France’s Sports Minister, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, has announced that French Muslim athletes will be barred from wearing hijabs at the Olympics. The decision is a gross violation of the religious freedom of Muslim athletes and should be condemned throughout the world.
I have long been critical of the French crackdown on Muslim head coverings and swimwear. Officials insist that such religious clothing is inconsistent with the secular laws of the country.
The denial of basic religious freedom in France is consistent with the French denial of free speech protections. As discussed in my new book, free expression is in tatters in France.
France has been a leader in the rollback on free speech in the West with ever widening laws curtailing free speech. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti, including using ‘dirty whore” in criticism.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”
The freedoms of speech and religion are co-existent and co-dependent. Religious speech is the leading target of government crackdowns under blasphemy laws and censorship systems. The freedom of speech sustains all other rights, which is why it is accurately called “the indispensable right.”
It is little surprise that a nation that criminalizes speech would also deny religious expression and observances.
There should be global outrage over the refusal to allow French Muslim women to adhere to their religious values in sporting events. These women want to compete for their nation but their nation will not allow them to do so in a way that is consistent with their faith.
Given that history has shown that Islamist fundamentalists of the nations of Islam take license through its teachings to employ whatever means of subterfuge necessary in support of their causes, the more transparency the better in the interest of the good and welfare of the innocent of nations.
Well, strictly speaking, Islam is not a religion; it is essentially intended as a system of governance. Though that’s an oversimplification, it is partly why it isn’t really compatible in places with a separation of church and state – in Islam there is no such separation. Also, the hijab is not an expression of faith like a cross or similar but is rather a societal intervention, most definitely subjugating women to men, not unlike corsets or ankle length skirts (or head coverings!) once did in the West.
Take that as you will and decide for yourself, but it’s true that the hijab is not a ‘religious’ symbol, per se. There is a lot more to that subject, and though I don’t think France should be so circumscribed either, a head covering is a head covering. And frankly, in hard Islamic societies, an awful lot of women would love to burn their hijabs and never look back. In places like Pakistan they didn’t even wear them once upon a time. 🤷🏽♂️
It is a fallacy for purveyors of Western values to make these one to one equivalencies with the East that don’t really exist. It’s why many lose patience with the ‘Great White Savior’ mentality that can at the end of the day look an awful lot like arrogant ignorance.
PS – Re the hijab and institutionalized Islam – they didn’t used to wear them in places like Iran or Afghanistan, either. Again, lots of history there, too much for a comment, but it is what it is. That actually started in Saudi Arabia at the behest of royalty and spread.
The Laws of the United States are not Universal. Hence the French do as the French do … etc. etc.
(Disclosure – I’m not a big Fan of the French)
James Madison’s – Accommodationism (Bill of Rights)
Accommodationist jurisprudence in the United States began with Zorach v. Clauson (1952). In the United States, it often pertains to religion in schools; public schools in the United States cannot sponsor or endorse religion, but parochial schools are permitted to exist and their students may receive government aid if the benefit to religious activities is indirect or incidental. Religious practices have been recognized and adopted by law, including Christmas as a federal holiday since 1870 (at first applicable only to federal employees in the District of Columbia, extended in 1885 to all federal employees) and In God We Trust as the national motto since 1956. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of an accommodationist interpretation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment multiple times, both implicitly and explicitly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodationism_in_the_United_States
Thomas Jefferson’s – Separation of Church and State
Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
I admire the French approach, which recognizes some practical limits go with freedom of expression. The limits on religious garb in public are there to promote assimilation into French society, and prevent separatist factionalization.
When headscarfs were banned in French schools, I cheered them for their courage — teens were better able to mix across ethnic lines.
There is a famous psych experiment (the “blue-red shirts” experiment) done in the 1990s with 1st graders. Half were made to wear blue shirts, half red. Within a few days, identity politics overtook the class social behavior.
It became OK to be rude and suspicious toward the “other” group. Objective truth gave way to loyalist narratives — to make “us” look better and “them” more sinister. Rebecca Bigler demonstrated that humans come prewired with social instincts (the kids received no instruction to act this way) that can hinge on the most arbitrary, superficial cues.
