View From France: Better "Freedom Fries" Than Obama's Hijab Slap

When the French parliament passed the headscarf ban in 2004, France was unsurprisingly criticized in the Muslim world. Five years later, President Obama, always looking for things to apologize about, particularly when they are supposed to have been done by other people, shared his point of view on the subject:

[I]t is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

That would be France, I suppose. As far as criticism goes, I prefer the “freedom fries” critique. First, so-called "French fries" are Belgian anyway; second, with this comment, Obama plunges America into a purely internal debate that is extraordinarily sensitive and far more complex than he seems to recognize.

The real problem here is with the words: "as they see fit". Everybody is certainly entitled to practice their religion, but since when are they entitled to do so “as they see fit”? They are not. Human sacrifices, religious or not, are illegal. If practicing Catholicism involves setting inquisition courts and burning heretics, then those practicing that particular brand of the religion are breaking the law. Religious freedom must coexist with public order and Christians and Jews have spent centuries attempting to locate the complex line between religion and politics that must not be crossed. Indeed, the separation between the church and the state has played an important part in the construction of modern democracy and contributed to shape both the state and the different religions in the Western world.

But in October 1989, the French realised that the separation they had for so long taken for granted was far more complicated than they had realised. That October, two Muslim schoolgirls were dismissed from school because they refused to take off their hijabs during their biology and gym classes (the former because of its content, the latter because it required wearing a sport outfit). Interestingly, while this affair was discussed by the politicians and the media, the hijab issue received much more attention than the attendance issue, despite the fact that France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat ruled that wearing the hijab was not a reasonable ground to expel the girls. This episode led to fierce public debate over two particular issues: Islam and immigration. Realistically, the debate that broke out of the hijab could never be settled by a legal institution. Resolution would come when the government decided to address it, as it would do, 15 years later… In 2004, the French government passed a law banning students from displaying any “ostensible” religious signs at school. The law has been widely accepted by most groups, the little opposition to it has come primarily from religious organizations.

Practically speaking, students cannot wear “visible” religious signs (like a hijab) but are allowed to wear “discreet” ones (like crosses or stars of David). As the critics have pointed out, the law clearly targets Muslims. The laws primary purpose was to prevent fathers and brothers from forcing schoolgirls to wear the veil. By banning the veil, Muslim schoolgirls can plausibly claim that they want to wear the headscarf but that they are not allowed to. Indirectly, some legislators reasoned that by banning the head scarf, Muslim children might better assimilate. The logic that underpins this assumption closely resembles that driving the push for school uniforms, which is essentially that by minimizing visible differences, you make it more likely that kids will interact comfortably with one another.

It is telling that the legal side of the debate over public displays of religiosity has not played a greater role. Back in 1989, the French legal framework lacked any prior precedent to guide how it should respond to the hijab issue. But more importantly, in 1989, French society was simply not ready to deal with the rapid emergence of the Islamic faith in France. The Islamic faith was new to the west and as a result, it has not been shaped by Western political culture the way that Christianity and Judaism have. Muslims quite simply have a different understanding about the role that faith should play in public life than most European citizens. Many Muslims view the hijab ban as an oppressive and discriminatory policy designed solely for the purpose of preventing them from practicing their faith. At the same time, many Europeans are equally offended by Muslim calls for the curtailment of free expression on subjects like Mohammed.

The debate on assimilation is far from over. With various communitarian groups and politicians attempting to introduce affirmative action measures, this debate is bound to get more heated. At the end of the day, the question of affirmative action is one of choice. On one side, there is the traditional French “Republican model” which is based on the state’s blindness in matters such as race or religion along with a strong – though long-forgotten – assimilation policy. On the other side, there is the “multicultural society” option, which has little to no foundation in French history.

The hijab issue in France has played a very significant part in reshaping the debate over immigration. Before 1989, opposition to immigration was generally viewed as veiled racism. Since 1989, while racism is still used as a bogeyman by various pro-immigration figures, a stronger case against massive and uncontrolled immigration, or, alternatively, in favour of a strong assimilation policy is seen as a fairly mainstream and defensible position. The emergence of some mainstream opposition to the “multicultural” model is long overdue and should be welcomed. These issues are too important to France’s future for the public to keep tiptoeing around, acting as if a problem didn’t exist.