1 / 39

Br i e f Su mm a r y :

F R E NC H L A W NO . 2004-228 BA NN I N G T H E W EA R I N G OF CON SP I CUOU S R E L I G I OU S A TT I RE. Br i e f Su mm a r y :

marcellar
Download Presentation

Br i e f Su mm a r y :

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FRENCHLAWNO.2004-228BANNINGTHEWEARINGOF CONSPICUOUSRELIGIOUSATTIRE Brief Summary: Inpublicelementaryschools,juniorhighschools,andhighschools, studentsareprohibitedfrom wearingsignsor attire throughwhichthey conspicuouslyexhibita religiousaffiliation.

  2. LEGALEVOLUTIONOFTHEHEADSCARF CONTROVERSY First HeadscarvesAffair1989 Creil,40mileseastofParis Threejuniorhighschoolgirls refusedtoremovetheirhijabsinclass Thestudents wereexpelled Theywereviolatingtheprincipleoflaicite Principalsrefusingtoadmitgirls wearingheadscarves FrancoisMittérandAdministration Conseild’Etatissuedits opinion Guaranteedfreedomofconscienceofthestudents. Freedomof expressionshouldnot: Disturbtheorderlyconductofaschoolor any otherpublicinstitution. Affecttheduty ofeachstudenttoparticipatefully inschoolwork Constitutean actof pressureorproselytization

  3. LEGALEVOLUTIONOFTHEHEADSCARF CONTROVERSY • EducationDirective1994 • MinistryofEducation • Recommendationsfor actions • Emphasizedthe importanceofresolvingeachconflictona case-by-casebasis • Endorseddisapprovalofthewearingofany dress or symbolthatmightbeostentatious • Includedyarmulke,largecrosses andhijab • StasiCommission 2003 • HeadscarfProhibition2004

  4. LEGALEVOLUTIONOFTHEHEADSCARF CONTROVERSYGRAPH First HeadscarvesAffair 1989 French Revolution 1789 Stasi Commission 2003 Constitution ofthe4thRepublic 1944 Education Directive 1994 Headscarf Prohibition 2004

  5. RELEVANTLAWS InternationalCovenantonCiviland PoliticalRights(ICCPR)Article18 TheFrenchLawNo.2004-228 DoctrineofLaïcité̈

  6. WHATISTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVILANDPOLITICALRIGHTS? • Definition • Parties • France is asignatory–doesthatmean itis bound? • Intheclassroom: • Doyouthinkasimilarlawwouldbe passedinU.S.?Why? • separationofchurchandstate? • freedomofreligionandexpression? • Examples? • Wouldthe U.S. beboundby the Covenantinasimilarsituation? • Wouldittrump U.S.statutes? • TheConstitution? • If no,whywouldFrance? • WhatAmericanvaluesarerepresentedinthe Covenant?

  7. ARTICLE18(1)–PROTECTIONS (1)Everyoneshallhavetherighttofreedomofthought,conscienceandreligion.Thisrightshallincludethefreedomtohaveortoadoptareligionorbeliefofhischoice,andfreedom,eitherindividuallyorincommunitywithothersandinpublicorprivate,tomanifesthisreligionorbeliefinworship,observance,practiceandteaching....

  8. Protections: • WHOdoesArt.18protect?(Remembernotallcountriesaresignatories.) • WHATdoesArt.18protect? • Whatifyourstudentwantedtopracticeanewreligionshemadeup?Wouldthatbeprotected? • WHEREdoesthisprotectionapply? • Public:Howdoyoudefinethis? • Private:Whatdoesthismean?Theprivacyofmyownhome? WhataboutYOURhome? • Areanysectionsproblematic?

  9. ARTICLE18(3)–LIMITATIONS 3)Freedomtomanifestone'sreligionorbeliefsmaybesubjectonlytosuchlimitationsas areprescribedbylawandarenecessarytoprotectpublicsafety,order,health,ormoralsor the fundamentalrightsandfreedomsofothers....

