Talon Posted October 22, 2004 #1 Share Posted October 22, 2004 French court rules on Sikh boys By Caroline Wyatt BBC correspondent in Paris A French administrative court has ruled on an appeal brought by three Sikh boys who have been excluded from classes for wearing the under-turban. However, it referred the matter back to the boys' school, and said the issue should be resolved by further mediation between the school and its pupils. France introduced its new law banning the wearing of all religious symbols from state schools from September. France's small Sikh community says the under-turban is a valid compromise. They say the boys should not be excluded. Muslim pupils have also been affected, with at least five girls now expelled for wearing the Islamic headscarf. Dialogue The administrative court has been careful not to set a legal precedent that might give Muslim pupils their own grounds for appeal. It said the school that had excluded the Sikh boys from classes for wearing the under-turban should continue its dialogue with them within the next 15 days. Other schools in Paris have accepted Sikh pupils wearing only a discreet under-turban. But that option was rejected by the Louise Michel school, which argued that there could not be different rules for different religions, and that the law must apply equally to all. The French authorities admit that when the law was drafted, nobody consulted France's small Sikh community. The law itself was aimed primarily at removing the Islamic headscarf from schools, thanks to French fear of a growing strain of Islamic fundamentalism among a minority of young Muslims in the country. This week, at least seven girls have been expelled from their schools for refusing to remove the Islamic headscarf or hijab in class - and some are threatening to bring their own legal appeal against their expulsion. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ope/3943733.stm But that option was rejected by the Louise Michel school, which argued that there could not be different rules for different religions, and that the law must apply equally to all. I agree, if these pupils don't want to follow the law they can go to a Sikh or Islamic country respectively and wear their turbans or headscarfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lottie Posted October 22, 2004 #2 Share Posted October 22, 2004 France are doing themselves no favours. However this is the law and these people need to abide by it. If they don't like it they can go back to their respective countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caspian Hare Posted October 22, 2004 #3 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I see no legitimate reason to forbid Muslims and Sikhs from wearing religious head coverings. Over here there would be serious constitutional issues with a law like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted October 22, 2004 Author #4 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I see no legitimate reason to forbid Muslims and Sikhs from wearing religious head coverings. Over here there would be serious constitutional issues with a law like that. Nothing to do with attacking people's rights, they've banned all religions from schools, its just the Muslims and Shiks who beleive they should be a special case and not have to abid by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted October 23, 2004 #5 Share Posted October 23, 2004 The new law is a flagrant violation of basic human rights These people are French Lottie, unless you propose that they also take the right of living in their own country away from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecInca Posted October 23, 2004 #6 Share Posted October 23, 2004 The law is the law, no matter how wrong it is, these people need to abide by it if they wish to reside in this country, but I hope they put up as much of a fight as possible since this law is a disgrace. France aren`t doing themselves any favours with this law as lottie said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lottie Posted October 23, 2004 #7 Share Posted October 23, 2004 (edited) The new law is a flagrant violation of basic human rights These people are French Lottie, unless you propose that they also take the right of living in their own country away from them 321183[/snapback] This is the law. Whether these people are French citizens or not they have to abide by this. If they are not prepared to abide by it then they need to find some other country where they are allowed to practice their religion freely. I never said this was right. I actually said that France are doing themselves no favours by doing this but that is the way it is. Religion does nothing more than create huge divides with civilisation, it is politics. I can totally understand the French in this aspect. If certain people were not so fantatical about this then there would not be an issue.Certain religions have shown us that people even in this day and age are so fantatical and so brainwashed by religion that they will live and die for it and predjudice evryone else around them. This is not the way the western civilisation exists. In England there is a phrase, a stupid one at that but it comes in nicely now...Like it or lump it. Its that simple. Edited October 23, 2004 by Lottie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted October 23, 2004 #8 Share Posted October 23, 2004 My goodness, this reasoning sounds so familiar "Dress and do things the way WE think you should do or else..." I would not get home sick anywhere if everyone thought like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted October 23, 2004 Author #9 Share Posted October 23, 2004 The new law is a flagrant violation of basic human rights These people are French Lottie, unless