ?grespect?h of their religion from the French, they are just doing this to piss the French off.

Wearing head scarves to piss the French off?

Moreover if women who are not Muslims are to visit Muslim countries in the Middle East, they are made to wear head scarves while visiting these Middle Eastern Muslim countries.
So why France should not allowed headscarves to be worn in the classrooms in the schools of the republic of France?

Maybe, because France is not some backward Arabic despotism but a democracy? Or do you want France to become some kind of dictatorship?

They will help the immigrants to be able to get jobs outside of these ghettos as well, that way the French government can achieve evenness in the multicultural French society today.

We will see how much that helps. 30 million € is not much. I doubt that they will get rid of the ghettos this way. Modernisation efforts usually don't help if you have this kind of suburb.

 

[Minty]

Wrong. Many of those Muslims are already French citizens & believe it or not: as French citizens they have the right not to like the rules & to campaign for these rules to change. Even if they are non-French, they still have the right to disagree with the rules. That's democracy for you.

True but when the minority begins to emerge as a majority and pursuits to demolish the very culture that let them in, the host nation will fight back. It seems like a lot of the Muslims here (except Turkish) have no attentiveness in genuinely assimilating into France, what they want is France to operate in their fashion.

You're sure that's the same people who allegedly wore mini skirts in North Africa?

Yes. The Muslims explain that according to their holy scripture if females don?ft wear head scarves they would sin, but as I have said before some ethnics construe this to mean the females must be clothed up completely; others don't grade any grandness on it at all. If the North African Muslims interpret the passage in their Qur'an that females must clothed up completely why would girls in North Africa wear mini skirts?

Wearing head scarves to piss the French off?

Then, why are they so keen to wear head scarves here and not so keen in their own countries?

I notice the Muslims in Malaysia seems to wear more often the headscarves in their own country rather than when they go abroad to study say in Australia but they don?ft wear it all the time.

Maybe, because France is not some backward Arabic despotism but a democracy? Or do you want France to become some kind of dictatorship?

It?fs not about prejudice towards religious minorities, and trying to dictate them. These rivalries are non extant, with any major religions apart from Islam. The dilemma is if you are a devoted Muslim, you are educated that there are dissimilar commands (god?fs commands) which override all others, so there can be no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals. There is no alternative any which way, unless Muslims are not that divine (or by the book) similar to a lot of Christians are.

We will see how much that helps. 30 million € is not much. I doubt that they will get rid of the ghettos this way. Modernisation efforts usually don't help if you have this kind of suburb.

I typed 30 million Euros? Oh no!!! I meant 30 billion Euros.:relief::sorry:

 

[yrahmo]

1.for those who think that the little poor girls are happy because of this law : they are roung i live in a muslim country 'n beleive it or not, every1 can wear every thing she likes.the little poor girls didn't wait this law to sav them.(vov).
2. for those who think that other civilisations have the right to preserve there forms by some stupide laws DO YOU THINK IRISH REPUBLIQ WHILE FORCE MEN TO WEAR SKIRTS?

 

[Duo]

well this law is to preserve our values... and not to have something imposed upon our way of life

 

[bossel]

True but when the minority begins to emerge as a majority and pursuits to demolish the very culture that let them in, the host nation will fight back.

Hmm? Which majority tries to demolish French culture? (not to ask: What actually is French culture?) The Muslims are by far no majority in France. If they are the majority, well, too bad. Democracies are usually ruled by (albeit only relative) majorities.

The Muslims explain that according to their holy scripture if females don?ft wear head scarves they would sin, but as I have said before some ethnics construe this to mean the females must be clothed up completely; others don't grade any grandness on it at all.

&?

If the North African Muslims interpret the passage in their Qur'an that females must clothed up completely why would girls in North Africa wear mini skirts?

You seem to have misunderstood my question: "You're sure that's the same people who allegedly wore mini skirts in North Africa?"
Let me rephrase: What makes you think that the very same women who wore mini skirts in North Africa suddenly wear veils in France?

It?fs not about prejudice towards religious minorities, and trying to dictate them.

Well, it is. If you want France to behave just like some Arabic despotism.

there can be no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals.

Morals are very relative & change over time.

I meant 30 billion Euros.

Sounds better, but any amount of money won't help if they don't get rid of these crappy suburbs.

 

[Minty]

Hmm? Which majority tries to demolish French culture? (not to ask: What actually is French culture?) The Muslims are by far no majority in France. If they are the majority, well, too bad. Democracies are usually ruled by (albeit only relative) majorities.

No, I was speaking metaphorically. According to statistics, there are around 10 to 12 percent of Muslims in France, and they are indeed the minority. However they do act like they are the majority.

What these immigrants really desire is sovereignty. They desire to turn their little brotherhoods into their own nation with its own institutes and administrations discrete from France. They, not at any time desired to reside in France in the precedence. They desire to reside away from their home land considering they presuppose they receive additional conveniences accessible which they do but consistently blunder to impose upon or convenience to farther themselves. However in these other countries with conveniences they desire to preserve the constitutions and administrations of their home country. They deny admitting the administrations and the constitutions of their host countries. They take ascendancy of Europe’s libertarian concept that concession is the resolution.

More over the North Africans here rarely turned up for the elections, which further indicates that they don’t care about France or have any intentions of assimilating into the French society.

You seem to have misunderstood my question: "You're sure that's the same people who allegedly wore mini skirts in North Africa?"
Let me rephrase: What makes you think that the very same women who wore mini skirts in North Africa suddenly wear veils in France?

In that case no. However I believe it is safe to say that Radical Muslim countries have interpreted the passage in their Qur'an as construe to mean the females must be clothed up completely, hence women over there are all covered. Even journalists (non Muslims from other countries) who go over there to do their reports have to follow their code of how to dress.

Where as in moderate Muslim countries, they don't grade any grandness on that female must be clothed up completely at all. Journalists who visit these moderate Muslim countries are not made to wear head scarves. The North African countries are some of the Muslim countries who are not considered radical. That’s why tourists who go to their countries for vacations have seen girls over there wearing mini skirts.

So why when they migrate to foreign countries they claim to be radical Muslims and make such a big deal to be clothed up at all times, except for the fact that they just want to rebel, and refuse to assimilate.

