The great unveiling unravels French secularism
There are lots of responses today to the French ban on – no not burkas – but the covering of faces. The ban comes into force today and has already led to women being arrested in Europe at a public protest because of what they are wearing. With little political or social pressure to repeat any such policy in the UK, the government here has stated that there is no prospect of replicating the ban on this side of la Manche. The French ban is estimated to effect only a few thousand Muslim women throughout the republic… and also skiers, people at Halloween costume parties, and possibly bearded men, says Viv Groskop, challenging what she sees as a threat to European freedoms.
For Sarkozy and his friends, the burqa is no joke. It’s dangerous and illegal. Women wearing the burqa and the niqab (the more common facial veil) will not exactly be arrested on sight. But if they wear a veil over their face in a public place, anyone can ask them to uncover their face – or leave. Not quite stop and search. Just stop and unmask. If a woman refuses to co-operate, citizens are advised to call the police. The fine is €150.
Does this sound a little unfriendly to you? If so, be very worried. Because this trend is spreading. A ban is already in operation in Belgium and under discussion in Canada, Denmark and Spain. It is likely to become law in the Netherlands this year or next. There have been calls in Sweden for the niqab to be prohibited in schools and universities.
A de facto ban already exists in Italy (where a 1975 antiterrorism law forbids the covering of the face) and Berlusconi’s party has drafted a new, more specific ruling. Last year, a Tunisian woman was fined €500 for wearing a burqa in Italy’s Piedmont region.
… [T]he women’s rights defence is a ridiculous excuse for something very close to racism. As Ed Balls, then schools secretary, put it last year: “I wouldn’t want to be part of a religion myself where we said to women and girls, ‘You have to wear a veil.’ But I also would not want to be in the kind of society where people were told how to dress when they walked down the streets.”
… If the French were not so cowardly – and were being transparent about what they are doing – they would actually outlaw the burqa and the niqab by name, instead of coyly banning “the covering of the face”. Presumably, it’s now against the law in France to attend a fancy dress party dressed as Zorro or Catwoman. Because if there’s one rule for one set of people who cover their face, that same rule should surely apply to anyone whose face is not immediately visible. Non?
Indeed, if the French are going to do this, let’s hope they do it properly.Le Figaro has already expressed distress that it is technically against the law to wear a ski mask in a public place. Bad news for the black run at Val d’Isère. Aren’t there some rampant beards that might sprout dangerously in the direction of facial dissimulation?
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/10/france-burqa-niqab-ban
John Lichfield in the Independent meets Parisian women protesting the ban.
The great unveiling unravels French secularism,Mariam says she wears the niqab, or full-length Islamic veil, by “personal choice” and for “religious conviction”. From today, if she leaves her home in the Paris suburbs she will have to expose her face in public for the first time in five years.
“I have decided to obey the law but to leave home as little as possible,” the 32-year-old said. “I accept that the law of France is the law, even though I think that it is foolish and wrong to force me to go against my beliefs.”
Most French Muslim women who wear the full-face veil are expected to bow, like Mariam, to the so-called “burka ban” which takes effect today.
But pockets of fierce opposition remain. On Saturday, police arrested 61 people who tried to hold an unauthorised demonstration against the ban in Paris. They included 20 women wearing the niqab – the Salafist or Saudi full-length veil with only a narrow eye opening.
Among those protesting or hoping to protest were a handful of Islamist extremists from Britain and Belgium, including Anjem Choudary, once a member of the banned group Islam4UK and a follower of the extremist preacher, Omar Bakri. Mr Choudary was arrested at the French border.
Their involvement was a political windfall for President Nicolas Sarkozy and a source of frustration for moderate Muslim leaders in France who have been trying to distance themselves both from the burka and the burka ban.
Although a Humanist of long standing, I do not feel that the French are wrong in requring Muslim women to show their faces. As I understand it from Muslim friends, there is no religious requirement for women to conceal their faces; it is a cultural habit of Turkish origin. Personally, I find it offensive. I think it is often forgotten that we do have a law in this country restricting dress; if I take all my clothes off in the street, I shall be arrested, or, more likely, sent for mental health checks. Nudity harms no one, but it does offend so we have a law against it.
All rights imply corresponding obligations. The right of free speech, for example, carries the obligation not to slander others, or create false panics, or provoke racist attacks, etc. There is no absolute right of free speech which can ignore those limitations.
The right to move and act freely in the public also implies obligations. We have laws to regulate how people behave in public. As MF Lofmark has pointed out in the post above, public nudity is not allowed. Likewise, one is not permitted to loiter with intent or to create a public nuisance. Whether people should be permitted to hide their faces in public is a valid issue for debate. The balaclavas worn by terrorists, the hoods of muggers and the masks worn by thieves provide examples against any right to hide the face because they were all used as cover against identification. Anonymity suits wrong-doers. There is no point in having security cameras if people can wear masks or hoods, etc, which hide their identity. So there is a good case for legislating against the wearing of masks, hoods, balaclavas, niqabs and burqas in public places.
Should religious beliefs be a granted special concession in this respect? No. Our laws should be rational and fair and they should be impartial. In Britain we have had centuries of struggle to bring to an end special concessions in law for religious beliefs. See the history of ‘benefit of clergy’ for details of that struggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy There is no reason to start back-tracking on those hard-won secular principles, just to please a strand of Islam.
Although I was annoyed by the number of humanists who responded in a knee-jerk fashion to the banning of this item of clothing it seems to be the case that more and more of us are reading a little further into this and seeing why this ban is so important and why it is morally correct to support it, and even promote it in the UK. While this non-Islamic way of covering faces seems harmless enough on the face of it (so to speak), the covering of someone’s face has been shown repeatedly to lead to a dehumanising of the wearer, and this leads to them being treated less well than those whose face is seen. Let’s not be afraid to say what the consequences are here, this clothing leads to higher rates of domestic violence, rape, and other crimes against women, not just against those who wear this item of clothing, but for women who encounter people who are raised in this environment because this is how they have been raised to treat women, who then tend to target those women who do not wear the veil as they are regarded as ‘whores’.
Unfortunately this is not the end of it, as those areas of the UK where this item of clothing is commonplace can attest, when the veil is increasingly in the majority those who do not wear the veil are subjected to vicious unprovoked attacks, ranging from public beatings to being set on fire to having acid thrown in your face. It becomes a crime to not wear the veil, and the penalties are far more severe than a mere fine.
Lastly many people whose lives are dominated by aggressive tyrants claim that they choose to do these things of their own free will. Just watch some interviews from North Korea for a prime example. Those people who live in these situations are led to believe that their abuser is above the law and that they will immediately know if their will is disobeyed. While some women may choose to wear the veil purely voluntarily, the large number of testimonies online from those who escaped such an environment and now do not wear the veil demonstrate that there are many women forced to wear the veil as the slaves of the past wore manacles, to serve as a constant reminder that they are owned.