Lacit Secularity and Religious Symbols Xavier Landes University

Laïcité Secularity and Religious Symbols Xavier Landes University of Montreal University of Paris IV Sorbonne xavier. landes@umontreal. ca

Plan l First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993 -1994) l Laïcité & Republicanism l The « Last » Case (2003 -2004) l Two Views on State Neutrality

1989 Case l Background (September) l l l Three young girls in Creil Refused to school by the Director Official replies (September - December) l l l Minister of Education (Lionel Jospin): advice of the State Council: Decision of November 1989 l « The wearing of headscarves is not inconsistent with any value of the Laïque and Republican school. » l The directors should negotiate in each case Lionel Jospin : Circular of December 1989

Jospin’s Circular l General dispositions l Headscarves are not in opposite with the Laïcité l Proselytism, provocation and propaganda are not allowed in schools l School directors have to: l Evaluate the situation l Negotiate with young women l Take the appropriate decision

Problems l Some schools have added to their internal rule that ALL religious symbols are prohibited l Decision of the State Council in November 1992 on cancelling an exclusion l Directors and professors are left without any clear rules to settle the cases l Hard criticism from politicians and intellectuals l Opposition between French and Anglo-Saxon models

1993 -1994 « In France, the National project and the Republican project are gathered in a certain idea of citizenship. This French idea of the Nation and the Republic shows, by nature, respect to all beliefs, especially religious, and political beliefs and cultural traditions. But it excludes that the Nation may split into separated communities, indifferent to each other, ruled by their own rules and laws, involved in a simple coexistence. The Nation is not only a group of citizens who bear individual rigths. It is a community of fate. » (Bayrou’s Circular - September 1994) Problems remain the same

Plan l First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993 -1994) l Laïcité & Republicanism l The « Last » Case (2003 -2004) l Two Views on State Neutrality

Republicanism and Republicanism A set of political and philosophical justifications in favor of a Republican regime Res Publica Public object, public matter Republicanism would figure the promotion of the commitment to the common good, to the high interest of this « community of fate » and its priority upon other interests (especially individual ones) i. e. nothing is superior to the Republic interest Several Republican traditions

The French Revolution l Main attempts l To erase Ancient Regime inequalities and differences l l To unify the French Republic l l Differences as inequalities Jacobinism vs Girondism Two examples l Deputy Clermont-Tonnerre (1789) l l « We must give everything to Jews as individuals and nothing as a people. » Saint-Just (? ? ) l « The sovereignity of people wants the people to be united; so the sovereignity is opposed to factions; each faction is a crime against sovereignity. »

Jules Ferry l IIIrd Republic (1871 -1940) l l l « Laïcité de combat » (Fighting Secularism) 1880 Law : Religious schools lose their right to give university diplomas & all « non-authorized » churches are disbanded 1882 Law l All religious teachings are banned from public school programs and replaced by a « civic and moral course »

The French Republicanism People enjoy a real freedom only if they are freed from… Each group is a political threat …religion Why? …tradition Kant Philosophical reasons Be free is to be autonomous Individuals are able to impose on themselves their own rules of life Positivism Religions as former states of human evolution Rousseau If someone does not want to be free, one will force him to be free

1905 Law l Title : Law on the Separation Between Churches and the State l Article 1 l l « The Republic guarantees the freedom of consciousness. » l Only restriction = the respect of the public order Article 2 l « The Republic does not recognize and give funding to any cult. » l State neutrality

Plan l First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993 -1994) l Laïcité & Republicanism l The « Last » Case (2003 -2004) l Two Views on State Neutrality

Stasi Commission l Set up by the President Jacques Chirac l Composed of scholars, politicians, school directors… l Auditing people l Deal with the secularism in general, not only with the Laïcité at schools

2004 Law l A big part of the Stasi Report was ignored l l l The focus stays on religious symbols at schools Some members of the Commission were disappointed l René Rémond - « Secularist integrism » Article 1 l « In public schools, colleges and high schools, the wearing of signs and dresses by which students ostensibly show a religious membership is forbidded. The interior rule should remind that all sanctions must come after a dialogue with students. »

Outcomes of the law l Numerous students left public schools l l l What are they doing? l l Official numbers : 143 (2004), 3 « hard cases » in 2005 Between 200 and 800 (Cedetim) Take long-distance courses Go to private schools (mainly Catholic) Renounce to education Main troubles l l l Some fundamentalists want to set up private schools Law applies to Sikh people for instance Leaving these girls in their family is the solution?

Plan l First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993 -1994) l Laïcité & Republicanism l The « Last » Case (2003 -2004) l Two Views on State Neutrality

Neutrality I vs Neutrality II State neutrality Solution to the Wars of Religion Two forms Neutrality I The State should remain neutral in front of religious beliefs No public preference or no support to a religion in particular Neutrality II The State should stay neutral, as well as people in some or all public areas All religious symbols are allowed mainly in the private sphere

A best model? l It is a social choice l l Each model has its own advantages… l l l It depends on the kind of society that people want Neutrality I: the more tolerant model, compatible with a multicultural society Neutrality II: the more uniting model …and its disadvantages l l Neutrality I: might favorize a distinctive competition among religious communities Neutrality II: might create inequalities for certain groups