you propose that they also take the right of living in their own country away from them Bugger all to do with human rights, and I couldn't give a stuff about their citizenship. When their parents/grandparents moved to France they agreed to live by the laws of the FRENCH, in the country of the FRENCH, and abide by what the FRENCH felt was acceptable or not in their own country. They choose to move to the French’s country, the French didn’t choose to move to theirs. The Christians abide by the rule, the Jews abide the rule. If these second or third generations can't abide by the rule then they should maybe go back to the country their parents/grandparents fled if they which of course don’t carry out any 'violation of basic human rights', see how great things are. Maybe doing that would make them learn some gratitude to western culture and practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted October 24, 2004 #10 Share Posted October 24, 2004 These poor girls have no choice but to obide by ugly rules! The fact that people are forced to obide by certain rules dont change the fact that those laws might be in violation of their human rights, and these new laws violate women's freedom to dress as they like, unless of course you believe that these rights dont apply to Muslim women! Well, when the French moved to north African countries, they took their own laws at gun point with them and forced the natives to submit or face torture and death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lottie Posted October 24, 2004 #11 Share Posted October 24, 2004 these new laws violate women's freedom to dress as they like, unless of course you believe that these rights dont apply to Muslim women! Oh and as if Muslim women have any rights whatsoever! I don't believe for one moment that they actually like wearing the attire thay do. I do not believe its a choice they themselves would make. Its all forced upon them by religion. I am sure that the minority of these women would like nothing more than to dress as normal westerners but they are dictated to and opressed by others and their human rights viloated because their right to choose has been taken away. All in the name of religion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted October 24, 2004 #12 Share Posted October 24, 2004 the list of basic human rights keeps getting longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asterix Posted October 24, 2004 #13 Share Posted October 24, 2004 The basic problem regarding this controversial law is that not only it forbids something as basic as the freedom to choose your own clothing (as long as it's not violating the public nudity laws, and it's not) but that it helds different interpretation depending on religion-a serious offense against freedom and human rights. Meaning, that it's ok to wear a scarf if you're a christian woman, and it's ok to wear a cross neckless if you're muslim, but not other way around. I wonder, is it ok to wear a scarf if you're a muslim but a man? Plus the fact that if you're a christian you can wear a cross inside your clothing and nobody notices, while a muslim woman can't wear her scarf this way. When this law was made, it was made with a christian mentality, clearly. It's just not fair, pure and simple.. As for statements like "The law it's the law, obey or leave", these sound bit too much like KKK legislation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted October 24, 2004 #14 Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) and you know what? i say tough sh**, thats what the majority want. To compare it to the views of the KKK is rediculous, what the law wants is for no overt religious symoblism in public schools, it doesn't infringe upon other groups outside of the government, hell nuns have to go without the penguin hats if i remember correctly Edited October 24, 2004 by bathory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asterix Posted October 24, 2004 #15 Share Posted October 24, 2004 and you know what? i say tough sh**, thats what the majority want. To compare it to the views of the KKK is rediculous, what the law wants is for no overt religious symoblism in public schools, it doesn't infringe upon other groups outside of the government, hell nuns have to go without the penguin hats if i remember correctly 322408[/snapback] One of the definition lines of "Democracy" is: The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community The phrase "tough sh**, thats what the majority want" has nothing to do with real democracy. In addition, it's not rediculous at all to compare it with KKK (albeit, in a metaphoric and pointing way-I'm not saying the french society or goverment in its total has anything common). My point of comparison was that it touches a "holier than thou" approach, a modus operandi that reminds *insert missisipi accent here* "The good Lawd has sent his son, his only son to save us good hard-working white folks from the savages" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted October 24, 2004 #16 Share Posted October 24, 2004 so you support the union of church and state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted October 24, 2004 Author #17 Share Posted October 24, 2004 These poor girls have no choice but to obide by ugly rules! The fact that people are forced to obide by certain rules dont change the fact that those laws might be in violation of their human rights, and these new laws violate women's freedom to dress as they like, unless of course you believe that these rights dont apply to Muslim women! The basic problem regarding this controversial law is that not only it forbids something as basic as the freedom to choose your own clothing (as long as it's not violating the public nudity laws, and it's not) Utter