Hi everyone,
Hope you are doing well. I explored a topic three weeks ago about the Samuel Paty case, and wanted to follow up on that. As you may know, Samuel Paty was a French school instructor who was murdered by a Muslim extremist for how he taught his students the Charles Hebdo case. He showed a caricature of Mohammed, which offended Muslim students in his class. The student notified their parents and the parent posted about their displeasure on Twitter, which was how 18 year-old Abdoullakh Anzorov found and killed Samuel Paty after one of his classes. Islamic terrorist attacks in France are unfortunately becoming more common; the difference with this incident is that it occurred in broad daylight and that it wasn’t random. An educator was targeted for teaching ‘laïcité, which is France’s maximalist version of secularism.
” Many in France understand laïcité to mean freedom of religion, the right of everyone to practice their own faith, so long as it is kept away from the affairs of the state. For others, it means freedom from religion – the complete absence of religious symbols, such as the Muslim hijab in public spaces, and the ability to say, or draw, whatever you want about those that others consider holy.”
Globe & Mail: France’s teachers find classrooms are minefields in debate about official secularism and a colleague’s killing
Legally, he did not do anything wrong because he was within his rights as an educator to teach the Charles Hebdo case. It seems that the consensus was how he taught it. Instead of simply talking about the caricatures that offended the Muslim population (and thus, inspired the terrorist bombings of the Charles Hebdo office), he had the audacity to show the images in the classroom. It was not illegal, but in my opinion, very insensitive. On the other hand, that does not justify murder and taking away human life. For the quote above on ‘laïcité’ , I would say it’s more the latter than the former. In fact, France doesn’t even include religion and ethnicity in their data (everyone is French according to the law). This kind of inclusion that everyone is French also means an exclusion for others who see themselves outside that cultural mould.
This article interviews teachers in the French public and private school system, and their thoughts of laïcité, as well as discussing the Samuel Paty case in their own classrooms. They chose teachers from different backgrounds, including two Muslim teachers in the public school system, as well as a teacher in the private Catholic school system. I was most interested in reading the Muslim teachers’ perspectives, and what their feelings were: on one hand, they are public servants employed by the French ministry, on the other hand, they would take it personally because they adhere to that faith. I think that it would allow Muslim students in their class to open up to them more easily, that they are on the same team and that the teachers would be more sensitive and respectful of their needs. The Muslim male teacher shared how angry the Muslim students were, and that Samuel Paty’s death was justified because of provocation (he also did not give his last name in fear of professional repercussions). Another Muslim female teacher discussed how students are often involved in other heated discussions too, such as the Holocaust. On the opposite end of this view was a teacher in the private Catholic school system, who defended ‘laïcité’. He mentioned that this would be the beginning of censorship and that it was important to not single out Islam; there were Charles Hebdo caricatures of other religions too, such as Catholicism. The moderate view was the one that resonated most with me; an ethnic French teacher who taught English in the public school system. To me, he was the least biased because he taught a foreign language (which means he is aware of the liberal and Western notions of multiculturalism) while serving the public school system, as he teaches in the banlieues (suburbs where disadvantaged minorities live), which allows him to be exposed to different perspectives. I can also feel compassion from his words as he interprets the application of the French motto of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” in present-day France:
” …he sees rising “almost banal” violence in his school that is motivated by poverty, rather than religion. “When we’re discussing equality and brotherhood, you can tell they don’t believe it. They can see that inequality is rising.”
Globe & Mail: France’s teachers find classrooms are minefields in debate about official secularism and a colleague’s killing
I think that the notion of ‘laïcité’ could be more malleable and adjust to the current times. I think that this notion can remain as the foundation of French values, but now, the French population looks different with an influx of different populations from around the world, and that the state needs to accommodate differences too. Now, this is from my perspective as a Canadian, a country in the new world. This makes it incomparable to France in the old world, with ancient culture, traditions, and the current political climate dealing with terrorism and issues with multiculturalism as they struggle to integrate foreigners.
What are your thoughts of ‘laïcité’, France’s maximalist version of secularism?
Many thanks,
Guest
