RSS Feed MenuWhen the French parliament passed the headscarf ban in 2004, France was unsurprisingly criticized in the Muslim world. Five years later, President Obama, always looking for things to apologize about, particularly when they are supposed to have been done by other people, shared his point of view on the subject:
[I]t is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
That would be France, I suppose. As far as criticism goes, I prefer the “freedom fries” critique. First, so-called “French fries” are Belgian anyway; second, with this comment, Obama plunges America into a purely internal debate that is extraordinarily sensitive and far more complex than he seems to recognize.
The real problem here is with the words: “as they see fit”. Everybody is certainly entitled to practice their religion, but since when are they entitled to do so “as they see fit”? They are not. Human sacrifices, religious or not, are illegal. If practicing Catholicism involves setting inquisition courts and burning heretics, then those practicing that particular brand of the religion are breaking the law. Religious freedom must coexist with public order and Christians and Jews have spent centuries attempting to locate the complex line between religion and politics that must not be crossed. Indeed, the separation between the church and the state has played an important part in the construction of modern democracy and contributed to shape both the state and the different religions in the Western world.
But in October 1989, the French realised that the separation they had for so long taken for granted was far more complicated than they had realised. That October, two Muslim schoolgirls were dismissed from school because they refused to take off their hijabs during their biology and gym classes (the former because of its content, the latter because it required wearing a sport outfit). Interestingly, while this affair was discussed by the politicians and the media, the hijab issue received much more attention than the attendance issue, despite the fact that France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’Etat ruled that wearing the hijab was not a reasonable ground to expel the girls. This episode led to fierce public debate over two particular issues: Islam and immigration. Realistically, the debate that broke out of the hijab could never be settled by a legal institution. Resolution would come when the government decided to address it, as it would do, 15 years later… In 2004, the French government passed a law banning students from displaying any “ostensible” religious signs at school. The law has been widely accepted by most groups, the little opposition to it has come primarily from religious organizations.
Practically speaking, students cannot wear “visible” religious signs (like a hijab) but are allowed to wear “discreet” ones (like crosses or stars of David). As the critics have pointed out, the law clearly targets Muslims. The laws primary purpose was to prevent fathers and brothers from forcing schoolgirls to wear the veil. By banning the veil, Muslim schoolgirls can plausibly claim that they want to wear the headscarf but that they are not allowed to. Indirectly, some legislators reasoned that by banning the head scarf, Muslim children might better assimilate. The logic that underpins this assumption closely resembles that driving the push for school uniforms, which is essentially that by minimizing visible differences, you make it more likely that kids will interact comfortably with one another.
It is telling that the legal side of the debate over public displays of religiosity has not played a greater role. Back in 1989, the French legal framework lacked any prior precedent to guide how it should respond to the hijab issue. But more importantly, in 1989, French society was simply not ready to deal with the rapid emergence of the Islamic faith in France. The Islamic faith was new to the west and as a result, it has not been shaped by Western political culture the way that Christianity and Judaism have. Muslims quite simply have a different understanding about the role that faith should play in public life than most European citizens. Many Muslims view the hijab ban as an oppressive and discriminatory policy designed solely for the purpose of preventing them from practicing their faith. At the same time, many Europeans are equally offended by Muslim calls for the curtailment of free expression on subjects like Mohammed.
The debate on assimilation is far from over. With various communitarian groups and politicians attempting to introduce affirmative action measures, this debate is bound to get more heated. At the end of the day, the question of affirmative action is one of choice. On one side, there is the traditional French “Republican model” which is based on the state’s blindness in matters such as race or religion along with a strong – though long-forgotten – assimilation policy. On the other side, there is the “multicultural society” option, which has little to no foundation in French history.
The hijab issue in France has played a very significant part in reshaping the debate over immigration. Before 1989, opposition to immigration was generally viewed as veiled racism. Since 1989, while racism is still used as a bogeyman by various pro-immigration figures, a stronger case against massive and uncontrolled immigration, or, alternatively, in favour of a strong assimilation policy is seen as a fairly mainstream and defensible position. The emergence of some mainstream opposition to the “multicultural” model is long overdue and should be welcomed. These issues are too important to France’s future for the public to keep tiptoeing around, acting as if a problem didn’t exist.
ltwpolitics // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm
So we should ban crosses too? It’s not about “multiculturalism,” but about a basic freedom: that of religious expression. I’m surprised that the NM gives space to this tripe that if coming from the mouth of a liberal American would be viewed as beyond the pale. But evidently Frum is eager to provide a platform for the French xenophobic left if it somehow insults Obama. With enemies like these, Obama only looks better.
krove // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:04 am
Do these people get paid for writing this total BS. Why is Frum turning this site into a laughing stock by giving a platform to these nit picking people who have nothing really to say but say it anyway?
midcon // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:42 am
I have noticed that the articles seem to be hewing more and more to the right, including David’s. Maybe Frum has begun to feel that the way to craft a new majority is to return to the fold. The articles are particularly critical of Obama’s MidEast trip and lack of adherence to the Israel party line, coupled with his moderate words to Muslims.It is difficult to discern whether David is acting reflexively to change in the U.S. and Israeli relationship or making a sharp right turn. As president, Obama has the obligation and authority to employ diplomacy in equal measures to employing the military as an instrument of foreign policy. At the moment he is choosing diplomacy in he dealings with the Muslim tribes. Whether civilized behavior will have affect on tribalism remains to be seen.
