Amnesty International has urged French lawmakers to reject a proposed bill that would ban headscarves in sporting competitions.
The bill, supported by right-wing senators, is set for debate in the French parliament’s upper house this week. It aims to prohibit all “ostensibly religious” clothing and symbols during competitive events.
Amnesty International has condemned the proposed legislation as discriminatory, arguing that it infringes upon religious freedom. The vote is expected to reignite the ongoing debate surrounding secularism in France, a principle enshrined in the 1905 law separating church and state.
Wonder if they will ask certain athletes to remove necklaces etc.
This is (probably not intended) bullshit when it says it revives a debate around secularism, enshrined since 1905. 1905 french secularism meant to protect religion freedom, rather than having religion enforced by state, it is quite recent to use the secularism argument in the sense “no one should show their religion in public” rather than “everyone is free to follow the religion they want and the state will not support any”. Conservatives shitheads have an interest in maintaining this unclear, so that their otherwise obvious targetting of minorities can be hidden behind old republican principles, which never supported this kind of bullshit.
To start off, you could write entire essays delving into this topic. Everything I’ve written in my reply is very condensed, so if you feel something lacks nuance, it’s probably to keep it brief rather than because I thought it is “THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER”. Here goes.
Religious freedom has two key parts: freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Which of these holds prominence is different depending on the secular country you’re in, and usually has a lot to do with the historic path that the nation and dominant culture took to become secular.
In France organized religion had an authoritarian position in society, dominating it for more than a millenium. It took literal centuries of bloodshed and more than one revolution to put an end to that dominance. That is the origin of those laws. The lessons behind their making were learned at the cost of many lives, and personally I don’t think that such laws should be ripped up without proper consideration.
Religion, particularly the organized kind is designed to spread and exert power over people and societies. Furthermore, unlike many other things such as ethnicity, sex or disabilities, it is a strongly held personal belief, which is a choice. Yes, there is some nuance there, but it is mostly based on convictions and antiquated traditions, much like the old republican laws themselves perhaps.
A question follows, should a person based on an arbitrary strong personal conviction be granted special treatment?
If yes… then I argue that this should not be limited to “religious” beliefs. The only thing that makes those particular sets of beliefs special, after all, is tradition and mass adoption, much like our own cultures. So, lets consider some other minority beliefs. Should a furry who “needs” to wear wolf ears be allowed to wear that? A sikh their turban? A pastafarian their mandated colander? What if someone strongly believes that they can’t go outside without wearing a CocaCola branded cap (mmm delicious ad revenue)?
I mostly agree with you, especially on the “really dangerous religion is organized religion exerting power beyond spiritual matters”. And 1905 lawmakers were on that point to, the main goal was to stop catholic church from exerting power, especially in schools.
I personally think that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are the same thing. If your religion cannot be ‘none’, then you have no freedom ‘of’ religion.
I assume otherwise we fully agree and our positions are the same / compatible ? Your last paragraph leaves me uncertain, but I think that there is only one correct answer which is yes, all those people should have their right to wear what they want as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples, which is not the case in any of the examples.
I’m honestly not sure where I stand myself on this. It’s a difficult issue and I’m not sure there can be “only one correct answer”.
as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples
Who decides what is harmful or provocative?
A priest may find that the colander makes a mockery of religion, others might see a hijab as a symbol of oppression of women and others still may find that a certain slogan remind them of past trauma?
How do you strike a balance between dress code and preferences?
Should the state be free from religions, or free for all religions?
Does it even make sense to have the same rules in every country?
I myself am certainly biased in this context, given that I trust in science, evolution and the empiric process. Furthermore, I myself have been permanently negatively affected by religion, and all the ones I’ve encountered so far have been anti-scientific to a certain extent, regressive and denounce my own personal views. Does it not make sense then that I am anti-religious?
If I had to quickly codify my stance at this moment, I would say that I’m fine with freedom of religion to the extent that it intersects with the other personal liberties (Freedom of thought, expression, personal autonomy) that I think everyone should have the right to. However, I don’t think religion should give anyone preferential treatment in any context - religious organizations and religious folk should be subjected to the same regulations as a person of another (or no) belief or organization.
