Talk:French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

Important information

Much of the text of the article is about the intents of those pushing for the law, and speculation about possible implementation decisions; all these go far beyond the actual text of the law, the essential part of which I translated. I also gave a pointer to an authoritative source for the text of the law.

All comments about non-legal sources (this includes politicians expressing themselves in unofficial documents) should make it clearly apparent that they are not authoritative. David.Monniaux 18:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

background

It goes much farther than that.

If that law had been suggested *only* for laicity considerations, all religious symbols would have been entirely forbidden. Including small crosses, that are usually wore above the clothes (in particular protestant crosses).

The generally believed reason why only ostentacious symbols have been forbidden is much more tricky. It was decided because of the increasing number of girls in high school, wearing the headscarf, not just as brutal desire to limit expression and practice of faith (as some people here seemed to believe, so as some foreign newspapers probably report it).

That increasing number of headscarf is one of the numerous signs of extremist activity in France, in particular in poor suburbs. But aside from that, this is also an explicit break of a french law, that guarantee equality between men and women. If it is true that some women decided to wear the veil in a totally independent and free mind, it is also clear that it is not the case of many of these young girls.

In many suburbs, the woman is often given the choice of being either seen as "prostitute" (when refusing to wear the veil) and may be victim for example of collective rape, or is "submitted" (when accepting to wear it). This position is in particular defended by the now famous (in France) association Ni putes, ni soumises, which want to defend the rights of women to be without veil but still "decent" women, not just there for the men service and pleasure.

See http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/societe/20040116.OBS2637.html for event 2 days ago.

The laic school is also the school of sex equality.

At least, this is one point of view :-)

---

text from Votes for deletion

I removed the notice to say that this page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion as it's been struck off as everyone voted to keep it. Here is a record of the votes and comments:

January 18 (2004)

• French headscarf law - this article duplicates a section in Islam in France. I don't think it is needed. Either it should go, or the section in the larger article should be reduced to just be a pointer. - UtherSRG 02:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept on the grounds it may be a worthwhile stub for any future developements due to this law. SimonMayer 02:56, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Usually, when I see an article I think worth, listed for deletion of vfd, I go help saving it by spending time adding to it. But here, I feel so abashed at the proposition of deleting such a topic that has been filling all our newspapers for more than 10 years, compared to the thousand of bullshit articles in this place, that I will not even make the effort. I am truely disgusted. I might even had considered listing the bullshit articles here for balance, but I think I would be loosing my time. Some people here, could consider spending their time writing articles. Horrible vfd place, I should not even consider coming here more than once a month, temple of the deletionism to its uggliest form. Anthere
  • Keep. Duplication suggests that it should be a redirect, not deleted. I don't really care whether you leave it duplicated, or remove it from Islam in France, or redirect it to Islam in France, but I can't think of any reason to delete it. -- Tim Starling 03:19, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - definitely. Very broad subject that can easily be fleshed out. --snoyes 03:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, natch. This is a valid and interesting topic, much more can be written on it, and even if it were decided to put the text back into Islam in France, this would still serve as a worthwhile redirect. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearcut keep. There have been worldwide scarf-marches as a protest. Definitely deserves an independent article... (might as well suggest we should not have an article on zero tolerance -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 03:57, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move stuff from Islam in France. Probably should rename this to reflect its not just applying to headscarves. -- Finlay McWalter 04:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: topic is major enough to merit independent treatment. silsor 04:17, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nuff said. I withdraw my proposal. The article stays, and I'll work on Islam in France to point better to it and not just duplicate the section. - UtherSRG 05:35, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secretlondon 07:27, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep because it is a valid topic. SpellBott 09:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was about to vote "keep" as well. --Fabiform 17:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hijab

It is widely believed to be specifically directed at French Muslim girls who dress according to hijab.

First, if it's widely believed then it should be easy to find at least one spokesman to quote. Second, the Wikipedia article on hijab said (if I recall correctly) that hijab means "modest attire". The sentence I deleted makes it sound like all modest attire for Muslim girls would be forbidden, and they'd have to wear mini-skirts and show their belly buttons like Britney Spears.

Let's repair this sentence and put it back. Does it mean head scarves, or what?

And is this a case of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab discrimination being written into law? If someone thinks so, let's quote them. Otherwise, it sounds more like 'contributor opinion' rather than encyclopedic fact. --Uncle Ed 20:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this week's Economist special report on this issue is quite good (someone else already put this as an external link). One person they quote, Khalil Merroun, rector of a large mosque in a town just south of Paris, says "It's not the crucifx or the kippa that is targeted, but Islam." I think the best translation is that it is a ban on "conspicious religious symbols" - the Economists also translates a passage as "of manifestly excessive dimension." As I said above, I believe the article is badly named at the moment French law to ban conspicious religious symbol is definitely more accurate. Yes hijab has the wider meaning that you refer to, and yes it is specifically the headscarf that would be covered by this law. If you want a quote that it is an anti-Muslim law from a non-Muslim try Ken Livingstone who said "President Jacques Chirac is playing a terribly, terribly dangerous game in the same way that many politicians felt they could pander to Hitler in the 20s. The only way to defeat Fascism in Europe is to stand against every demand they make. It is an anti-Muslim measure and will stir up anti-Muslim pressure." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. I moved the article to "conspicuous".

