France unveils 'secular charter' for all schools

[tay]

Education Minister Vincent Peillon says his new secular charter, which was revealed on Monday after 10am, is designed to promote "absolute respect for freedom of conscience".

The document is to appear in a prominent place in every school, in the form of a poster and is remind teachers and pupils of a list of secular, Republican principles.

The charter, which contains 15 articles, was officially unveiled in a special ceremony at a Lycée in Ferté-sous-Jouarre in the Seine et Marne department, near Paris.

The document itself contains a number of broad, philosophical principles, that have already provoked a backlash.

Article 9 states: "Secularism implies the rejection of all violence and all discrimination, guarantees equality between girls and boys, and rests on a culture of respect and understanding of the other."

While the charter allows for pupils' free expression, article number 11 states that "Staff have a duty of strict neutrality. They must not show their political or religious convictions in the exercise of their duties."

Article 11 emphasises the famous French Enlightenment values of scientific inquiry, and appears to prevent any possible disputes over evolution or sex education. "Lessons are secular...No subject is a priori excluded from scientific and pedagogic questioning. No student can invoke their political or religious convictions, in order to dispute a teacher's right to address a question on the syllabus."

In practice that means teaching staff must never give any indication of their religious (or political) convictions during lessons and that pupils cannot use their faith as a reason to challenge the content of the national curriculum, the manner of teaching or the rules of the school.

Of course, the charter affirms France's 2004 law, which banned the wearing of all "ostentatious religious symbols," and Article 13 appears to emphasise the point, perhaps as regards activities like sports and athletics.

"Nobody can avail of their religious affiliation in order to refuse to obey rules applicable in our schools."


France unveils 'secular charter' for all schools - The Local

 

[Spade]

This is a debate we as Canadians should be having in every provincial legislature responsible for the content and instruction in schools receiving public funds. There are religious private schools receiving provincial funds that openly teach that the earth is under 10 000 years old, that creationism is fact, that men walked with dinosaurs, that non-believers are dammed, and so on. This instruction must not receive state funds.

 

[Machjo]

Spade, this goes way beyond that to also covering what one wears.

Also, it is opening a whole new can of worms. For instance, supposing a non-Christian wears a cross for esthetic reasons, or a non-Muslim wears the veil. In such cases, does it mean tehy can wear it but the Christian and Muslim can't because for them it's religious?

Or if the government itself decides that the veil, cross, etc. is religious and will then apply this to all who wear these garbs for any reason, is it not then ironic that a supposedly secular government is now deciding what is and what is not religious?

Like I said, lawyers will have a field day over this.

 

[tay]

I'm all for removing the spiritual bs from earthlings as it hasn't done anything positive for them............


Quebec reveals religious symbols to be banned from public sector


Quebec reveals religious symbols to be banned from public sector - The Globe and Mail


Pauline Marois has marked her first year in power by claiming multiculturalism is to blame for violence and ‘bomb throwing’ in England as she seeks to push ahead with her controversial Charter of Quebec Values,

The Quebec premier, who says she is proud of her first year in power even though she admits it’s been difficult, told Montreal’s Le Devoir that secularism measures will be phased in over a few years.

She conceded that the French model of secularism “isn’t perfect,” Le Devoir reported, but Marois said that “in England, they’re knocking each other over the head and throwing bombs because of multiculturalism and nobody knowing any more who they are in that society.”

Marois blames multiculturalism for ‘bomb throwing’ in England, claims hijab is ‘form of submission’ | National Post

 

[WLDB]

Also, it is opening a whole new can of worms. For instance, supposing a non-Christian wears a cross for esthetic reasons, or a non-Muslim wears the veil. In such cases, does it mean tehy can wear it but the Christian and Muslim can't because for them it's religious?

Hmm hadnt thought of that though I do know a few people who do it. I know that at two of the places I've worked they would not have been allowed to wear them because it was a religious symbol.

Like I said, lawyers will have a field day over this.

They do with most laws.

