Laïcité and
Secularity
Religious Symbols
Xavier Landes
University of Montreal
University of Paris IV Sorbonne
xavier.landes@umontreal.ca
Plan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality
1989 Case

Background (September)



Three young girls in Creil
Refused to school by the Director
Official replies (September - December)



Minister of Education (Lionel Jospin): advice of the State
Council
State Council: Decision of November 1989
 « The wearing of headscarves is not inconsistent with
any value of the Laïque and Republican school. »
 The directors should negotiate in each case
Lionel Jospin : Circular of December 1989
Jospin’s Circular

General dispositions

Headscarves are not in opposite with the Laïcité

Proselytism, provocation and propaganda are not
allowed in schools

School directors have to:
 Evaluate the situation
 Negotiate with young women
 Take the appropriate decision
Problems

Some schools have added to their internal rule
that ALL religious symbols are prohibited

Decision of the State Council in November 1992 on
cancelling an exclusion

Directors and professors are left without any
clear rules to settle the cases

Hard criticism from politicians and intellectuals

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

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality
Republicanism and Republic
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

Main attempts

To erase Ancient Regime inequalities and differences


To unify the French Republic


Differences as inequalities
Jacobinism vs Girondism
Two examples

Deputy Clermont-Tonnerre (1789)


« We must give everything to Jews as individuals and nothing
as a people. »
Saint-Just (????)

« 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

IIIrd Republic (1871-1940)



« Laïcité de combat » (Fighting Secularism)
1880 Law : Religious schools lose their right to give
university diplomas & all « non-authorized » churches
are disbanded
1882 Law

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

Title : Law on the Separation Between Churches
and the State

Article 1


« The Republic guarantees the freedom of
consciousness. »
 Only restriction = the respect of the public order
Article 2

« The Republic does not recognize and give funding to
any cult. »
 State neutrality
Plan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality
Stasi Commission

Set up by the President Jacques Chirac

Composed of scholars, politicians, school
directors…

Auditing people

Deal with the secularism in general, not only
with the Laïcité at schools
2004 Law

A big part of the Stasi Report was ignored



The focus stays on religious symbols at schools
Some members of the Commission were disappointed
 René Rémond - « Secularist integrism »
Article 1

« 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

Numerous students left public schools



What are they doing?




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



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

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

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?

It is a social choice


Each model has its own advantages…



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


Neutrality I: might favorize a distinctive competition
among religious communities
Neutrality II: might create inequalities for certain groups