Blessed Posted March 23, 2004 Salaams, this is a debate between the Mayor of London and the PM of France. I know, it's long but it is worth the read. You've made a big mistake Ken Livingstone tries to engage the French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in a debate about banning the hijab Ken Livingstone and Jean-Pierre Raffarin Saturday March 13, 2004 The Guardian The following exchange began in the run-up to the French vote on banning the wearing of muslim headscarves in state schools. French Muslims opposed the ban, but the National Assembly voted in favour. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, is awaiting a reply to his second letter: Dear Prime Minister, I would like to convey to you my concerns around the debate in France on the right to wear the hijab and other religious symbols in the public arena. London's diverse population includes large Muslim communities and I am very concerned to ensure their full inclusion in the city's life. Any form of discrimination against their cultural and religious freedom has, in my view, the effect of stigmatising them. I believe that a move to ban the hijab and other religious symbols in state schools will inflame current tensions between communities and encourage attacks on minority communities, not only in France but also more widely in Europe. I realise that we come from political traditions that approach this issue from different perspectives. London's Sikh community also viewed with considerable concern the sight of their co-religionists demonstrating in Paris. The Sikh community in the UK went through this debate in the 1960s when Sikhs won the right to wear the turban while undertaking policing duties. This issue has, of course, an effect on Jewish, Hindu and Christian communities too. I would, therefore, like to appeal to you to reconsider restricting fundamental religious freedoms through the proposed legislation. Yours sincerely, Ken Livingstone Frances Response: Dear Mr Livingstone, Like Great Britain, France has a rich tradition and history of its own. Since the French revolution, it has regarded the citizen as forming part of a greater whole that, as such, guarantees him total religious freedom. Since the end of the 19th century, it has made the separation of the church and the state one of the foundation stones of its political system. Like Great Britain, France is a country of tolerance. However, religious freedom does not mean that we accept that any person may place his religious affiliation and community membership above the laws of our republic. In this sense, a state school is emblematic: it is a place of neutrality, the place where intellects and consciences are developed, and we do not want any pupil to parade his religious affiliation within the school. Nowadays, in our country, the proliferation of certain religious symbols in schools has reached the point where we consider it our duty to define the boundaries and not overstep them. Because such religious symbols acquire political significance, and the Islamic veil in particular harms our concept of the emancipation of women, we cannot accept them in the classroom. It is evidently not a matter of stigmatisation, but of having clear republican rules. At the same time, we are committed to a wide range of actions to combat any discrimination that victimises French people of foreign origin, and to rally all of society to ensure equality of opportunity among its citizens, another concept to which I know you are attached. Admittedly French and British traditions are very different from this point of view, but I would not like there to be any misunderstandings on either side of the Channel. This is why I have also asked all our diplomatic staff to explain our decision, which can sometimes be misunderstood when seen from beyond our frontiers. Be assured, then, that the draft law shall have no harmful consequences because it is specific to France. Yours sincerely, Jean-Pierre Raffarin Kens Response: Dear Prime Minister, I fully acknowledge and respect French republican traditions, which have played such a fundamental, progressive role in European history. Your letter suggests that the ban in state schools will maintain their neutrality as places of learning. If the objective were neutrality, this could be achieved by the equal treatment of all religions and none in the curriculum and extracurricular activities, while allowing Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others equal freedom of cultural and religious expression in the classroom. Banning children from expressing their religious and cultural identity is not maintaining the neutrality of the school, it is suppressing the right to religious and cultural freedom. Moreover, your letter makes clear that the objective of this legislation is not really neutrality between religions, but to discriminate against one particular religion - Islam. You single out the Islamic hijab for particular criticism on the grounds that it is contrary to your conception of the emancipation of women. This is obviously inconsistent with equality of religions. I understand that the European court of human rights has made clear that the right to freedom of religion excludes any state discretion to determine which religious beliefs are more or less legitimate. Some would argue that the attitude of the Roman Catholic church hierarchy on divorce and contraception is even more contrary to their conception of the emancipation of women. However, in our diverse societies such issues should be addressed by discussion in a framework of mutual respect, not state measures against manifestations of one religion judged less legitimate than another on what can only be subjective grounds. Indeed, in relation to the emancipation of women, I believe the relevant principle is that it must be the right of the woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab. If the state denies women the right to choose, it is violating their right to freedom of expression. If the hijab is to be deemed so unacceptable that it should be banned from schools by law, I fear that this ban will not be restricted to schools. If not reversed it could start a wider discrimination against Muslim women. Indeed, there are starting to be reports of examples of this in other French institutions. I have taken up this debate because the legislation adopted by France has opened a discussion of these issues throughout Europe. Many communities in London feel the outcome of that discussion will directly influence their religious and cultural freedoms. Yours sincerely, Ken Livingstone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Libaax-Sankataabte Posted March 23, 2004 Ameenah, was that televised? I am not sure about this but I think I heard a while ago that the Mayor of London is a jew. If that is the case it is understandable or atleast expected part of his discomfort to be stemming from the ban on the Jewish scull cap in France. Who knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