Anyway, I clearly don't know enough about the issue to be writing about it. All I have are questions. And, yes, it does seem that the law -- despite the appearance of being a general prohibition smacks of a deliberate targeting at a Muslim or Arab display. As if to say, assimilate or else!

"Bavaria's rightwing education minister, Monika Hohlmeier, claimed the head scarf was increasingly used as a political symbol. Wearing Christian crosses or Jewish symbols was acceptable, she added - an assertion that invited accusations of double standards."

I'd like the article to address the extent to which the wearing of the headscarf is a political statement ("we are not like the rest of you; we refuse to assimilate").

Also, to what degree is it a religous requirement, and who says so? Is it "clearly mentioned in the Koran"? Girls must cover their hair, ears and throat, showing no part of their head except the face?

Is it a "cultural custom", like "I don't want anyone seeing how pretty my daughter is; she might marry outside her faith."? Or a "control the women" thing, as in "We mark our women like a herdsman branding his cattle; every girl wearing a scarf is some man's property."

It's too big an issue for me: that's why I want someone else to write the article: so I can read it and learn! --Uncle Ed 21:36, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am in the same boat as you Ed. It is clearly an interesting subject, and I fear I wouldn't be doing it justice by simply parroting what I've read in weekly newspapers. Having said that, I think it would be right to mention, particularly in this English language article, that France has been secular for a long time (goes back to the Revolution) and this law is an extension of that. Saying "God bless America" is the most natural thing in the world for Americans to hear Bush say, but if Chirac said a similar thing about France I think it would be a headline in Le Monde. Here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325285.stm - is a primer on France's secular history. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Survey numbers and teachers

I moved the bit about teachers out of the reference to that specific survey - the version of the survey printed in The Economist didn't mention teachers. Does the original survey mention teachers specifically, anyone know? Where did the bit on teachers come from, do we have a source we can reference? - David Gerard 11:02, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken out the teachers for now. If anyone has a survey reference mentioning the teachers, put it back in - David Gerard 00:42, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've found a refernece. I searched le parisien, here's the search result (I couldn't access the article for free):

Les profs favorables à la loi, 05/02/2004

LES ENSEIGNANTS attendent avec impatience la loi interdisant à l'école les signes religieux. Pour la première fois, un sondage CSA, réalisé pour « le Monde » et « la Vie », le démontre : 76 % des profs se déclarent favorables au texte (lors d'une enquête effectuée en décembre auprès de l'ensemble d...

Teachers in favour of the law February 5 2004

Teachers are looking forward to the law banning religious symbols in schools. For the first time, a CSA survey for "le Monde" and "la Vie" shows 76% of teachers say that they are in favour of the text (during a survey taken in December to most...

I think that le Monde has more accessible archives, I'll go and see... fabiform | talk 05:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had any luck finding it in le monde or le monde diplomatique. I give up! I assume that the snippet above is all we really neaded? fabiform | talk 05:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A reference would be good - is it the same survey quoted in The Economist? But it's substantiation! - David Gerard 15:28, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm? What do you mean by a reference? fabiform | talk 15:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean a weblink. Still I've put in a sentence as is anyway - David Gerard 15:34, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I could give you the link to the page where it asks you to pay before you can view the article if you like. This is bugging me again. Perhaps I'll find a better source somewhere else? fabiform | talk 15:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If we can find a better link, good. Or a reference to the newspaper date and page. Whatever you think is a workable idea, I suppose, you went and found the ref! - David Gerard 16:24, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've already given you the newspaper name and date of the article above, no idea of the page number though. But...

I've found a different reference for you! http://www.laic.info/ - very good site for this article.

84% des enseignants pour l'exclusion d'une élève voilée (sondage) - AFP [1] (4th February 2004)

84% of Teachers in Favour of the Exclusion of Veiled Students (survey) - APF

84% des enseignants se prononcent pour l'exclusion d'une élève voilée, dont 19% sans même chercher de compromis, selon un sondage CSA réalisé pour le Monde et la Vie et publié dans le quotidien de mercredi, daté jeudi.

84% of teachers report that they are in favour of the exclusion of a veiled [female] student, of whom 19% said they would not even try to compromise, according to a CSA survey carried out for le Monde and la Vie and published in the [daily] newspaper on Wednesday, dated Thursday.

Interrogés sur leur attitude une fois la loi sur la laïcité votée, 65% des enseignants déclarent vouloir d'abord chercher un compromis mais exclure l'élève en cas d'échec. 19% disent exiger le retrait et exclure l'élève si elle conserve son voile. 15% en revanche sont contre toute exclusion.

