Religious Headwear Ban
As almost everybody should know, a few months ago, France passed a law banning the presence of all "visible" religious headwear or symbols in government buildings, including schools. I'm not usually the type to complain about racism and discrimination and things like that, however... I have noticed that a lot of right-wing bloggers and commentators shockingly AGREE with the merits behind having such a ban.
How could anyone agree with such a ban? Every reason behind the ban is ridiculous. I can only imagine that bigots or total ignoramuses could ever support such a measure, and it turns out that I was naive to think that supporters of the ban were limited to Europe - it appears that they also exist in North America.
The main reason behind the ban isn't anti-specific races or groups, it's anti-religion. The French people, by in large, hate religion, which is their right I suppose, but they hate it so much that they can't bear seeing others practicing it, which of course is one of the many reasons why every rational thinking person should hate France. They hate it when George W. Bush uses the word god, and I'm sure they hate it just as much to see Muslims dress in their traditional dress or when Sikhs (such as myself) wear their Turbans. There's subtely racist reasons for supporting the ban as well. Its one thing to believe that western culture is better than Arab culture, but its quite another thing to forcefully demand that Arabs and Muslims comply with western customs.
In North America, people who are "anti-religion" aren't that common. There's a bunch of people who seem anti-Christian, but not "anti-religion" as a whole. North Americans generally try to believe in diversity, pluralism and all that sort of stuff, even if they believe that the government should not fund multiculturalism programs... So why do some otherwise well-meaning people support France's actions? Its because a lot of "good" people try to show their support for the War on Terror in every way possible, even though they might have reservations about specific issues, which just strikes me as ridiculous. How does preventing people from practicing their religion and forcefully assimilating them help in any way? Isn't the allowance of freedom one of the central components of the War on Terror? Or am I missing something? Its one thing if Muslim girls were carrying bombs under their headscarves to school every day, its completely another thing to ban headscarves because you don't believe in their right to dress as they please, because of religion or any other reason.
And one last point, I suppose its alright for European governments to be aware and concerned that (radical versions of) Islam is (are) becoming the largest religion in certain portions of Europe, however, I sincerely believe that they should have thought of that before allowing them to immigrate. Allowing people to immigrate to a country under the assumption that they could freely practice their religion and then revoking that right is tragic. And if the French and others (the Dutch in particular) chose to restrict immigration, it'd be completely irrational to restrict immigration from specific countries. We might not hear about it much in the news, but a lot, if not the majority of Arabs, particularly the ones who are educated would be glad to live in western countries, in peace with their neighbours, working hard, contributing to society, etc. Its simply a failure of the immigration departments of most European nations in allowing people that are able to immigrate and then incapable of contributing meaningfully to society while disallowing or simply not seeking qualified, sincere immigrants. Check out Brock's latest post on immigration for a deeper understanding of the problems with most immigration systems. Just to sum up one point in his post: Immigration is not a system based on compassion, its a system based on welcoming those who sincerely wish to work hard, to estabilish families (to correct the west's horrible birth rate situation), and to contribute positively to society. The Refugee system is the system that is based on compassion, the two concepts should not be confused.
Just on a side note, a couple of months ago, when a couple of Iraqi terrorists kidnapped a couple of French journalists, I remembered a lot of people urging the French government to stay strong--which is admirable, however, a lot of other people also expressed support and agreement with the French government's actions in relation to the religious ban along with their support for the French government to not bend to the will of the kidnappers - I simply want to clarify the difference between these two positions, the first one is completely legitimate and good - the second is either misguided or supportive of bigoted/racist policy.
How could anyone agree with such a ban? Every reason behind the ban is ridiculous. I can only imagine that bigots or total ignoramuses could ever support such a measure, and it turns out that I was naive to think that supporters of the ban were limited to Europe - it appears that they also exist in North America.
The main reason behind the ban isn't anti-specific races or groups, it's anti-religion. The French people, by in large, hate religion, which is their right I suppose, but they hate it so much that they can't bear seeing others practicing it, which of course is one of the many reasons why every rational thinking person should hate France. They hate it when George W. Bush uses the word god, and I'm sure they hate it just as much to see Muslims dress in their traditional dress or when Sikhs (such as myself) wear their Turbans. There's subtely racist reasons for supporting the ban as well. Its one thing to believe that western culture is better than Arab culture, but its quite another thing to forcefully demand that Arabs and Muslims comply with western customs.
In North America, people who are "anti-religion" aren't that common. There's a bunch of people who seem anti-Christian, but not "anti-religion" as a whole. North Americans generally try to believe in diversity, pluralism and all that sort of stuff, even if they believe that the government should not fund multiculturalism programs... So why do some otherwise well-meaning people support France's actions? Its because a lot of "good" people try to show their support for the War on Terror in every way possible, even though they might have reservations about specific issues, which just strikes me as ridiculous. How does preventing people from practicing their religion and forcefully assimilating them help in any way? Isn't the allowance of freedom one of the central components of the War on Terror? Or am I missing something? Its one thing if Muslim girls were carrying bombs under their headscarves to school every day, its completely another thing to ban headscarves because you don't believe in their right to dress as they please, because of religion or any other reason.
And one last point, I suppose its alright for European governments to be aware and concerned that (radical versions of) Islam is (are) becoming the largest religion in certain portions of Europe, however, I sincerely believe that they should have thought of that before allowing them to immigrate. Allowing people to immigrate to a country under the assumption that they could freely practice their religion and then revoking that right is tragic. And if the French and others (the Dutch in particular) chose to restrict immigration, it'd be completely irrational to restrict immigration from specific countries. We might not hear about it much in the news, but a lot, if not the majority of Arabs, particularly the ones who are educated would be glad to live in western countries, in peace with their neighbours, working hard, contributing to society, etc. Its simply a failure of the immigration departments of most European nations in allowing people that are able to immigrate and then incapable of contributing meaningfully to society while disallowing or simply not seeking qualified, sincere immigrants. Check out Brock's latest post on immigration for a deeper understanding of the problems with most immigration systems. Just to sum up one point in his post: Immigration is not a system based on compassion, its a system based on welcoming those who sincerely wish to work hard, to estabilish families (to correct the west's horrible birth rate situation), and to contribute positively to society. The Refugee system is the system that is based on compassion, the two concepts should not be confused.
Just on a side note, a couple of months ago, when a couple of Iraqi terrorists kidnapped a couple of French journalists, I remembered a lot of people urging the French government to stay strong--which is admirable, however, a lot of other people also expressed support and agreement with the French government's actions in relation to the religious ban along with their support for the French government to not bend to the will of the kidnappers - I simply want to clarify the difference between these two positions, the first one is completely legitimate and good - the second is either misguided or supportive of bigoted/racist policy.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
10:00 PM
1 Comments:
Interesting post. Nice blog too :) This post motivated me to write my own short piece on turbans and religious headwear. I hope you will appreciate it: http://ianism.com
Post a Comment
<< Home