This past Monday, CHUP posted a contribution by Nabiha Meher Sheikh who argued why she was for the recent burqa ban in France. Below, Sahar Khan, a doctoral student in political science at University of California-Irvine, argues why she is against the ban:
On April 11, 2011, France became the first European country to ban the burqa. If a woman in France is found wearing a burqa or covering her face, she will be fined 150 euros or will have to take special citizenship classes (“How To Be French For Dummies”?). There are certain challenges to enforcing the ban though: it is not clear if women found in violation will be jailed or not. Furthermore, people found to be forcing women to wear a burqa will be fined 30,000 euros and perhaps twice as much if the girl is a minor. All in all only about 2000 women will be affected— a pretty small population. So why are we all talking about it?
Personally, the ban made me dwell on was the concept of citizenship itself. According to Christian Joppke in his book Citizenship and Immigration, mass migration has caused tensions between universal human rights and the concept of citizenship since the end of World War II. According Article 15 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to a nationality” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Yet, states have a right to decline someone nationality if they wish, which sounds reasonable enough when considering that citizenship can be exclusivist and actually quite undemocratic because one is born into citizenship (unless you’re an Arab Bedouin but I digress).
In line with that logic, a state has an obligation to protect its citizens from external and internal threats. In France’s case then, does the state have the right to ban a certain group from dressing as it pleases in the name of protecting its national identity and security? Isn’t this ban a violation of the liberal norms of free speech and expression? The answers to both of these are complex but it should be made clear that there is a fine line between protection and authoritarianism, and France has just stepped to the latter.
France is a unique country and its secularism is dominated by laïcité, a concept from the Enlightenment that aims to force religion out of politics. By banning the burqa, however, France has brought it into politics. I think the ban will actually make France more insecure for two reasons. First, it seems that France is not just intolerant of its religious minority population but is in fact intolerant of all religion. This is problematic because religion is a dominant force in modern politics, just as secularism is. Trying to make one of these disappear is somewhat impossible. Second, this will create bigger challenges for France with respect to immigration. Most immigrants feel isolated, alienated, and hence disloyal. A ban like this will only deepen these feelings, which will have negative consequences in the long run.
The burqa has issues of its own. First, it is not a requirement in Islam. The only requirement is for women to dress modestly, which can be interpreted in numerous ways. Second, the burqa hides one’s identity, which is obviously a security issue. Third, it is an apparent health risk and many women wearing the veil have been diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiencies, (seriously). Fourth, it is certainly used as a tool to suppress women. However, on the state level, Saudi Arabia is the ONLY country that REQUIRES its women to wear it. By banning the veil, France has become the national counterpart to the kingdom, and I am not sure that was a position France wanted to be in.
This ban disappointed me in the same way the minaret ban in Switzerland did. No doubt, numerous Muslim countries are intolerant and openly prejudice against their ethnic and/or religious minorities, prohibiting Hindu temples and Bohri and Ahmadi mosques from being built. Instead of exhibiting tolerance, Switzerland acted just like these countries by banning the minaret in the name of secularism. And now France has done the same. Banning is also not historically the best solution.
I am not brainwashed nor uninformed nor uneducated. I am, however, a critical observer and feel that laws like these do not solve anything but create even more problems.
The contribution is the sole opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinion of CHUP. If you would like to contribute a piece to CHUP, please email Kalsoom at changinguppakistan[at]gmail[dot]com. Pieces should be no longer than 800 words please. For past contributions, click here.
Consider a schoolgirl in France whose family is going to make you wear a burqa. Now they can’t. Is she now not more free? Are not her life opportunities richer? Cannot she better exercise what Rawls calls the “two moral powers”? (See his “Political Liberalism”). The notion that “liberal norms” point towards acceptance of the burqa cannot merely be asserted, it needs to be argued. And I’ve just provided an argument that it needs to be banned, to allow for human flourishing. That schoolgirl is not going to turn out to be the next Madame Curie if she’s burqa’d, is she?
