Timing Is Everything: Nicolas Sarkozy Defends Women’s Rights by Restricting Them

by Special Correspondent Wendi Muse

I must open this piece by stating that as someone who believes in equality between men and women, I would not be happy if my country or my religion or my culture told me I must dress or look differently from my male peers. I am not happy when it happens in any country, including my own, the United States. When I turn on the television and hear stories of women spending countless dollars to look like a certain celebrity or see magazines marketed toward women that encourage them to do, act, or look a certain way to garner more male attention, whereas men participate far less  frequently in this charade, I am disgusted.

So when Afghanistan was the country of the moment leading up to the September 11th attacks and America’s subsequent response, I recall feeling angry every time I saw a woman in a burqa on television. My gut response was one tempered by the typical Western media approach to more conservative aspects of Islam. “Why must these women wear something covering every inch of their bodies, while men are left to dress according to their very whim?” I tried to put myself in these women’s shoes, knowing I would be incredibly angry if I went from wearing clothing I chose on my own to being forced to adhere to a new government policy that dictated my very move, even down to my personal style.I would feel trapped, limited, removed, alienated. I would feel separated from my former self, as I use my clothing and style to reflect my personality and my mood. Most of all, I would feel different, and ultimately inferior to the male peers with whom I was once, more or less, visually equal.

Yet now, as the burqa has resurfaced again in the Western media, my opinion has changed.

While looking for classroom discussion topics yesterday on CNN.com, I came across a piece on Nicolas Sarcozy’s recent statement on the use of the burqa in France.

“The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France.”

Reading this quotation alone sent a flood of opinions through my brain, one of them being “this is utter crap.” Clearly, the use of the burqa as mandated by law is not exactly fair to women, but to set a limitation on its use, especially in public spaces, is just as bad, if not worse.

With Iran in the news, our focus on the role of religion in conjunction with the government has been renewed, but has France’s supposed secular state opened up a new problem, perhaps one that demonstrates it is equally as dangerous to swing the opposite direction?

France,  a prime example of secular statehood, is looking to cloak anti-Islamic rhetoric in the fabric of women’s rights. Though Sarkozy claims that his inquiry into whether or not a ban on the burqa runs counter to France’s constitution is being conducted for the sake of protecting women and not based on the question of religion, he is doing quite the opposite. Of course his inquiry has to do with religion. To be more specific, not only does it unfairly and disportionately target the French Muslim community (um, do you see anyone else wearing burqas?), but it also, in an ironic twist, targets women by limiting women’s freedom of expression (again, um, know any men wearing burqas?)

So while I understand and sympathize with the reasoning behind Sarkozy’s proposal, that being to ensure women’s equality, I completely disagree with the way he is going about attempting this grand charge. He is exhibiting behavior that is the perfect example of what the women of so many marginalized communities often complain: 1) he is attempting to fight their struggles for them and 2) he is galvanizing a small issue in a minority sect of a larger community. He is using an attempt to protect women’s rights as a means of limiting them.

Within this attempt, Sarkozy is also acting to push a bigger issue. His real hidden agenda relates to protecting the French, and further, European identity, in the wake of rapid immigration from former European colonies. He is employing the burqa issue as a symbol, a metaphor for a greater “problem.” The general public is not as blind as he may think. And while some Muslims, including those active in French government, support this inquiry, their motives may be for protection and self-preservation more than anything else. Afterall, if you have a small thorn in your side, a splinter in the widespread acceptance of Muslim communities by way of a small, more conservative, and thus perceived as more radical Muslim minority sect, your community’s attempt to assimilate is going to be thwarted. By alienating the women within the population who choose, for whatever reason (one that is rightfully theirs and one the public should respect), to wear the burqa, one can distract the focus on Muslims to a focus on specific Muslims, the “other” Muslims who are different from “us,” the more assimilated, moderate, visually non-threatening to the European Identity types.

So sure, I would not want to wear a burqa, nor would Mr. Sarkozy, but that, as we all know, is completely irrelevant. It’s a distraction from the heart of the issue, which is xenophobic, anti-Muslim rhetoric to protect the European Identity as it crumbles to ashes. In a country where any religious clothing (down to a simple Star of David or crucifix necklace) has been outlawed from use in public schools and government jobs since 2004 and where even surveying the religious diversity of the nation is not allowed on a government level, this inquiry and potential future legislation is taking things too far. What a woman chooses to do in a public place, but on her watch, in her private time, even if that means adhering to something Sarkozy and his government may find objectionable and an affront to women’s rights, is her business. And no matter her ethnic, racial, geographic, or religious background, it needs to stay that way.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Friday Links — June 26, 2009 « Muslimah Media Watch on 26 Jun 2009 at 4:08 am

    [...] Los Angeles Times, CNN, with reactions from Beirut News, Islam Online, Global Comment, Austrolabe, Racialicious, and The American [...]

  2. Saving Muslim Women from the Oppression of the Headscarf, by Killing Them at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 15 Jul 2009 at 10:00 am

    [...] even when French President Sarkozy floated his wrong-headed hijab-ban I never thought I’d write about the scarf. It is annoying that so much of the conversation, [...]

Comments

  1. Afro-chan wrote:

    Amen Wendi Muse! I wrote the exact same thing! You hit the nail on the head with that one. Women rights my ***. He wants to increase a woman’s choice by dictating what she wears? Um…OK. Past arguments coming out of that camp clearly point to trying to weed out the non-Anglos/non-Christians as opposed to civil rights. If he was so in to civil rights why doesn’t he leave the Muslim communities alone? Oh wait, I know why! It’s because Islam marginalizes women. *voice dripping in sarcasm*. Thank goodness that doesn’t happen in Christian populations! *more sarcasm*. I find it interesting that people always point to burquas as if it is oh so common in Islam. Islam is as varied as any other religion. Who’s right is it to tell people how to worship or represent their faith? I wonder if quoting Fadela Amara (housing minister) will help his argument? Do you know anything about her?

  2. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Great post! He wants to free Muslim women by removing their rights?

    Insanity.

  3. bifemmefatale wrote:

    Just as a side note to this discussion, in France, “burqa” is used not only for the Afghan-style garment, but also for the abaya + niqab combination worn in Saudi Arabia and other places as well.

    As many commenters on this issue on feministing.com noted, banning the burqa could well have the effect of further limiting a woman’s movement in society. A woman whose family mandates the burqa or niqab might require her to stay home if covering were outlawed in France.

    And of course, there are many Muslim women who freely choose to cover, and banning the burqa or niqab erodes their freedom, not enhances it.

  4. Wendi Muse wrote:

    thx bifemmefatale…i didn’t see the feministing piece before i wrote mine. here is the link for readers who are interested in following the discussion there as well: http://www.feministing.com/archives/016268.html

  5. Tracey wrote:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. I lost it with the discussions on feministe and feministing. Also, not only are burqas and niqabs in the crosshairs, but they are considering all “fully covering gowns”. WTF?

  6. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @bifemmefatale,

    Good point. When the hijab was banned in school the instigators claimed to worry about the rights of females and integration.

    The reality is that the girls in question didnt take the hijab off, they simply left school and in many cases went to private Islamic schools where they were further removed from French society and culture and more likely to be drawn into radical religious views.

    They want to help women, fine and noble goal, but their actions are having the exact opposite effect.

  7. A.D. Nix wrote:

    “His real hidden agenda relates to protecting the French, and further, European identity, in the wake of rapid immigration from former European colonies. He is employing the burqa issue as a symbol, a metaphor for a greater “problem.”

    Completely. And he’s done a poor job of masking the heart of the issue. I don’t see how these are anything but oppressive assimilationist initiatives masquerading as fidelity to the spirit of liberté and egalité. (Fraternité isn’t even feigned).

  8. Iggles wrote:

    Interesting post! I agree with every point you brought up, however I disagree with your final conclusion. I think the Sarkozy’s argument about protecting women’s rights is crap. That is not is main motivation.

    “His real hidden agenda relates to protecting the French, and further, European identity, in the wake of rapid immigration from former European colonies.”

    This is absolutely spot on. However, I think that France has the right to make their own laws, and as such restricting the burka is their right.

    In conservative Islamic countries all women, even foreigners, must cover their hair. In all mosques women must wear scarves. In all synagogues even non-jewish men but cover their head. Countries have the right to uphold their beliefs, and sovereignty gives them the power to define their society.

    The way womens’ rights are restricted under sharia law goes against the principles of French beliefs. You mentioned,

    “In a country where any religious clothing (down to a simple Star of David or crucifix necklace) has been outlawed from use in public schools and government jobs since 2004 and where even surveying the religious diversity of the nation is not allowed on a government level, this inquiry and potential future legislation is taking things too far.”

    The French have a complicated relationship with religion. This goes back to the reformation. As an American the aforementioned restrictions seems severe to me, but in that context I don’t think banning the burka is radical for the French.

    I noticed that Sarkozy’s argument about banning the burka for public safety was absent from your post. This is a real issue in the age of suicide bombers. Having people walking around covered head to toe is a real safety issue. There has been a lot of civil unrest in France in the past few years. There have been riots. There also has been a rise in anti-semitic crimes as more extremists migrant to the country.

    I don’t think this is the best way for Sarkozy to tackle the unrest and issues surrounding mounting immigrant. But I believe the french can sort this issue out themselves. While it tempting to approach it as restricting women, the truth is, this is not purely a women’s rights issue. There are large issues at play. While there is rising contempt for Sarkozy, let’s not forget that conservative muslim women are already being oppressed by the men in their lives.

  9. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i think that’s my main problem with his argument though. if it’s a public safety issue, make it a public safety issue. and as mentioned before, if he is so worried about women’s rights, then why take away the right for women to cover themselves when, in some households, that may be the only way they can have freedom of movement outside of the home. it’s a difficult situation, but i think he’s going about dealing with it the wrong way, and thus potentially could cause further problems for muslim women who wear the burqa.

  10. Marc wrote:

    Wendi, why is it wrong for the French to want to to protect their culture, traditions and values? After all, those Muslims moved to France, and not the France to them.

    If I were in a Muslim country, I’d be expected to dress like them, and follow their culture and laws. Why don’t we expect the same from those living in France/Europe?

  11. jsb16 wrote:

    I can see reasons for banning any full face-covering, but feminism isn’t among them. Not even close.

  12. Wendi Muse wrote:

    marc,

    i think that is a totally valid point to make. however, as france claims to have a secular govt, one that does not dabble in matters of religion, this seems contradictory. it’s one thing if you live in a theocracy, it’s another if you live in a contry that is the complete opposite. i suppose the inquiry will lend itself to determining a final answer, whether or not this proposal goes against the french consitution, but on its face, it seems like it would…

  13. Marc wrote:

    The reason why Sarkozy wants this ban is because of the lack of integration of Muslims/immigrants into French society. As we all know, immigrants live in their own secluded neighborhoods (”banlieue”), and refuse to adapt to French culture and customs.

    I was talking to a French girl from Paris, and she told that there are areas, where she, as a native French woman dressed in normal attire (a skirt, a tanktop, etc..), would not feel comfortable going.

