Talk:French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

message: "In that case, brothers may abuse and threaten their sisters. Incidents have occurred where persons have regarded young Muslim girls who refused to adopt the headscarf and dress code as "prostitutes" and have subjected them to gang rape." This needs to be cited and phrased in a more NPOV way because that is not a common thing. Maybe instead "In extreme incidents, persons have regarded young Muslim girls who refused to adopt the headscarf and dress code as "prostitutes" and have subjected them to gang rape." -- unsigned comment by IP 66.112.232.66,00:13, 28 March 2006
:I believe the reference is to "tournantes" -- you could look at Ni putes ni soumises. AnonMoos 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: uncited sentence

message: Much of the text of the article is about the intents of those pushing for the law, and speculation about possible implementation decisions; all these go far beyond the actual text of the law, the essential part of which I translated. I also gave a pointer to an authoritative source for the text of the law.
All comments about non-legal sources (this includes politicians expressing themselves in unofficial documents) should make it clearly apparent that they are not authoritative. David.Monniaux 18:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Important information

message: I removed the notice to say that this page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion as it's been struck off as everyone voted to keep it.  Here is a record of the votes and comments:
January 18 (2004)
*French headscarf law - this article duplicates a section in Islam in France. I don't think it is needed. Either it should go, or the section in the larger article should be reduced to just be a pointer. - UtherSRG 02:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: text from Votes for deletion

message: notable? Wouldn't "conspicious" be a better word? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:34, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: notable/conspicuous?

message: :It is widely believed to be specifically directed at French Muslim girls who dress according to hijab.
First, if it's widely believed then it should be easy to find at least one spokesman to quote. Second, the Wikipedia article on hijab said (if I recall correctly) that hijab means "modest attire". The sentence I deleted makes it sound like all modest attire for Muslim girls would be forbidden, and they'd have to wear mini-skirts and show their belly buttons like Britney Spears.
Let's repair this sentence and put it back. Does it mean head scarves, or what?
And is this a case of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab discrimination being written into law? If someone thinks so, let's quote them. Otherwise, it sounds more like 'contributor opinion' rather than encyclopedic fact. --Uncle Ed 20:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this week's Economist special report on this issue is quite good (someone else already put this as an external link). One person they quote, Khalil Merroun, rector of a large mosque in a town just south of Paris, says "It's not the crucifx or the kippa that is targeted, but Islam." I think the best translation is that it is a ban on "conspicious religious symbols" - the Economists also translates a passage as "of manifestly excessive dimension." As I said above, I believe the article is badly named at the moment French law to ban conspicious religious symbol is definitely more accurate.  Yes hijab has the wider meaning that you refer to, and yes it is specifically the headscarf that would be covered by this law. If you want a quote that it is an anti-Muslim  law from a non-Muslim try Ken Livingstone who said  "President Jacques Chirac is playing a terribly, terribly dangerous game in the same way that many politicians felt they could pander to Hitler in the 20s. The only way to defeat Fascism in Europe is to stand against every demand they make. It is an anti-Muslim measure and will stir up anti-Muslim pressure." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I am in the same boat as you Ed. It is clearly an interesting subject, and I fear I wouldn't be doing it justice by simply parroting what I've read in weekly newspapers. Having said that, I think it would be right to mention, particularly in this English language article, that France has been secular for a long time (goes back to the Revolution) and this law is an extension of that. Saying "God bless America" is the most natural thing in the world for Americans to hear Bush say, but if Chirac said a similar thing about France I think it would be a headline in Le Monde. Here  - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325285.stm - is a primer on France's secular history. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hijab

message: I think that the section on "public reaction" is POV, in the sense that it focuses on adverse reactions, and largely ignores those in favor. Surely that large majority of lawmakers didn't pass an unpopular law, did they? David.Monniaux 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the vast majority of public opinion in France since its introduction in 2004 has been in support of the law, as is showed by statistics mentioned in the article itself aswell as elsewhere. Little mention is however made of this fact within this section which does convey the law as if it is somehow unpopular which it clearly is not. Canderra 03:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Public reaction

