Sarkozy bottles banning the burka
Dear Nicolas Sarkozy,
What a strange week it was for you. Even though you publicly restated your opposition to women wearing burkas in a speech on French national identity last week by saying that “France is a country where there is no place for the burka, where there is no place for the subservience of women”, it seems as though your wish will not come to pass. Whether this is the end of the matter remains to be seen.
France has had a long-running debate on how far it is willing to go to accommodate Islam without undermining the tradition of separating church and state, enshrined in a flagship 1905 law. In 2004, it passed a law banning headscarves or any other “conspicuous” religious symbols in state schools to defend secularism and in June you said the burka was not a symbol of religious faith but a sign of women’s “subservience” and declared that the full veil was “not welcome” in France. Last month, you set a country-wide debate in motion on what it means to be French as well as commissioning a special panel of 32 lawmakers to consider whether a law should be enacted to bar Muslim women from wearing the full veil. However, it emerged at the end of last week that France will issue recommendations against full face veils but not pass a law barring Muslim women from wearing them. Andre Gerin, who chairs the parliamentary inquiry into use of face veils, reluctantly ruled out a ban just one day after your speech. Gerin, who denounces the head-to-toe veils as “walking coffins,” told Europe 1 radio: “We’ll end up with recommendations . . . not a law in itself against the burqa, maybe a symbolic law, a law of liberation (of women).” Backing off from a complete ban, he said the panel might propose “radical measures” to ban full face veils in municipal hospitals and other public institutions, but gave no details.
Your hopes for ban have stumbled after legal experts, local officials, Muslim leaders and even some militant secularists told the veil inquiry during the debate on national identity that a ban could be anti-constitutional, counterproductive and impossible to enforce. French Islamic community leaders have also warned against passing a law that would stigmatise Muslims. I cannot comment on a ban being anti-constitutional, but the issue of a ban being counterproductive and ‘impossible’ to enforce merits discussion. Personally, I would have thought that it would be extremely easy to enforce, given that burkas and niqabs are not exactly inconspicuous. To suggest that a ban would be counterproductive very much depends on what the aim of the ban would be and how the Muslim community reacted. There is nothing in the Koran about women wearing face coverings - it is purely a cultural construct - so there is no religious basis for suggesting that a ban on face coverings would result in women being locked up in their houses. In addition, I’m told that Islam forbids any man from forcing a woman to wear a face covering (although cultural pressure is likely to be forceful enough unless someone like yourself intervenes). Thus, if face coverings were banned, every Muslim woman would still have her freedom while her marriage and family life would be completely unaffected, making any objections about ’stigmatising Muslims’ look pretty pathetic. If the aim of the legislation is to bring about a more tolerant and less fearful society, I see no reason to rationally oppose a complete ban, and a ban of full face veils in all public buildings should be an absolute minimum.
You defended the “noble debate” on this matter by saying that ”those who do not want this debate are afraid of it,” and of course you’re right. Making Muslims realise their obligations to the culture and values of Western society is absolutely crucial if an integrated society is to be realised in France, the UK or elsewhere. France’s explicit laws designed to protect its secular underpinnings give you a mandate to address this issue far more forcefully than any weak and cowardly British PM, and I wish you luck in removing this horrible blight of female subservience as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
“To suggest that a ban would be counterproductive very much depends on what the aim of the ban would be and how the Muslim community reacted.”
Why just ‘the Muslim community’? Those of us not in the Muslim community may have issues with this too, as I think you’ll recall from the last time this topic raised its head..
“Making Muslims realise their obligations to the culture and values of Western society is absolutely crucial…”
Which ones? The ones that state we are (generally) free to wear what we want in public?
‘First they came for the burkha, and I didn’t object because I wasn’t a Muslim.
Then they came for my political slogan t-shirt, and I thought ‘Hang on a sec…’
By the Muslim community reacting, I was more referring to whether they try to play the ‘It’s part of our religion’ card, which is a red herring.