Well, it is. If you want France to behave just like some Arabic despotism.

No, France is just being active in re-educating the Muslim masses into normal, proper, civil, human beings. The French regard the ban as a move to reaffirm national integration and a common identity.

By your definition of despotism I could argue that in Australia where the government made it illegal for Chinese to play with fire crackers in our own homes during Chinese New Year is prejudice towards superstitious minorities, and trying to dictate us. There have been bombings at Chinese restaurants by Aussies who don’t like Chinese. You might not have heard about this because little has been known about the Chinese and our problems because we have been a quiet people, helping each other as best we could. The fire cracker traditions have been banned in Singapore too because it is seen as disturbing. You don’t see us demonstrating over this.

Morals are very relative & change over time.

Change to suit fundamental Muslims? In UK, as the demonstrations against cartoons has gone too far the Libertarians have enunciate their perspectives that they should solidify their position to approach the reactionaries.

Muslim countries that are radicals are only radicals because the government allowed the institutions to educate their citizens fundamentally. Children in commonwealth schooling should be guarded from radical impact, hence the banning of headscarves worn in schools. Anyway France is not the only country with headscarves issues. There are quite some numbers of countries (including your country Germany) where headscarves have declared antipathetic. See link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3476163.stm

Dutch plans to ban the burkha: http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/10571.shtml

Sounds better, but any amount of money won't help if they don't get rid of these crappy suburbs.

Like I said before, thirty billion Euros will be invested into these ghettos for renovations.

 

[bossel]

However they do act like they are the majority.

Hmm? Which laws did they introduce?

However in these other countries with conveniences they desire to preserve the constitutions and administrations of their home country.

Hmm? Didn't you say that in their home countries they were allowed to wear mini skirts etc.? So, they want this right preserved in France? Then, why the veil thingy?

They take ascendancy of Europe?fs libertarian concept that concession is the resolution.

Libertarian? Maybe you should look up this word.

More over the North Africans here rarely turned up for the elections, which further indicates that they don?ft care about France or have any intentions of assimilating into the French society.

I never turn up for elections & I don't want to assimilate into German society. So what? I'm Libertarian.

So why when they migrate to foreign countries they claim to be radical Muslims and make such a big deal to be clothed up at all times,

Sorry, but I'm obviously unable to follow your line of argumentation.
BTW, do you have any statistics on how many of the French Muslims actually wear head scarves?

No, France is just being active in re-educating the Muslim masses into normal, proper, civil, human beings.

Oh, I see. You're very openminded. Wearing a religious symbol makes people deviant, improper, barbarian human beings?

Re: despotism, the original quote again.

Moreover if women who are not Muslims are to visit Muslim countries in the Middle East, they are made to wear head scarves while visiting these Middle Eastern Muslim countries.
So why France should not allowed headscarves to be worn in the classrooms in the schools of the republic of France?

If you want France to act like some Arabic despotism, you want France to become one, too.

You don?ft see us demonstrating over this.

Well, that's your fault, not the Muslims'.

Change to suit fundamental Muslims?

Did I say so? That's an option, though, the future is uncertain.

In UK, as the demonstrations against cartoons has gone too far the Libertarians have enunciate their perspectives that they should solidify their position to approach the reactionaries.

Not that this sentence in its entirety is very clear to me, but who are these British "Libertarians"?

Muslim countries that are radicals are only radicals because the government allowed the institutions to educate their citizens fundamentally.

Just out of curiosity: Which countries do you consider radically Muslim?

Children in commonwealth schooling should be guarded from radical impact

Except for radical secular impact?

hence the banning of headscarves worn in schools.

That probably means that German pupils are under radical impact? What's that mean? Germany going down the route of radical Islam?

There are quite some numbers of countries (including your country Germany) where headscarves have declared antipathetic.

Germany did not declare headscarves "antipathetic" (though I'm not sure what you mean by this). Some German states have decided that wearing headscarves is an improper political symbolism if worn by a teacher, because the teacher represents the state. It's hypocritical, anyway, esp. in the Southern German states which proposed such laws most fervently, Christian influence is strongest (& you'll find Christian crosses on many a classroom wall).

Like I said before, thirty billion Euros will be invested into these ghettos for renovations.

Whatever they mean by renovations.

 

[Reiku]

...religion and liberty are inconcialiable...

That has got to be the single wisest thing I've heard in years, go France!

 

[Minty]

Hmm? Which laws did they introduce?

Not in legislative sense but in the way they choose to live their lives where they desire to turn their little brotherhoods into their own nation with its own institutes and administration discrete from France. These immigrants who are not happy with the French government are living almost 100% off the French government because of French social programmes yet don't care about France or it's native people. It is a problem when people start abusing the social programmes of another nation with no interest in assimilating into the new society and are only interested in making it just like the country they left.


One fear is that if headscarves are allowed eventually fundamentalist male Islamists will start punishing any girls and women who do not wear them.


"If we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy have made clear their religious tolerance but they have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country," says French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3135600.stm


Dozens of prominent French women, including the actresses Emmanuelle Béart and Isabelle Adjani and the designer Sonia Rykiel, have issued a plea to Jacques Chirac, the president, to ban traditional Muslim veils as a "visible symbol of the submission of women".


The petition, which was signed by more than 60 of France?fs most influential women and published in Dec 2003 edition of French Elle, attacks the Islamic headscarf as "an intolerable discrimination against women" and calls for a law to reinforce the principle of a "lay" republic.


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1353462003

In particular, statistics indicate that 1 in 10 women in France are victims of domestic violence and as many as six women die every month as a result of violence perpetrated against them by their husband, boyfriend or partner. ... against women in France


Many French feminists, including prominent Muslim women, also support the ban, arguing that the head scarf is often imposed on girls by their fathers and brothers and that the Koranic verse discussing veiling is open to interpretation.


Futhermore, the commission reported that many public schools have become cultural hot spots where Muslim students and families question the authority of women educators, forbid girls to play sports, assault Jewish students and disrupt classes about historical issues such as the Holocaust.


Personnel in public hospitals told the commission about Muslim men demanding that only women doctors treat their wives and daughters, and about other patients refusing to be treated by doctors "because of their perceived religion".


