A panel of French legislators endorsed banning full facial veils in public last Tuesday, citing the country’s secular tradition and declaring the Muslim burqa as well as similar garments which cover the entire face “contrary to the values of the republic.” Barely a quarter of the panel voted to submit its work to Parliament however. Members of the French Socialist Party boycotted the vote.
Parliament will now have to consider the panel’s work which falls short of demands that the burqa be banned from public entirely. The panel suggested limiting the ban to government offices, hospitals and mass transit. Parliament remains deeply divided over the effectiveness and constitutionality of such a law.
Head scarves and other signs of religious affiliation have been banned from public schools in France since 2004. Growing fear about Muslim fundamentalism and repeated rioting in the suburbs of Paris by youngsters of mostly Middle Eastern descent have led President Nicolas Sarkozy’s right-wing goverment to seek a stricter definition of the country’s secularist foundations.
More than five millions Muslims live in France; the largest Islamic minority of Europe. A tiny fraction of them, less than 2,000 women, wear the burqa. President Sarkozy has said that the veil is “not welcome in France because it is contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman’s dignity.”
The veil is, originally, a symbol of oppression and in several parts of the Middle East, women are still forced to wear it. Strictly speaking, the burqa is no religious garment. There is no mention of it in the Qur’an. In fact, similar clothing existed long before Islam arrived and it was worn as protection against windy conditions in the desert by men and women alike. Today, only in Afghanistan and in nearby regions is the burqa, or chadri as it is known there, worn by women. Under the Taliban, they were forced to. Since their fall from power, some local warlords have continued to impose their laws.
Refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan, therefore, are often abhorred to find Muslim women in Europe voluntarily wearing the veil whereas they now enjoy the freedom to dress in their fashion of choice. That freedom is precisely what should be at the core of any public discussion about this matter. Regardless of whether the burqa or the veil can be interpreted as a sign of devotion and should therefore be protected by religious freedom, the question must be asked whether government ought to dictate which clothing people may and may not wear.
As much as most Westerners might think of the burqa as ridiculous and as much as wearing it might be seen as a voluntary submission to a code that holds women as inferior creatures to be chastised and restrained, it is not the government’s place to protect people against themselves, nor to determine what is best for them. When women are forced to wear the veil, it is a different matter. But when they chose to, no government that prides its republican tradition ought to deprive them of that right.
In this case, it clearly is. There’s is nothing inherently wrong in protecting victims from (in this case) rampant misogyny or in other cases, eg slavery or racism – whether they want protecting or not.
Existing laws are sufficient WHEN RELIGIOUS EXCEPTIONS ARE NO LONGER VALID.
Giving religions a special place is wrong in a secular society.
If I, as an atheist, am required to show my face in a bank then so should ALL non-atheists.
If I. as an atheist, am required to confirm that my ID is actually mine, then so should ALL non-atheists.
If I, as an atheist, am required to show my face at a university examination, then so should ALL non-atheists.
This could go on ….. schools, hospitals …. It is necessary to identify the people dealing with our children, using our facilities.
Islamic supremacy is not yet a fact in Europe. Time that someone told that to the islamists.
There’s nothing wrong with protecting victims, I agree, but, believe it or not, many women wearing the burqa or similar garments here in the West are doing so voluntarily.
True. But on the streets and in the privacy of their own home, people should be free to wear whatever they like, not?
Quite right. I don’t believe it at all. You have a different definition of “choice” which seems to give a wink to misogynistic cultures and religions.
This is a very great wrong done to women and Governments need to act.
How can we determine whether women are forced to or not?
The debate continues to rage in the Netherlands as well and every so many weeks or months, there’s a little protest of burqa-wearing woman, protesting against proposals to ban the veil, or a Muslim woman, explaining on a television show why she wants to wear the thing.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like it. I think women shouldn’t wear a burqa or a similar garment that covers up their entire face and body, especially when it’s traditionally a symbol of oppression. But here we have women who claim, publicly, that it’s their choice to wear a veil. If that’s true, why should the government try to stop them?
Here’s another thing. A friend who works for Women’s Aid says that some Muslim women who have escaped their abusive relationships wear a face covering when out and about for obvious reasons. Banning them from doing so could result in their not be able to go out at all, or risk being found and assaulted or worse. I couldn’t argue with that, although I really find it offensive that there’s restrictions on women’s clothing but not on men’s.
This week in France the burqa is out, next week it’s Louis Vuitton! Seriously, I know it “represents” something you disagree with, but everyone is bound to disagree with one thing or another. Is it illegal to wear Nazi Swastikas? No. Does it represent something really screwed up in our perspective? Yes.
You are asking for more laws like this if you let one slip by. Just wait until it is something you actually agree with. Of course there are some that will believe the government is correct in whatever it decides, but not all of us love Big Brother.
I do appreciate the Atheist sensitivity. People should not receive special treatment because they hold a religious belief.
In the case of an airline. Someone should still have to have their shoes checked for bombs, even if taking off their shoes is against their religion. They can choose to maintain their religious beliefs and fly with a different airline.
If the need exists, someone will try to capitalize on it. It could even spark innovation for identification strategies using on other methods of detection.
However, an Atheist, if they also believe in personal freedom of choice, would oppose any type of restriction whether it be religiously motivated or otherwise.
It is, in Germany.
I trust you would not have reservations if I put up a part of this on my univeristy blog?