sinz54 // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:49 am
Mr. Granville writes: “The emergence of some mainstream opposition to the ‘multicultural’ model is long overdue and should be welcomed.”Mainstream?The French ban on “visible” religious signs also includes yarmulkes, by the way. If a Jewish male student wears a yarmulke to public school, he faces expulsion. Not just suspension, but expulsion. Just like a female Islamic student wearing hijab.In Europe, the backlash against Islamic radicalism is sparking a kind of neo-fascism. You can see it in French politics and in the rise of Vlaams Belang and other such groups.Vlaams Belang is against ANY Muslim immigration. And in their platform, they have some other zingers, like demanding amnesty for all Nazi war criminals left over from WW2.The European Union can’t really promote “assimilation,” because the E.U. long ago made common cause with the Islamists in the Middle East as a counterweight to American hegemony. So instead they can do what Europe has a grand tradition of doing–Fascist repression.
nealjking // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm
There is a ban on religious clothing in France and in Turkey.I’ve discussed this with proponents in both cultures, and I still don’t get it. People should be free to wear what they want; except when there is an unavoidable security or safety issue.
danbmil99 // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:52 pm
So government intrusion into personal matters such as daily dress is OK for conservatives as long as it forces Muslims to ‘assimilate’? Puhleeze…Let’s get some intellectual rigor into this debate. The French/Turkish ’solution’ to cultural problems — laws — is beyond stupid. It’s created a situation where, far from being forced to wear the veil by their parents, these Muslim kids now see it as a betrayal of their culture and pride *not* to wear it.It’s like when a government (France?) tries to control prices — you just create a black market. You cannot legislate faith or identity. It just can’t be done. It’s stupid, it’s un-American, and Obama called them on it. It’s actually rather Bush-like of him in this one case — he’s making a claim of moral absolutism: it’s always wrong to tell someone how to dress.France — where Purple was illegal unless you were born of the ruling class. How did that turn out for them?
danbmil99 // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:02 am
I’m beginning to wonder — have Frum and his pals been too long at this game to have any real, deep ideological principles?After reading this blog for a couple months, I am now in agreement with Rush and the far right on one point at least: to lead, you need to believe in something. I don’t happen to agree with what Rush and Sarah Palin believe, but their popularity definitely comes from the fact that they really do have principles, and stick to them.So does Obama, by the way — though he did a bit of triangulation to get elected, you can pretty much go through his speeches and see that he never outright lied about what he believes, or how he would lead. In spite of the fact that he’s to the left of the center of the American populace, I predict he will be re-elected, and remain popular, just as FDR and Reagan did before him.If the right wants to lead again, they need to find someone with a pair of balls. Someone who believes something deep in his/her soul, and fights for that core set of principles in everything they do. Unfortunately for the uber-conservatives, that person cannot be anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-hispanic, and anti-intellectual. That combination just won’t win an election.Before he fell off the deep end, McCain actually had some of these qualities. I know the right wingers don’t want to believe that, but it’s true. However, the absolute necessity of him kow-towing to the social/religious wing of the party, which he hates with a passion deep in his core (and they hate him), seems to have sapped the humanity out of the poor guy, and he was never the same again. Regardless of what you think of Palin, picking her was deeply cynical, because clearly McCain shares little in terms of actual beliefs with her. He did it because he thought it would help him win.Mitt Romney does not fit the bill. He believes anything he thinks will get him elected. The closest thing to someone like this is Huckabee, and he’s just too damn conservative to have a chance. Jindal? nope. Pawlenty? not gonna happen. So who?
sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:44 am
Frum sez: “Indirectly, some legislators reasoned that by banning the head scarf, Muslim children might better assimilate.”Jews didn’t have a problem assimilating into many countries, despite the fact that devout Jews still wear yarmulkes.The difference between Jews and Muslims isn’t what they wear. It’s what they plan.Despite what anti-Semites claim, Jews didn’t come to America to take over the country. All they wanted was to find work and practice their faith in private.Jews never had any rabbis who preached the hate and venom of some of the radical Islamist imams in Europe (including in Britain). Jewish rabbis never claimed “Someday, the Star of David will fly over 10 Downing Street and the White House!”–but there are radical Muslim imams in Europe who tell their flocks that someday, Islam will take over Europe.The difference between Judaism and Islam is that Islam contains a geo-political program, as well as mysticism. Moderate Muslim imams claim that this program was intended only for the early days of Islam, when it was threatened with eradication by the other faiths. Radical Muslim imams claim that this program is just as relevant to today’s world–that the wars started by Mohammed still go on today until Islam conquers the world.And a nation run by extremist Muslims is going to be an uncomfortable one for Jews, Christians, gays, lesbians, feminists, liberals, and atheists. The Middle East has proven that.David Frum, the French, and the feminists should focus on THAT, and not what Muslims wear. What’s on a Muslim’s head is far less important than the ideas inside his head.