Unfortunately the link is no longer working. As shown below.

http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-fg-scarves18dec18,1,6354882.story?coll=la-news-learning

Hmm? Didn't you say that in their home countries they were allowed to wear mini skirts etc.? So, they want this right preserved in France? Then, why the veil thingy? Sorry, but I'm obviously unable to follow your line of argumentation.

No I am saying they are hypocrite and rebellious. Otherwise it's their brothers who are demanding that they put it on. Anyway in their own countries which are not multicultural countries with very different ethnic groups living together side by side, you don?ft need to worry about racial/ethnic clashes with others. Banning religious symbols is necessarily to reaffirm national integration and a common identity.

Did I say so? That's an option, though, the future is uncertain.

Yes you did. It is an option to suit fundamental Muslims? How so?

Libertarian? Maybe you should look up this word. Not that this sentence in its entirety is very clear to me, but who are these British "Libertarians"?

By that I mean the liberals.


Taken from Dictionary.com:


lib•er•tar•i•an P Pronunciation Key (l b r-târ - n)
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.


lib•er•al P Pronunciation Key (l b r- l, l b r l)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

BTW, do you have any statistics on how many of the French Muslims actually wear head scarves?

No. Not by statistics. I am speaking of the personal experiences of many French people who have either lived or visited North African countries.

Oh, I see. You're very openminded. Wearing a religious symbol makes people deviant, improper, barbarian human beings?

Well it provokes racial tension and should be avoided. At least in my
immigration experiences especially living in a society where there are many ethnic groups, you need to at least make it look like you are just one of the Americans; Australians etc. And not show that you are Vietnamese American or Algerian French, and that the Vietnamese comes first American second or Algerian comes first French second. Even if that?fs what you really think you should not make it so obvious. Overtly showing and repeatly stressing your original ethnicity would make you look like you don?ft want to assimilate to the new country you immigrated to.


Moreover as I have mentioned above, many French feminists, including prominent Muslim women, also support the ban, arguing that the head scarf is often imposed on girls by their fathers and brothers and that the Koranic verse discussing veiling is open to interpretation.

I never turn up for elections & I don't want to assimilate into German society. So what? I'm Libertarian.

I would view people who turn up for elections are usually people who care about their social, economic, political, domestic?cetc issues operated in their countries. Having said that I am not saying you necessarily don?ft want to assimilate into German society, wait are you German as in European people from Germany or are you an immigrant who becomes German citizen? :? You could be just lazy. I don?ft know but in general people who care about their countries?f issues would turn up for elections.

Re: despotism, the original quote again. If you want France to act like some Arabic despotism, you want France to become one, too.

Yes, according to your opinion. Singapore has banned headscarves too I don?ft consider Singapore a dictatorship like North Korea for example.

Just out of curiosity: Which countries do you consider radically Muslim?

Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia?cplaces like that. Muslim countries that are not radicals are Turkey, Malaysia?cetc

That probably means that German pupils are under radical impact?
What's that mean? Germany going down the route of radical Islam?

From the article I gave you: ( I know it is not the entire states of Germany):relief:


The German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has already given initial approval for a law to stop teachers wearing the veil, and seven other states are considering similar legislation. Legislators believe the veil is a political symbol and that children in state education should be protected from fundamentalist influence.

Germany did not declare headscarves "antipathetic" (though I'm not sure what you mean by this). Some German states have decided that wearing headscarves is an improper political symbolism if worn by a teacher, because the teacher represents the state. It's hypocritical, anyway, esp. in the Southern German states which proposed such laws most fervently, Christian influence is strongest (& you'll find Christian crosses on many a classroom wall).

Again, according to the article I gave you:


France is not the only country where headscarves have proved contentious. A number of countries already ban the garment from schools and other public buildings, while elsewhere it is the failure of women to don a veil which prompts outrage.


The words ?gproved contentious?h for me means ?gdeclared antipathetic.?h
I also discovered Bavaria, after Baden-Wuerttemberg, is the second state to propose a ban.


Bavarian Education Minister Monika Hohlmeier said the headscarf was increasingly used as a political symbol.


"With this law, we are defending pupils against a potential fundamentalist influence and are respecting the wishes of the majority of parents," she said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3304801.stm


Christian and Jewish symbols are not included in the ban.

Yeah I agree with you that it is hypocrite because Christian or Jewish religious symbols pose a similar threat.

Whatever they mean by renovations

The French government has decided to build residences on a smaller scale on an 18 months programmes where the French government will demolish these old buildings and reconstruct into new residences. The French have decided to re-allocate a certain amount of money for the social organisations to work in these areas where they are in need of support.

Well, that's your fault, not the Muslims'.

Ok, I have tried to explain to you why I believe the banning of religious symbols in governmental arena is necessary to reaffirm national integration and a common identity. If you can?ft understand my point of view I think perhaps it?fs because we came from different backgrounds and the environments you live in are quite different from mine. As an immigrant I find it is very necessary to avoid being so obvious that you are very different from the host nation?fs dominant culture and certain amount of integration is necessary to have a successful life in the new nation.


Moreover, people who think the headscarf/veil issue is just a matter of individual choice versus state power are missing the oppression of Muslim females by Muslim males.

 

[bossel]

they choose to live their lives where they desire to turn their little brotherhoods into their own nation with its own institutes and administration discrete from France.

Cause & effect? Did they do so (not that I see it as autonomous as you do) because they wanted to or because the French government (or perhaps local municipalities) didn't leave them much room to do otherwise?

One fear is that if headscarves are allowed eventually fundamentalist male Islamists will start punishing any girls and women who do not wear them.

No French police there? Fault of the French state, then.

In particular, statistics indicate that 1 in 10 women in France are victims of domestic violence and as many as six women die every month as a result of violence perpetrated against them by their husband, boyfriend or partner. ... against women in France

Interesting, does the statistic also say, how many of those women wear headscarves? 10 % of the female French population, hmm, roughly 3m then. Number of Muslimas, hmm, roughly 2m. Hmm? I'm missing some information, as it seems.

