Sarkozy is Not Welcome in a Burka

Monsieur Sarkozy, would you like to try this lovely Burka on for me?

No?

Very well, that is your personal determination of course.

But if I may ask, how would you feel if France forced you to wear it against your will?

Disempowered?

Humiliated?

Now, for a French woman who freely chooses to wear a Burka, will France forcing her to take it off cause her to feel that way? How is it any different?

It is a matter of principle, mon cher président. That is of course if we are interested in that sort of detail as opposed to broad cultural absolutism.

(Versailles, France) French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced Monday that the Burka and the Niqab are not welcome in France. Interdit!

(The Burka is a mesh face covering worn by small minority of Muslim women, most notably in Afghanistan. The Niqab is a similar covering that has an opening for the eyes.)

Now, I am not one to advocate for either the Burka or the Niqab. As a Muslim, I don't believe that my religion sanctions them; from a more personal standpoint, I happen to dislike them.

Let me divulge my religious perspective first:

Like the majority of Muslims worldwide, I adopt the common scholarly ruling that interprets the concept of Hijab to mean covering the head and body modestly, but not the face. (A minority of scholars do sanction the Niqab. Fewer still, believe that the head need not be covered at all.)

Second, allow me to explain why I personally do not agree with the Niqab and Burka (let me stress, this is my personal opinion):

The way I see it, the Niqab and Burka carry plenty of liabilities but no benefits. For me, the only potentially compelling benefit would be fulfilling one's religious obligation, but since I do not subscribe to the suggestion that they are religiously mandated, then there goes the only benefit.

Now I am left with only the liabilities.

Simply put, concealing one's face in a modern urban environment -- as opposed to the desert for example -- strikes me as patently impractical on a host of levels. It severely impedes a woman's ability to function in daily transactional situations; renders basic social interaction paralyzing for others; brings more, not less, unwanted attention to the woman; and in truth, raises questions about public security.

Now let me be clear here, I am not suggesting that Muslim women who choose to wear the Niqab represent an intrinsic security threat. If anything, there is probably a negative correlation between women who wear the Niqab and their likelihood of breaching laws as compared to the average person.

What I am saying is that walking around incognito could undermine society's efforts, which primarily depend on face recognition, to enact security regulations. At the very least, this is a valid concern and a debate worth having.

Interestingly, Mr. Sarkozy's rationale for the ban is not centered on public security concerns, but on what the burka symbolizes to him. "The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," he opined.

Now in many cases, this is so. It is no secret, for example, that the overzealous Taliban enforce the burka on Afghan women with little consideration for their input. But let's not confuse matters; the evil here is not the burka per se. It is the usurpation of a woman's personal freedom (Sarkozy had better duck here). That is what we ought to be concerned with, and that's precisely why I oppose the ban.

Moreover, contrary to what many in the West are loathe to accept, some women actually choose the burka or the Niqab for themselves.

A few years ago while vacationing in Egypt, I was visiting a cousin when I was rather taken aback to see her greet me at her front door in a Niqab.

It turns out I was not the only one baffled by her sudden metamorphosis. All of my relatives, including women who cover their hair, were equally stunned at first.

(Readers should note that occurrences of the Burka or the Niqab are hardly commonplace even within Muslim-majority countries -- with the notable exception of conservative societies like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan).

Now most Westerners are preconditioned to believe that if they see a Niqab-clad woman walking down the street, she is doubtless the product of oppression by some overprotective male family member.

But this is not the case for my cousin. Her husband, though noted for his piety, had no bearing on her decision; in fact, he tried to talk her out of it. But she stood firm arguing that the Niqab helped her minimize materialistic distractions and focus more "serenely" on the spiritual endeavors she had committed her life to, including her charitable work for the poor. (She happens to be an educated, self-made social entrepreneur.)

For her, the Niqab was a lifestyle choice that made her happy, and it was of her own choosing.

Hey, if it works for her, then all the more power to her.

You see, while I do not believe in the Niqab and the Burka, I do believe in this one other thing I picked up in my high school American history class. I believe in the right of others to disagree with me. Moreover, I believe in their right to practice what they believe so long as it is not harmful to others.

That's where Mr. Sarkozy and I part ways.

