French Watch Log, Winter 2004
Watch Log 1- 1/18/04
Today, as if to reply to my comment in class the other day about the new law proposed by the French government, there appeared articles in the Detroit News/Free Press as well as the New York Times about the demonstration yesterday, 1/17/04: thousands of Muslim women demonstrated in the streets of Paris (and many other cities as well) to protest the French government's plan to ban veils from public schools, as well as all "conspicuous" religious signs - Islamic head scarves, Jewish skull caps, large Christian crosses. This law is expected to pass Parliament and to go into effect in the new school year (September). The rationale from the government's perspective is to reinforce and protect secularism in France, where Islamic fundamentalism is growing.
There is LOTS of backstory on this. Just one example: according to www.islamonline.net, this matter is not just limited to schools: the French Minister of the Interior, Necolai Sarkozy, had insisted last April on the removal of the head scarfs for Muslim women being photographed for identity cards. Whereas the Imam of the Paris mosque Dalil Abu Bakr said he did not object to this, officials in the Islamic Organizations Union in France petitioned for abolition of the law that prohibits wearing veils.
More backstory to come on this, as I follow
this story forward throughout the Winter.
January 29 - Some backstory
Part of the issue regarding school uniforms in France has come about due to a larger debate on school reforms, initiated at the national level by the Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The purpose of this debate and the goal of reforms is to attempt to create a less elitist, more democratic school program, open to all students and allowing for the maximum of success. There is even a Web site for the debate: www.debatnational.education.fr. (Source: France-Amérique 27 Sept 2003, p.32)
The irony seems to be here that by starting a debate, he got more than he bargained for since the whole issue of wearing uniforms came up shortly after the debate/discussion began last Sept. In October 2003, as the different topics of discussion were being undertaken, the issue of "equality" in school clothing came back onto the table (after having been a hot-button issue back in the later 1980s). While no schools in France impose any sort of uniform, they can do so legally. However, the parents associations and the teachers' unions will raise opposition to any such initiatives, but those in favor of such an initiative have the "port du voile" matter (the wearing of the Muslim hood/veil) in mind. On Oct. 10, at the high school at Aubvervilliers, this controversy was started anew when two teenage girls were kept out of school due to wearing the veil. (Source: France-Amérique 18 October 2003, p.7)
By December 2003, this issue had taken on new proportions after the French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposed "positive discrimination" as a way to assist certain underprivileged individuals or groups (bases on gender or national origin). This is, of course, our concept of "affirmative action," whereas in France, according to France-Amérique, any system like "affirmative action" would probably be deemed unconstitutional in France. However, shortly after Sarkozy got this ball rolling, the Prime Minister Raffarin distanced himself from Sarkozy, saying "It's not an idea I reject [positive discrimination], but I don't like the word discrimination." Of course, on the right as on the left, spokespersons lined up against Sarkozy. (Source: France-Amérique 6 December, p.6)
By mid- December (12/17/03), the President of France, Jacques Chirac intervened, declaring himself in favor or a law forbidding students from wearing visible religious signs. At the same time, he refused to be introduced two vacation days falling on Jewish and Muslim holy days during the school year. Chirac's purpose in intervening was to widen the debate, not just limiting discussion to school, but to the very concept of what France is, its beliefs and founding principles. Hence his statements were a rather important act, rejecting what he called "communautarisme", i.e. roughly translated as "special interest groups." The reactions to this speech, especially given the higher tone and purpose, were generally positive, especially from religious groups. But they did take note that some of the specific questions about how the law on "visible signs" is to be applied. (Source: France-Amérique 27 December, pp.6-7)
Then after the New Year, came a change in the atmosphere, especially with global reaction being negative: the US State Dept. expressed its interest in seeing freedom of religious expression respected. Canada (Globe and Mail) expressed hostility to the law that Chirac proposed, and all the European countries expressed different negative reactions. Two additional negative reactions were 1) from the Arab world, and 2) from the Vatican. (Source: France-Amérique 3 January 2004)
Two new entries followed the above-mentioned
demonstrations:
Le Monde, 21 Jan 2003: The conservative party leaders such as
Bayrou and (former Prime Minister) Balladur spoke openly wondering
about the utility of the law proposed. What makes this ominous
is that just two months earlier, after the UMP party meeting,
it was the party advisers themselves (90% of 1,200 delegates)
that voted to recommend that the government formulate such a law!
(Source: France-Amérique 6 December). Meanwhile, (says
Le Monde) among the Socialists, as might be expected, many expressed
doubt about the need for the law, but others were worried that
some Socialists might nonetheless vote for the law (since its
principles are Republican and egalitarian). The same anxiety exists
for the same reasons in the Communist Party ranks!
As for other topics, I have a few I want to review a bit more: the current status of the Front national party; the preparations for elections in 2004 (with different political contenders).