Against the opulent background of the Chateau at Versailles, French President Nicolas Sarkozy used a rare speech before a joint session of Parliament to call for a ban on the Muslim burqa.
"The burqa is not a sign of religion," he said in the midst of a state-of-the-union-style address. "It is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience.....I want to say officially, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
As a feminist, I want to applaud President Sarkozy's unequivocal statement that the burqa is a symbol of female oppression that has no place in his country. But as with most things in life, it is far more complicated than all that.
The burqa, the niqab and other forms of Muslim womens' dress are part of the practice of purdah, the shielding of women from men outside their families.
From that perspective, the tent-like garments are a source of freedom; they allow women to leave the confines of the home while preserving purdah. It gives them a sense of protection, of not being sexually objectified, of being anonymous.
At the same time, it robs them of their public individuality -- among the most prized qualities in the Western world. And it is a sign of their status as secondary to men.
But here's where it gets even trickier: Religious dress is a sign of fidelity. The observant Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Christian would say they wear certain clothing or wearing their hair in a certain way is a sign not of their subservience to man, but to their God. In most religions, orthodox women are required to dress with extreme modesty.
So how much skin does a religious woman need to show to satisfy secular governments? And if you force people to give up a visible symbols of their faith, are you still supporting freedom of religion? Would it not be a better policy to provide legal protections for those women who are being forced into burqas against their will, but allow those who adopt it as a matter of religious choice to wear it freely?
Finally, does banning the burqa really end the subjugation of Muslim women? Does Sarkozy really think that if the ban is passed, French Muslim men will just say "oh well," and that's that?
For those who follow a strict interpretation of purdah, a far more likely outcome would be the sequestation of many women in their homes. The men of the house would feel that they had no other option. It could also increase the risk of domestic violence in households already stressed by high rates of unemployment and widespread discrimination.
In any case, a burqa ban is not imminent. "There are no statistics on the wearing of the burqa," says Dr Jean Bauberot, a sociologist at the School for Advanced Studies in Paris. He notes that nobody even knows how many women in France wear the burqa. "[For] a calm, rational debate we need knowledge. But in recent days, several people seem to have found the answer before even making an inquiry!"
So an inquiry is coming. The French parliament has announced that they are going to study the issue for the next six months and issue a full report in the winter.
--------------------------
Like it? Rate it, Reddit, Digg it, Stumble it!
Follow me on Twitter @ heather_k
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Max Rivlin-Nadler
Janis Jaquith
Emily Holleman
Dave Cullen
Akopsa
iamsurly
Salon.com
Comments
Sarkozy is right. If you want to live in France in the 21st century, lose the burqa. If you want to live in the 7th century, find your nearest theocracy [from which you fled]. Supporting the oppression of women in the name of tolerance in beneath contempt. As was pointed out yesterday, many, many women die in accidents because of these ridiculous outfits.
I'm hoping that the law will stretch into the rest of society. The French are very aware of the power of religion and it's effects on their way of life. Scientology has practically been outlawed as a cult and there are laws in place to prevent the spread of fringe groups. France is a republic and the French take a great deal of pride in the fact that they are not a society dominated by religion. The moment the French get even an inkling a religion is trying to influence their politics they start sharpening the blades on their guillotines. They fought a revolution to get rid of the influence of religion on the everyday lives of people.
I guess it all depends on how much money you have.. what else is new?
However (and you knew THAT was coming) think about the broader issue here.
You essentially having government seeking to coerce its citizenry about their dress code. This is not basic nudity laws. This is akin to the kerfuffle we have in this country about public schools banning certain T-shirts or whatever else.
This would be like government mandating dresses no higher than X inches about the knee.
It is a huge infringement on individual liberties. And the true challenge to one's convictions is when one has to fight like hell to protect the right of someone else to do something that one finds utterly deplorable.
You want to wear a Burqa? Wear a Burqa. Steel your resolve, ladies. Stare'em down. They'll surrender soon enough.
@Tara is correct: the Qu'ran does not specifically mention the burqa. But both the Qu'ran and the Hadith (narratives relating to the life and teachings of Mohammed) do deal extensively with how to fulfill purdah. (Purdah is much older than Islam -- it apparently arose in Assyrian society around 300 BCE.) The burqa is just one of the physical manifestations of that philosophy.
So getting rid of the burqa isn't really all that helpful in releasing women from the source of their subjugation. You really need to find a theologically-sound way to erode the strength of purdah, and then hammer at that for several generations.
