Page - 256 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2015

ALJ 2/2015 Diversity: Beyond Recognition in Bosnia and Refusal in France 256 face of this problem is the temptation to reduce immigration. Yet in this respect most of the EU member states show similar reactions today. What is more specific in France and closely linked to the idea of the Republic, this time in the sense of the secular Republic, is the number and the importance of controversies on religious signs in the public space. The law on separation between the churches and the State of 1905 brought to a temporary end an old conflict that existed already during the French revolution. While this law marked the victo- ry of the proponents of secularity, almost immediately after its adoption, the secularity support- ers confronted each other on the interpretation of this principle: was tolerance the message of the law or the fight against clericalism? The latter answer was probably the most common reac- tion at the beginning whereas, after World War II, the former began to prevail. These ancient controversies awoke up again when, following the decolonization and then under economic or political pressure, the immigration increased so much that Islam were becoming the second religion in France. This is not very surprising when considering that in the French republi- can model diversity is denied and assimilation required. In other words, the problem with foreign religions that nearly all European states have to face presently receives in France a specific di- mension because of its convergence with truly strong traditions. It explains the reluctance to tolerate these differences and the tendency to make a radical separation between public and private life, even if this could seem impossible to do. Thus the Islamic headscarf occupied the political and legal fore scene for many years, approxi- mately from the 1970s to 2004 when the law prohibiting visible religious signs in primary and secondary schools had been adopted. But this was just an armistice since now there are more and more people wishing the prohibition of the headscarf at the University. After the headscarf, the French discussion turned around the full-face veil. One of the questions raised was to know whether this kind of veil should be forbidden as religious sign or for reasons of public order, more precisely for identification matters. The government opted in favor of the latter solution that is enshrined in the law of 11 October 2010. In July 2014, the ECtHR21 decided that this prohi- bition was compatible with the Convention. The government had invoked the public order, the principle of human dignity and the necessities of the ‘living together.’ Curiously, since it is not included in the Convention, the ECtHR based its judgment on this latter ground. This way, the margin of appreciation of the state parties, when it comes to such society questions, seems to be largely increased. Even though the legal basis of this decision appears fragile, the preservation of a vague ‘living together’ was perhaps more important for the Grand chamber than to put forward in this case a strict obligation of tolerance. IV. Concluding remarks How to conclude if not to underline that both constitutions contain elements pleading in favor of a more pluralist interpretation of diversity? Indeed, the Preamble of the Bosnian Constitution declares to be ‘Dedicated to peace, justice, tolerance, and reconciliation,’ in its § 2 and ‘Convinced that democratic governmental institutions and fair procedures best produce peaceful relations within a pluralist society,’ in its § 3. 21 ECtHR 1. 7. 2014 (GC), 43835/11, S.A.S/France.