    She told that this occured only after she went many times, and was sweared at by Muslim immigrants, and the last time she went there, they threw rocks (!!!!!) at her and told her that she’s not welcome there, because it’s “their” area, and not hers, as a native French.

    Unfortunately, there are thousands of experiences just like hers.

  14. atlasien wrote:

    On one hand, I do think it’s important to not apply American judgments onto European countries that have very different relationships with established religion.

    France’s secularism comes out of a long history that involves struggling against the regressive forces of the Catholic Church. In many ways it’s similar to Mexico, whose government also enshrines secularism, even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country. In these countries, there were long, bloody, internecine battles between religious forces and secular forces. We don’t have that kind of history in the United States. Our secularism was much easier won.

    On the other hand, I don’t think it’s possible to put all religious displays on equal ground, the way many European anti-Islamic secularists like to do. Displaying a Christian cross is just not the same, in the real world, as displaying a headscarf in school. In France, Christians are not members of a racialized group that is systematically discriminated against, exploited and oppressed. But French Muslims are.

    I believe this is a racial/ethnic issue as much as a religious issue, and as such, the French government need to give it a much more nuanced approach.

    It really isn’t about the specific religion in question. For example, in India, Muslims and Christians and Buddhists are members of semi-racialized minority groups vulnerable to random attacks by Hindu fundamentalists. Then in Sri Lanka, Hindus are the minority religion/ethnicity, subject to oppression by Buddhists, and so on and so on…

    In any country, “treating all religions the same” doesn’t lead to any kind of real justice when minority religions are oppressed.

  15. kate wrote:

    @Marc – I’m sure that the areas where that French girl feels she is “unwelcome” because of her attire are relatively few in comparison to the areas where covered Muslim French women feel they are “unwelcome” because of their attire.

    If Sarkozy is worried about integration he should promote more social programs that encourage employment mobility, educational opportunities and cultural exchange designed to benefit the Muslim community, not restrict the clothing (and, as a consequence, likely the opportunities for mobility in society, at least for some) of women. Perhaps if immigrants to France felt that they had an equal chance at making a livelihood for themselves in French society, they would be more enthusiastic about integration. But Sarkozy and the rest of the hypocritical segments of French society has made it clear that they, and their religious wear, are not even welcome to try.

  16. Tracey wrote:

    I don’t think any country, anywhere has the right to impose upon the indiviual liberties of its citizens when personal action is not harming another. If it is about public safety, okay, but upholding a country’s culture and values is for museums and textbooks, not something to be imposed on bodies.
    Also, that incredibly stupid argument (my opinion and I stand by it) assumes that people are free to move about as they wish.It assumes that people do not have complicated reasons for immigrating. It assumes that if someone doesn’t like the limits placed on them they can just pick up and move elsewhere, that is simply not the case.Therefore, the limiting of someone’s personal freedom by any government is wrong and I am as much against the French banning niqab and burqa as I am a government mandating it.
    I am wholeheartedly against any government deciding it has the “right” to legislate social norms and culture. If someone is causing harm to another or imposing on another’s rights, fine, but legislating “norms” is completely out of line and dictatorial. Governments need to keep their hands off of people’s bodies, period. Human rights and individual sovereignty trump state’s “rights” and national “sovereignty”.
    If France is worried about its culture it should open new museums, not dictate to anyone how they should dress. Just because some countries think it’s okay to control the bodies of people within it’s borders does not mean that it is okay to do so.

  17. Jadey wrote:

    Marc, I genuinely do not see how controlling women’s attire promotes social and cultural/multicultural cohesion in France.

    Also, are you suggesting that French Muslims and Muslim immigrants in France are solely responsible for lack of integration in French society? I’m sorry for what happened to your friend. That is an awful experience, and no one deserves that. But I am sure it is not the only kind of negative experience happening in France. You are presenting an argument without sufficient justification for its association to the current discussion. What evidence is there that banning the burqa would prevent what happened to your friend? I mean, really? The burqa is not the only thing standing between French Muslims and other French people.

  18. Fiqah wrote:

    @Marc:

    I was talking to a French girl from Paris, and she told that there are areas, where she, as a native French woman dressed in normal attire (a skirt, a tanktop, etc..), would not feel comfortable going.

    GASP! Refusal to adapt to local customs? Hostility faced by”native” French people in certain neighborhoods? In their OWN country?! Well! That all sounds almost like being…gosh, what’ the word? Tip of my tongue here… oh, yeah! COLONIZED.

    Somebody please fetch me the world’s smallest violin for people masking their racist and xenophobic rhetoric as concerns for the preservation of French culture and the French way of life.

  19. DivergentDana wrote:

    I’m quite sure it goes both ways. The immigrants refuse to assimilate, sure, but the French also on some level, often refuse to see assimilated immigrants as equally French. In light of that, I can understand why the immigrants don’t feel that the prospect of alienation from both the French adopted culture and their culture of origin is a desirable option.

  20. gatamala wrote:

    I think that France has the right to make their own laws, and as such restricting the burka is their right.

    In conservative Islamic countries all women, even foreigners, must cover their hair. In all mosques women must wear scarves. In all synagogues even non-jewish men but cover their head. Countries have the right to uphold their beliefs, and sovereignty gives them the power to define their society.

    How does dictating what people wear mesh with the French sense of liberty?

    As the burqa is being banned for what it represents, isn’t referring to Islamic countries’ practices hypocritical? They’re totalitarian so we should be too? Is that French?

    What happens in mosques & synagogues has nothing to do with state action on personal garments.

  21. Iggles wrote:

    Wow, Marc. That story is harsh. As Americans we’re quick to pass judgments on how other countries deal with difficult issues without true understanding of the context and complexities.

    I agree with your post. It is a problem when a fraction of an immigrant group has no desire to assimilate and are actually hostile to the citizens of that country. Sarkozy’s law doesn’t pass the smell test for islamophobia. A great deal of french muslims are nothing like this. The problem is with the conservative/islamic extremists. Muslim politicians in France have noted this distinction as well.

  22. BSK wrote:

    Perhaps the French Muslim community’s “reluctance” to “assimilate” has less to do with their own actions and desires and more to do with the actions of French society as a whole? Wanting to maintain certain cultural or religious traditions does not make an individual or a group unwilling to assimilate. Is France’s society accessible to Muslims? If not, how can we hold it against them for failing to assimilate?

    (Note: I don’t agree that assimilation is required or even preferred; but, to those who do, this is a counterargument.)

  23. G.K. wrote:

    @marc

    You also have to keep in mind, it was the French who went around dominating and colonizing countries with Arab populations like Algeria–they basically just took over these countries,plundered them, and did what the hell they wanted without giving a damn what the native populations thought. And keep in mind some of those immigrants flocked to France from those same former French colonies to begin with. My point, yes, I believe that immigrants should assimilate into their host countries (I don’t think they should have to give up everything about their culture to do so—-they should be allowed to retain some of it) but if they’re never made to feel welcome no matter hard they try to fit in, and told that they can never become “real” French people because they’re not white or European then what are they supposed to do? In other words, it’s not always the immigrant’s fault that they can’t blend in.

  24. Marc wrote:

    @ Fiqah,

    There’s absolutely no reason to act like holier than thou, and completely dismiss anything that you don’t agree with.

    It’s am immense problem if the immigrants don’t want to integrate/assimilate into French society–the result is two parallel societies, with no contact to each other.

    To achieve cultural/racial harmony, all sides of the story must be taken into consideration, and that includes those of the native French. Ignoring them will lead only to resentment and hate, and as we’ve seen recently, the rise of membership in political conservative parties (e.g. Austria, UK, France, the Netherlands).

    It’s not just a one-way street, the French don’t have to or be forced to bow to immigrants’ desires, while ignoring their own culture and traditions.

    And yes, if a group of people (in this case, the native French) are forced to submit to and lose their own culture in favour of another’s group (the immigrants), that is, in fact, to use your own term, colonization.

  25. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Marc,

    I have spent a lot of time in France, in particular, the North African areas. I think you have it a bit backwards. Sure, there are many North Africans that want to bring their culture with them. The same thing happened here in the USA with Irish, Germans, Poles and the like. However, French society is one of the most racist and insular you’ll ever run into. Even if a North African wants to “assimilate”(whatever that means) at the end of the day to most French they are still not white, more importantly, not French. An Algerian woman can wear a mini skirt and speak perfect French, but her name is still “Aisha” so her chances of moving forward in the society are minimal. You are making an argument that the right here in the USA has been making for years. “All they have to do is assimilate into mainstream culture and everything will be okay.” Just like in the USA, there is much more to it than that.

    Besides, the whole thing ignores the history of French colonialism. The French never had a problem trying to import their culture into countries that didn’t want it. Putting aside the real reasons why things are the way they are in France today, there is a sort of poetic justice in the same thing happening to the French. At least with France at least it doesn’t involve armies of occupation and mass murder.

  26. Marc wrote:

    @ Jadey,

    There are always two sides to the same coin, I was just trying to point out the less popular one (that of the native French) because everybody expects the majority to bow to the minority and meet all of its demands.

    Both sides are responsible for the conflicts that are going on. However, it is my personal belief that an integrated immigrant is much more welcomed than one who isn’t.

    The problem is that the French feel threatened by the hijab/burkah/niqab and see their country under seize when they see a woman covered. They will never accept a covered Muslim the same way that they will accept a non-covered Muslim.

    Sarkozy knows this–it is easier for the French to accept a non-covered Muslim than it is to accept a covered Muslim, and thus increasing their chances of integration into the larger society.

    Therefore, both sides are at fault–the Muslims for not integrating and being hostile to the native population, and the French for expecting a minority to abandon their native country’s culture, and become French over night, which is not realistic.

  27. Arabi wrote:

    (Chuckles)
    WOW! Iggles and Marc, you incorrigible naivete is forgivable but know your just bordering on ignorant. Refuse to assimilate?: are you kidding me. Many of these Arabs are 3rd generation, born and raised in France, speak only French, listen to Hip Hop and wear “western” clothes, yet if they go to apply for a job in some French agency they’d be turned away simply for being Arab. The anti-Arab, African and Muslim sentiments in France are deep and they go back to…wait….hold on….yep you got it….COLONIALISM.
    How did all those Arabs get to France in the first place? Good question. Marc’s assumption that they just mosey on up to Gaul country so they could live in broken down housing projects and have little prospects for upward mobility was all just a plot to take over “French” culture. (Which is what?) Those nefarious Aaarabs!
    It couldn’t be that the French used their power as colonal masters to “invite” their Arab subjects to come work in the industries that were then devoid of workers due to mass depopulation brought upon by the excesses of WWII. ummm…yeah, couldn’t be that.
    I think it’s funny that a country that prides itself on its freedoms and equality is so about conformity and assimilation. Of course, what are they expected to assimilate too? what is this definitive French identity? Well, according to French school books, the French identity is founded upon a Gaul heritage, which Arabs and Africans, due to their non-white, non-Gaul ancestry , can never be a part of. So much for assimilation.
    The fact is, there colored bodies precludes them from ever being a representative of French identity and thus their perpetual strangers in their own homeland. And this is why Iggles can feel comfortable saying something along the lines of “Hostile to the citizens of that country.” As if they themselves are not citizens of that very nation as well! Born into the same rights and freedoms. As if they don’t face ostracisation and alienation, not simply for living other than the accepted ways of living but for being other than the accepted way of being. Do you not know the many places they are not a llowed to go simply for who they are? A first generation Armenian immigrant will receive more rights than a hip hop bumping, jeans and hoodie wearing, French-speaking, third gen Arab kid.
    Does not a citizen of a free republic have the right to live how they please within the statutes of civil law?