Javed,
I’m not following your argument that if someone wears a burqa, she cannot do what she pleases, that in some way she is restricted from being achieving a Nobel Prize. I didn’t realize that clothing that women choose to wear will limit them intellectually. I’m sorry if a woman does not want to listen to what a man tells her to do. We are in the 21st century. Women along-side men (in burqas and not) have protested in the Arab revolutions fighting for democracy and change. Just because a woman is wearing a piece of cloth that she chooses to wear does not and shall not prevent a women from achieving anything she wishes to achieve.
If she is being forced, that is another story. But most of these women in France are not. And a lot of them are Muslim converts.
Sincerely,
Anum
Anum,
A woman wearing a burqa can’t perform surgery in a hygienic manner (scrub those arms!) or operate a bunsen burner. So, that is going to inhibit her advance towards a Nobel Prize in Science or Medicine.
More broadly speaking, the burqa is *designed* to inhibit/retard interactions between the wearer and the outside world (on the view that such interactions outside the home are detrimental to her chastity). Such inhibited interaction does not allow the wearer to form and pursue a conception of the good life. Too many things are ruled out before they are even experienced (surgery, chemistry experiments, etc.). The burqa ban, while it removes one “choice,” opens up many more. Rights are not absolute–when they conflict, they need to be balanced against each other. Here, the right to dress as one chooses needs to be balanced against the right to form and pursue a conception of the good life. A reasonable balance precludes the burqa.
Third, the assertion that most burqa-wearers are not forced is dubious. Do most prostitutes “choose” that profession? Do most drug-addicts “choose” to be addicted? Given the sky-high rates of domestic violence in our communities, I do not believe most burqa-wearers are “choosing” the garment in any meaningful sense (other than, say, choosing between wearing it and being beaten!).
Javed:
Though I would not like my wife or my mother to wear a burqa, for reasons that are societal as well as personal, your argument is so full of flaws, I just had to write against it.
In a country like France, let’s assume for the sake of argument that most women who wear burqas do so of their own choice. A burqa doesn’t necesarily have to be a flowing garment that affects her performing an operation or a lab experiment. It’s just a modest cover, it’s a misnomer that it’s your black ninja outfit.
And to sum it up, there might be a relation between burqa and inhibition, but what you are doing is confusing causality with correlation. Think outside your “i’m-so-secular” box.
What kind of a burqa can you perform surgery in? I’m not following you at all.
It’s funny that you view my position as some sort of “i’m so secular pose.” No, I’m sick of widespread “open defecation,” I’m sick of widespread illiteracy, I’m sick of widespread poverty and I’m convinced we need an Ataturk-like commitment to modernity to fix these things. And symbols matter. The burqa represents backwardness and a failure to engage with modernity. You don’t want your family to wear it, but are fine leaving the peasants behind. I want to treat the peasants more like family, and advance them.
Dear Sahar,
You’re using the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) to argue that France should not ban the burqa. You cannot use that logic to argue against the ban. The UNDHR has no signatories and is not a binding conract for any sovereign states to uphold. France can do very well what it pleases. We can’t hold a state accountable to a document it did not sign or a document that is too ideal for any state to uphold. Many countries, including the U.S. violate the UDHR everyday. That’s why we use other means to reverse oppression.
Regards,
Anum
Valid point–thanks Anum!
Anum, many international lawyers consider the UNDHR to be a source of customary international law.
I object to this:
“This is problematic because religion is a dominant force in modern politics, just as secularism is.”
Perhaps if you’re splitting your time between Pakistan and the US, this seems obvious, but I would strongly dispute this for other western democracies.
“Trying to make one of these disappear is somewhat impossible.”
Possible and quite laudable I think. I think France in general does a pretty good job, though I tend to agree with you that this probably winds up on the wrong side of a line, and is probably motivated by a good dose of xenophobia.