While we both disagree with the Burka, he wishes to enforce his perspective on others, I don't.

I believe every woman is entitled to the freedom to make personal choices for herself. Of course, this also means the choice not to wear a Burka or Niqab in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, as it is to wear them in France or the UK.

As such, for me, it is not the Burka and the Niqab that are so much at stake if France were to enact a ban on them; it is the versatility of French democracy.

Is there a real difference between France or Turkey forcing women to remove their veils, and Saudi Arabia or Iran forcing them to keep them on? Well there is one baffling difference: we hypocritically label the former as liberation, and the latter as oppression. That is a double standard that sacrifices the integrity of the principle for the benefit of arbitrary cultural determinism.

Should the state be mandated to tell citizens what they can or cannot wear? That is the real question.

At the end of the day, truly democratic states ought to look at the Niqab and the Burka, not from a geopolitical standpoint, but from a personal freedoms standpoint, as just another fashion choice.

There are many fashion statements out there that invariably offend someone: facial tattoos, dyed Mohawks, exposed cleavage, revealing miniskirts, 50 piercings on a lip, etc.

If you don't like something, the answer is simple, don't do it to yourself. But if someone else makes a different choice, modern democratic society's reaction ought to be: Laissez-Faire (to use a French phrase meaning to each his own).

So Mr. Sarkozy, just don't wear a Burka, and if Carla Bruni wishes to wear a Niqab, talk her out of it. If she insists, then part ways if you wish. But mon dieu, do not undermine the freedom of others to choose for themselves.

And if you do, then at least get down from your high chair of French sophistiqué, and stand in that corner over there next to the Taliban; because in trying too hard not to be like them, you are ironically becoming them.

Comments

[SanTang]

As Amber15 said :

1- Sarkozy "is outlawing a subservient practice that is laden with fear and violence against women."

2- Let's "question the impact this repressive practice has had on her consciousness..."

So, when everyone agrees that everyone can freely make its own decision, if someone thinks that the "Niqab helped her minimize materialistic distractions and focus more "serenely" on the spiritual endeavors she had committed her life to, including her charitable work for the poor", that is great with me. Except I do not see why she needs to replenish that serenity when going to the bank or when shopping for a purse or shoes or when she is taking the metro to get to work. I wonder how much she needs to "minimize materialistic distractions" when she goes out to talk with her customers or suppliers.

It makes me wonder, unless this thing about peer pressure... or maybe the social repressive fator...???

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Amber,

I appreciate the thought and time put in your argument but I have to tell you that it is eerily reminiscent of the colonial mindset that told people in the colonies, you must do this or that even if you wish otherwise because you do not know what is good for you, but we do. And that if you do think it is good for you, then that is only because you have been brainwashed and so we will force you to do what we think is good for you "for your own protection and well being" (as they would always be sure to add). That is why many of the colonies were referred to as "protectorates."

Consequently, your argument is built on a rather condescending assumption, that there exists NO chance that a woman who dons the Niqab may in fact be smarter than you, more educated than you, and have had thought through the exact same line of logic you have put forth, yet made a different determination in the final analysis that saw her freely and willingly choosing the Niqab not as a result of subliminal oppression or some subconscious psychosis, but for personal spiritual or religious reasons that make sense to her intelligent, educated mind but not to your intelligent, educated mind.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Now, in order to protect citizens from the self-righteous overreach of the zealous other, the wise founding fathers knew they had to work off of a "set standard" if they are ever to put forth the most robust, free and fair society in history. That standard became "personal freedoms" which stated that you can choose as you wish for yourself so long as it is non-violent and non harmful to others.

Once you rock that standard, you lose the foundation of the fair and the free, and you begin a slow descent to the whimsical systems you have in other nations. Without that standard beating the test of time, there will be someone out there for every issue out there every day of the week who is willing to provide an exegesis no shorter than yours to get something banned.

[thelindyhopper]

"Moreover, I believe in their right to practice what they believe so long as it is not harmful to others."

In 1905, the Supreme Court of US declared unconstitutional the New York state statute imposing a limit on hours of work. The court argued that the 'liberty' in the 14th Amendment extended to a libert to contract. The court wrote, "Under that provision no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment..."

Today, would you say that the average American worker is deprived of his right to be worked as many hours as their employers want them to be?

