IAWM support Muslim Right to wear Headscarves in French Schools

by .:. Fri Dec 30, 2005 15:25

You want your children to be raised under certain cultural religious customs you start a school for them.That goes for any religion. France boasts many such schools and even for RC cults such as Opus Dei university level educational establishments. However the majority of French citizens and parents when asked are in favour of their secular educational system. They choose _not_ to send their children to such exclusive schools. What has occured in the last years in an attempt to change the nature of such schools, which did not just drop from the sky. It was a struggle to establish secular education, a struggle against the forces of christian orthodoxy. & that they were established is an achievement which still may be counted one of the true victories of French republicanism. That in 2004/2005 schools were expected to change their secular policy for the sake of a minority within a minority seems rather an attempt to continue the ghetto in wider society not just by the minority in question (Islam) but the other enemies of secular education.

There are no "muslim women" R. isible in schools other than teachers who are being asked not to wear a veil. It is significant that the presence of muslim teachers in protest moblisations against the veil ban was very very paltry indeed.

We are talking about young French girls and boys and the way in which they are being raised, or rather the contract between state and citizen for the "free" education of children. It is as much about "young boys" as it is "young girls".

It is not Ireland or even the UK, but certainly if we read the judgement on the Shabina Begum case in the court of Appeal in London we see that the ultimate law in Europe to which these parents or their children may appeal is art. 9 and Protocol 1 Art. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (the right to express religious affiliation). There is no prior ban on such expression for UK or indeed Irish schools, however under French Law "loi 1905" there is.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68850&condense_comments=false#comment102308

Defending secularism does not mean encouraging clerical education. No-one has suggested the mass creation of Ashram schools in France, but it is curious, that the other enemies of secularism have not put forward the creation of "world religious schools" in which every French boy and girl can wear a hijab, carry a bloody big cross and be properly religious along the lines of Ireland's few "multi-denominational" schools.

The ghetto is not made by education.
Education is the route out of the ghetto.
Loi 1905 did not build the banlieu.
But it did help France in the XX century develop a society where moral authority was not just a religious thing. If there had been no Loi 1905 there would have been no "revered philosophy", no household names such as Sartre, Ricouer, Derrida, de Bouvoir. No reprieve in occidental philosophy for the post marxist schools of intellectual criticism.
There would have been instead a continuing hegemony of Christian ethics. I would have thought you'd have seen the wider picture there R. isible.

.:. To the greater memory of
Montessori, Steiner & Ferrer i Guàrdia!

by R. Isible Fri Dec 30, 2005 01:40

QUOTE: Indeed forcing religious types not to be religious (in ways of their own fond predeliction) does not serve secularism in societies such as Ireland but in one which has celebrated 100 years of secularism (France) it merely shows the need for Muslim policy schools

So you're arguing that creating ghettoized Muslim-only schools( because you refuse to allow Muslim women to wear a hijab) is a way to promote secularism? Seems like another way to keep Muslims in the banlieus to me.

by .:. Thu Dec 29, 2005 22:05

comment on editorial policy removed Indeed forcing religious types not to be religious (in ways of their own fond predeliction) does not serve secularism in societies such as Ireland but in one which has celebrated 100 years of secularism (France) it merely shows the need for Muslim policy schools [perhaps asisted financially by the state or private sector] in which both good and bad girls may go through their secondary education completely unseen by all except their brothers, and good little muslim boys will marry them in their purity and bad little muslim boys will fall in love and nay lust with the non-muslim girls next door - which bond they shall most probably formalise in a registry office of the republic and any lucky offspring of the relationship will go to secular schools unmolested by hijabs, kippas or bloody big crosses.

See? whichever way it goes we .:. win
Its not about hijabs its about banlieus
when they have different neighbours they'll be different.

by R. Isible Thu Dec 29, 2005 19:42

The last time this subject was discussed on indymedia ireland it was pointed out that forcing muslims not to wear their religious symbols teaches /nothing/ about secularism. Instead it is more likely to drive a wedge between the supposedly secular majority society and the muslism. Not clever, fair or rational. Those pursuing the hijab ban are notable for their religious zeal.

by .:. Thu Dec 29, 2005 18:15

But I support the right of little boys to grow up in an environment where none of the little girls are hidden in veils. This is an important right that all little boys regardless of thier family's religion have. I hope that when all little boys see that all little girls are pretty much the same, wearing or not wearing a veil, makeup, a short or long skirt, then they will grow to be well-balanced men who approach all men and women as equals. There is nothing to stop every good *or bad* little muslim girl putting her veil back on at the school gate but within school they are under Loi 1905 to learn how secular society works.

I also support the right of any community to educate its own children but only if an agreed minimum standard sylabus is adhered to.
I can see no valid argument against such secularist equality and the equality of opportunity it is supposed to instill. And for that I support Loi 1905. I can not believe that the "duty" of any religion to display symbology or adopt certain dress is worth more than another's. If christian children no longer practise their obligations on dress or other behaviour that doesn't mean they no longer exist, they have merely lapsed. Write Ratzinger a letter.

by mariam okasha Thu Dec 29, 2005 18:08 mariam0124 at yahoo dot com egypt,helwan 025567141

i forgot to say something hijab is not for children but for girls who had finished thier childhood

by mariam okasha Thu Dec 29, 2005 17:51 mariam0124 at yahoo dot com egypt,helwan 025567141

as a muslim girl i shall say that the girls have no choise whether to wear the hijab or not,the cross of cristian girls or the hat of jewish girlsare just signs for thier riligions
but the hijab as i said before is aduty like prayers in any religion.

by St Jude Wed Mar 02, 2005 13:48

IAWM can take whatever position they wish once they actually did adopt such a position at a meeting and not at the SWP hq.

I think the French decision is islamophobic insofar that it will mainly impact on islamic women/girls. Catholics will just continue to wear their crosses, just button up their blouses.

Im unsure if the French decision will effect the wearing of skull caps?

The other point made about islamic women being forced to dress a certain way brings up an interesting question - should the logical extension of that argument be that only adults should be permitted to make a decision about their religious beliefs, personally I would agree with this, however, this would require Baptism, Communion, conformation and attendance at mass for catholics be only proceeded with after the person is eighteen.