message: Noting the coincidence of dates, did the Dreyfus affair have any influence on the decision to pass the original law? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the 1905 law 

message: Here is something I don't understand: you explain who the law is obviously intended to target, but what of those it is not? Can a student, say, lodge a complaint against another student who is wearing a cross or a torrah around their neck? 208.54.95.131 05:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer, but a  student who thinks that some other student wears some illegal conspicuous sign of religious belonging can certainly ask the administrative authority (i.e. the school's principal) to apply the law, and in theory can sue in administrative courts if the principal does not act. I don't think this would ever happen. David.Monniaux 06:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is true, but it's all theoretical.  In actuality, the law was meant only to apply to the hijab and other Islamic symbols, which everyone understood perfectly despite the thin legalese cover of "separation of church and state".  The reason the law only bans "ostentatious" religious symbols is because that's what Muslim students wear.  A strict and puritanical interpretation of secularism would have resulted in banning all religious symbols, not just the headscarf. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Targeting

message: Please don't use this article for this silly little war. :-) David.Monniaux 21:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US English vs British English 

message: May a reader point out gratefully that this article explains in a clear and lucid manner a distinction that is very often lost on the general public and rarely reported in the news media?  In France, most so-called "private" schools, including most "religious" schools, are in fact heavily subsidised by the State, as long as they agree to teach the national curriculum; such schools are perfectly entitled to offer IN ADDITION to such curriculum any religious instruction that they wish.  This is the basis for most "Catholic" schools in France.  The law in question only applies to NON-private schools, i.e., so-called "lay" (i.e., entirely unreligious) schools.  It is entirely possible for Muslims to attend state-funded "private" (religious) schools and wear whatever religious attire they wish.  Ironically, this means that not only can they create Muslim religious schools that are state-funded, but that they can attend "Catholic schools" and wear Muslim religious attire: and this is not only a hypothetical possibility; my [Jewish] son attended a "Catholic" school for several years in the company of several Muslim friends, some of whom did indeed wear the "Islamic scarf".  
In short, the distinction in France is not between Muslims and non-Muslims : it is between those who wish to attend a "lay" school from which all religious symbolism is absent, and those who wish to attend a school with a "religious" atmosphere (regardless of which religion(s)).  Some of the very inaccurate and biased news reports would lead one to think that what France had done was to outlaw religious garb in any public place!  Thanks to those who contributed to this article for setting the record straight.
:In addition, there exist government-subsidized lay private schools (such as the École alsacienne in Paris, if I'm not mistaken). David.Monniaux 11:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a school doesn't have to be religious to be private, even if it's often the case. Private schools can hire their staff themselves unlike public schools. Private schools that follow the national curriculum and get subsidies are called "free schools", the term used during the struggle against Mitterrand who wanted to remove their funding. Aesma (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In short, the distinction in France is not between Muslims and non-Muslims : it is between those who wish to attend a "lay" school from which all religious symbolism is absent, and those who wish to attend a school with a "religious" atmosphere"
Exactly! And the article is probably very bad, because few people understood that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:FC79:2F04:E00:ADB2 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction between public and [not-so] "private" schools in France

message: Someone replaced the entire article with zero-IQ bat-hating messages... Me think Wiki should have smartened up long ago to know an article needs to be protected before it is advertized or promoted in any way.
:see user:Raul654/protection →Raul654 02:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized 

message: Could we include how the French refer to this law in the French language? The corresponding fr: article starts: "La loi sur la laïcité (Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics)..." — Matt Crypto 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some helpful person has added this. Could anyone provide a translation? (Some people are just never satisfied...) — Matt Crypto 21:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  correction: in primary and secondary PUBLIC schools, not all the schools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:FC79:2F04:E00:ADB2 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: French title

