Schools in 弗兰ce are now required to display the French and EU flags in
classrooms alongside the words to the national
anthem.高校在高卢鸡现行反革命亟需展现高卢雄鸡和欧洲结盟旗帜在体育场合旁边的国歌。The move –
effective from the start of the school year on Monday – was approved as
part of educational reforms passed by parliament in
was suggested by a centre-right opposition MP but endorsed by President
Emmanuel Macron’s centrist
new rule has been controversial. Critics say it is overly
classrooms in primary and secondary schools must now display the
national flag, words to the Marseillaise, and the national motto –
main changes include compulsory education from the age of three, instead
of six as had been the case in France since the 19th
elite French school that trains presidents法兰西共和国精英学园,火车的总理Sheep
enrol at French school as students羊在法兰西学园入学的学生Parent who do
not conform with the rules could be fined €1,500 (£1,362卡塔尔国. It only
affects a small number of families as 97% of children aged between three
and six are in education
law also includes changes to the school-leavers exam, giving more weight
to coursework and more opportunity for pupils to
was initially suggested as an amendment by Éric Ciotti, an MP from the
centre-right opposition party Les
Republicains。After much debate, the government agreed to the amendment,
but insisted the EU flag must displayed
was passed by France’s parliament in
February.法兰西议会通过的法度。Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer
told Le Parisien newspaper at the time: “Civic spirit must be
strengthened. 伊芙rywhere in the world, knowing the symbols of your
country is the most natural thing in the world.”教育省长jean – michel
the old law, schools were only required to have a French
flag.依据旧的法度,高校只须要有贰个法兰西共和国国旗。When the amendment was
passed, Michel Larive, from left-wing party La France Insoumise,
strongly criticised the move. He said having the national flag outside
schools was already enough to show “respect for the homeland without
veering towards nationalism”.Mr Ciotti said the reforms were “an
important step forward” and would “teach pupils to love France from an
teachers said the inclusion of the flags was not practical. One primary
school teacher described the measure as “empty
Same-sex marriage supporters are hopeful senators could pass a bill to
legalise gay weddings as soon as today with conservatives’ demands to
build in religious freedoms crumbling and other amendments being dealt
If the bill is passed, Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to cancel Parliament
for lower house MPs this week could cause the government further
embarrassment because they would have been able to begin debate tomorrow
if they had been in Canberra.
Labor’s affirmation to bind its MPs and senators– even those opposed to
gay marriage – to vote against substantive amendments to Liberal Senate
Dean Smith’s private members bill has given advocates from the Liberals
and Labor the numbers easily to defeat
amendmentsproposedbyCoalitionbackbenchers, the Greens and other
By yesterday afternoon, there were signs that those proposing amendments
were not filibustering to drag out debate.
The only amendments to be passed were a series of technical changes
Attorney-General George Brandis put forward.
Senator Brandis has a separate sheet of amendments, expected to be dealt
with today, that may attract some support from the crossbench and progay
marriage Liberals. These amendments would allow a current and future
civil celebrant to refuse to marry a gay couple if it was at odds with
their religious or conscientious beliefs.
Senator Smith’s bill only extends this protection to current celebrants
who register as a religious marriage celebrant.
Labor’s decision has killed off a rearguard effort by conservatives for
sweeping religious protections, which included protections for
faith-based charities, shield laws protecting people and organisations
from public bodies taking detrimental action and enshrinement of
parental rights around sex education for their children.
The Greens have produced amendments so that the marriage law would not
limit state and territory antidiscrimination laws and remove Senator
Smith’s grandfathering provision around civil celebrants, meaning none
of them could refuse to marry a gay couple.
Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm has flagged amendments to allow
commercial wedding service providers like florists and bakers to legally
refuse to serve gay couples will also be defeated, while One Nation’s
amendments are similar to Senator Brandis’s.
While at least three Labor senators, including deputy leader Don
Farrell, will vote against legalising same-sex marriage, Opposition
Senate leader Penny Wong and shadow attorneygeneral Mark Dreyfus said
Labor would collectively vote against substantive amendments, arguing
that the bill was the product of a cross-party committee and acceptable
compromises had been negotiated.
‘‘We do so with the very clear intention that we need to get this done.
It’s not a time for concentrating on issues that have got little or
nothing to do with achieving marriage equality in Australia,’’ Mr
They said the issue of more broader religious protections should be
dealt with by the inquiry headed by former attorney-general Phillip
Ruddock, who was appointed last week. The inquiry will report next year.
In a passionate speech touching on past civil rights fights in
Australia, Senator Brandis said Mr Turnbull had been the first prime
minister to have prosecuted the case for samesex marriage. Its
legalisation after the resounding Yes vote would stand as a signature
achievement of his government.
‘‘It rises above tawdry day-to-day politics as an imperishable legacy,’’
‘‘I predict that, like the 1967 referendum, this decision by the
Australian people, enabled by their government and enacted by their
Parliament, will come to be seen as one of those occasional shining
moments which stand out in our nation’s history, about which people will
still speak with admiration in decades, indeed in centuries to come.’’
Mr Turnbull and Leader of the House Christopher Pyne last week decided
to push back the resumption of the House of Representatives until
December 4, arguing that the Senate deliberations into the same-sex
marriage bill was likely to drag on and MPs would have nothing else to
The decision was met with widespread scorn and prompted accusations the
government was trying to avoid its lack of a working majority being
exposed on the floor of parliament and prevent rebel Nationals crossing
the floor to support the establishment of a banking inquiry.