Secularism is supposed to be at the heart of free thought and expression, not an excuse to suppress them

Written over the door of the Faculte de Droit in Paris is the promise of liberty, equality and brotherhood from the secular state to its citizens, yet secularism still faces accusations of overbearing paternalism.

Secularism, at its most literal, means the separation of church and state. At the core of the principal is the idea that no religion - or any other formal, organised, set of beliefs - should play an integrated role in the governance or administration of civic institutions, so as to maintain their neutrality.

However, it is also intended to guarantee to citizens the freedom of conscience, and through that policy give support to freedom of thought. So as much as it means religion staying out of public administration, it also meant the state leaving personal beliefs, including religion, as a private matter.

How that principle is applied in practice, in modern times, has come under a spotlight in the past week thanks to the response of some to a rising fear in Europe of fundamentalist Islam. In France, local government in some areas have passed prohibitions against certain kinds of outward religious expression - the most notable result so far being the clamp down on 'burkinis' (Amrani, 2016).

One thing is absolutely clear. Issuing legal commands as to what women can and cannot wear does not convey "la légitime et saine laïcité", the legitimate and healthy secularity, or the guarantee of the freedom of conscience, promised by the French secularism that descends from the 1905 laws.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the world today is not the world into which those particular laws where issued. Listed amongst the laws of 1905, almost paradoxically next to the freedom of conscience, was the prohibition of public displays of religion.

The France that had the 1905 law applied to it was a country deeply entwined with the Catholic Church. The entangling influence of the church was deeply resented and the emergence of laicite came hand in hand with a history of anti-clericalism that pushed back and tried to wrestle society out of the grip of the clergy..

The Left bloc government that advocated secularism, formed by Radicals and Socialists, wanted in particular to end the influence of Catholicism over education - which had been traditionally provided almost exclusively by the clergy. Yet the broken clerical influence was simply replaced with that of the centralised state.

As much as laicite, and in particular secular education, was a republican and humanist project, it was also deeply nationalist. In early twentieth century France, secularism was at the centre of a broader policy of 'modernisation', that sought to establish and project the power of a centralised nation-state - seeking to make the civic state the centre of a society with a singular, integrated and unifying, language and culture.

In modern Europe, secularism has largely succeeded, yet it has done so alongside the advance of the centralised nation-states and nowhere in Europe has secularism and the nation-state been so heavily intertwined as in France - as to represent a major component of the 'national values' and national identity.

The rise of extremist and fundamentalist religion, and extremist and fundamentalist ideologies - that seek to play an active role in government to directly impose their values on citizens - do call for careful thought. The Nationalist Right's answers to these complex matters has been to call for a more strict imposition of 'national values' - and in France that has meant using secularism as the means to legitimise an overbearing policy.

This is a threat to the principles of secularism. The independence of the functions of government from any interest group is a worthy idea. The freedom of conscience is essential. As George Clemenceau - former Prime Minister of France, a radical and a contemporary to the 1905 laws - argued that you do not get liberty by fighting one tyranny with another tyranny.

Clemenceau wrote of his certainty that "apprenticeship in liberty can only be served through liberty" and that to "struggle against the church there is only one means - the liberty of the individual". Support for free thought, openness and tolerance are the progressive response to closed tyrannical intolerance. Stooping to the regulation of citizens' clothing just swaps one degrading paternalism for another.

Doctor Who and the patronising, paternalistic, patriarchy

The past two episodes of Doctor Who, The Caretaker and Kill the Moon, have seen the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion Clara shift towards something a lot more paternal, and uncomfortably more patronising.

Clara began the season as the responsible adult and carer to the Doctor's increasingly alien psychopathic detachment. But the most recent episodes have seen her caught between two very paternalistic, patriarchal male figures, against whom it felt like Clara deserved to put up a greater resistance. She was, after all, once the commander of some Space Romans and said no to their Emperor, and even resisted conversion into a Dalek.

From being a strong counterpoint to the Doctor, she was flipped into uncertainty, and was somewhat patronised, as she found herself caught between the Doctor and her new boyfriend, former soldier now maths teacher, Danny Pink.

