[ April 24, 2024 ]
In France, a member of Marine Le Pen’s party has caused a controversy by demanding that a Muslim mother accompanying a school trip remove her hijab. The pupils on the trip were visiting a regional parliament; a member of that parliament, Julien Odoul, confronted the woman and demanded that she remove her hijab while in the building. This caused outrage among some, though the outrage should have been directed at the woman who insisted on keeping her hijab on while in a government building. The story is here.
The issue has divided politicians and citizens in a country that often struggles with finding a balance between individual religious freedom and constitutionally-guaranteed secularism in the public sector, including schools.
There are two separate French laws that are relevant here. The first is from 2004, passed during the Presidency of Jacques Chirac, which banned the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in schools. While no specific religious symbols were mentioned, the law has always been considered to specifically target the wearing of headscarves. For this reason it is occasionally referred to as the French “headscarf ban” in the foreign press. The banning of the headscarf from schools, it has been argued, should also apply to all school events, even outside the school building – such as accompanying a class on a field trip to a regional parliament.
Story continues below advertisement
The second law, passed in 2010, is that which bans face coverings everywhere – the “burqa ban” – but does not everywhere ban a head covering that leaves the face uncovered, such as the hijab. This law does not affect the hijab ban in schools and universities, which remains.,
Julien Odoul, a member of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) party, caused widespread outrage when he posted a video on Twitter of him confronting a woman who accompanied pupils last Friday to the regional parliament in Bourgogne-Franche-Comte in eastern France.
Citing “secular principles” in the wake of the killings in Paris this month of four police staff by a radicalised convert to Islam, he insisted the woman, whose son was among the group, remove her headscarf.
Why was Odoul’s asking the woman to remove her headscarf a cause for “outrage”? She was on a school trip with her son; the trip, with teachers, mothers, and pupils, was an extension of the school day, a part of the school’s curriculum. It thus should be considered as falling under the law of 2004 banning the wearing of “conspicuous religious symbols in schools.” That ban surely should apply to students and supervisory adults out on the playing fields as much as inside the classrooms, and should apply as well when the students are taken on field trips for a pedagogic purpose. It would be disruptive to have teachers, pupils, and parents exiting a school, for a school trip, then suddenly putting on hijabs, against the letter and spirit of the 2004 law banning “conspicuous religions symbols” in the schools.
In fact, a bill specifically banning mothers on school trips from wearing the hijab was passed by the French Senate in May 2019, but the upper house, the French Assembly, failed to approve it. Nonetheless, there is a very strong belief school trips should be treated as if they were extensions of the school, as part of its curriculum, and thus subject to the same rules affecting the school buildings themselves, where hijabs are strictly forbidden.
Members of the RN then walked out of the chamber before issuing a press statement denouncing “an Islamist provocation.”
The hijab-wearing mother knew exactly what she was doing. She was flaunting her hijab, on a school trip, in the full knowledge that many in France agree with the French Senate when it attempted to ban the hijab on school trips. Furthermore, she was entering a public space, the regional parliament, where hijabs are not banned but certainly discouraged, as violating the French principle of laicite. It has been argued that “conspicuous religious symbols” should not be worn by people working in, or visiting, government buildings, but so far that has not been made into law.
The RN members were quite right: the woman wearing the hijab was no innocent, but with malice aforethought was challenging the enforcement of the 2004 law that had been held to ban the hijab from the schools. She was clearly on a school trip, performing quasi-official duties by helping teachers to shepherd the pupils, and maintaining discipline; she was openly challenging those many French people, including a great many members of the French Senate, who believe the hijab ban in schools should also cover school trips.
But many, including regional parliament speaker Marie-Guite Dufay, criticised Odoul’s actions, saying neither the law of the country nor the rules of the chamber prohibited a member of the public wearing a headscarf.
Dufay denounced a “surge of hatred” and what she described as “undignified behaviour” on the part of a lawmaker.
Marie-Guite Dufay is right that a “member of the public” can wear a headscarf, though not a face veil, but wrong in not acknowledging that the hijab cannot be worn in schools. She ought then to have added “the hijab is banned in schools and many in this country, including a majority in the French Senate, think that ban should also extend to both adults and children while they are on school trips.”
As for this “surge of hatred” against Muslims – what is Marie-Guite Dufay talking about? There has been no “surge of hatred” against Muslims, in France, not even after the murders of the Paris police. There have been no attacks on Muslims anywhere in France, since those police were murdered. There is mounting, and well-justified, anxiety about Muslim terrorism, and about the police not having recognized the danger posed by the Salafist Mikael Harpon.. There is increasing alarm about the failure, or more exactly refusal, of Muslims to integrate into French society. There are fears of a demographic Jihad, given the much higher Muslim birthrate. There is dismay at the high levels of Muslim unemployment, and Muslim crime. Is any of this anxiety, this alarm, these fears, this dismay illegitimate?
