Should parents in France be allowed to name their child Jihad?

Shelga

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41734079

Parents in Toulouse want to call their newborn Jihad, the article is about whether they should be allowed to.

I think they parents are idiots of the highest order, but overall would tend to think, leave them alone and let them do what they want. It’s opening a can of worms to interfere in what families name their own children. Freedom of expression and all that. No one stepped in when Beyoncé named her son Sir Carter. :pac:

On the other hand, could this have a genuine negative impact on the child’s life and if so, is it up to authorities to do something? Article says a couple were prevented from naming a girl Nutella (!) in 2015, and I’m sure that child will be glad when she grows up!

Ubbquittious

If giving your child a stupid name couldn't get you into the news anymore people would stop doing it.

TallGlass

What's the issue here? I am sure people are still called Adolf and the likes. It's a name. Not exactly popular but still a name all the same.

frag420

So long as they dont call him Thady...

I lived with a girl in London called Isis...turns out she was a major coont so it was a rather apt name!!

seamus

As always, the state should step in where the actions of a parent may actively hurt the child's interests. Parents are a guardian of a child, not an owner. Their role is to protect the child's interests, now and into the future to ensure that they reach adulthood with the fullest of potential.

So in principle I see no issue with a court disallowing a name to be officially registered. Because many parents are idiots who consider newborn children little more than fashion accessories that they can adorn with shiny beads and give comical names to.

Whether "Jihad" specifically should be banned, I guess depends on the case. If the parents have an honest reason why they would like to give the child that name and it's not just "for the lulz", then it should be OK. It's not like they're proposing "Cvntface" or "iPhone".

A Little Pony

More of that great integration skills from the Islamic community in France.

c_man

Don't see why the state should have a hand in what you call your children.

Hande hoche!

Inshallah.

wes

The parents should re-think the name.

I have worked with the odd Osama once or twice, and the poor guys can have some trouble due to there name, but they were named long before 9/11 and that name became infamous.

I have read stories about people having issues who are named Isis, having trouble due to there name.

For the sake of the child it would be best for them not to use that name, and if the court stops the parents, there doing the kid a favor. Stubborn parents really should know better.

Grayson

wes wrote: »

The parents should re-think the name.

I have worked with the odd Osama once or twice, and the poor guys can have some trouble due to there name, but they were named long before 9/11 and that name became infamous.

I have read stories about people having issues who are named Isis, having trouble due to there name.

For the sake of the child it would be best for them not to use that name, and if the court stops the parents, there doing the kid a favor. Stubborn parents really should know better.

I agree. I've heard that in the arab world the name is not uncommon and it refers to the holy struggle. It's like being called a name in english which means strength or struggle.

However, they're not living in the arab world and although I have no problem with someone naming their child based on religious or ethnic reasons, that particular name is a very bad idea.

CruelCoin

seamus wrote: »

Whether "Jihad" specifically should be banned, I guess depends on the case. If the parents have an honest reason why they would like to give the child that name and it's not just "for the lulz", then it should be OK. It's not like they're proposing "Cvntface" or "iPhone".

If its ok for people to call their child Jihad (struggle/perseverance), then is it ok for me to have a swastika tattoo (peace symbol hijacked by the nazis) ?

Should context be ignored?

lazybones32

The western understanding of 'jihad' is about a war but the strict meaning of the word is 'striving' or 'struggling'. Even if the parents want the name for the literal meaning of the word, the culture in which they are living has a different understanding of it and that culture should be respected.

There are probably words that when translated from one language to another, are unsuitable as a name in other cultures. Live with it.

Malayalam

seamus wrote: »

As always, the state should step in where the actions of a parent may actively hurt the child's interests. Parents are a guardian of a child, not an owner. .

