Amnesty International has urged French lawmakers to reject a proposed bill that would ban headscarves in sporting competitions.
The bill, supported by right-wing senators, is set for debate in the French parliament’s upper house this week. It aims to prohibit all “ostensibly religious” clothing and symbols during competitive events.
Amnesty International has condemned the proposed legislation as discriminatory, arguing that it infringes upon religious freedom. The vote is expected to reignite the ongoing debate surrounding secularism in France, a principle enshrined in the 1905 law separating church and state.
I’m honestly not sure where I stand myself on this. It’s a difficult issue and I’m not sure there can be “only one correct answer”.
Who decides what is harmful or provocative?
A priest may find that the colander makes a mockery of religion, others might see a hijab as a symbol of oppression of women and others still may find that a certain slogan remind them of past trauma?
How do you strike a balance between dress code and preferences?
Should the state be free from religions, or free for all religions?
Does it even make sense to have the same rules in every country?
I myself am certainly biased in this context, given that I trust in science, evolution and the empiric process. Furthermore, I myself have been permanently negatively affected by religion, and all the ones I’ve encountered so far have been anti-scientific to a certain extent, regressive and denounce my own personal views. Does it not make sense then that I am anti-religious?
If I had to quickly codify my stance at this moment, I would say that I’m fine with freedom of religion to the extent that it intersects with the other personal liberties (Freedom of thought, expression, personal autonomy) that I think everyone should have the right to. However, I don’t think religion should give anyone preferential treatment in any context - religious organizations and religious folk should be subjected to the same regulations as a person of another (or no) belief or organization.
For instance, that might include exemptions from dress codes. In this case I would be against it unless the dress code would be equivalently relaxed for everyone, which I certainly wouldn’t support in some contexts. Some examples from healthcare for instance (since I’ve experience in the field) - it is imperative that what you wear is hygienic for the safety of the patient, and some of your duties might go against the personal beliefs of some people (abortion for instance). That doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from those duties or regulations because of your personal convictions. Suck it up, or go find another job.
This makes sense, i think you’re right on trying to keep things nuanced, and that the question of how much usage of freedom hurts versus how much not using this freedom hurts.
Though in the case of wearing clothes, i find it very hard to be harmful, even through the bias of mockery. It’s hard to argue that the negative impact of mockery exceeds the negative impact of being forced or prohibited in what you wear. Especially in the case of hijab.
I do think that the argument of mockery/clothes being ‘seen as symbols of oppression’ can even be used as a way to justify repressive laws. If we take the hijab case, there are two main reasons we could ban it : some women are being forced to wear it, and some people are ‘seeing it at a symbol of oppression’. Banning hijab for women forced to wear it may seem good at first, but inevitably ends up dumb when you think about it : it’s treating the symptom rather than the problem (power of religion over people) and in the worst case it even worsen the condition of women (who are then stopped from going to schools, sport competitions or public places where they could precisely get help or tools to treat the problem). So it is only for the people seeing hijab as oppressive that it makes sense to ban it, but this negative impact is obviously very little compared to the harm it makes to religious people. And i get the sense that some people are blending both aspects as one issue to combine one part’s legitimacy with the other part’s adequation to the solution, and get something that seems both logical and legitimate when it is really only one or the other. (at least on the hijab matter nowadays in France, other areas and periods might be a lot different).
I’ve been through your approach of trying to take everything neutrally and with nuances, and I still think that this is the way to go, and that it’s always good to use it a little bit, but as I saw more and more debates, I also got to think it’s important to not give both sides on a matter equal weight for the sake of neutrality, and to insist on the obvious solution when there is one : we might take its obviousness into account in our mind, but it may not be the case for other people, so I like to state it along with nuances.
Now, generally speaking, you’re clearly right that in lot of cases there is no clear answer, and the case of medics refusing to perform an act based on their beliefs is a very interesting one (I would argue for their right to do so as long as there is someone else to make it, even elsewhere or later in some cases, but I can see why you would not, it’s not as clear as the hijab thing for me).
Anyway thanks for bringing nuance and examples