  10. Limitations: ProscribedByLawAND NecessaryTo ProtectEITHER Public Safety,Order,Health,OrMorals OR Thefundamentalrightsandfreedomsofothers

  11. Listgeneralexamplesforeachaspect: Law–(2004-228) PublicSafety– Order– Health– Morals– Fundamentalrightsandfreedomsofothers –

  12. Now,listpastor current examplesthatwouldtriggereachof thesecomponents. • PublicSafety– • Order – • Health– • Morals– • Fundamentalrightsand freedomsof others– • Didtheyalsohaveaproscribedlaw? • Wouldthey fall into theexceptiontoICCPR?

  13. FRENCHLAWNO.2004-228 • Statute • -WHO:PublicSchoolStudents • WHAT:Signsthatostensiblyexpressa religiousbelonging • -Consequenceforviolating?

  14. LAÏCITÉ • Laïcité • conceptdenoting the absenceof religiousinvolvementin governmentaffairs as wellas absenceof governmentinvolvementinreligiousaffairs • 1905Legalseparationof religionand thestate

  15. LEGALITYARGUMENTSOUTLINE ①InternationalLaw ICCPR,protectionsand limitations ②Discriminatory ③GenderBias Feminist arguments OutsidetheScope? ①StateSovereignty SecularistArguments Laïcité StasiReport Public Schools/Educators

  16. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY: SECULARISM Secularism: Religiousfreedomhas limits;headscarvesareoutsideofprotections Thescarfis consideredas asymbolofbelongingtotheMuslimcommunity Secularisminschoolsis incompatiblewithwearingostentatiousreligiousarticles, Permittingtheveil inschoolsrisks openingthedoor toother practicesthat existintheMuslimworld Nodifferentthanprohibitingother religiouspractices,suchas peyoteuseor polygamy

  17. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY:SECULARISM Non-discriminatoryLawOnItsFace PresidentSarkozyhassaidtheveilsimprisonwomenandruncountertothecountry’s senseofequality;detractorssaythebansuppressescultural andreligiousexpression Declaredin2009thatfaceveils were"notwelcomeinFrance“ Appeal tofar-rightvoters MarineLePen,leaderoftheFrontNational ComparedMuslimsprayinginthestreetsoutsideovercrowdedmosquestotheNazioccupationofFrance. Criticizedhalal-onlyfastfoodrestaurants Popularitygrew TheFrenchgovernment: TheFrenchbodypolitic is determinedtostrictlyenforcetherespectof everyfaith,everycommunity,everywhere,andthiseffortbeginsin publicschools.(BROOKINGSINSTITUTION)

  18. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY:SECULARISM • FreedomFROMReligion,NotFreedomOFReligion • Frenchstateseeingitstaskasdefendingrepublicanismandsecularismand consequently alwaysseekto avoidproviding officialrecognitionof any religion. • TheFrenchstate’soppositiontomulticulturalismisconsidered by somecommentatorstobehinderingtheintegrationof France’sMuslims. • Educators • Publicspacesshouldbeneutralspaces,notplacestospreada • particularviewoftheworld. • Duty ofcaretochildrenwhoenter thepublicschoolsystem

  19. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY: LAÏCITÉ • Laïcité • conceptdenoting the absenceof religiousinvolvementin governmentaffairs as wellas absenceof governmentinvolvementinreligiousaffairs • 1905Legalseparationof religionand thestate

  20. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY:STASIREPORT • JacquesChiracAdministration • Twogirlsexpelledfroma lycéeinAubervilliers • Tounderstandtheprincipleoflaïcité anditspracticalimplicationsfor andincreasinglydiverseFrance • 20sociologists,philosophers, politiciansandeducators • Testimonieson: • Physicalandverbalattacksonyoungwomendonningthehijab • ConflictsbetweenMuslimsandJews • Familypressure • Femalesuppression • Isolation • Recommendationsfrom theStasiCommission • RecognizedtensionsbetweenMuslims andthe Republic • RecommendedtodetectandcondemnanythingthatcompromisedtheneutralcharacteroftheFrenchStateinmattersofreligion • Recommendedtorevisethe listof publicholidays • Assertedthatthedisplayofconspicuousreligioussymbolswasunacceptable • Recommendedtoestablishregulationsonly topublicandnotprivatespaces • Catholicschools?

