"As societies build walls of separation between communities,
ICAAD works to remove each brick to illuminate our common humanity"

French Ban on Religious Identity

Summary

France passed Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 (the Act), ), which prohibits students in public primary schools, secondary schools, and lycées from wearing symbols and clothing manifesting a religious affiliation, impacting Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs. French schools implementing the Act have expelled students who manifest their religion by wearing articles of faith to school. Despite a Human Rights Committee decision finding France in violation of the ICCPR, France has refused to change or amend its laws.

When facially neutral laws disproportionately affect minorities, discrimination masquerades as equality. But like the victims of more blatant forms of intolerance, children expelled from school under the Act face the stigma of being excluded from mainstream French society. Moreover, their identities are focal points for adverse treatment, a fact that surely signals to them, to other children, and to society more broadly that it is appropriate to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. Thus, far from upholding the pluralistic ideal of secularism, the Act disadvantages minority religions in violation of international law, isolates children from their peers, and thus contributes to the very religious compartmentalization that France still seeks to prevent. Indeed, the evidence bears this out. The Act has not only resulted in marginalization for minority children, but it has also failed to abate social tensions, which have been exacerbated in recent years.

ICAAD has submitted reports to the UN Human Rights Council, UN Human Rights Committee, and the British Parliament, is participating in advocacy efforts at the UN, and is currently researching litigation and advocacy options in France and in the European Courts.

 

Problem Space

For decades, France has struggled to address the application of its constitutional principle of laïcité, or secularism. Originally a reaction against the dominance of the Catholic church, French secularism is a much stronger norm than, for example, the separation of church and state required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. One of France’s most substantial challenges has been reconciling its robust vision of secularism with the recent arrival of waves of religious minority immigrants, especially Muslims, who number approximately 5 million in France.[1]

In 2003, President Jacques Chirac established an investigative commission, headed by Bernard Stasi, to determine how secularism should apply in practice. The Stasi Commission Report produced a range of recommendations, the most controversial of which was that the government should ban the wearing of “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools.[2] These symbols expressly included large crucifixes, the Jewish kippah, and the Muslim veil.[3] The report based this recommendation on two objectives: first, to enforce the principle of secularism; and second, to abate coercion against some Muslim girls (typically by their families) who did not wish to wear the traditional headscarf.

President Chirac chose to act on the portion of the report recommending a ban on symbols at school. Thus, in 2004, the French legislature enacted the Act, which entered into force that school year, resulting in dozens of expulsions of minority children, mostly—but not exclusively—Muslim girls. France’s Report states that only 39 students were expelled in the first year of the Act’s implementation;[4] the French newspaper Le Monde reported that in the first year of its implementation, the Act resulted in 47 students being excluded from school, and another 96 who voluntarily chose not to return.[5] Approximately a dozen students returned to school wearing prohibited attire in the second year of implementation, and faced disciplinary proceedings.[6] In subsequent years, fewer and fewer students have attempted to wear prohibited attire to French schools, although controversy emerged in 2013 after a girl was expelled from school for wearing a headband and a long skirt that school officials deemed “too religious.”[7] Instead, students are now either attending different schools, or are attending public schools without their religiously mandated attire.

[1] This figure is an estimate, rendered by the French Minister of the Interior in 2010 because France does not include religious identification in its census. See Michael Cosgrove, How Does France Count its Muslim Population?, Mon Figaro, July 7, 2011, http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/how-does-france-count-its-muslim-population-20110407-435643.

[2] The report, in its original French, used the word “ostensible.” See Commission de Reflexion sur L’application du Principe de Laïcite Dans la Republique, Rapport au President de la Republique 41, 58-59 (Dec. 11, 2003).

[3] Id. at 58-59.

[4] See France’s Fifth Periodic Report ¶ 412.

[5] See Les signes religieux ostensibles ont pratiquement disparu des écoles, Le Monde (Sept. 9, 2005), available at http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2005/09/29/les-signes-religieux-ostensibles-ont-pratiquement-disparu-des-ecoles_694106_3224.html.

[6] Id.

[7] See Nabila Ramdani, Veil Row Reignites in France after 15-year-old Girl Expelled from School for Wearing a Headband and Long Skit Which Were Considered “Too Religious,” Daily Mail Online (UK) (April 7, 2013), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305314/Veil-row-reignites-France-15-year-old-girl-expelled-school-wearing-headband-long-skirt-considered-religious.html.

Interventions

ICAAD seeks to challenge the discriminatory law in France to allow religious minorities to practice their faith freely. ICAAD has engaged in advocacy efforts primarily through international human rights mechanisms, including:

 

Team

Safya_Akorri Safya Akorri is an attorney with Paris-based law firm Vigo.

Ranjit-160x160 Ranjit Singh

tejinder Tejinder Singh

Hansdeep_Pic_1 Hansdeep Singh

jks-bio-just-head-147x160 Jaspreet K. Singh

 

 

 

#RaiseYourShield

Great talk! "Dr. Prabhjot Singh is on a mission to makes healthcare more accessible. His “a-ha moment” came as he attended the funeral of one of his patients where he saw the man in context of his life and community, rather than the bare facts included on his chart. Singh realized that this man’s death had been the result of the collective failure of many systems—education, mental health, neighborhood safety, job placement, veteran support. In Dying and Living in the Neighborhood, Singh insists that we must discard our top-down approach to the healthcare system and that regardless of our leadership, the solutions won’t come from our government. We must rebuild our system from the neighborhood up." ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL
ASSIMILATION OF SIKHISM, BUDDHISM,
AND JAINISM INTO HINDUISM

"Article 25, sub-clause 1 of the Indian Constitution guarantees
that “subject to public order, morality and health,
all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right to freely to profess, practice and propagate
religion.”38 However, its sub-clause 2 (B) and its corresponding
Explanation II is considered very controversial.
While Explanation I states that the wearing and
carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in
the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II in
sub-clause 2 (B) states, “Hindus shall be construed as
including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain
or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious
institutions shall be construed accordingly.”39 This
constitutional provision is very discriminatory, as it connotes
that even as a multi-faith state, India seems to be
concerned about the social welfare of only one religion
(Hinduism) and its religious institutions. The appended
Explanation II effectively groups Sikhs, Buddhists, and
Jains into Hinduism. Explanation II has also led to other
discriminatory laws against these religions, including
the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Marriage Act
(1955), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956),
and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956). These
laws are largely viewed to force legal assimilation of
these religions into Hinduism, rather than recognizing
them as distinct religious identities."
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook