Terrorist attacks throughout Europe

I didn’t say it was yet comparable with the dominance of the Catholic Church through the 19th century. I think no religion in France should be able to strive for such dominance again.

Is that a danger with less than 10% of the population being Muslim?

and what the hell does it have to do with headscarves

Eep sorry, you’re talking about Läciteé, my bad. I’m just not going to do this.

xxp guess it depends on whether or not you're a history teacher

Great book on the veil in the Bloomsbury 'Object Lessons' series by Rafia Zakaria.

while i agree with a lot of your post gyac, as a general point it's perfectly possible to be an intelligent woman that thinks for herself while at the same time living in a system that punishes women for certain choices or behaviours. so i don't think it's as clear-cut (not just in these circs) as being thoughtless drone vs capable woman.

Yeah, the idea that Islam could achieve "dominance" on the level of the catholic church in France just seems insane to me - it's a minority religion whose adherents are marginalized and racialized within French society, its penetration into government and business elites is minimal. Follow the money, as always with these things.

Noodle Vague the ban was aimed at all religious symbols. My Jewish students don’t wear kippah in class. I’ve never seen a crucifix on a student.

This seems dishonest, too - the ban was clearly created to target Islam, it wasn't christian or jewish symbols being used in class that triggered its creation (or else it would have existed ages ago). The fact that the law itself includes all religious symbols doesn't change that.

it seems to me that such a blanket ban quite deliberately ignores the differences between the cultural meaning and importance of different symbols and the extent to which they're cultural markers as well as religious ones

and the extent to which this doesn't create a cultureless space but a space containing only state acceptable cultural signifiers, including but not limited to brand logos for example

as well as the acceptable dress codes that women of all cultures are surrounded and pressured by

So we agree that laicite is western chauvinist bullshit, then?

Not necessarily, I fully acknowledged the need for it and why French people value it. Sadly we’ve had a couple of examples itt how people can use it as a wedge for bad faith or just utterly mad arguments.

the extent to which this doesn't create a cultureless space but a space containing only state acceptable cultural signifiers

there were some exceptionally brazen examples in Quebec iirc

Yeah, tbh, from my understanding at this point, laicitee is mainly a way of justifying French racism and Islamophobia and attempting an erasure of its colonial, western chauvinist history.

gyac otm imo and thank you for that.

Last year at this time I worked in a school, and it was also a polling place. I walked in on voting day and one of the poll workers was a tiny woman in full niqab, covering her face except for the eyes, sitting at a table ready to help you vote in a democratic election. Possibly she was also there as a interpreter, to help her community exercise their rights in a new country.

It was a real "his heart grew by three sizes that day" moment.

and the extent to which this doesn't create a cultureless space but a space containing only state acceptable cultural signifiers, including but not limited to brand logos for example

― Notes on "Scamp" (Noodle Vague), Monday, October 19, 2020 11:16 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Also soooo good. Again, the only protected acts are acts of capitalism--weren't UKers just saying this in the "why are all the rona regulations completely nonsensical?" thread?

Yes - some of them regs here are straight up 'spend money or don't do it' - like you can't get together with a group of mates to play football but you can take part in paid organised football coaching sessions. My daughter can't practice dancing with her friends (with whom she shares a classroom and a schoool bus) but they can go to the dance school. I can't meet my father in his house but I can meet him in a cafe etc.

That is absolutely bonkers, though unsurprising

This is a good article from a French point of view on the differences between French and American responses to the murder of Samuel Paty. Because it's behind a paywall, I copied the text here. This message board ILX is almost exclusively used by Anglo-Americans, and so the article helps me understand where posters on this thread are coming from.

Apaise-t-on une société ouverte en veillant à n’offenser personne ou en apprenant à tolérer les offenses ? Au-delà de la condamnation unanime du crime horrible de Conflans-Sainte-Honorine (Yvelines), cette question ne reçoit pas la même réponse de tous les Français, et certainement pas de toutes les démocraties.

Aux Etats-Unis, beaucoup de commentateurs condamnent, implicitement ou explicitement, le manque supposé de « sensibilité culturelle » des Français non musulmans à la « communauté musulmane » que révélerait la diffusion des caricatures de Charlie Hebdo, et voient dans l’assassinat du professeur de Conflans l’indice d’une France de plus en plus divisée.

Cette analyse ignore la diversité des réactions parmi les Français de confession musulmane, mais elle est dans la droite ligne du mouvement qui s’est emparé de nombreuses universités américaines, où on encourage les professeurs à éviter tout propos, toute lecture, qui pourraient mettre mal à l’aise une partie de leurs étudiants.

Pour moi qui vis aux Etats-Unis, la réponse ne fait pas de doute : la pratique américaine conduit à une impasse, où l’espace commun du débat démocratique et de la raison ne cesse de se réduire. Sa logique ultime est d’interdire à un homme de parler de la condition féminine, à un blanc du sort fait aux noirs. La « communauté » devient une forteresse d’où il est interdit de sortir, au nom d’une expérience communautaire qui serait la même pour tous les membres de la « communauté », et serait incommunicable à ceux qui n’en sont pas membres.