Also, you mention, your cousin argued 'that the Niqab helped her minimize materialistic distractions and focus more "serenely" on the spiritual endeavors she had committed her life to'. Now, why is it that you should be exposed to materialistic distractions, should you not wear the Niqab? Is it really her distractions or the men's who are looking at her? Gioia Diliberto has a blog on this issue, too, citing a Ms. Merji, who switched happily to covering up mentioning that beforehand men didn't listen to what she said, but now they do.

It doesn't sound to me that these stories are anecdotal for women's spiritual liberties, but rather, giving up on fighting with inappropriate male behavior.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

"Today, would you say that the average American worker is deprived of his right to BE worked as many hours as THEIR EMPLOYERS want them TO BE?" (emphasis added)

Why did you flip the protagonists of the argument on us.

Your analogy is off. The right analogy would be:

"Today, would you say that the average American worker is deprived of his right to work as many hours as THEY want?"

And the answer would be no, because no law forces an American worker to have to work just 40 hours if they willingly and freely want to work 80 or 100 hours, once again proving my point.

I have stated repeatedly, that if men (the employers in your analogy) want women in Burka's, that this is not the same as if women (the employees in your analogy) wanted of their own free choice to wear it. And that only in the latter case do I accept (though still not agree with) it, as such, a ban would usurp that personal choice from those who wish to make it.

[amber15]

your missing the point entirely - Sarkozy is NOT outlawing women's freedom - he is outlawing a subservient practice that is laden with fear and violence against women. There was a time when beating women used to be legal and there are women who would agree after being beaten and succumbing to this way of thinking, believe it to be a good thing. Sarkozy sees this behavior as an afront against women and is thus protecting women from the inherent loss of freedom this practice represents. To say that women are "freely" choosing this practice speaks much about the brainwashing the islamic religion and society has spent years creating to ensure this practice remains.

If a woman is "freely" choosing this behavior I would question the impact this repressive practice has had on her consciousness and work towards freeing her thinking process from feeling this controlling choice, much like a woman who thinks she must be beaten to have value.

[amber15]

Pt 4:
Especially given the added dimension that the consciousness of aggression and violence against women who actually do attempt to break this violent male controlling practice stills thrives in most islamic countries either sanctioned by their governments or as peer pressure from within the males of these societies.
We only have to look at the recent Afghanistan tv show where a women who participated in the show as a singer "slightly" danced while she was singing and was threatened to be murdered on the spot.

And I would like to add that I have traveled extensively in the middle east and have had many conversations with women about this very subject in which 100% of these women have relayed or exhibited a fear stemming from not adhering to these controlling dress code practices. So I beg you to again ask your question with deep contemplation about the idea that this woman is "freely" choosing to carry on a fear laden, male dominated, controlling practice of ensuring her presence remains non-existence to others.

[amber15]

Pt 3:
So, this practice is based strongly on a fear factor, well documented across the islamic regions that if and when women attempt to break this barrier of free thinking and behavior (as you have stated you support) by choosing to not wear a symbolic robe of imprisonment and male control, then there are grave consequences of loss of financial freedom, loss of ones family and children as well as the loss of ones life by murder, imprisonment or violent acts by other male (or females ingrained in fear) members of this islamic society. So given that this practice is now inexplicably linked in tandem to all of these aggressively, violent repercussions, in fact, control and sanctioned violence against women IS the very core and basis of this practice and the sole reason this practice exists, do you really think this pervasive consciousness has not left a serious mark on the consciousness of islamic women across the board in every islamic society? And do you really think that women, after virtually hundreds of years of being treated as valueless, unthinking, non-existent species, that this way of thinking and behavior is going to erase it's imprint and mark on the consciousness of women across the islamic culture once they enter a society where this treatment and expectation of dress code is no longer required?

[amber15]

PT 2:
And to make it more palatable to the masses, the excuse of religion has been intertwined with this practice to add the guilt trigger to women using peer pressure (by both men and women) to ensure that society will be outraged if women do not succumb to this practice of not following the religious practices they must adhere to all in the name of a "god" whom they attribute this behavior for, again all to ensure that males can continue to over power the female consciousness and behavior.

