With reference to the headscarf debate in France, analyze the extent to which laicite has played a major role in the French law 2004-228.

IntroductionOn March 15th, 2004 the g everywherenment of cut democracy passed a jurisprudence that barned the article of clothing of conspicuous signs of spiritual affiliation in existence schools (Bowen, 2007). Whilst this faithfulness affected Jewish skullcaps, large crosses, Sikh tur vetos, many scholars (i.e. Wing and Smith, Tarhan) believe that its main heading was to throw away the eating away of the headscarves, known also as hijab by unsalted Islamic girls. Currently there are approximately 5 million Moslems sustentation in France (CIA, 2012). The majority of them are the immigrants from former cut colonies in North and West Africa. Islamics constitute 5-10% of the French population, while Islam is the second largest organized righteousness in France (Tarhan, 2011). Hence, the law from 2004 led to objections and protests amongst French Moslems. They regarded the termination of French regime as a sign of discrimination and violation of religious liberty in France (Wing and Smith, 2006). French disposal, in turn, emphasized that French secularism (known also as laicite), assuming separation between state and religion, was a main reason standing behind its decision (Astier, 2004)). Until like a shot the French law 2004-228 is very controversial. The supporters of this law believe that a shun on religious symbols confirmed a secular character of French democracy and defended French national individuality. They also postulate that a ban contributed to a greater equality amongst women and men within Muslim rules of order. The opponents, in turn, emphasize a largely symbolic character of the ban, as it affected only Muslim girls attending exoteric schools and did not apply to Muslim women on the streets or university students. The opponents oftentimes also rejected laicite as a basis of the French law 2004-228. Instead, they postulate that a fear of multiculturalism and growing cleavage within the French society, especially afte r September eleventh, had a depict impact on the governmental decision (Scott, 2005).The spare-time exertion essay aims to examine whether French secularism, laicite, was a key component responsible for the banning of headscarves in France. First, the essay explains the role of effeminate headscarf in Muslim religion and tradition in secern to understand a safe objection against a ban from Muslim side. Second, the essay presents shortly a debate on wearing headscarves in France that had its beginning in the 1980s. Further, the essay considers the fantasy of laicite in France and its impact on passing the French law 2004-228. The essay analyzes opposite factors that influenced on the banning of religious symbols in France in order to equalise their role and the role of laicite in passing the law. Finally, the essay considers the ban as an unsuccessful reform and presents policy recommendations.The role of headscarf in Muslim traditionThe headscarf1 is an signifi sewert rel igious symbol in the Islamic tradition. The Quran, perceive as the source of Allahs command by Muslims, states that believing women () should lower their gaze and guard their taciturnity that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, their husbands sons, their br another(prenominal)s, or their brothers sons or their sisters sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who befuddle no sense of the put down of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you whitethorn attain Bliss. (Quran 2431)Therefore, following Allahs law, Muslim women are obligated to remain modest and t o cover their beauty. Moreover, the Quran says O Prophet Tell Thy wives And daughters, and the Believing women, that They should cast their Outer garments over Their Persons (when outside) That they should be known (As much(prenominal)) and not Molested (Quran 3359). It indicates that there are two purposes of the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. First, headscarf should protect Muslim women from gazes of strange men and from beingness an object of strangers desire. Second, headscarf should help to distinguish Muslim women from women of other religions (Syed, 2001). It is worth tallying that the Quran does not state precisely which parts of womans body should be covered. Hence, there are different types of head (and body) practical applications amongst Muslim women in various countries, depending on Qurans adaptation and culture. They range from the unprejudiced hijab, covering the head and neck to Afghani burqa, covering the entire body and leaving only so-called mesh s creen so that the woman is open to see (Wing and Smith, 2006). Further, the following sentence from the Quran O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That testament be better so that they may be recognized and not annoyed (Wing and Smith, 2006, p.751) indicates that Muslim men are also obligated to Quran to make sure that their wives have got appropriate covering when they leave their houses.With the beginning of decolonization in the 1950s and the 1960s, the European countries, in particular France and the United Kingdom, had experienced massive immigrations from the essence East and African countries. intimately of the immigrants were Muslims. Hence, the Western countries, characterized by Christian roots had to face different religion, culture and values brought to the Europe by Muslims. vanguardscarf has drop dead one of the most visible elements of these differences in the Europea ns in the public eye(predicate) eyes (Wing