La société se transforme en une juxtaposition de forteresses haineuses et il ne reste plus à la puissance publique qu’à tenter de réguler les relations entre ces forteresses par une judiciarisation croissante des rapports sociaux. Cette évolution provoque des réactions violentes dont le succès de Donald Trump en 2016 et la réhabilitation du politiquement incorrect sont les symptômes. En croyant apaiser la société en la segmentant, on exacerbe les rancœurs et l’agressivité.

La voie française, qui accepte le blasphème et encourage l’irrévérence, n’est cependant pas simple à mettre en œuvre dans une société beaucoup plus diverse qu’elle n’était au temps de Jules Ferry (1832-1893). Elle fait peser une responsabilité écrasante sur les enseignants. C’est à eux qu’il revient, comme le faisait le professeur de Conflans, de faire réfléchir les futurs citoyens sur le difficile équilibre entre la nécessité du débat, qui exige la tolérance, et les besoins du vivre-ensemble, qui exige le respect.

Dans une société ouverte, cet équilibre ne devrait pas être régi par la loi, qui doit protéger sans réserve la liberté d’expression d’une société démocratique, mais par la multitude des décisions individuelles. C’est l’implicite d’une société, cette civilité par laquelle chacun modère son comportement, tolérant ce qu’il juge excessif ou offensant, acceptant des convictions différentes, osant affirmer vigoureusement, et quelquefois insolemment, les siennes, mais choisissant quand et comment le faire.

En montrant à ses élèves les caricatures de Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty ouvrait de façon intelligente et courageuse un débat nécessaire qu’une société ouverte ne devrait jamais clore. Nous devrions tous souscrire au hashtag #jesuisprof. Quant à #jesuischarlie, il y a des circonstances où je le fais mien, d’autres où je le récuse.

the article helps me understand where posters on this thread are coming from

there's definitely conflict and ambivalence among Americans about the position this article associates with the US and education/freedom of expression. Even among leftist/progressive Americans.

Allowing for mangling by Google Translate, this is not a good article. Or at least the third paragraph is incredibly defensive and tells on the author's biases much more than it actually describes what minorities in higher education actually want from their post-secondary experiences.

Google Translate's rendition:

For me who live in the United States, the answer is clear: American practice leads to an impasse, where the common space for democratic debate and reason is constantly shrinking. Its ultimate logic is to prohibit a man from talking about the status of women, a white man from the fate of blacks. The "community" becomes a fortress from which it is forbidden to leave, in the name of a communal experience which would be the same for all members of the "community", and would be incommunicable to those who are not members of it.

like, get the fuck out of here with this bullshit

I was able to understand most of it in the original French, but did have to rely on Google Translate in parts -- I think the translation is pretty un-mangled in terms of meaning?

Ah thank you. I was like, "is it just me or is that bullshit?" but I thought maybe I didn't understand something. Turns out I understood just fine.

I mean, it harkens back to the "trigger warning article in the Atlantic" thread and the Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism thread.

La société se transforme en une juxtaposition de forteresses haineuses et il ne reste plus à la puissance publique qu’à tenter de réguler les relations entre ces forteresses par une judiciarisation croissante des rapports sociaux. Cette évolution provoque des réactions violentes dont le succès de Donald Trump en 2016 et la réhabilitation du politiquement incorrect sont les symptômes. En croyant apaiser la société en la segmentant, on exacerbe les rancœurs et l’agressivité.

Kind of a bold analysis considering the far right isn't exactly in crisis in France.

This is the entire article run through Google Translate:

Do you pacify an open society by making sure not to offend anyone or by learning to tolerate offense? Beyond the unanimous condemnation of the horrible crime of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine (Yvelines), this question does not receive the same answer from all French people, and certainly not from all democracies.
In the United States, many commentators condemn, implicitly or explicitly, the supposed lack of "cultural sensitivity" of French non-Muslims to the "Muslim community" that the dissemination of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would reveal, and see in the assassination of the professor. de Conflans indicates an increasingly divided France.

This analysis ignores the diversity of reactions among French people of Muslim faith, but it is in line with the movement that has seized many American universities, where professors are encouraged to avoid any comments, any reading, which could harm at ease some of their students.

For me who live in the United States, the answer is clear: American practice leads to an impasse, where the common space for democratic debate and reason is constantly shrinking. Its ultimate logic is to prohibit a man from talking about the status of women, a white man from the fate of blacks. The "community" becomes a fortress from which it is forbidden to leave, in the name of a communal experience which would be the same for all members of the "community", and would be incommunicable to those who are not members of it.