    Not if your Muslim!

  28. Evan wrote:

    What goes around comes around. Right France? Your nation colonized many peoples in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The French imposed their culture, language and form of government through the barrel of a gun on the colonized peoples. It was the French who expropriated lands and extracted raw materials for their own gain.

    Ask a Sengalese, Vietnamese, Algerian, Lebanese, or Cambodian person about France and French people; you will get some interesting replies. The hate is pretty fierce and deservedly so.

    I wish every Muslim female in France would put on a burqa for one day just to piss off Sarkozy.

  29. J.F.Sebastion wrote:

    First of all, it should be said that this whole mess about the burqa does not come from Nicolas Sarkozy (please, Wendi Muse, no “h” in Nicolas ;-) ).
    André Gérin is the one who asked wether it would be possible to study this “issue” and decide what to do about it. Gérin is the mayor of a town near the big city of Lyon, and many muslims live in his city, including women wearing burqas or niqabs. He is also a member of the French Communist Party (yes, we still have one).

    Another issue seems to have been forgotten in the article : the fact that some of those women don’t choose to wear the burqa… and actually, it is not easy to say how many are willing, and how many are not.

    Last, but not least, some people also argue that this is not a religious issue, but a security one. If you see someone wearing a burqa, you have no mean to check this person’s identity, gender, behaviour, …
    I doubt anyone wearing a burqa will be allowed to enter a bank.

    I’m not saying that burqas should be banned, neither am I saying that they have to be allowed. I’m just saying that this is a complicated matter…

    **note from Wendi: spelling correction noted. Thanks!**

  30. Tracey wrote:

    Marc,
    Sooo, banning the burqa and niqab will force them to assimilate…because…the women will no longer wear burqa and niqab…so they will stop secluding themselves and throwing rocks at people such as, like they do in The Iraq and we can give them maps so they move out of secluded neighborhoods, such as….I’m confused. And in some cases, France actually did go to them.
    The incident you described is assault and battery, or whatever the French equivalent is. Instead of punishing all women who dress a particualr way, they could just punish people who do stuff like that. It really annoys me when people suggest that a government has the right to enshrine cultural norms and values through laws. Especially since that can be reason to condemn homosexuality, pre-marital sex, enshrine gender roles, outlaw abortion, etc. Afterall, those things all are based on cultural norms and values.
    Also, once more women’s bodies are no more than bargaining chips and gatekeeping devices to be controlled, imposed upon, and argued over. Once more, a group of men or mostly men is getting together to decide what women should do and what they can wear. Once again a group of mostly white people are getting together to dictate the behavior of a group of mostly POC. Once again, the burden falls squarely on the shoulders of women. Sometimes the burden is for morality, in this case it is for “assimilation.” And once again, this is all done under the guise of “protection” and what’s “best” for them.
    Assimilation is a completely BS concept which usually has no degree of measurability. How will banning the niqab or burka bring about a wave of assimilation? A ban of this nature would just be a reactionary policy that would do nothing to further “assimilation” or women’s rights. Proposals like this obviously infuriate me to no end because it seems we are constanly being put in cages with our hands tied unable to even control our own bodies. It seems someone is constantly trying to strip away every ounce of agency we have, and always in the name of “protection, “help”, norms or values.

  31. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Marc – I feel like there is a difference between what is religiously mandated and the respect of local customs. I’ve lived abroad and I made sure to respect local customs and even changed my style a bit to “fit in.” I feel like it crosses a line to legally prohibit what some see as a religious duty.

    Also, it’s crazy to think that prohibiting women from wearing burqas (and apparently, niqab, which is more common) will somehow liberate women. They tried this in pre-revolution Iran, how well did that turn out? In Turkey, the restrictions on Muslim women’s clothing actually go farther than this French law; they prohibit even headscarves. This is just as bad as post-revolution Iran or Saudi Arabia where women are forced to wear headscarves. Why would France take this as an example?

  32. Aishtamid wrote:

    Also, this seems to be the most civil thread on the internet about this topic. The one on Feministe is chock full of Islamophobia.

  33. Sobia wrote:

    @ Marc:

    “She told that this occured only after she went many times, and was sweared at by Muslim immigrants, and the last time she went there, they threw rocks (!!!!!) at her and told her that she’s not welcome there, because it’s “their” area, and not hers, as a native French.

    Unfortunately, there are thousands of experiences just like hers.”

    First, violence is never appropriate so those actions were uncalled for. However, what about the oppressive violence of the French state toward it’s Muslim immigrants? As others have mentioned already, we have to recognize that 1) France was a colonizer of those same countries that these immigrants are coming from. The French killed, oppressed, slaughtered, raped, and pillaged people in THEIR OWN countries. Imagine!
    2) France does not have the most welcoming policies toward their immigrants either.

    I’m a Muslim Canadian, born and raised, and me, and others like me, have been told to get out of Canada numerous times, to be more “Canadian”, that we don’t really belong, that we’re different and unwelcome. And all this in OUR OWN country – Canada.

  34. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Assimilation?

    I have the perfect example. The remake of the well known French song “Mon Amie la Rose” originally sung by Françoise Hardy, but remade in French and Arabic by Natacha Atlas.

    First time I heard it I was stuck in traffic in Paris. It actually was on the French charts for awhile.

    The problem is, to many French, assimilation means nothing more than “the wogs” acting white. Assimilation is a two way street. Until the French get it nothing will change.

  35. Sobia wrote:

    @ Marc:

    “And yes, if a group of people (in this case, the native French) are forced to submit to and lose their own culture in favour of another’s group (the immigrants), that is, in fact, to use your own term, colonization.”

    Are you effing kidding me? You seriously cannot be comparing immigrant groups, a huge number of whom are citizens by birth, moving to France to colonization!!

    Colonization is not just about moving to a new country. Colonization is about power. Colonization is about invading a country by force, killing off a whole bunch of people, and then continuing to rule over it. It is about being in all the positions of power of a country you have just invaded and ruling over the people you have just oppressed.

    Marc, you need to look up the definition of colonization.

  36. Marc wrote:

    I am completely aware of French colonization of the North African countries. However, does that make it ok for immigrants to not integrate into French society and to hold French values/traditions and the French culture as despicable?

    I did my graduate studies in France, and to be honest with you, the French do have their own issues, but that does not mean that the immigrants can do whatever they want in France.

    The problem is not the first generation immigrants–those integrated and were happy to be French and to afforded all the liberties that they weren’t in their native countries.

    However, the second generation, those that were born there, in France, have an idealized version of their native countries (e.g. Morocco, Tunisia, etc…), and believe that they would a better life there than they do in France (even though they’ve never been there or went there just on vacation). As well, the generations that were born there become conservative Muslims, and put Islam on a pedestal, and see anything that’s not in Koran, wrong and not worthy of their respect.

    I know many French people (both native and of North African origins), and this is what they told me: the native French want their culture and traditions to be respected. Those of North African origin can be separated into two groups: 1) those that integrated/assimilated, who feel and behave French, and thus experience no problems from the native population (e.g. jobs) and 2) Conservative Muslims, those that refuse to integrate, despise France and thus, of course have problems integrating.

    I’m not saying that only the immigrants are at fault, what I’m saying is that the French must also be understood and their views acknowledged.

  37. Marc wrote:

    @Sobia,

    To many French/Europeans, that’s exactly what’s happening. Immigrants moved to their countries against their wishes, and the native population do not want them, only the government does (therefore, a minority of the population).

    Why do you think the BNP, in the UK, won 2 seats in the European parliament? Because they promised to stop immigration. Why did Geert Wilders, the leader of the conservative party in the Netherlands, won the majority? Because he promised to fight against uncontrolled immigration. Why did all the conservative powers in Western Europe increase in power? Because Europeans don’t want immigration, and because they need someone to stop them. In their opinion, those people are moving in against their wishes.

    The native European population sees the immigrant population rising, and they become fearful, they become fearful of becoming minorities in their own country. Can’t this be interpreted as colonization? Rise in numbers, which leads to increase in power, which will eventually lead to control over the respective countries.

    This is not my personal opinion (in all countries, the immigrant population is less than 10%, with most of them integrated into their respective countries and the above scenario seems unlikely).

    I only showed you how Europeans think and why Sarkozy’s ban is a way to relax the native French, and to increase integration.

  38. method wrote:

    The French colonialism argument is dumb and unproductive. All it means is that France might have a special duty towards the members of its former colonies and their descendants. But to simply cite the history of French colonialism as justification for whatever happens is immoral. Immigrants and their descendants will suffer unless the French figure out how to handle their situation. Right now the right is gaining power all over Europe (watch what happens in the UK’s next elections) because the liberals haven’t been able to manage perceptions about immigration properly. They’ve created the conditions for a dangerous populist revulsion against immigrants. Sarkozy is an interesting figure because as the son of a Hungarian immigrant and a moderate right-wing politician he has the ability to hold the line against the worst nationalism.

    I accept the idea that there are problems preventing assimilation/acceptance on both sides, but just saying “colonialism nyah, nyah, nyah” doesn’t help. It just feels good.

  39. Sniper wrote:

    Somebody please fetch me the world’s smallest violin for people masking their racist and xenophobic rhetoric as concerns for the preservation of French culture and the French way of life.

    Are you seriously suggesting that sexual harassment is an appropriate response to a history of colonialism? That’s just nuts.

    Also, while I don’t understand all the nuances of the political situation in France, never having lived there, I find it interesting that the government is choosing to use women’s individual bodies and choices as a battleground. I wonder if Sikh men are being targeted the same way. I would not be surprised if this has something in common with the abortion debate here – a cultural clash with women getting the short end of the stick.

  40. JL wrote:

    “Another issue seems to have been forgotten in the article : the fact that some of those women don’t choose to wear the burqa… and actually, it is not easy to say how many are willing, and how many are not.”

    But that’s not what the article is about. The article is about a push to limit the ones who DO choose it. It’s about an assumption that nobody would freely choose it.

    It reminds me of some anti-abortion rights protesters I’ve encountered in the US who claim that no woman would freely choose abortion, therefore they are clearly all being coerced and it is an instrument of oppression against women. Yes, there are women who are coerced into having an abortion by husbands, boyfriends, parents, etc, but that doesn’t mean that all women who get abortions are being coerced, and is irrelevant to the debate over whether women should be allowed to have abortions at all. Similarly, the fact that some women are forced to wear burqas doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t be allowed to choose to do so.

  41. Nora wrote:

    Aishtamid – Word. Feministe’s comments are ridiculous.