We have to be careful that the state doesn't start getting ideas of ownership either. Like removing your child from you if you choose not to vaccinate or give gender-changing hormones. There are definitely parents who actively hurt their children and the state has a role, I agree, but not one we should be in any way casual about

wes wrote: »

I have read stories about people having issues who are named Isis, having trouble due to there name.

.

It's a real pity about the name Isis, one of the most ancient archetypes from myth of the divine feminine, a word now ruined by monsters.

Jihad in and of itself merely means struggle and normally pertains to inner spiritual struggle. On one page I see that there are about 27 Jihads in the Uk and almost 2000 in the US although the name has declined seriously in popularity, possibly due to the emergence of the eternal ''war on terror''. On balance i think it would be better not to make a huge fuss about it, bringing a family to public attention or being super strict. I also felt the same way about women being forced to remove their burkinis on public beaches. It was ugly and attracted a lot of attention and essentially an over reaction that achieved little. I think there are better ways to fight against fundamentalist Islamic political ideology.

Malayalam

CruelCoin wrote: »

If its ok for people to call their child Jihad (struggle/perseverance), then is it ok for me to have a swastika tattoo (peace symbol hijacked by the nazis) ?

Should context be ignored?

We have plenty of swastikas among us. It is a very old symbol.
http://rmchapple.blogspot.ie/2017/10/always-remember-to-draw-swastika.html

BrokenArrows

Shelga wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41734079

Parents in Toulouse want to call their newborn Jihad, the article is about whether they should be allowed to.

I think they parents are idiots of the highest order, but overall would tend to think, leave them alone and let them do what they want. It’s opening a can of worms to interfere in what families name their own children. Freedom of expression and all that. No one stepped in when Beyoncé named her son Sir Carter. :pac:

On the other hand, could this have a genuine negative impact on the child’s life and if so, is it up to authorities to do something? Article says a couple were prevented from naming a girl Nutella (!) in 2015, and I’m sure that child will be glad when she grows up!

Of course it should not be allowed.
Just because the dictionary definition of Jihad is not "terrorist" the words meaning has evolved from meaning "effort" or "struggle" into "holy war" and is uniquely used to describe the actions of terrorists (at least in western countries).

Before WW2 Hitler would have been an acceptable name. It is not an acceptable name now.

Things change, especially in a non Arabic countries.
In countries where the word can be used in every day language in its original meaning it may be different.

seamus

CruelCoin wrote: »

If its ok for people to call their child Jihad (struggle/perseverance), then is it ok for me to have a swastika tattoo (peace symbol hijacked by the nazis) ?

If you believed in the earlier definition, then that's your business and one you'd have to explain to people. Is it OK for you to get a Swastika Tattoo? Sure, if you're prepared to deal with what people say to you.

Should context be ignored? No. But then "Jihad" hasn't really been specifically co-opted like the Swastika has, except in popular culture in the West.

Like I say, let the court assess the parents' case for wishing to use that name and then consider that against the cultural backdrop. I don't see a reasoning for a blanket ban on the name, anymore than a blanket ban on "Adolf".

Grayson

CruelCoin wrote: »

If its ok for people to call their child Jihad (struggle/perseverance), then is it ok for me to have a swastika tattoo (peace symbol hijacked by the nazis) ?

Should context be ignored?

Context matters. The swastika is still used in India by Hindu's. If you were a hindu living in India I'd say there were no issues with it. If you were living in Germany I'd say you were a nazi or stupid to get it.

Same with the name Jihad. For the vast majority of muslims it means struggle. Westerners only come into contact with it in terms of terrorism.

That's why although I think it could be an appropriate name in some occasions, it's not when you're living in France.

There's a chapter in Freakonomics on this.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.html
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-much-does-your-name-matter-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

pickarooney

Jihad is already a name in popular use. Jihad Darwiche is a much-loved children's author.

Tabnabs

Of course the parents should be allowed, the state should keep its nose out of their business. The child will have the right to change their name in due course. It will probably get shortened to Ji or something suitably French and the whole fuss will be over nothing. I met a Japanese family whose son was named Nintendo, little fecker loved his name!