 

[Machjo]

You missed the point, tay. I don't know if you are aware of this, but some non-Muslim women wear the veil for purely esthetic reasons. Why is a supposedly secular government now imposing a religious identity onto the veil of a woman who might not identify it as religious at all? Or what about the non-Christian who might wear a cross for purely esthetic reasons based on his taste of jewellery. I don't know if any non-Sikhs wear turbans, but it is a possibility if someone just likes it for instance, ofr for some non-religious cultural reason.

Don't you find it ironic that a supposedly secular government is now in the business of imposing a religious identity on garments that in some cases may have no religious association for the wearer?

And what about that big cross on the flag? Will they change that too?

Like I said, a whole can of worms.

Hmm hadnt thought of that though I do know a few people who do it. I know that at two of the places I've worked they would not have been allowed to wear them because it was a religious symbol.



They do with most laws.

Right. so for them, if it's for religious reasons, OK, otherwise no. Now had the charter based it on intent, then it would ironically have been the exact reverse of what you now describe. Instead, the government is deciding to take the rute of deciding for itself what is religious and what is not, which seems outside the purview of a supposedly secular government, which makes it totally ironic.

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

Looks like there will already be a court case on the horizon.

 

[tay]

You missed the point, tay. I don't know if you are aware of this, but some non-Muslim women wear the veil for purely esthetic reasons. Or what about the non-Christian who might wear a cross for purely esthetic reasons based on his taste of jewellery. I don't know if any non-Sikhs wear turbans, but it is a possibility if someone just likes it for instance, ofr for some non-religious cultural reason.

.

Can't say I've met a woman wearing a veil for esthetic reasons although I understand that happens at swingers clubs.

And anyone wearing a cross must understand what it implicates.

And Turbans? No, I don't see any non Sikhs with them either........


I suppose there would be a tiny minority that may wear symbols of the nature above because they are bored and not for the reasons intended but to that I say get a better taste in fashion........

 

[Machjo]

Can't say I've met a woman wearing a veil for esthetic reasons although I understand that happens at swingers clubs.

And anyone wearing a cross must understand what it implicates.

And Turbans? No, I don't see any non Sikhs with them either........


I suppose there would be a tiny minority that may wear symbols of the nature above because they are bored and not for the reasons intended but to that I say get a better taste in fashion........

I have met one non-Muslim woman wearing the veil for purely esthetic reasons, and from what she was telling me, others do to.

I'd also met a Chinese wearing a cross for purely esthetic reasons who was not even aware of any religious significance. That would be just like how the Swastika was a fashion symbol in the 1920s in Europe and the US prior to Nazi rule. In fact, Kipling had requested for one to show up in the front cover of one of his books and then asked to have it removed later as it increasingly became associated with Nazism which he despised even though he was an imperialist himself.

I've never met of a non-Sikh wearing a turban, though based on the observations I would not assume it to be impossible.

Of course a non-Muslim woman wearing the veil would likely not have an issue with being told to remove her veil at work, though I could immagine her being offended at being told to do so because it's a religious symbol, since then it's like imposing a religious identity onto her. Smae with a non-Christian wearing a cross.

 

[Machjo]

Another question that crossed my mind. I'd been reading that some women with hair loss for whatever reason, whether cancer or otherwise, would rather cover their head with a veil that with a whig, no religious intent at all.

How will that go down?

Not to mention that big white cross on the provincial flag.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Another question that crossed my mind. I'd been reading that some women with hair loss for whatever reason, whether cancer or otherwise, would rather cover their head with a veil that with a whig, no religious intent at all.

But possibly some political intent. Why else use a Whig?

 

[Machjo]

But possibly some political intent. Why else use a Whig?

A veil could be thinner or more practical in some respects, also more breathable.

 

[B00Mer]

Who care's about France, sorry to the OP but Quebec is trying to follow Frances standards right here in Canada!!!

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/118706-charter-quebec-values-collision-course.html

Justin Trudeau has bashed Quebec.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

A veil could be thinner or more practical in some respects, also more breathable.

