The One About A Follow Up To France's Law Banning The Burqa Is Anti-Woman.
The other day I offered my thoughts on France's recently implemented law making certain kinds of facial covering garments including those commonly associated with some of the more extreme practitioners of the Muslim religion.
There were a great many comments, but the most cogent came to me from a person named Casey.
I asked and received their permission to repost their remarks. Following that I'll offer up a few thoughts on what they had to say.
So without further mildew, I'll turn the floor over to Casey...
"You're condeming this legislation for all the wrong reasons.
The primary impetus for the prohibition of wearing the burqa in public is not a woman's rights issue, but a question of national identity and secularity. You can't think of French systems, laws, and definitions of freedom within a North American framework because the deep history of France and the philosophies that underpin the French brand of freedom are completely foreign and unrelated to the United States, despite that France is a "western" culture. American rules simply don't apply.
France employed a policy of <<la laïcité>>, or secularity, in the early 20th century. This means you can practice whatever you want privately, but as far as education and the public sector go, all is secular. The French state is far more influential in the daily lives of French citizens than the American government is- and it isn't necessarily a negative thing. The secularity laws provide a protection to the nonreligious and those practicing minority religions, a system that the United States should surely emulate in some fashion. In the early 20th century any ostentatious religious garments were prohibited from being worn in schools. This includes crucifixes, stars of david, and the like. The burqa is as ostentatious as a religious garment gets. To show such strong religious affiliation in the public sector is inconsistent with the French value of secularity and is seen to compromise French national identity. North Americans can't really relate to this issue of "national identity" that so plagues French society - what does it mean to be French? It is kind of rooted in the discrepancy between those who are ethnically French and those who live as French citizens in the modern French state. According to Sarkozy and many others, the burqa defies French ideals - that being secularity, principally, and equality between the sexes, also, yes. Sarkozy asserts that the French state should stop asking how they can accommodate the customs of immigrants, but rather how the immigrants can express loyalty to the French state that will be providing them with the life they will live.
Note also that the legislation prohibits not a hijab or headscarf, but only the full, face covering burqa. The legislation also prohibits any other face covering mask, not only religious garments. This brings up the security issue. Burqas are a security threat, plain and simple. There was a suicide bombing executed by a someone in a full burqa just recently in Pakistan. It is also an identity issue. How can someone picking their child up from school in a full burqa assert their identity, or withdrawal from a bank, etc. etc.
It is also true that many experts on Islam have said that there is no basis for the burqa in the Quran, and that most factions of Islam do not require women to wear the burqa. Forced burqa application occurs in the most radical sects of the religion. To force a woman to wear a burqa, covering her face, is stripping a woman of her identity, her sense of self, her individualism, and all because women are the "embodiment of temptation" and, of course, men shouldn't be bothered to control their impulses.
For a woman wearing a burqa in public, the fine is minimal and they may require some patriotism classes or something. If a man is found out to be forcing a woman to wear a burqa, the consequences include hefty fines and a prison sentence. This seems appropriate, to me. If a woman is choosing to wear a burqa, fine, you choose Allah over the French state or whatever. If the latter situation, a man is infringing upon a woman's civil rights. You call it "unenforceable", but keep in mind that the French have a different type of judicial system that is "inquisitorial", not "accusatory" like the American system. This allows for more, freer investigation by judges, even, if they are so inclined.
I am not completely defending the legislation, but you can see from where it arose in French culture. The law affects maybe 2,000 people, not that many. It is moreso to prove a point and perhaps further ostracize Muslims, maybe. It is my opinion that perhaps Sarkozy is stirring up this secularity/national identity conversation in order to garner votes from the far-right anti-immigration radical voters, away from the FN party.
I understand where one may think the legislation oppressive, but quite frankly, infringing on rights when it comes to religion in favor of the common good is extremely progressive- and in a good way. Why should such fairy tales as these huge, oppressive religions dictate how societies live, instead of equality and the truth of science and the tolerance and objectivity of secularity? A significant factor in the subordinate status of women worldwide is due to religion. Also, I highly doubt that the vast majority of these women want to wear a full burqa. They would never be allowed to say so- how can you ask the VEILED if they are oppressed? The veil is the embodiment of oppression! It would be frightening because it is probably all they have ever known, and many may want to wear a hijab for religious purposes, as hair often represents sexuality, but to cover the face and surrender identity for men? Oppressive. I don't know that some French legislation will cure all of these ills, of course, but an attempt is being made here. The legislation has been emulated in some other parts of Europe, like Germany, but not on such a large scale.
You don't have to worry about the US emulating this legislation, that would never happen. The United States systemizes freedom in a completely different way, and, as we know, the US has absolutely no commitment to secularity. The burqa ban is flawed, certainly, but I feel like people are failing to see a lot of the benefits. We could all do with a little more secularity in government."
First of all I'd like to thank Casey for their very thoughtful and well articulated points. Many of which I agree with, and others while I may not exactly agree I can understand the logic of.
One of my objections is that to a certain extent French Nationalism merely seems like religion by other means. So to an extent it almost seems like a kind of forced conversion to require an individual to surrender so much of what they may view as the core of their identity.
Beyond that however is the issue of whether or not one can be liberated from an opressive religion or practice at what amounts to the point of a sword.
I can more than understand how distasteful people find the opression of women that is part and parcel of Islamic extremism. But I do not see how a law that is likely to result in more opression not less is going to do anything meaningful to address the problem.
As to the security arguments, those I find much more compelling although only up to a point. Since I would imagine that in Pakistan veiled women are a much more common sight, they are not an illogical agent for terroristic actions. Whereas since such a woman (law or no law) would stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, in France, she would not make an effective terrorist agent because there'd be too much scrutiny.
Ultimately the world in many ways always has been a very small place and it continues to grow smaller. Whether Secularists like it or not religions like Islam and Christianity are not going away any time soon. And I'm not certain that crafting laws that seem to be aimed largely at supressing a particular group is in any nations best interests.
Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!