Read on Twitter
Shadi, a number of these examples are misleading, which weakens @AkyolinEnglish’s argument, and yours. For instance: https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1336793510243164161
Headscarves are not banned from public buildings. Civil servants have to show neutrality, not citizens in contact with public services.
The incident at the National Assembly is interesting because it emphasise today’s tendency to pick the part of a story that fits one’s narrative. @AkyolinEnglish frames the incident as a case of institutional racism, while the story tells the exact opposite.
After the verbal attack from an MP against the student rep wearing a headscarf, the head of the committee (also from En Marche, the president’s party) recalled the right of the student representative to wear a headscarf.
The representative of the agency under the authority of the Prime minister in charge of legal counselling about Laicite, @ObservLaicite, also recalled how the Laicite framework applies in this case. https://twitter.com/ncadene/status/1306577766180163586
On this incident, several secular voices actually strongly pushed back against the member of Parliament who had criticised the student representative for wearing a headscarf. Here is what Leila Slimani, Macron’s ambassador for the francophonie had to say:
On the burkini, the highest administrative jurisdiction has ruled on August 2016 that local bans were illegal. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479
Beyond those examples, the rule is that people do what they want to do, except for 3 exceptions : people working in public service, kids in primary & secondary school, burqa. You can disagree with these exceptions but presenting them as examples of the general rule is dishonest.
It’s easy to pick the parts of the debate in France that fit into the general argument you wanna make on religious freedom, but this is questionable when it relies on a misleading depiction of the French legal framework.
More generally you, as well as @AkyolinEnglish, confuse policies & legal rules, for which a government is responsible, with social trends & behaviours:
Laicite is a principle, framing a policy; dechristianisation is a trend ; bigotry & racism are behaviours found in all societies. Of course there is a worrying trend of anti-muslim speeches & behaviours in France, but it doesn’t mean the French laicite is responsible for them.
Your historical shortcuts are also questionable. Mixing up the 1789 French Revolution & the 1905 Law on Laicite is misleading. No priest was killed in 1905. And the Terror that followed the French Revolution is not really related to our discussion about freedom of belief. https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1336796228865167363
Laicite was/is not about dechristianisation but abt separating *institutions* : the French State from Churches, esp. the Catholic Church, which was under the Vatican’s authority.
No matter what you think of the current bill, ultimately the Fr State cannot rule over a religion. It’s about legal and institutional relations, not about faith.
Bottom line: anti Muslim rethoric & violence are appalling and need to be addressed like other hate speeches or crimes (that’s why you find Fr police forces protecting French mosques). But labelling the French legal framework or the current policy as anti-Muslim is not accurate.
The philosophical/political controversy about how to protect individual freedoms in our societies is necessary in order to update legal frameworks. Portraying things out of proportion is not. I spoke about this here : https://twitter.com/diplocharlie/status/1332011002129473536
