Yes. You are correct about the discrimination in Israeli schools and society. It's a terrible thing, but it has nothing to do with anything we've just discussed. I've never said my country was perfect.

EDIT: I've found this. It's not as comprehensive as I might have liked, but it should give you the general idea that France does have a problem of anti-semitism. If you still find that hard to believe, I'll see if I can dig up something more serious.

__________________

Thank you for taking the time to research this. Yes it's awful.

Do you have something that has not been issued by Tel Aviv university and is not only bout Jews? First you were talking about racism plural, now it's all about the Jews again? Are there things like that in all big cities in Europe and in the world or is this something limited to France? Are they sufficient in number to let you talk about a racism that is specifically directed against Jews? Could the attackers in question have been muslim? And so on. So many questions. I'm sorry but the only racism I hear about where I live, as in everyday in the street racism are nearly always between the islamic and jewish citizens. I understand that these are all french citizens and as such will be judged as "the french" too. But then again they are acting as outlaws there...and will be put into prison once caught.

Back to Topic: Actually PERSONALLY I think too that the scarf ban went a bit over board and there might be some hidden and never officially stated reason regarding the current worldwide terrorist fear behind this too, at least it certainly helped to get this law passed. But I really believe that this whole scarf thing has been blown way out of proportion and was hoping that giving you the reasons that are generally accepted here would perhaps help you to see this from our point of view too.

If wearing a kippa is really as important for you as not eating porc meat, then I suppose that the different jewish communities have taken the necessary steps protesting against this with my government. After all not everybody can pay for private schools either. Please believe me when I tell you that our education ministry does it's best to make everybody feel welcome in our school. Alas it can't be helped if the more fundamentalist communities of each religion will always find something that does not suit their requirements. As I told you above, the biggest part of the jewish community respects this law and still sends their kids to school.

A public system is always something rigid. But if you wanted to attack the french school system you should have digged deeper, you would have come up with a real difference of chances at going to university (orientation issues in college) between children from worker families and from middle-class families.

There is a real injustice to fix in my opinion...but it's still not as bad as that discrimination thing between palestinian kids and jewish kids you have in Israel...

"You misunderstand my point. Black people in essence make a statement about not being white by having black skin, just the way Jewish people make a statement about being Jewish by wearing a skullcap. They're screaming out "I'm black", when everyone around them is white. Yes, they have no choice in the matter, but the point I was trying to make was that no one expects blacks to be ashamed of their difference, even if it's just a physical one, and exactly the same standards should be used in regard to religious Jews. Unless you think that religious difference is something to be ashamed of."

I'm going to save this pearl of wisdom and show it around to friends. Thanks for a good laugh lol. And you are telling me off about self-righteous outbursts? lmao.

Oh and please, no more dragging up the Nazis out of their coffins in conversation... that's nearly as bad as having a discussion with a african-american who tell's you "it's because I'm black".

It does not help along discussion it's just waving around a cultural/racial insecurity like some big cave-man club... you know, I'm really trying to be patient here. And I'm really trying to understand your point of view, not just crush it with my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine after all... consider this an exchange, ok?

The reason I'm now only talking about anti-semitism and Jews is because that's the only thing I have an inkling about. I actually started the topic talking more about the Muslim women, but now I'm back to what I have good general knowledge of.

I'll see if I can find something by the end of the day to back this up, but from what I know, yes, anti-semitism is becoming more widespread in Europe, but especially in France. The majority of the perpetrators are Muslim but I don't think that means we can place the blame squarely on the Muslim leadership or community. There first has to be a general atmosphere of racism (if you're interested, I believe this exists in Israel too), and a kind of almost silent agreement to fanaticism.
Even if these guys are put into prison, which from my understading a lot of the time they are not, it doesn't need to happen in the first place, and countries that have been more wary of descrimination have had less of these incidents.

I understand, but what I'm trying to say is that this ban really is as bad as all that. You say it's been blown out of proportion. I think it's not being taken seriously enough. I'd have expected a worldwide denouncement.

