After attacks, France walks narrow line on Islam in schools

Secularism as religion – not providing pork alternatives:

This was the week that schoolchildren in one Paris suburb got a stark choice at the cafeteria: pork or nothing at all.

Chilly-Mazarin joined a handful of towns run by right-leaning mayors which have ended a practice of offering a substitute for students forbidden by their religion from eating pork.

The decisions have come amid increased discussions in France about its secularist ideals following the terror attacks in January that were blamed on French Islamic extremists — a discussion critics say has been hijacked by anti-Muslim forces on the far right.

On Wednesday, the Socialist government issued unusually direct criticism against the schools that have ended the pork substitutes as it was training dozens of appointees to mediate tense questions about the role of religion in schools and in public life.

In back-to-back speeches, the education and interior ministers walked the country’s increasingly narrow line on religion in schools, with the unspoken threat of Islamic extremism hovering over the auditorium in Paris’ tony 16th arrondissement.

Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said teachers at schools have to impart the secularist ideal, but “not a secularism that is a declaration of war against a religion, as we see when a mayor here or there decides that in the name of a so-called secular ideal, children will be forced to eat pork or skip school lunch.”

France forbids “ostentatious” symbols of religion in schools and government buildings, a mandate generally interpreted to mean Muslim head scarves and one that includes parents who accompany school outings wearing them. Schools take seriously their mission to educate the next generation of secular French citizens, never more so than since the January terror attacks.

Source: After attacks, France walks narrow line on Islam in schools – US News

Des Québécois haïssent la religion religieusement | Le Devoir

Not surprising given the greater intolerance of religious symbols and more negative attitudes towards religion in Quebec in all polling I have seen. But the marked difference in attitude between Christianity and minority religions  stands out:

La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse possède sur l’intolérance religieuse au Québec un document si inquiétant qu’elle n’a pas osé le rendre public lors de l’examen du projet de loi 59 (sur le discours haineux et sur l’incitation à la violence). Ni non plus pendant l’élection fédérale (où l’affaire du niqab a défrayé la chronique des semaines durant). Qu’avait donc trouvé cette enquête pour que le président de la CDPDJ, Me Jacques Frémont, ait été réticent à en publier alors les résultats ?

Le juriste s’en est expliqué, vendredi, à l’ouverture d’un symposium international de trois jours tenu à l’Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) sur l’islamophobie. L’enquête avait interrogé 1500 personnes de tous âges, hommes et femmes à travers la province, et nées au Québec ou à l’étranger. On ne leur demandait pas si le niqab les dérangeait, a dit Me Frémont, mais le portrait de la situation est très clair. « Au Québec, il y a des gens qui haïssent la religion religieusement. »

Les résultats complets seront diffusés prochainement. Déjà, les extraits rapportés samedi par la Gazette de Montréal sont qualifiés de « troublants » quant à la « tolérance religieuse ». Ainsi, pas moins de 43 % des gens interrogés trouveraient « suspect » quiconque exprime ouvertement sa religion. Et 45 % disaient avoir une perception négative de la religion. Cela nous dérangerait-il d’être servi par une femme portant un hidjab (à ne pas confondre avec un niqab) ? Pour près de la moitié (48,9 %), oui.

Par contre, si 5,5 % se disaient dérangés par le port d’une croix (chrétienne), 25 % l’étaient pour la kippa (juive), et 30,5 % pour le turban (sikh). La CDPDJ n’a pas reçu beaucoup de plaintes à la suite de controverses ou d’incidents lors des débats sur la charte des valeurs au Québec ou de l’affaire du niqab à l’élection du 19 octobre. Chaque année, 1500 plaintes sont portées pour discrimination. Depuis 2013, on en a enregistré seulement 64 en matière de religion, mais 65 % d’entre elles provenaient de musulmans.

Lors du débat sur la charte des valeurs, la Commission s’attendait à un déluge de plaintes, a raconté le président. Mais elle n’en a pas eu. « Les victimes choisissent de ne pas porter plainte, a-t-il dit, et c’est très inquiétant. » Elles préféreraient, croit-il, « se refermer sur elles-mêmes ». (Dans les cas de discours haineux ou d’incitation à la violence, la CDPDJ n’aurait pas à attendre des plaintes pour intervenir, un changement proposé qui soulève une forte opposition parmi les défenseurs de la liberté d’expression.)

Source: Des Québécois haïssent la religion religieusement | Le Devoir

India, France and Secularism – The New York Times

Interesting comparison between Indian and French secularism by Sylvie Kauffmann:

Hindu fundamentalists have a more radical view of beef consumption and the slaughtering of cows. Some states, like Maharashtra, have banned the sale of beef, and calls for a national beef ban are growing. The fact that Muslims and Christians are traditional beef eaters is not an obstacle. The B.J.P.’s Tarun Vijay, expressing a more stringent interpretation of secularism on the opinion website Daily 0, sees “beef eating as a challenge to India, its public display as an act of bravado,” adding, “It is a political act that has nothing to do with culinary practice or religion.”

In both countries Muslim minorities complain about discrimination — and with reason. But while many French Muslims, who make up about 7.5 percent of the population, feel targeted by “laïcité,” Indian Muslims see secularism as their best protection. One important difference is that radicalization is an almost nonexistent phenomenon in Indian Islam, while it is a dangerous (but limited) trend among European Muslims. Only 30 Indian citizens are known to have joined the Islamic State so far, out of 176 million Muslims; in France, the number of home-grown jihadists is close to 2,000, out of 4 to 5 million. So while in France, fundamentalism comes from the Muslim minority, in India it comes from the Hindu majority.

India has been home to Muslims since the 8th century; Mughals ruled most of India and Pakistan 400 years ago. In contrast, Islam’s implantation in Europe is only a few decades old; France’s law on laïcité predates their arrival. Today, as minorities, Muslims feel vulnerable. In France, the January terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket deepened the malaise, as many Muslims stayed away from the #JeSuisCharlie movement. When 4 million French people took to the streets in support of freedom of expression right after the attacks, they assumed that French Muslims would make a point to be part of this show of unity. Only a small number did. For many of those who did not show up, laïcité has gone too far. Allowing cartoonists to make fun of religious figures, including their Prophet, may be a French tradition; it is not their idea of secularism.

In India, the threat against secularism goes even deeper, down to the values dear to its founding fathers, Gandhi and Nehru. “This is an India which is crying out for a Mahatma who puts compassion and tolerance above all else,” wrote the well-known journalist Rajdeep Sardesai after the recent attacks. An India that could rally behind #JeSuisIkhlaq.

Source: India, France and Secularism – The New York Times

Excerpt: Divine Interventions, on religion and government | Rick Salutin

Some interesting commentary by Rick Salutin on secularism and post-secularism:

That’s the real argument for post-secular tolerance: not just that it’s right but that everyone feels better; you’re no longer stifled by the monolithic, exclusive nature of an identity that, back home, defined and determined who you were, totally outside your will; here, in the Canadian blender with no dominant force, other possibilities jostle with it. Slowly, everyone gains access to new resources and the freedom to try them.

If not a definition, what about rules — or, as Captain Jack Sparrow says, guidelines. Here’s one for religion’s post-secular role, with thanks to Alia Hogben: in political discussions, no one may quote God. Why? Because it cuts off debate and tries to restore the pre-post-secular status quo. It’s like Godwin’s law about Internet debates: whoever mentions Hitler first loses.

This poses a challenge to religious people: they must find ways to make their point without quoting God. It forces them to express themselves in ways accessible to unbelievers. Not everyone will agree, but it’s easier than banning believers from the political arena totally — which will just alienate and frustrate them while depriving others of the benefit of their insights.

Besides, religion isn’t going to go anywhere. It’s more likely that other components of the post-secular public square, like Marxism, Ayn Randism, atheism, humanism or even, God willing, neo-liberal economics, will depart first. The point isn’t that religion in its many versions has answers that others don’t, but it’s one resource among others.

Excerpt: Divine Interventions, an ebook about religion and government | Toronto Star.

When atheist billboards and Muslim veils are both under threat, we need secularism

An op-ed by Justin Trotter and Kevin Smith of the Centre of Inquiry Canada on how secularism, properly understand, respects both the neutrality of public institutions and individual freedom of expression (unlike Quebec’s proposed charter which focuses on such individual freedom):

The appropriate response to this inconsistency is a middle ground based on secularism as neutrality, in which public institutions and the public square are cleansed of preferential treatment accorded to any religion, and where freedom of expression is enjoyed without discrimination by individual citizens. This should be a national interest. Quebec employees who are not in positions of authority should have their freedom to wear religious symbols respected. Atheists putting up advertisements on the other side of the country should have their access to market guaranteed. The fight for religious and secular expression is one and the same. That is the real meaning of secularism.

When atheist billboards and Muslim veils are both under threat, we need secularism – The Globe and Mail.

Tumulte autour de la laïcité – Il faut continuer de débattre | Le Devoir

Commentary on the panel discussion of the proposed Charter organized by Lucie Jobin, Présidente du Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) (see earlier post Un débat sur un «Québec laïque» dérape | Le Devoir). I tend to believe the earlier account than this justification piece, given that the proponents of laicisme at the debate are as fundamentalist in their beliefs as the people they  are concerned about. People who may have attended may wish to comment.

Tumulte autour de la laïcité – Il faut continuer de débattre | Le Devoir.