It would not be the first time that the show has been paternal and patriarchal towards female characters. That has, historically, been the result of women being written by men for men, in a less culturally aware past. There have been amongst those many strong female characters, even though they usually existed within a (very) male framework (and gaze).

But right now there is a need for more strong female characters, written for women, as visible role models. Women who can show the full and complex range of human emotions, and be strong for it, while being resolute and kind, heroic and compassionate in the face of danger.

In this latest episode, Clara's angry response to the Doctor's patronising attitude was a positive move - even if it was not necessarily helpful to follow that with this strong female character being encouraged, rather patronisingly, to calm down and act when less emotional, by her former soldier boyfriend. It did take a little of the sting out of the moment.

These latest changes in the character dynamic could all, of course, easily be part of an arc - either for Clara, or for the Doctor, particularly regarding his manipulative, sometimes quite patronising, heroism. It is too early in the series to draw any conclusions.

It would be great to think that we are in the middle of a really meaningful arc for the show, in which a lot of the old sexisms can be drawn out, critiqued and then hopefully discarded. We will have to wait and see.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'The Caretaker'; Series 8; on the BBC; 27 September 2014.

+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'Kill the Moon'; Series 8; on the BBC; 4 October 2014.

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Asylum of the Daleks'; Series 7 Part 1; on the BBC; 1 September 2012.
[Buy Now]

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Nightmare in Silver'; Series 7 Part 2; on the BBC; 11 May 2013. [Buy Now]

The Man Who Would Be Disraeli

Earlier this month I wrote what might be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Cameron. Well today I feel I should adopt a pose more suitable to any self-respecting rational gentleman. So here is a more different stance from which to consider the enigmatic Mr Cameron; and to also consider how well he is to be trusted with the faith put in him by some voters (and the voters who put their trust in someone else and still got Mr Cameron).

Benjamin Disraeli, was born in 1804 and was in office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom first in 1868 and again between 1874 and 1880. His methods for successful conservatives are described quite succinctly by The Times (2010), in his own words, as 'Tory men and Whig measures'. During his term in office his most memorable act for many in the north - such as Ormskirk, which is graced with a statue of him - was his policy of enfranchisement (Reform Act, 1867).

It seems to be this focus upon the working class that best represents the reformist spirit that Cameron is seeking to emulate as he edges the Conservatives towards the moderate middle. Cameron also seems to fancy the rebel in Disraeli, as he has also drawn criticism from his own side for his 'radical' positions (Kenneth Clarke, 2009).

David Marquand went further with his assessment comparing Mr Cameron to a 19th Century 'Whig Imperialist':

'We can't know if Cameron will become a second Baldwin, Butler or Macmillan, but there is not much doubt that he would like to. Of course, he will not be a clone of his Whig imperialist predecessors. He aspires to govern a different country, with a different class system and economic structure; and he has learned a great deal from that magician of ambiguous populism, Tony Blair.'

Critique of Disraeli's approach (and motives) to pass the reform acts seem to be aimed at who he really wished to enfranchise, the people or the party. But whatever Disraeli's motive, his Reform Act is still the basis of the electoral system we use today, 143 years later, though much amended by subsequent Representation of the People Acts.

Cameron has come under similar criticism. This leads me to ask if it matters about ulterior motives when reform is on the cards.

+ First, whether a reformist approach, when ultimately for personal or affiliate interest will have a lasting impact upon the political process.

+ And secondly, if the individualist approaches suggested above are able to effect positive societal changes, does this signal that trickle down approaches really offer society viable & consistent affluence on all levels?

For me, motives matter. However, when results are achieved it is harder to get serious criticisms and anxieties taken seriously. Just look at the Labour years. Not until the sun began to set on 'New Labour' did we see the knives and old grievances coming out. When you're winning, few seem to care how you're winning.

==========
References:
==========
+ Reform Act, 1867; formally titled as: Representation of the People Act 1867

+ Dominic Lawson's 'Cameron, the Whig in Tory clothing';

+ David Marquand's 'Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a Whig';

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";