Face coverings in the form of balaclavas are not tolerated in shopping centres, schools, hospitals, in the street or indeed anywhere else – why? Because in Western society, for the purposes of security, communication and identification, we see it as important that we can see someone’s face. I doubt it is illegal to wear a balaclava, but it is certainly not tolerated in the vast majority of places. Our culture does not accept people deliberately hiding their identity or being forced or coerced to do so.
Presumably, LFAT, as you think wearing the veil is purely a cultural norm and that Muslim women living in the West should conform in public to our cultural norms, you’d have no objections if your wife or female acquaintances were made to wear the burka or niqab in Saudi Arabia or other hardline Muslim states.
You’ve got that the wrong way round. They did t-shirts first…
BW, I would have no grounds for complaint if that was indeed the case. On that note, I visited the Middle East during my week off recently, and myself and my girlfriend were extremely respectful about what we wore (e.g. my girlfriend kept her shoulders covered, no short skirts, no drinking in public, no low necklines etc etc). When you visit or live in a country with a different culture, you stick by it – no ifs, no buts, you just do it.
Shaun, good spot but a random spot nonetheless.
“By the Muslim community reacting, I was more referring to whether they try to play the ‘It’s part of our religion’ card, which is a red herring.”
Sadly, with the new Religious bill, the government have ensured that it’s not a red herring. And I don’t care WHY you want to wear something, I only care that you CAN, so long as others are free to not serve you, as in the balaclava case you raise.
“You’ve got that the wrong way round. They did t-shirts first… “
Ah. Yes, I’d clean forgotten that case…
@LFAT – Fair enough, LFAT, although I think you somewhat dodged the question. How would your girlfriend have reacted to being forced to wear the burka (not just modest but Western-style clothing) by enforcement officers in the street: the reverse of a ban on the burka being enforced, presumably by police officers, in public in the UK?
Another example: if it were a cultural norm for Christians in this country to wear crosses prominently over their clothing, and those Christians themselves regarded this cultural norm as a testimony to their faith that was in itself inoffensive and non-culturally specific, how would you expect such Christians to feel about being made to take off their ‘offensive’ crosses in Muslim countries? You may feel that wearing the burka or niqab is merely a cultural practice; but clearly, many of those doing so don’t.
The fact is you simply shouldn’t go around banning things just because you don’t like them. Gordon Brown does that sort of thing..
Rightly or wrongly, nudity, defined by not wearing ANY clothes in public places is usually punished as ‘gross indecency’. This is the correct ‘corollary-opposite’ to the niqab which itself springs from a culture that defines NOT wearing the niqab/burkha as being grossly indecent but which, I would contend, were I a ballsy (but not attached to my job) prosecutor at the CPS, is at least as indecent as nudity to our society since it’s *extremes* of dress we take issue with – be in ‘no clothes’ or ‘political uniforms’ and, I’d be arguing, the
bin bagburkha.I am not offended by what I see, but I will defend to the death your right to be offended.
On normal matters, personal sexual morality, drugs, drink, entertainment, smacking kids, I’d agree with you. However, on matters pertaining to national survival, even libertarians acknowledge the onus on the state to preserve the life, liberty and property of it’s people. I, and others, view the burkha not as a religious affectation but as the cultural imposition which it clearly is. It is an artefact of Arab tribal society, not of Islam, per se, which only requires ‘modesty’ but Mohammed wisely chose not to define that too explicitly. Today the Burkha is the sign, the banner, the rallying cry of Islamist nutjobs. Sacrificing women is nothing to them, nor is subjugating them to their religiously-inspired cultural beliefs that if they, as men, see an ‘uncovered’ woman that they’d lose control and rape them (which allows them, ironically, to believe that they are protecting women by imprisoning them).