    Let’s give Muslim women some credit. They can fight their own battles. I wish that Western allies would stand in solidarity with Muslim women’s struggles…not decide which battles to fight. (FD: this is a paraphrasing of a MUCH longer comment I posted on Feministe). I also would like to add that this blog takes on Islamic issues more respectfully than any forum I’ve come across on the internet. I know it’s hard to broach the topics of ethnicity and race and religion in a culture that is not one’s own respectfully, but I feel like most of the commenters here are truly looking to understand

  42. Jadey wrote:

    “Another issue seems to have been forgotten in the article : the fact that some of those women don’t choose to wear the burqa… and actually, it is not easy to say how many are willing, and how many are not.” (29)

    You’re right that this is an important aspect, because banning the burqa does not address the role of choice of this issue whatsoever. It makes it worse! The idea of these women’s autonomy and self-determination is completely thrown away, as they are turned into battlegrounds in a debate that should be for them and with their voices. French Muslim women are likely as divided on this as any of us, but they have a hell of a lot more at stake.

  43. N wrote:

    Just as a female, it disturbs me because there seems to be no recognition of the fact that many women would feel naked, as naked as I would feel if I were compelled to shed my American beliefs about modesty and appropriate clothing and go about in nothing but some sort of covering in the general area of my crotch.
    Requiring me not to wear clothing I was accustomed to would make me feel violated.

  44. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I agree with Tracey and “Assimilation is a completely BS concept which usually has no degree of measurability.”

    Consider a familiar example such as Chinese Americans living together in some city’s Chinatown. As long as they obey the laws and keep their community functioning smoothly, who cares if they live “apart” from everyone else? How would it help society if they intermingled with other folks in plain-vanilla suburbs? What business is it of anyone’s whether they choose to assimilate or not?

    I’d love to hear the evidence that a homogenized, monocultural society is better than a heterogeneous, multicultural society. For instance, can someone prove that Japan or Iceland or Saudi Arabia has a stronger, richer culture than Brazil or India or the United States? I don’t think so.

  45. Abu Sinan wrote:

    I was born in Germany, and we had/have our own immigration issue there.

    Take a look at the facts. European families do not have enough children to replace their population, hence the numbers of Europeans not from immgrant families is falling in many countries in Europe.

    The immigrants were brought over to do the jobs that no other white European was interested in doing. Now that European populations are falling fast in the West of European these immigrants are not only picking up the trash and sweeping the streets.

    These immigrants, brought by the Europeans themselves, are taking the good jobs, the jobs that the Europeans never thought they could do. The Europeans cannot really do much about it because their numbers are falling and if the immigrants were to stop or leave Europe would be left in a nightmare situation.

    The way things are going white Europeans are going to breed themselves out of existance. I dont think it’s a big deal really. Civilisations come and go. Hundreds and hundreds of civilisations, peoples and societies have ceased to exist in the world’s history.

    What I see happening is some whites in Europe getting really upset over the issue. They have instituted government programs to get couples to have more children, all targeted towards their white citizens even though the programs dont say that. Anyone think France, Germany, Sweden or Norway want their immigrants to have MORE children? The problem is these programs only have limited impact and arent really working.

    Suzy and John Europe are just choosing to not have children and would rather have an extra dog, extra car, or more holidays at Ibitha. This is their right. But do they think this is going to happen in a vacuum?

    The people they bring in to replace their own workers are going to bring their cultures with them. Without these immigrant workers and their populations many of these countries would face economic disaster.

    It isnt just Muslims and North Africans, in Spain it is Central and South Americans, with the same issues resulting.

    In 100 years European will look completely different than it does now. Not because of invading Muslim or South American colonists………….because the native populations themselves didnt find their own societies and cultures important enough to have enough children to keep them going.

    That is the way things go. What I find awful is the way that the immigrants are treated when it is a self made European problem!

  46. Clara wrote:

    Marc:

    The native European population sees the immigrant population rising, and they become fearful, they become fearful of becoming minorities in their own country. Can’t this be interpreted as colonization? Rise in numbers, which leads to increase in power, which will eventually lead to control over the respective countries.

    NO.

    What you describe here is most definitely NOT colonialization. Multiple commenter have already explained this, but I’ll do it again. Colonialization is not simply one ethnic group becoming bigger than another. It is about relationships of power, about who is in control. North Africans moving into France is NOT the same as the French taking over Vietnam. The story of your friend (in #13) is very sad, but can you really say that French-Anglos are more harassed than French-Muslims?

    Someone else said this before, but once again, I’m going to repeat it. You act like integration is a catch all solution. But it’s not. People will make judgments on physical appearances at first sight. A French girl who happens to of North African descent can walk down the street and wear something in the same style as a French girl who happens to be Caucasian. But people will still ask her if she was born in France, or if she speaks French fluently, even if she has been here for generations. No, I’m not just imposing my American assumptions on a non-American country.

    I understand that you are trying to show the thinking behind many Europeans think. But that doesn’t make their thinking right, and throughout this comment thread, it seems like you were defending them. That is why you’re getting a lot of comment responses that disagree with you.

  47. Marc wrote:

    @ Robert Schmidt,

    Are you actually suggesting that Europe should be split up? So should London, UK, be split into to, one being called London, the other one Londonistan? Should part of Paris be called Casablanca? That’s colonization and taking over a country.

    Those immigrants CHOSE to come to Europe, and it’s their duty to integrate/assimilate. If they don’t want to, they should go back to their native countries. It’s the person duty of any immigrant to any country to adapt to that country’s culture and traditions. Otherwise, they just came to take advantage of the country’s economic, educational and political benefits. You can’t be an Algerian in France, reaping all the benefits associated with that and yet expect to live like you’re still in Algeria. That’s completely disrespectful to the hosts and to that country’s traditions, values and culture.

    According to you, multiculturalism doesn’t work and there are not any benefits associated with it. If that’s the case, why is immigration pushed down Europeans’ throats?

    Mod Note – Thanks for confirming my suspicions. There are many ways to discuss the tensions between assimilation and tradition, but it appears pretty clear what you advocate. You’re banned. – LDP

  48. Iggles wrote:

    I love how so many people refer to muslims like they’re a monolithic group in France.

    No, seriously, I think the distinction between moderate and extremists/conservative muslims has taken hold so far in this discussion.

    Banning the burka is a not attack on islam. The majority of female muslims around the world do NOT wearing burkas. This is true in France as well. I think its more accurate to say that Sarkozy is taking a stand on conservative followers of islam who are way more restricting of womens’ rights. I also want to point out. Sarkozy has not advocated banning head scarfs. He is against the full body covering.

    I am fully aware that France has an imperialist past (as does England, Belgium, Spain, etc). The rising immigrant population does seem reminiscent of Malcolm X’s quote “chickens coming home to roost”. However, as a Western country I think France has a right to uphold Western ideals.

    The immigration issue in France is complex, but France has certainly become a multicultural country. No doubt that racism still exists (it never goes out of fashion *rolls eyes*) However, there are plenty of immigrants from other parts of Africa (west and east africa) who have also are indeed part of french society.

    Most of the muslims are from the north african countries of Morocco and Algeria. Many are part of french society as well. But there are the conservatives who indeed refuse to become part of french society because they dislike western society in general. That can’t be helped, but france must do all it can maintain a modern government. The reason I say this is, I think it’s terrible that in UK Sharia has become accepted law. History has taught us separate dual societies do not work. There must be overlap.

    For example, things aren’t perfect in India. There’s alot of tension between muslims, hindus, and buddists. But there is a certain amount of overlap (schools, govt, popular culture) that keeps civil war from constantly breaking out.

  49. Seattle Slim wrote:

    I think it’s important for people to remember this is Racialicious and we should be respecting each other not necessarily making someone feel unwelcome for their thoughts.

    I’m with Marc on this and mind you I come from a long line of immigrants. I see both sides. Still I’m with Marc, Method, et al for this.

    As for my own thoughts on the burqa, niqab, et al, I believe that this post has a great point, as is correct, but I also wanted to put this out there:

    These women ordinarily don’t always get the choice to say to their families and circles, “Nope, no burqa for me. I feel like shorts and a tank because it’s hot as hell today. Time for a ponytail too.” I daresay that some, maybe most, feel that they better not even bring up not wearing a burqa for fear of repercussions. Sarkozy outlawing this might actually make it so that these women have a choice and when confronted by family members or friends, et al, they don’t have to admit their own desire, but say that it’s a mandate.

    I can see how that would force them to stay in the house too. It’s a complicated issue. Either way, the only masters of their universe are these women. At some point, they must make a choice.

  50. atlasien wrote:

    @Abu Sinan: Actually some programs to stop low birth rate ARE working. Low birth rates are partly correlated to the wealth of a country but they’re also correlated to economic disparities between men and women. In these countries, the majority of women are empowered enough to choose NOT to have children they don’t want, but not empowered enough (financially) to have the number of children they DO want. And so if they feel like they can’t afford to have kids, they won’t have kids. Children can represent such a substantial investment that having more than one becomes too risky.

    The Scandinavian countries have such good social support systems, including support for single mothers, that they have comparatively high birth rates even with a pretty small immigrant population. For example, Denmark is 1.85, South Korea is 1.26 (South Korea is a fairly wealthy country but the status of single mothers there is horrible).

    Russia also has an incredibly low birth rate at 1.26… they’ve instituted a creepy pro-natalism program to try to increase the birthrate, but it’s not going to work unless the overall financial status of women improves.

    I totally agree that low birthrate countries are going to have to suck it up and transition to a more multicultural state of being. There’s really no other choice. As long as there are rich countries and poor countries there’s going to be birthrate and labor pool imbalance. Japan is a good example… the whole country is obsessed with how low the birthrate is and how Japan is becoming a nation of senior citizens, but the government won’t relax incredibly restrictive immigration rules and doesn’t even really accept returning Japanese-emigrant Latin Americans. Eventually they will have to relax their policies and the country will go through rapid and fascinating changes…. and these kind of changes don’t have to be violent, even though they often are.

    People in rich countries who blame immigrants for the changes they don’t happen to agree with are foolish… it’s global capitalism they should be blaming.

  51. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    MOD NOTE

    If you’re new here, you need to refer to the comments mod policy before posting a comment:

    http://www.racialicious.com/comment-moderation-policy/

    Particularly #7 – comments that essentially boil down to “assimilate or go home” are not welcome here, and I’ve seen an uptick in that type of comment lately.

  52. Iggles wrote:

    “In 100 years European will look completely different than it does now. Not because of invading Muslim or South American colonists………….because the native populations themselves didnt find their own societies and cultures important enough to have enough children to keep them going.”

    Abu Sinan, preach on! That is definitely the root of the problem. They need the immigrants and now they have to deal with the complexities.

    I still think France has the right to ban burkas if they want, but it the end it won’t matter much. I think the moderate muslims will be the leading power within the next 50 years. France will be similar to Istanbul, Turkey. The extremist will not disappear, but they won’t be the ruling power. Ethnic French will still be a presence, but lacking numbers and power.