Questioned on their attitude once the law on secularity had been passed, 65% teachers said that they would first wish to try and find a compromise but would exclude the pupil if necessary. 19% said they would demand the pupil remove her veil and exclude her if she failed to do so. 15% on the other hand were opposed to any exclusions.

D'autre part, les enseignants sont massivement favorables (78%) à une loi interdisant les signes et tenues manifestant ostensiblement l'appartenance religieuse des élèves. Ils sont également favorables (72%) à l'interdiction de port d'insignes politiques. 57% préfereraient le mot visible à ostentatoires (16%) ou ostensible (16% également).

On the other hand, teachers are massively in favour (78%) of a law banning conspicuous clothing or other signs which identify which religion a pupil belongs to. They are also in favour (72%) of banning the wearing of political symbols. 57% preferred the word "visible" to "ostentatious" [ostentatoires] (16%) or "conspicuous" [ostensible] (also 16%).

Toutefois, les enseignants ne placent la laïcité qu'en onzième position (14%) de leurs préoccupations derrière l'échec scolaire (en tête avec 58%), la défense du service public, les relations enseignants-parents, les effectifs, les programmes, la sécurité....

However, teachers only ranked secularity in 11th place (14%) of their preoccupations, behind failing in school [I think this means pupils dropping out etc, literally "school failure"?] (at the top with 58&), defending the public service, parent-teacher relations, pupil numbers [attendance or class sizes?], the curriculum, safety...

De plus, ils considèrent (59%) que parler du voile à l'école est une façon de ne pas aborder les vrais problèmes qui se posent à l'enseignement.

Moreover, they consider (59%) that focusing on the veil in schools is a way of avoiding the real issues facing education.

Ce sondage a été réalisé du 22 au 24 janvier auprès d'un échantillon représentatif de 504 enseignants de collèges et lycées publics.

This survey was carried out from the 22 to 24th January [2004] using a representative selection of 504 teachers from state-funded secondary schools [collèges et lycées].

Copyright - AFP

- Well there you have it. My rough and ready translation by the way. fabiform | talk 16:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just put that link in the article. Very good! - David Gerard 02:28, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Ethical and Legal Implications

France has ratified the Convention on The Rights of the Child which specifies:

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This "religious symbol ban" law is also in obvious contempt of one's fundamental human rights.

"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" also known as EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (enforced at the highest level by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

It seems that France is confounding the people's rule with the people's tyranny again.User:Damas

Would you consider avoiding unnice comments toward other countries than yours Damas ? fr0069

Has this commonly been raised as an issue with the French public or media? That is, is it something obviously suitable for an encyclopedia article on the subject, or only speculation here on this talk page? - David Gerard 02:28, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, here is a similar case accepted by the ECHR: [2]. Any lawyers around?

---

More accurate title?

May I suggest that we change the title of this article for a more accurate title ? The french name of the law is "loi sur la laïcité". May I suggest that the current title sounds biaised to me ? A law meant to insure the laicity principle is respected is frankly *not* the same than describing the law as a "ban over religious symbols". The current title of this article is just fallling short. The french title is "positive" when the current title weights definitly too much on the "restrict religious freedom" side. fr0069 15:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is an article discuting the "hot topic" du jour... and the controversy surrounding this law, not simply "Loi n. 2/2004" of the French Republic. And yes, the French title is "positive", and nevertheless the law is biased. User:Damas

This is not answering to my comment in any way. What we are reporting are facts, and the fact is that the title of the article is not a FACT, it is an interpretation of the spirit of the law. As for the law being biased, this is not your job to judge this. Why should it have any influence in your activity here ? fr0069

Also, the French wikipedia article is called "Loi française pour l'interdiction des symboles religieux", so depite the fact it could have been called "la loi sur la laïcité" with none of the headaches of translation we face, they chose to call it that. fabiform | talk 18:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fabi...let's be serious :-) We started this article, before the french people did. Or rather...I started the topic several months ago, and it was not even mentionned on the french wikipedia. The current french article is merely a translation of this one, so do not give as an argument for keeping a bad title, the fact the french decided to give it that name, when all they did was to copy the english title. If that troubles you, I will change the french title NOW :-) fr0069

