“…Many critics of the law argued against it in the name of a different, non-exclusive, more liberal laïcité: the dissenters interpreted the law as a sign of the restoration of a specific version of laïcité, close to the heritage of the Jacobin Republic. Some saw it, relatedly, as a relapse from a pacified, liberal laïcité into its precursor, the so-called laïcité de combat (e.g., Baubérot 2004aBaubérot , 2010. 4 International critics have explained the law as a digression from or misinterpretation of the defensible, perhaps even crucial principle of secularism or laïcité.…”