Futhermore, the commission reported that many public schools have become cultural hot spots where Muslim students and families question the authority of women educators, forbid girls to play sports, assault Jewish students and disrupt classes about historical issues such as the Holocaust.
Personnel in public hospitals told the commission about Muslim men demanding that only women doctors treat their wives and daughters, and about other patients refusing to be treated by doctors "because of their perceived religion".

& all this is due to wearing headscarves? :shock:

No I am saying they are hypocrite and rebellious.

They were hypocritical if they wore headscarves not for religious reasons while they claim so. But can you prove that? You didn't show any evidence.

Anyway in their own countries which are not multicultural countries with very different ethnic groups living together side by side, you don?ft need to worry about racial/ethnic clashes with others.

Depends which country you mean.

Banning religious symbols is necessarily to reaffirm national integration and a common identity.

Oh please, that's nationalist propaganda rubbish.

Yes you did.

Oops, what now? Are you a little liar or do you simply have a bad memory? What I said was: "Morals are very relative & change over time." I did not say that Western values would (or should) change to "suit fundamental Muslims".

How so?

As I said: the future is uncertain.

By that I mean the liberals.

Most Libertarians would probably be a bit offended if you called them liberal. In Americanised English liberal stands for left-wingers (statists).

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Yep, that's it pretty much. But seriously, who in Britain is libertarian, according to that definition? & where do you see that great an intersection in the definitions you gave, that you think libertarian & liberal are interchangeable?

I am speaking of the personal experiences of many French people who have either lived or visited North African countries.

& they have met the very same people they met in North Africa in mini skirts wearing headscarves in France? Must be a huge number of coincidental encounters then.

Well it provokes racial tension and should be avoided.

Religious symbols provoke racial tension? Muslims are not a race, neither are Christians or Atheists. Hmm?

you need to at least make it look like you are just one of the Americans;

Hmm, how many religious symbols were banned in the US?

wait are you German as in European people from Germany or are you an immigrant who becomes German citizen?

German, with German (& a little French & probably Dutch) ancestry. Proven beyond doubt during our great past Millennial Reich.

I don?ft know but in general people who care about their countries?f issues would turn up for elections.

The deviant masses which make some 30% of the (permitted) voters in Germany don't turn up (depending on the election even more than 50%).

Singapore has banned headscarves too I don?ft consider Singapore a dictatorship like North Korea for example.

Ah, Singapore, wonderful example: definitely similar to some Arabic despotisms, a party dictatorship with a pseudo-democratic coating.

Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia?cplaces like that. Muslim countries that are not radicals are Turkey, Malaysia?cetc

Funny, isn't it? Iraq was just such a despotism like Singapore (only with a lot more oppression), but it was not radically Islamic. It still isn't (though under US rule it's going in that direction). Iran, hmm, partially, the documentary I watched today showed a very nice ski resort, though, & a heavy metal concert. Saudi Arabia, yeah, the great Western ally, that's really one of the few radical Islamic countries (but how many of the French immigrants are Saudis?).

The German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has already given initial approval for a law to stop teachers wearing the veil, and seven other states are considering similar legislation.

The stress is on teachers. Nobody (except for the occasional Bavarian Christian fundamentalist) would propose to prohibit pupils & students from wearing veils.

BTW, isn't it a strange coincidence that these laws only come into existence in states where the party with the big C rules?

France is not the only country where headscarves have proved contentious. A number of countries already ban the garment from schools and other public buildings, while elsewhere it is the failure of women to don a veil which prompts outrage.
The words ?gproved contentious?h for me means ?gdeclared antipathetic.?h

Contentious in this case means something like controversial, but antipathetic in the M-W definition (1 : having a natural aversion; also : not sympathetic : HOSTILE
2 : arousing antipathy) simply doesn't fit the German situation (well, except for those Christian fundamentalists mentioned earlier).

I also discovered Bavaria, after Baden-Wuerttemberg, is the second state to propose a ban.

Ah, Bavaria, that wonderful state which demands schools to hang up Christian crosses in classrooms.

The French government has decided to build residences on a smaller scale on an 18 months programmes where the French government will demolish these old buildings and reconstruct into new residences

If they really do that & the new homes will be available (at a decent price) that might help. Won't help much, though, if they still let form huge immigrant clusters.

If you can?ft understand my point of view I think perhaps it?fs because we came from different backgrounds and the environments you live in are quite different from mine.

Yep, that's very obvious.

As an immigrant I find it is very necessary to avoid being so obvious that you are very different from the host nation?fs dominant culture and certain amount of integration is necessary to have a successful life in the new nation.

A certain amount, yes. BTW, which is France's dominant culture? Parisian, Provencial, Breton or what?

Moreover, people who think the headscarf/veil issue is just a matter of individual choice versus state power are missing the oppression of Muslim females by Muslim males.

Nope, because that's a very different issue.

 

[Minty]

Cause & effect? Did they do so (not that I see it as autonomous as you do) because they wanted to or because the French government (or perhaps local municipalities) didn't leave them much room to do otherwise?

How do you explain the Vietnamese immigrants who also came from another very different cultural religious background and that they don?ft have this problem with the French government? I don?ft see them complaining that the French government push them around.


Saida Kada, co-author of a book defending hijab headscarf wearing, says headscarf wearing is a religious matter that has nothing to do with politics.


Mrs. Kada said hijab has nothing to do with politics, but is one of the rules of the Islamic faith.


She underlined that hijab was being used as a pretext to paper over some social ills inside the French society.


However Islam is all about politics. An Islamic matter is a political matter because Islam does not separate the political sphere from religious sphere.


http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-12/07/article03.shtml


Also how do you explain Jewish children have had to leave some French public schools out of fear of their safety?


French chief rabbi Joseph Sitruk advises young French Jewish men to not wear yarmulkes in public in order to avoid being attacked.


"I ask them to replace the yarmulke with the baseball cap," he told Radio Shalom on Monday.


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1103/20caps.html


The official spin on the anti-Jewish attacks in France is absurd.


At five million and 650,000 respectively, France has the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Europe, and government officials and most Jewish leaders argue that the rising inter-community tensions are almost invariably the consequence of political, rather than religious or racial, differences.
Police and court records show that almost all the perpetrators of the latest anti-Semitic attacks are young Muslims.