message: The article portrays the debate on laïcité that has been entangling French politics with religious and social issues for the past twenty years in a light that exposes all the elements of the ordeal, from the perspective of the minorities affected by the exclusion of religious symbols from the public school environment, as well as from the majority opin-ion that the French State must remain exclusively secular, to the point where any expres-sion of Faith that is believed to inhibit one’s ability to learn and participate fully in the classroom is banned. Additionally, the problem fuels the popular fear that the presence of religious symbols imposes one’s private religious values upon France’s secular commu-nity.
Furthermore, the author has taken the precaution of defining the terminology found within the context of the law and the ensuing controversy, namely the dominant French policy of laïcité, their legal separation of Church and State, ensuring that the pub-lic domain supported by the French government remains secular and that the Church re-tains its role in French society without interference from the State in their private affairs.
For the most part, the author has conveyed an impartial interpretation of the de-bate, framing it within the arguments of both the supporters and detractors of the French law banning Islamic headscarves, as well as visible apparel of other religious sects in French society. The author cites sources from the government ombudsman and councils appointed by President Chirac in 2004 to evaluate the role of laïcité in determining the legality of religious apparel in public schools, along with other resources from interna-tional organizations and religious groups that have denounced the law as an infringement upon fundamental civil liberties.
Subsequently, the author depicts convincingly the overwhelming popularity of the new law, as polls conducted by the AFP and other reputable organizations have shown. Likewise, the author illustrates how the opposition has only appeared in relatively small numbers, mainly from the affected classes, such as the Islamic population in France. No-ticeably, whenever the author refers to the criticism of the law, the author uses the sub-ject, “some,” thus diminishing the people’s support for the opposition’s arguments. If only “some” of the world is actively criticizing the course of legislation taken by the French government in the past five years, then we can assume the majority has consented to its existence.
Interestingly, the author notes that the Jewish population has, for the most part, accepted the new law, in hopes that the secularization of their children in the public school system will reduce the amount of anti-Semitic violence toward them. This positive attitude in support of the law demonstrates a diametrically different line of reasoning than the Islamic view. Whereas the Islamic detractors perceive this curtailment of physical religious expression to be discriminatory, aiming to limit and belittle the Moslem, the Jewish community has, the author asserts, viewed this as a way to broaden and improve the lot of Jewish children within the public school system, where they have previously met with intimidation and gang violence.
Also worthy of note is the author’s information concerning the European Union’s stance on France’s political decisions, its potential to influence them and how when it determines the legality of French laws, what effect this has on the other member nations of the Union and their respective legal codes. In this way, French legal tradition has a method of permeating into Western sociopolitical thought, yet the opportunity also arises for the European Union to encounter and adopt or confront the French concept of laïcité and the extent to which it is applicable to other societies.
Overall, the author has played the issue within the concept of laïcité in France since its inception in 1905, and how French society has determined the parameters of the concept and laws which the State passes in order to enforce, expand and secularize the civic sphere of the French Republic. From the early days of the French State, through the travails and anti-clericism of the French Revolution, the author paints a progression of the Church-State issue to today, when France now faces the additional burden to the issue with the rising tide of immigration into France from Islamic countries and other regions where religious values blend with the social roles of the individual and the state.
:There's isn't one single "author"; it's a collaborative effort. AnonMoos 17:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breadth of Author's Information 

message: The "History section" seems to be pretty much included twice. AnonMoos 17:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated section

message: "French Jews have not expressed significant opposition to the law. Some think that Jewish people hope that such a law will prove a step in the direction of less gang violence toward Jewish boys, which has occurred in past years.". Huh? I don't realy understand the meaning of this sentence. Do you mean that because they are not allowed to wear the kippah anymore, jewish boys cannot be regnogized as this and won't be violented for antisemitic reasons ? If you mean so it is stupid because there are very few jewish boys wearing the kippa at school anyway, and antisemitic violence do not needs kippas to regognize a jew. Or do you mean that because muslmi girls are not allowed anymore to wear the hijab, gangs will stop beating jewish boys ? If you mean so it is more stupid, because I do not see any connection between "gangs" and muslim girls. So, do someone have an explaination ?
Well for one, the sentence is screwed up gramatically. I guess that what they were saying is that it is speculated that the Jewish population welcomes it, hoping for less violence. But there's one thing; after seeing a student wearing a kippah, their classmates will know their religious affilation. When the new law comes into play and kippahs are not permitted, they'll still know that the student is Jewish! There won't be any brainwashing, nothing will have changed except the student won't be allowed his/her natural right of freedom of expression. The people that wish to do harm to the Jewish students will still know who's who, and there will still be violence. Hence, that acheives nothing. 65.188.55.88 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gang" violence

