No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Way Out of Laïcité? The Child's Best Interests as Justification for Religious Manifestation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2018
Extract
Over the last couple of years, France has built up the reputation of a staunchly secular society where, slowly but surely, signs of religious manifestation are being removed from the public space with an appeal to laïcité (French secularism) and other French values. This is why it came as a surprise that, after a long list of unsuccessful religious manifestation cases, in August 2017 the Dijon Administrative Tribunal ruled against a municipality that had decided no to longer accommodate Muslim and Jewish dietary prescriptions in school canteens. The reason for the sudden change appeared to be the approach taken in the relevant case: rather than basing itself on freedom of manifestation, the tribunal had chosen to decide the case solely on the basis of the best interests of the child. Although that approach offered some much-desired relief for the religious communities involved, following an overview of the case below, I will argue that it may not be a sustainable answer to the curtailing of religious manifestations in the name of laïcité.
- Type
- Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2018
References
1 See Hunter-Henin, M, ‘Why the French don't like the burqa: laïcité, national identity and religious freedom’, (2012) 61:3 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 613–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baubérot, J, Les 7 Laïcités françaises: le modèle français de laïcité n'existe pas (Paris, 2015), pp 133–150Google Scholar.
2 These cases have often centred on the right to wear religious attire in schools, at work, in public generally and most recently on the beach (Cour Administrative d'Appel de Marseille, req 17MA01337, 3 July 2017), but others have, eg, been concerned with ritual slaughter, such as Conseil d’État, 8th Chamber, req 391499, 13 March 2017.
3 Tribunal Administratif de Dijon, Décision de la ville de Chalon-sur-Saône concernant les menus de substitution dans les cantines scolaires, req 1502100, 1502726, 28 August 2017, available at <http://dijon.tribunal-administratif.fr/content/download/109427/1101437/version/1/file/1502100%2C%201502726.pdf>, accessed 31 October 2017 (hereafter TA Dijon, Décision Chalon-sur-Saône).
4 ‘Chalon-sur-Saône: la justice annule la fin des menus sans porc dans les cantines’, Le Monde, 28 August 2017, available at <http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2017/08/28/chalon-sur-saone-la-justice-annule-la-fin-des-menus-sans-porc-dans-les-cantines_5177551_3224.html>, accessed 31 October 2017.
5 Ibid.
6 TA Dijon, Décision Chalon-sur-Saône.
7 Ibid. Article 55 of the French Constitution directly imports international law into the French legal system.
8 Ibid.
9 The first headscarf affair dates back to 1989, when two girls were suspended for refusing to take off their headscarves; the second relates to the 2004 law prohibiting the wearing of all ostentatious religious attire in schools. See Beller, E, ‘The headscarf affair: the Conseil d’État on the role of religion and culture in French society’, (2004) 39 Texas International Law Journal 581–623Google Scholar, esp 581 and 585.
10 See above, note 2; Erlings, E, ‘“The government did not refer to it”: SAS v France and ordre public at the European Court of Human Rights’, (2015) 16:2 Melbourne Journal of International Law 587–608 at 601Google Scholar. The only case that can be seen as a possible exception is Tribunal Administratif de Nice, Mme D, req. 1305386, 9 June 2015, in which the court held that volunteer parents accompanying students on a school trip should be allowed to wear religious attire as long as this did not violate public policy or interfere with the functioning of the education service.
11 For an overview, including cases, see Erlings, ‘The government did not refer to it’, p 601. By contrast, the Human Rights Commission found a violation of freedom of religion, yet its views have been ignored by the French government: Human Rights Committee, Communication No 1928/2010: Shingara Mann Singh v France, UN Doc CCPR/C/108/D/1928/2010 (26 September 2013).
12 TA Dijon, Décision Chalon-sur-Saône.
13 It was arguably novel in the circumstances: the argument on best interests is regularly invoked in the context of family law and has functioned as a guard against imposed religious practice. See Gonzales, G, ‘Les droits de l'enfant à la liberté de religion et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme’, (2013) 3 Société, Droit et Religion 153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp 154 and 162.