How can the differences be only political and not racial or religious? Would these young Muslims be attacking Jews if the Muslims were not Muslims? Are there Christian immigrants to France who are attacking Jews? In Islam the political is religious.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1092398,00.html

Interesting, does the statistic also say, how many of those women wear headscarves? 10 % of the female French population, hmm, roughly 3m then. Number of Muslimas, hmm, roughly 2m. Hmm? I'm missing some information, as it seems.

What do you mean by number of Muslim hmm roughly 2 Million? From the internet I found that the Muslim population in France is roughly 4 to 5 million. I don?ft know how many Muslims are females in France as I cannot find information of it.

& all this is due to wearing headscarves?

Not due to wearing headscarves but what wearing head scarves in governmental arenas represents. This is why French introduced legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to school.


?gIf we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy have made clear their religious tolerance but they have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country.?h says French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter.


Most French saw "something aggressive" in the veil and that the secular state could not tolerate "ostentatious signs of religious proselytism".

They were hypocritical if they wore headscarves not for religious reasons while they claim so. But can you prove that? You didn't show any evidence.

Like I said I don?ft have any statistics on that. My observation is that if they are very religious and wearing headscarves is something they must do, they would have done the same thing in their own country. When tourists go over there they would not have seen girls wearing mini skirts.

Oops, what now? Are you a little liar or do you simply have a bad memory? What I said was: "Morals are very relative & change over time." I did not say that Western values would (or should) change to "suit fundamental Muslims".

You should not have called me a little liar, so far I have view this discussion as a civilise discussion. You did say "Morals are very relative & change over time." But in response to my post where I said:


?gIt?fs not about prejudice towards religious minorities, and trying to dictate them. These rivalries are non extant, with any major religions apart from Islam. The dilemma is if you are a devoted Muslim, you are educated that there are dissimilar commands (god?fs commands) which override all others, so there can be no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals. There is no alternative any which way, unless Muslims are not that divine (or by the book) similar to a lot of Christians are.?h


The problem is you like to cut out my post and change it to fit your meaning. When I said there are no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals I mean Islamic morals in the fundamental way because the next sentence I say ?gThere is no alternative any which way, unless Muslims are not that divine (or by the book) similar to a lot of Christians are.?h

Yep, that's it pretty much. But seriously, who in Britain is libertarian, according to that definition? & where do you see that great an intersection in the definitions you gave, that you think libertarian & liberal are interchangeable?

Like I said I mean the liberals in Britain to me the word libertarians and the word liberal is synonym but not to you.

Religious symbols provoke racial tension? Muslims are not a race, neither are Christians or Atheists. Hmm?

My mistake I meant ethnic tension, I was quite tired yesterday when I wrote it.

Hmm, how many religious symbols were banned in the US?

I did not say religious symbols are banned in the US. I was just talking about personal experiences and experiences of others who have immigrated to Western countries like the US, Australia ?cetc and the ones who are happy and successful are the ones who don?ft stress they are different and change what is necessarily to integrate into the new host countries.

Funny, isn't it? Iraq was just such a despotism like Singapore (only with a lot more oppression), but it was not radically Islamic. It still isn't (though under US rule it's going in that direction). Iran, hmm, partially, the documentary I watched today showed a very nice ski resort, though, & a heavy metal concert. Saudi Arabia, yeah, the great Western ally, that's really one of the few radical Islamic countries (but how many of the French immigrants are Saudis?).

Well in those countries where I considered as radical Muslims countries they don?ft really get many tourists probably close to none because people don?ft visit countries that are considered radical Islamic countries. Most people who go there are probably journalist, businessmen and politicians.


I wouldn?ft consider Singapore despotism. My family and I know a lot of Singaporeans, if they are push around I would of heard them complaining about it. The only thing I heard them constantly complaining about is life is stressful in Singapore because of pressures in studying and they have to work on weekends like other Asian countries (not counting blue collar jobs), and they prefer to live in Australia which has a much more relaxing lifestyles than Singapore.

Yep, that's very obvious.

Then if it continues to be like this I don?ft see much point of discussing more of it, I am entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

A certain amount, yes. BTW, which is France's dominant culture? Parisian, Provencial, Breton or what?

Well each province has its own culture but overall the native French share common grounds. Like in China and India for examples, there are more than one ethnic groups in different provinces/states, many dialects, and traditional clothes, foods...etc

Nope, because that's a very different issue.

Not to the French or anyone who agrees with the ban.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9545


http://www.middleastwomen.org/html/hejab.htm


The only thing is in the second article it says in Germany Muslim children wear Hijab and you said in Germany the girls there don?ft, but it is still a good read.

 

[bossel]

How do you explain the Vietnamese immigrants who also came from another very different cultural religious background and that they don?ft have this problem with the French government?

Sheer question of number here, I suppose. If there were 4 m Vietnamese in France & the French authorities acted is incapably as in the case of the North Africans, pretty much the same would have happened.

Also how do you explain Jewish children have had to leave some French public schools out of fear of their safety?

Incompetence of French authorities.

What do you mean by number of Muslim hmm roughly 2 Million? From the internet I found that the Muslim population in France is roughly 4 to 5 million. I don?ft know how many Muslims are females in France as I cannot find information of it.

I said Muslimas, that's the female version of Muslims. Muslims overall roughly 4m, half of them (which is near the population average) women = 2m.

Not due to wearing headscarves but what wearing head scarves in governmental arenas represents. This is why French introduced legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to school.

The applied logic escapes me.

Like I said I don?ft have any statistics on that. My observation is that if they are very religious and wearing headscarves is something they must do, they would have done the same thing in their own country. When tourists go over there they would not have seen girls wearing mini skirts.

Why not? I really have a hard time seeing how you come to this reasoning. If the tourists see some girls in -say- Algeria wearing mini skirts, are these girls immigrants from Algeria on vacation in Algeria & when they return to France, instead of mini skirts, they wear veil again? Or did these tourists see some girls in mini skirts & after the tourists returned to France they met these very same girls freshly immigrated to France & suddenly wearing veils?