I think Bigler’s work (done in America) had an influence on French policy.
The part of Jonathan’s expansive notion of freedom of expression that strikes me as naive idealism is his equating styles of self-expression loaded with stridency and militancy with those moderated by civility and respect for others. JT is defending the right to intentionally insult others in a public setting, affronts that in past times were deterred by threat of fisticuffs or dueling with swords or pistols. He is placing expressions of separatism and mutual hate on the same legal plane as conviviality and trustworthiness. The outcome of such a lax standard of public expression is all too predictable — fanatics, zealots, misanthropes and loudmouths come to dominate the infospace with their paranoias and manipulations, drowning out voices of dispassionate meritocratic conversation. Everyone is put on edge emotionally. Creative thinking is channeled into unproductive pursuits such as virtue signalling and oppo-branding. Political problem-solving grinds to a halt.
This isn’t to suggest that enforcing standards of decorum is easy to solve without becoming authoritarian — it’s tricky. It’s messy. But it is essential to sustaining a well-functioning classroom, family, business or nation.
In short, JT is defining a freedom (self-expression) as stripped of concomitant responsibility. It’s there it departs from common sense. It bodes poorly for social cohesion. I hope JT’s students at GWU are more circumspect and pragmatic.
quand on esta rome il faut faire come les romains
I assume, “when in Rome….” Well put.
It’s the French. In the time that we have had 1 republic, the French have a king, 2 emperors, 5 republics, 2 or 3 revolutions and they still can’t get it right.
The Hijab, especially if only a head covering, is about as intimidating as a bonnet worn by German Baptist or Mennonite women, or hats worn by many other Christian women on attending church, or the round black hats of German Baptist or Mennonite men or the Yellowstone ball cap that I wear outside every day to protect myself from the recurrence of skin cancer.
Facial covering is a different thing since it often used to hide identities and has been solidified by court cases in the US where people have to remove facial coverings for Driver’s license photographs.
It’s France, what can you say. Inconsistency is its name. It’s still difficult to believe that the French and Germans came from a nearly identical cultural group. There must be something about the Rhine River that has an effect on thought processes and understanding. This would be a good place for that erstwhile professor from Carnegie Mellon, in the previous Turley column, to weight in on.
It’d be nice if someone got the story right.
France has banned the wearing of *any* religious symbol for all of its athletes during competition.
This is all nice talk until somebody gets killed.
Religious freedom as we define it in the US is not defined the same way in every country. France is allowed to have the laws that they want and France is well known for banning outward religious symbols. The shame goes to the IOC that gave the games to France without addressing this issue. On the other hand the IOC is such a corrupt organization that issues like this area drop in the bucket.
I love JT, but agree with most the comments. If the law is to not cover the face, ears…it is good. Anonymity allows danger in this world. But—why are so many on this site doing the same thing; being Anonymous? Scared of free speech?
It seems like a sensible anti-terrorism or anti-crime measure to me.
The purpose of Islamic female garb is to hide the possible attractiveness of a woman, so other men don’t steal her or kill you to take her. That way, all women look the same and you can’t tell which ones are hot out in public. But it also allows men to disguise themselves as women, allows criminals to conceal their identity (just as with masks), and makes it easier to smuggle weapons.
As an anti-terrorism or anti-crime measure – that does not target a specific religion culture or group, and is written in a neutral way focused on the purpose of the law – public safety, this would be acceptable. Something like clothing that obscures more than 70% of the ears, forehead, nose, eyes, mouth and chin is illegal.
Clothing that allows carrying an AK-47 fully assembled and ready to use while completely concealed is illegal.
Although you may be correct, I have to think about it. The ’72 terrorists were Palestinians. The Palestinians are fomenting riots and making threat in the present day. Hamas and other terrorist groups do not care about even their own peoples’ rights or lives. These aren’t just people expressing their culture, but people expressing their allegiance to terrorism. They would try to kill people and justify it. Hijabs are used to cover faces so that attackers can get away Scott free. France technically has free speech, but so watered down as to be mostly useless. While my default is normally as is yours (I will get to your book very soon, but it’s a very familiar topic to me). Europe is, because of its own stupidity, facing an existential crisis. Safety is often used as a crutch to deny basic rights, but in this case, it might make a lot of sense. If laws become a suicide pact, the country ceases to exist. Again, you may be right. You usually are. But it is okay to think.