In terms of the 21st Century/7th Century problem: we're talking about orthodox/fundamentalist religion here, and orthodoxy doesn't follow chronological time. That is to say, it is based on the idea that they are following timeless religious principles. (Not just in Islam, but Orthodox Jews, Christians, Buddhists and so forth.) They live in the 21sth Century, but strive to be untouched by it.
the situation in france is different, now. purdah is not necessary.
society sets clothing standards, from everyone in mao-suits to anything does if you just cover pubic area and nipples. once you allow the regulation of clothing, sarkozy, with the support of parliament, is within his power to say: "no burkas."
should women object? no. it is possible to dress modestly without making an overt religious statement. strident insistence on religious identification is political in purpose, not personal modesty.
It's also a problem when we think of a poor woman or girl who has been drugged and strapped up with explosives...
I wish someone would tell us about France and the conditions for Muslim women and girls there. I read an article years ago that was chilling.
Enslavement to religious principles, enslavement to cultural heritage, enslavement to patriarchal attitudes, enslavement to local dress codes, enslavement is enslavement.
To suggest that exchanging one form of slavery for another isn't still enslavement is the foulest of hypocrisies.
"society sets clothing standards, from everyone in mao-suits to anything does if you just cover pubic area and nipples."
Yes, and the former is an example of a totalitarian society. Is that what you're suggesting for France?
Let's think this through, people. What would a ban mean? How would it be punished? Deportation?
This is France - love it or leave it! I thought only Americans were that narrow-minded.
I'm no fan of the burqa, but I believe that the best way to modernize people is to surround them with modernity, not force them under some kind of legal threat to change their old ways.
vonnia is correct.
that about sums it up for me
Most American and British commentators I've read have unsurprisingly approached the issue strictly from a personal rights perspective, as Heather has above. But it's not just a question of personal rights. On the one hand you have laïcité, a particular French constitutional concept roughly translated as a 'secular society'. Americans put a premium on religious freedom at all costs; but in France religion has always had an uneasy status. (For many complicated reasons, none of which I'd like to touch here.) Whatever Monsieur Sarkozy says, laïcité is surely not too far from his mind here. Of course the French respect everyone's right to worship as they wish, within obvious bounds, and laïcité is not a restriction against religion per se. But laïcité has a role in certain contexts: So it is that the burqa and other forms of 'ostentatious' religious garb are banned in French schools.
Then you have the larger societal issues which M. Sarkozy also addressed: social cohesion, integration and the debate about immigration. It is no accident that M. Sarkozy couched the burqa question with precisely those issues. And he was honest about France's failures on that front.
Personally, I've always been quite off-put by the full-body/full-face veil. Whenever I see women in them around London I genuinely find myself grimmacing just that bit much. (Which is ironic, that a veil meant to shield women from the eyes of men ends up attracting them all the more, if not in quite the original sense...) I consider myself a cosmopolitan liberal (I hail from America originally) and I don't approach the issue from a complete ignorance of the multifaceted nature of Islamic culture(s). But there is a genuine sense of unease that I believe is quite normal when we encounter individuals with whom we cannot communicate fully--communication being as much a bodily function as it is a vocal one. And then there are the obvious problems with its symbolism.
That said, I'm not sure banning them here or elsewhere is really the answer to what I do think is a problematic situation.
But neither am I entirely sure that banning burqa would be the wrong way forward either...
NB Perhaps it should also be mentioned the French Parliament will be looking into the issue quite methodically. As per usual the French president couldn't help trying to cut off the debate ahead of time; it was thought originally that he would only support a forthcoming parliamenterary enquiry, instead of laying out his desired conclusion. I don't see what harm is done in subjecting this peculiar phenomenon--and it is peculiar given the circumstances--to a reasoned analysis.
I question orthodox muslims who choose to live in France, why would you move to this very secular country and insist on carrying on in a very public way, with such religious orthodoxy in the mainstream. I would not dream of going to the UAR and parading down the street in bikini, indeed I would be arrested and accused of being ignorant and intolerant. So how is this any different in the reverse example? It is a two way street. If I am to be sensitive of Arab culture by dressing in a certain manner when living or visiting there how should it be different for Arabs living and/or visiting Western culture?
This is akin to the kerfuffle we have in this country about public schools banning certain T-shirts or whatever else.
Well yes, and the French have already done that: by banning the headscarf (and other religious clothing items) from schools. And you know what? It went down smoothly, and appears to be supported by most Muslims in France. Again, it's not really just a question of wearing the 'wrong' kind of clothing; nor are the French jumping blindly into this decision, as they've called an enquiry.
...coincidentally I found Barack Obama's intervention on this issue during the D-Day events in Normandy highly untoward. He didn't have a right to wade into a very contentious domestic political debate.
