Read moreThe question of religious symbols arose due to the sudden and massive influx of young veiled Muslim women into schools. ©Ludovic MARIN / AFPThe new quarrel over secularism that opened up in schools in 1989 over the Islamic "headscarf" has just taken a new turn with the reform of the Council of Elders of Secularism wanted by Pap Ndiaye.The new quarrel over secularism that opened up in schools in 1989 over the Islamic "headscarf" has just taken a new turn with the reform of the Council of Elders of Secularism wanted by Pap Ndiaye. Despite the consensus on the major principles, the neutrality of the State and freedom of conscience in matters of religion, France is divided between two interpretations of secularism: the "secularists", supporters of a "combative secularism" in the face of Islamist pressure, are opposed by the "tolerant" who defend "a peaceful secularism", accommodating and "inclusive", concerned above all not to "stigmatize" Muslims. Pap Ndiaye belongs to the second camp and is making this known today. His appointment, two years after the assassination of Samuel Paty, one year after the law against religious separatism, was for the "president at the same time" a way of raising the white flag: no more firmness, make way for pacifist secularism! Both camps have good arguments to put forward. For 30 years, the intellectual and political history of secularism has been revisited, in the service of a quality debate.  Politics, however, is not exclusively about debates. The State is also expected to be able to make decisions and maintain a consistent line. Jean-Michel Blanquer, aware of the internal divisions on the subject, had taken the happy initiative of setting up a coherent "Council of Wise Men of Secularism", responsible for informing and supporting the players in the education system in the implementation of the firm line that has been officially that of the Ministry of National Education since the 2004 law on religious symbols in schools. The question of religious symbols arose due to the sudden and massive irruption of young veiled Muslim women in schools. Between tolerance and firmness, it was urgent to choose. Thirty years before Emmanuel Macron, hesitant governments first tried to explore the path of “at the same time”. Without success. The early 2000s were a turning point. Faced with reality, many intellectuals and politicians were then led to change their position on the subject, as evidenced in particular by the work of the Stasi Commission, the commission that Jacques Chirac had asked to reflect on "the application of the principle of secularism in the Republic". Pluralist in its composition and initially divided on the question of the veil, the commission then almost unanimously rallied to the prohibitionist position, with the notable exception of the historian Jean Baubérot, who has since become the leader of the supporters of tolerance. The Stasi commission made a simple observation: in the face of Islamist pressure, the stakes of the debate on the implementation of the principle of secularism had clearly changed: "The commission," it is written in the report submitted at the end of 2003 to the President of the Republic, "after having heard the positions of each party, considers that today the question is no longer freedom of conscience, but public order." Who would not want a peaceful secularism granting, under the authority of a neutral State, full freedom of expression to religious communities converted to liberalism and rationalism? However, when it comes to wearing religious symbols at school, the observation is that there can be no real freedom, due to the pressure exerted on girls in Islamized neighborhoods, nor even the possibility of real equality between religions, as the Stasi commission report emphasized: "During the hearing of 220 high school students by the commission, one of them declared, without anyone denying it, that no Jewish student could wear the kippah in his high school under penalty of being immediately "lynched." In response to this violence, students had to be "exfiltrated" from the public schools in which they were enrolled and transferred to others. "The diagnosis of the reality of the disturbances generated by the intrusion of an aggressively proselytizing and militant conception of religion was confirmed the following year by the report of an inspector general of National Education, Jean-Pierre Obin, a report devoted to "signs and manifestations of religious affiliation in schools" which caused a sensation. The debate on secularism in schools, in fact, is less about the principles than about this diagnosis contested by the supporters of tolerance, who point out the risk of stigmatizing Muslims. The counter-discourse, held by Jean Baubérot, then by the Observatory of Secularism (2013-2021) directed by Jean-Louis Bianco, consists of relativizing the Islamist peril and maintaining a victim rhetoric about Muslims in order to promote the orthodoxy of a liberal interpretation of secularism, considered the last bulwark of tolerance. Baubérot, the opponent of the Stasi commission, is today Minister of National Education. At least if we are to believe the newspaper Le Monde, according to which Pap Ndiaye appears to be "close to the conception of secularism studied by academics Jean Baubérot and Valentine Zuber. » The Minister of the Republic Pap Ndiaye must therefore assume the implementation of a law, the 2004 law on religious symbols in schools, which the intellectual Pap Ndiaye considers to be the expression of stigmatizing discrimination against Muslims. The position is uncomfortable, so the minister is tacking, scheming, undertaking to neutralize the "Council of Elders of Secularism" set up by his predecessor. Beyond the appointments and the restriction of the powers of the council, the most significant is the redefinition of the mission entrusted to it, which constitutes a real void. Jean-Michel Blanquer wanted an operational body, focused on "the implementation of the principle of secularism". Its aim being to arm the actors of the education system against militant religious proselytism, it consequently charged the new council with "clarifying the position of the school institution regarding secularism and secular teaching of religious facts. "Pap Ndiaye makes the opposite choice of unilateral disarmament, drowning this operational objective in intellectual confusion: according to the decree of April 13, in fact, the council is now responsible for studying "the conditions for respecting and promoting the principles and values ​​of the Republic in schools and in group settings for minors, including secularism, the fight against racism and anti-Semitism, the promotion of gender equality and the fight against discrimination. ». Peace, love and tolerance, the mission of the Council of Elders will now be to preach a consensual republican morality to the clouds. If there is a lesson to be learned from the tragedy experienced by Samuel Paty, it is the observation that national education is still not in battle order and remains divided in the face of the Islamist nebula. Everyone can now learn the precise and detailed account of this tragic event, thanks in particular to the excellent book by Stéphane Simon, documented and factual, Les derniers jours de Samuel Paty. The case is the perfect symbol of the irenicism of French society, quick to initiate its own trial in the face of malicious accusations of racism and discrimination coming from the Islamist movement. The victim rhetoric of institutional racism and systemic discrimination, rhetoric that Pap Ndiaye himself helped to promote before becoming a minister, is the weapon used by the Islamists in their attacks on republican institutions. The pretext may be flimsy, or even non-existent. In this case, it all started with the fabrications of a student, a notorious troublemaker, even though Samuel Paty's class on freedom of expression had taken place completely normally, without incident, and what's more in the absence of this student who caused the scandal. While the Islamist offensive was unfolding, the teachers' room was divided, precisely on the subject of the "correct" conception of secularism. Samuel Paty's colleagues who disassociated themselves only took up the language of the propagandists of peaceful secularism, for whom the Republic is always suspected of not being enough (tolerant and inclusive) and of being too much (stigmatizing and discriminatory): "Not only," wrote one of them in a message sent to the college's internal messaging system, "has our colleague damaged the cause of freedom of expression, given arguments to Islamists and worked against secularism by giving it the appearance of intolerance, but he has also committed an act of discrimination: we do not throw students out, whatever the means, because they practice this or that religion or because they have this or that origins, real or supposed. My ethics forbid me from being an accomplice to this kind of thing"After the assassination of Samuel Paty, one could have hoped for a resurgence. It would have been necessary at the very least to persevere in the path chosen by Jean-Michel Blanquer: to train the actors of the system in order to familiarize them with the line of firmness decided in 2004, so that the institution could oppose with greater cohesion the attacks and the infiltration, not of Islam, but of militant, proselytizing and aggressive Islam. The prevailing sentiment today, unfortunately, is fear, which is a powerful motivation for seeking "appeasement" through "tolerance." The temptation of pacifism is undoubtedly inevitable. His failure as well.

"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"