|
Opponents
to the French State’s decision to pass a law on secularism
have argued that a ban on the individual right to wear religious
signs will only lead to rising extremism in all quarters. Their
concerns did not have long to wait before being translated into
fact.
The
Demonstration: Divisions
On
the weekend of January 17-18, two events spread confusion in the
wake of the bill. Saturday’s demonstration held in Paris was
basically evacuated by the major leaders of France’s Muslim
community. The reason behind the reticence lies in the event
being organized by the PMF (French Muslim Party). Although a
controversial group, it still managed to gather 10,000
protestors according to the police, 20,000 according to
organizers. The PMF also assembled a dozen processions around
France.
Monday’s
edition of Le Monde uttered dismay: “even if the number
of protestors is marginal for the 5-million strong Muslim
community, it remains significant in light of the conditions
under which the demonstrations were organized. The moderates,
such as Dalil Boubakeur, director of the Paris Mosque and
president of the Conseil français du culte musulman (CFCM-French
Muslim Council) or the Mufti of Marseilles, Soheib Bencheikh,
had in fact called Muslims not to demonstrate. Even the
Union des organisations islamiques de France (UOIF-French
Islamic Organizations Union), the radical and structured wing of
French Islam, hesitated until the very last moment on Friday
(January 16) before finally summoning a call to demonstrate.”
In
the Sunday January 18 edition of Le Parisien, Dalil
Boubakeur nevertheless acknowledged the relative success of the
marches. “It has to do with general dissatisfaction, and with
the anxiety felt in the community and especially among the
youth,” he explained. Speaking on Radio J, the
Socialist member of the Assemblée, Malek Boutish, dismissed
Saturday’s demonstrations for being organized by Muslim
fundamentalists. “The UOID discredited itself as a republican
interlocutor… We can see now how [Interior Minister Nicolas]
Sarkozy has put people in the spotlight who do not share
Republican values.”
All
news media complained of the lack of access to the women
demonstrating in the march. “Often preventing the women from
speaking to journalists, the men guided them sternly with
‘Onward, Sisters!’ The men alone took care of chanting
slogans through loudspeakers,” sounded a Le Monde-Reuteurs-France
report (“La mobilisation intégriste relance l'affaire du
voile,” January 19).
And
Now Beards?
“We
are in the midst of communitarian discontent.” |
|
Various
ministers were confronted with the implications of the “law on
secularism.” As opposed to the Parliamentary voices cited in
last week’s press review, who often did not hesitate pointing
the finger at hijab and Islam as the object of the law’s
prohibition, the Executive cabinet carefully towed the line on
its non-discriminatory nature. France’s education minister,
Luc Ferry, went as far as to chalk one up for increased
Jacobinism. Libération reported on how Ferry, in charge
of defending the bill in the Assemblée Nationale, stirred up
trouble among fellow members by “explaining how Muslim beards,
the bandana and Sikh turbans could fall under the law’s
prescriptions.” (January 20).
“Even
student beards might constitute a religious sign and fall under
the law’s ban,” Ferry was widely reported as declaring. One
expects his comment to have been made as a rebuttal to critics
claiming the law unfairly penalizes young women. Nonetheless,
Ferry was forced to backtrack. He tried redeeming his statement
by suggesting that “we are in the midst of communitarian
discontent. We cannot let classrooms be organized according to
religious affiliations.” His colleagues were quick to back up
a perceived gaffe from someone who, as Libération
reminded readers, had been recently opposed to legislation on
the matter.
Part
of France’s charm lies in the pleasure intellectuals take of
its deep history of jurisprudence. On January 24, Le
Monde’s Luc Bronner reminded readers that a previous
minister had also banned beards, although then it had been aimed
at teachers. Hippolyte Fortoul, the Minister of Public education
and worship from 1851-1856, addressed education directors on 20
March 1852 with a taciturn topic. Growing a beard, he insisted
was such “to affect the outwardly appearance of teachers in a
way that is scarcely compatible with the seriousness of the
professorship.” Bronner’s editorializing was pointed: “The
authoritarian empire was on the horizon. On December 2, 1852,
Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte would become Napoléon III.”
The
Politics of It
France
slides dangerously close to losing its own prestige. |
|
France’s
political establishment has begun expressing concern over the
heated nature of the debate. Few question the bill as a resort
to ensuring the serenity of the educational environment.
However, its wording has revealed political rifts within the
Right. “Dissonant voices have let themselves be heard as far
as into the UMP (Union de la majorité politique, i.e.
the governing majority). Former Prime Minister Edward Balladur
is “very hesitant” about supporting its current wording,
while Alain Madelin, founder of les Cercles libéraux
(the rightwing Liberal Circle), remains hostile to it. On the
other hand, France’s highest legal instance, the Conseil
d’Etat, released the bill from its own jurisdiction to
send it to the Assemblée for a vote prior to any further
examination.
In
an allusion to Ferry’s remarks, foreign minister, Dominique de
Villepin, returning from a visit to the Gulf States sourly
emphasized that “it is rather difficult to explain France’s
stance abroad in that way.” (Liberation, January 23).
