Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unveiling Marianne: Religious Symbols at School and the New Secular Grammar

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Secularism(s) in Contemporary France

  • 96 Accesses

Abstract

Although the controversies surrounding the wearing of religious symbols in schools emerged in the late 1980s, it was not until 2004 that Parliament stepped in to clarify the applicable policies. Public debate on French secularism has taken a new turn since then, bearing almost exclusively on the visibility of religious symbols in the public sphere. I shall revisit this debate here, along with the legal framework concerning the wearing of religious symbols by public school students since 1989. This will serve to uncover the reasoning—upstream of the passage of the Act of 15 March 2004, but also downstream—that gave rise to the emergence of a “new French secularism”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter does not deal with the wearing of religious symbols by teachers, who are prohibited to do so by virtue of their status as civil servants (see next chapter).

  2. 2.

    CE, 3 May 2000, Melle Marteaux, no. 217017.

  3. 3.

    Loi d’orientation sur l’éducation (no. 89–486 of 10 July 1989), JO, 14 July 1989.

  4. 4.

    CE, ass., Intérieur, opinion, 27 November 1989, no. 346893.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    The Council of State held that “this freedom cannot be interpreted so as to permit students to display symbols of religious affiliation that, by their nature, by the conditions under which they are worn individually or collectively, or by their ostentatious or protest-related nature, would constitute an act of pressure, provocation, proselytism, or propaganda, infringe the dignity or freedom of the student or other members of the educational community, compromise their health or safety, disrupt the course of teaching activities and the educational role of teachers, or disturb the peace of the institution or the normal operation of the public service.”

  7. 7.

    CE, 2 November 1992, M. Kherouaa et Mme Kachour, M. Balo et Mme Kicic, no. 130394.

  8. 8.

    It is therefore prohibited for a principal, except in particular circumstances, to issue a rule denying school admission to students “wearing a head covering,” since such a ban, by virtue of its permanence, would infringe the students’ freedom of expression; see CE, 2 November 1992, M. Kherouaa et Mme Kachour, M. Balo et Mme Kicic, no. 130394; CE, 14 March 1994, Melles Neslinur et Yilmaz, no. 145656; CE, 20 May 1996, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, no. 170343; CE, 27 November 1996, M. et Mme Mechali, no. 172663; CE, 27 November 1996, M. et Mme Jeouit, no. 172686; CE, 27 November 1996, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, no. 172719; CE, 27 November 1996, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, no. 172787; CE, 27 November 1996, M. et Mme X, no. 170941. The principle of students’ freedom to express their religious convictions is also the rule in universities; see CE, 26 July 1996, Université de Lille II, no. 170106.

  9. 9.

    Circulaire du 20 septembre 1994 relative au port de signes ostentatoires dans les établissements scolaires, Bulletin officiel de l’Éducation nationale, no. 35, 29 September 1994.

  10. 10.

    CE, 10 March 1995, M. et Mme Aoukili, no. 159981; CE, 27 November 1996, M. et Mme X, no. 170209; CE, 20 October 1999, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, no. 181486.

  11. 11.

    On the “new secularism,” see Hennette-Vauchez and Valentin 2014.

  12. 12.

    The Council of State allowed students to “be individually granted leaves of absence necessary for the purposes of worship or the celebration of a religious holiday, where such absences are compatible with the accomplishment of the tasks inherent in their studies and with observance of public order in the institution”; see CE, 14 April 1995, Consistoire central des israëlites de France, no. 125148. Conversely, systematic exceptions to the obligation to be present on Saturday were not permissible; see CE, 14 April 1995, M. Yonathan Koen, no. 157653.

  13. 13.

    Loi no 2004–228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant ostensiblement une affiliation religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, JO no. 65, 17 March 2004, at 5190.

  14. 14.

    Assemblée nationale, parliamentary debates, regular session of 2003–2004, 148th session, complete minutes of the 2nd session of Tuesday, 3 February 2004, JORF, 4 February 2004, at 1288.

  15. 15.

