French President Nicolas Sarkozy: “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity. The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”
And there’s this too:
Women’s rights campaigners, including some Islamic groups, have backed the calls for measures to curb the small but growing trend of wearing burqas among France’s five million Muslims.
Fadela Amara, a rights campaigner of Algerian background, who is the Housing Minister, said that was alarmed by the number of women “who are being put in this kind of tomb”.
She added: “We must do everything to stop burqas from spreading.”
The State enforcing dress codes is not a good idea, whatever the dress code.
Modernity,
I’m very much torn as to whether this is a good measure or not.
On the one hand, I intuitively agree with what you’re saying. On the other hand, if it’s the case that some (if not all) women who wear the burqa against their will, then the case can be made that the state has a reasonable interest in protecting their inalienable rights to dress as like over and against religious or community customs. But then the question becomes: how does the state differentiate between women who wear it out of free will and those who are coerced by family/community pressure?
“The State enforcing dress codes is not a good idea, whatever the dress code.”
I disagree, the wearing of the Burqa is often enforced within the Muslim community and is not adopted freely.
In any case, covering one’s face is a democracy is problematic.
This is a great step towards women’s equality, dignity and freedom from the horror which goes on in muslim countries.
Modernity,
I’m very much torn as to whether this is a good measure or not. On the one hand, I intuitively agree with what you’re saying.
On the other hand, if it’s the case that some (if not all) women who wear the burqa do so against their will, then the case can be made that the state has a reasonable interest in protecting their inalienable rights to dress as they like over and against religious or community customs. But then the question becomes: how does the state differentiate between women who wear it out of free will and those who are coerced by family/community pressure?
Why stop at burqas?
Why not enforce white shirts, certain length beards and long trousers? As various religious police around the world have done?
Also, it might be worthwhile casting our mind back to the age of English puritanism, enforced dress codes and societal coercion? Not a good idea.
Once you accept the notion of enforced dress codes then you set a dangerous precedence.
Indeed ganselmi, it is a can of worms.
No modernity, sorry. This is not about “enforced dress codes”. Wherever the burqa is used, its use is justified with the “argument” that women who are not dressed “modestly” enough, i.e. in this case, reduced to moving piles of textiles without any individuality, are arousing men. Sarkozy got it exactly right. And I don’t care if there is a woman who says she wants to wear a burqa — there are many places where she is welcome to do it, but if she choses to live in a western country, she has to be willing to adopt to some minimum values. And walking around in outfits that plainly are nothing else but a symbol of brutal patriarchal oppression is simply not acceptable. It’s not about dress codes. She can wear a baggy long dress or coat, and a headscarf, and whatever else she pleases, but a burqa or the ghastly Saudi outfits are indeed nothing else but a symbol that makes a woman’s clothing responsible for men’s sexual urges. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
modernity:
The wearing of the burqua flows from the same wellspring as the puritan dress codes, just taken to an even higher level. Banning the burqua is the moral opposite of pressing for puritan dress codes, as the former prevents religious fanatics from imposing their will on others.
Banning the hejab is another matter. We accept the headcoverings worn by men and women of various faith groups which are significantly less obtrusive.
All those who welcome Sarkozy’s comments about the burka, would do well to read his speech in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article2470
Especially when he quotes King Abdallah praising his tolerance and wisdom :
“Sa Majesté le Roi Abdallah n’a pas dit autre chose en adressant aux pèlerins venus du monde entier ces paroles magnifiques de vérité et de sagesse :
« Les grandes religions divines se rassemblent autour d’un certain nombre de principes communs et partagent les grandes valeurs de tolérance. Ces valeurs font dans leur ensemble l’esprit d’humanité et distinguent l’Homme des autres créatures. Je veux parler des valeurs d’intégrité morale dans la parole et l’action, la tolérance, la solidarité, l’égalité, la dignité et le souci de cette pierre angulaire pour chaque société, à savoir la famille (…). Qu’il me soit permis, poursuit Sa Majesté, d’inviter tous ceux à qui parviendront ces mots à nous rappeler ce qui réunit les religions, les croyances et les cultures. » Lorsque Sa Majesté parle ainsi, elle parle de valeurs universelles, elle pourrait parler au nom de tous les hommes.”
How about banning women from covering their breasts? Isn’t the law on toplessness similar to the law on removing burqas? Western hypocrites…
I agree, typical Western attitudes about Muslim clothing are full of hypocrisy, self-riteousness, and colonial attitudes. I feel strange when I visit the USA and my wife can’t breast=feed her baby in public since it’s not really “acceptable” to bare your breasts for feeding in every public place in the US. Well, why isn’t there a public outcry about this similar to about burqas? Because it’s easy to point fingers and others and make judgements based on one’s own cultural norms. So are Amazonian tribeswomen the freest women on the planet?