Secular Extremes or Status Quo?

In September 2004, France introduced a law that barred what it called conspicuous signs of faith—such as Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and large Christian crosses—from state schools. Interestingly, the law allowed items such as discreet jewellery because a complete ban would have violated European human rights laws.

There are two points to note about this law before we proceed. First, headscarves, skullcaps, and turbans are unambiguously and indisputably headscarves, skullcaps, and turbans. But at what size does a small cross become a large cross? Second, religious traditions, such as the wearing of the headscarf, skullcap, and turban, are fixed and easily identifiable. On the other hand, the wearing of jewellery bearing religious motifs (which is most common among Christians and is prohibited or not favoured in other religious traditions) is seen by the state more as an expression of individual identity than religious faith.

Soon after the law came into force, a handful of Muslim and Sikh students were expelled from school by local authorities. Their options were to either remove their headwear or go to a private school. French officials would like us to believe that the state is encouraging secular principles. If one accepts this position, one must realize that such extreme secularism actually infringes on the human rights of the individual. It raises crucial questions about the rights of the individual vis-a-vis the state and vis-a-vis national identity, about what exactly one means by the rights of the state, and how one defines the nation. These issues are discussed below.

Hosts and guests

An argument commonly heard is that people from other cultures must “adapt” to the “host” society. This means not only learning a new language and customs, finding a livelihood, and participating in the community; apparently, it also means means abandoning parts of one's identity. There are two crucial assumptions behind this way of thinking. First, that the vast amalgam of features that make up the national identity is non-negotiable and cannot be modified by the cultural expression of new arrivals. Second, that the other is a guest and must behave as a guest. What this effectively means is that the others must modify their identities for the opportunity of living in the “host” environment. Even long-term residents, who have integrated well in other respects, must suppress their religious expression in order to fully conform. But, by asking people to renounce part of their identities, does the state not infringe on the human rights of individuals? French officials reject this by claiming the new law is aimed at encouraging secularism.

Secular extremism

Religions are man-made. Secularism can also become a religion, and it will become one if people start blindly to follow it. Secularism should itself not be raised to the level of a God. What is required is to put individual freedom before any kind of dogma. If people wish to wear headscarves or turbans, let them. Let us see this as an expression of individuality, not of religion, and let us celebrate the human diversity such expressions represent.

Maintaining cultural superiority

The effect of the law banning religious symbols is to keep religion out of certain areas of life. This is a good thing. Religion has no place in matters of state or where other people are affected. Religion is a personal affair. But it is hard to see how the way one dresses is of concern to anybody else, except from the standpoint of etiquette. Etiquette, however, is unwritten and cannot be enforced. And that perhaps is the point. Etiquette changes. Perhaps the problem is that etiquette has become so relaxed that headscarves are no longer considered louche. The new law effectively puts the headscarf and the culture it represents back in its place—at the margins of French society. That is its effect—and perhaps what was intended, since the law has relatively little effect on Christian symbolism.

Reforming the other

Liberals have argued that laws like the new French law emancipate certain people, such as girls and women in Muslim households. As such, they argue, these laws should be seen as reformist. This might be true, but such laws also disrupt cultural traditions that may mean a lot to a family. A headscarf does not represent repression; it is more correctly seen as part of a tradition than as a symbol of repression or backwardness. Regressive tendencies do need to be addressed with legislation. If illiberal tendencies exist in certain traditions, and if reforming these tendencies is the goal, then building a climate in which all traditions are respected and openly discussed will give people the opportunity to make their own choices. That's important because people will then have made their choices freely and without being patronized.