You should not have called me a little liar, so far I have view this discussion as a civilise discussion. You did say "Morals are very relative & change over time." But in response to my post where I said:

See, that's why I use quotations a lot: in order for you to see what I respond to. You don't need to add anything (in your mind) to what I post. Anyway, I did not call you a little liar, but asked whether you were one or whether you only had a bad memory.

To make what I said a little clearer for you:
a) Morals are very relative.
b) Morals change over time.

Neither of which implies any preference for a certain set of morals.

The problem is you like to cut out my post and change it to fit your meaning.

Er..., could you please show me an instance where I changed anything you posted?
Obviously things have to be cut (the posts are long enough as they are), but to change your words? I doubt that I did this.

Like I said I mean the liberals in Britain to me the word libertarians and the word liberal is synonym but not to you.

Well, they aren't really synonymous AFA I can see. That's why I asked you to provide the intersection which leads you to this conclusion. Does the above mean that you don't have a reason?

I did not say religious symbols are banned in the US.

Of course you didn't. I asked how many religious symbols were banned in the US, because you brought the US as an example for an immigration society with an inherent need for everybody to look like the nationals. If there is such a need, why didn't they ban the veil in the US like they did in France?
Does that make the question clearer?

the ones who are happy and successful are the ones who don?ft stress they are different and change what is necessarily to integrate into the new host countries.

Oh, I don't know. I think, there is quite a number of (former) immigrants in the US who make a decent living without assimilating very much. Think of the Mennonites or some Chinese in one of the Chinatowns.

Well in those countries where I considered as radical Muslims countries they don?ft really get many tourists

The people in the ski resort (& at the rock concert) were almost only Iranians, else what I wrote wouldn't make much sense, anyway.

I wouldn?ft consider Singapore despotism. My family and I know a lot of Singaporeans, if they are push around I would of heard them complaining about it.

Well, I know a lot of Chinese & I don't hear them complain a lot about their government either. Does that mean that the PRC is a functioning democracy?

Then if it continues to be like this I don?ft see much point of discussing more of it,

Good point: What's the point?
Do you want to convince me? Do I want to convince you?
Well, I don't. I simply like to discuss some issues, want to hear & learn about others' opinions & their reasoning. I don't really want to convince, since this is almost impossible, anyway. But, if you discuss this item because you want to convince me of my opinion being wrong, it's obviously a(n almost)futile enterprise for you.

Not to the French or anyone who agrees with the ban.

Anyone? You like to generalise, do you?
Well, those people who mix these issues perhaps do so because they urgently need justification for their opinion. If you want to read something about the other side of the story, maybe this would help: International Muslima Rights Association

The only thing is in the second article it says in Germany Muslim children wear Hijab and you said in Germany the girls there don?ft,

Nope, I didn't speak of Germany, I said: "in general, Muslimas only have to wear veil (or burqa or whatever) from their puberty onwards. IE, when their body develops "female forms.""

but it is still a good read.

A good read? Something that starts with such a generalising crap: "For all women, hijab (the veil) universally and unquestionably signifies subjugation and servitude."?
All women? Universally? Unquestionably? Pompous, pompous.

 

[bossel]

Addendum

Not to the French or anyone who agrees with the ban.

Sorry, don't want to edit my post for that would collapse all those nice line breaks.

The above quote implies that the French unanimously are behind the ban. Did you forget that most of the Muslims there are French? & I doubt anyway that 100% of the non-Muslim French support this.

 

[Minty]

Sheer question of number here, I suppose. If there were 4 m Vietnamese in France & the French authorities acted is incapably as in the case of the North Africans, pretty much the same would have happened.

Just because of the number or the percentage of the ethnic minorities? I can give you a country where the ethnic minority is 37 percent and weren?ft given equal competition in governmental jobs, university entrances...etc but as it is not a first world country so I figure you are going to call it a despotism, so I won?ft bother. However that country has not banned any religious symbols.
People are free to practice any religions as they pleased.


For you it?fs just about the number or percentage of the ethnic group that if it is big enough they will complain. The way I see it, it depends on the ethnic groups, some are more peaceful than others, and hence in that country I know of the ethnic minorities put up with some of the unfairness the government impose on them to favour the native people and their religion.
Because in that country if you decided to become Muslims you get the same equal rights as the native but they don?ft force you to do so, but if you do you get access to everything they get access to.

Why not? I really have a hard time seeing how you come to this reasoning. If the tourists see some girls in -say- Algeria wearing mini skirts, are these girls immigrants from Algeria on vacation in Algeria & when they return to France, instead of mini skirts, they wear veil again? Or did these tourists see some girls in mini skirts & after the tourists returned to France they met these very same girls freshly immigrated to France & suddenly wearing veils?

In comparison to the past where North Africans first immigrated to France there were less of them wearing the headscarves, but over the years those very same Muslims are wearing more and more of their headscarves. While back in their former countries girls are seen wearing mini skirts. Since those African countries are not radical Islamic countries why they are emerging as fundamentalists over the years after they move to France?


There is a report that the link is now no longer working ( I only have the summary of it), according to the report, Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and "outside groups" - a reference to activists?f officials say are promoting strict religious practices among French Muslims, who are of mostly North African origin.


The report also described an alarming rise in sexist abuse of girls in schools and housing projects where young men, threatening ostracism and violence, intimidate girls into wearing veils and other religious garb. Islamic extremism —Chirac referred to "fanaticism gaining ground"— contributes to a vicious cycle of discrimination and alienation of jobless youths of Muslim descent, who retreat into the refuge of hard-core Islam.


"They say that if the youth weren't so aggressive, it wouldn't have come to this," the intelligence official said. "You have more and more girls wearing veils or chadors. And it's not their parents; it's their brothers who are demanding that they put it on."

See, that's why I use quotations a lot: in order for you to see what I respond to. You don't need to add anything (in your mind) to what I post.
Anyway, I did not call you a little liar, but asked whether you were one or whether you only had a bad memory.

When you asked me that you are implying I am either one of the two things you labelled me as. At least that?fs how I feel when I saw those two labels pointing at me, even if they are questions asking me whether I am either one of them or not.

To make what I said a little clearer for you:
a) Morals are very relative.
b) Morals change over time.
Neither of which implies any preference for a certain set of morals.

