by Christopher Hook
27 January 2010
Xenophobia, or the fear of foreigners, is sweeping through Europe. Last year, Swiss voters widely approved a ban on the building of minarets, the large steeples common to mosques. Countries like Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium (among others) have radical right-wing fringes known for making anti-Semitic comments and calling for a complete halt to immigration; these parties are becoming less peripheral and more powerful in wielding government authority.
In the latest, last Tuesday an advisory panel of top French legislators submitted a report recommending that the French government, led by President Nicolas Sarkozy, should ban the wearing of burqas, a garment worn by devout Muslim women that covers the woman’s entire body, including her eyes. The ban would extend only to being in public, not to the privacy of one’s home. To these French “représentatifs d’état,” the burqa represents extremist (see “dangerous”) Islam, the repression of women and a threat to the state doctrine of “laïcité,” or the strict separation of church and state.
But I think the French are wrong (I know, again?). While the veil is donned by those more fundamental adherents, it is in no way representative of a dangerous Islam, the kind practiced by al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden. Women have been wearing the burqa for years in France. It is only because there are such heightened fears about “Islamofacism” brought on by 9/11 and other attacks that this kind of attitude is taken. In addition, international law only allows the repression of religious practice if the practice creates an unsafe situation in the country. I hardly believe that simply wearing a burqa is a security threat.
Moreover, the West needs to concern itself with the effect its policies on Islam have in its attempt to root out and destroy global terrorism. To win the “hearts and minds” of those in the Muslim world, the West needs to state clearly that it is not “at war” with Islam, just those who would use Islam to take innocent lives. Unfortunately, banning the veil sends the message that the Western lifestyle is incompatible with a fundamental Islamic one.
And the attempt to defend women against the horrors of their own religion is merely a misguided values judgment about one of the core methods of practice for devout Muslim women. True, these women, just by nature of their religion, do not enjoy the same freedoms as their counterparts in the West. This would be an issue if the government itself promoted such inequality. But in making such a claim about a non-state entity — a religion — France is blatantly disregarding its constitutional creed to separate church and state, and rather thrusting itself into the role as the principal authority on what constitutes legitimate religious practice.
The French Parliament and Sarkozy will decide whether to adopt the recommendation, which enjoys strong support by the French populace, in the months to come. Unfortunately, “le gouvernement français,” bowing to popular pressure, seems headed toward making the proposed ban a reality.
But instead of freeing Muslim women from the chains of their repression, this ban will prohibit a vital ritual of the most important aspect of these women’s lives: their religion. Instead of gaining liberty, Muslim women in France will become slaves to an immoral law and an ugly society that rejects them for their beliefs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now a little more enlightened, I think we in the US believe strongly in the causes of liberty more than any other ideal of government. When gun laws threaten to take guns out of our hands, we are very quick to argue that our right to bear arms is in the 2nd amendment. When Congress proposes a law that gives government officials more authority on our healthcare, we do not hesitate to participate in rallies, attend town halls, write letters and Facebook posts and sign petitions that express in sometimes very harsh terms that we are a free people, founded in a nation whose principles are that the government should keep its dirty mischievous power-grubbing hands off of our freedom to choose to buy healthcare or not, or our freedom to make money without being taxed. Although these latter two arguments are normally employed by the right-wing of our country, the left is also very anxious to defend freedom. Marches and protests for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, even the right of an accused terrorist to have ample food, water, and access to a lawyer... We love liberty. And we are pretty unique in our ardour. Though European and other democracies certainly have liberty enshrined in their constitutions and other state documents, emphasis is often put more on the ideals of equality or the preservation of order, than liberty.
Thus is the case in France... we in the US love to pounce on the French for banning the wearing of overt religious symbols in schools, saying that this ban infringes on the right of people in France to express their religion openly and freely. But proponents in France say that taking off the veil, removing the yarmulke, unhooking the crucifix from the neck, all of these level the playing field, make every student seem more equal... not Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, but French, or even just human. This goes into the dominance of the American ideology... we get so used to thinking that any law or policy that hinders liberty is a terrible thing... but I would ask you to just ponder the above thoughts. If taking off all religious symbols in public schools would create a more equitable, peaceful, and safe society, should we do it? If yes, why not ban all religious symbols in all public places?
ALSO-- see Christopher Hitchen's article about the burka ban, which also takes the liberty-infringement-is-bad angle. I guess they have this in G.B. too... http://www.slate.com/id/2253493
I remember when Afghanistan was prominent in the news, forwarding on to my friends a petition about women's rights in that country. In particular, Americans were appalled that the women had to be covered from head-to-toe. I was taken to task by a relatively young M.E., Perkins, who had lived in the U.A.E. for a year or two with her family, whose father is a professor of Middle Eastern history. She said we don't know what goes on in their culture and we have no right to put our opinion and bent on them.
ReplyDelete