It is this Islamism that is being opposed and so I’d consider very carefully if banning their banner-clothing would in any way damage their Caliphate objectives. If religious uniform per se was outlawed, Burkas and the odd loose trouser suits you see around Bradford and elsewhere, then perhaps we’d strike a blow for our, largely secular but residually Christian, society. At a stroke such areas would become less visual homogeneous and therefore become less of a ‘no go’ area than they can be at present.
The risk of a ban is that you do two things: you radicalise more muslims by allowing Islamists to claim that Islam per se, and not an Arabic cultural practice, is under attack and secondly by forcing people ‘out of uniform’ you actually make it easier for them to move unnoticed among us for whatever nefarious purpose they have. This latter one is probably bollocks, tho, as ‘its the ones without beards you need to watch out for’ as one old shady fella explained to me – and its worth noting that the 7/7 bombers wore western dress for their attacks.
@Shaun Pilkington – But the problem still lies in that it’s an attempt to dictate what people wear in a free Western society. Whilst I personally hate the damn things and everything they stand for I’m still more concerned by my right to wrap my face in a scarf and wear a hood when it’s freezing outside. So what’s the difference between the two?
Surely these ‘Islamic’ women could simply dress as I do and thus still preserve whatever the hell it is that they’re supposed to be preserving? So then, to ‘protect’ these women my scarves and hoods would have to banned too in case they were being forced to wear them. And I’d get cold.
Damn straight they should have to remove burkhas and whatnots when conducting official business or entering a bank, etc, but to dictate what people may or may not wear in their own time is just plain wrong.
I am always apprehensive when someone wants to ban something for somebody else’s own good..
I don’t have a problem with them wearing it as such, but I feel they should be forced to remove it when in shops etc (as motorcyclists do).
Of course, in today’s surveillance country, they should be banned – can’t tell who they are when out on the street otherwise!
But we DO dictate what people should wear, rightly or wrongly. We arrest topless women or bottomless men or naked people of both genders if they walk down the street in that state. So where these people wear too little clothing, I would contend that there is an equal offence at the opposite end of the clothing spectrum – a burka that covers all where a nudist reveals all.
That’s the rub, isn’t it? Nobody ever heard of a naturist terrorist attempting escape in a burka so from a security point of view, there’s a stronger case to ban burkas than nudists in public places!
I agree with Shaun, there can be no defence if we do (as we do) control nudity etc. Somebody mentioned motorcycle helmets and balaclavas, crumbs, they were on about banning hoodies so how the Burka can survive I do not know. If the burka can be allowed then so can suits of armour and Ned Kelly masks, full diving gear, etc.
@Shaun Pilkington – Then push for a repeal of those laws regarding nudity would be the answer. I’m fine with that.
As for the burkha = suicide bomber argument, puhlease..
And the suits of armour and masks mentioned by Span Ows, are we now suggesting banning fancy dress parties?
Just curious..
@BTS – I simply provided two (linked) instances where people involved with Jihadi terrorism have sought to use culturally-appropriate head-to-toe attire in order to escape from the forces of law and order.
Because, y’know, it does happen. And since you raised the burka/suicide bomber thing, perhaps these would clarify things for you a wee bit.
Link one
Link two
Link three
Link four
Link five
What do you know? Burka bombers happen too!
@Shaun Pilkington – I’m not saying that they don’t (and I hope that you’ll forgive me if I look at the links tomorrow as I was supposed to finish work four hours ago and am dead on my feet just now), but I am saying that in such case we need to ban trench coats (again, I wear one) and even dressing-gowns in public (believe it or not I do wear one to work) not to mention all bags. In fact shouldn’t public nudity be enforced by the state so as to protect us from everything?
Except hypothermia perhaps..
@BTS –
“And the suits of armour and masks mentioned by Span Ows, are we now suggesting banning fancy dress parties?”
Au contraire: I want to go to the bank, the supermarket etc in a Ned Kelly mask. I’m sure I’d be allowed to do so.