LordSutch

NO.

Then again, free speech & all that jazz?

+ it is France.

Mitch Connor

Tabnabs wrote: »

Of course the parents should be allowed, the state should keep its nose out of their business. The child will have the right to change their name in due course. It will probably get shortened to Ji or something suitably French and the whole fuss will be over nothing. I met a Japanese family whose son was named Nintendo, little fecker loved his name!

Sweden, I believe, has a register of names you can call your child, and names beyond that need to be approved.

I totally agree that parents should not be allowed to confer a name on a child that could be abusive to that child.

Should I be allowed to call my child Necrophilia? or Peadophilia? How about Holocaust? How about Genocide? How about N****r? How about F****t?

My kid, I can name them what I want, right?

I love Sean nos

Bothered about what someone in France calls their child.

Now if you want to ban Fiachra, Tadgh or Paudge, you have my support. *

* By support I mean I will sign a petition. Nothing that requires any effort on my part.

CruelCoin

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Bothered about what someone in France calls their child.

Now if you want to ban Tadgh or Paudge, you have my support. *

* By support I mean I will sign a petition. Nothing that requires any effort on my part.

or CAOIMHINN or "insertwankysmashedavocadonewfoundirishnamehere"

ohnonotgmail

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Bothered about what someone in France calls their child.

Now if you want to ban Tadgh or Paudge, you have my support. *

* By support I mean I will sign a petition. Nothing that requires any effort on my part.

if you add fiachra to the list you have my support as well.

FTA69

Jihad is a common name across the Islamic world and has been since the foundation of Islam itself (1400 odd years ago). Likewise it doesn't mean "holy war" or armed struggle or any of that, it means to strive in the way of Islam.

Someone naming their child jihad doesn't automatically mean they're angry terrorist types.

I love Sean nos

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you add fiachra to the list you have my support as well.

Done by Ninja Edit. I have a family member called Fiachra, so it was an easy choice.

Tabnabs

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Sweden, I believe, has a register of names you can call your child, and names beyond that need to be approved.

I totally agree that parents should not be allowed to confer a name on a child that could be abusive to that child.

Should I be allowed to call my child Necrophilia? or Peadophilia? How about Holocaust? How about Genocide? How about N****r? How about F****t?

My kid, I can name them what I want, right?

Sweden has no such rules, so that's not a good start.

I also see you have gone right to the ludicrous fringe to pick names out of thin air.

When people are left to make decisions for themselves, they generally make a sensible and sane choice. Let's explore your reasoning for a moment, if the state has a prescribed list, who is responsible for those choices? What's to stop them assigning names?

Is the state any more trustworthy or faultless than the individual? Who generally has more interest in the well being of their children, the people who brought them into the world, or elected and unelected officials who will never even meet the child?

We have survived for millennia without needing an overbearing and controlling state telling us how to live our lives, the state is there to serve its citizens, not the other way around. A principle all too often forgotten by both sides.

Ipso

FTA69 wrote: »

Jihad is a common name across the Islamic world and has been since the foundation of Islam itself (1400 odd years ago). Likewise it doesn't mean "holy war" or armed struggle or any of that, it means to strive in the way of Islam.

Someone naming their child jihad doesn't automatically mean they're angry terrorist types.

No, but they should have some self awareness and an idea of what they are setting the child up for in their future life.
I think they should go with Fifi Trixiebell.

Mitch Connor

Tabnabs wrote: »

Sweden has no such rules, so that's not a good start.

I also see you have gone right to the ludicrous fringe to pick names out of thin air.

When people are left to make decisions for themselves, they generally make a sensible and sane choice. Let's explore your reasoning for a moment, if the state has a prescribed list, who is responsible for those choices? What's to stop them assigning names?

