Burkini (16 PIC): "We may be shocked by the Burkini without the ban"

Jean Baubérot, founder of the sociology of secularism, secularism advocates a non-stigmatizing.

What do you think the controversy surrounding the burkini? Puff laïcarde ultravigilance or necessary?

That's the dilemma. Since the attacks of January 2015, there is a jihadist threat confronting the vast majority of French people, Muslims included. So where do we put the border between friends and enemies of the Republic? The current controversy surrounding the Burkini strengthens my position in favor of secularism as inclusive as possible, not to make attractive the enemies of the Republic. It must be remembered that after Nice and murder of Father Hamel, we saw women scarf demonstrate against the perpetrators. In this grave and uncertain situation we live, there is a debate, really serious between two options: one side, give as many feel they are part of the community; on the other, rage at the slightest opportunity that seems shocking. But then Daech play of victimization, say "we stigmatize you, you are not included in the French community." One may be shocked by the veil, the burkini, and it can and should be debate, but without prohibiting. This is the principle of democracy tolerate difference, accept otherness.

Were antiburkini arrested precipitates, or disproportionate?

They majorise the problem. I note, moreover, that happened in the fight against women not dressed quite 60s, that too against women now wearing ... When my sisters started wearing swimwear two pieces, my mother was against, while it is not considered particularly narrow-minded! There is in France a society that places too much emphasis on appearance. Muslims have to reflect on the gender ratio, I agree, like other matter, and that we should a Muslim feminism, okay also. But let's discuss together, change is within themselves that religious communities should decide their ways of dressing. Ban may instead prevent evolution. Secularism is to put religion in the common law, or we have the right to go to the beach dressed head to toe. More broadly, this kind of controversy mask of social non-recognition problems, economic but also cultural. We would like to make a distinction between hard and soft secularism secularism but, to me, this is just strategically measures against-productive.

This controversy was preceded by another in March, around the "modest fashion", which poses no problem in other Western countries. Why ?

Anglo-Saxon countries have a culture of diversity, worship and cultural stronger. Voltaire wrote: "An Englishman, as a free man, goes to heaven by the way he likes." In France, a "Catholic and French forever" mentality persists, a mentality of unity. We still speak of "the France one and indivisible" whereas, since the 1946 Constitution, "a" was removed in favor of "indivisible, secular, democratic and social." But culturally, it seems that it was never built, and "democratic and social", we hear little. This is a design of fairly uniform unit predominates, no inclusive of diversity. Result, we can no longer separate what can be dangerous but which may shock can be accepted by democracy. We do not put the border in the right place.