But in Russia, the suave but sly Villepin, responded to a
journalist from al-Jazeera by emphasizing that “this bill does
not aim at any religion. It aims at reasserting the tenets of
secularism, which is a warrant for neutrality, tolerance and the
respect of religions according to the French tradition.” (Le
Monde-AFP, January 23)
Like
President Chirac, Foreign Minister de Villepin is best placed to
recall the fate that befell the USA in the year after September
11, 2001. The country went from receiving near planetary
condolences and sympathy for the attacks on the World Trade
Center and Pentagon-only to lose it all during the confused and
mendacious preparations to attack Iraq. France became the leader
of those who opposed Bush’s war, with Villepin’s eloquence
and charm casting him as a would-be head of the anti-war
movement, in spite of himself. Now, however, France slides
dangerously close to losing its own prestige.
The
current French government expresses the voice of a highly conservative
minority. |
|
When
we cast a glance back over 2003, it is easy to see in hindsight
that the law’s preparation was on the agenda, despite both
Ferry and Nicolas Sarkozy’s apparent opposition. The first
cases of dismissing students wearing hijab from school date back
to the late 1980s. Despite France’s courage in voicing
opposition to the Iraq invasion, it can be argued that its
current government mainly expresses the voice of a highly
conservative minority. What is surprising is the utter lack of
reference by Parliamentarians from other parties in reaction to
what is evidently a populist undercurrent beneath this
law’s grandiose historical claims. Only weeks ago, Raffarin
stood teetering on a wave of unpopularity, even awaiting a
possible change of government. Now, just by coincidence, he sits
alight on his throne of reason.
France’s
party politics is locked up in the anti-hijab law through its
Jacobin philosophy. Accordingly, individual freedoms are only
guaranteed by collective decisions on freedom per se-in
Rousseau’s terms, citizens “are compelled to be free.” The
French often enjoy distinguishing their freedoms from the
ethics-based respect for responsible government in the name of
the collective whole, which is more typical of northern
Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries. As the story goes, the
French persuasion would incarnate suspicion for the State owing
to a lawless “Latin” component, when it is not merely an
expression of disdain for the liberal oligarchy maintaining the
contemporary Republic as a democracy.
Speaking
in the pages of Le Parisien on January 23, Alain Juppé,
the president of the UMP and mayor of Bordeaux, stated that
“there are moments when one must collectively know how to
decide. We have deliberated and the President of the Republic
has given an orientation that, from my point of view, does not
justify any further hesitation.”
According
to him, the body of elected representatives must first of all
consider “those young girls from certain districts who
experience family and social pressure, who are stigmatized for
their behavior and even fall victim to violence because they
want to live freely.” Evidently, Mr. Juppé dismissed the
thousands of veiled French Muslim girls who have proclaimed
their choice of wearing the hijab on national television during
and since the January 17th marches.
Scratching
the Cultural Surface
|
|
|
Michel
Houellebecq portrayed Muslims in his last novel as
self-obsessed terrorists. |
Ever
since the Revolution, and perhaps going back to the wars that
pit Catholics against Protestants, despite being a harbor of
individuals fleeing tyranny abroad, France has shown particular
disdain toward cultural differences when they have formed into
communities at home. Too many French forget that the “law on
secularism” is not meant to penalize foreigners, but
French-born Jews and Muslims.
Sensing
France’s weakness, Israel wasted no time in unleashing their
negative appraisal of France’s recent record of anti-Semitic
acts. Beneath the facts lies its difficult relationship with a
country most of their leaders see as the greatest Christian
supporters of the Palestinian struggle for a free state (Le
Monde, “Antisémitisme: Israël accuse la France,” January
25). There can be little doubt that for a nation as politically
active and alert as the French, foreign struggles will recur
domestically. Statistics demonstrate that anti-Semitic acts in
France have risen dramatically ever since the beginning of the
Second Intifada.
Racial
hatred is being expressed as if it were an indication of the progress
humanity has |
|
On
the other hand, one need not scratch the country’s cultural
surface very far to sense the anti-Islamic strain. In a country
housing the Institut du Monde Arabe, an architectural
masterpiece and one of the world’s great centers for Arab
culture, there is no dearth of local writers and intellectuals
who openly espouse their self-declared “Islamophobe”
stances.
Counter-cultural
sensation, Michel Houellebecq had already created suspicion last
year with unsavory remarks on Islam and his portrayal of Muslims
in his last novel as self-obsessed terrorists. Now, Dantec, the
acclaimed crime novelist, declared his “Islamophobia” from
self-exile in Quebec, Canada-not exactly shelter for racists.
Needless to say, world events have given Islamophobes and
anti-Semites a field day to openly espouse their racial hatred
as if it were some indication of the progress humanity has made.
Then again, the current national leaders of the world can hardly
be acclaimed for the wisdom of their teachings.
The
up-coming week’s developments are set to be decisive. As Libération
described it “the government has announced that the bill will
be presented to the Ministerial Council on January 28, and
deliberated in the Assemblée from February 3 on. If adopted by
Parliament, the law will come into force in time for next
fall’s school return, in September. The Conseil d’Etat
should confer judgment, as it does on all legislative projects,
in relation not to the bill’s timeliness, but to its legality
and compliance with general Law and, notably, the
Constitution.”
Various
demonstrations have been called for February 4 and 14.
*
Norman Madarasz is a Canadian philosopher residing in
Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
. With a Ph.D. from the
University
of
Paris
, he teaches and writes on international relations, political
economy and philosophy. He is also a regular contributor to
Counterpunch and has published think pieces and philosophical
research extensively. You can reach him at nmphdiol2@yahoo.ca
|
