Politics for Thought: France’s Anti-Mask Law

By Jenn Lin, Alumnus

In July 2010, France ratified a bill titled, “the bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public.”[1] This law is commonly referred to as “the anti-mask law,” or more controversially, “the burqa ban”.[2]

The anti-mask law prohibits the wearing of any face covering that would conceal one’s identity in most public spaces; those who violate this law will be fined up to €150 and will be required to take a citizenship course[3].  Despite the fact that it ultimately impinges upon the freedom of Muslim women to wear what they choose, the issue stands that implementing this law is a matter of security. In a post-9/11 world that has to deal with global terrorism, identity is taken very seriously; wearing anything that hides your identity and refusing to remove it in certain circumstances (e.g. when using a passport to verify your identity at border crossings and at airports) can be considered a threat to state security.  Nowadays more countries like France are going ahead and making facial coverings illegal in certain public situations.

Anti-mask laws are not an entirely new phenomenon. In the state of New York, for instance, wearing identity-concealing masks during a public demonstration (a specific setting) has been illegal since 1965. This law mainly applies to members of the Ku Klux Clan who wear white pointy-shaped hats as well as anarchists who wear bandanas. Although there was an attempt to appeal this law in 2004 based on the idea that it violated Klan members’ free speech rights, the judges ruled that it did not.[4]

It is important to note that, unlike the United States, France is a highly secular state. France has committed itself to creating laws without trying to accommodate religion (see: theory of evolution and high school textbook controversy in the US).  For instance, in September 2004, the wearing of ‘conspicuous’ religious symbols in French state schools was banned.[5] This includes religious symbols such as Jewish skullcaps, the Muslim headscarf, large Christian crucifixes, and Sikh turbans. In France they call the separation between church and state “la laïcité”, and it is based on a law that dates back to the early 1900s. This commitment to separation is why you are more likely to see a country like France implement legislation such as the anti-mask law and anti-religious symbol law.

An anti-mask law or a law banning religious symbols in schools would be more difficult to pass on a federal level in Canada, given that the right to religious freedom is entrenched within our Constitution – not to mention the right to education and freedom from discrimination.  That is not to say that the anti-mask law has not been met with violent opposition in France or that similar legislation is not currently in the making in some Canadian provinces.

In response to the law regarding the banning of religious symbols in public schools, Iraqi militants threatened to kill two French journalists who were being held hostage in Iraq at the time if France did not revoke the law.[6] France stood firm and the militants eventually released the journalists after 124 days.[7]

In Quebec, controversial legislation regarding identity and government services was introduced in March 2010[8]. If passed, it would mean that a person would not receive government services such as education and health care if they chose to conceal their faces. They also would not be able to work in the public sector or do business with government officials unless they removed their coverings.[9] As well, two Muslim women in Quebec have already been expelled from school this year as a consequence of refusing to remove their veils.

To conclude, the issues of identity and security, church and state are complex. The state exists to protect its citizens; however, it cannot do that if citizens themselves refuse to show their faces. But if passing anti-mask laws means that some people lose an aspect of their liberty or their freedom to express their religion – does the state still have that right? Should governments make exceptions? Or should governments adopt France’s motto of la laïcité and maintain a complete separation between church and state? Do you personally agree with the anti-religious symbol law? And finally, will the implementation of these controversial identity laws create peace and safety between people and their governments? Or paradoxically, more conflict?

*** Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions on the Word website and please remain respectful of other students’ opinions if you do choose to do so. ***

November 3, 2010 | Categories: November 10/11 Issue, Windermere Word 2010/2011 | Tags: alumnus, France, government, Jenn Lin, Law, politics | Leave A Comment »