Foulards, burkas and the insecurity of French republicanism

Analysis

Debate

Interviews

Opinion

Reviews

Home » Analysis

Foulards, burkas and the insecurity of French republicanism

Submitted by Simon Stiel on Friday, 5 February 20107 Comments

(c) Shira Golding

UKIP has been described as a libertarian party. However, under Lord Pearson, it has taken an authoritarian tone by announcing that it will include a ban on burkas in its manifesto for the General Election. UKIP’s supporters have looked across the Channel for inspiration. Last week, a parliamentary committee in the French Assembly has proposed a partial ban on the burka.

The 32 member committee met for six months and interviewed 200 people. Its 200 page report suggested it should be banned in hospitals, schools, public transport and government offices. Furthermore, it suggested withholding citizenship and residence cards from women who have “radical religious practices”.

“I think this is one step,” said Jacques Myard, deputy for the Yvelines departement. “There is also a huge majority in the mission as in the Parliament to totally ban these kind of clothes. We consider it contrary to the equality of sex, contrary to the dignity of women and this is a Middle Age practice which is unbearable. It is contrary to our social values in this country.”

The report follows a sequence of measures against burkas and other religious symbols in France over the last decade. In 2004, the head garment or hijabs was banned in schools and last year, a woman was refused entry into a public bath east of Paris due to her wearing the burkini, a new swimsuit designed for Muslim women. The proposal has the blessing of President Nicholas Sarkozy who has described the garment as a pernicious object for women and “contrary to the ideals we have of a “woman’s dignity.”

While those advocating a total ban have been disappointed, the current proposal will have the effect of making life impractical for those women who already wear the full veil. The report found that out of the 6 million strong Muslim community, 1,900 women wore the full veil.

It appears the French are going the way of the Swiss in resorting to rhetoric that borders on the hyperbolic. Similar to the four minarets, the garb of these 1,900 women is taken as an existential threat to the values of the republic. Similar to the arguments during the Swiss referendum, a Muslim item is taken as an essential symbol of oppression and separateness.

That view is not taken of the other religious garbs that are worn by women in France. As a comparison, nearly half of France’s Jewish community follows the moderate Orthodox strand. There are religious requirements regarding dress that seeks to encourage modesty in women in the belief that they are sacred and should be spared the attentions of men. For example, wigs and prayer shawls. Catholic women too are encouraged to have conservative attire. French politicians haven’t described those items as a threat to women’s freedom or to the republic.

In the case of the veil, there is vigorous debate amongst Muslims in France and elsewhere about whether the veil is a religious requirement or even desirable . One scholar from a New York Islamic centre said that only the wives of the Prophet Mohammed were compelled to wear the veil; not Muslim women wherever they may live. Others have used more fiery language. The pressure group for Muslim women in France, Neither Submissives nor Whores, has described the veil as “our yellow star.” The Tunisian born imam of Paris, Hassen Chalgoumi, believes that it hinders the participation of women in French society and if they want to wear it, they should go to Saudi Arabia.

Notably, he pointed out that face veils are part of a “tiny minority tradition”. The figures prove him right and it would be better that this debate within Islam continues and those who object to the veil can prevail. The heavy handed intervention of the French state by legislation is simplistic in treating Islam as a monolithic faith. Similar to Swiss Muslims, young French Muslims will start to think that the society they live in regards them as an “other”.

This case is symptomatic of what could be called insecurite in France about republicanism and secularism. In the place where Thomas Jefferson hoped the French Revolution would follow, The United States, there are no calls for a ban on veils in public places and the American Civil Liberties Union has defended in court the right of pupils to wear religious clothing in America’s secular high schools. In 1989, when three Muslim girls arrived at a lycee school outside Paris wearing the hijabs, it was described as a “dissolution of the republican idea.”

The republican idea that Sarkozy and his political allies articulate in their speeches has been described as the traditional form of republicanism. There have been prominent French philosophers who have looked to the United States as an example to emulate. They have argued that the traditional republican ideal of turning peasants into Frenchmen was fine in the nineteenth century with a homogenous population, but has little resonance now when France has a significant immigrant population with treasured social mores from the former colonies. One of those writers, Dominique Schnapper, the daughter of Raymond Aron, has written of a need of what has been called modernising republicanism.