I understand the reasoning, and I think the intent is basically good, but I think that there is ignorance of how damaging this is to the religious, and possibly to the society at large.

Y'know, maybe they have, but, again, this should not have happened in the first place. And once it's already happened, it should have caused an outrage. It's unwanted and unncessary intervention in people's religion. I thought it was a given that that's wrong. Isn't it?

This is the kind of comment that does nothing for a debate. What's wrong with the point I made? Do I quote you and this "this is hilarious" instead of responding to your points?

I'm trying to be patient too, but it gets frustrating with your condescending attitude. Can we agree to stop the emo and respond objectively?

The Nazis are no more dead than racism against blacks. Yes, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still exist, waiting for its chance.
Perhaps the Nazis are a bad example because of all the baggage that brings. I'm not talking about the war and I'm not talking about the concentration camps. I'm talking about the Jews becoming second-class citizens, of having less rights and of having hatred directed against them unchecked.

The Jews are not simply paranoid. Throughout history they've been the most persecuted race in the world, due in some part probably to their own attitude. The Jews will always, always be skating on thin ice wherever anti-semitism or racism is even a possiblity.
Only when a country/society/people accept that differences are not to be ashamed of will it be safe for a minority, especially one with as much baggage as the Jews (yes, the anti-semites carry with them the memory of the holocaust too, albeit with a different attitude to it).

Racism should be dealt with when we see the seeds sown, not when society's already in a mad rush of hatred.

Still, much of these is largely irrelevant, when we have the simple issue of freedom of religion being violated. Even if it's not about racism, it's about democracy, in the hope I'm not hammering that in too much. I just never seem to get a reply to this specific point.

__________________

Ok, I'll try for no emo lol



As far as I know democracy is still synonym to government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people - in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote.

France has the most common form of democracy, that is a representative democracy, meaning the people who passed that law where elected... now if the french people are sufficiently unhappy about that law I guess they won't re-elect those officials again. I know that in a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities (whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation .... like that headscarf in school thing).
The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens and the rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote and the rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
I think that I understand that you are persuaded that bringing through this law about no open religious signs in school here is a violation of those minority rights. This is where we disagree, I think that the reasons and the role of the school system here should not be implicated into the daily practise of your religion for the aforementioned reasons. I even think that keeping the cultural and religious differences at home and away from school is a chance for the kids to learn to be more tolerant with each other, to get to know each other as individuals and fellow human beings without pressing the everpresent differences they experience out of school.

But I do agree that the scarf law even if it's not in direct violation with the minority rights (in my opinion) is stretching them... and can be misinterpretated like it is here. The focus should be on the school and what your children learn there, not on what they wear. That's just my opinion.

Nobody tries to make the kids ashamed for their religion FYM. Think of this as of a religious switzerland... neutral...

==========================
Edit: More info about this law here:

Law passed the 15 of March 2004

Basically it forbids signs and clothes that lead to recognize immediately of what religion you are, such as the islamic scarf, the kippa or a big cross.

Discreet religious signs are tolerated!

The law does not forbid discreet religious signs sucha s a little cross or hand of Fatma or jewish star (jewellery). Normal accessories usually weared by the students and who don't have a obvious religious signification are allowed unless the interior regulations of the school forbid them.

Who is concerned?

The law is for all pupils of public schools, elementary school, college, high school. In high school it concerns all students, including those that study there after school-leaving examinations leading to university entrance qualification:
Preparation classes for specialist training establishments, entered by competitive exam and highly prestigious ; branches that lead to superior technical qualification and so on.

On the other hand, candidates who come from outside the school for some competitive examination for example and have to do this in the rooms of the public school are not concerned by this law.

That's all. It's only in school, not anywhere else.

personally i think that what the french have done is very good, because i read a girl in the u.k whre i live went into a school wearing a cruicifix who was a Roman Catholic was told to remove her crucifix if we are made to remove items that represent our religion so should people of the islamic belief.