On Jan. 26, a French Parliamentary report recommended a ban on burqas (the full body covering for Islamic women) in certain public buildings. The move came as no surprise for those familiar with the religious and political climate inside France. Following the event, even a French Imam expressed support for the ban. And, as expected, such restrictions on clothing and other forms of religious display led some to immediately criticize the action as an unacceptable limitation on the French Muslims' freedom of expression. But one does not have to support such a ban to observe that the negative reaction is based on three false assumptions.
The first assumption is that if there is a limitation on full-body burqas, it must have something to do with intolerance toward Muslims. But there can be other legitimate reasons for such a ban. It is important to note that the recommendation for the ban was specifically for public buildings. In such places, burqas can be a major security hazard. The full-body garment can allow men to pose as women without the ability of officials to identify the individuals entering the facilities. It also allows individuals to carry guns, weapons and ammunition into a building. Some may think that there is a double standard, as this reality applies to other forms of clothing and handbags as well. But the difference is that, unlike the people who use the latter, women who wear burqas often insist on not being searched. In such circumstances, officials are often left with few choices.
The second assumption is that the freedom of expression is absolute. But no right is absolute if its exercise will deprive others of any of their rights. When Muslim women insist on wearing burqas and not being searched, it infringes upon other citizens' right to security. When rights conflict, lawmakers must intervene to strike a balance.
It is also important to note that it is the recognition of this fact that has led us in the United States to have both the First Amendment and laws against what can be considered hate crimes. In the context of head-to-toe burqas, it is important to see it not just as an innocent expression of religion, but as the extreme of an ideology that promotes the mistreatment and reduction of all women. When we brand certain expressions as hate speech because of their incompatibility with the rights we recognize for our citizens, shouldn't France also be allowed to put restrictions on an iconic symbol of women's oppression, objectification and enslavement at a time when Western Europe is leading the way toward a level of equality among men and women that has never existed in the history of humanity?
The third and most deeply and widely believed assumption is that the right to religion is absolute. This is part of a larger belief that respecting others' traditional and religious beliefs -- regardless of their contents -- is the right thing to do. One can present the most backward ideology as "religion," and we are indoctrinated to automatically respect it at face value in the name of political correctness. Employers are told not to discriminate on the basis of religion, even if the religion itself discriminates against whole categories of people (such as women, gays and those belonging to other religions). Here in the U.S., we have created a whole tax-exempt industry that discriminates against anyone without any consequences.
It is this kind of blind deference in the name of political correctness that allows antiquated traditions and practices that are not compatible with the progressive needs and realities of the modern society to survive for as long as they have. We cannot go on forever pretending that we can reconcile the archaic teachings of millennia-old tales that countries and groups continue to use to initiate conflict and justify horrific human rights violations with the needs and standards of a modern progressive society.
This by no means applies to Islam alone. When it comes to organized religion, none has a monopoly on antiquity. Christianity and Judaism contain their own set of backward beliefs, such as their wide and implicit acceptance of slavery or selling of daughters by heir fathers. It is also not to say that there have not been extreme legislative reactions against Islam in Europe. Switzerland's recent law against minarets comes to mind. Nonetheless, it is time for atheists and agnostics to stop apologizing for allowing reason, and reason alone, to be their moral compass.
But when people talk about the French ban on burqas as a sign of France's failure to integrate Muslims into its society, they assume that such an integration is possible without the Muslims' willingness to compromise and show the same tolerance and acceptance toward the values of modern France that they expect from the French.
In thinking about Muslim integration in Europe, we must understand that one of the main reasons why Europe is so much more socially progressive than anywhere in the Middle East is neither accidental, nor due to some genetic superiority on the part of Europeans. But it is rather precisely because, unlike many parts of the Middle East, Europe has not been so heavily under the influence of a religion that is so fundamentally opposed to such progress and equalities.
In that context, one cannot have a justifiable claim to a certain right, and then use that right to promote the kind of ideology that has been the main obstacle to the achievement of that right in his or her own home country. One cannot use a right in a way that could lead -- and has led -- to the erosion of that right.
Regardless of how one feels about the ban, the real question to ask ourselves is not why France is willing to create this limited regulation on a very specific religious garment that often interferes with the state's execution and implementation of basic duties and responsibilities. The question is: Why is it that we as a society can constantly strive for progress and equality and place limitations on the right of people to promote ideologies that impede that progress, but simultaneously turn a blind eye and force ourselves and each other to accept certain antiquated practices and traditions just because they have been categorized as religion?
Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei
Alex Wilhelm: Don't Ban the Burqa, Just Shun Its Use
Joshua Stanton: A Jewish Voice Against the Burqa Ban
Todd Green, Ph.D.: What Not to Wear: Dictating Islamic Fashion in France
Anushay Hossain: For France Banning The Burqa Is Not The Answer
French Parliament to Investigate a Possible Ban on the Burqa and ...
Sarkozy: Burqas Are 'Not Welcome' In France
Banning the burqa unveils some nasty traits in us | India Knight ...
by V.S. Naipaul
N.Y.:Random House, 1998
Quote:
"Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands.
A convert's worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic.
His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story...
The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved... People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil."
Sir V.S Naipaul, West Indian writer, Nobel Prize winner
Millions of Muslim refugees that came to Europe to escape the poverty,illiteracy and lack of development which characterizes many of their former countries subjugated by religious opression.
Yet some wish to implement in Europe the very same oppressive religious traditions they escalated from.
Truly one cannot escape from one's shadow, as Jung followers say.
"Women who wear burqas often insist on not being searched"
Wrong. They have no qualms against being searched by a female, they insist on not being searched by a male.
Burqa and Inqab offends our sensibilities. It is about time ultra- fundamentalist show some cultural sensitivity towards our culture.
Yet regulation of clothing has ALWAYS been regulated by EVERY society in during recorded history. Certainly, the descendants of proud "sans-culottes" French tradition are well familial with this notion.
The fact is that the sight of niqab and similar face covering outfits offends us.
There is much that European tolerate and indeed respect about cvarious indigenous cultures, both ethnic and religious. NOT niqab!
To put it bluntly, we find the sight of women so dressed visually, culturally and intellectually offensive.
And this infringes upon some Salafist fundamentalist and their multicultural supporters, so be it,
P.S. I am sure blutigeroo you agree that women should be allowed to wear short skirts in the Muslim countries, surely....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliantly stated.
(Who IS this guy!?)
You're right about the notion that the burqa is not required by Islam as the practice predates Islam and that cultural garment has been worn by other groups such as Coptic Christians. However, I don't really see this as an argument in favor of banning a garment. Short sleeved t-shirts are not a requirement of any religion, but I think we would all consider it an absurd overreach if the government tried to ban those. The freedom to express ones self should extend beyond religious beliefs. That is what this is too, a form of expression that runs contrary to the French national identity. The problem is that using force (government bans) to subvert unpopular forms of expression run contrary to the French national identity as an enlightened country with an interest in protecting liberty.
In order to make this work properly the legislation (if there is one) should have a provision to allow women who 'want' to wear veil by their own will should be allowed to do so otherwise this will be infringement of their rights. Ofcourse there is a potential of abuse what I am suggesting from some of the men who want to force their women but blanket ban is not the correct approach.
France in order to show that their decision is not driven by Islamophobia which is very prevalent in Europe these days should make this clear...
So the stagnation, oppression, and corruption of the Muslim world is partially due to the Western powers who perpetuate the Muslim nations' inertia because it benefits them. And America has shown that it is willing to exert all of its military might to keep the nation states as they are, as concoctions.
And there is no "forced" unveiling proposed. What has been proposed and will probably be made law is that face covering veils will not be allowed into the public facilities specified. Face covering veils are not going to be outlawed and no one is going to be "forced" to not wear one. Even Muslim women have to make choices and at times compromises just like other people do.
But the security argument falls flat in a couple of places. As you correctly pointed out, it is easier to hide weapons or explosives under a suit and in a briefcase as it is under a veil. And if a man is willing to disguise himself as a woman, makeup, and a small bit of padding makes just as good a disguise as a veil.
Then there's the issue of how much need there is for security to pay extra attention to Muslims. Although it would have helped the British many years ago (when people disguised as Muslims carried out a terrorist attack against them), the track record on terrorism by Muslims in Europe is clear. The 7% of the population that is Muslim is responsible for less than 1% of the acts of terrorism, or the planned acts of terrorism, and this has held steady for years. Check the Europol reports on terrorism, they are avialable on the web.