  53. Seattle Slim wrote:

    #43

    That is providing these women even feel content about wearing a burqa.

    I’m not going to lie, as a western woman, I cannot imagine anyone would be content wearing that. There have been reports from some of these women that they have fallen getting out of cars, or have tripped or have been hurt because they are simply not that “functional.” (For a lack of better words). You’re going from your jeans and a tshirt (example) to lame daisy dukes and bandeau bra. These women are going from this restrictive garment that, IMHO, only reflects how poorly they are viewed by their male counterparts to t-shirts and jeans or what have you.

    I will add that I also cannot stand to see some Christian women (like the Duggars) dressed in these long skirts, long (unkempt hair), frumpy long clothes either.

    I am just against any kind of clothing or fashion that says women must cover up their goods because their men can’t handle a little ankle.

  54. Wendi Muse wrote:

    thanks, latoya. i second that.

    i also want to remind everyone to stay on t.o.p.i.c.
    thanks!

  55. N wrote:

    @seattle slim

    I won’t pretend to know how many women voluntary wear “modest” clothing and I won’t say the examples I give are totaly analogoust BUT..

    My grandmother was an uber-Christian, she BELIEVED in being modest. Whether her beliefs were formed by outdated misogynistic patriarchal attitudes or not, she believed in being covered up. She chose to do so. She liked to do so. She never wore pants and in 86 years never wore a skirt or dress shorter than “tea length”.

    If she had been told that ankle length dresses and bonnets and granny boots were a sign ofher oppression and forbidden to wear such voluminous clothing, she would have never left the house.

    I had a greatgrandmother who bragged that her husband, in may years of marriage and after many kids,had never seen her naked. She wasn’t “like that”.

    And I do know some women from cultures that require being completely covered, many of them do feel uncomfortably exposed and naked without the customary coverings.

    IF some women choose to cover up, even if it is not MY choice and I hate their reasons , how can I approve of someone forcibly requiring them to expose themselves?

  56. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Seattle Slim –

    I read this, maybe five years ago, and it changed how I felt about any kind of covering:

    The burkha is a black, amorphous cover, leaving only the eyes visible. It drives most western women crazy. For some reason, they always ask me how I feel about it, even though I am not Muslim. I supposed to them I look close enough.

    Today I sit in a café with two Western women who are disturbed by the burkha. I explain to them that it is a tool of oppression in some countries and in others, some women choose to wear it . They shudder at this thought as they sip their lattés. One is encased in makeup and wears a tight shirt with capri pants. Another wears a midriff shirt and jeans with her hair flowing over her neck and around her face. I explain that many women in the world use the burkha as a symbol of power, a statement of their value system. Women who wear the burkha refuse to be judged by their body or face. They want to be seen as another being, not as a sexual object. In this way, a burkha can be a tool of empowerment.

    The women across from me listen with blank faces and confused stares. They argue that it is their right as women to wear what they want and how they wish to wear it. I agree and feel that this is precisely my point. I realize that these women in front of me are oppressed in many ways by society’s perception of what a beautiful woman is. They respond to the abundant images of barely clad women with “perfect” bodies and fine-tuned makeup. They sit before me as conformists to their own cultural values. They sport the latest fashions and revel in their sun-soaked glows.

    I pity them; their oppression is so subtle they cannot even recognize it.

    —”Ladies Only” by Tanmeet Sethi, published in the anthology Colonize This!

    It took me an entire year to read her words without reacting in anger. How could she equate the two? Obviously it’s different because I choose what I wear, rabble, rabble. But if you pay attention, you look at, say, how people whose bodies do not conform to the ideal are treated/devalued/judged, the immense pressure to cultivate a certain type of look…it is quite the same thing, manifesting differently.

  57. Joseph wrote:

    @Seattle Slim

    “… I am just against any kind of clothing or fashion that says women must cover up their goods because their men can’t handle a little ankle.”

    Um, what?

  58. Anonymous wrote:

    @ Iggles:

    “The majority of female muslims around the world do NOT wearing burkas. This is true in France as well.”

    And so…. we’ll continue to not wear it. Why can’t those who do wear it continue to wear it?

  59. Sobia wrote:

    @Iggles:

    “The majority of female muslims around the world do NOT wearing burkas. This is true in France as well.”

    And…so…we’ll continue to not wear it.

    Why can’t those who do wear it continue to wear it if they choose?

    Indeed Muslims are not a monolithic group. We’re EXTREMELY diverse. And no one is saying that this law will affect all Muslims. But the fact is that it will effect some Muslims’ right to choose their own attire. Which is paternalistic at best.

    In fact, considering so few Muslim women wear the burka/abaya+hijab then why is it even a concern in France? Why is there the need to outlaw it?

  60. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i agree, sobia. as i mention in the article, it’s practically a non-issue, which is strange that it’s coming up now…

    and while i recognize this inquiry, if it eventually ends up becoming a law, is targeting a small group, i think it affects the entire muslim community, particularly bc it opens up the question, “what next?”

  61. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Joseph

    What is there to not understand? I’m not a gender feminist by most standards, but I am not for any kind of clothing or fashion concept, religious, society or anything based that tells a woman that she MUST cover up because of her male peers.

    People will say it’s in the Qu’ran or in the Bible (for Christian women) and I reply that that’s taking them literally. Which I feel defeats their purpose.

    I’m a Christian myself. I believe my B.I.B.L.E. is Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth. I’m spiritual, but I don’t take EVERYTHING in it literally. And the sections that say I shouldn’t wear pants are not taken literally by me.

    The men, clerics, that tell these women to wear these burqas are manipulating their religion to put constraints on these women.

    And I am for anything that rescinds that power. Plain and simple.

  62. Seattle Slim wrote:

    #59
    ” But the fact is that it will effect some Muslims’ right to choose their own attire. Which is paternalistic at best. ”
    ===============================
    You said it. So why isn’t anyone talking about how these women really didn’t have much choice in most cases in their own communities?

    Why is it that there is outrage when Sarkozy does it, but people tend to stay silent when it’s done these womens’ communities?

    It is paternalistic in the first place to make them wear the burqas.

  63. N wrote:

    @Latoya

    The pressure I feel to have to comb my hair, to wax my upper lip, to make sure my legs have been shaved when I wear shorts, to shave my armpits when I wear sleeveless clothing.

    The money I have to spend on makeup to look presentable for work. The uncomfortable but de rigueur high heeled shoes. The sheer quantity of clothing I need to appear well-dressed and professional, cant wear the same 3 things every week for years.

    Before we pity them, lets look at ourselves.

  64. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Slim -

    So why isn’t anyone talking about how these women really didn’t have much choice in most cases in their own communities?

    Why is that your core assumption?

  65. Seattle Slim wrote:

    Hi Latoya,

    If a woman chooses to wear the burkha, especially for the reason mentioned in that snippet, then I’m all for it. Girl, I like dressing like a boy, hell I was about to wear a tux and tophat to this ball we’re having in Seattle *lol* So I’m all for expressing oneself and fighting these establishments on how women should look. I’m more talking about those instances where the women are forced to wear burkhas or face harm or even death. Reading that article actually made me smile lol. Now THAT I can dig…

  66. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “Are you actually suggesting that Europe should be split up?”

    No, I’m suggesting that countries such as France learn to live with multiple cultures–i.e., multiculturalism.

    “Those immigrants CHOSE to come to Europe, and it’s their duty to integrate/assimilate.”

    Duty, schmuty. Show us a law that mandates assimilation. If you can’t do that, at least give us a rational reason why immigrants should assimilate.

    Your “duty” is nothing but an irrational belief. It amounts to “I like my pristine white culture so other cultures should change to mollify me.”

    “It’s the person duty of any immigrant to any country to adapt to that country’s culture and traditions.”

    Again, a belief or a feeling, not a rational argument. Try again.

  67. sheryl wrote:

    I think it’s incredibly wrong-headed for people to assume that women who wear the burqa, niqab, etc. NEVER choose to do so on their own. In America I’ve seen single women who are converts to Islam covering everything including their faces. I also know of many married women who gradually move to full covering without coercion from anyone. Some women do choose to wear the burqa and their right to choose should be respected.

    Also on the security point. How many mass murderers or terrorists were wearing burqa’s or something similar when they committed their crimes? None that I’ve seen.

    The reasons for the burka ban are simply weak and wreak of Islamophobia.

  68. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “Otherwise, they just came to take advantage of the country’s economic, educational and political benefits.”

    Do people move to other countries for reasons OTHER THAN taking advantage of the countries’ benefits? If so, what are those reasons?

    I expect immigrants to obey the law–to pay taxes, serve on juries, etc. And to know enough about the mainstream culture and language to survive, function, and get along. Other than that, I don’t see any need or requirement for them to assimilate. What is this “need” that you’ve failed to articulate?

    “You can’t be an Algerian in France, reaping all the benefits associated with that and yet expect to live like you’re still in Algeria. That’s completely disrespectful to the hosts and to that country’s traditions, values and culture.”

    And yet, in my example, Chinese Americans have lived the way they did in China for centuries. Surprisingly, the Republic hasn’t fallen. While living in Chinatown, these Americans have graduated from college, served in the military, and contributed to the economy. Their unwillingness to fully assimilate has caused no harm whatsoever.

    In short, “disrespectful” is another emotional belief that you can’t measure. It’s another failure to provide a rational basis for your position.

    I say a French Muslim woman who walks down the street in a burqa, obeying the law and minding her own business, IS respecting France’s culture. That culture prizes freedom and individuality over control and conformity–unless Sarkozy manages to change the law.

    If you disagree, prove the “disrespect” by some objective, quantifiable means. An opinion that something is disrespectful doesn’t help us much.

  69. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Latoya,

    If someone mentioned this in prior comments, forgive me because I skimmed through and read most but I couldn’t read all (I’m twerking :}) So if I made that assumption about any poster here and it was unfounded or what have you, forgive me.

    Now in a general scope, I think that Sarkozy is the least of the worries. Wicked men are still making life impossible (and that’s putting it kindly) on their own women and children but for the most part, it seems that we as a nation have forgotten all about it.

    I mean I am sure it’s been discussed here before, this is Racialicious. But I’m just thinking that the “outrage” is a little too high when Sarkozy’s actions pale in comparison to the very real atrocities going on against women in areas with Sharia/fundamentalist/oppressive law.

  70. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “According to you, multiculturalism doesn’t work and there are not any benefits associated with it.”

    Wrong. According to me, monoculturalism doesn’t work as well as multiculturalism. A society is strengthened by having a stew or salad of different subcultures interacting with and learning from each other.

    The “benefit” of a monocultural society is a population that thinks the same way and conforms to conventions. Since everyone looks and acts the same, it becomes easy to control people–to tell them what to do.

    Alas, what you would call a benefit is what most of us would call a drawback. The US leads the world BECAUSE of its multiple cultures, not in spite of them.

  71. Wendi Muse wrote:

    seattle slim:
    this piece is not about comparing the french government and governments of other countries. i am saying that within the french tradition of equality under secularism, this law is out of place and being used to express a hidden agenda.

