Freedom to practise one?s religion or respect for others? These are the main arguments for or against authorising the wearing of religious symbols at school. After the expulsion of a fifteen year-old student from Eastern College in Flacq a few weeks back, the question of allowing each pupil to wear a symbol of his or her own religion is being raised. As Mauritius is a multicultural society, this debate appears even more important.

The Muslim Women?s Council (MWC) came to the forefront yesterday, as its members held a press conference to appeal to the authorities on that particular issue. ?For the past four years, this student had no problems wearing her ?tious? (traditional trousers) under her uniform. But then one fine day, the school management decided that she could not wear it anymore,? explained the MWC president, Mariam Goodur.

Social harmony

The lawyer and former attorney general, Razack Peeroo, makes it clear, ?The Constitution does not expressly mention the visibility of religious symbols. However, it guarantees the right to practise one?s religion to every citizen.? Razack Peeroo and the MWC president both agree on the fact that there should be no problem in wearing a religious symbol ? scarf, cross or any other object ? provided it is not in contradiction with the colours of the uniform.

?This country is democratic and one has always been tolerant with others. So religious and cultural freedom should be respected because such controversies can lead to the spoiling of the social harmony and can even jeopardize peace,? the lawyer insists. ?As long as the symbol does not affect other communities, I can?t see why it should be prohibited,? said Mariam Goodur.

In France, the same debate led to much controversy four years ago but the Chirac government then adopted a law in March 2004 on the principle of laity, the wearing of signs or clothes that would show religious beliefs in schools and colleges. ?In schools and colleges, the wearing of ostentatious signs or clothes which would enable pupils to show their religious belonging is prohi-bited. The inner regulations remind that the implementation of a disciplinary measure is preceded by a dialogue with the pupil,? states Legislation n° 2004-228 of 15th March 2004.

For Razack Peeroo, however, France?s case is full of contradictions. ?Pupils do not have the right to wear any religious clothes or signs but how can you explain that some religious celebrations are public holidays there? Laity is no absolute concept and I think it is all about tolerance.?

No harm caused

On the other hand, Great Britain, which is also a multicultural society, appears to have made room for the different cultures and traditions. ?The policemen who are Sikh can wear their turbans and beards because all cultures are respected for instance,? Razack Peeroo insists.

Ibrahim Koodoruth, sociologist and lecturer at the University of Mauritius, shares the same point of view. ?The law states that each person is free to practise his religion. The wearing of cultural touches can never cause any harm to any organization, to the rules and regulations and to other communities. There must be respect and consideration for other communities.?

He believes that this cultural touch is part of the person and can?t be just removed. ?How can you allow a person to practise his/her religion at home and ask him/her to put it aside at work or at school??

This is where Prem Burton?s opinion slightly differs. The former director of the Private Secondary Schools Authority (PSSA) thinks that the wearing of discrete religious signs should not be a problem as long as it does not change the uniform completely. There is no specific PSSA regulation concerning that specific issue but its former director thinks that it would be better if all pupils could practise their religion and culture at home and ?be exactly the same as soon as they are together in school?.

Pauline ETIENNE

Bilkiss JAFFARALLI