If people agree with this then progressives should be campaigning on this issue no matter how unpopular I believe it would be

by no shit... Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:25

Person before you making link with swastika was clearly taking the piss, or trying to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.

by Shelock Holmes Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:29

The Hijab is more offensive to you because your white? While the swastika perhaps you view as a symbol that will save your white race? Any further racist comments from you there?. Hey i know how about a homophobic comment from you?. Why don't you pick on women? Their feminine features are very oppressive. How about old people? those tyrannical 90 year old's have had it too good for too long. Intolerance is the new buzz word of today.

by toneore Wed Mar 02, 2005 07:35 toneore at eircom dot net

The Hijab is more offensive than the Swastika. Ban them everywhere.

by Axel Tue Mar 01, 2005 18:11

Lets not forget that this year is the anniversary of the 1905 Church/State separation laws, a freedom Ireland regrettably lacked for so long.

by Voice of Reason Fri Oct 22, 2004 09:58

The French point on all this is that religion has no place in a public school except for academic discussion. Religion, whatever you care to believe, can be taken up outside of the school hours.

This priniciple has been in place since the early part of this century, mostly applying to Catholics, Protestants and Jews. The Catholic Church and their fundamentalist adherents naturally resisted this, and were put back in their place by the Government (something the Irish government should have done a long time ago).

As far back as 1880 the Jesuits' right to teach in France was withdrawn because it was felt they were promoted a far too religious agenda.

Islam has grown as a religion in France, hence the "Church/State" turmoil which is now re-occurring.

by Jasmine Thu Oct 21, 2004 22:47

Government has no right to define what is reqired in a certain religion and what isn't. crosses and skull caps aren't required for chritians and jews, and arent worn as vastly as the hijab. They are in no way comparable.

Do not claim to be experts on Islam if you do not even understand how the religion is to be practiced. Not only are muslims reqired to abide to the teachings of the quran, but are REQUIRED to follow the example of the prophet mohamed and abide to his hadith, (recorded teachings and sayings that interpret the quran). The Propher (PBUH) said: "The worst amongst women are those who freely leave their homes without hijab. They are hypocrites and few of them will enter paradise."

Khalid Farouq: You obviously have NO idea about how we muslim women feel, and have no idea about islam. Denying people a right that is guaranteed to everyone is opression. France is opressing its citiczens.

Hijab is not a symblol, a source of identification, a display of individuality, or anything of the sort. We muslim women wear the Hijab because it is how we practice our religion. It is Islamic law to practice hijab, and France is robbing its Muslim community of its rights. we will continue to speak out until ignorant people such as many of the people who post on this topic are educated and understand what an attack this is on Muslims.

How would you like it if you were stripped of your clothing and were left to stand naked amongst a crowd of similarly naked people when you once had a cloak to save you from shame? This is how we woman feel about our hijab. We arent trying to clothe anyone, or convert anyone. we are merely trying to remian pious in a desintigrating society.

by Hebe Fri Jan 30, 2004 14:52

The Scottish Socialist Party has staged a protest in the Scottish Parliament against a visit by the Saudi Arabian ambassador.
Four Socialist MSPs stood in silence displaying placards reading "despots not welcome" when Prince Turki Al Faisal entered the chamber.

Earlier, the party had tried to move an emergency motion condemning what they described as the totalitarian regime in Saudi.

However, the move was refused by Presiding Officer George Reid.

by You have nothing to lose but your chains Thu Jan 29, 2004 00:15

Yes,I would support the right of a Muslim woman in Saudi or Iran who wishes not to wear the hijab. I believe in freedom of choice and of expression. If a woman from a Muslim background feels that the hijab is not required in her religion, well then she shouldn't have to wear it. However, that does not mean that because some Muslim women do not see the hijab as a necessity that it is justifiable to stop others who chose to wear it. Not all Muslims think the same! Freedom of choice should apply to everyone! Unfortunately, this choice does not exist in some countries in the Middle East but France is supposedly a democratic country. True democracy is based on social equality and respecting diverse beliefs. It seems that France needs to update French dictionaries, redefining their term " democratie".

by You have nothing to lose but your chains Thu Jan 29, 2004 00:14

Yes,I would support the right of a Muslim woman in Saudi or Iran who wishes not to wear the hijab. I believe in freedom of choice and of expression. If a woman from a Muslim background feels that the hijab is not required in her religion, well then she shouldn't have to wear it. However, that does not mean that because some Muslim women do not see the hijab as a necessity that it is justifiable to stop others who chose to wear it. Not all Muslims think the same! Freedom of choice should apply to everyone! Unfortunately, this choice does not exist in some countries in the Middle East but France is supposedly a democratic country. True democracy is based on social equality and respecting diverse beliefs. It seems that France needs to update French dictionaries, redefining their term " democratie".

by Joe Wed Jan 28, 2004 17:44

If 'it is a necessity in Islam' what does that mean for women who choose not to wear it? Would you also support the right of a women from a muslim background to choose not to wear it in Iran or Saudi? A choice that right now does not exist.

by You have nothing to lose but your chains Wed Jan 28, 2004 17:36 chocaholic19 at hotmail dot com

I wish to emphasise that the muslim headscarf or "hijab" is not " an overt religious symbol" but it is a necessity in Islam. The hijab is part of a Muslim woman's faith and constitutes a functional aspect of her religion.
As a practicing muslim woman, I chose to wear the hijab last year. It was entirely my choice, not my father's, brother's or the local imam's. I am priviledged to live in a country in which I can wear whatever I like. When I walk down the street wearing the hijab, I am not enforcing my religion on any one else. Similarly, when I wear it in school, it does not effect my studies. I am still the same person but with a piece of material covering my hair. The French ban is oppressive and contradictory to the secular notion upon which the states of Europe were constructed. Banning women from wearing the hijab is as repulsive as to enforce upon them a certain dress or particular act. Both of these deeds are rejected in Islam. The ban on headscarves in public schools will deny even more girls access to schooling in the "developed" world. Muslim girls should not have to choose between their faith and their education. Compelling them to do so will alienate Muslim women from society. It will lead to a generation of uneducated and unemployable Muslim women which can only lead to isolation and resentment. .
Caspian, you said that it was only with the coming of the likes of Osama Bin Laden that the wearing of the headscarves suddenly became radical chic among young Muslims.
Actually, the wearing of headscarves among young Muslim women has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is not the Muslim prophet that the US have made him out to be. Most of my Muslim friends who who wear the headscarf hate Bin Laden and the stereotypical view of the " oppressed" muslim women that is associated with the Taliban and Saudia Arabia.
For many, including myself the hijab is not an instrument of coercion but a means of liberation. Personally, I have never felt so free as I do when I am wearing it! What is so " backwards" about freedom of expression and religion?

by european Mon Jan 26, 2004 15:58

We were five minutes late in arriving, in the meantime she had been accosted by two seperate males of muslim ethno-cultural background, and insulted for (she felt not wearing a hijab). She was wearing a shawl, but it didn't cover her head. It occured to her, though a supporter of the right to wear Hijab, that her brothers in faith ought recieve more instruction on herright to "not wear it", and her fight to wait in a public space without being subject to religious insult.