Agreed (mostly). The Professor’s assessment could be, and should be, more nuanced. Allowing mere headscarves (which itself makes it marginally more difficult to identify the wearer) seems like a reasonable accommodation, but other types of traditional religious garb, specifically that which is face-covering, which are also expressions of religious freedom, make it impossible to identify the person behind the clothing and surely can justifiably be prohibited for the sake of enforcing law and order in the public square.
Professor Turley, every reader of your column knows that you have written a book, which I am certain is a great resource on the issue of freedom of expression. However, referencing it in every column is a bit stale and this point, and to this reader, at least comes across as salesmanship overkill.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I talk about the Indispensable Right, which is indispensable, just like I mention in my book, The Indispensable Right. Did I mention I have a book out? It’s called The Indispensable Right.
Boo hoo.
Your comment sounds like a word salad produced by vice president Harris.
What is the basis of the French Ban ? Is it only for atheletes or does it apply to everyone at the olympics ?
Pre Covid most of the world banned wearing masks in public.
It is time we return to that.
Banning the distinctive clothing for any reason – beyond that it obscures the face and therefore fascilitates crime is wrong.
I personally do not think that there is something special about religion.
While religious speach and religious practice are rights entitled to protection,
They receive that protection through free speech and free expression
We do not want world where you can ay offensive things – as part of practicing religion, but not otherwise.
A law that says that clothing that obscures the chin, eyes, mouth, nose, ears and forehead would not violate anything.
A law that banns hijabs would.
“ A law that says that clothing that obscures the chin, eyes, mouth, nose, ears and forehead would not violate anything.”
We ban protesters from wearing masks because they obscure the chin, eyes, mouth, nose, ears, and forehead. Is there a right to maintain anonymity during protests?
France banned hijabs long before the Olympics. They have been doing that for years.
Sorry, professor, your take is incorrect on this. Good for the French ban. Too bad that the U.S. House of Representatives may never folow suit.
Such a law in the US would be unconstitutional. Would SCOTUS uphold it anyhow? Possibly.
Let’s ask the Charlie Hebdo cartoon crew what they think!
We can’t, they got killed by terrorists.
Those freaking Amish went to France?! Jeez what is this world coming to?
GOOD
The Hijab is about subjugation to MEN…HAS zero to do with “practicing” religion. Or can they STONE their women if they don’t finish well?
You want to be in the WEST…well WELCOME to the west! Or would you say, hey lets have the Olympics in IRAN….and all the women have to compete in chadors. They have to compete in a different stadium and walk BEHIND THE Male athletes. Do they have to BRING A MALE relative to be on their OWN! They can’t speak to male judges or media as well. They want to enjoy medieval practices in their failed countries…not my business….they want to abuse women in OUR countries…NOPE! Some of the crude muslim countries don’t even allow women DRIVE. Why are you helping the ayatollah etc?
YOU ARE 100% WRONG…and are NOT helping these women!
None of that matters. It is not the role of government to bar practices that government deems are demeaning to women.
It is unlikely the IOC will accept a bid for the olympics from Iran if they impose the requirements you cite.
Iran is free to make its own laws.
We are free to criticise them – just as we are doing of the french law.
And the IOC is free not to hold the olympics in Paris or Tehran because of those laws.
Guyventner, they never help who they pretend to want to help, see signs stating gays for hamas.
Don’t we ban masks because they hide the identity of people during protests? How is that not anti-free speech? Exercising anonymity would seem to be a part of it. What if protesters wore full face motorcycle helmets with mirrored or tinted face shields instead?
Pre Covid most western nations did ban clothing that obscured your face such that you could not be identified.
A ban targeted at obscuring identifying features would not violate free speech or freedom of religion if it applied to all.
A ban of specific attire would.
A mask is specific attire. How is a mask different than veil? Its purpose is to conceal.
The right to be anonymous during a protest shouldn’t be a crime. Wearing a scarf over your face during a protest shouldn’t be illegal. Protesting is not a crime.
