Sikhs students in trouble

Jorge Reverter

The new law that bans any ostentatious religious signs in public schools in France, is making in serious troubles sikhs students in France. They were
asked to remove their turbans or leave the school...

Months ago french authorities assured the sikh community that an amicable solution would be found for sikhs students, but today things are not running well probably because the two french journalists are hostages in Irak.

Is a must to point out that the bill was passed by french parliament by 95%
of the votes.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...4,00050003.htm

lobo

It applies to other religious symbols like crosses, skullcaps , etc etc no one is directly discriminated against.
I understand why they have banned them at schools, if its passed as law in a democracy not much you can do about it.

oldhippie

Its their country (The French) so let them decide what's best for them. If the Sikhs have a problem they can always return to India or do something else with their hair. These days it seems like a lot of the sikhs are getting haircuts especially overseas.

__________________
Too Many Gandus, Too Few Bullets.

shere

Why should they return to India or do something else with their hair ? Their right to wear their religious symbols is enshrined in the various Human Rights Act/Treaties that France is party to. The keeping of hair is an essential part of Sikhism.

Its their country which the Sikhs helped to liberate. The French did not appear to mind the Sikhs during World War 2 when they fought wearing their turbans to liberate france.

shere

They are tied in what you term buns under their turbans. Its not as simple as what the French want to do as they have legal obligations under various laws/treaties.

Article 2 of the French Constitution specifies that France "respects all beliefs".

Articles 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".

The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees in its article 9 the "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" in the limit "as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

The Helsinki Final Act of 1975, signed by 55 nations including France,
engages these nations to respect the freedoms of "thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion". It also commits them to respect the "freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience".

IVAN

I couldn't care less about the issue. However, if the French law is really in contravention of the UN treaties France has signed, the obvious step would be to sue the French government to the relevant French court, or if it fails to the international court in Hague.

On the other hand, one can argue that formulations like "freedom of thought" and "freedom of belief" do not legally cover the right to wear distinctive signs in school (ie. they can still think and believe what they want).

__________________
** Humor is Freedom **
Check my Links -> http://www14.brinkster.com/jnana/links.htm
cum grano salis

shere

If you could not care less then why comment ?

Its good to know there are more caring people in the world like those who risked the lives of our soldiers to sort out the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.

IVAN

Ah I see that we are a bit on the agressive side, aren't we?
Well, I will comment what I like, the way I like, for whatever reason I like, and not loose any sleep if you don't like it.

Comparing this issue with the war in ex-Yugoslavia is inane, and the fact that you do denotes more of a ideologic, fanatic character whithout a sense of reality, than a caring one.

As for the "caring people" you are talking about, a good book about them is the "Unfinest Hour: How Britain Helped to Destroy Bosnia" by Brendan Simms (and it doesn't tell the whole truth either, not by far).

Some argue that the British did send their people to secure their interests in the region.
And I do have first hand knowledge about the dirty activities of their secret services during the war and afterwards.

shere

If was you who said you could not care less. If you think logically if you do not give two hoots about a matter then why bother making comments. Where is the aggression in the post. You are obviously irritated easily which leads you to perceive posts like mine as being agressive.

The comparison to the Yugoslav conflict was to demonstrate to you how caring people can make a difference and why people should care. My comments were not limited to military intervention but also to the aid agencies who operated over there funded by donations from caring people across the world.

As to your conspiracy theories, I have knowledge of the dirty activities of Croat paramilitary forces in Bosnia and in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, so it was good that caring people went in and not everyone in the world has a negative attitude. Just think if the world had not cared about the actions of the Croatian Ustashi who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. It is good we have people who were concerned about this issue and helped overcome such oppressive people.

shere

I do not recall such terrorists actions occuring in India where there are 20 million Sikhs, many of whom wear turbans. Same in the UK, Singapore, Pakistan, Malaysia, Kenya, UAE which have turbanned Sikhs.

I suggest you read a bit more about the problems in Chechnya etc before trying to link the terrorist outrage in Beslan to the French issue we are discussing. I find it in very bad taste that you try and link the two.

Digital Drifter

This is actually an explosive topic in some ways. If I remember
correctly what the authorities wanted to do was to ban overt symbols
of religion, which has no place in schools.

Before I start my rant, let me make my position clear, so that my
biases are visible for all to sneer, snub & spit.

I'm atheist. I believe that's rare for an Indian, even more so for a
South Indian Tamil Brahmin. As you can see, us Indians have this
weird habit of taking opposite points of view simultaneously! :-)

The idea behind the ban is correct, how to implement it is a different
matter. Religion has no place & use in schools. People can be taught
to be moral & ethical without religious upbringing. We'd like our
children to be brought up where there is a natural respect for
differing ideas and faiths; to foster that, we'd need an atmosphere
where everyone is treated equally, something no religion does. There
is always the faint innuendo of favouritism/apathy based on religious
affiliation.

I believe the French authorities were trying in the best interests of
everyone concerned over the same. & they will most probably fail or
backtrack. It's like trying to define pornography[1]; hard but you
can't fail to rate something as such the moment you see it. That's
how difficult this is, I like the intent but I fear the rabble will
warp it to the point where the State will be seen as the instrument of
oppression.

Cheers,
Digital Drifter

Footnotes:
[1] Is it nudity? Is it the showing of private body parts? Or the
consensual part? In each question, one can end up naming works of
great beauty which will have to be taken down or thrown out.

oldhippie

Seriously guys..None of us are Sikhs or French so let them sort it out. Its pointless wasting our time over this issue as it does not concern us in any way.

As for the Sikhs I know loads of them in Hong Kong and most of them chop off their hair these days and refer to themselves as "Cut Surds". Maybe this only happens in Hong Kong.

Back to the travel issue now.....

shere

Well the Sikh panth des not consider them as Sikhs and they are referred to as the fallen ones. Oh and I am a Sikh

UncleJoesMintballs

The question is, where do you stop? What defines a religion? If I have my own religion which I claim requires me to wear one-legged trousers, then French schools could be required to allow me. It could be mayhem! You could try to define an allowable set of religions whose attire is allowed, but would this be legally sound - ie if your religion is allowed, why isn't mine (even if my religion only has one worshipper)?

Also, am I right in thinking that the turban is more a cultural phenomenon rather than a religious diktat?

Ian

shere

It may be cultural for Hindus and Muslims but Sikhs are required to keep their heads covered with a turban.