How would a society communicate such secualr values to it's male children?

by i'm a mod - we are the mods Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:16

Take them to the barber shop and make the hippies take a bath.

In the name of secular equality I pronounce against cultural identity an individual choice.

by Caspian Fri Jan 23, 2004 03:51

These young women wearing these scarves are being forced to do so by fundamentalist young men in their colleges and schools. It is not their parents who are making them wear these ridiculous hijabs.
Ireland is a newcomer to Islam. Twenty years ago Muslims were nowhere to be seen. England and France have had these backward people living there for many years now.
Ten years ago most muslims where still keen to assimilate into the Western way of life and it was virtually unheard of for young muslim women born in England or France to wear these restrictive headscarves. It is only with the coming of the radical muslim symbolised by the likes of Osama Bin Laden that the wearing of headscarves suddenly became radical chic among young muslims.
Also you will notice the young men will wear a beard that does not include a moustache. They also wear their trousers at half mast.
You must have seen this! Maybe this phenonomen has not hit Ireland yet.
I asked a young muslim fellow last week why he was wearing his trousers in this way and he said Allah considered it boasting to cover the ankles! Wha? He said it was a sign of pride. Hmm. He lost me there.
In Afghanistan before the Taliban took over, women were free to wear what they bloody well wanted and they were encouraged to do away with the Burkah. They actually had equal rights in an Arab country. It was nominally a socialist society.
Most of the people supporting the demo against the French ban are most likely in their twenties or younger. Don't they know anything about the history of the womens movement? Have they never read "The Female Eunoch"? Have they never burned a bra?
Take a look at the repressive Arab societies. Look how women are treated there. Read Jenny James's account of her trip to Palestine and her revulsion at the way even progressive Palestinians treated their women.
The woman who hijacked that plane in the seventies and became an icon, almost, for the womens movement would be appalled at how the fundamentalists have taken over Palestinian society. The one Arab posting here, Khalid, has no time for the idiots who support the wearing of long black robes as in Iran. Take heed of what he says.

Oppose this religious nonsense, just like you opposed the perverts in the Christian Brothers who abused Irish children for hundreds of years. Set muslim women free!

I spend half my time in London and half in Dublin. Around the corner from me in London there is a block of ten flats owned by an Arab.
Every flat is occupied by an Arab family. NONE of the women are allowed out of the flats. They have Arab satellite TV. The windows are covered over night and day. The only time these women are allowed out are when they have to see a doctor (female) and when they give birth.
This is happening right here in London. Not in deepest and darkest Yemen.
What's the bets it is already happening in Dublin? Is this what you are supporting when you demonstrate for young girls "freedom" to wear the jihab?

by bellestars Thu Jan 22, 2004 16:19

Women who have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy treatment, whose hair has fallen out, sometimes wear head scarves, should the law also ban the wearing of these head scarves.

Orthodox Jewish women are required to wear wigs, or shawls, should these be banned too.

Elderly greek women also have a habit of wearing head scarves, should these be banned too.

People and women in a free democratic society should have the right to choose to observe their religious, traditional, social customs if they so wish. If they don't want to thats fine as well. It seems strange and harsh and intolerant to ban them from expressing their religious,social, or a traditional identity.

It seems our governments are becoming more and more totalitarian in terms of regulating individual appearence and clothing, which is a bad sign.

Some muslim women may be forced to wear hijab, by their traditional older generation family members, in cases like that, the authorities have a right to step in and support a women who chooses not to wear hijab, but more than likely the wearing of hijab is just a temporary phase young women go through within certain customs.

To ban them from doing so, may push them into the camps of real religious extemists, who are seeking to exploit the situation for their own religious/political advantage.

The wearing of headscarves is unfaltering in everyday life and impractical when participating in sporting activities, but banning the wearing of headscarves is equally stupid.

by Anto - secular socialist Thu Jan 22, 2004 14:41

The issue of wearing headscarfs is an issue of the human right to the freedom to practice any religion you so desire. Socialists should always defend these rights and socialists have done in the recent intimidation of catholics attending mass in NI. That isn't support for the catholic church but a defence of the right to practice your personal religious beliefs.

The problem isn't related to any particular religion but appears to be when a religion has a monoply in society. Both in Ireland and many islamic countries religion has been afforded a position that allows influence on the state. There should a complete seperation of church and state. In Ireland, for example religious representatives should be removed from all management posts in state funded schools and the land that they are built upon should be purchased by the state. All religious education should be voluntary, decided by the parents and religious teaching should be outside the school.

There is no contradiction in defending Muslim womens right to wear the Hijab in France or anywhere else that it is forbidden and also to protest for the right of women in Islamic countries for the right NOT to wear one if they so wish.

by pat c (not in cork any longer, thanks be to darwin) Thu Jan 22, 2004 14:06

paul, its one thing to oppose the state ban, right on. but its another to support the oppression of women. the wearing of the hijab is a statement that women are subsrvient to men. if that is not the case then why dont islamic men have to cover their features?

its not so long ago that the catholic mullahs ruled ireland and they still have a big say in education. there should be no place in education for any religion. there are just as many pedo islamic clerics as catholic ones.

neither christ nor thor nor allah! they all should be laughed at!

no gods!
no masters!