and Smith, 2006).Headscarf debate in a contemporary FranceThere are currently around 5 million of Muslims in France, constituting 5-10% of the total French population (CIA, 2012). Mostly they are immigrants from the regions such as the Maghreb, the Middle East, Turkey and Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Additionally there is an increasing number of mountain of European descent in France who are deciding to convert into Islam. In the recent years, Muslims in France has concentratedly manifested its cultural and religious separateness. They aimed to create an Islamic personal identity with local institutional, societal and cultural structures (Wing and Smith, 2006, p.753) and they focused on building new mosques and loud practices of their religion. It led to Islamophobic tendencies in France which were often manifested by hostility, discrimination in concern and housing as well as larger socio-economic expulsion of Muslim society. Curren tly Muslims continue to be separated from the rest of French society. Key indicators of this exclusion are limited access to the education for Muslims, houses in the urban ghettos (known also as the zones of economic and social exclusion) but also lack of involvement in French governmental life and culture from the Muslim side.The debate on headscarves in France has got its root in 1989 and is known as the affaires de foulard (Scott, 2005, p. 1). At that time, three Muslim girls were expelled from their secondary state school in the town of Creil after they refused to take off their headscarves. Although it was not a first such a case (the theater director of this school had earlier banned Jewish students from wearing the Kippah in school), it brought an extensive attention of French media. The director of school argued that he made a decision on the basis of French laicite2, a concept postulating separation between the state and religion (Tarhan, 2011). Muslim society was support ed by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders. Together, they postulated that laicite should have been regarded as toleration for other religions rather than condemnation of religion (Scott, 2005). This approach was also accepted by the former Minister of Education, Lionel Jospin. He denote that religious symbols and clothing at schools were allowed as long as they did not threaten other religious beliefs (Tarhan, 2011). Despite this governmental announcement, a number of equal cases has dramatically increased between 1989 (400 cases) and 1994 (3000 cases), what led to racial and religious violence in France (Bowen, 2007). In 1994 the tensions were so intense that education staff were sending letter to the French government, asking for advices on how to deal with the situation. In result, new Minister of Education, Francois Bayrou implemented new rules on religious symbols in schools. He allowed only apprehensive symbols in schools, while he prohibited ostentatious symbols. Disc reet symbols were defined as those that demonstrated personal religious conviction (Tarhan, 2011, p.18), while ostentatious as those that led to discrimination and differences into the educational communities. Bayrous claim was controversial and brought the attention of French media. In result, the Conseil dEtat, the highest administrative court in France, decided to check into the controversial issue. The court rejected Bayrous decision and obligated school administrations and teachers to make decision on the actions of their students. The French government appointed a Muslim woman, Hanifa Cherifi, as a governmental mediator responsible for handling the wearing of headscarves. In result, the issue has grown quiet for nine years (Scott, 2005).The issue of headscarves was brought to the public attention again in 2003, when the Minister of Interiors and Cults, Nicolas Sarkozy postulated that Muslim women should take off their headscarves while posing for official identity photograph s. As Muslims became an important minority in France with the beginning of the twenty first century, Sarkozys claim reflected growing frustration and intolerance towards visibility of religious symbols in public places amongst French politicians and society. It also brought grit the issue of headscarves in schools. In effect, French President, Jacques Chirac formed a commission led by Bernard Stasi in order to investigate the implementation of laicite in French educational institutions.. Students, teachers, intellectuals and also the European Commission got involved in the work of Stasis Commission. Muslim girls chose to be interviewed undercover, as they wanted to voice their opinions about wearing the hijab anonymously. The report produced by Stasis Commission presented an in-depth study on the role that the hijab plays in the Muslim community. In reference to Islam, one of the most important results was that young Muslim girls, that used to grow up in a society dominated by wes tern culture and values found difficult to affirm their identities as Muslims by the way they had to dress. Further, it showed that young Muslim girls were often not participating in classes such as P.E (physical education) as they were afraid of violence and assaults from Muslim mens side. Moreover, Muslim girls often confessed that they were being forced to wear the hijab by their families and peer groups. The Stasis Report also drew open other issues surrounding Muslim women such as female genital mutilation and forced marriages (Vaisse, 2004). The Stasis Report pointed out that the existence of religious symbols in schools was not harmonious with the concept of laicite. The Report