  72. Seattle Slim wrote:

    In the end, it seems like it will boil down to “collateral damage”. If the number of women who wear the burkha feel forced to, and would rather not wear it, are far greater in number than those who do wear it as a choice, some would say it’s a chance worth taking.

  73. Joy wrote:

    Probably the same way one might assume women who wear trendy and/or revealing clothes feel (subconciously or otherwise) that it is the only way to be attractive/pretty, because the person making this assumption doesn’t know enough about them individually or culturally, and are applying a sterotype (that may or may not be erroneous) is the same reason many “Westerners” might automatically assume that women who wear items like Burkas are forced to, don’t know any better, or have been duped by male-centered religious views. This assumption comes from accepting the typical sterotypes most pervasively presented.

    What is helpful in these situations is education and information sharing. Not what we usually have – people making assumptions; people getting offended; everyone defending and no one objecitvely explaining.

  74. Wendi Muse wrote:

    also, this “chance” you mention being worth taken is not being taken in locations where the burqa is an obligation. this law wasn’t being considered in taliban-ruled afghanistan in 2001, it’s being considered in present-day france, where there is no mandate forcing women to wear the burqa.

  75. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Wendi

    I agree with you on that. Very well thought out post actually! It’s dead on. I was just trying to see what positives could come of it, if indeed there are areas of France where women feel forced to wear the burkha.

  76. gatamala wrote:

    SS~hell no, I wouldn’t want to wear that either. But who cares?

    Should the government really interfere in garments? In intrafamily issues? How is that freedom?

    All this meddling just puts people on the defensive.

  77. Seattle Slim wrote:

    I’ve never been to Europe. I’ve been out of the country, but never to Europe (regrettably) and certainly not France. So I’m just going off from what those who have gone have said. If there is no area of France where the women feel forced to wear it, and they do so by choice, then there is no redeeming factor in Sarkozy’s mandate. However, if there are areas where the women are forced to wear them against their choice or desires, then there may be an iota of a “bright side”. But then again, I have never been, so these are just my ruminations, assumptions, etc.

  78. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Americans used to object to blacks sitting at the same counter as whites. Now the French object to women with burqas sitting at the same counter as women without burqas. These two examples are the same thing and they’re happening for the same reason: the majority wishing to assert its power over the minority.

    Even the arguments are the same. Blacks shouldn’t sit with whites because it goes against our traditions…our customs…our values. It’s “disrespectful” for blacks to come in and sit as if they own the place. They should mind their manners and stay out of places where they don’t belong.

  79. DivergentDana wrote:

    Thanks Rob, because I was going to reply with an “If they’re not harming anyone and being productive contributors to their host nation, then, what’s wrong with that?”

    And why does he assume that assimilated North Africans are treated equally in France? That’s not the way it works in the U.S., and we don’t seem to have anywhere near as firmly entrenched a conflation of race and nationality, and the “melting pot” ideal, as flawed as it is, implies some give and take between the host and immigrant culture, rather than a disavowal of the immigrant culture in favor of the host

  80. DivergentDana wrote:

    Thanks Rob, because I was going to reply with an “If they’re not harming anyone and being productive contributors to their host nation, then, what’s wrong with that?”

    And why does he assume that assimilated North Africans are treated equally in France? That’s not the way it works in the U.S., and we don’t seem to have anywhere near as firmly entrenched a conflation of race and nationality, and the “melting pot” ideal, as flawed as it is, implies some give and take between the host and immigrant culture, rather than a complete disavowal of the immigrant culture in favor of the host — although, in many cases, disavowal has been the result.

  81. Joseph wrote:

    @Seattle Slim
    What’s hard to understand is how a woman of color, who must negotiate the oppressive judgments of both a White majority AND patriarchy, could so readily turn on a group of women she don’t even know. Or, frankly, know anything about. The ignorance of your assumptions is shocking. Although, helpfully enough it does mirror the phantasies about Islam that underlie this racist and ethnocentric action by the government of France. So I guess it is helpful to have a local example of this dynamic to discuss.

    I guess I just figured there would be a bigger difference between the death rattle of a fading European colonial superpower and an African American woman, but I guess not.

  82. Sobia wrote:

    @ SeattleSlim:

    “It is paternalistic in the first place to make them wear the burqas.”

    That’s assuming that they are being made to wear the burka.

    Now, first I do want to say that there are indeed many women are forced to wear what is deemed religious attire. Often when defending Muslims against accusations of misogyny through clothing, we, understandably, forget those women who are indeed controlled. In the process we deny the very real experiences of force and coercion among Muslims.

    However, controlling and coercing women is NOT unique to Muslims. It happens everywhere in all parts of the world in a variety of ways. Again, Muslim women’ s bodies are just used to push another agenda.

  83. Phuong V wrote:

    Great post, Wendi. So sick that France is doing this. It reminds me of the cultural theorist Gayatri Spivak when she writes, “white men, seeking to save brown women from brown men, impose upon those women a greater ideological constriction…” And she was writing about practices that went back as far as 400AD! Sarkozy’s efforts are a modern day example of the white man’s burden that continues to police female bodies.

  84. Fiqah wrote:

    @Sniper

    Are you seriously suggesting that sexual harassment is an appropriate response to a history of colonialism? That’s just nuts.

    ::: blinks :::

    I have no idea where you got this from my comment. Please clarify.

  85. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Joseph

    Firstly, I am not African-American. And I will stop there because that just shows how little you know about me, especially since I’ve been coming and commenting here for two years now.

    You don’t agree. You didn’t get what I was trying to say. That’s fine. It is what it is. I am not going to retype everything I said just to appease you or impress you. You don’t agree with what I said.

  86. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Sobia,

    I agree with you. I believe I even broke it down a bit too. I also mentioned that I am also against Christian women (I myself am Christian) who feel compelled to dress a certain way to push another agenda. I grew up with some when I came to the states.

    This is not directed at you, but I for the life of me cannot understand how people missed that I mentioned Christians.

  87. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Joseph,

    I will say this, find ONE comment where I turned on those women. One, that without question shows that I am against those women. I’d LOVE to read it.

  88. RCHOUDH wrote:

    I applaud everyone on Racialicious for having a nuanced civil discussion about this issue and not getting sidetracked and hijacked by Islamophobic commenters. I’d just like to add that I once read a French citizen’s explanation for why France makes such a big deal about visibly “assimilating” immigrants into its society. It basically comes down to one upping the British (and other Anglophone countries) notion of multiculturalism (where basically immigrants are allowed to bring their cultural/religious upbrininging with them when they immigrate).
    France has still not clearly confronted its colonial history and makes no effort to learn about and understand the different cultures of people migrating to it. Apparently it also doesn’t keep track of how many Muslims (and other immigrants) there are in the country through its census surveys, because it believes asking questions about one’s ethnicity/religion is irrelevant. So basically it all comes down to how a major difference between how the Anglophones and Francophones view the concept of integration/assimilation. Judging by this it seems France still hasn’t given up its competitive nature towards the Anglophones (Britain and America) which began during the colonial era.

  89. Seattle Slim wrote:

    Take Sarkozy out of the question, and plenty of people associate the burqa with some kind of bondage. This is misinformation sure, and conditioning from the media. You see a woman being hanged on a soccer field or beaten in Afghanistan wearing it, and it becomes ingrained in one’s mind to associate it with things such as the Taliban regime, etc.

    This is not just a religious argument, but a cultural one.

    Culturally, there are just going to be some things that we do not agree with each other on. I don’t like the burkha, but I’m not going to fight a woman who chooses to wear it because she wants to. That’s crazy. Culturally, a woman who chooses to wear burqas may find my clothing wrong or too revealing. We can respectfully disagree with each other, and still respect each other.

  90. Seattle Slim wrote:

    And I don’t think disagreeing with the burkha is Islamophobic. Where does that come from? It could have little to do with religion and everything with personality, nature, nurture, generation, etc.

  91. Seattle Slim wrote:

    #55 N

    I missed that, sorry. I am not in agreement with his mandate in regards to the women who choose to wear the burqa. I’m referring to those women who live in areas, if any, of France that feel forced to, by threat of harm or worse, wear a burkha.

    Interesting about your family. I come from a caribbean background, so modesty is key. Hell, my mom gives me hell still and I’m grown with two kids. With that said, technically couldn’t one argue that the need to cover up is driven by the same male-driven society that states, in some areas, that less is best?

    A girl in today’s society feels the need, probably more, to wear skimpier outfits because that’s what boys like, that’s what men want, and appreciate.

    A girl in my grandmother’s generation and before, felt the need to cover up and be modest because that’s what men wanted (albeit outwardly) and appreciated.

    It comes down to the same thing. Nobody’s freer than the other. My take is women should wear what makes them feel good, happy, confident. Wear what you feel.

  92. Lauren O wrote:

    I’ve only skimmed the comments, so forgive me if someone else has posted a link to it already, but this post by The Apostate educated me a lot about this particular issue. There are a lot of preconceptions that I had as a Westerner who’s unfamiliar with the specifics of Islamic coverings for women.

  93. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    Lauren O – That post is one woman’s view.

    Please read a bit more before considering yourself educated, one POC opinion does not equal universal truth for everyone, ever.

  94. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i read the apostate post and was a bit shocked by the following, which i find incredibly generalizing and troubling, especially if we are to consider that some (not all) women who wear full body and facial covering are not doing it by choice, but from having been forced to by their families and/or out of fear of retribution:

    “Those Muslims who are moving to the west and continuing to wear hijab/jilbab (niqab, burka) are extremists and are the enemies of women’s freedom. They are not merely compliant moderate Muslims who like to cover up. They want to shroud women. I see such shrouding as dehumanizing and very antithetical to women’s freedom, even Muslim women’s Islamic-feminism style freedom.

    There are few women who will not be more comfortable in the west if they can wear something that looks a little bit more normal, that allows them to blend in, interact with people – even if they’re just shopkeepers – with more ease and with less of a chance of being othered. Covering the face is inviting people to shun you. It’s very discombobulating to be confronted with a person whose features you can’t discern, who can’t smile at you to show goodwill, whose age and race and personality are entirely hidden from you. And it’s very easy to dehumanize such faceless apparitions. Other people’s discomfort with your presence and your person is relevant to you as a person who exists in society. Not because they might hurt you – because they mostly won’t, and even so, that’s like saying women shouldn’t wear short skirts lest they be raped. More because a decent level of interpersonal communication and interaction with one’s fellow humans in the wider society is a good and healthy thing, in the general way. One should do what can to make it possible and pleasant for women to exist in society as full persons. You are not a full person without your face.”

    all of this is really…problematic.

  95. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lauren O –

    Whatever you chose to read, you should always be conscious of bias. Over here, we’re pro-Muslim and feature quite a few Muslim writers. The Apostate has very astute opinions on many things, but she is also very anti-Muslim. If you look to the left on her site, she has a heading with her major philosophies laid out.

  96. NancyP wrote:

    I do favor making wearing the burqa while driving a car or motorcycle (or commercial/industrial vehicle) illegal because the field of vision is limited. They can ride the bus or walk.