In her 1994 book La Communaute, she writes that for “humiliated people”, “transcendence through citizenship appears as purely formal, having only the function of consecrating the dominance of the other under the guise of universality.” In order to avoid this, individuals “must have the sentiment that their collective dignity is recognised and respected.” At the present moment, French republicanism is presented in a Manichean way; be the ideal Frenchman or not.

The girls in 1989 were never asked why they chose to wear the headscarves and it looks like the current committee did not interview the women it catalogued why they wear they veil. The automatic assumption is that the veil is a challenge to French values. As France wrestles with the legacy of its war in Algeria, it would be pertinent to wonder whether there will be more humiliated people.

The present proposal makes the idea of being a franco-musulman ever more difficult.

Like this post? Like the site? Please take a second to share this article with your friends, it makes a massive difference.

Popularity: 16% [?]

7 Comments »

David Gold said:

To speak in defence of the French, this is a country which takes its principles and ethics very, very seriously. Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité, are the principles of the Republic, and the Burka is a direct contravention of these unbreakable cornerstones of French society. The French rightly see the Burka and these principles as incompatible; faced with a choice, they must stand up for their principles, for otherwise their principles are worthless. In Britain we run the risk of losing our moral compass entirely for we seem completely incapable of standing up for any of our hard won principles of freedom, seemingly preferring to be seen as ‘tolerant.’

The reality is that the Burkha, whilst worn voluntarily by many, is forced upon many others. My neighbour for instance, has been forced to wear this, and whilst she used to talk to me regularly, now she will never talk to you; you don’t even know if it’s her behind the veil. It is a clear barrier. If you believe in liberty, and I mean, if you REALLY believe in liberty, you can’t possibly support the wearing of a Burka in public places, for it is a direct challenge to freedom.

The thing is, some defend it by saying it’s a woman’s right to wear this. Yes, it is. But there are two problems. Both the one mentioned above, and the fact that it is a very real security threat. It is simply nonsense that we could allow this to be worn in public places, such as planes, trains, buses…the risks to society on a security level alone are too great for this to be tolerable. We’ve seen terrorists escaping by hiding underneath a veil, and it is possible that one may hide under this whilst carrying out suicide bombings, which would make it far harder to bring to justice those responsible. So whilst it must be a woman’s right to choose what she wears, it is our right as a society to have specific values and standards of behaviour. In public places, I don’t see why the Burkha should be worn, and if a woman wants to wear one, then fine, but they can’t expect society to tolerate this behaviour. You wouldn’t wonder into a shop wearing a balaclava would you? The same goes for Burkha. We can’t have one rule for one and another for others. Religion is NOT a good enough reason for making exceptions.

And it isn’t comparable to put this alongside Jewish women’s garments. A Jewish religious woman generally won’t show her legs above the knee, and her hair will only have to be covered when she is married. Her face is not covered, and there is no barrier between the dress of a Jewish woman and society, whereas the Burka divides them completely; it is a physical net, casting the individual out of society. A Jewish woman’s facial expressions can be seen, which is absolutely vital to basic communication. So this comparison is way off the mark.

And one final point. You say “The present proposal makes the idea of being a franco-musulman ever more difficult.”

France is a French country, a secular non religious country with separation of religion and state. It is not a Muslim country. It is perfectly possible for one to be both Muslim and French. If someone wishes to wear the Burkha and thus finds being both difficult, that is their freedom of choice, but it is one that they make, and they are the ones cutting themselves off, not the French.

- 5 February 2010 at 10:19 am

Simon Stiel (author) said:

Terrorists have escaped using a wide variety of methods and banning the burqa is a non-starter. The analogy with a balaclava doesn’t stand because it is taken as an uncontroversial security measure that we don’t allow people with motorcyle helmets and balaclavas into shops. The burqa is another matter.

Regarding your anecdote about your neighbour being compelled to wear the veil, by all means bring such cases into the public light. I did point out that within Islam, there is a debate about whether the burqa is part of the faith. Without this law, there is a very good chance that Muslim women will discard the veil through debate; only a minority of French Muslims wear it anyway. By the way, can you tell whether a woman is being oppressed or not by the dress she wears in public?

As for the communication point, we communicate with each other in several ways without facial expressions. You could simply ask a woman to lower her veil if you can’t understand her as Jack Straw does in his constituency office.

