This is beginning to read like a Eugene Ionesco play. Education Minister Luc Ferry on Tuesday had an admirable go at taking to logical extremes the dictates of the proposed law banning “ostentatious” religious symbols from France’s public schools. Where exactly on the slippery slope of diminishing freedoms will the line be drawn for religiously inclined schoolchildren?
Beards are out. But only if they are judged to be a sign of faith in religion: “As soon as it becomes a religious sign and the code is apparent, it would fall under this law,” Ferry said. No word of whether pleading an affinity for Che Guevara will get you off the hook.
So are bandannas. But only if they are judged to be religious. “The bandanna, if it is presented by young girls as a religious sign, will be forbidden.” I suspect Madonna merchandise may make a sudden comeback.
But lack of a bandanna is also definitely suspect:
He also contended that hairstyles or the wearing of certain colors could be a source of manipulation. “Signs could be invented using simple hairiness or a color,” he said. “Creativity is infinite in this regard.”
Simple hairiness? The French Minister of Education just lamented French schoolchildren’s infinite creativity? Marilyn Manson’s act cannot possibly survive this onslaught of truly depraved hairy religionists.
Turbans are so out. When the law was first proposed, everyone forgot the Sikhs. Their men are obligated to wear a turban at all times. Nevermind that Sikhs died fighting for France in WWI — with their turbans on; this terrible symbol of male oppression will now also be banned, logically, even though the only way to get between a Sikh and his turban is to pry it off his cold, dead head.
I think it’s Ferry who’s lost his head. I may be wrong though: today I found myself in agreement with the Pope, who said that the law “could effectively endanger religious freedom,” though he was roundly chided for the comment by the unfortunately named Bernard Stasi, the official who first proposed the ban.
Ferry forgot to ban baldness. Shaving your head to be a Buddhist acolyte is right out.
Nor can you grow your hair long. Hassidic Jews must get haircuts.
Crewcuts are deemed acceptable; crewcuts and little square moustaches.
I like it! Naturally bald Buddhists should be forced to wear wigs to work; Orthodox Jewish women must take their wigs off, and monks with bald patches must wear a hair piece.
stefan, thanks for your ongoing coverage of these hair-rising french efforts.
what is the stated motive of these lawmongers? further segregation of church and state?!?
if so, shouldn’t one focus on the “output” of schools and other institutions – i.e. make curricula and teaching material religion agnostic – instead of the “input”, i.e. who goes to school and what particular dress code or religion they follow?
i just don’t get it
Title of this blog should have been the title of the one below. It is Very Unfortunate, but (as might be suggested by the fact that the Pope and Stefan agree) you are actually talking sense on this issue, Stefan. I hope whatever it is you’ve caught isn’t terminal.
Hello Stefan!
Nice coverage of the frog situation. But I think you got it wrong with the Sikhs. Quoting a Reuters story today: “Sikhs – of whom there are over 5,000 in the Paris area – also wear beards because they do not cut their hair. Ferry said they might still be able to wear discreet turbans to school but did not mention their facial hair.”
I guess they will be allowed to wear discreet turbans just so they can cover the religious hair…
Ah yes, it appears the Sikhs’ appeal worked (but we know that from The English Patient). Very disappointing to see a measure of capriciousness injected into these fine Napoleonic codes.
Perhaps Ferry just realized that Sikhs can beat him up.
I believe French politicians haven’t got a clue about Sikhism, as my link alludes to (“There are Sikhs in France?”) They are about to find out Sikhs wear beards, and then will be in the fine position of having to allow Sikh beards but not Muslim beards, because, you know, one kind is a militant statement while the other is discreet.
Further clarification on the Sikh exemption:
“Ferry did not, however, make it clear whether Sikhs could wear turbans themselves or only the “patka” scarf worn underneath. Sikhs also wear beards, and Ferry had said they would be forbidden as well, if worn for religious reasons. Singh said Sikhs renewed their appeals to the government after Ferry’s statement.”