By Cerys Kitima and Asmaa Torkia
Secularism is defined by English secularist Holyoake as a way of thinking that rejects religion and separates the state from religion. It is a growing ideology across the world which is being implemented in many societies across the globe. Though the theory was coined centuries ago, in recent times its prevalence has been growing. This article will explore how France became a secular state, the negative and positive impacts that it has had in the past, and its effects on today’s society.
Jean Bauberotand, a French Historian and Sociologist, was termed the ‘founder of the sociology of secularism’ in 1995. He had described secularism as being split into 3 main parts: separation of religious institutions from state institutions, freedom of belief and thought, and no discrimination against an individual’s religious or non-religious views. The first part, refers to the partition of state religion and the power structure of different religious positions is severed from the potent constitution of the government. The principle initially stands at, ‘separation of church and state.’ The second idea signifies that the government has the ability to enforce how the citizens act but not what they believe. It also enforces the idea that religion should not be involved in any political or social activities of the country. The final part refers to people without a religion such as, humanists, atheists and secularists are protected under this act of no discrimination against an individual's views.
The most known examples of a secular state are Turkey, America and France. America is one of the first countries to have an explicitly secular government in society. 73.7% of the population in the U.S are Christians, however, the state is separated from the church, and the decisions that the government makes aren’t influenced by the teachings of Christianity. Turkey is another country to have been labeled a secular state during the 1928 amendment of the constitution of 1924 removing the provision which declared that the religion of the state is Islam. In Turkey, 99% of the population are Muslims but specific emphasis is placed on the separation of the government from religion. However, religious studies is taught in a majority of the schools with the main focus being on Islam. France is a secular state that is known as having gone to extreme measures to implement the separation of the state from religion.The French term laicité translates to secularism, however it is extremely complicated and very politically charged due to the political view the government has of secularism, as to some, it represents the removal of religion from the state and the change that France began to undergo. Previously, laicité had been purely ideological, but in 1905 it became official policy.. This ‘1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State’ meant many things- firstly, that France had officially become a secular state, meaning that it had no official religion and became neutral in matters of religion; secondly, that France was no longer allowed to recognise, fund or endorse any religious groups. The effects of this law can still be seen in 2023, as many laws have been created in France inspired by the idea of secularism. For example, in 2004 the French government banned the wearing of religious symbols in public schools, including the Muslim hijab, Jewish kippah, Sikh turban, and Christian veil. This law was seen by french citizens as highly controversial as banning religious garments was construed as a way of prohibiting individuals from practising their religion, impeding upon their human right to freedom of religious practice.
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is the national motto of France, having originated during the 1789 French Revolution. Supposedly coined by revolutionary politician Desmoulins, its motto states the phrase “...citizens-soldiers rushing into each other’s arms, promising each other liberty,equality,fraternity…”. The motto is extremely memorable, as it represents a period of change in France, leading to an ‘equality of rights’. The question that we pose is if France promises equality to the people, why are certain groups being oppressed? Through the banning of religious garments, it's become apparent that France has not remained neutral in matters of religion, through the prohibiting of different types of religious expressions. These are ideas shared with a large number of French citizens, where the word ‘oppression’ is commonly being used by large numbers of religious citizens in France.
In recent years, an increasing number of protests have occurred as a result of the government pushing forward and enforcing its rule, which went into force on September 2nd, 2004, prohibiting the wearing of religious garments. The primary target of this law was headscarves but also included other religious items such as large crosses, kippahs and turbans. Before the law was passed, on July 3rd 2003, the Stasi Commission was set up in response to public debates regarding the forthcoming 2004 ban, during which they interviewed a range of public figures such as religious leaders, police, teachers and social activist members. In a journal called ‘Le voile en procès’,which directly translates to ‘The veil on trial’, John R. Bowen, an anthropologist, wrote a piece named ‘Why Did the French Rally to a Law Against Scarves in Schools?’. In this piece, there’s a section named ‘(Some) Educators Speak Out’; Bowen mentioned that the witnesses chosen to testify before the Stasi Commission generally “supported the new law” and that they didn’t represent “the range of positions held by their colleagues in France''. To summarise the piece written by John R. Bowen, these interviews were biased and one sided as those carrying out the interviews left out the voices of educators who did not agree with their viewpoint. These interviews were used as evidence and confirmation for the government to continue with their plans. Many questions arose around the validity of the approach adopted by the commision, as the number of those ‘For’ was far greater than those ‘Against’ the ban, appearing as though a large majority welcomed the ban. Additionally, teachers who spoke about their views of the ban only talked about the negative interactions they had with religious students. In Thérèse Arvaud’s ,a principal in Turgot high school in Paris, testimony (14/10/2003), she said there were incidents of “trouble-making boys, voodoo ceremonies, proselytism…[,] students of different religions debating their positions, [and] Jewish students missing Friday late-afternoon or Saturday classes'', but the interviewer failed to ask the teachers about positive encounters with religious students.