    The Prime Minister stated that “the values of our Republic are fully embodied in secularism.” Assemblée nationale, parliamentary debates, Regular session of 2003–2004, 148th session, complete minutes of the 2nd session of Tuesday, 3 February 2004, JORF, 4 February 2004, at 1286.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid. at 1288.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. at 1287.

  19. 19.

    Ibid. at 1305.

  20. 20.

    Assemblée nationale, parliamentary debates, regular session of 2003–2004, 148th session, complete minutes of the 2nd session of Tuesday, 3 February 2004, JORF, 4 February 2004, at 1294, 1303.

  21. 21.

    Assemblée nationale, parliamentary debates, regular session of 2003–2004, complete minutes of the sessions of Wednesday, 4 February 2004, JORF, 5 February 2004, at 1377, 1381. Each of the parliamentarians mentioned voted in favour of the bill; see Assemblée nationale, Analyse du scrutin no 436 - Séance du 10 février 2004, Scrutin public sur l’ensemble du projet de loi relatif à l’application du principe de laïcité dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, online at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/scrutins/jo0436.asp

  22. 22.

    Assemblée nationale, parliamentary debates, regular session of 2003–2004, 148th session, complete minutes of the second session of Tuesday, 3 February 2004, JORF, 4 February 2004, at 1292.

  23. 23.

    In so doing, it alluded directly to the list that had previously appeared in the Stasi report; see Assemblée nationale, Projet de loi relatif à l’application du principe de laïcité dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, no. 1378, 28 January 2004, at 3, online at https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1378.asp

  24. 24.

    It will be further noted that the ministerial circular in application of the Act of 2004, which had only interpretive status and no legal status, also mentions the prohibited symbols (using terms similar to the bill). But the text was not a formal undertaking by the government and does not follow from secularism in the purely legal sense; see Circulaire du 18 mai 2004 relative à la mise en œuvre de la loi no. 2004–228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes religieux ou de tenues manifestant ostensiblement une affiliation religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, JORF no. 118, 22 May 2004.

  25. 25.

    This was the first case concerning the wearing of religious symbols in public schools by non-Muslim students; see CE, 5 December 2007, M. Chain Singh, no. 285394; CE, 5 December 2007, M. Gurdial Singh, no. 285395; CE, 5 December 2007, M. Bikramjit Singh, no. 285396.

  26. 26.

    CE, 5 December 2007, M. et Mme Bessam Ghazal, no. 295671.

  27. 27.

    See HALDE, Délibération no 2008–183 du 1er septembre 2008 relative au port du turban sikh par un élève au sein d’un établissement scolaire public, 1 September 2008, online at https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=793&opac_view=-1

  28. 28.

    See conclusions of Commissioner of Government Rémi Keller in CE, 5 December 2007, M. Chain Singh, no. 285394; CE, 5 December 2007, M. Gurdial Singh, no. 285395; CE, 5 December 2007, M. Bikramjit Singh, no. 285396, and CE, 5 December 2007, M. et Mme Bessam Ghazal, no. 295671, at 2.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. at 3.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See ECtHR (Fifth Section), Kervanci v. France [4 March 2009] App. no. 31645/04; Dogru v. France [4 December 2008] App. no. 27058/05, §68–82; ECtHR, decisions of 30 June 2009 in Bayrak v. France, Gamaleddyn v. France, Ghazal v. France, Aktas v. France, Jasvir Singh v. France, and Ranjit Singh v. France.

  33. 33.

    Assemblée nationale, Proposition de loi visant à étendre le principe de laïcité aux établissements publics d’enseignement supérieur, no. 2595, 18 February 2015, online at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/propositions/pion2595.asp

  34. 34.

    Sénat, Proposition de loi relative à l’interdiction des signes prosélytes ou contraires à l’égale dignité entre les hommes et les femmes à l’Université, no. 622, online at https://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl17-622.html

  35. 35.

    Assemblée nationale, Proposition de loi visant à étendre les règles de la laïcité à tous les usagers des services publics, no. 3559, 17 November 2020, online at https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/textes/l15b3559_proposition-loi

  36. 36.

