The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France

山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第15号（2018．３）185－190

The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France

Hiroshi NAKASHIMAIntroduction
This paper deals with the problem of a ban on veil worn by Muslim women in France. In recentyears, the French parliament passed three acts to regulate the Islamic veils in public space. This legislationis always a very controversial topic in France.
As a social background of these legislation, there is an expansion of Islamic fundamentalism inFrench society. Especially, some young generations of immigrants from Arab or Maghreb countries havesympathy with this fundamentalism as a consequence of pursuit of their own identity. According to thisyoung fundamentalism, the movement of Islamophobia is also increasing in France. Probably, there is avicious cycle of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamophobia.
Other background is the European integration. In the process of European integration, France has
been forced to limit its own sovereignty and has lost some authority about own policymaking. It is a kindof identity crisis of France. What is the rest as proper and original factor of France? What is the last andinalienable identity of French republic? Most of the French people will answer that it is laïcité, the French
principle of secularity. In other words, this is also the problem of affection toward the France.
I’d like to analyse and survey the legal situation about these bans on veil and the way of justificationof these prohibition.
1. Three Bans every six years
The first act in 2004 prohibits to “wearing of symbols indicating religious affiliation in public
educational establishments.” In other words, the girl Muslim student in France can not wear the headscarf
in a public school. If she goes to public school with an Islamic veil like hijab and refuses to take off it,
there is a possibility of withdrawing her from school at the worst case, because in French republic, thepublic school is considered as the most important secular space for training and cultivating the spirit ofFrench republicanism which core is a secularity, in French, laïcité. But at this stage, the restriction onreligious liberty was limited to a certain range, only a Muslim girl student in a public school.
But, the second act in 2010 prohibiting concealment of the face in public space, widely expanded
an object and a space of wearing prohibition. This act, so-called anti-burqa law, outlawed the wearing ofclothing that covers one’s face in any public space, which consists of public road, open place to the public,
and place for public service according to this act. This is the general prohibition. So, all Muslim women in－111 －The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France――NAKASHIMAFrance must give up wearing the burqa or niqab covering their faces, otherwise they will be arrested andliable to fines of up to 150 euros and mandatory to attend the classes on French republican citizenship.
Furthermore, the third legislation in 2016 enabled French company to provide an internal regulation
for prohibiting workers from wearing a headscarf in the workplace. The trigger of this revision was theso-called Baby Loup case in 2008 where a female teacher of private nursery school has been dismissed
because of her wearing a headscarf. If she was a government worker, this case would not be received
public attention. In fact, she was a worker of private nursery school to where the constitutional principleof secularity has not been expected to apply. But the government of Nicolas Sarkozy and French public
opinion expressed their strong support for her dismissal and strongly opposed the judgment in 2013 by
the French supreme court of cassation who ruled against this dismiss because of its discriminative nature.
After all, the same court changed its judgment and confirmed her dismiss as legal in 2014 and French
public opinion welcomed this final decision.
Thus, beyond the public space, the ban on veil is now expanded into the labor space situated between
public and private. The government of Franҫois Hollande after 2012 took a cautious stance on newlegislation on veil, considering a lot of criticism from other country especially the United States and theArabian countries. But as part of a big reform of labor regulation in 2016, the French labor code wasrevised by proposition of a senator, not by government, who allowed a ban by internal rule in company.
For changing the internal regulation in company, the agreement of workers is required. So, we cannot
say now what king of legal influence will this revision make in the future. However, it may be certainthat Muslim workers who want to work with veil will be under social pressure to undress her headscarf.
2. Reasons of ban
But what is the legal reason for justifying these ban on Islamic veil, especially fullface veil? Justifying
the ban on veil in public school is easier because the secularity is the constitutional principle that must
be respected in public educational system. But it is difficult to justify the ban on all fullface veil in public
space because of the religious liberty who has also the constitutional value. So, the French government
abandoned this way of justification invoking the principle of secularity. In fact, the French government
was afraid of being judged unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Council in the future.
The first possible reason is gender equality and human dignity. A lot of French women and somefeminists consider an Islamic veil as the expression of discrimination against women and modern slaveryof women. Former president, Nicolas Sarkozy has also said that “The problem of the burka is not a religious
problem, it’s a problem of liberty and women’s dignity…the burka is not welcome in France. In our country,
we can’t accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.” Thisis the typical reaction according to this way of justification.
－111 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第15号（2018．３）185－190

