In France, the strategy of counter radicalization by regulating the goings on in the secular society is not a road without bumps. You see in France, it appears to be more important to be French than it is to be anything else. There has been serious debate about the concept of “dual belonging”, an accepted practice in multiculturalist societies, and how it detracts from one’s commitment to French identity. See somehow if you’re French and Dutch, or Frutch, some are worried you won’t truly be at one with your Frenchness. On the surface this seems arrogant and aloof, but does this strategy hold the key limiting radicalization?

A recent ruling by the French high courts in France upheld an earlier decision to ban the wearing of full-faced veils. French authorities believe that the veil not only as an affront to secularism but also a security risk as one cannot see the identity of the person behind the curtain. This is truly the intersection of personal freedoms and the demands of a secular society. Does it work? Recent riots over the issue would suggest not, but I would argue that a knee jerk response to a passionate issue should not be used to judge its’ overall effectiveness. Is it wrong to demand immigrants assume local customs and languages? Does this detract from the overall melting pot experience?

Looking at the physical damage caused by the rioting, not the ruling itself, this seems like a pretty divisive idea. The emotional damage is another thing. If the law is not applied equally, meaning no display of the cross on a necklace or a five pointed star on your shirt, it might work. But there is always the human factor, someone who chooses to apply this only when it suits their needs. If you can live with the fact that there are always going to be bad apples, but just a few, countered by those who truly believe in peace and unity, it might work. There will still be debate, but assimilation and nationalism might be a counterpunch to radicalization. . Although I think I’m supposed to be appalled by the infringement on personal rights, I strangely am not. I don’t look at this as a means to fundamentally change a person, but more so something that gives them fundamental belief and pride in a different kind of nationalism. What’s your take?