OK, I didn't read the French article! But... I still think the current title has merit. How would we translate "la loi sur la laïcité" in a manner that people without a knowledge of the French system would understand? Law on secularity/secularism is meaningless to most English speakers, and would encompass past laws from all around the world; French law on secularity not specific enough, especially if you don't know that this is about public schools; French law on secularity in schools again this isn't specific enough to this current law, it implies that the current state of affairs is widespread religious observance in public schools. Wikipedia is supposed to be about a consensus of opinion, it is undoubtable that media attention is focused on the issue of the veil and other religious "symbols" in schools, and it is obviously the government's agenda, how else can you explain their ignoring the part of the report about celebrating non-Christian holidays, and the fact that they didn't consider the Sikh turban etc. Do you have any specific titles in mind that we could consider, I'm having trouble thinking of any reasonable alternatives except for "French law on conspicuous religious symbols in schools"... how does that one strike you? fabiform | talk 20:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand this comment of yours Fabi. But it still is problematic. Because it still insist on the religious side; As I understand it, that is how it is interpretated by Americans at least, but it is not so by the majority of French people. What is important is laicity, and not religion so much. I would very much like that you read what I wrote at the very top of the article. Perhaps you might understand better one of the major reason of that law (which explains a lot why it is focusing on veils). It might also explain that if it was only an attempt to limit religious freedom, it would not have focused only on conspicuous signs, and crosses or Fatma's hand would have been banned as well. What I try to explain to you is that this title might be perfectly sound for american people perhaps, because I read they focused on the religious side, but it is wrong for us.

That is a fact there is no english word for laïcity. Is that a fair argument to give a false and misleading title for a non english law ? I do not think so. I actually think it would be less misleading to give as title the french name of the law, so that people won't wrongly slide on the religious side so much, but rather try to go on an article about laïcity, where they can really understand what laicity is.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about a consensus of opinion, it is undoubtable that media attention is focused on the issue of the veil and other religious "symbols" in schools,

it is focused on this in english media. Not so much in our media. That is where you are mislead. If you wish to try to explain french law and french culture, at least try to stick to french information, not foreign information.

and it is obviously the government's agenda,

no, it is not so obvious. If it were only the religious issue, all signs of religion would have been banned. The government is also trying to figure how to guarantee the freedom and equality of women in that whole issue.

how else can you explain their ignoring the part of the report about celebrating non-Christian holidays,

The government is *currently* trying to reduce the number of holidays: they will likely remove one, and some were willing to remove 2. That removal has been heavily criticize. Now, if they wish to add one non christian, they will lose the benefit of their fight. If they try to remove 3 days, to add a non-christian, they will get social uproar

and the fact that they didn't consider the Sikh turban etc.

???? I know *no* studant wearing the Sikh turban. Actually, I know *no one* wearing the Sikh turban. Is it necessary to take into account into laws what just does not occur in a country ??? fr0069

I would like that, at least, if that ugly title is kept, it is made less proeminent, the real name of the law is made more proeminent. I would like also that a citation is provided for a name that appears entirely invented to me. fr0069

--

If you're referring to the bit at the top of this page "The laic school is also the school of sex equality" etc, yes I had already read this. It is one interpretation of the reasons behind the law (and a common motivation from people who believe the veil is a tool of submission). But, it is not the only reason for this law, and to imply this would be POV. Reasons (off the top of my head, there are probably more) that this law has been proposed and the motivations of some of the people who support it (in no particular order):

1. belief that the current situation of allowing veils etc in schools violates the long tradition of laicity in government funded institutions
2. belief that the veil is a tool of supression and subjugation of women
3. belief that wearing the veil or other religious symbols is the same as prosthelizing (preaching/advocating)
4. belief that if people live in France they should be "assimilated"
5. belief that the veil represents extremists

How any of the points stated above has anything to do with secularism (separation of church and state) is beyond me User:Damas

I have to disagree with you on the media focus. Here are some quotes from le Monde: "Laïques et musulmans "hors intégrismes" tentent de manifester ensemble contre la loi antivoile" (headline); "M. de Villepin, la loi sur le voile et le turban sikh" (headline); "Matignon et l'Elysée s'efforcent de recadrer le débat sur l'interdiction du voile à l'école" (headline); "L'Assemblée nationale a adopté en première lecture, mardi 10 février, par 494 voix contre 36 et 31 abstentions, le projet de loi encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics" (first paragraph); "Dans une école de Bondy, le dilemme de deux garçons sikhs" (headline).

And from Liberation: "La loi sur le port des signes religieux à l'école n'est que la continuation de..." (first words of an article); "Voile et paranoïa droitière" (headline); "Contre l'islamiste, le citoyen" (headline); "Il y avait une connivence à l'Assemblée pour légiférer sur le voile" (headline); "494 députés votent contre les signes religieux à l'école" (headline); "Juppé et Fabius : une loi sur le voile imparfaite mais nécessaire" (headline); "Les sikhs défilent contre le projet de loi sur la laïcité" (headline); "Voile, liberté et ordre public" (headline); "En France, on aime bien se décrire comme le pays de la laïcité militante, par exemple pour justifier le fait que nous soyons les seuls à faire une loi pour interdire le voile à l'école...." (first line of article).

You will have noted three mentions of Sikh men in those quotes. Just because you personally don't know any Sikh men, doesn't mean that they don't live in France. If this law were truly based upon re-enforcing the principle of laicity in French schools then there would have been no concerns when Sikh men were mentioned. If women are oppressed by the veil, are men oppressed by the turban? I'm not being sarcastic, sexual equality cuts both ways.

