Nothing undermines the will of the Government. François Fillon, following the wishes of Nicolas Sarkozy, has assured that the Government would end in the general prohibition of the full veil. Including taking the risk of a new negative opinion of the Council of State, or even of a censorship of the Constitutional Council. In the opinion of several constitutional experts, the principles advanced, Wednesday, by the members of the majority, including the Prime Minister, to prohibit the wearing of the full veil are indeed very fragile legal. François Fillon, as Xavier Bertrand, the Secretary General of the UMP, have put forward "the question of the dignity of the human person" and "equal male-female in society". But these arguments are faced with another principle, the protection of the free referee that everyone can live his life according to his beliefs and his personal choice, including, as noted by the State Council, "thereby physically or morally endangered, as this requirement at does not affect others."
Public order
But insofar as most of the veiled women say dress voluntarily so (and it is particularly difficult to prove that they do so under duress), a ban seems almost impossible to justify. Same difficulty the principle of equality between men and women. Where, again, if a woman deliberately chooses to wear the full veil, no one can use him an any principle of equality, explain the jurists.
What other issues could then be given to the Government For the Council of State, it is the principle of public safety which is more secure, "but it would be hypocritical, for Bernard Mathieu, Director of the centre for research of constitutional law at the University of Paris Panthéon - Sorbonne, because this is not the reason that led to this political choice." Could otherwise be an expanded public order notion. In this case, how to write the text will be crucial. "But even this principle is far from making unanimity:"wearing a full veil is not in itself a disturbance to public order, said Dominique Rousseau, Professor of constitutional law at the University of Montpellier. With this design, it is very close to the moral order. As such, why the Government did prohibit not one day women wear miniskirts, on the grounds that their holding is a disturbance to public order
"Passage in force."
The Government, the legal arguments must not stop the action: "It must evolve the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council, the European Court of human rights, to deal with a new issue which was not twenty years ago," insisted Wednesday François Fillon. But if the political decision should not be predetermined by law, as are recognizing several Jurists, it cannot do the economy of respect for the fundamental principles. "What model is sent to the citizens by a Government which said"I know it's risky, but I still do"" "Beyond the question of the veil, it is an attitude that seems to me very serious," adds Dominique Rousseau.
This is not the first time that the Executive was facing constitutional principles. Non-retroactivity of the law on the retention of security had already put Nicolas Sarkozy in difficulty, and more recently the carbon tax has been retoquée by the Constitutional Council. Is Michèle Alliot-Marie, the keeper of the seals, that the drafting of the Bill has been entrusted to attempt, this time to jump the obstacle of the Rue Montpensier. The Socialist Party, by the voice of Pierre Moscovici, has already denounced yesterday "a passage in force face to the Constitution".
Which will contribute to exacerbating unemploymentSeverstal would then be at the foot of the wallGilles Combalat franchisee Lissac at Layethe sovereign debt crisis is also for many Mark Zuckerberg is an apostle of the sharingToday hopes are however more acute yesterdayAn although timid response to a serious problemBeyond that the purchasers are more present Since then our turnover has grown to two digitsThe African Nations victory indeed would be a revenge on the history and the present