But this justification was denied by judgment of European court of human rights in 2014. In fact, mostof the Muslim women wear a veil or a burqa by their own will, not by force and arms. So, the European
court of human rights said “the State party cannot invoke gender equality in order to ban a practice thatis defended by women.” And “respect for human dignity cannot legitimately justify a blanket ban on thewearing of the full face veil in public places.”
The second possible reason is public safety. The public safety is one of the legitimate aims enumerated
in the European convention of human rights. The European court admitted that it is possible to ban afullface veil for purpose to prevent danger for the public safety. However, at the same time, the European
court denied the general risk of danger to public safety about the fullface veil. The court said that a blanket
ban on the wearing in public places “can be regarded as proportionate only in a context where there is a
general threat to public safety.“ But, “the government have not shown that the ban introduced” in 2010 “fallsinto a such context.”
Finally, the last possible reason is an abstract idea of “living together,” in French “vivre ensemble.”
According to the French government, “the face plays a significant role in human interaction: more so thanany other part of the body, the face expresses the existence of the individual as a unique person, and reflects
one’s shared humanity with the interlocutor, at the same time as one’s otherness. The effect of concealing
one’s face in public places is to break the social tie and to manifest a refusal of the principle of “livingtogether.”
Surprisingly, the European court of human rights has accepted this way of justification: “ban on
fullface veil for living together.” The first reason, “the ban is not expressly based on the religious connotationof the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it conceals the face.” Second, “the sanctions provided by
the Law’s drafter are among the lightest.” Third, it is the question of responding to a practice that France
considers incompatible with the ground rules of social communication and more broadly the requirementsof “living together.” Forth, France has a wide margin of appreciation because of a lack of European
consensus against a ban.
Despite of a lot of criticism, as a result of approval of ban on fullface veil by European court,
showing the face to others in public space became the legal duty in France and some other European
countries starts to make same ban like France, for example, Belgium, Bulgaria, Netherlands, and now
German. But it is certain that there are increasing fears that these bans in France may have a repressive
effect to the religious minority and make their assimilation difficult rather than easy.

－111 －The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France――NAKASHIMA

3. Ban on burkini
On august 2016, another dispute about a necessity of ban on burkini. A burkini is a kind of swimsuit
created by Australian designer for Muslim women covering the whole body except the face, the hands andthe feet. After the terrorist attack on 14 July 2016 in Nice, about 30 mayors of town in the Mediterranean
coast banned this kind of swimsuits. This ban was supported by public opinion and also numbers ofpoliticians. For example, the socialist prime minister at the time, Manuel Valls considered burkini as“expression of enslavement of women”. The president of National Front, Marine Le Pen said “it is theproblem of secularity and public order, but beyond that the problem of soul of France.”
Under the ban on burkini, dozens of women were ordered to pay some fines for not respecting good
morals and secularism and this ban became the focus of international concern or criticism.
But this time, in same august, the State council, the French supreme court for administrative justicesuspended this ban because there was no clear danger about a burkini to violate a public safety, nor danger
to public hygiene, nor danger to decency, and concluded that this ban “seriously, and clearly illegally,breached the fundamental freedoms to come and go, the freedom of beliefs and individual freedom.” Besides,
the State council added that “In the absence of risks, the emotions and the concerns resulting from terrorist
attacks are insufficient grounds to legally justify the contested ban.”From a point of view of a Rules of law, the French State council tried to stop the another restriction
to liberty of Muslim women, but it remains possible that the French parliament enact another legislation
for prohibiting a burkini. Because the State council goes no further than the court to apply the current law.
Conclusion
In France, an Islamic veil or swimsuits in public or labor space always continue to be a matter ofsevere dispute and it is a conflict between the national identity and the individual identity. It seems that themajority of French people still desire the reinforcement of republic secularity and behind this, there is ananxiety over the Islamic extremists and another terror. But these repeated legislation for the reinforcement
and the redefinition of national identity look like endless, and I don’t know if these French way as ban onveil are so effective to restrain an Islamic fundamentalism from spreading.
I think that the most important thing is the balance of two liberalism, a French one is the liberalism todetermine the minimum way of life for living together in the same society, an another is an Anglo-Saxon’s
liberalism to not interfere in each individual way of life for assuring the pluralism of society. The French
liberalism has a risk of getting into a narrow nationalism, on the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon liberalismhas also a risk of leaving a discrimination or violation of human rights. Seeking a good balance of these
two liberalism seems to be a big issue in our modern society.