Anonymity and privacy are a big deal in this country. Sure we walk around without a mask or anything covering our faces, but we are still anonymous to everyone in public. Police officers often ask for ID even when you are not wearing a mask and we still have a right to remain anonymous when not committing a crime OR protesting which is NOT a crime. Now we have some states making it illegal to wear a mask during a protest because the state wants to identify you even if you have not committed a crime. Anonymity is part of free speech. We have laws protecting campaign donors anonymity because they don’t want to be known. Protesters cover their faces to protect their identity so others don’t know those not wanting to be identified associate with a particular movement. But the right is determined to identify them in order to accuse them of committing crimes or exposing what they support.
In France banning of veils or Hijabs has been going on for a long time now. Why would this be an issue for Turley other than an excuse to plug his book?
Frogs gotta jump
Islam – which is it religion or culture?
Religion and culture are not mutually exclusive.
The right to free speech and free expression goes beyond religion into culture.
islam is a murderous cult. No need to naval gaze.
Totalitarian theocracy. Controls the adherents 24/7/365 from cradle to grave with law (Sharia) and religion (Muslim). Women are second class citizens.
https://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/in-the-name-of-allah.aspx
Everything you ever wanted to know about Islam but were afraid to ask. Radical Islam is the snake in the grass. Moderate Islam is the grass.
The absolute goal of Islam is to overthrow whatever existing govt they encounter and replace it with Sharia law.
Its a safty issue and a 100% smart move given the history of Muslim terrorists attacking Olympic athletes.
Yikes.
You can not target laws at a religion – not even one with a history of violence. You can heighten the law enforcement scrutiny on a group more likely to engage in violence.
You can require faces to be visible in public. You can not ban religious clothing.
“ You can not ban religious clothing.”
What about wearing religious clothing during a protest? Women wearing veils or full face coverings during a protest should be banned? Many here want to ban face coverings during protests because….? Does the right to anonymity not be on par with religious freedom?
Islam is way more than a religion. And your rights to practice your religion does not give you the right to kill other people. And this exactly what Islam requires through Jihad.
In Other, Future News: France, after having its policy overturned on banning athletes wearing the hijab, opts to return to the Ancient Olympic Games’ practice of competing in the nude.
Newly appointed Sports Minister Colette Sans-Culotte said Friday, “Competitors representing France will suffer no further humiliations or discrimination. They will all wear the same uniform; naked as the day they’s born.”
Now I may watch the Olympics!
Darren Smith-
I like it. Nothing like being archeological absolutist. Of, course the nudity rule was instituted because I women snuck into the ancient Olympics as a coach. So Coach’s had to be nude also.
That should make any events with transgender contestants pretty interesting…
I believe that most of the support for the Olympics comes from rich old reprobates who wish to have sex with the athletes. I think that is true for many of the adults who work with young people in athletics, far more than what we would like to believe. And the athletes themselves?
“Home to more than 10,000 athletes at the Summer Games and 2,700 at the Winter, the Olympic Village is one of the world’s most exclusive clubs. To join, prospective members need only have spectacular talent and — we long assumed — a chaste devotion to the most intense competition of their lives. But the image of a celibate Games began to flicker in ’92 when it was reported that the Games’ organizers had ordered in prophylactics like pizza. Then, at the 2000 Sydney Games, 70,000 condoms wasn’t enough, prompting a second order of 20,000 and a new standing order of 100,000 condoms per Olympics.
Many Olympians, past and present, abide by what Summer Sanders, a swimmer who won two gold medals, a silver and a bronze in Barcelona, calls the second Olympic motto: “What happens in the village stays in the village.” Yet if you ask enough active and retired athletes often enough to spill their secrets, the village gates will fly open. It quickly becomes clear that, summer or winter, the games go on long after the medal ceremony. “There’s a lot of sex going on,” says women’s soccer goalkeeper Hope Solo, a gold medalist in 2008. How much sex? “I’d say it’s 70 percent to 75 percent of Olympians,” offers world-record-holding swimmer Ryan Lochte, who will be in London for his third Games. “Hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.”