It might also explain that if it was only an attempt to limit religious freedom, it would not have focused only on conspicuous signs, and crosses or Fatma's hand would have been banned as well

The title of the article doesn't imply that these are being banned; the title isn't "French law to restrict religious freedom", even if that is how you are interpreting it, not everyone will.

I actually think it would be less misleading to give as title the french name of the law, so that people won't wrongly slide on the religious side so much, but rather try to go on an article about laïcity, where they can really understand what laicity is.

This isn't the article about what laicity is, nor is it the article about the history of laicity in France, nor the separation of Church and State in France, nor "l'affaire du foulard" from a few years ago. If those articles don't exist yet, I hope someone will write them soon, but this article is about the law which is currently being voted on. The focus of this law is not the enitire concept of laicity in schools (laws already exist on this) it is designed to clarify and re-enforce these existing laws and to extend the concept of laicity to removing conspicuous religious symbols from schools. fabiform | talk 08:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

One way to interpret the controversy is that the French government cannot tell the difference, or has chosen not to see a difference, between "Islamism" (an invention of secular theorists who seek to separate the religious and political character of Islam, and see headscarfs in schools as violating their own rules about separation of church and state which Islam doesn't assert), Islam as a political movement, and freedom of worship or expression. Many people editing Wikipedia seem to have this same confusion, as witness the biased redirects (especially of Islamist). This may be based on a lack of knowledge, which suggests filling out list of Islamic terms in Arabic with good definitions may help everyone to understand what the real debates are from the Islamic side - there being many experts here on the secular side of this.

---

Jan 2004 survey link dead

http://www.laic.info/Members/webmestre/Revue_de_presse.2004-02-04.2241/view is now a closed link (403 Forbidden). How annoying! I've left it for now, but do we have a live link that doesn't require payment? - David Gerard 14:34, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

It still works for me. fabiform | talk 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, if it only hates me then that's good for everyone else ;-) - David Gerard 14:55, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I hope it's not just stuck in my cache. I shift-refreshed though, and it still worked! fabiform | talk 15:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm now at a different machine and it works fine for me. - David Gerard 20:26, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Overseas territories

Consistent interpretation of the law should yield that since the some territories are populated by muslims in such areas an un-veiled woman is in fact displaying a religious symbol that proclaims her religious faith. User:Damas

curious comment. The fact a women is un-veiled does not prove she is claiming another faith, or no faith at all, but that she might have chosen to practice her faith without veil wearing. Anyway, in Mayotte, there are no such troubles with religious extremism and girls forced, which is certainly why it does not matter so much.

That is neat, in looking for a word, I fell in this link : http://www.wordiq.com/knowledge/search.html?title=Islam_in_France

revendication and clan

Thanks Fab.

I need you to explain exactly what you're saying here:

They have highlighted the tensions provoked by the revendication of religious and group identities, like the formation of clans, for instance. They regret frequent violence toward themselves as well, in particular toward female teachers.

I don't know what you mean by "revendication" - do you mean the creating/formation; the claims/demands; reclaiming, etc?

revendication is claiming, demanding. Such as a terrorist group who "revendicate" the right for Corsica to be independant. In our case, typical religious "revendications" are demanding the right for women to be covered, demanding no pork in school food (this has been the case for a long time), asking that girls have a female teacher, in particular in gymnastic or at the pool, sometimes demanding that girls or separated from boys. For other religious groups, it might be not to study on a specific day (like saturday), or on celebration days (the non catholic celebration days). It might be the right to be able to make 6 prayers per day. Or that some topics (such as sexual education) are removed from programs.

group identities is a bit more complicated. But suffice it to say that in some places, kids may be from more than 10 different origins in one classroom. Among teenagers, a cultural identification happens, such as wearing specific clothes in a specific way, or using specific language (which is frankly not pure french), or listening to specific music. These groups request to be recognised as cultural units, with specific rights, while school is on the contrary supposed to make no difference between pupils. School teachers are often overwhelmed by this, and when a group of teenagers gang against her in class, or after class, verbally or physically attack her saying she is racist or does not respect cultural diversity, well, that is tough :-) Especially since teachers are more trained in the spirit of gender equality and laicity, than in extremism and bullying.

And the word "clan" is mostly used to mean a Scottish family... do you mean a "gang" (this could imply that they are violent), or would "group" be better? So far I've only done the "Background and Stasi Commission" section. Cheers, fabiform | talk 09:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC).

yeah, you are right. Gang is the word I often saw. Gang definitly it is. Typically...when a girl refuses to wear the veil in a city, some guys will consider she is then "free" to use and an offense to Allah, and should not complain to whatever happens to her. They pick her up, and lead her at the lowest level of buildings, and will rape her in turn. Often, these are groups of 6 to 10 individuals. Sometimes, there is even the boyfriend of the girl. We call this "tournantes" or "viol en réunion" (that is the legal term). This also happens in schools. In 1998/9, 556 affairs of sexual agressions (12% or rape) were reported in school. Some girls are also sold for a couple of euros, beaten. This is rarely done by just one guy. It is team work. If the girl behave properly (understand, she is not in jean with nake head, she does not stay out, she does not provoke guys) she will be respected. Some mothers get so scared for their girls, that they ask her to wear the veil to protect them. These mothers were those who fought for their rights 15 years ago. 15 years ago, none of them were wearing veils (but they were often submitted to forced weddings very early, I have a couple of painful memories for some of my friends then, I went to a city college). These phenomenons toward women are recent. And are frequently stirred up by extremist groups underground in the city. You initially get a group of bored and rather unhappy kids, then you get gangs; then some switch to more classical illegality, with drug sales in school, use of weapons, intimidation, car stealing and such.

