Sarkozy and Obama

Photo rights here.

The elections this weekend were not the only big event in Paris. Obama was here too. He was here, of course, for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, but his trip did include time in Paris. When Obama was invited, Sarkozy had every intention of capitalizing on the moment for good PR, and thus he invited the Obamas for several formal events during their time in France. For the large part, President Obama refused these invitations. Some cite Obama's refusal as a means of avoiding giving the public impression of campaiging with Sarkozy just before the EU elections. Sarkozy's desire to use Obama's political capital would indeed explain why the Queen of England was not initially invited to the proceedings for D-Day. Sarkozy, you rascal.

In a classic spin, Sarkozy used the little time he had with Obama to insist on the fact that Obama was not there for a photo op, and suddenly, neither was he. In his words: we have "autre chose à faire que de belles photos sur papier glacé" (other things to do besides take beautiful photos for glossy paper).

With Obama's speech in Cairo as background, Sarkozy was given the opportunity to align himself with Obama or distance himself from Obama's positions.

First, Obama's words directly from his speech:

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

When Sarkozy was asked about his stance on these words, he stated that he completely agreed with Obama. This may not seem controversial, but in France, it decidedly is.

Sarkozy's words:

"Je suis totalement d'accord avec le discours du président Obama, y compris sur la question du voile", a déclaré M. Sarkozy. "Je précise juste deux choses. En France, une jeune fille qui veut porter le voile peut le faire. C'est sa liberté. Nous mettons deux limites, parce que nous sommes un Etat laïque. La première, c'est qu'au guichet des administrations les fonctionnaires ne doivent pas avoir de signe visible de leur appartenance religieuse (...). C'est ce que nous appelons l'impartialité de l'administration, la laïcité. (...) La deuxième réserve que nous avons, c'est : que les jeunes filles musulmanes portent le voile, ce n'est absolument pas un problème, à condition que ce soit une décision émanant de leur libre choix, et non une obligation qui leur soit faite par leur famille ou par leur entourage."

(I agree completely with President Obama's speech, including his thoughts on the question of the veil. Two things should be specified. In France, a young girl who wants to wear the veil can do so. It is her freedom. We place two limits on this freedom because we are a secular state. The first is that government civil servants must not have any visible religious symbol in their appearance. We insist on the impartiality of the government, on secularism. The second reservation is that wearing the veil must be a young muslim woman's choice, her free choice and not an obligation from her family).

In his statement, Sarkozy puts himself in a tricky position for two reasons. First, he contradicts his own statement of 'completely agreeing' with Obama by significantly qualifying this position. Second, he is part of an administration and government which inherently do not agree with Obama's position on this issue. The 2004 French legislation on religious symbols in schools is testament to this. Hence, Sarkozy has been subsequently criticized for his superficial alliance with Obama's stance.

The question of secularism in France has been continually fascinating to me. I've had various heated discussions with my French friends about this issue. As is often the case with one's own culture, it is easy to believe that it is representative. In this case, I assumed that the positive tolerance (multiculturalism) that we see in the United States was the normative means of addressing religion in the western world. I assumed that everyone could come to the table (or to school) with their differences showing, as long as no one's differences were forbidden. (And to be fair, this is not perfectly practiced in the US either). However, in France, secularism does not mean multiculturalism or everyone having an equal right to displaying their religion. Secularism means sameness, in the sense that all kids have no visible version of religion at all.

To be sure, there are important historical precedents for this manifestation of secularism in Europe and in France. The public space as a space free of religion is an important cultural value because of France's past. A citizen in France is expected to be French before being anything else, including his/her religion - this is the universalist model of citizenship. This extends to race, gender, sexuality and any other identity category.

Still, the regulation of religious symbols or the veil in schools remains unsettling to me.

Some religions can't be left behind only to be practiced in the private sphere. And aren't children stripped of all religious symbols exhibiting something after all (if not their own religion)? They are, in essence, athée (atheist) in appearance. Isn't this also a belief system?