Politics and Religion
11EUC664
‘Is the February 2004 law banning religious symbols in French
public schools compatible with core French Republican values?’
Following the dissolution of the French Catholic monarchy in the French
Revolution of 1789, liberty, equality and fraternity were adopted as the
‘maxim’ (Conseil Constitutionnel, 2012a) of the new Republic and have
contributed towards the shaping of laïcité, which defines French identity today
(Laborde, 2001). To ensure that the state was the first allegiance of French
citizens, restrictions between the church and the state were enforced through
the introduction of secularization under the ‘Third Republic’ and later, under
the ‘Fifth Republic’ in 1958 (Berkley Center, 2012).
Secularisation was
exacerbated when Law 2004-228, hereby referred to as the 2004 law, was
passed on 15 March 2004 by Jacques Chirac, which prohibited the wearing of
conspicuous religious symbols in French public schools. Not only did this
spark significant controversy within France, but it also reignited longstanding
debates concerning the interaction of the state and religion worldwide.
In this essay, the core French republican values and the associated concept
of laïcité will firstly be explored so as to establish a conceptual basis for
analysis. The context surrounding the 2004 law will then be analysed, before
the opposing arguments will be presented in order to discern if the law is
compatible with core French Republican values.
It will be advanced that
whilst it may appear that the 2004 law restricts certain freedoms, when viewed
in the specific context of France, the law is compatible with the French
concept of laïcité and the core values of the French Republic.
Katrina Howard
A914568
1
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
Core French Republican Values and Laïcité
According to Amélie Barras, laïcité is a ‘social construction’ (Barras, 2010:
232) that has evolved out of the necessity to protect the core values of the
French Republic: liberty, equality and fraternity, through ‘public neutrality’
(Laborde, 2001: 720) towards religion. The three core values are entrenched
in the French Constitution of 1958 (Conseil Constitutionnel, 2012a) and have
their foundation in the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’
(Conseil
Constitutionnel, 2012) of 1789.
Article 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man describes liberty as ‘being
able to do anything that does not harm others’ (Conseil Constitutionnel, 2012).
In this case, liberty is understood to mean freedom from intervention, for
example, rather than freedom to do something. Equality is described as being
‘the same for all, whether it protects or punishes’ (Conseil Constitutionnel,
2012).
It refers to equality under the law and not equality of property, for
example, thus allowing for individual difference to exist in French society.
Fraternity is not directly referred to in the Declaration but is understood to
refer to community spirit and national unity.
The three core values of the French Republic are primarily protected by
laïcité, an ethical and a legal concept that is regulated by the Conseil d’Etat,
the ‘highest court in France’ (Barras, 2010: 230). The Conseil d’Etat has
regulated the separation of the church and the state since 1905 (Berkley
Center, 2012).
Laïcité can be separated into two pillars, ‘freedom of
conscience and the principal of separation’ (Barras, 2010: 232); freedom of
Katrina Howard
A914568
2
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
conscience enables freedom of religion, whilst the principle of separation
separates the church and the state. As a result, the French government is
compelled to employ ‘state neutrality towards matters of belief’ (Baggini, 2006:
205), is not allowed to collect data on people’s religious affiliations’ (Baggini,
2006: 205) and must advance policy based not on ‘origin, race or religion’
(Conseil Constitutionnel, 2012a: 4), but on the shared values and principles of
the French Republic.
Recently, laïcité has taken on ‘a more extensive meaning’ (Laborde, 2001:
720) in the understanding that the ‘separation between public and private is
indispensable both to the protection of individual rights and to the exercise of
public reason’ (Laborde, 2001: 720).
It is on this basis that the French
Government has felt compelled to intervene in religious matters through the
removal of religious symbols from the ‘public sphere’ (Barras, 2010: 232), in
this case public schools, so as to protect the separation between politics and
religion.