    I also favor making it mandatory to uncover the face for purposes of legal identification, for testimony in court, for government-issued photo ID cards, etc. If they want to wear burqas to and from the courthouse, fine, but visual identification is important in many legal situations.

  97. Joseph wrote:

    @Seattle Slim
    I apologize if I misrepresented you: I have visited your blog, which is subtitled “Race Relations, Politics, Relationships, Health, Pop Culture, Natural Hair and Lifestyle From The Perspective of a Black Woman Living Nappily Ever After…Or Trying To.” So, when I wrote “African-American” I meant “Black”. In my experience the terms are interchangeable, but if you prefer “Black woman” I understand and respect that. If there is more to the way you identify that is not covered by these terms that I somehow missed, I apologize. It was not intentional.

    But I can’t take back the rest of my comment Slim. I say you have turned on those women because you are imagining them–based on what seems to be nothing–as utter victims. And no real woman is ever only that. And to imagine they are is to deny their basic humanity. Yes, there are terrible instances of gender oppression in Islamic sub-cultures… just like everywhere else. The veil is a very visible target for this kind of conversation but, as others have said on this thread and countless others, the veil is not necessarily considered mandatory. Nor is wearing it a direct corollary to the religiosity of the woman. You have admitted that you have never been to France, or anywhere in Europe. And you have ignored the insight into this issue offered by actual Muslim women on this site. So what am I supposed to say to you Slim? I am not trying to attack you or hurt your feelings. But how can I have a discussion with someone who proceeds this way? It is impossible. All I am saying is: consider that things are more complex than you seem to think.

    @Wendi
    Thanks for this post. I am not a Muslim, but my blase opinion about the veil is undoubtedly shaped by my exposure–pretty much every day–to veiled women, in my Brooklyn neighborhood. And you know what? They are not that scary. (I am thinking here of one neighbor who regularly uses her scarf as a hands-free device by wedging her flip phone into it…) This notion of assimilation vs. isolation is challenged every day in New York City by Muslim women who cover, and also go about their lives, like everyone else. Not to mention the Hassidim (who also cover, in a different way), the Amish, and on and on… If these subcultures can coexist in New York and the city doesn’t come grinding to a halt, then I think Paris can tough it out without a special law, don’t you?

  98. Alexia wrote:

    I LOVE this conversation! In a few months, I will be attending a 2 month artist’s residency in Marnay-sur-Seine. I have many French friends, French ex-boyfriends, and friends who have spent significant time there, and I’ve been trying to do a personal informal poll about what kinds of racism I will encounter (I know I will). Based on what they’ve told me and what I’m reading here, I have the answer: it seems that France is like my home-state, Texas.

    First of all, Sarkozy reminds me of a more intelligent, slightly less sinister George Bush. So you take away the burqua, and VOOSH!! All of the resultant racial tensions will cease, all of a sudden the French will no longer be racist toward their fellow colored citizens, and Islamic women will FINALLY be liberated!

    My @$$.

    Might I add – Sarkozy cares nothing about the liberation of the Islamic women. It’s just more of that white man’s burden crap. The burden to – against all reality – preserve “Frenchness”. And his statement is *highly* presumptuous and condescending toward Muslim women who freely choose to sport the burqua.

  99. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Lauren O –

    I also checked out Apostate’s blog. She makes some great points and is a poignant writer but she seems to fall under the Dawkins/Harris school of atheists – those who are completely intolerant and bitter towards religion.

    She also criticizes western liberals for not being critical enough towards “brown people and their religions” in one post. I feel like we’re critical enough. Her bitterness is problematic to me.

  100. Danny wrote:

    I don’t what will happen later on, but I remember a few of my instructors back in high school and college stated that once people start targeting one aspect or particular group of people, often they will start moving on towards other details or peoples. If such an action succeeds, it won’t be long till these leaders or organizations to go after other tidbits of Islam and basically anyone different. Just a speculation though.

    You all may have more knowledge and other expertise regarding this topic and other related subjects. On a personal note, I’ve visited France before and the diversity is very visible. I couldn’t tell based on looks alone between the French citizens who’se family been here for generations and those from North African/Middle Eastern heritages. From my angle, they look pretty similar until some of my relatives mention it. It was awkward too because some of my older relatives, who are also POC and lived in France for decades, also hold a few of those questionable beliefs about other groups, especially the Muslims.

  101. Wendi Muse wrote:

    great american prospect article by michelle goldberg on the more specific political details of this inquiry:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=burqa_politics_in_france

  102. Ferawle wrote:

    @iggles

    maybe someone has said this already, but this:

    ‘In conservative Islamic countries all women, even foreigners, must cover their hair.’

    by iggles is nonsense. The only countries that require foreign women to cover their hair are Iran and Saudi Arabia. In other Muslim countries in the Middle and far East headcovering is by no means 1. legally enforced and 2. required for foreign women.

    (Also, in most Middle Eastern countries, wearing the hijaab has a distinct political meaning to it: as a sign of rejection of secular regimes such as the ones in Syrie or Egypt. One reasons, too, why most regimes in the Middle East do not actively encourage covering, as it is mostly seen as a sign of political opposition to secular regimes or support for Saudi-oriented Islam (wahabism).

    I myself have now been living in Yemen for over half a year, and while Yemen would certainly qualify as a ‘conservative Muslim country’, I have never felt any pressure to wear hijaab/niqaab in public. Never.)

  103. Lauren O wrote:

    Please read a bit more before considering yourself educated, one POC opinion does not equal universal truth for everyone, ever.

    I didn’t mean for the word “educated” to imply that I now considered myself an expert in the subject. Just that I had learned something from the post. It was precisely because “one POC opinion does not equal universal truth for everyone” that I was trying to point to another perspective, so that non-Muslim Westerners like me, POC or not, could read more about the issue.

    Whatever you chose to read, you should always be conscious of bias.

    I was very conscious of bias, which is why I thought the link was interesting. It offered a different perspective and a different bias. I didn’t mean to stir up controversy or threadjack, just point to something on the same subject that I found interesting. I am genuinely sorry if I have unintentionally made a misstep. Everyone can feel free to pretend like I never said anything if it’s gonna derail the conversation.

  104. Lauren O wrote:

    I also should clarify that I wasn’t cosigning the Apostate’s post or anything. I see both sides of this debate and since it doesn’t affect me personally in any way, I don’t feel qualified to take a stance on it. I just found the post educational, just as I find Wendi’s educational.

  105. Ferawle wrote:

    @Marc:

    You using the term ‘colonization’ to describe the refusal of immigrant women to cast of their hijaabs and niqaabs… just shocks me. It demonstrates a misguided sense of history; an inadequate understanding of the reality of colonization; and frankly speaking, it is close to the a populist right wing discourse so often found these days in Europe. For instance, I remember Geert Wilders saying that a ‘tsunami of immigrants’ is coming our (I am a Dutchie) way, and that they may ‘attack and invade our values.’ How is that any different from your hysterical use of the word colonization? Does the islamic community in France, for years and years on end, subjugate the ‘natives’? Does it impose taxes and morality? Does it bring guns if the natives don’t listen?

    Vulgar.

  106. Halloween Jacqueline wrote:

    I just wanted to add my personal opinion as a French citizen (albiet one who has spent the majority of her life in the US). I am so ashamed of Sarkozy in general, and of this proposal in particular. Sarkozy has deliberately chosen to present a very divisive, very charged argument about an issue that affects a very, very small percentage of French women. The fact of the matter is, the number of women wearing the burqa in France is not high (this is understatement). Out of those, who can say how many might have been “forced”–and even then, as Joy mentioned upthread, at what point does a subtle cultural pressure spill over into coercion (I love the example of shaving my armpits, I don’t enjoy this, it creates a visible distinction between me as a woman and men, but I feel compelled to do it to meet certain cultural standards). All this is to say, there is no way that this is France’s most pressing human rights issue. Furthermore, women in France have the freedom to leave a partner who is coercing them into any behavior; they may seek divorce. Essentially FORCING a woman to wear a burqa is already illegal in France because (thankfully, and hopefully, enduringly) women have equal rights to men under French law.

    So let’s put aside any notion that Sarkozy is doing this to in any way serve or protect the populations that would be affected by such a law (which, thankfully, he is not in a position to make himself as France is a parlimentary democracy, but which, unfortunately, he seems to be pressuring the parliment to create). The Spivak reference was spot-on, and I wish that all my fellow French citizens would pick up some Edward Said for background reading on the issue of “unveiling” (fellow Americans, as well, this is essential reading). Instead, Sarkozy is using this polarizing issue to reaffirm a very unrealistic and restrictive notion of France. I think it’s good background knowledge that 3/4 of French people have some immigrant background–this is the result of thousands of years of cultural exchange, more historically throughout Europe, and since the dissolution of the French empire, from former colonial states. Almost 1/4 of French people today have a parent or grandparent who is an immigrant. Interestingly, Sarkozy’s father emmigrated to France from Hungary. Though there are tensions in France that stem from recent and rapid demographic shifts, the idea that there is a constant “race” or “culture” war being raged is patently untrue. There are issues of racism, integration, and France’s evolving identity, but this law will only ignite these fissures, not mend them. In my mind it serves no purpose but to open a floodgate of repressive “national identity”-defining rhetoric and, if not properly quelled, legislature.

  107. Ferawle wrote:

    Also, I am a bit annoyed by people here describing ‘how europeans think’. Also, the statement that Geert Wilder won a majority in the netherlands is patently untrue. As a Dutch person I can say that Geert Wilder’s supporters are by no means the massive numbers Marc purports them to be; they are rather a subset of the lower middle class that would vote for Wilders (elections are far away at the moment) not only for his stance on immigration, but also his lenient tax proposals and economic laissez-faire approach.

  108. Ferawle wrote:

    Last one (I know I am annoying but there’s so many things that annoy me in these replies as well!)

    This:

    ‘Either way, the only masters of their universe are these women. ‘ by Seattle Slim is a prime example of how the stress on individual choice, being ‘master of your own universe’, serves ideological ends, i.e., to disguise the very real and systemic factors that underlie oppression. There is precious little choice involved, and if there is, it’s fantastic – but let’s not underestimate the extend to which all human beings are constrained by their social environs.

  109. Wendi Muse wrote:

    hey lauren o,
    personally, i don’t mind that you brought up apostate. i think it’s good that you did because it gives us the opportunity to consider someone’s opinion who supports the ban, and who ardently opposes the use of the burqa.

    i also think just on a basic level, her definitions were a good start for people who are not aware of the differences in coverings, which is something i did not mention in this piece.

    so for me, no harm done. if anything, it gives this site another side of the argument to analyze.

    however, after having read some of her content, it does seem decidedly anti-religion, anti-muslim, which tempers her pieces, especially if we are to cite and discuss them here.

    but when you said you found it “Educational,” i knew what you meant. i copy/pasted parts of her argument, even, to deepen this discussion.

  110. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Rob,

    Have you ever been to Europe? There is no such thing as a “monocultural” country in Europe and there NEVER has been. Take France, for instance. Would you have use believe that people in the German dialect speaking Alsace region think the same way as the people in Paris? How about the people in Gaelic Britanny, do they think the same way as Corsicans? Let’s look at Germany, do Northern Germans look or act the same way that Bavarians do? Are their dialects even mutually intelligible?