message: The article is very good overall.  One suggestion: "Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion."  I think this is inaccurate.  Though the 1905 law is called "separation," it doesn't separate in the American sense of preventing the state from funding religions.  In fact, through this law, the state took over the property of churches and assumed responsibility for the upkeep of this property (church buildings, etc.). I also believe that the 1905 law provides for the state support of members of the clergy.  Also, the French state supports private religious schools.  In sum, whatever "separation" means in France, it's different from what it means in the U.S.  But the quote I cited fudges this distinction.  My intuition is that "separation" in France means prevening religions from gaining political power.  Since property is a basis of political power (from a French standpoint), the state keeps religion out of politics by administering its property.  In the U.S., separation means that the government permits religions to function independently, to acquire property, etc.  Daniel Gordon
:I also believe that the 1905 law provides for the state support of members of the clergy.
:No, it explicitly states that the State does not salary any religion. (But see Alsace-Moselle for the main exception, and there also are military chaplains.)
:Religious buildings built past 1905 by any religion, or built before that by religions outside of the official ones (Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism), are private property. The thing is, the buildings operated in 1905 by the former official religions had been taxpayer-funded; this is one justification why they should be public property. Religious organizations are not precluded in any way from owning property. David.Monniaux 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  separation of church and state 

message: "some shaving their hair" - it does not help! that phrase is like mockery. shaving hair does not allow to do not wear headscarf.--Qdinar (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some shaving their hair" - it does not help! that phrase is like mockery 

message: Many people fail to realize that only state-run schools are involved, and the current title keeps the ambiguity...--Jules.LT (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's title should say "state-run schools" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080522015601/http://www.cathnews.com:80/news/402/67.php to http://www.cathnews.com/news/402/67.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is that a good idea? The current title is misleading IMHO.  --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title to "French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in public schools" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110206213909/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france to http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304094059/http://a1692.g.akamai.net:80/f/1692/2042/1h/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf to http://a1692.g.akamai.net/f/1692/2042/1h/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224015035/http://www.conseil-etat.fr:80/ce/missio/index_mi_cg03_01.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/missio/index_mi_cg03_01.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816102546/http://www.laic.info:80/Members/webmestre/Revue_de_presse.2004-02-04.2241/view to http://www.laic.info/Members/webmestre/Revue_de_presse.2004-02-04.2241/view
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104210232/http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052004/manbir_france_9.htm to http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052004/manbir_france_9.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025112706/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/currentawareness/religiousdress.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/currentawareness/religiousdress.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012151159/http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0437.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0437.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012120403/http://education.assemblee-nationale.fr/site-jeunes/laicite/sources_juridiques/sourcesJuridCas4.asp to http://education.assemblee-nationale.fr/site-jeunes/laicite/sources_juridiques/sourcesJuridCas4.asp
*Added  tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=044000121&brp_file=0000.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013084139/http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/rappor/index_ra_li0402.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/rappor/index_ra_li0402.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224015035/http://www.conseil-etat.fr:80/ce/missio/index_mi_cg03_01.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/missio/index_mi_cg03_01.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They are many people in this page who tell a lot of nonsense, without knowing nothing about the situation, or lies.
1/ Religious signs are forbidden for all religion in public schools. One of my friend was asked to quit a cross jewel that was too big. Kippah are not allowed. Nothing is allowed, as it is considered as proselytism and prevents people to study together. You must understand that the secular culture is different from the culture in USA or UK, but many people here are ethnocentrist.
2/ If someone wants to practice their religion is school, praying, talking about Jesus, or anything, there are a lot of religious schools, with the same courses than the public schools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:FC79:2F04:E00:ADB2 (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  People on this page should stop to talk about what they don't know 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051008044821/http://www.uscirf.gov/countries/publications/currentreport/2004annualRpt.pdf to http://www.uscirf.gov/countries/publications/currentreport/2004annualRpt.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040901064026/http://www.brook.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/vaisse20040229.pdf to http://www.brook.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/vaisse20040229.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified