Rayan Freschi describes how the latest Anti-Separatism Bill in France fits into the French state’s wider pattern of denying national minorities their rights, the narcissism that republican values have fostered in the country – and the challenges that await Muslims in France with the passage of the Bill.

This article is published as part of CAGE’s new series of expert essays ‘Perspectives on the War On Terror‘.

France’s Double Stance on Minorities

It is required here to highlight a significant yet little-known aspect of French governance.

Most Western states have acquired in their lexicon the term “minority” when addressing communities with linguistic, cultural, ethnic or religious specificities amongst their nations.  Obviously these characteristics, whatever their nature is, differ from the main traits of the majority of the population.

It seems only natural then that any democratic state recognises this basic sociological fact both politically and legally; most do. This recognition has a positive and normative effect: it gives special legal protection to these minorities.

European history bears witness to that phenomenon: it led to two genocides on its soil. The necessity of this protection is historically established and almost universally agreed upon.

France, however, does not recognise the political and legal existence of minorities on its soil. Based on the assumption that minorities do not exist on its territory, France therefore refused to sign the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. It refuses to apply article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (whilst having signed and ratified it), which states:

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”

It also refuses to apply article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which it also signed and ratified) :

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.”

This double stance means France refuses to acknowledge the idea that its governance can hurt any French minority group. This position only reflects a denial of their own historical atrocities, from their treatment of French Jews during WWII to its colonial history.

Obviously, I am not arguing here this legal protection is enough to preserve any minorities. The overhaul answer requires a comprehensive and all-encompassing approach, not limited to its mere legal layers.

A minority’s existence isn’t exclusively correlated to its physical survival either: its entire way of life can be threatened by cultural, religious or linguistic assimilation to the majoritarian norm.

Death occurs slowly and painfully disguising itself as intellectual growth. It penetrates the minority’s mind with the idea that the majoritarian norms are superior, and naturally require to be holistically adopted so to achieve maturity.

A Governance based on and encouraging Collective Narcissism

Frantz Fanon, may God have mercy on his soul, beautifully demonstrated how being White was a form of Narcissism in his masterpiece Black Skin, White Masks.

This psychological feature leads to a willingness to dominate others, consistently regarded as inferiors, or children, to be taught and disciplined. This demonstration needs to be correlated to another phenomenon, Collective Narcissism, which could explain the current state of affairs and may help us identify future dangers.

Collective Narcissism is defined as “the belief and resentment that the in‐group’s exceptionality and entitlement to privilege is not recognized by others”. These two assumptions, superiority of the in-group and the insufficient recognition of it, become more and more obvious in the way the French State governs its Muslim minority.

When France’s Imam’s Charter was drafted, the actual Minister of the Interior, Gerald Darmanin, said the Laws of the Republic should be considered as superior to the Laws of God.

The Charter establishes such principle in its Preamble:

“We reaffirm from the outset that neither our religious convictions nor any other reason can override the principles on which the law and the Constitution of the Republic are based.”

The inner reasoning of this assumption is logically absurd: God is, by definition, superior to another entity. Hence, His Laws are naturally superior to any others, without any possible comparison.

It highlights the idea that French governance believes Muslims do not sufficiently value the belief system established by the Republic (the “Laws” of the Republic), and do not recognise its supposed innate superiority towards their own.

In other words Muslims, because of their beliefs, do not sufficiently recognise the exceptional status of the in-group.

Collective narcissism affecting governors and becoming more and more pervasive in the anti-Islâm and anti-Muslim narrative, it will (or indeed already has) affect the entire population, which will encourage deep hostility and resentment towards Muslims.

A Threat to Islâm’s Transmission

Most analysts have commented on the anti-Separatism Bill with precision.

They correctly highlighted how it was an attempt to promote a secularised version of Islâm, and a quest to obtain the complete allegiance from the Muslim community (the Republican charter is another proof of these objectives). In no way, shape or form Islâm can question (let alone critique!) the Republic’s governance, nor its philosophical foundations.

An apolitical, invisible, submissive and assimilated “Islâm” is the only one seen as being compatible with Republican values. In their eyes, we must desire to resemble them and continuously seek their eternally out-of-reach approval by constantly praising their superiority.

If we choose complete independence instead, we must then be severely punished, for a self freed slave must not inspire others to follow his path.

Yet, one aspect of the Republican project has been quite overlooked. It is nevertheless a fundamental feature of the Bill, and may be one of the most vicious and long-lasting ones.

The future Law will largely restrain home schooling, no longer  based on free choice, but on a restrictive authorisation regime.

It is necessary to recall some sociological facts here, to understand why we have to focus on these points. The Islamic educational system is under-developed in France, counting only 70 schools for a community of 6 to 7 million. In contrast, 300 Jewish schools and more than 9000 Catholic schools exist on French soil ( the Jewish community consists of 600,000 people; the Catholic community of 40 million).

By restraining it and by diminishing the already insufficiant number of Islamic schools, the state forces Muslim parents to send their children through the Republican educational system.

Through it, the French state will be able to educate these young Muslim minds to its own values, its own philosophy, its own vision of history. In other words, it will try to plant the seed of its own perception of reality.

Their reasoning is the following: if traditional Islâm is the way of life causing violence and social instability, then the correct answer to that challenge is to reshape its teachings and to raise a new generation of “Muslims”, fostered by the Secular Republican ideology.

Islamic knowledge and belief will be corrupted, without the new generation being even aware of it. French governance requires and will try to nurture a new breed of Muslims blind to their own slavery.

Alija Izetbegovic, may God have mercy on his soul, proved this point decades ago:

“Iron chains are no longer necessary to keep our peoples in submission. The silken cords of this “alien” education have the same power, paralyzing the minds and will of the educated. (…)

Instead of being a source of rebellion and resistance, this system of education is their best ally.”2The Islamic Declaration, Alija Izetbegovic.

Images used
© Luca Lubatti photography – all rights reserved
CC Unsplash/@rumanamin