We see this imposition and use of this dress code ONLY in repressive male-dominated Islamic religious societies. So again this practice has a well documented history of originating and existing ONLY for the purpose of controlling women's thoughts, behaviors and quality of life for the use of males. It is males who have originated this idea. It is males who relentlessly enforce it thru the use of intimidation, violence and threats and it is males who apply the peer pressure to other males and females to ensure this controlling practice never loses it's stronghold.

[amber15]

I am posting a 4 part comment to your article:
I am a supporter of democracy and freedom for all people but I actually disagree with your opinion as stated. Yes, it seems we all agree that women forced to wear these subservient clothes (and it seems that the majority feel this is an accurate account) should not be forced to wear them and those choosing to wear them in the name of religion should be allowed to wear subservient clothes but this I feel is where you fall short in your thinking.

Yes, you've linked us to an account of a woman who states she is freely choosing this form of expression but is she really freely choosing?

And here is where I ask that you move outside of your tightly held comfort zone to entertain another dimension.

This practice of covering a woman (usually in black) is designed to make a woman's presence non-existent, used by a male dominated society as a control mechanism to ensure that the free thinking consciousness and power of women remains untouchable not only to society but to the women themselves, in addition to ensuring the male dominated society and practices can continue unchallenged by a woman who may disagree with a males thinking or behavior.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Several people here keep missing the point surrounding my objection to a ban, and keep on going about the oppression of women by patriarchal Muslim societies which I have stated that I oppose. So let me make this simple:

Should a woman who wishes to wear a Niqab, of her own free will, be banned from by the State from seeing her personal choice through? Yes or no? That's a key question inherent in the ban. Answer it. If your answer is yes, say so clearly and boldly, but don't conveniently ignore the question.

[AstridD]

Yes, she should be banned from it.

The niqab is an advertisement for rape without consequences, except of course, for the victim. By its very nature this oppressive garb implies that any relationsh­ips/intera­ction between the genders conducted in the public square must be one of base, uncontrollable sexual lust. The onus is not on males, but on females, to avoid assault by enshrouding themselves and rendering themselves erased of face. Although historically the West has embraced this misogyny, women have, and continue to fight hard against this inequality of personal responsibility and the misogyny it inspires. As a woman I find it offensive that others of my gender are walking endorsements for such a despicable philosophy. It sends a terrible message to the males with whom we share our society and should be shunned, in the same way that other bigoted or racist advertisements are banned.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Remember my question was not about those who are forced into this or anything else for that matter, there is no debate about those cases, as I have repeatedly stated. My question was about those women who choose freely. Withnin that context, your answer is frightening.

You seem incapable of thinking outside of your own comfort zone wherein you can afford someone the right to think and choose differently than you for themselves and not necessarily be oppressed. Like you I disagree with the Burka and Niqab, unlike you, I acknowledge that some women out there may choose to wear them for peronal spiritual reasons and not as an advertisement for rape (are you serious? that's what some say about women who chose to wear miniskirts, it's an argument that drives feminists wild).

Check out this Niqabi woman's own account and consider how off you are in her case and the many others like her:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6584782.ece

[overdown]

The fact that your cousin chooses to wear a niqab is anecdotal and blatantly dismisses the well documented oppression of muslim women (honor killings, etc.), behavior which is completely at odds with western social norms. But apart from that, covering the face in public becomes a security issue in densely populated urban environments. Is it not patronizing to assume that a muslim woman would never ever rob a bank? What about male criminals dressed in a niqab? It is silly to pretend that we have total freedom to wear or not wear what we like in public, nudity not being allowed for example. Interestingly, ten centuries or so ago western European women also covered themselves from head to toe because of religious and social edicts, and incidentally had to tolerate complete lack of most other freedoms. How many western women would like to go back to those days?

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Hardly anecdotal: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6584782.ece

[LiberalLee]

Just can't seem to find where Mr. Rehab's cousin 'blatantly dismisses the well-documented oppression...' blah,blah blah.
You are the one blatantly pinning YOUR conceptions on his cousin's actions.
Presumptuous at best.
As for how many western women would like a return to 'those days'; my guess would be few.
You miss Mr. Rehab's point however, that he too wishes the choice to be the woman's.
Please read a little more carefully before assigning values to others' statements. It is often such irrepsonsible interpretations that start strife and misery to begin with.

[riff4u]

A good article. But no matter what is written there are those who think they must imposed their will on others....be it the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Sarkzoys' France. Each wishes to eliminate free choice. If a woman is forced to wear a burqa in France then it is up to religious leaders and social workers to deal with the problem. If she chooses to wear it then it is nobobys business but hers. A burqa gestapo is not needed.

[mat3]

Anybody who voluntarily wears this thing believing their religion requires them to probably also believes all non muslims are infidels and sharia law instead of democracy is the way to go. Take it off or get out. If you want to live in the 16th century there are plenty of places around the world where you can freely move to.

[Murtada Shah]

'probably' - wouldn't that be an assumption?

all the women I know who wear burqa don't think that at all. but again, the women I know wearing burqa are university educated.

Why don't we let the burqa-clad women decide for themselves? Do we have evidence that they are being oppressed, or is that an assumption?

[batguano]

A thoughtful well written piece that makes for interesting reading, and presents many challenges to whatever views an individual may hold on this subject, or religious beliefs in general. I will hold specific comments in abeyance until I have read this several times and thought its many aspects over.

The real issue for me is the total separation between "church", or religion, and state. I believe that whatever a person may hold true about religion, or its absence, those beliefs and what they may dictate, vis a vis public rules and policy, should be completely separate. If a person or state cannot remove their religious beliefs and the dogma of old men from public policy making and decisions, there is always a problem IMO. In any multi-cultural or free society, the only answer is removal of religious dogma from the public sphere. How that premise relates to this essay and wearing the burka in France or elsewhere is cause for thought and does not have an easy answer. Morality is not dependent on "religious" belief or membership in any organized religion. The basic right of women, or anyone for that matter, to choose a personal course free from religious dogma, should not be infringed or forced for any reason. Secular society must not be infringed by "religious" psychosis either, as is sadly all too prevelant in our world at this time.

[Ahmed Rehab]

I welcome your ponderous approach to the subject Batguano.

My goal at the end is to encourage a thoughtful public debate on the issue, away from the usual simplistic knee-jerk reactions, and mindful of the nuances that exist anytime you mull over - not so much the separation of church and state - but the separation of societal conformity and personal freedoms.

I maintain that to make this a debate about the Burka misses the point. Don't get me wrong, that too is an important debate, but it is a different debate from the one that considers the extent of state interference in personal choices - for men or women - regardless of whether or not the majority agree with those personal choices.

As such, Sarkozy's remarks - and consequently this essay - fall more within a debate about the nature of democracy. At the end of the day, we should not have to compare Turkey or France with Saudi and Iran. Turkey and France are self-described democracies. Iran and Saudi are self-admitted theocracies. With that in mind, hypocrisy looms heavier for the former. As for the latter, their entire political system, not just their approach to this subject, is in question.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Finally, let me put this out there. The health of our democracies depends more on whether or not we stay true to democratic ideals, and less on external threats. Al Qaeda only succeeded in bringing down glass and steel, and spilling innocent blood. But all of the attacks on our democracy - our free lifestyle - including wiretapping, forfeiture of due process, and special laws that undermine civil rights were all self-inflicted. That is sad considering that in allowing this to be the case we have given Al Qaeda more claims to success. After all, acts of terrorism are symbolic and cannot bring down a free society.

The whole philosophy of terrorism is to strike fear in the hearts of subjects so that they themselves alter their lifestyles accordingly, forfeiting their own freedoms willingly. In other words, terrorism is out to create a reactionary, thought-free, barrage of panic moves that cause an implosion. It is up to us, and us alone, whether we allow that to happen or not.

As such, regardless of what we think of the Burka, we must remember that the democratic ideals we claim to uphold are what make or break us.

[CarlyHope]

This is just another display of the blatant Racism France shows towards its various minorities. Similarly they banned Jews from wearing large stars of david, tfillin and kippahs and other religious gear that people may choose to wear or feel religiously obliged to wear

this isn't about Islam, freedom of choice, and certainly not Women's rights

Its about a country that has always been extremely xenophobic, and its attempts to stamp out anything that isn't deemed "French Enough"

[Vcubed]

The author dealt well with the personal freedom issues. The public security issues need to be explored more fully.