http://www.drmcc.org/html/archives/memoires_theses/vincent_tremollet/zone-05.html http://www.nouvelobs.com/articles/p1947/a12137.html http://maisondesfemmes.free.fr/revue/violences/viol/recherche.htm

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "revendication" as "the action of claiming back or recovering by a formal claim"; the word is last cited in the 1850s, so it's a bit out of date. The OED definition doesn't seem to be what is meant in the original text. The wordreference.com French-English dictionary translates it as "demand", or in law, "claim." This tracks with the description given above and with general French usage on the Web per a Google search on "revendication." A literal translation doesn't capture the context in English, so I've replaced "revendicatif" with the word "provocative." Hope this helps. Dave Kielpinski

Vote on article title

I got a message on my talk page advising me that by moving the article from [[]] to Religious symbols in French schools I had ignored a vote. I searched for the words "vote" and "poll" on this talk page, but I missed it. So should we vote again, or what? --Uncle Ed 15:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Scroll up this page - about half way through the "Actual text of law" section you will see a neat set of rows numbered 1 through 8 of proposed other titles. The only worry I have about the current title is that the word garb often has slightly negative conatations - it is sometimes used to imply unnecessary/pointless clothing - though this is not dictionary definition it may be better to err on the side of caution. Of course this choice of wording is secondary - we first have to decide what the focus of the article will be (see below!).... Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

Focus on the law itself

• Move back to French law to ban conspicuous religious symbols
  • fr0069

Focus on the underlying issue

• Keep at Religious garb in French schools - Uncle Ed

Questions the article doesn't address

Is the proposed French law specifically aimed at preventing Muslim girls from dressing modestly?

And what's up with rape as punishment for immodesty? Personally, I sense an element of hypocrisy there :-(

The text of the law is available. Of course, we may discuss the motivations of those who wrote the law and the interpretation they wish to give of it, but discussing motivations is hardly NPOV. David.Monniaux 18:34, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is the aim of the law to prevent Muslims (and some others) from conspicuously advertising their religious affiliation?

Yes. David.Monniaux 18:34, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the notion that some French perceive Muslims as refusing to assimilate into the mainstream of society? Do these advocates regard the wearing of the headscarf as a political statement, i.e., a refusal to be French citizens first but Arabs or Muslims? In other words, I'm not a Frenchman who happens to follow a particular religion or to have a particular cultural heritage -- BUT I am part of a particular culture and/or religion who just happens to be living in France now. --Uncle Ed 15:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is half way through an expansion and copyedit procedure, so it could probably be reorganised or restructured after that to make things clearer.

I feel that we've covered the first and second points in the article, and if this hasn't come through to you then it needs restructuring (it did just double in length, so things might be a bit disorganised!). And is the third point not moving into the issues covered by Islam in France? fabiform | talk 15:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I get the feeling that I'm not helping. So I think I'll leave the article alone for the rest of the week, except to move it to Religious attire in French schools since "attire" is a much nicer-sounding word than "garb". Okay? --Uncle Ed

Um... do you have to? The new title you suggest still does not address all the issues that Anthere raised above with a previous title. What did you not like about the title you first moved it from - just the length? You also appear to have broken all the redirects since you just moved it three times in a row! fabiform | talk 16:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind if you revert my moves or edits. :-)

Here is a section of text I wanted in, but maybe it's not accurate:

Religious attire in French schools has aroused considerable controversy. Many French want to ban the conspicuous display of such symbols as the Muslim headscarf or other distinctive displays which readily identify a child's religion, on the grounds that the conspicuous display of such symbols (a) is an affront to the secular society or (b) amounts to a divisive political statement.

Au revoir, Edmond Le Pauvre

Yes we probably should have talked about this on this page rather than your talk page. Perhaps the article does need a softer introduction. But I have a big problem with the (a) and (b) part.

(a): France isn't a secular society, that's a pretty vague and misleading term - it has "separation of church and state", so the schools which are entirely funded by the State are supposed to be secular (although private Catholic schools are partly subsidised by the State, a nice contradiction for you!). This is the "ideals" explanation, and quite common, you're right.