GET SET …
The games begin as soon as teams move in a week or so before opening ceremonies. “It’s like the first day of college,” says water polo captain Tony Azevedo, a veteran of Beijing, Athens and Sydney who is returning to London. “You’re nervous, super excited. Everyone’s meeting people and trying to hook up with someone.”
Which is perfectly understandable, if not to be expected. Olympians are young, supremely healthy people who’ve been training with the intensity of combat troops for years. Suddenly they’re released into a cocoon where prying reporters and overprotective parents aren’t allowed. Pre-competition testosterone is running high. Many Olympians are in tapering mode, full of excess energy because they’re maintaining a training diet of up to 9,000 calories per day while not actually training as hard. The village becomes “a pretty wild scene, the biggest melting pot you’ve been in,” says Eric Shanteau, an American who swam in Beijing and will be heading to London.
The dining hall is among everyone’s first village stops. “When I walked in for the first time in Atlanta,” says women’s soccer player Brandi Chastain, “there were loud cheers. So we look over and see two French handballers dressed only in socks, shoes, jockstraps, neckties and hats on top of a dining table, feeding one another lunch. We’re like, ‘Holy cow, what is this place?'” Many liken it to a high school cafeteria, “except everyone’s beautiful,” says Julie Foudy, who has two golds and one silver from playing soccer in three Olympics and is now an analyst for ESPN. “We’d graze over our food for hours watching all the eye candy, wondering why I got married.”
From one end of the village to the other, flags hang from windows and music blares from balconies. “Unlike at a bar, it’s not awkward to strike up a conversation because you have something in common,” Solo says. “It starts with, ‘What sport do you play?’ All of a sudden, you’re fist-bumping.” BMXer Jill Kintner, who won bronze in Beijing, says the Italians are particularly inviting: “They leave their doors open, so you look in and see dudes in thongs running circles around each other.”
On the way to practice fields, “the girls are in skimpy panties and bras, the dudes in underwear, so you see what everybody is working with from the jump,” says Breaux Greer, an American javelin thrower. “Even if their face is a 7, their body is a 20.” In Beijing, even the adolescent female gymnasts got sassy with the water polo and judo boys who shared their training room. “That’s where most of my socialization took place — in a tub, up to my chest in ice water,” says silver medalist Alicia Sacramone, then 20, who served as den mother to her teammates. “The younger girls would try to flirt with stuff like, ‘Look at that butt on him!’ I’m like, ‘Excuse me, did that just come out of your mouth? Don’t pay attention to his butt!'”
https://www.espn.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8133052/athletes-spill-details-dirty-secrets-olympic-village-espn-magazine
I read where the Olympic committee had no sex beds (they look like cardboard boxes) put in all the rooms.
Geez, what’s next? Is France going to ban kidnapping Israeli athletes? How about cathedral burnings?
France can declare itself an endangered culture. Islam is not indigenous to the geographic delineation of France. It is well recognized today with the advent of anthropology and sociology that cultures can be destroyed, obliterated, altered and cease to exist when such a force as religion is introduced into a geographic region.
We can then arrive at a greater understanding of the geographic location of Judaism and Israel. The French culture requires a Homeland and Judaism requires a Homeland. Israel is the Homeland of Judaism and France the Homeland of the French culture.
The world can no longer turn a blind eye to the destruction of cultures. Islam is antithetical to many cultures worldwide and many ancient cultures are being supplanted with the spread of its culture.
Declare French culture endangered and protected. There’s no need for hysterics. France has the autonomy to reasonably protect its culture and the world will benefit by that protection. Surely people can recognize that. Islam is not indigenous to nations outside of the middle east and now Africa.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founders understood that. God is an absolute power and varies by geography. Your absolute power is not mine. The divine right of Kings was overthrown. The federal government is restricted also from absolute power.
France has a culture to protect and it is endangered as are other cultures worldwide from the absolute power of Allah.
Protect your cultures that the world can enjoy your nations’ diversity in the future. It is unfortunate in the disassembling of American culture someone said there is no American culture. American culture is disallowed in the federal department of education today. Americans did not protect their own culture.
France’s autonomy is recognized.