THE AFFAIR of the "Islamic headscarves" has aroused unprecedented publicity. Things began on September 18 at a high school in Creil. The school's diréctor decided to send home three young North African women "guilty of wearing the
Islamic headscarf" and thus infringing on secularism. It took two weeks for the affair to explode in the media. At first the tone was one of tolerance, and outrage at the expulsion. But the situation developed rapidly into a major public issue.
The battle was conducted under the banner of secularism, but if the logic of this secularism were carried through, it would leave young Muslim women no choice but to go to
Koranic schools.
BÉATRICE RAYMAN
U
NDER pressure from their families, their co-religionists, the media and the administration, two of the teenagers first of all agreed to wear the headscarf only in the school courtyard and the corridors and to allow it to rest on their shoulders during class. But a few days later, denouncing the discriminatory nature of this measure
(and it is certain that if any similar rule were made about symbols from other religions there would be energetic protests) they decided to refuse to lower the in class. They were then headscarf expelled.
From the start, SOS-racisme and the
Movement against Racism and for the
Friendship of Peoples (MRAP) spoke out against this hypocritical secularism that closed its eyes to the Christian cross and
Jewish skull-caps, but began to shriek at the sight of a few headscarves. The story becomes more complicated insofar as these implacable secularists seem to want to get their revenge, at the expense of young North African women, for the failure of 1984 battle against public financing for confessional schools. Then, after big demonstrations by the right and by
Christians, the
Socialist government back-tracked on the question.
Debate over headscarves in
Socialist Party
Cutting across the alignments of parties and tendencies, the headscarf issue has even aroused unlikely changes of position. The Socialist education minister started off in favour of tolerance and against the expulsion of the young women. But then there were noises in the
Socialist Party and the issue became a part of the debate leading up to the SP congress. At the start of November some SP officials went as far as to publish an alarmist appeal along with other intellectuals (Elisabeth Badinter, Régis Debray, Alain Catherine Kintzler): "teachers, do not give in!", calling on the teachers to "resist" the minister's position, justifying the expulsions in the name of secularism and the emancipation oppressed by the veils of Islam. A few other personalities (Joelle Brunerie Kaffmann, Harlem Désir, René Dumont, Gilles Perrault, Alain Touraine) denounced the notion of "heavy-handed integration" that could only benefit the Catholic fundamentalists of Le Pen's neofascist National Front (FN). The Communist Party denounced the position of Nouvel Observateur "intellectuals", and went so far as condemning the position of the Council of State, which had said that in and of itself there was no incompatibility between the headscarf and secularism. The CP stated that this judgement would only "boost Le Pen'srise".
On October 20, the National Teachers Federation (FEN) published a joint declaration with SOS Racism explaining that "the schools must welcome everybody without discrimination." However, when, on November 7, the teachers at Creil prevented the young women from joining classes, the FEN General Secretary gave them the union's official support!
At the end of October, Hayette Boudjema, the vice-president of SOS-racisme, pointing out that "exclusion is always the worst possible solution", launched an appeal entitled "the Stakes in Education" that gathered the signatures of representatives of all the anti-racist organizations against any exclusion. Without denying that Islam - along with all religions -oppresses women, the LCR nonetheless believes that oppression cannot be fought by repressing the victim, and that exclusion has never been a weapon in the fight for women's liberation. It considered it more important that immigrant children should have a normal education and that families should be given no excuse to withdraw girls from school. Furthermore, the LCR pointed out that in an imperialist country like France immigrants suffer daily racist oppression because of their culture and religion. In this situation it was important that explanations of the reac tionary role of religion and of sexist displays should get mixed up with racist propaganda.
On November 27, the Council of State, at the request of the Education Minister declared that there was not, in itself, any incompatibility between secularism and carrying a religious symbol. Nothing could therefore justify the continued exclusion of Fatima, Leila, Samira and the others from school, except an obstinacy that approached racism.
The resonance of this affair throughout French society is not accidental. The fundamentalists and racists, the main beneficiaries from the whole business, had every interest in stirring things up. Furthermore, the issue arose at the same time as an increase in demands that the Islamic headscarf should be worn in schools and other public institutions in Western Europe and Turkey.
Right take on mantle of secularism
Profiting from the division of the leftwing organizations, the right and far right have been promoting the idea of the exclusion of immigrants. Immigrants, fundamentalists and terrorists have all been lumped together. The right have taken on the mantle of secularism and demanded a reform of the right of asylum and of the nationality code. This campaign, led in the name of defence of the "superior and universal cultural values of the West", has resulted in a massive vote for the FN in the legislative by-elections on December 4. At Dreux, the FN candidate ran a racist campaign, with the inscription on her ballot papers "no to chadors in the school, no to mosques." She was elected with 60% of the vote in the second round, while in Marinite second rend, did ate only just lost 23 in the second round, with 47%.*
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
lifted
A parliament of the
International Viewpoint #76 • December 25, 1989
BOLIVIA
HE FULL session started in the evening of September 21. Formally, 631 delegates with the right to speak and vote were registered.
Of these, 48% represented workers, 16% peasants, 28% urban and middle-class organizations and 8% the regional leaderships. In addition, there were about 350 fraternal delegates with the right to speak but not to vote. The presidium was headed