An Ifop survey conducted for Marianne between September 25 and 30, 2026, through an online questionnaire involving 9,689 respondents representative of the adult population of metropolitan France, reveals substantial support for restrictions on religious visibility. But behind the figures, two findings emerge: Muslims are not the only ones affected by this inclination to prohibit religious expression, and younger generations are far from sharing the views of their elders.
The results concerning the headscarf are clear: 53% of respondents say they oppose its being worn in the street, compared with 22% who support it and 25% who are indifferent. A general ban in public spaces receives 60% approval. More significantly, the results published by Ifop show that 58% of respondents also support banning the kippah in the street. The issue therefore goes beyond distrust of Islam: the freedom of Jews to manifest their religion is directly at stake.
The breakdown by religious affiliation makes this last finding particularly significant. A ban on the kippah is supported by 67% of Catholics, 58% of people with no religious affiliation and 51% of Protestants surveyed. Among Muslims, support falls to 27%: nearly three-quarters therefore oppose the measure. In this comparison between religious groups, Muslims are the least supportive of a ban targeting a Jewish religious symbol. On this specific question, the result challenges interpretations that would systematically portray the two communities as being at odds.
It obviously allows no general conclusions to be drawn about relations between Jews and Muslims, or about the individual motivations of respondents. But it establishes one finding: in this survey, restricting Jewish religious visibility is supported by a majority in several other groups, while a majority of Muslims reject it.
This is where the presentation of the survey deserves closer scrutiny. Marianne describes hostility toward the headscarf as a “majority demand for discretion” and invokes a conception of laïcité as a “shared French culture,” distancing itself from an interpretation it considers “narrowly legalistic.” Yet the law is not an inconvenient detail in this debate: it is precisely what makes it possible to distinguish a cultural preference from a legitimate restriction on freedoms. A majority may disapprove of a practice without, for that reason alone, having the right to prohibit it.
Article 1 of the 1905 law guarantees freedom of conscience and the free exercise of religion, subject to restrictions established in the interest of public order. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights likewise protects the manifestation of beliefs in public as well as in private. Restrictions must be prescribed by law and necessary, in a democratic society, for the protection of specifically defined interests, including public order and the rights of others. Mere social disapproval cannot replace these requirements.
This does not negate the rules applicable in certain settings. As the French Conseil d’État explains in its report on laïcité, public officials are subject to a duty of neutrality when performing their duties. Banning a headscarf or a kippah worn by a passer-by is therefore not the same as requiring the administration to remain neutral: it means imposing constraints on a citizen’s appearance. The street is not a public service in which every individual is an employee.
An essential generational divide remains, however, and it is crucial to understanding the future of these attitudes. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, 62% say they support the wearing of the headscarf in the street. As for banning the kippah, the results broken down by age group show that only 28% of this age group support such a measure, compared with 73% of those aged 65 and over. It would therefore be misleading to describe French society as uniformly committed to making religion disappear from public view: this demand enjoys significantly greater support among older generations.
This contrast opens up a perspective that should not be obscured by today’s majorities. If younger people retain these views as they grow older, generational change could weaken support for bans. A survey cannot establish this with certainty: opinions also evolve in response to events and individual life experiences. But today’s majority does not predetermine tomorrow’s.
Such a development would not necessarily mean a retreat from laïcité. When it comes to the freedom to manifest one’s beliefs, it could even bring society closer to the spirit of the 1905 settlement, whose foundations include freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Young people would then not be abandoning laïcité, but rediscovering one of its fundamental ambitions: enabling people to live together without requiring everyone to make their beliefs invisible.