  21. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY: WHEREDOESTHELAWAPPLY? PublicSchools HowdoesthistranslatetotheU.S.policiesinschools? Whatdresscodesdoesyourschoolhaveinplace? Isitthesamecaliberastheideaofreligiousfreedom? Areeducatorsorstudentsbiggerproponents? Dotheyhavethesamemotivationstomaintainsecularism? Whywouldteacherswant? Whywouldstudentswant?

  22. ARGUMENT1–STATESOVEREIGNTY:ARGUMENTTOALLOW NobelPeacePrizewinnerTawakkulKarman,'Themother ofYemen'srevolution,'whenaskedaboutherHijabby journalistsandhowitisnotproportionatewithherlevel ofintellectandeducation,replied:-"Maninearlytimeswasalmostnaked,andashisintellectevolvedhestartedwearingclothes.WhatIamtodayandwhatI’mwearingrepresentsthehighestlevelofthoughtandcivilizationthatmanhasachieved,andisnotregressive. It’stheremovalofclothesagainthatisregressiveback toancienttimes."

  23. LEGALITYARGUMENTSOUTLINE ①InternationalLaw ICCPR,protectionsand limitations ②Discriminatory ③GenderBias Feminist arguments OutsidetheScope? ①StateSovereignty SecularistArguments Laicite StasiReport Public Schools/Educators

  24. ARGUMENT2–INTERNATIONALLAW, ICCPR:PROTECTIONS • WhichprotectionsofArt.18couldbetriggeredhere? • Manifesthisreligionorbeliefin…observance[or]practice

  25. ARGUMENT2–INTERNATIONALLAW, ICCPR:PROTECTIONS • RELIGION: • by religiousfreedomunderUNCharter. • Publicbansonheadscarves encourageprivatebans • Islamicperspective • Tradition • Doctrine • Otherreligionsaffected? • IslamHeadscarf–asignofmodesty • Religiousfreedom • Aheadscarfbanviolatestherighttofreedomofreligionand expression • Wearingheadscarvesis unlike religiousextremessuchasstonings • Wearingheadscarves/hijabs doesnoharm andviolates nobody'srights • WearingtheHijabis protected

  26. ARGUMENT2–INTERNATIONALLAW, ICCPR:LIMITATIONS WhatlimitationsofArt.18couldbetriggered here? Remember,theyare- ProscribedbylawPublicsafety? Order?Health?Morals? Rightsand freedomsofothers?

  27. ARGUMENT2–INTERNATIONALLAW: DOESICCPRAPPLYTHEN? Whatgroupdoes this affectaccordingtoplainmeaning?What group doesit applyto inpractice?Is this a loopholeinthe law? ISTHE BANAVIOLATIONOFINTERNATIONALLAW? • No • FrancehasaverylowMuslimpopulation. • Abanonveilsonlyapplies inpublicspaces. • IfMuslimsdon'tlikepolicyontheveil,theycanmoveelsewhere. • Yes • Wearingthetraditionalveil ispartofMuslimreligiouspractice.

  28. ARGUMENT2–INTERNATIONALLAW: DOESICCPRAPPLYTHEN? HARM:ISTHE WEARINGOFTHE MUSLIM VEILHARMFUL? YES Muslims lose-outin variouswaysby wearingthehijab TheMuslimveil is a mark of separation NO Muslimveilscannot harmanyone physicallyand shouldnotharm anyone emotionally. ThetraditionalMuslim veil isjustahead dress. IntoleranceofMuslim veilscanbe citedasracism.