－111 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第15号（2018．３）185－190

References
Bon, Pierre. 2016. Le «burkini» au Conseil d’État, Ruvue française de droit administratif, 1227-1233.
Bonnet, Baptiste. 2014. La Cour EDH et l’interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public,
La semaine juridique Édition Générale n° 29, 1245-1428.
Chassang, Céline. 2014. La CEDH et la loi 11 octobre 2010: une validation en demi-teinte de la loi prohibant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public, Recuiel Dalloz n° 30, 1701-1707.
Conseil d’État, Section du rapport et des études. 2010. Étude relative aux possibilités juridiques d’interdiction
du port du voile intégral, Rapport adopté par l’assemblée générale plénière du Conseil d’État le jeudi
25 mars 2010.
Conseil d’État, juge des référés, ordonnance du 26 août 2016, Ligue des droits de l’homme et autres, n°402742, 402777.
Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, grande chambre, 1er juillet 2014, Requête n° 4383511, Affaire
S.A.S. c. France.
Dieu, Frédéric. 2015. Le droit de dévisager et l’obligation d’être dévisageable, pour «vivre ensemble», La
semaine juridique, Édition administrations et collectivités territoriales n° 7, 41-44.
Joppke, Christian. 2009. VEIL: Mirror of identity, Polity. Japanese translation by Ito, Yutaka and kazutoshi
Hasegawa and Hiroyuki Takeshima. 2015. Hosei University Press.
Mathieu, Bertrand. 2010. La validation par le Conseil constitutionnel de la loi sur « le voile intégral », La
semaine juridique Édition Générale n° 42, 1930-1932.
Mathieu, Bertrand. 2016. «Burkini»: le Conseil d’État s’en est tenu à la loi, http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/
article/2016/08/27/burkini-le-conseil-d-etat-s-en-est-tenu-a-la-loi_4988731_3232.html(lastaccessdate, 11 december 2017).
Vauchez, Stéphanie Hennete and Valentin, Vincent. 2014. L’affaire Baby Loup ou la nouvelle laïcité, LGDJ.

－111 －The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France――NAKASHIMA

The Ban on Face Covering and the Religious Liberty in France

Hiroshi NAKASHIMA
本稿は，フランスにおける近年の宗教的着衣規制を概観するものである。
フランスにおいては，６年毎にイスラム・スカーフやブルカといった衣服の着用を禁止する立法が行われている。背景として，移民系フランス人の増加と，それに伴うイスラム原理主義およびイスラム嫌悪の拡大等がある。２００４年は公立学校におけるスカーフの着用が禁止され，２０１０年には公共空間におけるブルカ等の着用が禁止された。さらに２０１６年の労働法大改正により，私企業においても労働者のスカーフ着用を禁止することが可能となった。
このような規制のうち，特にブルカ禁止の正当化理由が問題となる。立法過程においては，男女平等，人間の尊厳，そして「共生」という価値概念が援用されていた。これに対してヨーロッパ人権裁判所は，男女平等および人間の尊厳の援用を排除しつつ，他者との「共生」を確保するための禁止として，ブルカ禁止が正当化されるとの判断を下した。ヨーロッパ人権裁判所による承認により，禁止はヨーロッパに普及しつつある。
さらに２０１６年には，ムスリム女性向けに開発された水着，「ブルキニ」の着用禁止が問題となった。フランス南部におけるテロ事件をきっかけとして，自治体による「ブルキニ」禁止命令が相次いだ。しかしフランス最高行政裁判所は，「ブルキニ」に公共の安全を侵害する明らかな危険性を認めることはできないとして，命令を差し止めた。行政による禁止に歯止めが加えられたことになるが，議会による新立法が不可能となったわけではない点が指摘されている。
個人と国民のアイデンティティ対立の中で，宗教的着衣を禁止する欲望はとめどなく強くなっているように思われる。共生社会における最低限の作法の強制を前提とするフランスのあり方と，多元社会における個人の生き方には干渉しないアングロ・サクソンのあり方との間に，どのような均衡がとり得るであろうか。

－111 －