The 2004 law
The results presented by the Stasi Report ‘on 11 December 2003’ (Akan,
2009: 237) concluded that the wearing of religious symbols by pupils in public
schools was in contempt of laïcité. The ruling has brought France into line
with countries such as Turkey, Germany and Kosovo who all have restrictions
of varying degrees against the wearing of religious symbols in public places,
in particular head scarves (Toksabay and Villelabeitia, 2010). Henceforth, the
law was introduced in France at the start of the new school year on the 2nd
Katrina Howard
A914568
3
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
September 2004 and prohibits the wearing of religious symbols in public
schools such as ‘Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and
large Christian crosses’ (Human Rights Watch, 2004). Schools are required
by law to enforce the ban, however, this has caused significant difficulties in
the maintenance of positive relations between pupils, their parents and
teachers. For example, Raymond Scieux, a headmaster of a school near
Paris, was required to mediate between teachers who supported the
implementation of ‘a total ban of head coverings’ (Jones, 2005) and Muslim
students who rejected it.
A compromise was reached that allowed the
students to wear a ‘discreet bandanna’ (Jones, 2005).
Contrary to popular belief, the law does not apply to private schools and a
number of single-faith schools, mainly ‘Muslim high schools’ (Akan, 2009:
237), have been built so that students can elect to study religious subjects
such as ‘Arabic, Islamic history and culture, and the Qur’an’ (Hanson, 2006:
146). Despite this, the ban has been met with claims of injustice, in particular
from the North African Muslim community that number ‘five million, eight
percent of the [French] population’ (Hanson, 2006: 145).
The 2004 law
provoked considerable violence in the international community, for instance,
when Iraqi militants kidnapped and killed two French journalists ‘to protest the
ban on head scarves’ (Hanson, 2006: 146).
Incompatibility of the 2004 law with core French Republican Values
The 2004 law has been criticised by a number of international organisations
such as the United Nations, the European Human Rights Commission as well
Katrina Howard
A914568
4
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
as Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh organizations’ (Berkely Center, 2012). In this
section, the arguments that claim that the 2004 law is incompatible with core
French Republic values will be examined.
Firstly, the French Republican value of fraternity, which refers to the shared
identity and universal values of French citizens, is challenged. It is argued
that simply by wearing a religious symbol, one does not become less
committed to the core French Republican values and therefore less cohesive
with the French identity. The 2004 law causes resentment between different
religious groups who may be pressured to revert further into their private
communities, for example a Muslim schoolgirl may choose to attend a Muslim
high school where she is allowed to practice their religion openly, rather than
engaging in the public sphere; a space in which fraternity can be positively
reinforced.
It is still possible for a national identity to exist with a variety of different
cultures in its make-up, and by allowing religious symbols, it would
demonstrate ‘respect for religious diversity, a position fully consistent with
maintaining the strict separation of public institutions’ (Human Rights Watch,
2004). By allowing religious symbols in state schools, a ‘publican similar’
(Laborde, 2001: 719) could still be achieved, if not through a visible uniformity,
but through the context of a shared French identity in which multiculturalism
can flourish and unite French citizens regardless of their background.
Secondly, it can be argued that the 2004 law is incompatible with the value of
equality because it is ‘discriminatory’ (Hanson, 2006: 146). Criticisms were
Katrina Howard
A914568
5
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
voiced by ‘the (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) Council of Christian
Churches’ (Hanson, 2006: 146), ‘the Sikh community’ (Hanson, 2006: 146),
and also leaders of the Muslim community. The leader of the French Council
of the Muslim Faith, Mohammed Moussaoui, claims that the ban
disproportionately discriminates against Muslim women who wear a headscarf
(Berkely Center, 2012) so much so that the 2004 law has become popularly
referred to by foreign media as “the headscarf ban”.
A report by Human
Rights Watch argues that not only does the ban disproportionately
discriminate against Muslim women, but that it also violates ‘international
human rights law as well as the right to equal educational opportunity’
(Human Rights Watch, 2004).
