Do we have the right to wear the veil in the National Assembly?

A woman wearing the veil.

(Illustration) -

• This Thursday, a veiled student unionist sparked a controversy in the National Assembly, several deputies refusing to attend the parliamentary debate session in her presence.

• According to the deputies who took offense, it was not normal to display a religious symbol in Parliament.

• Legally, does this statement hold water?

This is the new controversy of the week.

This Thursday, the vice-president of the Unef Maryam Pougetoux, who wears the veil, was insulted in the National Assembly because of her hijab while she was auditioned on student issues.

The unionist's speech was cut off by the reproaches of an elected LREM, quickly joined by LR deputies.

These elected officials then decided to leave the hearing, claiming that the veil had nothing to do with the National Assembly.

Since at

, we like thoroughness and accuracy, we went to dig into the legal texts to see what was really going on.

We start with a basic reminder, with Mathilde Philip-Gay, professor of public law at the University of Lyon 3 and national expert on the “Value of the Republic and secularism” plan.

Secularism distinguishes two categories of individuals, public officials, who must adhere to strict clothing neutrality, whether political, religious or even of brands and advertisements, and users of the public service who do not have this obligation of neutrality as long as it does not disturb public order.

For example, it is forbidden to hide your face, except for wearing an anti-Covid mask.

Elected officials held to neutrality

Obviously, there are exceptions, and in particular in Parliament where the rule is a bit special.

Those elected to the National Assembly, who cannot be considered as public officials, specifies Mathilde Philip-Gay, nevertheless have their clothing constraints.

Since 2018, article 9 of the general instruction of the Bureau in the Hemicycle requires deputies to wear an outfit which “must remain neutral and be akin to city attire.

It can not be the pretext for the manifestation of the expression of any opinion ", de facto prohibiting" the wearing of any conspicuous religious sign, a uniform, logos or commercial messages or slogans of a political nature ".

On the other hand, it is specified in the laws that “at the National Assembly or the Senate, visitors can wear a sign showing their religious affiliation.

"

But, and this is where the subject becomes more technical than had been thought, the public attending parliamentary proceedings must "adopt a particularly respectful behavior" and must "be seated, uncovered and in silence. »(Article 8 of the general instruction of the Bureau and article 91 of the Rules of the Senate).

Historically, the obligation to stay uncovered comes more from the desire to adopt a correct outfit without a hat or headgear, indicates Mathilde Philip-Gay all the same.

To attend or participate in the debate, that is the question

If it is indicated that one must be "discovered" when one is part of the public attending parliamentary proceedings, could one then ask a veiled person to remove his hijab?

Valérie Duez-Ruff, lawyer at the Paris and Madrid bars and specialist in discrimination issues, specifies that "given the fairly broad nature of this article", the press service specified that "Article 8 which provides that the public attending the sessions is "uncovered" is not interpreted to the letter.

The wearing of clothing showing a religious affiliation is not in itself prohibited.

It is only in the event that the chairman considers that the wearing of such outfits is likely to disturb the order or the good progress of the debates that he could be brought to take measures.

This tolerance makes it possible to welcome deputies or other veiled foreign guests in the gallery.

"

The Senate is much stricter on the subject, specifies the lawyer, since "according to article 91 of the regulations," the public admitted to the stands is seated, uncovered and in silence ".

An internal note of June 1, 2019 specifies that "neither ostentatious religious sign, nor head covering" are authorities in the gallery, because of the "republican requirement" resulting from parliamentary history, with the exception of official visits and diplomatic organized by the Senate.

On the other hand, a veiled woman can easily enter the Senate.

"

But, and this is the latest twist in this affair, can we say that the student unionist

parliamentary proceedings?

Well not really, for Mathilde Philip-Gay, “since she participated in it, she was active in parliamentary work and not just a spectator”.

So, what about in this case?

"It is in a middle ground and for the moment, there is no rule, analyzes the professor of public law.

However, when there is no rule, we apply the common principle: freedom is the rule, restriction the exception.

"Valérie Duez-Ruff is more direct:" As part of the work of the National Assembly, no text prohibits the wearing of a distinctive religious sign.

When the deputies leave the sitting, it is not a question here of legal position but of personal and individual moral convictions.

"It therefore seems that Maryam Pougetoux did not violate the rules of the National Assembly, as the president of the commission, Sandrine Mörch, recalled Thursday, who deplored a" bad trial ".

Politics

VIDEO.

LR deputies and an elected LREM refuse to hear a veiled student unionist

Politics

A mandatory secularism charter for all subsidized associations

• Society

• Headscarf

• Justice

• National Assembly

• Law