The “undignified behavior” she refers to is that of Julien Odoul, a member of the regional parliament, who merely asked the Muslim mother to remove her hijab. Why was that request “undignified”? He did not threaten her; he did not block her path into the parliament; he merely asked in essence that, while on a school trip, she voluntarily comply with the spirit of the 2004 law banning the wearing of “conspicuous religious symbols,” such as hijabs, in schools. He no doubt also had in mind the recent bill banning the wearing of hijabs on school trips, one that had passed the Senate last May, but was rejected by the National Assembly. Is it “undignified” to object to someone flaunting her indifference to what many, possibly most, French people want?
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
22 Comments
4 years ago
You don’t belong in the west. Go back to your shiiithole.
?w=736
4 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
We need to clamp down on the muzzies the way China has done. We’ll still be a million times gentler and kinder to Muslims at our worst, than what they’d do to us if we were the minority.
Let them have their right to wear the hijab in any of the 57 Muslim countries they’ve infested and overpopulated, not here.
4 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
We need to clamp down on the muzzies the way China has done. We’ll still be a million times gentler and kinder to Muslims at our worst, than what they’d do to us if we were the minority.
Let them have their right to wear the hijab in any of the 57 Muslim countries they’ve infested and overpopulated, not here.
4 years ago
The islamos have to keep that diaper on their heads, because they are full of shiite.
4 years ago
No Muslim is “an innocent.” They are all members of the Army of Mohammad and each in their own petty small ways seek to subvert our laws and way of life because they reject Christian tradition and Secular democracy.
Muslims need to be told they must integrate or they leave. In fact integration is impossible, because that would mean to reject Islamic teachings, which most of them will never do. It’s only the higher IQ Muslims who aren’t deeply brainwashed who eventually become ex-Muslims.
I have ZERO sympathy for them because what they have planned for us, is beyond belief but can easily be read about in any history book. Mass slaughter, rape, slavery, torture and death is what they’ve brought to our lands. We don’t need these monsters here.
4 years ago
Reply to
Ban Islam
What they have planned for us was and is demonstrated repeatedly by groups like ISIS and Boko Haram, et al.
The only Muslims that an integrate are either bad Muslims who do not follow their scriptures or Muslims who “smile in the face of the unbeliever but curse them in their heart” (Tafsir ibn Kathir on Quran 3:28 that states Muslims are not to take non-Muslims as friends).
4 years ago
Reply to
Ban Islam
THE UMMAH (ISLAMIC NATION) SUBJECTS THE KUFARS (NON-MUSLIMS) TO THE JIZYAH (PAYING OF A TAX TO EXIST IN A SECOND CLASS STATE)! THEY BELIEVE WHAT THE KORAN SAYS WHEN IT TELLS THEM TO DO THIS AND THEIR SYSTEM OF JIHAD AS WELL AS SHARIA LAW THAT ALLOWS ISLAM TO SPREAD QUICKLY! WHEN WE ACCEPT THIS, THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH ISLAM AND ITS SHARIA! MOST MUSLIMS DON’T FERVENTLY PRACTICE THEIR FAITH UNTIL IT GETS THE UPPER HAND IN NUMBERS, ETC! THE DEM-WIT PARTY IS THEIR LOBBYING GROUP AS THE ISLAMIC MIGRANTS ARE THE FOOT SOLDIERS OF THE GEORGE SOROS-IAN GLOBALIST BANKING CLIQUE!
4 years ago
Anyone know how the law applies to other types of head coverings?
How would Orthodox Jews respond to requests to remove their kippas? Or Orthodox Jewish women to remove their headscarves?
4 years ago
Reply to
Liatris Spicata
Jews aren’t striving for a caliphate.
Jews haven’t been involved in thousands of terrorist acts over the past few centuries (the only involvement is that they were targets).
Jews don’t publicly attack people for violating their beliefs.
I could go on and on…I’m surprised you even had to ask that question.
4 years ago
Reply to
Thurston Howell III
I don’t doubt anything you have said here. I also notice you didn’t address my questions, so I am grateful you did not go on and on.
4 years ago
Reply to
Liatris Spicata
Many orthodox women wear wigs.
They cover up their natural hair.
4 years ago
Reply to
Bonnie Pupowner
Many also wear a scarf, or something, to cover their natural hair.
I don’t know that we can reasonably have one rule for a hijab, and another or other types of head covering. FWIW, I can accept their wearing a hijab. It’s the burkas and the niqabs that give me the heebeejabies.
4 years ago
Reply to
Liatris Spicata
ISLAM is NOT a religion – it is a political movement – hellbent on destroying Judeo-Christian naitons.
WAKE UP & STOP DANCING AROUND – MOSLEMS WILL KILL YOU – given half a chance!
4 years ago
You got to give the Muslims credit for developing a military strategy that puts western laws on the side of Jihad. Bravo Muslims Bravo.