If you are just making a statement about what you think of morals and not responding to what I said before it is better you don't quote that sentence from that paragraph I wrote and cut my sentence in half and remove it from the paragraph where the sentence is link to, which makes me believe you are referring to what I said before in that paragraph.

Er..., could you please show me an instance where I changed anything you posted?
Obviously things have to be cut (the posts are long enough as they are), but to change your words? I doubt that I did this.

I did. I will show you again.


You did say "Morals are very relative & change over time." But in response to my post where I said:


?gIt?fs not about prejudice towards religious minorities, and trying to dictate them. These rivalries are non extant, with any major religions apart from Islam. The dilemma is if you are a devoted Muslim, you are educated that there are dissimilar commands (god?fs commands) which override all others, so there can be no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals. There is no alternative any which way, unless Muslims are not that divine (or by the book) similar to a lot of Christians are.?h


The problem is you like to cut out my post and change it to fit your meaning. When I said there are no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals I mean Islamic morals in the fundamental way because the next sentence I say ?gThere is no alternative any which way, unless Muslims are not that divine (or by the book) similar to a lot of Christians are.?h

Well, they aren't really synonymous AFA I can see. That's why I asked you to provide the intersection which leads you to this conclusion. Does the above mean that you don't have a reason?

According to the synonym dictionary I am using it is.
Main Entry: Liberal
Part of Speech: adjective 1
Definition: Progressive
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
Antonyms: conservative
Source:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Of course you didn't. I asked how many religious symbols were banned in the US, because you brought the US as an example for an immigration society with an inherent need for everybody to look like the nationals. If there is such a need, why didn't they ban the veil in the US like they did in France?Does that make the question clearer?

No, I didn?ft use US as an example for an immigration society with an inherent need for everybody to look like nationals. In the first paragraph I was responding to you sarcastically calling me open-minded. I do believe attempt to assimilate to a necessary degree is being open minded and is necessarily to integrate into the host countries from my personal experiences and the experiences of others.


In the second paragraph I was responding to the second part of the sentence in your paragraph as shown below.


You said ?gOh, I see. You're very openminded. Wearing a religious symbol makes people deviant, improper, barbarian human beings??h


I said ?gWell it provokes racial tension and should be avoided. At least in my
immigration experiences especially living in a society where there are many ethnic groups, you need to at least make it look like you are just one of the Americans; Australians etc. And not show that you are Vietnamese American or Algerian French, and that the Vietnamese comes first American second or Algerian comes first French second. Even if that?fs what you really think you should not make it so obvious. Overtly showing and repeatedly stressing your original ethnicity would make you look like you don?ft want to assimilate to the new country you immigrated to.


Then I said "Moreover as I have mentioned above, many French feminists, including prominent Muslim women, also support the ban, arguing that the head scarf is often imposed on girls by their fathers and brothers and that the Koranic verse discussing veiling is open to interpretation.?h

Oh, I don't know. I think, there is quite a number of (former) immigrants in the US who make a decent living without assimilating very much. Think of the Mennonites or some Chinese in one of the Chinatowns

I don?ft know much about the Mennonites. But if you are going to use East Asians like the Chinese for example, we are not the same as North Africans.
It is true that Vietnamese in France don?ft really assimilate into the French society if you go to Paris there is a huge China town where the East Asians live together since five generations and refuse to mix outside of their East Asian races /ethnics, some are even very specific to which ethnic group they belong to and only mix with their own. But they don?ft have this problem North Africans have with the French government because they don't revolt against the native French, they respect the natives.


We East Asians in general do not make crashes with the authority and make massive protests when we immigrate, it is not in our character to do such a thing, and we are quiet people. Even if we choose to stay as East Asian (Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese?cetc) and live within our own ethnic communities in the US or other Western Countries and formed little Taiwan, little Korea, little China, little Vietnam etc, majority of us don?ft really interfere with the politics of the host nations.


We mainly go in the direction of business or science and technology and aim to be rich or highly educated or both if possible within the new homes we made.


With the ones who wants to study science like Medicine for example they need to study hard and they need to go beyond the little communities to a point that is necessary because if you stay within you little communities too much your English remains bad because you just keep on speaking your own languages with your own people. Plus to work in the science and technology area those degrees/jobs are no longer supplied/employed within the little societies the immigrants have created, so certain amount of assimilation is necessary.


But with people who are happy with owing supermarkets, hair salons and rent businesses?cetc. With those kinds of jobs and lifestyles, they do not need to speak English very well. I supposed they don?ft need to really assimilate into the new society.


I have dozens of my family on my mother?fs side who resides the US. In particular I have 3 cousins in the US who are my mother?fs sister?fs children. The one who choose to assimilate and be friend with whites is the only one out of the 3 who made it into University. The other two who choose to live their lives as Taiwanese and not very keen to learn English well are not able to enter University or college because their English level is too poor. And they just do business related jobs within their own communities and only socialize with their own kinds or other East Asians inside the U.S. close to where they live and work.


The fact that they cannot make it to University is seen as a failure by the family because the purpose of immigration to better opportunity countries like the U.S is to acquire higher education. We East Asians (especially those who come from above middle class backgrounds) see education very importantly; I think we are more serious about our degrees than other ethnic groups in general, with the exceptions of the Jews. I don't think you really know about the pressure and problems we have as immigrants.


But with the American way of immigration, as a lot of their immigrants (especially with Asians not sure about others) got there through family reunification types of migrations or business immigrations, a lot of them have the money to begin with, and their families who sponsor them are economically eligible so even without assimilation they would not ended up in ghettos, unlike the North Africans. The situations are different because the systems are different among different Western countries and the way East Asians choose to handle ethnic issues with immigrations are different too from the North Africans.

Well, I know a lot of Chinese & I don't hear them complain a lot about their government either. Does that mean that the PRC is a functioning democracy?

Hmm I know a lot of Chinese too but I constantly hear them complaining about their governments (not necessarily the PRC), one of the many reasons why we immigrants immigrate.

Good point: What's the point?
Do you want to convince me? Do I want to convince you?
Well, I don't. I simply like to discuss some issues, want to hear & learn about others' opinions & their reasoning. I don't really want to convince, since this is almost impossible, anyway. But, if you discuss this item because you want to convince me of my opinion being wrong, it's obviously a(n almost)futile enterprise for you.