American Ambassador John Hanford derided former President Chirac's hijab ban as “all people should be able to practise their beliefs peacefully without government interference”. This suggests that France is not necessarily acting as a secular state, as they are refusing to remain neutral regarding matters of religion. Focusing on former President Chirac's speech in December 2003, he declared that his main concern was to maintain France's principle of secularism and that the matter was non-negotiable. This created confusion on whether the former president wanted to preserve the 1905 law or if he was opposed to religion being practised publicly entirely. However, in an interview with the current president Emmanuel Macron, he stated that “What we must fight is Islamist separatism…it's repeatedly at odds with the values of the public, and often leads to the creation of a counter-society.’ This clearly shows that though former President Chirac’s viewpoint on secularism is not clear, Macron possesses a very different but clear concept of the historical but continued secularist law, which isolates the Islamic religion and its teachings.
Looking carefully at Macron's speech we can suggest that it has been influenced by religiously targeted views compared to Chirac’s speech. Unlike Macron, Chirac presents a more neutral view regarding the secularism law, as he doesn’t include any discriminatory language in his statement against a certain religion. This is because his statement is largely centred around the former laws that he believed should be practised in order to maintain the principles in France. However, Macron uses the argument of Secularism as a way to target the Muslim majority in France. France has the largest Muslim population (5,000,000) in Europe; there was a mass migration from former French colonies in North Africa during the 1960-70s. These French nationals have been living in France for decades, yet an opinion poll carried out by the CNCDH, a governmental organisation created to monitor the respect for human rights in France, proves that they are the least tolerated population. Only 53% of them had positive responses in general, and only a meagre 26% of the French population had a positive image of Islam. The impact of President Macron's address, knowing that it will be aired to millions of French residents, and knowing that there is a high likelihood that it may influence people's attitudes about Muslims has been detrimental.President Macron’s speech instilled the notion that the French-Muslim community wishes to turn France into an Islamic state, which causes certain people to maintain and develop their negative attitudes against the French-Muslim community. The impact on individuals because of those in higher positions promoting views that may encourage Islamophobia are already visible as the number of Islamophobic incidents in France increased by 53% in 2020. The French-Muslim community is bearing the brunt of President Macron's personal views.
The BBC reports that the majority of the protests are focused on the hijab ban as it had huge impacts on the lives of French-Muslim women. Despite the many protests of the French public, there has been no official response from the French government. This has been interpreted by citizens as turning a blind eye to the ill effects and that they do not care about listening to them. In recent years,there have been countless smaller-sized protests happening across France, many of which have been reported on news outlets like BBC, Al Jazeera, The New York Times and more. Here are some headlines regarding bans and protests over the years:
09/09/23 BBC NEWS - ‘French shrug off muslim upset at abaya ban in schools’.
07/09/23 Al-Jazeera NEWS - ‘‘Islamophobic policy’: French high school goes on strike over abaya ban’
02/07/23 The New York Times - ‘A Fatal Shooting and a Hijab Ban: Two Faces of France’s Racial Divisions’
07/09/23 The News Arab - ‘France abaya ban in schools: Racism & double standards about women’s rights’
Looking at these articles, we can see that different news headlines share contrasting ‘ideas’ regarding the hijab and abaya ban. For example, the BBC news holds a neutral stance regarding the situation, whereas the News Arab proposes different ideas by mentioning the double standards concerning women’s rights.
France is presented as a socially progressive country to the world. Their national motto “Liberté,égalité,fraternité” nominally shows a belief that all people are equal in France. To what extent is that true? The meaning of feminism is that all genders have equal rights and opportunities; women of different religions,or ethnicities are included in this statement.Women in France face an extreme amount of oppression and the actions to combat these issues have been very slow-paced. Marital rape was only criminalized in 1991 and a law against street harassment was only passed in 2018. Women have been facing oppression for centuries, and only a few decades ago changes have been made but these changes are not enough. Furthermore, Muslim women in particular have fallen victim to gendered islamophobia. The rights of Muslim women have been stripped from them over the past few years. Beginning with the ban of religious symbols in general that included the hijab (2004); then moving on to the banning of face coverings including the burqa and niqab in public places (2011). The most recent event was the banning of the abaya in French middle and high school. Women should be able to have the choice to dress freely and how they want, and this should apply to all women. If France believes in equality in their country, why is this idea not being applied to everyone? Former Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls referred to the abaya as “What this veil represents for women, is not a fashion trend, no, it is not a colour one wears, no: it is an enslavement of women” in 2013. The use of the word ‘enslavement’ to describe a choice made by women exercising their own agency is extremely insulting towards Muslim women and non-Muslim women alike. White, middle-class men are the ones who have created this patriarchal society in which women are continuously oppressed. So for Valls to call the hijab “an enslavement of women” is an example of men dictating how women should think whilst they continue to restrict their actions.
To conclude, the primary purpose of this article is to educate readers on what secularism is and how the adoption of it by Western states has resulted in secularism being used as an excuse for discrimination. This has been most clearly exemplified in the case of France. An exploration of the history of secularism in France has led us to understand that the meaning of secularism is something that is ultimately political when we look at comparisons between French presidents, and even internationally, with the adoption of secularism in the US and Turkey taking very different forms. While some leaders may regard secularism as a principle of their country in its true form, some, such as Macron, take a more personal yet discriminatory approach. The push for a more “secular” state in France has resulted in more rising tensions and clashes between civilians and the government in the past few years than in any other secular state. Therefore, it is important to be aware that although the concept of secularism in theory may seem beneficial, in practice, it can and has been used as a tool of oppression by those in power.
Comments