Evidence of inequalities created by the 2004 law can be found in the cases of
Muslim schoolgirls who have been expelled from school for continuing to wear
a headscarf (BBC,2004b). Girls who wish to continue wearing headscarves to
school have been forced to stop attending altogether or move to a private
Muslim school and in one instance, a young girl shaved her hair off in protest
so that she would not defy the teachings of the Muslim faith (BBC, 2004a).
Baggini argues that the banning of religious expression, and in particular
religious symbols in society, has caused people to ‘feel their beliefs are not
being granted the respect that they deserve’ (2006: 209). It has heightened
sentiments within the Muslim community that they are not treated equally to
citizens of other religions in European countries.
Thirdly, it is claimed that the 2004 law is incompatible with the French value of
liberty because it violates ‘rights to freedom of religion and expression’
Katrina Howard
A914568
6
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
(Human Rights Watch, 2004). Whilst in religions such as Christianity where
wearing a religious symbol is not obligatory, ‘for many Muslims, wearing a
headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious
obligation’ (Human Rights Watch, 2004). By depriving Muslims from wearing
a headscarf, it reduces their ‘active citizenship rights’ (Barras, 2010: 231)
because the French state is restricting their freedom of dress, and thus their
right to education once they are expelled.
Rosello advances that a
compromise should have been met between teachers and students that could
have developed a way in which the concept of laïcité could be advanced in
education whilst maintaining the student’s liberty to religious expression
(Rosello, 2007: 164).
Compatibility of the 2004 law with core French Republican Values
Despite the 2004 law being taken before the European Court of Human
Rights, it was found to be constitutionally sound. The main reasons that were
given for the advancement of the 2004 law related to the longevity of the
French concept of laïcité, which is primarily reinforced through education in
France’s state schools.
Firstly, it is advanced that the allowance of religious displays in public schools
would ‘undermine the civic sense of fraternité’ (Laborde, 2001: 719). This is
because the French interpretation of fraternity requires an absence of strong
physical differentiation between French citizens in order to create a ‘publican
similar’ (Laborde, 2001: 719). It is thought that by willingly adopting a public
uniformity, the individual can be ‘an active member in a self-determining
Katrina Howard
A914568
7
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
political community’ (Laborde, 2001: 719), thus reaffirming the compatibility of
the 2004 law with the value of fraternity which encourages this.
According to the Stasi report (Akan, 2009: 238), the 2004 law was necessary
to encourage fraternity in France and protect laïcité from a ‘change in
historical circumstances, namely, the increased cultural diversity of France’
(Akan, 2009: 239). In essence, it is suggested that there existed a fear that
French culture was becoming ‘diluted’ (Barras, 2010: 231) due to the high
influx of North African immigrants. Similarly, the French Prime Minister at the
time, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, argued that the 2004 law was necessary because
religious symbols, and the headscarf in particular, were ‘taking on a political
meaning’ (Hanson, 2006: 146) which was unacceptable in France’s secular
society.
Secondly, the 2004 law is arguably compatible with the French Republican
value of equality because the banning of religious symbols encourages equal
treatment of all French citizens (Laborde, 2001: 719). In support of this view,
Laborde identifies a passage in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789
that states that French citizens should be respected ‘sans distinction d’origine,
de race ou religion’ (Laborde, 2001: 719). As an instrument of the French
constitution, the state is required to introduce policy that encourages equal
rights for all; ‘state policies should aim at the reduction of structural
inequalities’ (Laborde, 2001: 719) and so the 2004 law aids in the
achievement of this.
Katrina Howard
A914568
8
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
Several prominent Muslim leaders have voiced their support for the 2004 law,
including Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris (Berkely
Center, 2012). Following the passage of the bill Boubakeur stated, ‘Islam, in
the West, must adapt its faithful’ (Berkely Center, 2012). This is understood
to mean that in order for the French Republican value of equality to be upheld,
individuals from all faiths should comply with the customs of the culture in
which they have entered into, so as to be considered and treated as equal
citizens.