by Paul in Cork Thu Jan 22, 2004 13:43 ardhanishvara at hotmail dot com

Idiots like that right wing Islamophobic gay man who was unfortunately martyred in the Netherlands buy right into te rulers' divide and rule strategy. Unless we oppose all hate -mongering it could easily be our group next. (they came for the Muslims..)
Hierarchical leaders need Enemies that they can whip up hatred against to enable them to build support for themselves , they must be permanently at war to justify emergency power to take away our freedoms. Islamic Conservatives and Capitalist Christian Conservatives need each other. Attacks on Islam make it harder for liberals and feminists within Islam in the same way that Sept 11th made it harder for dissidents in the West.
As a Pagan I believe that cultural diversity, like ecological diversity is important. Its only a decade or so ago that the Western press was labelling all Pagans as child abusing Satanists. Pagans should learn from that and oppose Islamophobia
How would we feel if there was a ban on wearing peace symbols in schools?Its always the easier targets first when they're taking away our freedoms.

by iosaf Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:47

in the Editor's choice section of the English Guardian, issue week Bush's visit to the UK.

included were several sources of informed opinion, which also made direct comparison to the continuing presence of the "crucifix" law in Italy, and the continuing presence of the "hijab" ban in the state of Turkey.
Turkish women students and civil servants are disallowed from wearing the Hijab, it is a "political symbol". The Hijab as worn in Ireland is not so, it is an important symbol of a new ethnic minority and one that deserves our complete and considered support. Equally they do not deserve to be manipulated by simplistic marxist knee jerk merchants.

by MrDisco - SA Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:33

NOBODY chooses religion/

This law is NOT anti-islam, its anti-religious/

France is a republic, not a christian state, or an islamic state, or a jewish state/

I CANNOT understand the SW line on this issue, and suspect "recruiting religious youth" as a reason, i hope im wrong/

This makes a farce of the anti-war aims of the IAWM, and shows its no more than another front. Remember this war is at least partly rooted it the dogma of 2 opposing religions, along with the widely expressed capitalistic reasons/

by B Thu Jan 22, 2004 01:58

from the obvious interest in this issue and the debate that has ensued the SWP did not think this one out very clearly.
They did not distinguish clearly the type of support they were offering on the issue of choice to wear the Hijab, of course for me if they agree with what I have just written in my previous comment then I have no problem with them attending the said demonstration, but they then would have been aware of the oppresive element of Islamic worship that they would be rubbing shoulders with and so should have gone out of their way to explain clearly their opposition to that, prior to the demo and at the demo.

by B Thu Jan 22, 2004 01:46

Children are indeed not their parents property, but jesus without going completely off the rails here ,, the parents do buy their bleedin clothes and dress them in them, what I am saying is you cannot deal with the issue of removing religion from state shools by banning certain religious garb. If the school structure itself does not display any form of religious symbols, and does not teach any religious doctrine than that is suffice, but to impinge on the children in a personal civil liberties issue (albeit the parents influencing the childrens form of dress) These are 2 separate issues to oppose.......

! the french gov, has overstepped the mark and this decision as we can see will only add petrol to the fire and be used by Islamic fundamentalists (who uphold and support the subordination of women in many ways) and create further fear between the ordinary people of differnt ethnic origins and religions.

2The obvious second issue is that of the sexist patriarchal nature of fundamental Islamic teaching, there are obviously practising Moslims who do not have anything to do with this and women are not discriminated against any more or less than in any other organisation. But unfortunatety the former situation exists and that is why these religious leaders and their teachings should be opposed but not through the parents and kids being told how to dress by the French state. Without education and support oppressed Moslim women cannot be helped, as noted elsewhere on this thread there are such organisations in both Iran and Iraq that are fighting on behalf of these women.

Now as for listing all the "evils' that exist within most if not all organised religions hen it would be a long list.
But the day people can be convinced of these well you know that sayin.....that'll be the day....
One step at a time, lets try and see if we can sort out some politricians first!

by iosaf Wed Jan 21, 2004 15:57

in favour:
Extreme Islamic groups linked to Hamas.
against:
the Imam of the Paris Mosque.
in favour:
Islamic solidarity groups in Asia without seular state school systems.
against:
The King of Morroco who last week passed extensive legislation in favour of normalised women's property rights in Morroco.
in favour:
President Bush. his office made a statement condemning France.
against:
Most left solidarity groups in Europe chose to let the French resolve "internally" this problem.
in favour:
The Irish Socialist Workers who chose to support the demonstration and internationalist it through the umbrella front IAWM.

by Leon Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:26

Shaun, the other teachers were right your friend is an idiot. BTW why is racist sloganeering more offensive in a mojority nonwhite environment.

Surely much more threatening for Asian/ Black students in a school that is 90% white.

That woman had no business being a teacher, mind you a good teacher is a rare bird like a black swan.

Also for the person who talked about individual rights to dress your child as you please. CHILDREN ARE NOT PROPERTY.

Moderators why not concatenate the 2 threads on this issue or delete one.

by nologo Wed Jan 21, 2004 04:15

A short while back I saw a junkie wearing a stars_&_stripes headscarf, I wonder what is the difference between her and the (slightly more upmarket) fashion victims who wear the USA flag on t-shirts and sweaters.
As for comparing the clothing and emblems promoted by either religion or the state, both are obnoxious. I look forward to when these girls become teenagers and start rejecting what their parents and other authority figures dictate to them.
Just wondering, how would some of these people react if RBB or Joe C went on demos wearing one of those scarves? I bet they would be lynched!

by .b Wed Jan 21, 2004 03:15

how the state wants you to dress your child
Has the state got the right to tell parents how to dress their children
Not all mothers who wear the hajib and dress their daughters in one are forced to do so

Do you find a nine year old wearing the hajib as offensive as a nine year old wearing a t-shirt with the brand gap/nike printed across the front or with some sexual slogan printed across the chest or butt.
Or the millions of T-shirts jumpers sold round the world with the american flag on them!!!!
State sponsored or Religiously symbolic what's the difference ? some. Which is worse? depends
??????????????????????????????????????????

get real there should be no doubt surrounding this issue.

by Shaun Tue Jan 20, 2004 22:17

All this reminds me of an incident in a comprehensive school in South London, where a friend of mine was teaching. Like most English schools, uniforms were compulsory and as usual there was some variation from this which was tolerated.

My friend objected to a girl arriving in school wearing Docs and a Union Jack headscarf, imposed the rule and the girl was excluded when she refused to comply. Fact was that this gear was commonly recognised as BNP gear - the girl was making a "statement" - and was particalarly offensive in a school where only 10% were ethnically white English. This didn't matter however to some other teachers who rounded on her because she was Irish and accused her of anti-British prejudice! Not only that, but the local rag, the South London Press, ran a headline "Patriotic Child Expelled from School".