@ Heather Michon:
(Purdah is much older than Islam -- it apparently arose in Assyrian society around 300 BCE.)
Quite right, but this is also why it isn't just a religious issue. Obviously there is a particular strain of immigrant or 1st-generation girls who are adopting burqa. I agree that a longer-term solution would be theologically grounded; but that is not an argument for the (secular) French State to take up, that is for local communities.
@ vonnia:
Equating a debate on the possible ban of a particular clothing item is disproportionate, and therefore unhelpful.
Enslavement to religious principles, enslavement to cultural heritage, enslavement to patriarchal attitudes, enslavement to local dress codes, enslavement is enslavement.
And, curiously, none of those are the justifications given by the French government for a possible ban...
@ Jeanette D.:
This is France - love it or leave it! I thought only Americans were that narrow-minded...I believe that the best way to modernize people is to surround them with modernity, not force them under some kind of legal threat to change their old ways.
But it's not as narrow-minded as you make it out to be; the parliamentarians are going to INVESTIGATE the reasons for the curious uptake of the burqa among young French women, many of whose mothers actually stopped use of the burqa as a symbol of liberation upon moving to France. (There are many examples all over Europe of prominent Muslim females taking this new-found enthusiasm for burqa to task precisely on these grounds.)
Nor is it as simple as confronting 'simpletons and their quaint ways' with modernity. On the contrary, it's possible the burqa is a reaction AGAINST the perceived flaws of that modernity. If it weren't so why would YOUNGER women be taking up the burqa their mothers shed before them? Again, there's an underlying question of integration and social cohesion at play here; it's not only a women's rights/we-can-wear-what-we-want sort-of debate.
I do think that women should be able to wear a head covering to make the transition. Also there are many things you can wear to cover yourself up, it's not either burqa or mini skirts, there are long skirts and long sleeved shirts.
Sarkozy is right.
Perhaps that is the way of youth, eh? In this country, back in the late 60's and early 70's, there were thousands and thousands of young people who went "back to the land", much to the consternation of their parents, who had raised them with all the modern conveniences. Many a mother couldn't believe that her daughter would actually want to hang clothes outside to dry, cook from scratch, or breastfeed. (Not an equivalent situation, but I wonder if a similar dynamic is at work.)
We cannot force a society to become modern. All that happens is that these societies fall back upon themselves and close themselves off from the surrounding world, thus allowing additional abuse to continue. We can, however, give women the tools, knowledge and confidence to exist in the modern world.
You do make a good point about a devout Muslim woman wanting to honor her God by dressing modestly. If it truly IS her choice out of true religious dedication rather than a state-mandated uniform, I'm not going to argue with her. But with that said, it seems to me a woman can dress modestly and according to her personal faith without having to wear a pup tent in public. Having a choice matters incredibly in this decision.
If she does have to wear it according to the law of her country, then I've got all kinds of problems with the Burqa. I have even more problems with men who would stone a woman or girl to death for showing an inch of bare skin. I also have all kinds of problems with men such as members of the Taliban who will hardly even acknowledge women as fellow human beings. It's medieval and worse. I have all kinds of respect for the women of Afghanistan for protesting their treatment at great personal danger.
See paragraph one of this comment.
--== Cougarster.Com ==--
It's where cougars and younger men can meet(Cougar is the slang for woman who is mature, experienced and want to date with a younger man).............
The burqa is not cultural, so to say that it targets one culture is false. The French government has banned the practice in public schools since 2004, so it isn't just a Sarkozy thing.
The burqa is discriminatory. Only women are required to wear it.
1. Stella is absolutely correct. There is no epidemic of burqa-wearing sweeping France. This is just plain old anti-arab rabble rousing for political gains/ distraction.
2. "If you don't like French culture then don't go there." Well- for most of these african immigrants, they didn't 'go' to France. France came to their home countries and colonized and enslaved them for generations. That's how they got french'ed. If the french don't like people in funny clothes then they shouldn't have invaded and colonized them.
"The men of the house would feel that they had no other option. " -Ah, here is the crux. Why do men get a say in whether women can leave their homes? The burqua is clearly first and foremost a symbol of female subjugation to male whim, and it has little if anything to do with whether those males are religious are not. The religious argument for the covering is a classic red herring, an artfully constructed device to get the prison to cling to her chains and call them good.
I applaud Sarkozy. It is time for men who do not cherish the false idea of their inborn superiority to speak out against the subjugation of women. I don't think France should make it illegal - I think all revolutions have to happen within. But I think speaking out against it loudly and forcefully is the right way to go about dismantling this restrictive, utterly sexism-based custom.