What’s the west supposed to do?
If we speak up against any encroachment of Islamic values being shoved down our throats, an articulate,good looking spokesperson will get on TV to shame us with our own western values.
We’re screwed.
4 years ago
Reply to
tn_tea _ partyer_420
Round up all MOSLEMS, feed them to the piranhas, sharks, crocodiles, alligators, komodo dragons.
NO FUSS. NO MESS, NO MOSLEM LEFT BEHIND. ALL MOSLEMS are VILE, EVIL, LAZY, SLACKERS,
live off the good (assistance) will of others & worship $atan (ALLAH = $atan)
MOSLEMS have proven themselves & have NOW NO PLACE in the West – go back to the where you came from. Even MERKEL recognized mixing the cultures was WRONG. MERKEL should be indicted, tried for TREASON & then sentenced to a cage to enjoy cultural enrichment for the rest of her life.
Eliminating, eradicating MOSLEMS is the right thing to do. MOSLEM BE GONE!
4 years ago
Try wearing a crucifix, a Star of David, or carry a Bible in one of these countries.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Why can’t they understand that we’re just giving them a dose of their own medicine?
NO….they’re ALWAYS persecuted…they get a free ride from PC idiot politicians.
PATHETIC
4 years ago
Reply to
Thurston Howell III
Thurston-
Tempting as it may seem at times, I don’t think we should “give them a dose of their own medicine”. We need to stand for our values, not mimic theirs. If we do that- and the West has done a pretty poor job of that so far- I think over time we will prevail. Our values are better than theirs; we need to give them a reason to be more like us.
4 years ago
It’s important to note that before starting any debate on this subject, it’s a good idea to get off ones knees and get straight to the point.
It’s not for me to examine the finer points of French law on this subject, and I don’t intend to here, but I do propose to encourage the debate towards issues around true equality and tolerance and this is important.
If by wearing any kind of overtly Islamic attire, a female visibly and publically wedded to Islamic subjugation invites {by her appearance} an acid { or knife } attack by some male or other female muslim “on jihad” against another female not so attired, then that situation should command the attention of the non sharia state to recognise the act of aggression as being religiously inspired and pass laws to protect against this.
In any society Islamic or not, it’s safer to assume that the person inside the Islamic attire has submitted to the religious mandate to violence towards others of differing beliefs and regard such public displays in the same way as a KKK or SS outfit worn in public would indicate the risk of violence to others not sharing the political beliefs of the person inside those cloth coverings. Wearing such outfits in public in any western country today is unthinkable.
In every case, those Islamic coverings cannot be regarded as just “pieces of cloth” as often claimed by muslims themselves { in non Islamic countries } and therefore without a political message and therefore “harmless” to others.
It’s unwise to ponder whether the Islamic woman is voluntarily comfortable and content with her dress code because by so doing the potential victim is attempting mind reading.
No tolerance for religious diversity towards muslims so dressed should be permitted with that Islamic inspiration to religious violence in mind when a Christian nun wearing her habit as a proclaimed bride of Christ is forced into removing her head covering on grounds of “equality” and secularism when her appearance inspires no such fear of intent to religiously intolerant violent action against non believers around her.
Christian sisters have by all accounts, a poor record of inflicting pain and suffering on other people passing by dressed unlike them and if any such event were to happen, it would directly contradict Christian teachings inspired and informed by the example of Christs life.
It’s this unfortunate proclivity by those often in authority with a disabled moral, political or religious compass to “tar all with the same wide brush” in the expectation of not “causing offence” to the religiously suspect that has got us where we are today, confused, fearful of causing offence by speaking out and helpless.
4 years ago
A lawmaker asks in the parliament for the law to be upheld.
The Speaker wilfully or negligently blackens his action as a “surge of hatred”.
This has the effect (quite probably intentional) of discouraging any other person from speaking up.
This pattern, or technique, can be spotted in all sorts of places as the Left disparage the law-abiding. This is one of the techniques they employ for undermining the fabric of life.
4 years ago
The crack in the wall has begun.
4 years ago
THE MUSLIMS FEEL THEY OWN FRANCE NOW & IN A SENSE THEY DO! PERSONALLY, I THINK THE KINGDOM OF THE BELGIANS SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED NORTHERN FRANCE LONG AGO & ANNEXED THE ROYALIST AREAS WITH THE FRENCH REPUBLIC BEING WHAT IT IS MEANT TO BE A SMALLER ISLAMIC PIT IN EUROPE!
THE NATIONAL RALLY IS CORRECT ON PRINCIPLE BUT THE FRENCH DON’T RUN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, THE EU DOES AND IT IS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE WHICH IS ALL IN COLLABORATION WITH THE GEORGE SOROS-IAN GLOBALIST BANKING CLIQUE! ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS THERE MAKES SENSE!