Separation of church and state is vitally important in (modern) diversifying populations, and making religion disappear as a voice in modern politics is a very noble goal!
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comment.
First, my observation about religion being a dominant force in modern politics is not because of splitting time between Pakistan and the US, it’s from a few interesting books I read on secularism. The basis of European secularism stems from the Reformation, which was a religious movement. Daneil Philpott’s “Revolutions in Sovereignty” is a good read and quite eye-opening.
Second, I don’t think it is possible to eradicate religion. And I certainly don’t think of it as a noble cause. Problems begin by the misuse of religion and secularism in politics.
Finally, making religion disappear is not a sign of modernity to me, but a sign of ignorance. Liberal states need to concentrate on balancing religion and secularism…
I heard a women who wears the burqa say that the ban is JUST another form of male domination; of men telling how women should dress and somehow that logic made the most sense to me to be against the ban.
[...] Against the Burqa Ban – Sahar Khan [...]
I do not believe in force in Islam, so I don’t believe that any woman should be forced to wear the burka. At the samel time, the majority of women who wear it choose to do so. However, if a woman is seen in a burka, it is automatically assumed that she is oppressed and has been forced to wear it.
What about those women who fight with their husbands for their right to wear the burka? What about those women who took to the streets to protest the ban on the burka? What about those women who have not removed the burka even after the ban and have been arrested?
There is a lot of stereotyping and hypocrisy by people who look down at the burka. If a woman wears a miniskirt, it is a choice, but if she wears a burka, it is forced.
If a woman exposes her body, that is okay, but if she hides it, it is not. If a woman covers up to save herself from the lustful gazes of men, she is forced. But if she wears next to nothing, and is degraded to the level of a commercial product where beauty, fashion, and diet industries exploit her, it is by choice.
Lets see if it is really a choice.
Modern girls are exploited by these industries through lies, deceits, and ruthless advertising (read propaganda). Beauty products have to be sold. Someone has to be targeted. Dieting products have to be sold. Someone has to be targeted. Clothes have to be sold (in the name of fashion). Someone has to be targeted. Ever wondered why women’s fashion is constantly changing. How will industries make money if the “latest in fashion” doesn’t change frequently.
What about the obsession with plastic surgery. Billions of dollars are spent on it annually. What is alarming is that even beautiful, young girls are going for it. The message that is sent to them is that natural beauty is not enough. There are girls unnecessarily lining up for breast implants, whose occasional leakage leaves some of them with far greater beauty defects. Women are going for everything, from nose jobs to liposuction, and no one raises an eyebrow.
Teenage pregnancies is also a big issue these days. It is not rampant in the subcontinent because girls in the subcontinent are forced. It is only rampant in countries where girls have the choice to become pregnant while still teenagers. They are called names, taunted by their friends, have to miss school, suffer from a poor self-image, and a list of other problems that accompany teenage pregnancies.
A lot of modern girls believe in constant dieting, which is accompanied by depression, bulimia, anorexia, and all the disorders that go along with having a low self-esteem because they cannot have the perfect body. So why do perfectly normal girls go on a diet? They go on a diet because dieting industries have changed the definition of normal. Unless a girl is all skin and bone she is ugly, fat, and unattractive. They advertise ruthlessly, targeting girls into believing their satanic schemes, wanting to earn money in any way or form.
Modern girls today are slaves of fashion, used like puppets by industries, turned into sexual objects, brainwashed with false ideas about beauty, used as a commodity, diet themselves to death, and then people say that it is by choice.
Source: Yusha’s Blog
Women are going for everything, from nose jobs to liposuction, and no one raises an eyebrow.
_____________________________________________
Well, Uncle, I’d raise an eyebrow, but I can’t, b/c of the botox!
Q1. What do you have to say about the number of women who have started wearing the veil after the ban?
Q2. You keep saying the burka is backward. How is it backward? Is the miniskirt progress?
