When it comes to castigating political extremism and condemning religious fundamentalism abroad, our leaders in power – as well as those in opposition – are never short of good advice. It all starts, they generally explain, with education, which is supposed to provide the foundation for later “civilized” behavior. Hence their desire, legitimately in theory, to see education in these countries based on the principles of tolerance and on the educational system’s recognition of the ideals of humanism.
Yet, this whole group would do well to clean up their own backyard. This is evidenced by the political storm triggered by the recent decision of the Lille Tribunal to annul a marriage due to an “error in the essential qualities” of the bride who had lied about her virginity. One can understand the uproar caused by this judgment, from the Republic’s Mediator to the President’s Legal Advisor. But one cannot help but appreciate the nature of this judgement in light of new legislative measures much more quietly introduced by Parliament on May 15th. With the pretext – widely contested by numerous Deputies and Senators – of anti-discrimination measures imposed by European directives, which now make possible the organization of separate education for boys and girls in school.
Even though it is legally based on article 180 of the Civil Code, the sentence from the Lille TGI (Tribunal de Grande Instance) seems to be inspired – interpreted? – by the spirit of the new legislative arsenal allowing education “by grouping students according to their sex.” Essentially, to defend this judicial decision, the Minister of Justice Rachida Dati develops the same argument as her colleague from the Ministry of National Education to justify the new law ending co-educational schooling, which has been mandatory since 1975. In “exceptional circumstances,” explains Xavier Darcos, “teachers and students themselves wish that these separations could exist… at the swimming pool or in certain establishments.” The Minister of Justice echoes this sentiment when she states that “justice is there to protect the most vulnerable” and that “annulling a marriage is also a way to protect the person who may wish to get out of it.” We recall the controversial proposals by sociologist Michel Fize, a few years ago, aiming to revert back to gender-separated schooling to address the emergency situations of sexual violence between boys and girls.
Indeed, violence against women in developed countries is unfortunately on the rise. Furthermore, reports of sexual assaults have doubled between 2000 and 2006 according to a study by the Demographic Institute, which nevertheless notes that “people are increasingly speaking out.” This is a voice that the government risks silencing again if it refuses to intervene in the right direction by confusing, once more, the root cause of the problem with its external manifestations. Fear must not lead to taking refuge in denial.
For from the end of the principle of coeducation in schools to the requirement of virginity in marriage, the whole issue of “meeting others” is posed: how can one conceive of a successful and harmonious relationship between adults if from primary and secondary school, one separates, ostracizes, and compartmentalizes the other? In this debate, and beyond respect for religious principles, the taboo of virginity remains a vast hypocrisy. Any serious clinician will confirm the existence of substitute sexual maneuvers and a rising number of hymenoplasties in many countries, including Western ones. The Lebanese film by Nadine Labaki selected at Cannes in 2007, “Caramel,” well illustrates the idea of a virginity that does not count among the most essential obstacles on the path to union. Challenging coeducational schooling also serves to worsen the already complex social, ethnic, and religious codifications entrenched in the psyche, preventing the building of connections with an alter ego. Thus, authoritatively altering jurisprudence without correcting the philosophy that encourages it in the first place will serve no purpose.