postulated that the veils were responsible for the alienation of women. As secularism and gender equality were regarded as the important features of laicite, the Report recommended banning religious symbols in schools3 (Wing and Smith, 2006). It is important to add that the critics of the Stasis Repo rt aimed to undermine the validity of the report. They postulated that the report was mainly based on western perceptions on the hijab and Muslim women. The link between forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the hijab, were all based upon the commission negative image of Islam, there was no empirical research to back their findings (Schiek and Lawson, 2011). Muslim women argue that the hijab is worn voluntarily and it brings them a sense of belonging and community (Schiek and Lawson, 2011).Following the Stasis Report, on February 10th, 2004, French National Assembly passed the law on the banning conspicuous religious symbols in schools. A huge majority of the Assembly, 494 members, were in favour of the ban, while only 36 members ballotingd against the ban. At the same time, 31 members abstained from voting. Similarly, on March 3rd, 2004, the French Senate also passed the same legislation. 276 voters were in favour of the ban, while 20 of them voted against the ban (Weil, 2009). The implementation of the new law was preceded by three demonstrations, respectively, on December 21st, 2004 on January 17th, 2005 and on February 14th, 2005 that aimed to stop passing the law 2004-228. Mohammed Latreche, an Islamist activist mobilized and encouraged French citizens to participate in these demonstrations. He established a political party, Pati des msulman de France (the caller of French Muslims) with the headquarters in Strasburg. The demonstrations, showed the Muslim publics outrage at the law that was about to be passed. The legislative ban was regarded as an attack on Muslims with the Muslim society. Two girls even went as far as hunger strikes to show their opposition to the ban. Some posters propagated slangs such as Stasi killed me and 1 veil= 1 vote (Bowen, 2007). Officially, the law was implemented on March 15th and it is known as the law 2004-228. Despite the demonstrations, the legislative ban in France has been largely supported by the French s ociety. According to Pew Research Centre (2006) 78% of the French population have supported the ban, while only 22% of the population have regarded the banning as a bad idea.The concept of laicite and its impact on the banning of headscarves in FranceMany scholars (i.e. Wing and Smith, Scott) believe that the concept of laicite was akey factor behind the decision on the banning of headscarves in France. Laicite has a long tradition in France and hence, it is crucial to analyze its influence on the ban of religious symbols. As it was mentioned above, laicite, known also as a French secularism, postulates separation between the state and religion as well as freedom of religion (Tarhan, 2011). It can be viewed as passive neutrality or non-intervention by the state in the private religious domain. This interpretation suggests that the exercise of religion in the private scope is permissible, and that the French state bequeath not openly support overt religious practices in public sph eres (Scott, 2005). Another interpretation of the laicite can be viewed as a more active secularism, in terms of which the nation is promoted as a fundamentally political society ferociously independent of any religious authority (Wing and Smith, 2006), and one in which the values of the state can be defended through the concept of LORDRE PUBLIC in order to justify interference where necessary with some religious organisations. This definition of laicite gives the government more control over public institutions and the amount of religious activity that goes on there, for example schools (Weil, 2009).The concept of laicite was developed during the French Revolution (1789). Initially it concerned the separation between the state and the Catholic Church, which played a major role in France in the seventeenth century. Revolutionaries aimed to redefine citizenship and nationhood and hence, to separate Catholicism from the French identity. New citizenship was meant to be universal, secul ar and inclusive. Instead, the French Revolution led to xenophobic nationalism (Tarhan, 2011, p.4) which targeted foreigners as well as priests, rebels, political opponents and noblemen. Similarly, the Revolution started to reject religion rather than tolerate it. The laicisation of French public schools began with an article that was passed on June 28th, 1833. This law entailed that primary school teaching should have no religious affiliation. Further, laicite was implemented in France through the creation of the public school system, in the years 1881-2 with Jules ferryboats public school laws (Bowen, 2007). However, despite these steps Catholicism remained an important element of French regime until the end of nineteenth century. More significant changes started in 1901 when France passed a new law, Law of Association according to which religious associations became obligated to have a state supervision. Further, in 1904 the religious communities were forbidden to provide educati on. In result, approximately 30,000 of clergy lost their teaching jobs and stopped taking salaries from the state. Nonetheless, the legislation passed in 1905, known as the Separation Act, is regarded as first meaningful success of secularists in France (Tarhan, 2011). The 1905 law has become the legal guideline for the separation of the state and the church. The word