Thirdly, the 2004 law is compatible with the French Republican value of liberty
because the banning of religious expression in schools is not seen as an
absence of liberty, but as the giving of liberty so that children can function
freely from the restraints of religious teaching. According to Laborde, state
schools are not required to respect ‘the ethnic, social, or cultural differences’
(Laborde, 2001: 719) of school children but conversely to encourage them to
be ‘autonomous human beings’ (Laborde, 2001: 719) that are able to function
independently of their cultural background. This aims to ensure that French
children from all religions develop ‘critical skills essential to exercise the rights
associated with liberty as autonomy’ (Laborde, 2001: 718). In order to be truly
liberated, then one must free themselves in the public sphere of their private
attachments.
Whilst this protects schoolchildren from religious influence, it also enables
laïcité to be protected. Rosello argues that ‘what happens in schools not only
reflects, but also affects the way in which laïcité is defined, applied or
transmitted as knowledge’ (Rosello, 2007: 153). In this sense, it is important
Katrina Howard
A914568
9
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
to the French culture and its values that the public sphere, and particularly the
young French generation, is aware of the importance of laïcité so that it can
be upheld in the future.
Former President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, viewed the 2004 law in terms of
rights and duties, a concept of citizenship that is advanced by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau in ‘The Social Contract’ (Rousseau, 1968). He argues that ‘there
are no rights without duties, and if the Muslims of France have the same
rights as other believers, they have the same duties’ (Sarkozy, 2003).
France’s tradition as a secular state therefore gives it the right to advance
secular policies; the 2004 law applies equally across all religions and is not
advertently discriminatory against any one religion in particular.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has explored the 2004 law that prohibits the wearing
of religious symbols in schools.
It has attempted to discern the laws
compatibility with the French Republican values of liberty, equality and
fraternity and its fourth value, laïcité. An initial investigation into these values
revealed that the French state practices ‘assertive secularism’ (Kuru, 2007:
568) in which religion is actively restricted from the public sphere through the
implementation of policy.
The main arguments for advancing the incompatibility of the 2004 law with the
core Republican values are that the banning of religious symbols in schools
does not create an accepting attitude towards different religions, which can
undermine fraternity. Furthermore, the 2004 law is arguably discriminatory, in
Katrina Howard
A914568
10
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
particular against the Muslim faith that constitutes France’s largest religious
minority, which is incompatible with the value of equality. The value of liberty
is arguably not complied with because the 2004 law restricts freedom of
religion and expression, freedom of dress and rights to education.
On the other hand, the main arguments for advancing the compatibility of the
2004 law with the core Republican values are that the banning of religious
symbols in schools achieves a public uniformity as required by fraternity.
Importantly, it also reinforces the concept of laïcité, which is introduced to
French children through education.
It encourages the equal treatment of
children at school regardless of their religion and it does not take away liberty,
but rather empowers children with the freedom to learn in schools without any
religious constraints or influence from their cultural backgrounds.
The arguments that promote the compatibility of the 2004 law with the core
French Republican values are found to be the most convincing on the basis
that the 2004 law is viewed in the specific French context. This view is based
on the understanding that laïcité exists to protect the core values and
preserve France’s secular culture and is underpinned by the French
Constitution of 1958 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
By
understanding their origins, it has been possible to discern that the 2004 law
was not an act of discrimination spurred on by contemporary events, but a
ruling that derived from a history of philosophical thinking concerning the
separation of religion and politics in the creation of a new Republic.
