The fight has begun, and it's not pretty.
French police began arresting women wearing burqas as France's sumptuary laws against the garments went into effect today. Sarkozy's center-right government, which has in the past six months, also shipped thousands of Roma people back to Eastern Europe in mass deportations, has now gone after women who wear the burqa or hajib in public.
Le Monde is reporting this morning that women were arrested in a demonstration in front of Notre Dame Cathedral. As one police official said, even approaching these women for wearing the veil is going to create a potential for violence.
I have written previously about sumptuary laws, and what I said then, applies now.
The control of what women can and cannot wear is directly related to the rights that women possess in a given culture. Ironically, the French Republic has declared that it will not tolerate this affront to French values. That one "NE PAS "VIVRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE À VISAGE DÉCOUVERT" -- live in a republic with one's face covered.When the state steps in, declares women's dress to be a thing to be controlled, I am reminded that women are still "less than" in society. Even though the intent of the French Parliamentarians is some effort to "liberate" Muslim women.
As was said this morning in France:
Le secrétaire général adjoint du Syndicat des commissaires de police, Manuel Roux, a d'ores et déjà souligné sur France Inter que cette loi allait être "infiniment difficile à appliquer" et "infiniment peu appliquée". "On va encore une fois considérer que les policiers sont en échec", a-t-il regretté. "Très clairement, c'est pas aux policiers d'aller faire du zèle", a-t-il déclaré, mais devant "des cas qui sont outrageusement provocateurs, on ne va pas rien faire non plus (...) on va lui faire comprendre, on va faire de la pédagogie (...) on va essayer de la convaincre", a-t-il expliqué.
Il rappelle que "la simple intervention de la police, par endroits, suffit à semer le trouble. Je n'ose même pas imaginer quand on va s'intéresser à une femme voilée (...) dans un milieu sensible avec des hommes qui sont très fiers, et des policiers qui auront fait le premier pas et ne pourront pas reculer."
"I cannot imagine that this is in the interests of the veiled women"
I believe that's the point of the Sarkozy's government's plan. Women's interests be damned.
While I would love to live in a world where religion has no sway, where women are free to be who they are, I also recognize that the cost of keeping one's face unveiled is to be constantly judged. When my daughter went to India, within 3 days she was keeping her hair and most of her face covered at all times because when she went bare-headed, she was frequently accosted by Indian men who assumed a blonde-haired American girl must be a prostitute.
Many will argue that Muslim women are forced to dress this way by fathers and husbands and brothers. So, if what do we think will happen now? Will those same controlling male relatives force their burqa-wearing female kin out in the streets in order to foment trouble? Or will they force the women to stay in the house at all times, confining them to house arrest so that they are not arrested outside?
Does the state really think it can force a minority of women to suddenly change what their particular sect of religion tells them they must do? And why is the fight over women's wear? Will France suddenly decide that Orthodox Jewish men can no longer cover their heads, and wear heavy beards? Do these not also obscure the face?
Alas, it will never come to that. Somehow, I don't imagine that laws regarding what men will wear are ever going to come to the table.
For women, still, it doesn't matter what we wear. Choice or no choice, we are judged by what we put on our bodies.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
A very controversial subject. We cannot work for women's rights in countries where women are not educated, subject to FGM and treated like chattel. Working from outside we are at a distinct disadvantage. We can work for women's rights in the West.
I am opposed to burquas in the West. It represents a declaration of "I will not be assimilated" into your culture." When I travel in a Muslim country I practice "When in Rome....". I do no insult the local culture by rejecting it to its face.
A burqua makes a woman a shadow...it makes her invisible....inconsequential...a ghost of no substance, ...unfit to be seen.....and less than a man. A burqua puts her in her place.
R
But criminalizing wearing a certain attire is just a very dangerous and slippery slope. Are Sikhs allowed their headgear? Christians their crosses? It is mind boggling.
and I think I don't agree. You and I agree about the ban itself but not on the rationale behind it, apparently. I do not think it was created to put women down. I think it was created to put extremist religion down and to liberate women. I agree that the outcome may be to put women down, but I know too many people in France who are in favor of the ban and I know their reasons.
I don't remember: has France also outlawed the wearing of crucifixes? If the intention is to remove religion from the public square, count me in. But when you declare one religion as the one that cannot show its face in the public streets, then I start wondering what the motives are.
Torrito, I think it's condescending to assume that all women who wear the burqa in public are uneducated. I do believe they are participating in their own oppression, but so are many Americans. I know, apples and oranges, but how many poor white people vote Republican?
Okay. Back on topic. I would like to see a world where religion is practiced at home and not in the street. Lainey--you and I both know what happens, even in western countries, when the church is allowed to impose its will on the civitas.
I'm sorry this is so scattered. I have to leave for work right now and I'm trying to pound this out. I do think this whole subject is just a mess---and while it may very well be that the French government is doing it out of concern, this is the same French gov't that deported the Roma people as if they were cattle.
I don't remember: has France also outlawed the wearing of crucifixes? If the intention is to remove religion from the public square, count me in. But when you declare one religion as the one that cannot show its face in the public streets, then I start wondering what the motives are.
Torrito, I think it's condescending to assume that all women who wear the burqa in public are uneducated. I do believe they are participating in their own oppression, but so are many Americans. I know, apples and oranges, but how many poor white people vote Republican?
Okay. Back on topic. I would like to see a world where religion is practiced at home and not in the street. Lainey--you and I both know what happens, even in western countries, when the church is allowed to impose its will on the civitas.
I'm sorry this is so scattered. I have to leave for work right now and I'm trying to pound this out. I do think this whole subject is just a mess---and while it may very well be that the French government is doing it out of concern, this is the same French gov't that deported the Roma people as if they were cattle.
But doesn't France celebrate carnival? Are there no cultural celebrations that entail the wearing of masks? Will these be banned too? If not, why not?
for some it's too simple: burqa = bad
therefore illegalizing burqas = good.
thanks for going further.
Amen Sister!!!
I simply don't understand it. That's the long and short of it. Why would these women tolerate this shit?
Perhaps because it makes sense to them? They probably wonder how *I* tolerate so much tequila...................but it makes sense to me.
Yeah, I don't have any answers here, except to say that criminalizing religious clothing is not the way to go.
yes. yes. yes. yes.
more important in my view is respecting the customs of the land. i presume you have noticed that western news reporters of the female type cover their heads in moslem lands? they have mastered simple courtesy.
the burka is a symbol of male domination, not a requirement of observant islam. i would be amazed that women did not support this policy of france, if i had not seen occasional examples before of rabid and dysfunctional 'feminism.'
And, quite likely, the men who want wives and daughters covered up do it partly because they know what the streets are like. They know that an uncovered woman is treated like fair game for any kind of low level harassment.
It would be no greater infringement on social liberty to ban harassment on the streets. And then the fathers and brothers would feel the streets were safe for their wives, sisters and daughters. And so would the women.
Wellesley Magazine published an article by a Muslim student explaining why she and other Muslim students had chosen to cover their hair, although they had not done so when they first entered the college. They felt it made their identity as Muslims more obvious, and they identified with their religion.
If I lived in a stricter area, such as the capital, I would be forced to cover my hair to adhere to their cultural and religious beliefs.
When in Western countries, like France, why shouldn't Islamic women (and men in my opinion) have to adhere to the culture?
A great post though and a very balanced arguement. r