For instance, that might include exemptions from dress codes. In this case I would be against it unless the dress code would be equivalently relaxed for everyone, which I certainly wouldn’t support in some contexts. Some examples from healthcare for instance (since I’ve experience in the field) - it is imperative that what you wear is hygienic for the safety of the patient, and some of your duties might go against the personal beliefs of some people (abortion for instance). That doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from those duties or regulations because of your personal convictions. Suck it up, or go find another job.
This makes sense, i think you’re right on trying to keep things nuanced, and that the question of how much usage of freedom hurts versus how much not using this freedom hurts.
Though in the case of wearing clothes, i find it very hard to be harmful, even through the bias of mockery. It’s hard to argue that the negative impact of mockery exceeds the negative impact of being forced or prohibited in what you wear. Especially in the case of hijab.
I do think that the argument of mockery/clothes being ‘seen as symbols of oppression’ can even be used as a way to justify repressive laws. If we take the hijab case, there are two main reasons we could ban it : some women are being forced to wear it, and some people are ‘seeing it at a symbol of oppression’. Banning hijab for women forced to wear it may seem good at first, but inevitably ends up dumb when you think about it : it’s treating the symptom rather than the problem (power of religion over people) and in the worst case it even worsen the condition of women (who are then stopped from going to schools, sport competitions or public places where they could precisely get help or tools to treat the problem). So it is only for the people seeing hijab as oppressive that it makes sense to ban it, but this negative impact is obviously very little compared to the harm it makes to religious people. And i get the sense that some people are blending both aspects as one issue to combine one part’s legitimacy with the other part’s adequation to the solution, and get something that seems both logical and legitimate when it is really only one or the other. (at least on the hijab matter nowadays in France, other areas and periods might be a lot different).
I’ve been through your approach of trying to take everything neutrally and with nuances, and I still think that this is the way to go, and that it’s always good to use it a little bit, but as I saw more and more debates, I also got to think it’s important to not give both sides on a matter equal weight for the sake of neutrality, and to insist on the obvious solution when there is one : we might take its obviousness into account in our mind, but it may not be the case for other people, so I like to state it along with nuances.
Now, generally speaking, you’re clearly right that in lot of cases there is no clear answer, and the case of medics refusing to perform an act based on their beliefs is a very interesting one (I would argue for their right to do so as long as there is someone else to make it, even elsewhere or later in some cases, but I can see why you would not, it’s not as clear as the hijab thing for me).
Anyway thanks for bringing nuance and examples
The reason for France’s secularism and specifically their Islamophobia is their colonialist past in North-Africa. This was their way to enfore French culture on their colonies under the guise of “equality”. Of course this equality was never given to their colonies. It was used to take away the rights of the people they oppressed without granting them the same rights as the French colonists.
The French rules are not about religion but an excuse to discriminate against non-whites.
From what I’ve read on the topic, this take seems misguided at best or outright wrong at worst. Historically, secularism in France has been a primarily liberal/socialist/anti-monarchist pursuit.
French secularism has its origin in the French revolution, half a century before Algeria came under French control. Religious institutions were viewed as a part of the aristocratic establishment and the concept of laïcité was introduced under the revolutionary era and entrenched (along with concepts such as freedoms of thought, expression & conscience) during the Napoleonic era. Further progress in this direction was not made by imperialists, but rather revolutionaries after bloody conflict (the French commune for instance) and generally steps were taken to repeal them when conservative/monarchist governments dominated.
The French capital wanted to get rid of the church, thus secularism became the state form.
France has however never adhered to its fake standard of equality. That is a hypocritic ploy which was used in favor of white people only.
There are so many examples of France selectively applying their rules to discriminate against groups they are oppressing that the excuse of “equality” really does not fly. And of course the standard for “equality” is whatever the French government decided. French.
It’s definitely bullshit when the response to the problem of women potentially being forced into dressing how they don’t want to dress is to definitely force them into dressing a particular way potentially against how they want to dress.
