Ten years after the dismissal of a veiled employee, France called the UN for orders



Permit granted in 2008, the French Fatima Afif, was twice fired by the courts. But in a verdict of March 2013, strongly criticized, the social chamber of the Court of Cassation had given him reason, and that estimate "in the case of a private nursery", the dismissal formed "discrimination due to religious beliefs". His resignation was confirmed in 2014 by the Court of Cassation. The case had been widely publicized and politicized, in particular by former Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

Founded in 1991 in a poor and multicultural neighborhood, the day nursery is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for children from single-parent families who are often disadvantaged. At the end of December 2013 she left Chanteloup-les-Vignes and introduced them "Poppers", to reopen three months later to Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, in the same department of Yvelines, in the western suburbs of Paris.

In 2008, the head of the private nursery Baby-Loup dismissed Fatima Afif, a worker who returned with a headscarf after returning from his maternity leave.

This committee, which reports to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is composed of 18 independent experts overseeing the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The Member States have signed. He gives his opinion, but opinions seem divided about his compulsiveness. However, it indicates that "The State Party shall provide information within 180 days on the measures taken to implement the current findings, and the State Party shall be invited to make the current findings public."

In the conclusions, published on 10 August 2018 and which AFP was able to consult, the UN Committee noted that "the prohibition to wear his headscarf in his workplace is an interference in the exercise of his right to freedom to manifest his religion". The committee also noted that France "does not explain to what extent the wearing of the headscarf would be incompatible with social stability and welcome in the nursery".

The removal of her headscarf while in nursery constitutes a restriction on her freedom of religion, contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Decision of the UN Human Rights Committee

He also believes that France "has insufficiently substantiated to conclude that wearing a headscarf by an educator in childcare violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of children and parents attending it".

The committee, composed of experts, therefore concluded that the obligation was imposed on Ms Afif to remove her headscarf while she was in the crèche "a restriction on the freedom of religion" from the employee, "in violation" of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He also considered that France "insufficiently substantiated the rejection" from Mrs Afif, "without a break", "because of wearing the veil had a legitimate purpose or was proportionate to that goal", decide that the resignation "was not based on a reasonable standard".

The Committee states that France "is mandatory, among other things to compensate" Mrs. Afif "be adequate and take appropriate satisfaction measures, including compensation for loss of work without compensation and reimbursement of any legal costs".

This new legal attack on secularism is in line with what has been implemented since 2006 in the context of the Human Rights Council.Malka Marcovich, historian

& Lt; em & gt; Malka Marcovich, historian and specialist at the UN.” title=”Screen shot”/>

For Malka Marcovich, historian and UN specialist, "The decisions taken by the Committee have the power of law, and the State Party must do its utmost to ensure that its requirements are met." In the case that concerns us, as the note states, the French Allow 180 days to perform the compensation process. " The Committee wanted the French authorities to provide information on the measures taken within 180 days.

The historian, author of the bookThe Disunited Nations, how the UN commits human rights ", sounds like this: "Since 1976 there has been an additional protocol that allows individuals to lodge complaints against a state when they feel that their rights have not been respected.This procedure is more limited than resolutions, convictions that exist in other jurisdictions This decision is of the opinion that the rights of this person has been violated, that the state must provide compensation, that there are reparations and that these things are not renewed, and the state must eventually change its laws to comply with what the experts of the pact regard as a violation of human rights. The state is obliged to follow France claims to be the country of birth of human rights, It would be a bad thing not to respect that decision, I think it will be a case law, much more serious than a conviction of the Human Rights Council. & # 39;

Secularity, sailing, emancipation, explosive trilogy in France

However, Malka Marcovich is shocked that despite the presence of these experts from a member of the CNCDH (National advisory committee for human rights) which depends on the prime minister, "No one knew in advance what was going on.This new legal attack on secularism is in line with what has been implemented since 2006 in the framework of the Human Rights Council, expert reports against racism or religious freedom to ban blasphemy and to promote the attack on secularism. "

The same applies to the League of International Women & # 39; s Law and her president Annie Sugier, who is deeply shocked that the UN Human Rights Commission defends Fatima Afif in this story: "The committee talks about stigmatization and discrimination by France, but it is this person who stigmatizes himself with a sign of the inferiorization of women.I am all the more shocked that the countries that impose the veil such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, its countries where women's rights are most violated, what we wanted and Baby-Loup is emancipation, and emancipation does not pass by women wearing the veil. & # 39;

Forcing a woman to return to her home if she wants to work is against the emancipatory principles of women's rights.Rokhaya Diallo, journalist and activist

Two arguments that the essayist and director Rokhaya Diallo are tired of hearing: "I do not understand how someone can claim to defend the right to women and at the same time to support the dismissal of a woman Financing autonomy is a fundamental element in the emancipation of women To return a woman to her home she wants work, it goes against the emancipatory principles of women's rights A woman has to be free to go to work and if she works, she has to be free to dress as she wants There were always nannies wearing the headscarf, but it did not bother anyone until it was manipulated by a part of the political class, they stepped on the back of this woman who had lost her job because she made a personal choice, and the fact of systematically linking Muslims from France abroad to appeal to the case of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who have nothing to do with the matter concerned, is rather symptomatic, and the woman in question lives in France. There is a refusal to consider French Muslims living in France as French citizens in themselves. "

Rokhaya Diallo was a guest on March 21 at the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Al-Hussein, and Jesse Jackson, civil rights leader in the United States. talk about, among other things, the freedom of expression of minorities.

The journalist and activist want to clarify that the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee is "Above all, a reminder to France of the pact that is signed and that it commits, which has a legal value." It is also a reminder of the respect for human rights in France by an entity charged with ensuring the application of this pact. "

Rokhaya Diallo is well acquainted with the United Nations, where she has already been invited to speak, especially in this committee on issues of police brutality or racial discrimination in France: "The international authorities are the last resort for people who do not want their business to be exploited by political power, in France the interests exceed human commitment, the struggle is misleading, the real question is the question of rights, people, the issue. of the law of 1905. In France we speak of everything except texts unfortunately. "


Source link

Leave a Reply