The obvious difference here is that the ban seems to be particularly aimed at an ethnic minority (Catholics are going to be al;lowed to wear small crucifixes - why?), but the difficulty is that surely it is objectively correct for the French to insist that their schools be secular and non-partisan?

by mise Tue Jan 20, 2004 21:50

It is also worth noting that thongs ahve been banned on girls in primary schools in France.

First they came for those who wore thongs........

It has already begun

by Me Tue Jan 20, 2004 21:45

The law is superfluous. nothing anyone has said can convince me otherwise. You say france has been non-religious for 100 years well then why now? the way some people here are talking about Muslim faith is very paranoid. Let the kids wear what they like in school. It's a non-issue. I have no religion but I don't like seeing minorities get heat.

by pat c Tue Jan 20, 2004 17:18

they put headscarfs on girls, then they made women wear tents, then they stoned gays to death. you are on a long slippery slope.

by Pastor Newbie Tue Jan 20, 2004 17:07

First they came for the Muslims, but I did not resist because I am not a Muslim and I was too busy slagging the SWP

Then they came for....

You all know how this ends

by Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq Tue Jan 20, 2004 16:12

Counterdemonstration

On January 17, islamists have called for demonstration in London to protest the French government’s decision to introduce a law banning conspicuous religious symbols in state schools and state institutions. They claim this ban is discriminatory, against women’s equal rights, violates women’s and girl’s rights to education and work, restricts religious freedom and is even anti-pluralism and secularism.

All these claims are false and in fact a mockery of the very principles they feign to defend. Ironically, the very islamic movement that is renowned for intimidating, terrorising and violating women and girls and their rights, is using norms that are antithetical to its belief system and practice in order to maintain its repressive laws and clothing on women and girls.

Clearly, religion, religious symbols and religious freedoms are private affairs not the affairs of a state. In fact states are duty-bound to ensure that all religious symbols be abolished from state-run institutions and schools. This is an important aspect of secularism and not vice versa. Also, contrary to claims that it is discriminatory, the ban in fact reverses the discriminatory effects of religion on women and girls. Moreover, maintaining secularism has nothing to do with racism. It is in fact racist to create different laws for religious and islamic communities in the west and obstruct the access of women and girls in particular to the advances of civilised societies. Finally, protecting girls from the veil goes beyond issues relating to secularism and addresses the rights of the child from having religious views and clothing imposed on her by her parents through no choice of her own.

The Organisation of Women’s Liberation-Iran and the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq are confident that the proposed law by the French government is a step towards establishing a secular society. Secularism is one precondition for a free society and women’s equality. The enforcement of this ban will be a first step towards this though it must be extended to include the banning of religious schools and the prohibition of child veiling. We must not allow religious extremism and political islam to spread the rule of religion in society by means of intimidation, blackmail and threats. Religion must be relegated to a private matter. Religion must be separated from the state and educational system.

We invite all freedom-loving individuals and organisations to join us in counter-demonstrations on the same day in several countries, including England, Germany, Sweden and Norway.

Organisation of Women’s Liberation-Iran
Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq

by Mike the trot Tue Jan 20, 2004 15:16

Socialist and Muslims must unite and fight capitalism and the enemies of Islam! We are not going to discuss women's and gay rights with imperialists and infidels! Allah is great and Marx is his profet! Marx's revolutionary ideas and Allah's spiritual guidance will help us to smash capitalism and replace it with a socialist-islamic state!

by mockle Tue Jan 20, 2004 01:54

Sometime between 11 a.m. and 11.25 a.m. yesterday the statement by the IAWM referred to here was deleted from the IAWM website.

Does this mean:

(a) That some SWP spook issued the statement (Is that you, Richie?) and later the others deleted it when they realised what an embarassment it was.

(b) That it was a properly-discussed and voted-upon statement which was issued and later the others deleted it when they realised what an embarassment it was.

by Paddy McGinty - Anarchists for Chirac Mon Jan 19, 2004 23:00

Anyone who believes Bush is conducting a war on Islam is mad. There have been very few muslims rounded up in the US. Hardly ever have Bush regime figures and their apologists spoken of a "Clash of Civilisations". Muslims are very seldom beaten up in Frace by racist gangs (even less than white christians).
I say three cheers for the progressive Chirac and loud boos to the SWP for supporting Muslims' so called right to wear what they like to school.
Sorry have to apuse for the Angelis...

by Khalid Farouk Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:47

Girls are usually forced, through social pressures to wear the scarves and have very little real choice. Many girls that wear the scarf would prefer not to. It is much the same way that parents feel under pressure to baptise their child in Christian Ireland. The SWP should be saying this, they should be saying that many muslim girls come under tremendous pressure in the home to wear the scarf and that this is wrong and a form of opression.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:38

i am against the state banning this. but in very few cases will the girl have an actual choice. but no way has it got anything to do with the iawm.

by Dave Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:35

Getting religion out of schools is very progressive. Religious doctorine should not be taught in schools. All religious instruction should be conducted by the family or by the churches out of school time. What Chirac is proposing is not about a secular cirriculum it is banning the wearing of religious symbols that are worn by pupils. This is a completely different matter. What someone wears does not impact on what is being taught. Every pupil should have the right to waer what they wish in school.

by Khalid Farouk Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:30

There is nothin in the Quran saying that Muslim women must waer headscarves. I have studied the Quran, I grew up as a Muslim in Jordan. Headscarves are backward. Those that advocate them within the islamic religion are generally not very socially progressive.

In saying this, it is the right of Muslims or anyone to wear what they wish, especially when they percieve this as being part of their religion. The French government banning the headscarves are violating civil liberties.

Socialists and workers should oppose any infringment on civil liberties. But they should also critisise the backward conservative ideas that are held by many of those that support the headscarf. Socialists should be saying that you should not wear the scarf, it is a sign of oppression but that it is your right to do so if you wish. The SWP do not seem to be saying this. They are at one with the backward religious conservatives and are not attracting the progressive muslims.

by Janus Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:29

It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the ban also extends to things like the yarmulke (Spelling?) worn by male Jews and 'large crosses' whoever that is defined, worn by Christians.

I find it very interesting that the French Jewish community has accepted this decisions. I think people have allowed themselves to be railroaded into opposing something I see as quite progressive, getting religion out of state approved schools.