rubbish, your saying I take it too that school uniform is against human rights as it takes away "freedom to dress as they like". Police uniforms takes away "freedom to dress as they like". Fire fighter uniforms takes away "freedom to dress as they like". Military uniforms takes away "freedom to dress as they like" ete etc. If its so ugly then they can leave the country. Well, when the French moved to north African countries, they took their own laws at gun point with them and forced the natives to submit or face torture and death! Your saying the Arabs are moving to France to occupy it us? God no wonder their far-right movement is rising if thats your attitude / plan Plus the fact that if you're a christian you can wear a cross inside your clothing and nobody notices, while a muslim woman can't wear her scarf this way. When this law was made, it was made with a christian mentality, clearly. Your saying they should have strip searches to find hidden crosses etc yes? That is completely unacceptable! These are children! As for statements like "The law it's the law, obey or leave", these sound bit too much like KKK legislation to me. Considering every country expects its citzens to obey the law I take it your claiming ever country is run by the KKK. ... so, tell me, if someone killed your wife, would you be understanding, because it was KKK-like of the government to expect them to obey the laws againstmurder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted October 24, 2004 #18 Share Posted October 24, 2004 School and police uniforms have nothing to do with the subject of discussion here! I have seen sikhs and Muslim women in all sorts of uniforms! Your analogy is totally misleading I did not say anything even close to what you thought I said about the Arabs moving to France! Would you leave your own country if you felt your rights were violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alis Posted October 24, 2004 #19 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I don't believe for one moment that they actually like wearing the attire thay do. I do not believe its a choice they themselves would make. hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha Just shows how many middle eastern people you know doesnt it. i know some women who would scratch your eyes out if you took it off them, and no, scratching eyes out is not a cultural thing there,lol. I agree, if these pupils don't want to follow the law they can go to a Sikh or Islamic country respectively and wear their turbans or headscarfs. mmm how lucky we are in the west to be able to dress how we like . i once thought that the west was better for allowing us to choose our religion and wear whatever we like, shame all good things must come to and end. Bugger all to do with human rights, and I couldn't give a stuff about their citizenship. When their parents/grandparents moved to France they agreed to live by the laws of the FRENCH, in the country of the FRENCH, and abide by what the FRENCH felt was acceptable or not in their own country. i know some english people who had fathers stationed in libya for an oil company where alcohol was illegal. the locals abided by the rules but the good old english said 'no', ' we cant live without it, so stuff the law'. one rule for you, and another for us is it talon???????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asterix Posted October 25, 2004 #20 Share Posted October 25, 2004 some english people who had fathers stationed in libya for an oil company where alcohol was illegal. the locals abided by the rules but the good old english said 'no', ' we cant live without it, so stuff the law'. And many more examples like this one.. Plus (and OK, now I'll plunge into the depths of history) it should be interesting to remind that in the medieval times, when Spain was under muslim control, jews and christians were not hunted down. When Spanish rule came back to power, ppl were given the offer to either beome christians or leave. Throught the ages, it's clear that it has been christians, mostly, (well, the official church anyway) that was prejudiced and biased and xenophobic, not other religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted October 26, 2004 Author #21 Share Posted October 26, 2004 School and police uniforms have nothing to do with the subject of discussion here! I have seen sikhs and Muslim women in all sorts of uniforms! Your analogy is totally misleading No it isn’t, both are state institutions, both have uniforms. Your claiming uniforms are a breach of rights. Would you leave your own country if you felt your rights were violated? My parents did think about leaving during the Thatcher regime… I don’t know I’d have to see how bad it got. mmm how lucky we are in the west to be able to dress how we like . i once thought that the west was better for allowing us to choose our religion and wear whatever we like, shame all good things must come to and end. Oh grow up and read the article, its in schools only, not the street. We've been making children conform to school dress of genrations and you never moaned about that. This is part of an ongoing attempt by the government to remove the church from state after hundreds of years of being ruled by it, bugger all to do with anyone here's paranioa of anti-Islam. i know some english people who had fathers stationed in libya for an oil company where alcohol was illegal. the locals abided by the rules but the good old english said 'no', ' we cant live without it, so stuff the law'. one rule for you, and another for us is it talon???????????????? Apparently it is “one rule for you, and another for us is it”, since the Jews and Christians have accepted the rule banning religious items in schools, and yet it’s the people your supporting you want