14 Conseil d’État, Juge des référés, req 386865, 9 Janury 2015 (interim injunction confirming the direct effect of Article 3 CRC).
15 Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme (hereafter CNCDH), ‘Décision du TA de Dijon concernant les menus de substitution’, CNCDH, 29 August 2017, available at <http://www.cncdh.fr/node/1620>, accessed 31 October 2017. A 2011 decree regulates the nutritional value of school meals: Décret n° 2011-1227 du 30 septembre 2011 relatif à la qualité nutritionnelle des repas servis dans le cadre de la restauration scolaire.
16 Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General comment no. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Art. 3, para. 1)’, UN Doc CRC/C/GC/14 (29 May 2013).
17 TA Dijon, Décision Chalon-sur-Saône.
18 See above, note 10 and accompanying text.
19 Chalon-sur-Saône, ‘Inscrire mon enfant au restaurant scolaire’, 2016, available at <http://www.chalon.fr/fr/je-suis/parent/mon-enfant-et-lecole/mon-enfant-au-restaurant-scolaire.html>, accessed 31 October 2017.
20 TA Dijon, Décision Chalon-sur-Saône; K Willsher, ‘Non-pork meals must be available for school lunch rules French court’, The Guardian, 29 August 2017, available at <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/28/non-pork-meals-must-be-available-for-school-lunch-rules-french-court>, accessed 31 October 2017.
21 See above, note 10.
22 See, eg, the custody case of Cour d'Appel Versailles II, Edouard X c/ Marie-Laure Y, req 05/06909, 29 June 2006, in which an order was made that it was in the child's best interests to take the same religious instruction classes that her brother had taken with a view to sibling unity and equality.
23 Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General comment’, para 55.
24 Scolnicov, A, ‘The child's right to religious freedom and formation of identity’, (2007) 15:2 International Journal of Children's Rights 251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Since 2016 France is a party to the CRC's Individual Complaints Procedure, where cases regarding Article 3 CRC can be brought. However, given France's failure to respond to the HRC's views in Shingara Mann Singh v France (see above note 11), the focus should be on the European level.
26 Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland App no 41615/07 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 06 July 2010). Yet the Court has been comfortable with interest determinations for a long time: Olsson v Sweden App No 10465/83 (European Commission of Human Rights, 2 December 1986), para 143.
27 Olsson v Sweden.
28 See, for example, SAS v France App no 43835/11 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 1 July 2014), paras 129–131, 157.
29 Eekelaar, J, ‘Beyond the welfare principle’, (2002) 14:3 Child & Family Law Quarterly 237–249 at 237Google Scholar.
30 Ibid.
31 This issue was recently – and unsuccessfully – argued on a freedom of religion basis in the German courts: Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2nd chamber, 1 BvR 3237/13 - Rn. (1-35), 8 November 2016, available at: <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2016/11/rk20161108_1bvr323713.html>, accessed 31 October 2017.
32 Research has indicated a negative effect on parent–child relationships where children do not manifest the parental religion. See Stokes, C and Regnerus, M, ‘When faith divides family: religious discord and adolescent reports of parent–child relations’, (2009) 38 Social Science Research 155–167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 164.
33 Although no such approach is yet apparent in French courts, English courts have regularly considered whether, eg, imposing vaccination would lead to parents rejecting their children. See, for example, Re C (A child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam), confirmed by Re C (A child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) [2003] EWCA Civ 1148.
34 Baubérot, Les 7 Laïcités françaises, pp 133–150.
35 G Platret, ‘Communiqué de Presse du Maire de Chalon-sur-Saône’ in L Guillaumé, ‘Menus de substitution à Chalon: Gilles Platret entend faire appel auprès de la cour administrative de Lyon…’, Chalon Info, 28 August 2017, available at <http://info-chalon.com/articles/chalon-sur-saone/2017/08/28/32034/menus-de-substitution-a-chalon-gilles-platret-entend-faire-appel-aupres-de-la-cour-administrative-de-lyon/>, accessed 31 October 2017.