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.

Artistic Expression or Social Harm? (B5 Ika and Jerald)

The real world issue concerns individuals who are fined or jailed for perusing or drawing artwork of children engaged in sexual behaviour. Two cases are brought up: A person is fined $3000 for drawing girls performing sexual acts and another is jailed for 20 years for 74 counts of owning manga depicting lolicon, or children engaging in sexual acts. This podcast presented the testimonies of two different sides of this issue. On one side we have Charles Brownstien and the argument of freedom of expression. An artist should be able to paint or draw what he wants to. Also, because the characters that are drawn are fictional, do they really fall under the classification of child pornography? We cannot prosecute people for ideas, represented on a piece of paper with lines. On the other hand, we look at the danger of artworks which fall into these categories. Marie Leery claims that we can never provide evidence to confirm that there is a direct correlation between people who are exposed to these artworks and whether or not they themselves turn into offenders. There is still social harm being cause when the material is fictional but still obscene. Where is the legal line for comic artists?

We think that the knowledge issue here is where do we draw the line between the freedom of expression and the safety of the public. On one extreme, we can say that any harmful ideas or thoughts should be prosecuted. Any painting, or film, or game which suggests the slightest bit of violence or sex should be banned. There will be total censorship over everything. This is absurd because almost all materials can be suggestive of some form of immorality. And besides, what is moral and what is not? Something that is considered to be an unspeakable act of horror in one culture might be appropriate and accepted as something normal in another. On the other extreme, if there is complete freedom of expression then people would be allowed to express their rage at someone by murdering them. There would be no consequences for any action, and the world will be chaotic. Clearly there is a middle ground where we have to sacrifice some aspects of each extreme for the benefit of a quality from the other.

In an article on how the quotes we associate to various famous people are actually idealized versions of what they really said, we see the same knowledge issue appear. Are we recasting the knowledge of great thinkers in the shape of our illusions? Do we, and should we, idealize to protect ourselves from harmful knowledge? In this case, the middle ground would be closer to the freedom of expression, because it is better to accept the words of great thinkers for what they are, even if they do not promise what we want to hear. If we changed these quotations to reassure ourselves of what we want to hear, we are protecting ourselves from harm by deluding ourselves and conforming to one chain of thought. In the case of the fine line between porn and art, when we allow artworks which suggest child pornography to be published, we are also deluding ourselves to some extent, that these artistic expressions are in fact pointing toward the notion of child pornography. However, we have to respect the same freedom of expression at the same time, at the cost of public safety.

There is another case where the line between pornography and art is extremely unclear that involves real-life characters. Klara and Edda Belly-dancing (click at your own risk!), a photograph by award-winning American photographer Nan Goldin, depicts two young girls dancing, one of them naked. Both of their legs were spread out. This was displayed as part of a 139-image collection in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. This piece was removed from the gallery by police, and it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to prosecute under the 1978 Project of Children Act that prohibits showing "indecent" photographs of children. In this case , the issue is not only whether or not the piece of art is porn or not - it's whether or not it is meant to be porn and how people perceive it as porn or not. For a piece of artwork, the reaction of the audience to it is an essential part of the message of the piece is. Not everyone has the same opinion on a photo of child nudity. While Goldin and some people might perceive the photo as capturing a realistic moment of children playing, others might see it as material for masturbation for pedophiles. What the audience think and does in reaction to the artwork, which could be harmful, might not be the intention of the artist.This is a good example of a work that that is potentially "immoral" where it's conviction is still a question. Since reactions to the photo are split, it is fair to take a middle ground with this case and take a risk with public safety in exchange for the freedom of expression.

Going back to the real world issue of artistic expression versus the social harm in artwork which suggest child pornography, we have to decide what is more important in this case, the freedom of expression, or public safety. We have to acknowledge the fact that while fictional characters are not actual people, they do represent them; an illustration of child depicted having sex is representative of child pornography. Because of this, if there is in fact a correlation between reading these illustrations and going on to perform the same acts, drawing such artwork or mangas should be illegal, unless the art in question has values in literature or science or represents something else aside from child pornography.