Allow me the verbal trap, but I think it can serve to open our eyes even further in the current debate on the public use of the Islamic veil. Left-wing parties believe that a secular state should give everyone the freedom to dress as they wish, whether with religious connotations or not, while the other parties argue that secularism should precisely free women (and especially girls) from wearing the veil, or protect them from a patriarchal tradition. Both positions cite secularism as the basis of their arguments, although the far right emphasizes the protection of Christian or Catholic tradition. But what we often miss is that we do live in a secular society. Much more than we think. It's not exactly a religion, but it is a dogma. A series of undeniable principles. Almost a faith.
Since the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (or even since 1789), we have lived in a belief, very close to knowledge or wisdom, of the existence of supreme values. Commandments of the Law of Man, and of Woman, which is where the solution to many of the political and social dilemmas should be found. These rights, it must be said, are not exist: They are not science, they are not demonstrable, they have no empirical basis because history would show us that they have not been a universal law since the beginning of time (nor are they, still, in many countries). They are not, therefore, a fact: they are a belief. We decide to believe in it, to make a convention, to make an inviolable law. So the debate is channeled into the contrast between two ways of exercising the same right. It's the right to dress however you want versus the right to dress however you want, to put it another way: the right to show your tradition, culture, or religion if you want versus the right not to have to show it in a context where for men there is never, ever a code. The first version marks the differences (and this could be enriching, colorful, diverse); the second tends to equalize (to guarantee growth on equal terms). I believe that in school, at least, the second should predominate.
Precisely the private or charter schools that had (or have) the tradition of uniforming students did so (or do so) in the name of equality. Standardizing, making everyone feel equal, without highlighting social or textile differences. I don't like the extreme of uniforms, but the standardization of boundaries is. And I believe the response to the use of the veil in school should not be based on Christian denomination, nor on Catholic tradition or Carolingian identity, but on the denomination of Western values or what we call the rights won since the French Revolution. While this is more difficult to regulate for adults, I believe that in schools it can be influenced so that the difference, when it exists, is not a difference too far removed from the principle of equality between men and women. From that first, second, or third commandment. From that dogma that, in our country, cannot and should not be discussed under the pretext of any tradition. Not at those ages, not when a girl should be able to live the life of a girl, not a banner. Not at all.
As for adults, freedom of choice has a different expression, and we must trust each person's freedom of choice. Or we must guarantee it, that is, avoid submissive behavior and support those who are submissive through training or assistance. The principles of gender equality? I tend to think so. Religious principles, based on modern and widely shared values, the principles of animal dignity and decency in performances.
