Muslims, or a reaction by racists or Islamaphobes; instead, it is part of a long
republican tradition:
It is not a question of inventing new rules or of shifting the boundaries of
secularism. It is a question of expressing, with respect but clearly and
firmly, a rule which has been part of our customs and practices for a very
long time.
Thus, in order to regain national cohesion, the government must ban large
religious symbols in public schools, just as the government must fight racial
discrimination. The seeming unity of this approach is set out clearly, even though
there were actually significant transitions between significantly different ideas. In
the end, anti-discrimination has been made to fit with the principle of egalite,
even though the recognition of social categories required by anti-discrimination
law puts it outside of the republican tradition. Thus, Chirac is able to appeal both
to traditional French voters, and to his growing minority constituency.
The Creation of the Independent High Authority for Equality
In order to emphasize the link between anti-discrimination law and
equality, Chirac’s proposal is for the new high authority to address all areas of
discrimination, not only racial or religious discrimination. This decision was also
influenced by the activities of NGOs and the European Union’s policies. A
decision was made in Brussels in the 1990s, by members of different NGOs
fighting for anti-discrimination to pool their efforts in order to get Article 13 of
the Treaty of Amsterdam, creating the EU power to regulate discrimination. This
unified front, between those fighting on behalf of race, age, disability, sexual
orientation, etc…, proved successful in Amsterdam. It also reappeared in the
Convention