Is the state any more trustworthy or faultless than the individual? Who generally has more interest in the well being of their children, the people who brought them into the world, or elected and unelected officials who will never even meet the child?

We have survived for millennia without needing an overbearing and controlling state telling us how to live our lives, the state is there to serve its citizens, not the other way around. A principle all too often forgotten by both sides.

Sorry, it's Denmark that has the list.

You also have to have to name choice approved in Sweden.

Also, arguably, by stopping people making their kids stupid names the state is serving the child.

Beechwoodspark

The parents should forget all that aul nonsense and call their son Donald trump junior

andekwarhola

Unwise move.

Could easily blow up in their face.

branie2

No!

server down

Tabnabs wrote: »

Sweden has no such rules, so that's not a good start.

I also see you have gone right to the ludicrous fringe to pick names out of thin air.

When people are left to make decisions for themselves, they generally make a sensible and sane choice. Let's explore your reasoning for a moment, if the state has a prescribed list, who is responsible for those choices? What's to stop them assigning names?

Is the state any more trustworthy or faultless than the individual? Who generally has more interest in the well being of their children, the people who brought them into the world, or elected and unelected officials who will never even meet the child?

We have survived for millennia without needing an overbearing and controlling state telling us how to live our lives, the state is there to serve its citizens, not the other way around. A principle all too often forgotten by both sides.

We survived for millennia with child abuse, child workers, mistreated children within the family. We’ve decided to make what was once legal illegal.

Fliucharbith

Theres some interesting research/information about the impact of the name of a child.

Of course the child has no say in anything, but if parents decide to call them "He-Who-Swims-By-Night Mc Balls" it reflects entirely on the parents (of course). But that also informs, for example, potential employers about the type of family they are, the type of environment in which the child grew up.

And the research says that it has a negative impact.

"Jihad" doesn't tell me anything about the person when they're grown up, but it does indicate the background, and honestly, it doesn't say much good

jaxxx

Let's put an end to parents naming their children once and for all! From now on, it's a case of picking a name out of a hat! Someone invent a new software program with all the names in the world -> when a child is born, parents are asked to select a language of desired name -> parents click little 'Name my baby' button -> software spends 1 minute randomly scrolling through all names in the database until it lands on the selected name and BOB'S YOUR UNCLE!

Any names picked will be 'frozen' out of the selection criteria for another 100 children and will then be unfrozen so it can be selected again. This is so that every male/female born won't be named "X" for example!

Obviously only people of reasonable intelligence will be the ones to incorporate reasonable names into the system... no child is ever gonna be called Blanket ever again!

IT'S FOOLPROOF!!!

...

Can I get my Nobel prize now?

Madagascan

The parents should be f - - - ed out of France.

EPAndlee

TallGlass wrote: »

What's the issue here? I am sure people are still called Adolf and the likes. It's a name. Not exactly popular but still a name all the same.

Amazing how one man managed to ruin a name and a moustache

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

Article says a couple were prevented from naming a girl Nutella (!) in 2015, and I’m sure that child will be glad when she grows up!

Unless Nutella becomes a Jarhead, when ironically she could end up fighting Jihad...

Fliucharbith

EPAndlee wrote: »

Amazing how one man managed to ruin a name and a moustache

Or more amazing, that the name associated with world war 3 could be something like "Peaches 'n Cream".

"And that was the day, ladies and gentlemen, that Peaches 'n Cream declared all out war on our world"

Silly days, these days.

Ursus Horribilis

EPAndlee wrote: »

Amazing how one man managed to ruin a name and a moustache

Perhaps orange hair and Donald will go the same way.

jaxxx

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Perhaps orange hair and Donald will go the same way.

By hair I assume you mean unidentified alien creature

Pero_Bueno

I feel so sorry for that kid, what chance has he got ?
His parents will teach him nothing but hate for the west.
They have proved by naming him so that they have no intentions integrating and hate France.

hognef

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Sorry, it's Denmark that has the list.