I think the SWP & Usual Suspects made a very bad call on this one.

by Leon Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:21

If the worst form of Islam is the Taliban (or even Aurungzeb) and the worst form of captalism is the Nazis one cannot say that the worst of Islam is worse than the worst of capitalism.

At any rate the comparison is specious, one can identify as a muslim and still believe in socialist ideals, however this demonstration was not about socialist ideals but about patriarchal control, and indeed the perpetuation of the religious elements in Irish society.

At any rate headscarves are clearly not required for muslim women, the issue is a valid one for the french state to raise (certainly more valid than the concommitant banning of skullcaps).

by Khalid Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:42

It seems the SWP are now saying Bush's wars on Afghanistan and Iraq was because they were Muslim countries. Previously they said it ws because the US were seeking to economically control the region. Which is their position? Have the SWP abandoned Marxism and taken up a islamic/nationalist view of the world?

by me Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:28

I do agree that the law is probably designed to target muslims but a side issue raised in this is the fact that the SWP pander to Islam. it was a major decision that they forced through because they are currently using the most idiotic of logics that my enemies enemey is my friend - Wake Up Islam in worst form is worse than western capitalism or at least as bad. It is colonial racist hierarchical and highly sexist. So any one who sees liberation of any kind be it in gender class etc. must see islam as an obstical toward in the same way catholicism or protestantism is

by Leon Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:23

The fact is that the anti war movement in this country is a racist movement.

Because America is the enemy those who oppose it must be supported, even if this means supporting evil. Of course the lives of the Arabs do not matter to the AWM people (they are just 'wogs' after all).

In the same way the AWM do not care about the hijab (it would be bizarre if they did) rather they seek to make common cause with other opponents of the American war.

That the hijab is symbolic of the way Islam (and most -all?- religions) oppresses women doesn't matter.

The girls being oppressed are only wogs after all.

by SWP&Islam Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:08

I saw the pictures of Saturday's protest. I found it disgusting that the SWP were calling the banning of the veil as part of a 'A War on Islam'. The SWP should come out in defence of civil liberties, but not pander the ISLAMIC FUNDEMENTALISTS.

They now seem to be saying that Bush is launching a War on Islam. If you are a Marxist you would say it's a War for OIL and Profits. Who says it's a War on Islam? Islamic Fundementalists do!

Who are the SWP orientating to? Are you orientating to people in the Muslim community that are against an attack on civil liberites? If you are then you would have a slogan like "Veils: Defend Freedom of Choice". That would mean you would attract the progressive women and young people in the muslim community that probably are opposed to the veil.

I have not read the leaflets that the SWP produced for the demo. But I'm sure that they did not criticise the Veil. Surely Socialists would make the point that the wearing of the veil is not a forward step, it subjects women and reduces their individuality. Socialists should openly attack the regressive elements in the muslim community that say the veil is compulsary according to the Koran. Taking such a stance would do more to attract radicalised Muslim women and young people.

instead the SWP opportunistically orientate to Islamic fundementalist and nationalist types.

by Mike Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:45

The SWP once said at their marxism event that there was a progressive element to fundamentalism. This is just another example. All people should have the right to wear any religious symbol they llike but not in secular schools.

by Oops Mon Jan 19, 2004 04:49

Getting your organisations mixed up, iosaf?

by iosaf Sun Jan 18, 2004 16:37

Huda is a Muslim educator and writer with over a decade of experience researching and writing about Islam on the Internet. An American woman of Irish/English descent, she has been a Muslim for over 14 years.
She is the author of The Everything Understanding Islam Book, published in 2003 by Adams Media Corporation. She has been active on the Internet for over ten years, and has been About.com's Guide to Islam since 1998. She currently teaches elementary school in the Middle East.
Huda holds an M.Ed. degree in Montessori Education, a B.S. degree in Child Development, and an elementary teaching credential from the Association Montessori Internationale. She is fluent in both French and Arabic.

She outlines the arguments FOR and AGAINST the law at this link:
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/i/france_hijab_2.htm

The SWP are very good at creating fronts, surely they could have created a new one, had a guest speaker, done the GPO, done the press releases and made new friends.
Instead they have politically linked the internal affairs of the French State with the movement against Irish Involvement in War which seems to imply there is a link between War and those internal affairs.

That is not only idiotic, it is bad politics, and without any prior discussion off such a position it is undoubtedly authoritarian.
They have thus not made new friends.

Are We all now to consider positions on potential internal Irish rights questions on these lines?
Because RBB and co. have in yet another attempt to manipulate the political weight of movement have opened those issues?

I'm quite sure the most mediocre thinking in Irish social movements and the articulation of campaigns emanates from the SWM., knee jerk knee jerk knee jerk
Really, Why can't you just give up?
Take up another hobby, or something.
get into techno records, or pot holing.
Why did you ever think about politics?

by Moore Street Sun Jan 18, 2004 14:16

Ah, sure god be with the days when most Irish women wore the headscarf. You could walk down Moore Street and you would be hard pushed to find any of the stallholders without one. But when I was growing up it was never the headgear of choice of the younger generation, they regarded it as old fashioned and the wearing of it eventually fizzled out.
I don't understand how they have religious significance, surely it is a fashion, and therefore temporary. What has it got to do with religion? other than being a cheap and easily folded item to cover the head when attending a prayer service, why are they obliged to wear them all the time? And why are these supposedly 'radical' young women not trying to do away with these restrictive traditions?

by Ninette Sun Jan 18, 2004 13:12 nina at ninette dot org

The headscarf is not only a piece of clothes. It is a strong political statement you blind people!
What's more, contrary to what you find in many other countries, in France state schools are the norm and also the best ones. It is the main place of integration. Also there are very few muslim shchool. So it is not practical for most parents to send kids to one. Because of all these reasons and the fact that school is compulsory, it is in fact likely that many parents will decide to adapt and continue to send their daughters to school without the headscarf, rather than taking them away.