laicite did not appear in the 1905 law. However, the first article of the law emphasized freedom of religion in France, as it stated that the republic ensures freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of religions with the sole restrictions decreed hereafter in the interest of public order (Tarhan, 2011, p.7). The second article, in turn, declared that The Republic does not recognize, fund or subsidize any religion. State, departmental and commune budgets, together with all expenses relating to the exercise of religions allow for be abolished. (Tarhan, 2011, p.7) and hence, it guaranteed states neutrality towards religions. The legislation from 1905 gave a political and legal character to the concept of laicite in France. More importantly, it indicated that laicite was a process that had emerged in France through the confrontation about national identity between Clerics and Republicans (Scott, 2005).Although the concept of laicite in France does not show any historical links to the Islam religion, the ban on religious symbols from 2004 seems to emphasize an impact of laicite on the French politics and tradition. Nowadays laicite is regarded in France as one of the foundations of French Republic and the French collective (national) identity (The Economist, 2004). It represents a sharp contrast to Anglo-American model of multiculturalism. French believe that laicite guarantees tolerance, freedom of religion, peace as well as social cohesion. Further, laicite postulates a sharp division between public and private spheres. Religion and ethnicity can be manifested in the private sphere. However, the only visible legitimate identity in the public sphere should be French national identity. Further, the laic state has right to interfere in the religious issues if the national unity and common values of the French Republic are threatened (Weil, 2009). According to the concept, Muslim society should accept French norms and culture in order to become a part of French political unity. Nonetheless, Muslims have become a significant minority in France, unwilling to adopt French tradition and lifestyle. Instead, they strongly manifested own culture, tradition and identity (The Economist, 2004). Islam was perceived not only as a religion but also as a rigorous lifestyle that rejected Western values such as liberty, freedom and laicite. Muslims were often regarded as the extremist group. Hence, French started to perceive Muslims and Islam religion as the threads to the French national unity that had to be address and resolved. The debate on headscarves in France confirms this negative perception of Muslims within French society (Tarhan, 2011).With the exception of laicite, there were also other factors that had an influence on the ban of religious symbols in France. As stated in the Stasis Report, the ban aimed to empower Muslim women and to guarantee greater equality amongst the Muslim women and men. However, in this case, the ban was just a symbolic gesture, as it only applied to the young Muslim girls in public schools and did not affect adult Muslim women, operative in some public places or just walking on the streets (Bowen, 2007). In contrast, there are several external factors that might have influenced the time of headscarves debate in France. When the first debate on headscarves took place in 1989, the Communist system in the Central and Eastern Europe collapsed. Instead, the Europe experienced massive inflows of Muslim immigrants and spreading Islam religion across the European countries. Hence, Islam quickly started to be perceived as a thr ead to the Western values that replaced an gaga thread, communism. Further, in 1994 there was a civil war in Algeria, a former colony of France that was caused by the conflict between the secular military government of Algeria and Islamic fundamentalists. The Algerian conflict indicated a possibility of similar problems between the state and its largest religious minority in France. Finally, in 2003 the Europe was still strongly affected by the consequences of September 11th (2001). Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the worsening of the conflict between Israel and Palestine resulted in sharp contrast between the West and Islam culture. At that time, French Muslims definitely identified with the Muslims in other parts of the world and the wearing of headscarves manifested such identification. French government, on the other hand, faced real threads of terrorism. Hence, the main principle of French defense became to prevent French citizens and institutions fr om potential challenges to their integrity (Scott, 2005).ConclusionsTo sum up, the ban of religious symbols in schools implemented in France in 2004 was very controversial and led to numerous protests and demonstrations in France. The supporters of the ban underlined the secular character of France and the need to separate religion from the public sector. The opponents, in turn, postulated a minor impact of the ban, as it only affected Muslim schoolgirls, constituting relatively insignificant percentage of Muslim female population in France.Without a doubt, laicite had a key impact on the legislative ban. However, the main factor behind the governmental decision was not separation between the religion and the state, regarded as a traditional element of the concept of laicite. In the contemporary France, key elements of laicite have become nation identity and unity. As the French society was characterized by a strong division on Muslims and non-Muslims as well as by strengthening Mus lim influences, the French conservative government of Chirac