Defender of Rights, Laicité and some personal thinking about feminism

June 11^th’s report:

Today, we learnt about:

-A French institution aimed at fighting discrimination, the defender of rights

-The difficult concept of Laicité

-Feminism in France

Valérie Fontaine, who is at the head of the HALDE chairman’s private office came to speak about the theme of discrimination in the French law and to present the role of the Defender of Rights. She explained the French paradox between the law that punishes racism and the fact that nobody dares to say the word “race” (whereas “racism” is based on the existence of “race”). Besides, it is difficult to find a good balance between racism and freedom of expression. French’s Press’ freedom of expression was limited by a law in 1972, whereas everybody else’s freedom of expression was limited in 1990 by the Gayssot law. Discrimination was also a big issue. Valérie Fontaine’s definition of discrimination was interesting: Treating person differently in a same situation on basis of a criteria prohibited by national or international law. It can be direct, deliberate, or indirect if it is apparently neutral but preventing a group to access a job actually. Discrimination can be constitutive of the infringement or aggravating it (this one being much more punished). The situation of accessing job for minorities may become worst as there is an increase of anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, and violence in the French society. What does the French law provide to help these victims? The HALDE was created in 2004 to advice victims of discrimination on their legal options or on how to collect evidences. It has been dissolved in 2011 and referred by the Defender of Rights which is a constitutional authority with important power aiming at protecting individual rights and promoting equality. It gives different solutions besides helping victims like the previous HALDE used to give: mediation, observations sent before the Court, recommendations to public or private individuals or organisations. 

Then we had a lecture about the principle of Laicité in France by Patrick Weil who is an historian and the founder of HIA France. He started by an interesting comparison between France and the US. Indeed, when in the US you do not brag much about being a non-believer. In France on the contrary you have to prove yourself to be a real believer. It is the result of a reaction against the Catholic Church which used to resist republicanism. Besides, the law of 1905 introducing Laicité is composed of 3 principles:

-Freedom of consciousness

-Seperation between Church and State

-Equality and respect of all religion

But nearly everyone can have his own interpretation of this law. Actually, the 1905’s law has been completed by other laws such as in 2004, when after a girl was expelled from school (because she was wearing an Islamic veil in 1999) every religious signs were forbidden in schools.

Mr Weil raised the point that different “public spaces” exist. Military rules and school rules are different and we mustn’t forget it.

This afternoon we first heard a debate broadcasted on the French TV on March 2013. It was a discussion on the theme “are women in danger in France?”. It was particularly shocked by a man telling “when we drink a glass of alcohol we are called an alcoholic” and I could imagine the end of the sentence like “when we give a slap to a woman we are called a violent man” as if it was an excessive way of thinking. I was also shocked by the way the Femen see feminism as being a violent fight against men to dominate them. How can we go forward by reproducing what women want to be free of (that is to say: domination)? To me, the right way to solve the debate is Mrs Soumahoro’s way of thinking: being a free woman does not necessarily mean showing her breasts in the street. Women will be free when they will be able to do anything they want without being limited by their condition of women. Women will be free when they are able to walk in the street without being insulted.

As a conclusion, let’s think about the opinion of Judith Lefebvre that I share: this fight is difficult enough without excluding some women that are considered to be submitted. First, wearing the headscarf is not necessarily a proof of submission to patriarchy, it is a personal choice referring to a faith. Then, as feminists, we are not allowed to reject any woman, particularly if she wants to join feminism.

The screening of “La Haine” in the evening was great, even if I am still wondering if Hubert dies at the end.