This debate shows me how it is difficult for non french people to have an informed opinion on what is very much an internal society debate. It kind of scares me that, by their ignorance of social realities, people who are a priori supporting freedom and liberty of choices, end up supporting extremist religious groups. Let me see, wouldn't 'Freedom' and 'God' be the two favourite words of our dear Mister W. ? Huuum, bad sign!

by mockle Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:06

So I said to myself "How come the IAWM are latching onto this campaign, when it isn't a specifically anti-war issue?" It must be just a coincidence that it comes at the same time as this policy stance by the SWP

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1884/sw188405.htm

Good work Ritchie and Aoife.

by Daniel Sun Jan 18, 2004 01:17

This whole episode only goes to show the nature of the SWP. While on the one hand they describe themselves as socialist, on the other they cosy up to religious fundalmentalists in the hope of getting a couple of new members.
During the last century the religious right ran rampant in this country. Their rule was all-pervasive, it reached into every corner of our lives. There can be no going back to that kind of society. If people have religious beliefs that's fair enough, they can believe whatever they like, as long as they don't try to force their rules on everyone else, and they certainly have no right to impose those beliefs on innocent children. There should be no place for religion in anything that passes itself off as an educational system, except perhaps as an example of how not to organise society.
It is completely inappropriate for anyone describing themselves as a socialist, to support any policy which compromises the rights of people to live in a religion-free world.

by Phuq Hedd Sun Jan 18, 2004 01:05

Defining any clothing to be "religious" and therefore subject to a ban of some sort is an unwarranted intrusion into choice and individuality.

I suppose that we should insist that in order to comply with "Western" values women in Ireland should not be allowed to wear skirts which don't show their legs, or that they should only wear skimpy halter tops? After all to be obssessed about hiding any aspect of the female body is a repression of women.

It's to do with individual choice.

If we want to provide young women from Muslim homes, or Hasidic homes of Jehovas Witness homes or Catholic Irish homes with a chance to escape from the interfering, religious grasp of their parents then forcing them NOT to wear headscarves is probably not the way to do it.

Such a course is more likely to create an embattled, beleagured, inward looking community in which the only protection from the outside world is the authoritarian religious structure that you all claim to decry.

by Ninette Sun Jan 18, 2004 00:23 nina at ninette dot org

Pseudo Nam says this law is an attack on religious freedom. Well yes I guess it is. But religious freedom is not more important than equaliy of women and men. In fact the problem is precisly that they are equal principles.
Because of that there is no right or wrong, no perfect solution. It is about a social agreement amongst a society of what is more acceptable. So here the choice has to be made about what is more acceptable between (1) prevent girls from expressing their religious feelings by wearing the headscarf, but, insuring that some other girls will keep their right not to wear it (2) protect religious freedom, but, fail to insure that ones who do not want to wear the scarf might be forced to do so. None is right or wrong. They just show a different type of preferences.
As Helal Ben Shahar said France is not anti-Islamic, it is anti-religious. 100 years ago the leaders of laïcity were teachers and they were ferosiously against the catholic church. In France religion is a private business. No suprise then that even amongst the French Muslim community many people support this law, even if they criticise the way it was done. We can for exemple regret that the proposal of a Muslim and a Jewish bank holliday was droped.
For your information the group who organised the demo in Paris today are called the PMF (Parti des musulmans de France). They are an extremist group with known antijews (not only anti israel but also negationist) views. The MRAP (Mouvement contre le Racisme et l'Amitié entre les Peuples) and the Conseil des Musulmans de France, both much more representative, had not called to demonstrate with them because of these two reasons.

by Helal ben Shahar Sat Jan 17, 2004 23:40

EOIN.

This is Europe, a christian continent. Our major holidays are Xmas and easter, not Eid and end of Ramadan.

Get real. This PC crap has gone too far.

The Muslims are too pushy as it is, demanding that crucifiexes be remoed from schools in Italy. Their plan is to islaimsethe world. It's a fact.

by Eoin Dubsky Sat Jan 17, 2004 23:31

French public school holidays just happen to correspondent to the main Christian holidays. On Fridays in the public schools (three) which my girlfriend attended in Paris the canteen would serve fish instead of meat. Try skipping off school in France to observe non-Christian holidays. Or gently request that, as the Catholics get fish on Friday, you would like to eat the meat of your religious preference too sometimes (e.g. halal meat -- which I deplore btw). And I could go on.

by Helal ben Shahar Sat Jan 17, 2004 22:57

It is simply anti-religious. The republic of France is a secular state, no religion is officially endorsed.

A little quid pro quo would be in order here. In Italy, Muslims successfully campaigned to have crucifixes removed from schools.

When Muslims choose to live in another state they must abide by the laws of that state wherever reasonable. It is reasonable to demand that children do not attend school wearing religious garb. Frankly, schoolchildren are too young to decide what religion to follow.

by khilafah Sat Jan 17, 2004 22:44

It is clear that there must be an alternative to western foreign policy, Capitalism and liberal values. They simply cannot be reformed, cannot be sanitised and cannot be altered through changing the face of a particular leader from time to time. Mankind must search for a distinct and new powerful alternative to address the phenomenal challenges she faces today whether they relate to poverty, hunger, crime, third world debt or state terrorism. Being tough on Bush is not enough; we have to be tough on the system, values and philosophy which produce leaders of the nature of George Bush.

Allah (subhanhu wa ta’aala) says,

وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ
لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

"And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety and fear Allah, for Allah is acquainted with all you do" [TMQ Al-Ma'idah: 8]

by person or persons unknown Sat Jan 17, 2004 22:43

The IAWM should spend more time supporting protests and protesters here in Ireland
The IAWM need a kick in the pants.
No more politics, theres a war on and were up to our necks in it.
We have a UNIQUE Position in the EU and the IAWM need to start to show some real leadership, even if that meens making unpopular decisions.
No more politics
we only get one chance, stay luced, and remenber nothing will be as it seems in the next 6 months

by Oblesik Sat Jan 17, 2004 21:57

I am a French citizen, currently studying in Trinity College, Dublin. During the past eight months, I have taken an active interest in opposing thewar in Iraq. Because of that, I and a number of friendshave attended a number of demonstrations opposing the US war mongering and have marched behind IAWM banners. I beleived all this signified was my opposition to the war.

However, it would now appear that I have betrayed by republican principles by engaging in such an activity, as suport of the IAWM would appear to mean support of religious extremism. I am a strong supporter of ensuring that religion is kept out of the classroom, and feel betrayed that my anti-war activities are now being taken as oppostion to secularism and my state.