Society is transformed into a juxtaposition of hate fortresses, and all the public authorities have to do is try to regulate the relations between these fortresses through an increasing judicialization of social relations. This development provokes violent reactions of which the success of Donald Trump in 2016 and the rehabilitation of the politically incorrect are the symptoms. By believing to appease society by segmenting it, we exacerbate resentment and aggression.

The French way, which accepts blasphemy and encourages irreverence, is not, however, easy to implement in a society much more diverse than it was in the time of Jules Ferry (1832-1893). It places an overwhelming responsibility on teachers. It is up to them, as Professor de Conflans did, to make future citizens reflect on the difficult balance between the need for debate, which requires tolerance, and the needs of living together, which requires respect.

In an open society, this balance should not be regulated by law, which must fully protect the freedom of expression of a democratic society, but by the multitude of individual decisions. It is the implicit nature of a society, this civility by which everyone moderates their behavior, tolerating what they deem excessive or offensive, accepting different convictions, daring to assert vigorously, and sometimes insolently, their own, but choosing when and how to do it.

By showing his students the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, Samuel Paty cleverly and courageously opened a necessary debate that an open society should never end. We should all subscribe to the hashtag #jesuisprof. As for #jesuischarlie, there are circumstances where I make it mine, others where I reject it.

It's worth noting that the author is a French diplomat. So yeah, not exactly the best spokesperson for the 'American point of view', which is hardly monolithic to begin with.

This message board ILX is almost exclusively used by Anglo-Americans

the whole piece seems to want to talk about "the open society" as an abstraction with no connection to ongoing histories of oppression and institutional prejudice. "taking offence" feels inadequate to describe people's reactions to the experience of being addressed and policed as somehow lesser citizens because of their race, gender, beliefs, sexuality, culture

The author, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, lives in New York, as a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.

i wonder if a teacher stripping naked and dancing the conga around a classroom would also be a clever and courageous way of debating freedom of expression

gyac, yes, I am an American citizen. Aren't you a resident of the UK? If you'd prefer, I will say, native English speakers.

Maybe this is my memory getting fuzzy, but I feel like this position (the author's opinion) was more acceptable in progressive circles in America in the 70s-90s, and has only really shifted in the past 20 years.

The author, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, lives in New York, as a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.

Certainly a position where I would expect someone to really study and understand the complexity of intersectionality on American campuses

the whole piece seems to want to talk about "the open society" as an abstraction

Well, when the final conclusion is about which hashtags we should endorse...

It’s cool how freedom of expression is bold and courageous when you’re using it as your intellectual shield to discriminate as you normally do.

gyac, so to be clear: you think Samuel Paty was discriminating against his students?

gyac, yes, I am an American citizen. Aren't you a resident of the UK? If you'd prefer, I will say, native English speakers.

xp to my previous post: I'm not saying this in a "millennials are snowflakes" way -- just that it seems to me, as a LOL American, that the French way has remained the same, whereas America has changed.

gyac, so to be clear: you think Samuel Paty was discriminating against his students?

I don't know why you think I was saying that Islam is "taking over". I am talking about the murder of Samuel Paty and what can be done to prevent further murders of French teachers of histoire/géo giving their units on civics.

Also, to me, "terrorism" seems an awkward term to be used to describe this murder ... or is that term just being used to mean "criminal act motivated by Islam" ... a variant of "hate crime"?

??? Isn't the answer some form of "Give immigrants the resources and the space to live well in their new country without discrimination, and probably their 18-year-old children won't suicide by cop because they'll have good lives and good future opportunities to look forward to"? I meannn

just that it seems to me, as a LOL American, that the French way has remained the same, whereas America has changed.

tbh here the French ppl I know through my wife, much like the portuguese ppl in my group of friends, are much closer to the "American" way in this regard than the "French" way, tho obv there's other factors of class, education, etc. in there and I wouldn't want to claim either group representative. You could also paternalistically argue that they've "become" that way due to US influence, but good luck growing up in Europe w/o getting a fair helping of that whether you want to or not.

what can be done to prevent further murders of French teachers of histoire/géo giving their units on civics.

This framing just makes no sense.

i feel like a lot of the groundwork for allowing us to question the sweet, egalitarian idealism of enlightenment values was done by French philosophers tbf

I’m referring to your earlier posts which are still up there and which you haven’t clarified - if I’m wrong in what I (and others) are seeing, then feel free to correct me.

I mean, I’m no expert here, but I feel that the current approach of crackdown after crackdown after crackdown and increasing institutional discrimination isn’t really doing anything other than giving certain elements that they want, and by France implicitly telling a portion of society they won’t truly belong unless they fit in in a way that is difficult or problematic for them, the nation is voluntarily abdicating the role of the larger community and leaving lots and lots of space for those lonely and alienated people to be recruited by those who do not have their interests or France’s at heart. But as I said, I’m no expert.

_what can be done to prevent further murders of French teachers of histoire/géo giving their units on civics._

This framing just makes no sense.