Veiled Threats?

For a variety of historical, cultural and political
reasons, the Islamic veil has become an
increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is
particularly the case in France, where Parliament
passed, in 2004, a piece of legislation that
prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil
(with any other conspicuous religious
sign) in the classroom. This book compares the
French and American attitudes towards religious
symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in
particular. Against conventional wisdom, it argues
that before the passage of the new statute, the
French and American legal systems adopted a
substantially similar approach that respected
religious insignia. This is hardly
surprising, the book suggests, for the American
conception of secularism is in many respects
stricter than the French idea of ''laïcité''. The book
also tries to demolish some popular myths
surrounding the ''affaire des foulards'': that the
French legal system is fiercely secular; that the
American one is strongly religious ; and that
France was, in 2004, confronted with a
veritable veil emergency that rendered the passage
of the new statute all but inevitable.

Autorentext
PhD, was educated at the Universities of Trento (Italy), Auckland (New Zealand) and Oxford (UK). Dr Salton was also briefly a visiting researcher at Sciences-Po, Paris and TUJ, Tokyo; an officer at the Icelandic Human Rights Centre, Reykjavik; and an associate with the Office of the Under-Secretary-General, United Nations HQ, New York.

Klappentext
For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic veil has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where Parliament passed, in 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil (with any other 'conspicuous' religious sign) in the classroom. This book compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. Against conventional wisdom, it argues that before the passage of the new statute, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that respected religious insignia. This is hardly surprising, the book suggests, for the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of 'laïcité'. The book also tries to demolish some popular myths surrounding the 'affaire des foulards': that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly 'religious'; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable 'veil emergency' that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.