In an article published in the Marianne newspaper on Monday February 28, about thirty lawyers – whose names can be found in the articles of this magazine – have spoken out against the possibility of wearing a headscarf in their profession. With this statement, initiated by Lara Fatimi, a lawyer at the Paris Bar Association, they reject the creation of a “communitarian justice”. “The recent attempt to impose the wearing of the headscarf at the lawyers’ college reveals the assumed Islamist proselytising zeal of certain religious communities within the judiciary,” the judges and prosecutors declare in the preamble.
In the same column published in the weekly magazine, the lawyers highlight that “more and more incidents are occurring, unacceptable breaches that are damaging our profession and our republican justice”. These incidents are currently being witnessed ” within the school desks of future lawyers “. However, the signatories fear that clerks, judges and prosecutors will also be affected in the future.
In view of the dangerous increase of religious activities in our ranks”, the lawyers said, they wanted to speak out “before it is too late”. The judges, who describe themselves as the “last bulwarks of freedom”, state that they cannot resign themselves to “allowing the rise of religious militancy to harm our profession and ultimately the citizens”.
The thirty lawyers argued in Marianne that wearing the headscarf in their institution would mean “accepting that religion takes precedence over the work of justice. We cannot allow such a symbol,” they added. Shortly after, they substantiate their position as follows: “Only the wearing of a robe should prevail as a symbol of authority, neutrality and dignity of justice common to the people in the courtroom. Only the wearing of the robe guarantees the unity of all servants of the judiciary. Only the wearing of the robe makes us a unity that transcends borders”.
Secondly, these ” strictly independent ” judges consider that the wearing of a religious sign ” is a manifestation of dependence “. Since it is not only the independence of the judiciary that is at stake, but also the independence of their profession, the lawyers demand that “a judiciary be maintained that guarantees everyone the possibility of being tried in a space protected from religious intrusion”. In conclusion, “We lawyers do not want a communitarian [and] obscurantist justice system. We lawyers do not want a justice that veils itself”.