French President Jacques Chirac’s ban in March 2004 on wearing any religious symbols in schools caused unrest in the country. First of all, history shows that the formulation of explicit religious symbols that markedly separate groups of students did not legally include wearing a headscarf, but in practice, many teachers and principals had different opinions (Rodriguez and Chawla 214). In these political decisions lies the motive for the revival of secularism’s values and the church’s distancing from the state. For this bill, a special commission was set up under the leadership of Bernard Stasi, which studied the cultural diversity of the country (Rodriguez and Chawla 216). The result showed the neglect and complexity of the situation with discrimination and anti-Semitism, but they saw the blame on external forces trying to destabilize the republic (Rodriguez and Chawla 216). Such conclusions, which set off the argument for a ban on all religious symbols, have proved controversial and possibly lobbied by interested parties.
The ideas of secularism, although they have historical value, in the rhetoric of Jacques Chirac acquire a purposeful meaning, which results precisely in the ban on headscarves, while, for example, it allows crosses. Under the aegis of separation of church and society, the law sought to insulate native French children from the specific influence of the Muslim community (Rodriguez and Chawla 219). Nicolas Sarkozy continued this policy, even seeking permission from the heads of other Islamic states to obey the laws of the country of residence for Muslim women (Rodriguez and Chawla 220). As a result, the protection of secular society from religious signs turned out to be a topic centered exclusively around Islam. As a consequence, the reaction of the French religious community naturally followed, mostly protesting rather than remaining neutral or supporting the initiative.
However, against the backdrop of discrimination and the explicit emphasis on the headscarf symbol, moderate Muslims emphasized the comparison with countries where wearing is mandatory and vice versa, punishing absence. In this regard, the opinion of feminists has also divided: women themselves expressed the position of liberation from the imposed religion, along with an explicit legislative restriction of their freedoms, which only emphasizes the inconsistency of the law (Rodriguez and Chawla 224). The French opposition naturally opposed it, highlighting the divisions between parts of society, while the broader reaction of the European Union as a whole was more favorable. Politicians and other activists have raised the question of values over action itself: if moral norms are the basis, as opposed to any discrimination, then the law is contradictory; if it is the integrity of the historical foundations of France, then the problem has hardly been solved (Rodriguez and Chawla 229). As a result, the liberal views of the United States led to a corresponding official protest at the state level.
It should be noted that this approach cannot be called unequivocally environmentally friendly due to the presence of points of view where the law has a negative connotation. Political rhetoric is directed towards assimilation, which should have a strict context of French historical values, reducing diversity in society and a modern trend in moral principles. However, each case has a subjective and individual context, as the purpose of wearing a headscarf differs for each girl (Rodriguez and Chawla 238). Such an individual approach seems to be the most viable in this conflict since decisions at the highest levels somehow contributed to the escalation (Rodriguez and Chawla 238). In addition, the French authorities act as a legislator, but at the same time, they are only one of the interested parties whose interests significantly affect society.
Work Cited
Rodriguez, Amardo, and Devika Chawla. Intercultural communication: An ecological approach. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2010.