  29. LEGALITYARGUMENTSOUTLINE ①InternationalLaw ICCPR,protectionsand limitations ②Discriminatory ③GenderBias Feminist arguments OutsidetheScope? ①StateSovereignty SecularistArguments Laïcité StasiReport Public Schools/Educators

  30. ARGUMENT3-DISCRIMINATION • AssimilationintoFrench culture? Minoritygroup: • Isthatok?Wheredolimitations comefrom? • Doesitmatterthatitsin school? • Whatif languagesotherthanEnglishwereprohibited, wouldthatbethesame? • DoesthispromoteIslamphobia? Itisalreadyexperiencingwidespread discrimination. Frenchgovernment: Laïcité.aprincipleofreligiousneutralitythatisintendedtocreate theconditionsforreligiousfreedom. ThelawisaprincipleforMuslim integrationandsocialorder. KennethRoth,executivedirectorofHumanRightsWatch, “Theproposedlaw is anunwarrantedinfringementontherighttoreligiouspractice”, “For many Muslims,wearingaheadscarfis not onlyaboutreligiousexpression,itis aboutreligiousobligation.”

  31. ISITWRONGTOTHINKTHATTHEFRENCHARE BEINGBIASEDTOWARDSMUSLIMS? YES Religionsshouldn'tbegivenpreferential treatmentbythegovernment. NO Franceisdepriving Muslimsoftheirreligiouspractice.

  32. LEGALITYARGUMENTSOUTLINE ①InternationalLaw ICCPR,protectionsand limitations ②Discriminatory ③GenderBias Feminist arguments OutsidetheScope? ①StateSovereignty SecularistArguments Laïcité StasiReport Public Schools/Educators

  33. ARGUMENT4–GENDERBIAS:FEMINISTARGUMENT • RequiredDress CodesforWomen • Law ofBrothers • Socialpressuretoconformexertedby Muslimmen onMuslimwomen • New movement? • GeneralconsensusamongIslamicscholarsthat Islamprohibitscompulsion

  34. ARGUMENT4–GENDERBIAS: • FEMINISTARGUMENT • Imposingrestrictionsis counterintuitivetoempowerment • Frenchgendersystem • sexualityandattractionarenatural partsoflifeandtheir enactmentinpublicthusposesnothreattopoliticsorthe publicsphere. • howcanwomenbebothdifferent frommenandequaltothem. • Muslim gendersystem: • Representedbytheheadscarf, sexandgenderare organizedbyasystembasedoncovering,restraint,andtherestrictionofsexualavailabilitytomarriage.

  35. ARGUMENT4–GENDERBIAS:FEMINISTARGUMENT FeministArguments Wearingthescarfsymbolizesa woman'ssubmissiontomen Thehijabisnotafree choice, butaresult of social pressures Religiousprescriptiononfemalecovering as chauvinistic,patriarchal,oppressive and an enforcementonwomenandagainsttheir rights.

  36. ARGUMENT4–GENDERBIAS:OUTSIDETHESCOPE? • Isgenderdiscriminationcoveredunder ICCPR? • HowdoesthatweakentheargumentthattheFrenchlawhelpsprotectwomen? • Howdoesthatweakentheargumentthatitsunlawful?

  37. 8DIFFERENTVIEWPOINTS:EUROPEANDTHEHEADSCARF • "Theworld'sconflictsshouldnotbebroughtintotheclassroom" • AlainDestexhe,Belgianpolitician • "WhatdoesitmeantobeBritishorFrenchanyway?" • FareenaAlam,UKmagazineeditor • "Youcan'tsolvetheseproblemswithalaw" • AmirTaheri,Paris-basedIranianwriter • "WemustprotectyoungMuslimwomen" • RachidaZiouche,AlgerianexileinFrance • "Thiscanonlyfuelextremismand • fundamentalism" • FannyDethloff,Lutheranclergywoman • "TheheadscarfthreatenstheEnlightenment'sachievements" • AliceSchwarzer,Germanfeminist • "Thescarfisasymboloftheinferiorstatusofwomen" • BinnazToprak,Turkishacademic • "Muslimsneedtobefullyinvolvedintheirsociety" • TariqRamadan,Islamicaffairsanalyst

More Related