Than what? A Tory or a Federalist?

 

[Machjo]

Than what? A Tory or a Federalist?

Er...?

Who care's about France, sorry to the OP but Quebec is trying to follow Frances standards right here in Canada!!!

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/118706-charter-quebec-values-collision-course.html

Justin Trudeau has bashed Quebec.

I think it's already moved in that direction in this thread.

 

[petros]

Nucking futs. Noix je parle. Noix.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Er...?

Are we talking about British Whigs or American Whigs?

 

[WLDB]

Who care's about France, sorry to the OP but Quebec is trying to follow Frances standards right here in Canada!!!

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/118706-charter-quebec-values-collision-course.html

Justin Trudeau has bashed Quebec.

The only thing that bothers me about the Quebec on is its inconsistency. It should be all religious symbols or none. I dont get why people are freaking out over it. It only affects people in the civil service while they are on the clock. On their free time they can wear whatever they want. Its just a dress code.

 

[Machjo]

Nucking futs. Noix je parle. Noix.

Sorry, it just does not translate. Yes, nuts are noix, but only in the strict sense of the food product, not mental condition. for that you could say fou.

Or ridicule.

Are we talking about British Whigs or American Whigs?

Ah...

The only thing that bothers me about the Quebec on is its inconsistency. It should be all religious symbols or none. I dont get why people are freaking out over it. It only affects people in the civil service while they are on the clock. On their free time they can wear whatever they want. Its just a dress code.

Big difference.

Supposing they had just said, 'no head dress', that might be acceptable depending on teh reason. But right now they're saying no headdress because headdress is religious. In that case, it's no longer just saying 'don't wear headwear', but also 'if you wear headwear, it's fore religious reasons' even though it may not be religious at all in some cases.

But even in the first instance, what would be the reason to prohibit headwear? Let's suppose for instance that they decide a miniskirt will be part of the attire. If a person refuses, would it be because they are too religious? I can appreciate a uniform, but it would not seem too out of place to consult at the grassroots to ensure it's a uniform all can accept, possibly even allowing for a uniform hijab for those who wish to wear one, for religious or other reaons.

Also, how do you tell a person their headdress is too religious while you have a flag with a big white cross sitting in the room?

 

[WLDB]

Supposing they had just said, 'no head dress', that might be acceptable depending on teh reason. But right now they're saying no headdress because headdress is religious. In that case, it's no longer just saying 'don't wear headwear', but also 'if you wear headwear, it's fore religious reasons' even though it may not be religious at all in some cases.

But even in the first instance, what would be the reason to prohibit headwear? Let's suppose for instance that they decide a miniskirt will be part of the attire. If a person refuses, would it be because they are too religious? I can appreciate a uniform, but it would not seem too out of place to consult at the grassroots to ensure it's a uniform all can accept, possibly even allowing for a uniform hijab for those who wish to wear one, for religious or other reaons.

Also, how do you tell a person their headdress is too religious while you have a flag with a big white cross sitting in the room?

Perhaps consultations on a new uniform should happen then. It'd be a reasonable compromise. Ultimately the government is their employer and they set the rules on dress codes. Just like private companies do the same. The people have the option of quitting and looking elsewhere for work or in this case writing their MPP and try to make it an election issue. Given Marois beat the Liberals by about 1% of the vote she is far from guaranteed another victory at the polls.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps consultations on a new uniform should happen then. It'd be a reasonable compromise. Ultimately the government is their employer and they set the rules on dress codes. Just like private companies do the same. The people have the option of quitting and looking elsewhere for work or in this case writing their MPP and try to make it an election issue. Given Marois beat the Liberals by about 1% of the vote she is far from guaranteed another victory at the polls.

The government is the employwer, but the government is also supposed to represent all Quebecers, not just those who identify with a cross on the flag.

Would it really be that out of place to propose a uniform hijab (let's say a standard white hijab for instance), or likewise a standard-coloured turban?