I am not trying to convince you. I can see that is impossible. What I mean is that I can see you having trouble to understand my point of view and since we don?ft really understand each other what?fs the point of these long discussions? Continually confusing each other?

Nope, I didn't speak of Germany, I said: "in general, Muslimas only have to wear veil (or burqa or whatever) from their puberty onwards. IE, when their body develops "female forms.""

I don?ft know about in general but I have seen Muslim children wear headscarves and the article says there are numbers of countries where there are veiling of children.

Good to read? Something that starts with such a generalising crap: "For all women, hijab (the veil) universally and unquestionably signifies subjugation and servitude."?
All women? Universally? Unquestionably? Pompous, pompous.

It depends on how you view patriarchal religions and the meanings of wearing hijab.


Quran and other Muslim books permit beating of women and women must fulfil men's desires whenever they want surely this is a clear indication of inequality. Here is the proof:


"And those (wives) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them." (Qur'an 4:34, Arberry)


Some translations of the Qur'an have tried to suggest that the word of "beat" means to hit softly. However the same Arabic word is used in 8:12 which reads:


"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger." (Qur'an 8:12, Pickthall)


Here are some hadiths about wife beating.
Umar reported the Prophet as saying, "A man will not be asked about why he beat his wife." (Mishkat Al-Masabih, p. 693: Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah)


Also in terms of mental capacity a women is less than a man in the Quaran:
Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses. (Qur'an 2:282 Dawood)


Why is it that the testimony of a woman is only worth half that of a man? Muhammad explains in the following hadith.


Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a women equal to half that of a man?" The women said "yes". He said "This is because of the deficiency of the women's mind." (Bukhari, vol. 3, hadith 826, p. 502)

The above quote implies that the French unanimously are behind the ban. Did you forget that most of the Muslims there are French? & I doubt anyway that 100% of the non-Muslim French support this.

No I don?ft mean that, I mean the majority of the French citizens.


You know very often when people talk about what the Chinese government do in China they just say the Chinese do this the Chinese do that they don?ft specifically say the main land Chinese government do this or that. Like you I doubt all Chinese (including those from HK and TW) or the ones who live outside of Mainland China support what the communist Chinese government do. Even the citizens inside China I doubt they all agree with their government but they don?ft seem to complain much about their government in China. They must be afraid to stand up against their government so they pretend they do.

 

[bossel]

as it is not a first world country so I figure you are going to call it a despotism

Hmm? Did I say anywhere that every non-1st-world country is a despotism? Quote?

For you it?fs just about the number or percentage of the ethnic group that if it is big enough they will complain.

It seems you deliberately misrepresent what I say. This was specifically about your question regarding Vietnamese in France.

While back in their former countries girls are seen wearing mini skirts. Since those African countries are not radical Islamic countries why they are emerging as fundamentalists over the years after they move to France?

Do they? Do you have any statistics which show growing fundamentalism in France? Any independent studies why this could be happening? (& by independent studies I don't mean quotes from celebs, philosophers or politicians)

Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and "outside groups"

If there are cases like that this needs to be addressed by the appropriate authorities (which seemed quite incapable up to now). But in how far does banning the veil address that problem? Giving these harrassing idiots more targets to harrass does do any good?

When you asked me that you are implying I am either one of the two things you labelled me as.

Almost right, but I'm not implying. I quite clearly state that you seem to be one of those two options. I did not know which of those options & anyway, a question implies at worst insecurity which in your answer you still can explain away. A question (as I posed) does not imply a preference for one of the items.

If you are just making a statement about what you think of morals and not responding to what I said

I was responding to what you said, in particular to what I quoted, hence the quote.

I did. I will show you again.

Looks like another case of deliberate misrepresentation. I did not change your words in any way. I cut the part of your paragraph that seemed worth a response & responded to that particular part. If you had other words in your mind, that's your business. I don't respond to things between the lines, but only to what I see. In a few cases I may respond to implications, but in such cases I specifically state that.

The problem is you like to cut out my post and change it to fit your meaning.

Nope. kashii: I do not change your words.

When I said there are no congeniality between Western and Islamic morals I mean Islamic morals in the fundamental way

& even here what I said applies: "Morals are very relative & change over time." Can't really see your problem.

According to the synonym dictionary I am using it is.

Either you should throw away your thesaurus or perhaps look at the included list of reservations (if there is one). You cannot really think that you can simply take one of the words in the list & use it as you like. In that way you could have used catholic or big just as well.

No, I didn?ft use US as an example for an immigration society with an inherent need for everybody to look like nationals.

Well, "in my immigration experiences especially living in a society where there are many ethnic groups, you need to at least make it look like you are just one of the Americans" very much looks like you do. Sorry, if I misinterpreted that.

some are even very specific to which ethnic group they belong to and only mix with their own.

& these little racists are all unhappy losers?

I don't think you really know about the pressure and problems we have as immigrants.

Perhaps I know more than you think, but don't expect any pity.

Hmm I know a lot of Chinese too but I constantly hear them complaining about their governments (not necessarily the PRC), one of the many reasons why we immigrants immigrate.

That may be the difference: most of the Chinese that I know do not immigrate, but only study abroad. Some have gone to the US to stay, some are here in Germany to stay, but even they don't talk much about politics. To get to know their political opinions is often a delicate business.

What I mean is that I can see you having trouble to understand my point of view and since we don?ft really understand each other what?fs the point of these long discussions? Continually confusing each other?

That is true. But, then again, this continually happens with my girlfriend, yet we stay together. If it works the same with you, we have a wonderful future before us.

It depends on how you view patriarchal religions and the meanings of wearing hijab.

I'm an atheist. Should suffice to know. Do your quotations mean that you want to forbid all religions which put women in a subordinated position? Because banning some religious symbols alone won't change any religion.

No I don?ft mean that, I mean the majority of the French citizens.

Ah, I see, you're one of those...
Honestly, I don't really like this kind of generalising wording, when it's not meant like that. If people don't mean all French, they shouldn't say "the French", adding little words like most or many is really not asked too much (just one letter more than in the).