The Frenchman, The Englishman And The Robe

"Burka" is a religious issue but a matter of freedom and feminine dignity.

It is not a symbol of religion, but a symbol of submission and belittling.

I want to solemnly say that the whole robe is not popular in France.

In our country, we can not accept this way of imprisoning women behind a barrier, cutting off all her social life and depriving her of all her identities.

This is not in line with the freedom in our mind.

In the first state of the Union address to the French parliament, Nicola Sarkozy made the above statement and won the applause of ray.

The vast majority of the French undoubtedly agree with every word in this passage.

I say this because the problem pcends the boundaries of all parties in France.

The "equal and secular" republican principle has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the French, and both sides have regarded it as a standard.

For a firm left like me, safeguarding secularism is the only way to safeguard cultural diversity and national cohesion.

However, when I arrived in London on the Eurostar train, I found that the British did not agree.

To my surprise, my liberal left-wing British friend thinks this idea is closer to the far right position.

So does Sarkozy's speech mean that France is about to ban citizens from wearing full robe to the streets?

Unlikely.

His words should be seen as a political technique: he wants his party to rest assured that he is still loyal to the ideals of French Republic, and at the same time makes the situation of the left wing more embarrassing.

It is one of Sarkozy's common practices to stir up a great debate on religious symbols.

He constantly filled the public agenda with new debates and new ideas calling for reform, making the country forever in a state of madness and excitement, resulting in the Frenchman's exhaustion and vigilance.

Sarkozy's ruling party, despite its good performance in the European Parliament elections, is still unpopular.

Amid the gloomy economic outlook and the grumbling of wage earners, Sarkozy is eager to catch the attention of the whole country.

The obvious religious symbols such as the whole robe were banned from public schools as early as 2004.

Staff members are not allowed to wear headscarves or robes in all public places such as hospitals, city hall and so on. Patients or institutional members are also told that they must be removed.

The 2004 ban was passed because the Socialist Party led by Jospin took a laissez faire attitude during the ruling period and led some students to wear headscarves to school. This led to a nationwide debate until the new law finally implemented the republican principle.

The recurrence of this debate shows that the vitality of French secularism is still very strong.

In this large country with the largest Muslim and Jewish population in Europe, this tradition has made people avoid confrontation in the debate.

Similar debates are unlikely in Britain.

In 2006, Jack Straw, then the Minister of the interior, said that the gowns and masks were "visible statements of separation and difference" and politely suggested that when the women in the constituency removed them, they immediately aroused the anger of the Islamic group and the British liberal left wing.

In the eyes of the French, the British tolerance of extremism is not only naive but also dangerous, and will inevitably bring about contradictions, divisions and painful introspection.

Not long ago, the great debate on the characteristics of British nationals could not take place in France. For two centuries, the revolution and the Republic had provided a mixture of national unity for France and formed a common sense of identity.

Britain's tolerance of political and religious extremism often confuses and fascinates the French.

The first French visitor to Britain will be amazed at the kaleidoscope of London: all ethnic minorities live in peace with punk and half naked in religious and traditional costumes.

These tourists may then find that the cost of such peaceful coexistence is to constantly bargain over the specific rights of all ethnic groups in the name of cultural differences.

In France, public swimming pools will never be able to set up a special time slot for women to meet the needs of certain ethnic groups.

All public spaces must be used for the free interaction of citizens. The law is committed to eliminating all the differences and obstacles that divide citizens.

In the eyes of the British, the principles of equality and secularity in France are often misread, too arbitrary or biased.

But critics do not seem to understand that secularism is neutral, and that the state is not partial to some kind of religion, but is equally protected. It ensures the diversity of culture and religion by ensuring that no religion will prevail.

Can France learn from each other?

France can, of course, try to tolerate British tolerance, and Britain may decide more when deciding on the common interests and demands of all ethnic groups.

However, the two systems are formed in different traditions and histories. We can only constantly marvel at each other's way of achieving social harmony.

Both are working hard to keep pace with the growing self-confidence of ethnic minorities.