While the controversy around the Burkini shaken France for ten days, merely a veiled mother was verbalized on a beach in Cannes last week, because it does not wear “proper attire respectful of morality and secularism “. On 27 July, the Riviera town was the first of many to make an order prohibiting Burkini, this swimsuit covering the entire body. Europe 1 interviewed Patrice Rolland, professor at the University Paris XII Val de Marne and specialist in law and freedoms.
In the law passed in Cannes, it is written that ” a holding ostentatiously range of manifesting a religious affiliation, while France and the religious places of worship are now the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order. ” But the concept of public policy it is not too fuzzy?
This is a difficult problem. Forward the general principle of a breach of public order is always in absolute, a real argument. The Mayor of Cannes was right to invoke this notion. But right now, is this really an argument for the restriction of fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of the body, clothing, come and go, and of course, religious freedom?
especially since all the cities of the Riviera have not issued orders prohibiting burkini: does this mean that there is a risk in a city, but not in the next one? It is not enough to invoke the risk to public order, since these freedoms are fundamental. It must justify the need and, especially, the proportionality of the limitation of the freedom in question.
The LR mayor of Cannes David Lisnard, who supports the action of its municipal police, said: “They felt that the holding of this woman did not comply with the decree.” The order specifically prohibits access to beaches and swimming to anyone “having no proper attire, respectful of morality and secularism”. So, this woman could be verbalized because of her veil?
This is an extremely vague wording. Is the veil is contrary to secularism? It is the individual opinion of the Mayor of Cannes. The public space and the beach areas are not subject to the principle of secularism, that is an extension practiced by the mayors of the south. In the public space, there is no obligation to be neutral religiously, otherwise violates religious freedom. The veil for now, and from the time the face is uncovered, is prohibited only in public school.
From a legal point of view, veiling the punishment on beach seems groundless. Consider the fact that a woman is veiled on the beach may cause a riot seems very light. If she goes to the beach to the street, it can be verbalized as the wearing of religious symbols in public space is guaranteed by law. In this particular situation, there may have been a problem of analysis of the facts by the police. It’s a little history of pyromaniac fireman: creating the risk by exposing it to rhyme, assuming for example that a woman wearing a veil is a dangerous or potentially dangerous Islamist. Here we are before an all-out repression that still may revive the controversy.
Are we witnessing a drift, tipping in a society of non-tolerance to another?
Personally, I think so. One of the signs is this desire to “secularize” all the public space, which was formally and clearly denied by the law of 1905. There is certainly a cultural clash can not be denied, but that can be solved by prohibitions on fundamental freedoms – and not only those of Muslims
What remedy this woman she has
it may contest the fine before the police court arguing that the reason for the breach, as was just a veil, is illegal. The criminal court has indeed the power to review the legality of the bylaw. The woman may also challenge the decree itself, before an administrative judge.