You also have to have to name choice approved in Sweden.

Also, arguably, by stopping people making their kids stupid names the state is serving the child.

When names such as Chilli Ninja and Awesome are allowed, it's clearly not too hard to get approval for names not on the list (article in Danish): http://livsstil.tv2.dk/samliv/2016-04-04-navneloven-fylder-10-aar-moed-kigge-chilli-og-awesome.

But, indeed, all the Nordic countries, I believe, are able to disallow inappropriate name choices. Certainly the Scandinavian countries and Iceland. Not totally sure about Finland. This is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

Iceland are by far the strictest, though for reasons of preserving the language rather than anything else.

greencap

Surprisingly find myself on the side of the parents on this.

Initially anyway, maybe theres more to it that i just don't realise.

Weird to be on the parents side after spending so much time being very-pro-burqa-ban in that particular debate.

Was there a law there beforehand saying you can't name your kid the likes of stalin, hitler, kiddy-mc-kid-face, or jihad?

That would help push me back in the direction of my usual intolerance.

How will I ever call myself a racist again if I can't stop supporting the lefty-hippy-individual rights side.

gitzy16v

Jihad....great name,better than Mohammed anyway.

One eyed Jack

Shelga wrote: »

On the other hand, could this have a genuine negative impact on the child’s life and if so, is it up to authorities to do something?

Yes, it is up to the authorities and to society to see that there is no negative impact on the child simply because of their given name. There are some posters here would point out that if the child wanted to wear a dress for example, that the rest of society should be mature enough to be able to handle it and it would be the fault of the bullies if they chose to bully a child for wearing a dress or if a school were to discriminate against a child for wearing a dress.

But parents who decide to give their child the name Jihad? Ohh the parents are idiots and it's not fair to make the child suffer and all the rest of it.

Quite the double standard.

pickarooney

Fliucharbith wrote: »

Theres some interesting research/information about the impact of the name of a child.

Of course the child has no say in anything, but if parents decide to call them "He-Who-Swims-By-Night Mc Balls" it reflects entirely on the parents (of course). But that also informs, for example, potential employers about the type of family they are, the type of environment in which the child grew up.

And the research says that it has a negative impact.

"Jihad" doesn't tell me anything about the person when they're grown up, but it does indicate the background, and honestly, it doesn't say much good

It doesn't say much good because of your prejudices about Muslims. You'd have the same instinctive reaction if he were called Mohamed or Ibrahim.

conorhal

pickarooney wrote: »

It doesn't say much good because of your prejudices about Muslims. You'd have the same instinctive reaction if he were called Mohamed or Ibrahim.

The only prejudices on display are those of the parents, who are well aware of the connotation of their choice of name.
France is a country knee deep in blood as a result of 'jihad', and these parents are interested in nothing less than brazen, two fingered provocation towards the society that shelters them, don't even pretend otherwise. But you have nothing at all to say about their prejudices do you?
They should be ostracised, deported if possible and their child taken off them if not.

pickarooney

'knee deep in blood'

Your post is ill-informed, bigoted nonsense, borderline incitement to hatred.

You haven't a clue, mate, and I doubt you have any interest in learning.

Would you be clamouring for Tim, Dylann and Adam to be banned?

Billy86

No you should definitely not be allowed to name your child jihad, don't really see how it's different to that American couple who called their kids Adolf Hitler, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation or Honszlynn Hinler Jeanne. If I'm right that family's kids were taken by social services. Probably less of a legal issue and more of a child cruelty concern, I would think.

conorhal

pickarooney wrote: »

'knee deep in blood'

Your post is ill-informed, bigoted nonsense, borderline incitement to hatred.

You haven't a clue, mate, and I doubt you have any interest in learning.

Would you be clamouring for Tim, Dylann and Adam to be banned?

You are a disingenuous individual, and you know it and if you're going to be a slanderous one you better explain it.