special treatment… “one rule for you, and another for us is it”. Let me ask you this, would these English people be allowed to take there alcohol into a school? And btw, I'm not English (totally DIFFERENT ethnic group), so it isn't a one rule for me And many more examples like this one.. Plus (and OK, now I'll plunge into the depths of history) it should be interesting to remind that in the medieval times, when Spain was under muslim control, jews and christians were not hunted down. When Spanish rule came back to power, ppl were given the offer to either beome christians or leave. Throught the ages, it's clear that it has been christians, mostly, (well, the official church anyway) that was prejudiced and biased and xenophobic, not other religions. … your going to try and use the actions of people who aren’t even alive now to justify your stance… ic… and I guess we should still be angry at Germany, your allies during WW2 against the Soviets, for that whole Nazi thing… even though the majority of living Germans were born after that… yet it’s a lot closer in time to us that the Inquisition. And btw, we criticise Christianity too, so you can’t claim we play favourites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alis Posted October 27, 2004 #22 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Oh grow up and read the article, its in schools only, not the street. We've been making children conform to school dress of genrations and you never moaned about that. i know its in schools only talon the point is how is a sikh, muslim, jew, or anyone hurting anyone by conforming to their religion. the west is SUPPOSED to represent freedom. if it offends people, then im sorry, its their problem, they're easily offended because im not offended when i see a sikh wearing a turban or a jew wearing a kippot (i think thats right) or a christian wearing a crusifix necklace. Let me ask you this, would these English people be allowed to take there alcohol into a school? do you think they'd learn much drunk??? And btw, I'm not English (totally DIFFERENT ethnic group), so it isn't a one rule for me mr mature himself thinks he's a cut above the rest, trying to tell me about my own country!!! thanks for the laughs tal!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted October 27, 2004 Author #23 Share Posted October 27, 2004 i know its in schools only talon the point is how is a sikh, muslim, jew, or anyone hurting anyone by conforming to their religion. the west is SUPPOSED to represent freedom. if it offends people, then im sorry, its their problem, they're easily offended because im not offended when i see a sikh wearing a turban or a jew wearing a kippot (i think thats right) or a christian wearing a crusifix necklace. It has nothing to do with offence, it is to do with secularism. After hundreds of years of their government being run by the church, their saying no more and making sure that the church and state have no contact with each, right done to making sure no a shred of religion ANY RELIGION appears in School, which influence children and are a state sponsored institute. do you think they'd learn much drunk??? Exactly, alcohol is offensive to your culture and would not be allowed in schools (wouldn’t be allowed in schools here either mind out, but it’s the example you choose for your case, so it’s the one we must run with). The same as the French culture value state and religion to be separate, hence why they wont allow religious symbols near a state institution which is to educate children, not expose their educatio to religius influences which have ruled the French for far to long. And btw, I'm not English (totally DIFFERENT ethnic group), so it isn't a one rule for me mr mature himself thinks he's a cut above the rest, trying to tell me about my own country!!! If you know so much about your knowledge about you own country, you didn’t even know the North, and West British are a different ethnic group from the south? And if I called you an Afghan would you correct not me? I’m simply pointing out I’m not English, the same as someone from Sweden etc would do so if you miscorrectly said they were English. In your mind that equates to claiming I’m a cut above the rest, well you’re the only one with that mentality my friend thanks for the laughs tal!! Laughs is it from Mrs. Maturity? Funny, I thought this thread lost its humour the same time as the ugliness seeped into everyone's tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alis Posted October 27, 2004 #24 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Laughs is it from Mrs. Maturity? Funny, I thought this thread lost its humour the same time as the ugliness seeped into everyone's tone. well my tone will turn ugly when someone says the ME are idiots for the way they treat women and statements saying that freedom to express your religion wherever (as long as your not a muslim in a synagogue, or a jew in a temple etc) accordingly should be banished. saying that the ME are idiots for the way they treat women is an ignorant generalization. I could say that westerners are idiots for pushing their parents into the many thousands of nursing homes in the west, but it would be an offensive generalized statement which i think would anger quite a few who actually physically care for their elder generations and cause many inflamed responses from the western population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted October 27, 2004 #25 Share Posted October 27, 2004 (edited) I am going to leave this thread open, but I am asking for everyone to remain civil in this discussion. I do not want name calling, sarcasm, or any bashing. Please be respectful of each other. Edited October 27, 2004 by Fluffybunny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now