Could Mr. Boyd-Barrett and many of the other members of the IAWM i meet throughout the past 8 months, explain why in their cnversations with me, I was never once infomred that support of the IAWM entailed opposition to the secular nature of the Republic?

by me Sat Jan 17, 2004 21:30

I support the anti-war movement's decision and for following reasons: denying young girl's a right to education if discriminatory. where I live there are loads of muslims and many wear headscarves. It was only after 9/11 that anyone started seeing this people as extremists which they aren't or at least I have had no experience with any to say to me they are. It's a law against Muslims basically. I like Muslims they don't drink the live in cynical atheist countries and keep their faith and I've met a lot who have nothing against gayness etc. If that's their culture to wear the headscarf then let them. It's quasi fascistic to deny them education. OF course your right iosaf about the idiot writing his book, but no Muslim I've ever met would have time for such a man either. BY the way Muslims from many african lands have other ways of dress other than headscarf which may mean it could be viewed as a geographical thing: the way Irish wear loose jeans with no belts (humour). I don't care for religion either way but I don't want to see my neighbours being oppressed. I agree with you on most other issues iosaf but I believe this law to be superfluous, over the top, and sectarian.

by ec Sat Jan 17, 2004 20:54

That is sad.

by David Sat Jan 17, 2004 20:14

The wording at the top of this page is my own, i did not take quotes from an IAWM press release or the IAWM website (though i did consult it)

I don't think the IAWM have a mandate as an organisation to take a position on this subject. they are not a political party, they are an anti war umbrella group (allegedly)

by Pseudo-Nam Sat Jan 17, 2004 19:09

Hi, I just saw RTE tv news and they had a story on the protests, they had some stuff from Dublin. All the placards were SW or Muslim association ones. Clearly this was a protest that the SWP supported, as is their right. But why oh why did they have to try and wear their IAWM cloak? Liars, liars, liars. Did someone get their fronts mixed up and send it out from the wrong email address? The IAWM is going to be a laughing stock unless someone clarifies WHO made this decision and WHY it was made.

by pat c Sat Jan 17, 2004 18:22

thats what the iawm is and it should not be involving itself in this issue.as individuals rbb etc could always attend the demo. i dont support state laws to ban head scarfs but i think this type of obscurantism should be fought.

there is no way that girls have a choice about wearing them.

fight the mullahs!
fight the state!

by ipsiphi Sat Jan 17, 2004 16:19

I have sent my thoughts, and will await clarification of the IAWM proposals before launching into what could be a very divisive debate. However, whose "right to choose"?
That of female adolescents? That of their parents? That of their fathers or mothers? That of the teachers and citizens of the Republic to uphold one of it's founding principles that the state shall guarantee education in a secular environment?
The ignorance displayed is appaling, The French State has not just made a decision to "secularise" it's educational system, the Republic was founded on that idea.

by Moi Sat Jan 17, 2004 16:13

It is totally outside the remit of the IAWM to take a position on this issue.
In this country we have seen for ourselves the results of the control of education by the various religions, so how can support of religious fundamentalism be even contemplated?
As for the SWP, I thought they were supposed to be "socialist"? It may seem a bit odd that a "socialist" party are at the forefront of opposing secularisation, but considering some of their other antics I suppose we should not be too surprised.
If they genuinely had a good grasp of socialism they would be able to see the difference between opposing racism and supporting religious dictats of one kind or another.
Or could this be a deliberate attempt to split the anti-war movement?

by Anti War Sat Jan 17, 2004 15:27

I fully support the right of the IAWM to throw its not inconsiderable moral weight behind the defence of the right to "choose" whether or not to display religious symbols in French schools. As a Parsee Zoroastrian I am aware of the terrible persecution suffered by our people at the hands of the Iranian authorities because of the religious practise of "zaotâ frâ-mê mrûtê" (which is the wearing of "buyât mrûtê" a type of self castigatory wooden clog). This practise has been held to be Un-Islamic and therefore illegal in Iran. I hate to think that France, home of mime artistry, would now be venturing down this road. If no one else for example Sinn Fienn will not stand up for the rights of women to display they religious allegiance wherever they want then it is vital that the IAWM will act to prevent such awful persecution.

by the ipsiphi Sat Jan 17, 2004 14:28

is a base right of several European States.
It is the right to formative education without recourse to religious intimidation, religious provocation, or ethnic ghetto-isation of either one's own or others' group.

It is the right to a "Lay" and "secular" educational system.
I condemn the idiotic, mal-informed, and apparantly heirarchial decision by the IAWM to "throw it's weight" behind, any campaign to reverse recent judicial decisions in the European States of
France, Germany or Spain.

The IAWM has long been tolerated by many of us, as a pretty good grouping at what it's brief is "opposing war and Ireland's involvement in that".

It ought stick to it's brief.

I challenge openly the leadership and members of the IAWM to justify this decision to frame Irish Ethnic Rights concerns in a Mainland European Context.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63036

iosaf mac diarmada.
C/Templers 14,1º,1ª
Barcelona
00 34 618 870 754
Jan 17. 2004

by ipsiphi Sat Jan 17, 2004 14:18

I furthermore support the campaign to stop the abuse of women symbolised by this weeks decision by a Barcelona Judge to convict an Imam for writing a book of instruction on Islamic family life which included a chapter on "how to physically castigate a wife without leaving evidence, bruises or cuts".

Europe has complex religious roots, and those roots are arguably strongest in the formative years of European childrens' lives, most prominently in Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and those countries where the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold it's entrenched influence in educational institutions. However those values most esteemed by libertarians, are the distilate of those christian roots, and are no longer to be seen as their product but are still inalienably linked to that philosophical and mystical tradition which is "european".
Judaism, Islam too have played their roles in shaping Europe, and will so in the future, but the contemporary rise of provactive use of religious symbols be they of any of the monotheistic traditions are hopelessly difficult to distinguish from political symbology, and are presently _an affront_ to the values of the French Republic, and of the German.

Some opinion formers are too far away and too slow to take interest to really get it right.
Being against "war" is very easy in comparison.

by Pseudo-Nam Sat Jan 17, 2004 14:14

I agree absolutely with opposing the French law, I think it's an attack on religious freedom. HOWEVER why is the Irish "anti-war" movement doing the campaign? Surely it should be one of the other fronts, maybe the Anti-Nazi league instead. Or the SWP could create a "broad-based" campaign against the law.

The IAWM is supposed to be an anti-war movement. If it gets involved in every cause that appeals to the SWP then it won't be taken seriously when the time comes for an actual anti-war protest or direct action!