Q3. Can you tell me why even tall women wear high heels, even though it causes numerous problems.
forcing your opinions on someone is the only thing that is backwards. whether it be forcing someone to wear the burka, or forcing someone to take it off.
I am sorry sister Javed that you have had a bad experience with the burqa. It is obvious that you speak out of your experiences as a Muslim woman, who fully experienced wearing an oppressive ensemble. Why else would you be so bitter?
Please don’t be discouraged by the chauvinistic comments. You’ll always be welcome in our sisterhood.
Javed’s a man, no?
took a while for someone to get the irony…
he’s a man, but one would mistake him for a woman considering all his “female experiences”.
Just as he despises woman who CHOOSE cover, why shouldn’t we despise someone who patronizes them? Some want to force religion down our throat, others want to take a hook and pull it out.
they are both extremists, flipside of the same coin and both need to be shunned.
Merely saying that you can’t tell others what to wear or not to wear is not enough. We don’t allow people to wear nothing in public. Is that not telling people what not to wear? Yes, there is a liberty interest in wearing or not wearing clothing of our choice but it has to be balanced with other interests of the State.
The problem with the veil ban (it’s not a burqa ban, but a ban on face covering) is that it has taken an overly broad approach to an ill-defined or understood problem.
Let me break it down:
When a law takes away rights (liberty to wear what we want to wear and practice of religion in the veil case) it should do so in a manner which prevents the harm which results from the exercise of such right and at the same time causes the least damage to the rights of the affected people to exercise that right.
- This law never really defined the problem. No serious sociologist, psychologist, medical person has come out and laid out the case for what harm comes out of the practice of veiling. In fact, there were never any hearings, no commissions appointed to study this issue and there was no reliance, whatsoever, on any academic paper which gave credence to the fact that the veil causes harm. It was an ad-hoc decision by Sarkozi to bolster his tough on immigrants political persona.
- There is a very strong liberty interest in the state not mandating our choice of clothing and an equally strong religious freedom interest of people to exercise their faith and wear the veil. As the harm which comes out of veiling was never really defined or studied, it’s hard to tell whether alternate laws could have prevented the unknown harm while preserving the religious freedom interest.
- Silly arguments like Vitamin D deficiency (90% of Indians suffer from that in India and they don’t wear the face veil) can be easily taken care of by purchasing vitamin supplements. Why not mandate that people who wear veils purchase Vitamin D supplements? Of course, this was never about Vitamin D deficiency. Guess what? Smoking is still allowed in France. Vitamin D deficiency from veils is not as big a problem as dying from smoking, but then, hey, you can’t tell the Frenchie that they can’t smoke because of their liberty interest in smoking even if it causes harm to your body. The Vitamin D argument is hogwash.
- If forced veiling is a problem, why not criminalize forced veiling? Make it a felony to force anyone to wear the veil. Punish the shooter, not the gun.
Anyway, it’s a waste of time to address this bigoted nonsense. Let’s get honest here. The way this ban came about and the way it was implemented was obviously to send a message to the Muslim minority in France. The message was heard loud and clear and I hope the French Muslim answered the message with a clear and unequivocal ‘Fuck you too’.
Nice analysis with some strong points.
Ultimately, though, I think you give too much weight to French motives. Yes, it is true (and, uncomfortable) that much of the support for the ban in France consists of knee-jerk types. But we shouldn’t be knee-jerk in response. We need to be open to criticism–sometimes the critics are correct.
Also, think about banning only “forced veiling.” That would be very difficult and impractical to enforce, unless the victim is willing to leave the family home.
You are right that we should not attack the message irrespective of the credentials of the messenger especially if the message holds up to be true.
However, in this case the French authorities have banned the veil without clearing establishing the harm that comes out of not banning the veil. Surely, you will concede that the French populace has a very strong liberty interest in being told what not to wear and perhaps an even stronger interest in the free exercise of their religion.