has become responsible for protecting the French national identity. The ban was believed to be a successful tool to achieve this goal. Except laicite, there was a number of internationalist events such as Afghan war, Iraqi war or Israeli-Palestinian conflict that strengthened Islamophobic in Western countries, in particular in secular France that has constantly been characterized by the opposition to multiculturalism and foreignness. Although some scholars postulate that gender equality was also a factor influencing French decision on the ban, there is no strong evidence to support this claim. In fact, the ban affected only small number of young Muslim girls being in public education.Nowadays it is authoritative that Muslims have to accept cosmopolitan values and freethinking if they aim to stay in the Western countries. Currently a number of Western countries such as United Kingdom, Spain or Germany have been character ized by a trap of two conflicting cultures. However, forcing Muslims to go against their religious practices, as applied in France seems to be counterproductive. The ban of religious symbols in France led to the riots (2005) in so-called les cites, ghettos focusing North Africans and Arabs that spread around the major French cities. During these riots two Muslim teenagers were accidently killed. However, the ban of religious symbols could have disastrous consequences. Young Muslims, rejected by the French government and regarded as a second-class society, often accept extremism and violence as the radical of their problems. The example of the United States demonstrates prominently the negative consequences of rejecting and underestimating its ethnic minority. The young, radical Muslims in the US, trained by the conservative European imams became responsible for the dramatic events from September 11th (Kiersh, 2008).The French government should have learnt a lesson from the United S tates and should stop pushing its Muslim society towards extremism and encouraging violence amongst them. Instead, the French government should establish a long-term strategy in order to incorporate their Muslim minority into the environment they regard as unfriendly. The government must develop new, comprehensive measures that will help Muslims to identify with the rest of the French society and to become involved in various aspects of French lifestyle. In order to achieve these goals, the French government must focus on the reduction of job and housing discrimination in the first place as well as on ever-changing the attitudes within the French policy towards Muslim male immigrants. The French government can expect that other European governments (in particular British, German and Spanish governments) will be also willing to address the problem of separation between Muslims and mainstream society, as they struggle with the same problem. Together, these countries have enough resou rces to implement reforms and changes so that the Muslims can assimilate with the rest of the societies. Also the United States could probably get involved in such a cross-countries program in the framework of the War on Terror. Without a doubt, the European governments would be more willing to accept such a form of terrorism fighting rather than military interventions in the Middle East. The following concept requires in-depth analyzes and detailed policy planning. However, it would definitely bring larger and more positive outcomes than the ban of religious symbols in public schools (Kiersh, 2008).List of references Astier, H., (2004). The plentiful Roots of French Secularism online available from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Bowen, J., (2007). wherefore the French do not like the Headscarves. New Jersey Princeton University CIA, (2012). The World Factbook France online Available from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Kiersh, A., (2008). Why the Headscarf Ban is wrong for France online A vailable from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Morin, R. and Horowitz, J., (2006). European debate the Scarf and the Veil online Available from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Scott, J., (2005). Symptomatic Politics The Banning of Islamic Head Scarves in French Public Schools. New Jersey Institute for Advanced Study. Schiek, D and Lawson, A., (2011). European Union Non-Discrimination Law and Intersectionality Investigating the Triangle of Racial, Gender and constipation Discrimination. London Ashgate Publishing. Syed, , (2001). Women in Islam Hijab online Available from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Tarhan, G., (2011). Roots of the Headscarf Debate Laicism and Secularism in France and Turkey. Journal of Political Inquiry, 4, p. 1-32. The Economist, (2004). The war of the headscarves online Available from (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Vaisse, J., (2004). Veiled Meaning the French Law Banning Religious Symbols in Public Schools. Washington The Brookings Institute. Weil, P., (2009). Why the French Lai cite is liberalCardozon Law Review, 30(6), p.2699-2714.Wing, A. and Smith, M., (2006). Critical Race Feminism Lifts in Veil? Muslim, Women, France and the Headscarf Ban. calcium UC Davis.1 The headscarf wore by Muslim women is commonly known as hijab in the Europe. However, Quran uses two Arabic terms khimar and jilbaab in reference to headscarf or veil.2 The concept of French laicite will be discussed in details in the next chapter.3 It is worth adding that Stasis Report also postulated the recognition of majority religious feasts as public holiday. However, this law was not passed.