(b): if you're talking about the "veil", then it's a bit of a leap to say that it is a political statement rather than a religious one. I'm not saying that it isn't sometimes used as that, or that it isn't associated (rightly or wrongly) with islamic fundamentalism, but that statement seems (to me) to imply that hijab is only a political statement. It may also be a way for a muslim girl to submit to Allah; a way to demonstrate her faith to the world; a tool of suppression imposed on her against her will, not for political reasons, but usually due to sexual politics in the poor housing projects; a pragmatic choice designed to offer sexual security; a cultural tradition; etc... Also, if you designate the veil or any other "religious symbol" as political, then it wouldn't be covered by this law, even though the Stasi commission recommended a ban on political symbols too. Having this in the introduction will just confuse people.

Plus, there are other reasons you've left out of your list. The law is supported by teaching staff because it clarifies a vague exisiting law, and takes a difficult decision out of their hands, where it has wrongly rested for the last 20 years. It is supported by many feminists and many people campaigning against racism. It is supported by many people who believe that France should be "une et indivisible" and that immigrants and their children should be "assimilated", rather than France having to adapt to them. I expect it is supported with people who confuse Islam the peaceful faith with Islamic fundamentalists, and people who dislike foreigners and people of other faiths (bigots and racists, etc). In my opinion, the (a), (b) that you suggest is an oversimplification of a complex topic and if we expanded it to cover everything I just said, then it's just too much to fit into an introduction. I think I've rambled enough.... fabiform | talk 17:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I will be frank :-) Tomorrow, as soon as I have time, I will start an edit war on the absolutely disastrous title given to that article. Given that much discussion already took place on the title of the article, the current change of article without previous discussion is extremely inappropriate. I will wait for opinion, but I will probably put the article back to the previous title.

Forgot signing.

fr0069 18:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So we'll move it back to where it started the day at French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools? I'm fine with that, I don't really think this title is specific enough to the article content. EdPoor said he wouldn't fight with us if we wanted to move it back (I have been chatting to him about it on his talk page). I'll ask Ed to move it back if we're agreed (it has to be moved back by a sysop and he said he would do it for us). So no edit war needed! :D fabiform | talk 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good. So since you mention that Ed would be ok to put it back at the old title, I do it right now :-) fr0069

I didn't realise you were an administrator. How convenient! I think I've annoyed PoorEd for enough in one day.  :) fabiform | talk 18:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that is a "power" I use less than once a month :-) Done for february then. The number of titles is quite ridiculous :-) I would be glad that Ed edits my text to make it good english (but this title was just grrrrr). Also, there is some stuff missing. Plus, it probably needs cimenting, and organising. Well, there is still a lot to do anyway. fr0069

Your English is exquisitely precise. I comprehend this title was just grrrrr quite clearly! :-) --Edmond Le Pauvre

do you understand bizzzzz as well ?

---

The Economist article "unfavourable to the ban"?

Anthere: I've just reread the Economist article. I don't agree with tagging it as "unfavourable to the ban." What bit led to you tagging it as such? - David Gerard 15:18, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

issue fixed on irc. ant

Questions on the law and possible effects

There are a few issues I'm curious about and am not sure are answered in the article.

What happens if Muslim girls do not attend the public schools because of the ban. Are they allowed to be unschooled? Are they allowed or required to attend a private (presumably Muslim) school? Is it true that Catholic schools are partly funded by the state? Are other religious or private schools funded by the state? How is the issue of "religious obligation" dealt with--i.e., dress which can reasonably argued is non-optional for a religious practitioner (e.g., heads covered outside for Jewish men or turbans for Sikhs)? -- Cecropia | Talk 22:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What happens if Muslim girls do not attend the public schools because of the ban. Are they allowed to be unschooled?

no, it is mandatory up to 16. They can go to a private school accepting them or follow school by postmail

Education is compulsory until the age of 16. This does not imply the children going to a school – home schooling is legally possible, though discouraged. David.Monniaux 22:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are they allowed or required to attend a private (presumably Muslim) school?

They are so few muslim schools that this is hardly an option. Among private schools (the majority of which are catholics), some are funded by the state (and will likely follow the law) and some are not (and may have different interpretations ?)

Is it true that Catholic schools are partly funded by the state?

Some are yes. My kids are in a private school. It is funded by the state. In west of France, half of 6-10 schools are private. Most non funded are terribly expensive

Private schools that apply the same curriculum as public schools and accept certain rules (like not forcing religious education on students) are funded by the state (even some of their personnel is actually state personnel).

Most people who use private schools don't do so out of belief, but because they don't like the public schools in their area. David.Monniaux 22:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are other religious or private schools funded by the state?

Most private schools are catholics right now. Afaik, they accept all kids, regardless of their religion

They actually have to if they want to be funded.

There are publicly-funded protestant and Jewish schools.