    HALDE, Délibération relative au refus d’un hôtelier de louer une chambre à une cliente au motif que celle-ci porte un voile, no. 2006–133, 5 June 2006.

  37. 37.

    Idem, Délibération relative au refus d’un instructeur d’auto-école de donner des leçons de conduite à une candidate qui refuse d’ôter son voile, no. 2005–25, 19 May 2005.

  38. 38.

    Défenseur des droits, Décision no MLD–2013–7 du 5 mars 2013 relative à l’exclusion d’une formation en raison du port d’un signe religieux ostensible, adopted 5 March 2013, recommendation, online at https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9899&opac_view=-1

References

  • Balibar, Étienne. 1991. Faut-il qu’une laïcité soit ouverte ou fermée? Mots 27 (June): 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroin, François. 2003. Pour une nouvelle laïcité: rapport officiel. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baubérot Jean. 1997. La morale laïque contre l’ordre moral. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Les 7 laïcités françaises: le modèle français de laïcité n’existe pas. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnafous, Simone. 1991. Quand la presse catholique parle de “laïcité.” Mots: Les langages du politique 27: 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bribosia, Emmanuelle, Gabrielle Caceres, and Isabelle Rorive. 2014. Les signes religieux au cœur d’un bras de fer entre Genève et Paris: la saga Singh. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 25: 495–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirac, Jacques. 2003. Lettre de mission du Président de la République à M. Bernard Stasi. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission Stasi. 2003. Commission de réflexion sur l’application du principe de laïcité dans la République: rapport au Président de la République. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, Jean-Paul, and Jean Marcou. 1995. Le Conseil d’État, le droit public français et le “foulard”. Cahiers d’études sur la Méditerranée orientale et le monde turco-iranien 19: 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debré, Jean-Louis. 2003. Rapport fait au nom de la mission d’information sur la question du port de signes religieux à l’école. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgrange, Xavier. 2018. Une nouvelle source du droit: le Dress Code. In Le droit malgré tout: hommage à François Ost, ed. Yves Cartuyvels et al., 659–706. Brussels: Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dord, Olivier. 2004b. Laïcité à l’école: l’obscure clarté de la circulaire “Fillon” du 18 mai 2004. Actualité juridique – Droit administratif 28: 1523–1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiala, Pierre. 1991. Les termes de la laïcité: différenciation morphologique et conflits sémantiques. Mots 27 (June): 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haut Conseil à l’Intégration. 2013. Expression religieuse et laïcité dans les établissements publics d’enseignement supérieur en France. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennette Vauchez, Stéphanie, and Vincent Valentin. 2014. L’affaire Baby Loup, ou, La nouvelle laïcité. Issy-les-Moulineaux: LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, David. 1993a. Laïcité: du combat au droit. Les Débats 77 (November–December): 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993b. Neutralité de l’enseignement public et liberté d’opinion des élèves (À propos du port de signes distinctifs d’appartenance religieuse dans les établissements scolaires): conclusions sur Conseil d’État, 2 novembre 1992, M. Kherouaa et Mme Kachour, M. Balo et Mme Kizic. Revue française de droit administratif 9 (1): 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kheir, Mayyada. 2014. Le vocabulaire de la laïcité de Guizot à Ferry. L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques, PhD thesis in History, EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korteweg, Anna C., and Gökçe Yurdakul. 2014. The Headscarf Debates: Conflicts of National Belonging. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacroix, Justine. 2007. Communautarisme et pluralisme dans le débat français: essai d’élucidation. Éthique publique 9 (1): 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Ruiz, Henri. 2003. Qu’est-ce que la laïcité? Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tournemire, Pierre. 2014. La Ligue de l’enseignement et la laïcité: un même chemin. In Laïcité, laïcités: reconfigurations et nouveaux défis (Afrique, Amériques, Europe, Japon, pays arabes), ed. Jean Baubérot, Micheline Milot, and Philippe Portier, 33–43. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    David Koussens

Authors
  1. David Koussens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Koussens, D. (2023). Unveiling Marianne: Religious Symbols at School and the New Secular Grammar. In: Secularism(s) in Contemporary France. Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18231-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation