France has had an open dialog about Islamic head coverings since, as far as I can tell, the 1990's. In 2003, they banned burqas and other head coverings from public schools, stating that it was a religious expression and inappropriate for the secular school forum (crosses and other religious symbols also being prohibited). Now in effect is France's ban on face coverings in public, specifically the burqa.
Last October, I went to a session at the Vancouver Readers and Writers Festival with Sharon E. McKay. She talked gave a presentation on her book, Thunder Over Kandahar, and the research she did for it--some of which involved the burqa. She even had one there if anyone wanted to see what it was like to wear one.
Her opinion on the burqa was pretty transparently negative and since this was my first experience with the garment, it might have shaded any future opinion on the subject. Burqas limit the sight and safety of their wearers. They restrict movement, identity and the wearer's voice. And isn't the fact that only women that traditionally wear them signify some inherent male control?
For me, the issue is not a question of personal, cultural or religious expression though it would be uninformed to ignore that side of things. If there are women out there who, of their own volition, want to wear head scarves, burqas, hijabs, high heels or earrings, that is fine with me. But I'm going to continue to doubt where that choice is coming from. Cultural pressure to conform is serious and can be damaging. I'm not just talking about Muslim culture, either.
So the French president has an idea that I can believe in. He thinks that in a country with the freedom and liberties of France, it's wrong to allow male dominant culture to dictate what women wear. In his words:
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity..."I feel like judging these admittedly extreme actions on a surface level is kind of ignorant. Yes, it is kind of ironic that his attempt to free women from oppression involves stripping away rights and liberties, but I think it's a worthy goal. Maybe it's a misguided approach but this definitely isn't a shallow issue. You can't just analyze one side and call it a day. There's so many layers and I'm still torn on whether I agree with France's legislation.
That's about it.
6 comments:
While I understand where you're coming from, that the burqa is so restrictive we cannot possibly understand how a woman could choose it, revoking a right from a certain section of society is incredibly dangerous and, I think, wrong. The burqa ban, and particularly the headscarf ban, are perceived by some as anti-Muslim. As someone who lived in France, I have to agree. Racism is absolutely rampant in France--particularly against immigrants and Arabs. Arabs immigrants are treated with derision and prejudice by the public (it can be difficult to get a job or an apartment if you have a vaguely Arab-sounding name), and now the government has effectively sanctioned this behavior.
I feel very certain a major motivation behind both the headscarf ban and the burqa ban was racism. Many think the headscarf ban in public schools was designed to essentially segregate the public school system (like something you would've seen in pre-Civil Rights era America)--and it worked. For many Muslims and Sikhs, headscarves and turbans are integral to not only their faith but to their sense of self and modesty, so removing their headscarves and turbans simply wasn't an option. As a result, many Muslims and Sikhs left the public schools and enrolled in private religious schools. I feel very strongly that these rulings are pulled from a hateful place, and that it's not the government's right to restrict religious freedom, even if it is, as Sarkozy suggests, for their own good.
I soooooooooooooooooo disagree with the French president on this one. We talked about it in French last year and it pissed me off to no end. Women who wear burquas are not uniformly oppressed by men. For many, perhaps most, hopefully (but not actually) all women, the burqua is a religious decision of their own doing. This is really more speculation based on other anti-Islamic/xenophobic sentiment in France, but to ban the burqua in public seems to be much more an anti-Islamic reaction than a move to liberate women. And I take offense to the idea that banning the burqua liberates women, anyway. If I want to cover my head because of my religion then you have no damn right to stop me. Make no mistake, I don't actively LIKE the burqua -- I do think it is quite sexist -- but I also dislike many religious traditions, many of which I find to be oppressive of some group, which is part of the reason why I don't follow any religion.
Plus, okay, the number of women who wear burquas in France is TINY relative to the population. Leave them alone. This is not abuse. This is their life. Many things "enslave" women, many of which are voluntary actions. They may not be good but they better stay legal or else women don't have any choice at all. This is their religion. Even if it is morally wrong according to our feminist mindset, this is how they see the world. Now, to go in public, they either have to break the French law or break what they see as their own religious law. Or stay at home all the time, or leave the country. What kind of freedom is that?
Whoa. Was kind of surprised and impressed at the immediate reaction to this. Okay.
So I agree with you both and I see your points. Restricting people, especially based on religion, is bad. And fostering racism by targeting religious groups is also not cool.
What I guess I'm trying to say with this blog is that it's about choice and expression versus force and dominance. I don't know. You've both been a resounding voice for the "Alex does not know exactly what she is talking about" camp. But in a good way.
After further reflection, I disagree with the French government's movements. But I also disagree with the burqa and what it symbolizes (to me).
I have a friend whose Mother is incredibly against the use of the burqa. Whilst waiting in line, I can’t remember for what, she had trouble restricting herself from asking the gentlemen in front of her, whom was with two women clad in the burqa, why these two particular women were in such a garment.
What I find most interesting about this is that he didn’t mention religion at all. He said that men cannot help themselves from raping a woman they find attractive so therefore they are hidden– Or something along the lines of that.
Forgive my horrible writing skills. But I thought you may find that interesting as I certainly did.
I find it such a contradictory subject myself. However I tend to agree with what you’ve said.
(By the way, I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, this is Savannah.)
Re: s. Chanel: (I'm not Alex, obviously, so I hope you don't mind!) I also think that this is a very interesting anecdote and really provides support for the idea that the burqua is a sexist/misogynistic garment. It's also interesting how he didn't mention religion, which leads me to think that he's either a jerk or he just didn't want to talk about religion. However, I still disagree with the ban on the basis of religious freedom because it's pretty widely recognized that the burqua is inherently a religious garment and I think that the ban is much more about religion than about women. (Also, it's probably about security as well -- obviously it's hard to identify someone if you can't see their face -- but, like, targeting security issues at a teeny group of people who are already harassed because of their religion doesn't seem fair to me.)
Indeed! However I believe afterwards she inquired about his religion as well and he freely spoke of it. So it’s incredibly odd I think!
I agree as well!
I suppose I should have mentioned that I agree with what Alex said here: “After further reflection, I disagree with the French government's movements. But I also disagree with the burqa and what it symbolizes (to me).”
Because I do not doubt that the French Government is masking that legislation by saying it’s for womanly rights (etc) as well. How sneaky like little rats they are!
By the way, although this probably isn’t the place to say so, I ventured over to your blog and although I confess I only read one of your articles the one I read I thoroughly enjoyed. It was the one on abortion. You put my exact feelings on the subject into words!
I have actually seen men and women (and it always bugs me when Men are protesting subjects like Abortion) protesting on the streets with these great monstrous signs of dead foetuses. Hundred all under the thumb of some dratted Church. Oh how it grates my nerves... But I digress– I’ve now become a follower of yee wee blog.
Post a Comment