For several months now, we have seen that the issue of the role of religion in society, and thus Laïcité, is a major topic of political and civic debate and a significant concern for the French. Recent events have reminded us of this. The rise of religious communalism, especially Muslim but not exclusively, and the identity demands of some have undermined a certain idea of our Republic, egalitarian (particularly concerning gender equality), and universalist.
The left (including the Socialist Party, but not only) has shown a total absence on these subjects, which seem to embarrass it.
Whether during the “Muslim Fair of Pontoise” episode dedicated to women last September, or more recently when Amine El Khatmi, a PS elected official in Avignon, faced unacceptable insults and threats from communalists for defending republican values by criticizing the televised intervention of Wiam Berhouma, close to the Party of Indigenous of the Republic.
Each time, it took an incredibly long time to see even a minimal reaction from the main leaders of the Socialist Party (and other left parties), when they bothered to express themselves at all. Each time, it required the mobilization of elected officials or activists outside the leadership circles to hear a resolutely republican voice, unequivocally condemning these communalist abuses.
And what about a political movement and its representative, Clémentine Autain, who, during the break between the two rounds of the regional election, relayed a call for a public meeting in the presence of Tariq Ramadan?
The debate triggered by the stance of Elisabeth Badinter, explaining that to defend secularism “we must not be afraid of being called Islamophobic,” is once again revealing. I fully endorse the sensible words of Mrs. Badinter, who merely explained that the accusation of “Islamophobia,” often thrown around without basis, was too frequently used to promote religious claims and discredit the defenders of Laïcité.
There’s nothing to cause the indignation of the representatives of the “Observatory of Secularism,” Nicolas Cadène and Jean-Louis Bianco!
On the other hand, we have a Prime Minister who, defending Elisabeth Badinter (rightly so, indeed), speaks of “inflexible secularism”…… before the CRIF, Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, therefore a by nature communal/institution.
The same Prime Minister (allegedly defending “inflexible secularism,” therefore) who, in his role, went to the Vatican to attend a religious ceremony. Strange behavior from someone who claims the legacy of Clémenceau: the latter had forbidden himself (as well as his ministers) to attend religious ceremonies in any official capacity.
This “two-weight, two-measures secularism,” which is not secularism at all, is destructive: how indeed can Muslims understand that their religion alone would be subject to the Republic’s laws while others are entitled to some leniency or are favored?
I could continue like this for a long time, citing various breaches such as legally dubious funding, or the organization of religious festivities (under the pretext of “culture”) in municipal premises (yet, the same elected officials sometimes justifiably criticize right-wing officials who set up crèches in town halls during Christmas), or, more anecdotal but very revealing, the tendency of some left-wing party leaders to wish every Muslim and sometimes Jewish religious holiday on social networks (and eventually Christmas for Catholics, due to societal pressure).
The electoral desire to capture the communal vote is such that we forget the most basic principles of our Republic!
And yet, the left inherits the battles that led us to the 1905 law. It is more than ever necessary for the left to regain its secular bearings.
This secularism, the guarantor of Freedom of worship and conscience, requires that the rules governing our society and our Republic be respected by all. Above all, while freedom of worship is guaranteed by the 1905 law, it remains nonetheless restricted by “the interest of public order.” This nuance is of fundamental importance.
In the Republic (which incidentally does not recognize any religion, and therefore cannot consider the specificities of each), our Laws, our basic principles will always be superior to religious dogma: no one can use personal faith as an excuse to be exempt from their civic duty or to obtain special privileges!
We must reaffirm this loudly and clearly!
And our principles include, notably, Equality between women and men: how can we tolerate that in the 21st century, individuals consider, in the name of an interpretation of their religion (whether correct or not, it is not for me to judge the theological reality), that women are inferior to men, refuse to shake hands with them and therefore treat them as equals, refuse them the same rights and freedoms?
Our principles also include, for example, individual emancipation, notably through secular public education. Children should not be artificially separated by their parents’ beliefs when they are not necessarily of an age to have formed their own personal faith. Religious demands have no place in the School of the Republic!
Regaining our secular bearings means stopping the continuous desire to dialogue “with religions,” “with communities”: it is not the role of the State and public authorities, nor of elected officials. Dialogue should occur with all citizens, without considering their religious convictions. The republican question is not “How to make all these communities coexist” but “How to make all individuals in our Republic live together.”
Regaining our secular bearings means not abandoning any territory of our Republic
We need human resources and public services in today’s neglected and abandoned neighborhoods to counter the influence of the enemies of Laïcité, and therefore we must abandon these blind spending reduction policies which beyond being ineffective, weaken us in this fight.
We need support for teachers and educators who are today the only republican bulwark and often feel abandoned by their hierarchy and public authorities. All communalist drifts must be combated there, and the Republic must fight step by step against those who promote an unequal, anti-republican view of society.
Laws exist against discrimination, against hate speech: they must also be applied to those who flout them in the name of religious dogmas, in “fairs,” on TV shows, on the street, in any public place.
Moreover, it is no longer simply about respecting Laïcité (since the Law that defines it regulates the relationship between the State and religions, not directly the entire public sphere) but respecting our Laws, which apply everywhere and to everyone without distinction of beliefs.
Leading the fight to reaffirm Laïcité on the territory of the Republic, this Laïcité, characterized by the 1905 Law, deserves that we fight to preserve it: it is what built the modern French Republic, emancipated from the Catholic Church and its conservatisms, admired worldwide for its free society as we saw after last November’s attacks.
For this, left-wing parties, notably the Socialist Party, must finally accept to work on it and reclaim it. Political bodies fear it, fearing it might distance them from a communal electorate: I believe, on the contrary, that the French (believers and non-believers alike) would be satisfied if we could promote it and ensure it calms religious tensions anew, as it allowed after 1905. The Law (of 1905) doesn’t need modification for this, simply for us to respect the text and spirit.
This fight is not against any particular religion: it would be a mistake to perceive it that way. Moreover, we see today that religious fundamentalists from all sides are reaching out to each other and campaigning together for Laïcité to retreat.
When a Catholic institution commissions a “study” (biased due to being based on a non-representative sample) to show that Muslim women wish to wear the veil freely, it is quite telling.
That Catholic fundamentalists (backed by the FN and part of the right) exploit the current confusion surrounding Islam’s place in society to demand that the Republic recognize “France’s Christian roots,” when the Republic’s roots are entirely different (indeed often contrary) and the roots of our society are diverse, clearly shows that tensions come from everywhere.
Francois Hollande promised, during the 2012 campaign, to enshrine the 1905 Law in the Constitution: this would be, in addition to more concrete actions and strict application of current laws and the principles they install, a beautiful symbol (in place of a continued state of emergency and deprival).
I also think we might finally be able to consider exceptional regimes such as the Concordat in Alsace-Moselle, inherited from a History that while should not be forgotten, is over.
To show that, on the territory of the One and Indivisible Republic, every citizen, regardless of their beliefs (or lack thereof), is treated the same way, subject to the same laws, and benefiting from the same rights, in line with the motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”!
by Arnaud Delcasse, PS 06, municipal councilor in Antibes
