Sunday, September 18, 2011

To ban or not to ban: the French and the face-veil


“In our country, we cannot accept that women are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of an identity.”

– President Nicholas Sarkozy, June 22, 2009


Last April, a law banning the Islamic face-veil (known as the niqab) came into force in France, which bans French Muslim women from wearing the face-veil in public spaces, which includes streets, schools, courts, and so on. Historically, France has always had a sizable Muslim population – in fact, one of the largest in the EU – estimated at 4.5 million, however; out of that figure, it is estimated that only 2,000 women wear the face-veil. The issue of the face-veil has long been contested in Western countries, as well as several Arab states, but France is the first country to enforce a ban on the aforementioned article of clothing. Supporters of the ban cite a) French protectionism of secular values and separation of church and state, which has already been seen in other laws such as the banning of all religious symbols in schools b) security concerns and lack of identification and c) the ban is aimed at liberating women who are being forced into wearing it by fundamentalist Muslims. Critics on the other hand, argue that the government a) is interfering with a citizen's right to practice his/her belief b) cannot regulate what people should or should not wear, and c) by enforcing the ban, is further stigmatizing the already-isolated minority as well as “disguising hostility towards…religion behind the pretense of liberalism.”

The main area of knowledge concerned with this real-life issue is, of course, Ethics. Ethics is defined as the collective set of principles held by a group of people and/or a culture; as with the face-veil issue, there is a clash between two distinct set of moral principles, one held by the state (i.e. the government and the majority of the people), and the other held by the religious minority. Should the majority in a society set the limits on what people can or cannot wear, or should exemptions be made for certain groups? In accordance with classical (interpretations of) democracy, supporters of the ban adopt a utilitarian approach, arguing that the majority do have the right to dictate what people should or should not wear for the greater good. In a recent Doha Debates organized by the Qatar Foundation, member of the French National Assembly Jacques Myard argued that the face veil is a “breach of the common will” of the French people, and that face-veil wearers exclude themselves from the common will “to live together” in a “common society.” That being said, how does one define “common will”? How ubiquitous does a particular moral standard have to be in order for it to be officially incorporated into the law? What happens when these moral standards impinge on the individual rights every citizen has i.e. the right to wear whatever one wants? Opponents of the ban argue that not only is the ban a flawed and heavy-handed interpretation of secularism; they also state that it goes against the “common” French adage of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” (lit. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) that is supposed to protect a citizen’s equal rights of wearing a particular article of clothing, despite whatever the “common society” perceives it to be.

Thus, the issue at hand is the conflict of individual liberty versus the common, greater good, of egalitarianism and utilitarianism – an issue that has been reiterated throughout history. In the United States, for example, the Constitution allows for the creation of a federal government that aims to establish the law in order to protect the common good within the union, after the failure of Articles of the Confederation that proved to be too weak due to its emphasis on individual state rights. However, while there was a general consensus among the Founding Fathers about the lack of a central power, some of them were concerned about the “tyranny of the masses" in democracy, where the federal government may override the state rights and establish a dictatorial system. Thus, the Bill of Rights were proposed as the First Ten Amendments, thereby preventing the federal government from encroaching on sacrosanct individual rights, ensuring a balance between the common good and the individual liberty (though, there have been instances in history where this is not the case). Another more relevant example of this conflict is the issue of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian government absolutely bans women from driving (among many things), citing religious grounds and security concerns — having lived in Saudi Arabia before, the security “concern" is not about what the
women would do when given the right to drive, but what the men would do to the women when given the right to drive. In short, the security concern is none other than a prevalent cultural norm disguised under pretense of security. Though the French would never go to this level of misinterpretation of the law (hopefully), here again is another example where the limit on women's rights is dictated by the "common will"; that an article of clothing, or the fact that women driving could somehow be (perceived as) a breach of the common, greater good. It seems to me that Khalid Hosseini, author of A Thousand Splendid Suns, was onto something when he said, “A man's accusing finger always finds the woman."

As for my own opinion about the French ban, I perceive that, underneath all the arguments being made for and against, the women don't have any real say on the matter. Sure, there are some women who are being forced to wear the face-veil, but what about the women who wear it out of their own free will? If they are really being forced to wear it, why do they have to be
forced to remove it?

References:
Peter Allen, The Telegraph. French burka ban: police arrest two veiled women. 11 April 2011.
Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian. French begins ban on niqab and burqa. 11 April 2011.
Carla Power, TIME Magazine. The Politics of Women's Head Coverings. 13 July 2009.

3 comments:

  1. It's interesting how this issue has become a secularism vs. freedom to practice religion debate, because the women who wear the niqabs are not heard from much. It's only the voice of men, advocates, and activists in the press, so one more issue here can be language. The tyranny of the people is a good point, and I don't understand why the government has to step in, even if some women really do not want to wear a face-veil. If a woman does not want to wear a face-veil, she should make a stand for herself and then request the help of the government in defending the exercising of her rights. Society is comprised of individuals who have to depend on the other individuals in society for help, while bettering themselves and maintaining their individual status at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting article, it’s surprising that the one place that banned face veils was in France. I always thought France was considerably more liberal than the other countries with women that wear face veils. I think it’s great that you pointed out that the ones arguing against and for the face veils weren’t the women themselves. I agree with Leo in that it would be interesting to see what the women wearing the face veils think themselves. I’m sure there are some women that are extremely troubled now that they are forced to go against their own religion. I think it would have been good if a related issue was given. Something that it could possibly be related to is polygamy. Polygamy is the norm in some religions, yet polygamy has become illegal in many countries. Again the argument is whether or not the government has the power to interfere with people’s religions. Of course the government will argue that they are protecting the rights of the women, but there is always a possibility that these women want to lead that type of life. Should the government interfere and impose upon people what they consider to be the correct way of life?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also think it is an interesting point that is made on how the women themselves would feel about wearing the niqab. I am tempted to think, however, that growing up in a culture and religion that expects women to wear the niqab, they would consider it completely normal. I think the danger in approaching this issue from a Western standpoint is that in Western culture, it is seen as sexist and unjust for a woman to be forced to wear a face veil. However, I do not think we can assume that Muslim view this as an 'injustice'. That said, I do not think that the niqab itself is the issue at hand. The central issue is whether or not Muslim women should be able to wear the niqab in a non-Muslim country, such as France. In this particular case my opinion is that the government is justified to deny them this right for security reasons. In today's world, such government action is justified, based on contemporary events. This is a very sensitive subject. I think that the issues need to be separated, however. I do not think that the French government has the right to decide whether or not it is 'fair' for Muslim women to 'have' to wear the niqab-- that is a judgment that only those women can make. I do think, however, that the French government has the right to decide whether or not Muslim women should be 'allowed' to wear the niqab. A distinction must be made here.

    ReplyDelete