How is the issue of "religious obligation" dealt with--i.e., dress which can reasonably argued is non-optional for a religious practitioner (e.g., heads covered outside for Jewish men or turbans for Sikhs)? -- Cecropia | Talk 22:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sorry, did not understand the question really. If you ask how it is dealt in private school...well, some kids in my kids school are head covered. The number of Sikhs is very very limited. SweetLittleFluffyThing

In the U.S., additional consideration is often allowed for issues of "religious obligation." This means that if someone believably must do something for religious reasons, they won't be prevented except for overriding reasons. An example of this is that very religious Jewish men must wear a head covering when outdoors (not necessarily a yarmulka), and must not work on the Sabbath (except in an emergency). It is not considered optional--i.e., an expression of faith, it is deemed a requirement. There was a case in NYC schools (IIRC) of whether Sikh students could carry a small required ceremonial dagger under their clothing, violating weapon laws in school. I don't know how that turned out. To try to put American law in the French context, if Muslim girls wore head coverings to express their religious identity, they could be prevented from doing if it were considered important and non-discriminatory, but if their faith required it, it would create a much more legally difficult situation. -- 23:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reference point on that is the 1789 Declaration

"Article X - No one may be questioned about his opinions, [and the] same [for] religious [opinions], provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law."

My understanding is that the government may validly prohibit some religious manifestation (and not some belief) provided that it can make a valid point of maintaining public order (here: avoiding religious quarrels and peer pressure in order to ensure the good workings of public education). As far as I know, the European Court of Human Rights has already followed such reasoning before, for Turkey.

My understanding is that American law creates some kind of exemption from normal rules for religious activities, while France does not. Another point is that the French government does not grant any recognition to any religion [except for Alsace-Moselle and military chaplains], thus determining that something is some "essential religious requirement" and not some "religious display" would be extremely complex (i.e. it's largely a matter of theology, over which different people of the same religion may have different ideas, thus it would somehow imply recognizing some "official" opinion etc...).

I have absolutely no idea as to what reading the courts will make of "conspicuous" and "public order". This may conceivably range from the possibility of banning any visible symbol to only banning symbols used in active prozelytizing. David.Monniaux 23:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a significant number of Sikhs in France outside of Paris. To be fair, apparently nobody thought about them until they pointed out possible problems with their beliefs.

Any comment on that is bound to be speculative, since the law is vague, not yet applied, and the executive decisions on it are apparently fairly vague too. Wait until the first disagreements arise. David.Monniaux 22:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question on the 1905 law

Noting the coincidence of dates, did the Dreyfus affair have any influence on the decision to pass the original law? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(I'm not an expert on French Third Republic politics. I think so, to some extent. To summarize, before the First World War, the politics of the Third Republic were polarized between the "clericals" and the "anti-clericals" – the former pushing for the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in education and politics, the latter wanting a wall of separation. If I remember well, the law of the time was a Concordat regime whereby the French government subsidized the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Jewish religions, a regime which is now still current in Alsace-Moselle (and military chaplains, for all I know). Since Roman Catholicism was the religion of the vast majority of the population, it had the lion's share of the support.

Anticlericalism is not, per se, a movement of rejection of religion (though many anticlericals were certainly against religion, i.e. secularists), but only a movement of rejection of the influence of religion and the clergy in the public sphere.

The Catholic right, in those days, tended to be royalist, antisemitic and clerical. The Dreyfus affair was largely a result of cabals mounted by the Catholic right, and a visible episode of this important political struggle.

The 1905 law was one of the last nails in the coffin of clericalism; and I indeed think that the Clerical Right largely decredibilized itself with the Dreyfus Affair.

The last serious action of the reactionary right (nostalgy for royalism, a Catholic, rural society, authoritarianism...) was Vichy France. Their

However, I'm not a historian and I would be more comfortable if somebody more qualified wrote about that. David.Monniaux 16:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can someone clarify this sentence

• if parents force a girl to wear a headscarf, they may pull her out of the schools that might have freed them

I don't understand it: Who is "them" and how are they being "freed"?--Malcohol 12:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that who wrote this text meant that schools, providing a fair and balanced education vested with Republican values, would free girls from patriarcal mores. Or that the intents of those who passed the law were such.

I rephrased the sentence. David.Monniaux 09:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Civil Constitution of the Clergy

The Roman Catholic Church was the dominating religion until the Revolution of 1789, when the revolutionaries sought to overthrow not only the monarchy and its supporters, but also the whole social and political system, including the Church. Although the Church survived the revolution, according to the ideology of the new republic it could no longer remain a separate estate with its own possessions. Therefore, the new government confiscated the land and assets belonging to the Church and auctioned them off to help resolve the financial problems that had led to the revolution. The state also attempted a huge restructuring of the Church hierarchy and demanded that the clergy swear allegiance to the French government ahead of the Church. Only a small percentage of priests complied with this request, but nevertheless this attempt to bring the Catholic Church under state control can be seen as the beginning of the development of secularism in France.

As a description of the events of 1790, this lacks both neutrality and accuracy. The National Assembly did not conduct an entire revolution of the structure of society; they confiscated Church land to pay the national debt. (If they had, what would have been left for the Jacobins of 1793 to do?)

The phrase "can be seen" is another flare-lit tipoff. Eschew.