If the law had been aimed primarily at Catholics, it would have come sooner and might have been initiated by Communists (though probably not by Socialists). But the law is clearly a reaction against an increasing weight of Muslim citizens and residents in the French population, initiated by the ruling conservative UMP (Union for a Popular Majority) party, of a piece with other anti-immigrant initiatives like the bill for selective immigration, spearheaded by Nicolas Sarkozy. French Socialists and Communists who voted for the hijab ban, as well as Lutte Ouvrière, merely jumped on the bandwagon, against their own interests, since measures like these and the cultural climate they create strengthen the Right, not the Left.
Also, it should be noted that the State of France subsidizes private religious education: "Private Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant schools receive state subsidies, and will be exempt under the new law regarding religious symbols. Currently, there is one private Muslim school, in Lille, that is hoping to obtain an exemption as well" (Jocelyne Cesari, "Islam and French Secularism: The Roots of the Conflict," 23 August 2004, <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/printable/france_briefing_print.html>).
The likely effect of the ban on hijab and other "conspicuous religious symbols" is for religious students (and their parents) who are opposed to the law and have ways and means to withdraw from secular public schools and attend private schools. That's hardly a desirable effect, if you, like me, think that it will be better for Muslims to follow the paths that Jews, mainline Protestant Christians, and other cultural and religious groups followed and secularlize over time.
>To *you* it doesn't seem enlightened. I
> don't think I'm presuming too much when I say that you probably take
> that view in part because you're promoting a political strategy for the
> left to ally with religious Muslims, to view Mahmoud Ahmedinijad as "our
> man in Iran," etc.
I was being ironic by saying "our man in Iran." Most US leftists won't pay attention to what Ahmadinejad and his supporters are doing in Iran until it's too late, just as in the case of Chavez and his supporters in Venezuela.
It must be also said that you don't understand my view of Ahmadinejad.
I believe that he is more likely to help secularize Iran than neo-liberal "reformists" have, because (1) neo-liberal "reformism" would create economic conditions for the growth of religious reaction and (2) his political, economic, and social programs have and will put him in conflict with not only neo-liberal "reformists" but clerical gerontocrats as well. He may not survive that conflict, to be sure, but his is a more promising approach than his competitors.
Also, remember that religious Muslims don't come in one variety, just as religious Christians, Jews, etc. don't. Secular leftists learned to relate to Catholic believes in liberation theology, through their participation in the Central American solidarity movement and other efforts. They ought to learn to see nuances in different schools of Islam and different kinds of Muslims likewise.
On 5/21/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> > some people who are
really no friends of the
> values that have characterized the Western left.
Give yourself several years, and see where you stand on Ahmadinejad (supposing that he will survive the present and future conflicts in those intervening years). You, like many other US leftists, didn't immediately think highly of Chavez, argue for the US withdrawal from Iraq, etc., but eventually you've come to argue for the positions that I have held all along.
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>