Katrina Howard
A914568
11
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
Bibliography
Akan, M (2009) Laïcité and multiculturalism: the Stasi Report in context The
British Journal of Sociology Vol. 60 (2) pp. 237 – 256 [09 May 2012]
Baggini, J (2006) The rise, fall and rise again of secularism Public Policy
Research Vol. 12 (4) pp. 204-212 [19 April 2012]
Barras, A (2010) Contemporary Laïcité: Setting the Terms of a New Social
Contract? The Slow Exclusion of Women Wearing Headscarves Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions Vol. 11 (2) pp. 229–248 [19 April 2012]
Baubérot, J (2009) Laïcité and the Challenge of ‘Republicanism’ Modern &
Contemporary France Vol 17 (2) pp.189-198 [19 April 2012]
BBC (2004a) Muslim girl shaves head over ban BBC News [Online] (Last
updated 18.20 on Friday 1st October 2004) Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3708444.stm [19 April 2012]
BBC (2004b) French girls expelled over veils BBC News [Online] (Last
updated 23.58 on Wednesday 20th October 2004) Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3761490.stm [19 April 2012]
Berkely Center (2012) France [Online] Berkely Center for Religion, Peace and
World Affairs. Available at:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france [11 May
2012]
Berkely Center (2012a) Contemporary Affairs [Online] Berkely Center for
Religion, Peace and World Affairs. Available at:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/france-contemporary-affairs [11
May 2012]
Berkley Centre (2012b) Religion in the French Constitution [Online]
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/religion-in-the-french-constitution
[09 May 2012]
Bowen, J R. (2010) Religious Discrimination and Religious Governance
Across Secular and Islamic Countries: France and Indonesia as Limiting
Cases American Behavioural Scientist Vol. 53 (12) pp. 1749 – 1762 [15 May
2012]
Chadwick, K (1997) Education in secular France: (re)defining laïcité Modern &
Contemporary France Vol. 5 (1) pp. 47-59 [19 April 2012]
Conseil Constitutionnel (2012) [Online] Declaration of Human and Civic Rights
of 26 August 1789 http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/english/constitution/constitution-of-4-october-1958.25742.html
Katrina Howard
A914568
12
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
[15 May 2012]
Conseil Constitutionnel (2012a) Constitution of October 4, 1958 [pdf]
Available at: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958/laconstitution-du-4-octobre-1958.5071.html [15 May 2012]
Hanson, E O. (2006) Religion and Politics in the International System Today
[E-Book] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available through:
Dawsonera [16 May 2012]
Human Rights Watch (2004) France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious
Freedom [Online] 27 February. Available at:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/02/26/france-headscarf-ban-violates-religiousfreedom [23 April 2012]
Human Rights Watch (2005) Turkey: Headscarf Ruling Denies Women
Education and Career [Online] 16 November. Available at:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/11/15/turkey-headscarf-ruling-denies-womeneducation-and-career [13 May 2012]
Jones, E C. (2005) Muslim girls unveil their fears BBC News [Online] (Last
updated at 6:54am on Monday 28 March 2005) Available at:
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4352171.stm [16 May 2012]
Kuru, A T. (2007) Passive and Assertive Secularism: Historical Conditions,
Ideological Struggles, and State Policies toward Religion World Politics Vol.59
(4) pp. 568 – 594 [16 May 2012]
Laborde, M (2001) The Culture(s) of the Republic: Nationalism and
Multiculturalism in French Republican Thought Political Theory Vol. 29 (5) pp.
716 – 735 [11 May 2012]
Rosello, M (2007) Laïcité, Grammar, Fable: secular teaching of secularism
Postcolonial Studies Vol. 10 (2) pp. 153 – 169 [23 April 2012]
Rousseau, J (1968) The Social Contract Harmondsworth: Penguin
Sarkozy, N (2003) Nicolas Sarkozy on Secular Citizenship and the Ban on
Religious Symbols in Schools (Online) Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and
World Affairs 31 December. Available at:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/nicolas-sarkozy-onsecular-citizenship-and-the-ban-on-religious-symbols-in-schools [16 May
2012]
The Daily Telegraph (2004) Freedom of Dress The Daily Telegraph [Online]
June 16. Available through: Nexis [16 May 2012]
Toksabay, E and Villelabeitia, I (2010) In quiet revolution, Turkey eases
Katrina Howard
A914568
13
Politics and Religion
11EUC664
headscarf ban Reuters [Online] Last updated 4:44am on Sunday 17 October
(16 May 2012)
Katrina Howard
A914568
14