My comparison with Judaism and Catholicism stands because the strands of those belief systems believe women should dress in a certain way whether it is a wig or a veil. If it is taken as a principle that religious dress is a form of oppression, it should apply to all faiths. You say it is fine for a woman to wear a burqa “but we can’t expect society to tolerate this form of behaviour.” That’s part of the problem, the Muslim dress is taken as a threat when others are not.

You’re right when you say secularism means separation of church and state. Where you’re wrong is saying it is “non-religious.” In the United States, the public space is vibrantly religious and various forms of religious dress are accepted and defended. You’re assuming that someone who wears the veil wants to cut themselves off from the rest of society. Those who have analysed this issue have said that’s an oversimplifcation.

- 5 February 2010 at 11:31 am

Emma Brooks said:

I find it interesting that someone else is now writing about this too! I already made my point in my own article on the matter and in fact, even then I think we were already debating about whether or not this was an infringement of people’s liberties, and what it meant to be secular. I truly don’t agree with this type of action, regardless of whether or not some women are imposed to wear the veil and possible terrorist attacks. For the terrorism, as Simon points out terrorists have clearly managed to get by in many situations without having to resort to the burqa. It’s up to national security to do their best to protect us and I would think they could do that even with women going around in burqas. As for them being forced to wear the veil…why should we impose ourselves in their traditions? Of course we may not feel it’s right but that’s up to these countries, religions, traditions to decide for themselves over time, not for us to impose. It could almost be compared to colonialism, where the westerners went and imposed their “better ways” on others because for them it was inconceivable to live any other way. Do you see people coming to France and telling the French to stop doing something that for them is a tradition, just because they find it disturbing? Or can you see any other cultures/religions being submitted to this type of request? I doubt it… Please read this too, for a more detailed explanation of my point! http://www.the-vibe.co.uk/2009/07/03/emmabrooks/the-true-meaning-of-secularism/

- 5 February 2010 at 3:12 pm

David Gold said:

Simon, the cutting themselves off is relevant but a sub point, to compliment the main point, being that it is used as a symbol of oppression of women. The thing is you just said that if we apply this to Islam, we must apply this to all faiths. But that just isn’t right. In Judaism, women are if anything, given preferential treatment to men. Men have to wear kippot and tzitzit in orthodox communities whereas women do not, simply because women are considered to need less reminding of their faith. Whereas in Islam, women are treated as being half the worth of men. There’s a big difference here, and what we must campaign against is the use this form of dress to de humanise women, as happened with my neighbour.

And Emma, in Britain like France, women are considered free and equal citizens. Muslims are more than welcome here, but they must recognise that women are equal and deserve the same liberties and freedoms as everyone else. The Burkha is a symbol of the fact that they don’t. I realise that as Simon points out, some women wear this out of choice. That is fine, I don’t have a problem with it being a genuine choice, I just don’t want those women on public transport or in public buildings; because of the security risk. You can’t opt out of traditional security standards expected, such as not covering one’s face, on the basis of religion.

- 5 February 2010 at 3:53 pm

Simon Stiel (author) said:

I’m aware of the strands within faiths that treat women with greater respect than others. You’re treating Islam as a monolith when you say in: “Islam women are treated as being half the worth of men.” There are liberal strands within Islam that say women are equal citizens; British Muslims for Secular Democracy comes into mind. As for the burqa as as security risk idea, there’s nothing to stop a policeman or security guard politely asking a veiled woman to lower it if he feels there’s something suspicious.

- 5 February 2010 at 4:19 pm

Emma said:

David I’m sorry but the security risk think is ridiculous!!!! In that case, you should prohibit people from wearing any type of loose clothing: baggy jeans, jellabas, tracksuit bottoms, hoodies, what else??? You could hide a bomb under any of those! and what about pregnant women? Did you not see that television show on Channel 4 where the woman was in a terrorist camp a carried a fake baby that was actually a bomb?? In the name of security, you could ban almost anything. the point is, you have to faith in the system to thwart security threats, and trust that they’re doing their job properly. stop harassing other people for their choices in the name of security!

- 7 February 2010 at 9:11 pm

David Gold said:

I’m talking specifically about covering one’s face. If someone is wearing one of those burkhas in which you can clearly see one’s face that’s fine, no problem at all, but the difficulty comes where someone is unrecognisable, and that happens when only the eyes are visible. I know that anyone can be a terrorist, but that can only be solved through intelligent profiling, and is a separate issue. But someone’s face being covered bar the eyes is a real security issue.

- 7 February 2010 at 10:40 pm