So if Sarkozi wants to take away these rights, then the onus is on him to come up with a transparent process where it is established that some great harm is coming out of wearing the veil. Unfortunately that did not take place and that is why I am attacking his motives. I can’t imagine that this is how the French pass laws. If the wearing of the veil results in such clear and obvious harm, surely they could have held hearings and have some experts testify as to these harms. Why was that not done?
Re: Forced veiling. I agree it will be very hard to implement and might cause break up of families if women are forced to testify against their dads, husbands, brothers, but then so do prosecutions for domestic violence etc.
Burqa or no burqa is our issue not that for France. We can write tons of articles from relgious point of view. Period. But Hijab was banned in France entirely for security reasons – no enmity whatsoever with religion Islam. On the question of security when the world is in the grip of terrorism, they would never ever compromise.
There are bigger issues. What about stark naked body search (ladies included) by immigration authorities at all international airports of USA. What about Muslim women photographs on passports without which they can not travel from one country to another. What about other official documents in which photographs are required to be affixed.
There is only one remedy available. Migrate to any Islamic country and live like true Muslim women.
Um, so we can only be “true Muslim women” is we live in a Muslim country?
What is wrong with photographs? Having photographs on official identification documents is not problematic at all. Also, I’ve never heard of naked body searches at US airports. There are scanners that scan the whole body that are being hotly debated as an invasion of privacy.
Mohammad Yusha, So your argument is that wearing a burka will raise the self-esteem of women, as they will not then care of how their bodies look? Clearly you don’t have friends who cover themselves. These girls are as concerned as other girls.
I mean, do you know the rate of plastic surgery in Lebanon and Iran? Both places where wearing the burka is quite common, the rate is quite high. So making a women cover herself head to toe, will not make her care less about how she looks.
Also, we cannot deny that there are some women who wear burka by choice, i have an aunt who does. But that is a small number. Vast majority are made to wear burkas otherwise they will be considered not religious or not decent.
Unfortunately, the world judges women the way they dress, and hence society, especially religious, pressurizes women to dress a certain way. The focus should be to change that thinking rather than argue the pros and cons of burkas or miniskirts.
>Mohammad Yusha, So your argument is that wearing a burka will raise the self-esteem of women, as they will not then care of how their bodies look?
@Bilquis: No that is not my argument. My argument is the whole oppression vs freedom thing. You can read my article on my blog or pkhope.
At then end of the day, we allow adults to make decisions about themselves that do not harm others. If an adult woman wishes to put on a burqa, and the state punishes her for doing so, this is clearly a restraint on her freedom of expression.
That’s not correct. The State stops us from taking drugs, from walking around naked and puts all sorts of restrictions on our freedom even when it does not cause harm to others.
i’ll clarify what i meant: the state restrains your liberty in the name of public safety, be it your own safety or the safety of others. this is why the cops can fine you for not wearing your seatbelt or throw you in jail for using drugs.
the state can also put people in jail for public nuisance-type violations. walking around naked, being drunk in public, etc.
but there is no clear health hazard to wearing a burqa, and it’s hard to see how wearing a burqua is any kind of public nuisance. it’s just a restriction on legit freedom of expression.
@Legal Aid: How does taking drugs not cause harm to oneself? How does walking naked not cause harm to others?
>The burqa has issues of its own. First, it is not a requirement in Islam. The only requirement is for women to dress modestly, which can be interpreted in numerous ways. Second, the burqa hides one’s identity, which is obviously a security issue. Third, it is an apparent health risk and many women wearing the veil have been diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiencies, (seriously). Fourth, it is certainly used as a tool to suppress women. However, on the state level, Saudi Arabia is the ONLY country that REQUIRES its women to wear it.
@Sahar: Before I counter your arguments, I’d like to know the purpose of writing a paragraph on issues with the burka if you are against the ban?
Hi Mohammad, Sorry for the late reply but I just saw this. Just because I am against the ban does not mean I support the burqa. My point is that a woman should have a choice.