    Your theory could ONLY be put out by someone who has never been to Europe. No country in Europe, even made up of it’s own non immigrant citizens, has a populice that all think alike, look alike, or even speak the same language.

    There is NO “mono-cultural” country in Europe, so your idea’s just dont even warrant any further thinking.

    @Ferawle,

    Even in Saudi non Muslim women can get away without covering their hair in most places. Usually a rob is enough. This has been covered extensively by Western ex pat women who blog in Saudi.

  111. gatamala wrote:

    RCHOUDH~~

    I’d just like to add that I once read a French citizen’s explanation for why France makes such a big deal about visibly “assimilating” immigrants into its society. It basically comes down to one upping the British (and other Anglophone countries) notion of multiculturalism (where basically immigrants are allowed to bring their cultural/religious upbrininging with them when they immigrate).

    THIS went through my mind. Every nation has “identity” struggles (that’s part of being nation), but once again the rest of us (even if we DO speak French or English) get hit with the shrapnel of the Anglo-Franco Several Hundred Years Almost a Millenium War.

    Please post a link if you have one.

  112. gatamala wrote:

    @ Alexia

    it seems that France is like my home-state, Texas.

    First of all, Sarkozy reminds me of a more intelligent, slightly less sinister George Bush.

    *morte*

  113. RCHOUDH wrote:

    @ gatamala

    Unfortunately I don’t have a specific link to this. It was in a comment dropped by someone claiming to be a French citizen in response to a particular post on a different website (much like how commenters comment here on Racialicious). I concur it could be possible that this is just one person’s opinion about how their country functions but then she gives evidence of how France treats its immigrants in a “colorblind” fashion (no immigrant related questions on census surveys, no acknowledgment of past racist colonial history, and now this “forcing” of women to conform to French libertarian values) and how France still tries to distinguish itself from Anglophone countries and it really intrigued me. France has always been known as trying to act independently of other major Western powers (which are all Anglophone like US and Britain). If you look at how France behaves from an international scale (usually disagreeing with the US whenever it can) to stories of how individual French citizens refuse to serve English speakers(!) it’s obvious there’s some attempt by France to differentiate itself from the Anglophones. I can see this attempt at differentiation extending to how it treats its immigrants.

  114. JL wrote:

    @ SeattleSlim, #53

    “I’m not going to lie, as a western woman, I cannot imagine anyone would be content wearing that. There have been reports from some of these women that they have fallen getting out of cars, or have tripped or have been hurt because they are simply not that “functional.””

    As a fairly butch Western woman, there are all sorts of things that I see fellow Western women wearing, where I can’t understand how anyone would be content wearing them. High heels, for one. On the few occasions that I was made to wear significant heels as a child, I couldn’t walk more than a few feet without tripping. Very tight jeans, which I find uncomfortable and difficult to move properly in, are another.

    However, while it’s certainly true that some women who wear these things are being influenced to do so by societal pressure – and who among us is exempt from the pressure of our societies? – I can’t deny that many women genuinely like them and want to wear them, however uncomfortable and non-functional I think they are, however little I understand their appeal.

    I oppose women being required to wear heels (as I’m aware happens, even if the requirement isn’t written down, at some US workplaces), and I oppose women being required to wear burqas, but a requirement is different from a choice that happens to be nothing like what I would choose.

  115. Iggles wrote:

    @ gatamala:

    Should the government really interfere in garments? In intrafamily issues? How is that freedom?

    You mean the state shouldn’t intervene in intrafamily issues like honor killings?

    Freedom means personal freedom to live you life. Freedom doesn’t mean you can oppress women or kill to “protect the family name”!

  116. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Iggles,

    You are mixing apples and oranges. No one is talking about crimes, especially murder. We are talking about religious freedom, and dont even try to come back to me with the idea that “honour killings” have anything to do with religion.

    Freedom means you have the right to choose. Freedom is not the government setting into law mandatory requirements for people’s religion, and that is exactly what is being proposed.

    No one is talking about keeping the state out of legal issues, just the choice of people to follow, or not follow, their religion.

    Your adding “honour killings” into the mix seems to be a way to try and limit the debate.

  117. method wrote:

    Just because I’ve recently learned about it and I can tie it into the burqa debate:

    John Rawls, the major 20th century theorist of political liberalism but not what would be called a multiculturalist, makes a distinction between a nation based on an “overlapping consensus” between citizens and a nation with a “millet” system similar to the practices of tolerance in the Ottoman empire. The overlapping consensus consists in agreeing that a basic set of liberties should be extended to everyone else AND in agreeing that anything that resembles a “comprehensive doctrine” is off-limits for group decision-making.

    OKAY, so as the Apostate article makes clear, the burqa is being targeted because it is taken as a sign that anyone who chooses to wear the burqa OR any man who forces his wife/daughter to wear the burqa is outside of a liberal overlapping consensus. The Apostate seems to see it as a valid sign, even though she thinks the proposed policy is still misguided (because of the contradictions it poses for the liberal scheme described above). What Rob Schmidt has argued for above with his “Chinatowns” is more like the millet system. It sidesteps the question of whether the burqa is compatible with a liberal society by arguing that it’s not necessary for people in a liberal society to come into meaningful contact with each other.

    I have to say that I found the Apostate’s point about the optics of the burqa compelling. It’s not something that’s really been addressed in these comments. It’s fundamental that a burqa is not a frame for the face or a covering of the hair. It’s the concealing of a face. How many societies are actually comfortable with people walking around in masks (e.g. balaclavas) all the time?

  118. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Method,

    “How many societies are actually comfortable with people walking around in masks (e.g. balaclavas) all the time?”

    So it all comes down to what societies are comfortable with? This litmus test would see a lot of minority cultural practices outlaw all over the world.

    You can also ask, “How many countries are confortable with people half naked walking around”? Should we ban that?

    BTW, there are more than 50 countries around the world with Muslim majorities, all of them currently have women wearing the niqab/burka in some numbers.

  119. atlasien wrote:

    “It sidesteps the question of whether the burqa is compatible with a liberal society by arguing that it’s not necessary for people in a liberal society to come into meaningful contact with each other.”

    I’m wary of what exactly a “liberal society” is supposed to mean. But let’s say it’s a phrase that stands in for the ideal of an egalitarian community.

    I agree that it would be really, really unhealthy for such a community to have half the population with totally concealed faces and the other half unconcealed (although this is an extreme scenario not represented in France) and for that determination to be made at birth, by genetics. It’s impossible to have an egalitarian community like that.

    (If everyone masked their faces (men and women) it would be really bizarre, but egalitarian. I think there was an old Star Trek episode about that but I can’t remember the exact plot.)

    But you can’t just blame the minority, you have to turn the mirror back on the majority too. I’d say that both France and the U.S. have a lot of social pressures that encourage isolation and lack of bonding with other community members. We’ve developed all this internet technology that allows us to control our social interactions so we don’t have to come into contact with people we don’t like or whose values we don’t share. Exurbs? Gated communities? The breakdown of the extended family? Retirement homes and age/generational segregation? Racialized prejudice against people who dress differently for religious reasons? The majority society already has a ton of social forces that reduce unstructured social contact and combine to give individuals a sense of isolation and cut off their connections to real-life communities. In fact, we’ve gotten to the point where many envy and fetishize non-industrial cultures and their more tightly-knit communities and families.

  120. Laure wrote:

    I am French and Black (my parents come from the Carribbean islands).

    France does not present itself as a neutral country but as a liberal one. therefore, as the burqa is clearly not an expression of liberal value, Sarkozy is allowed to ban it from his country.

    it has not be said that there is a close link between the burqa and the inferior status of women in some interpretations of Islam. the burqa is not just another piece of clothing: it makes women completely invisible and identical. and this is HIGHLY symbolical.

    by the way, some western women used to be against the idea of granting them the right to vote, to work, … does it mean that the government was wrong in granting them those rights against their personal choice?

  121. Wendi Muse wrote:

    laure,

    i think you make an inconsistent argument here. they are restricting the freedom of expression, not forcing other women to wear burqas. there is a big difference between giving women universal freedoms and banning a burqa. it’s not the same thing. the two ideas are not comparable. women who wear burqas are not forcing other french women to wear burqas. and the right to vote doesn’t force women to vote. sarkozy, however, if this inquiry were to lead to a proposal/law that he backs, he would be forcing women to dress themselves in a way that may run counter to their personal cultural and religious beliefs.

  122. Seattle Slim wrote:

    #108 Ferawle,

    I’m sorry that it “annoyed” you but I, as a WOC, stand by what I said. Ultimately, it should and will have to come down to these women to make the choice(s) that work for them. If they want to stand up, or stand against, the burkha, it is still up to them. Not you, not me.

    We can all go on about it, but it’s not our choice. We cannot change it. If they want to wear the burkha, then so be it. If not, so be it. Either way, at some point or another, they will have to make that choice.

    It is not impossible. I know it’s not because as a POC, I’ve been told that plenty of things were/are impossible, and they’ve come to be accomplished and more than possible.

    I am rooting for these women and I hope that everything works out for them, be it in France or Afghanistan.

  123. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Joseph,

    My feelings were not hurt. This is the internet. I am, however, okay with disagreeing opinions. And I am even more okay with people not agreeing with mine. I have learned plenty from reading here about the burkhas.

    I understand what you are saying. I do. I am not ignoring anything. Again, we disagree. I’m still reading the comments, and I don’t really disagree, I just see a different side of the coin. Whether anyone else chooses to see it or not is fine by me. People will disagree.

    I can say for a FACT that nobody here has bad intentions re: these women affected by Sarkozy or any other regime.

  124. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Wendy,

    Cosign, her argument also ignores that other expressions of religious belief have been banned as well that have NOTHING to do with women’s rights.

    Siekhs wearing turbans to school? Banned! Jews wearing kippas in school? Banned! Even religious necklaces in school? Banned!

    None of that has anything to do with women’s rights.

    They might have included other religions in the mix but these rules and laws are purposely targeting Muslims.

  125. method wrote:

    @Abu Sinan “So it all comes down to what societies are comfortable with?” Sort of. I’m not actually talking about the legislation, which I agree is a bad idea. I’m just talking about social comfort level, what might freak people out just in itself. The Apostate post lays out a spectrum of demand for more or less concealing hijab, so that even if the Muslim world is more understanding of fully concealing hijab than the West there is still a minority of Muslim women who practice it, if only because of the practicality issues. Aren’t there Muslim women wearing headscarves whose reaction to the burqa is, “but you can’t even see her face!”? I’m just saying that the face or, if you like, the faciality is part of the issue, especially when the practice gets imported to the West.

    @atlasian You’re spot on. By liberal society I mean the equal-liberties, equality-opportunity-ideal society. According to Rawls, this society requires a framework of neutral consideration of the way that others choose to live their lives, e.g., tolerance, provided that everyone else agrees to this same kind of tolerance. So he would probably disagree with a burqa ban but would follow the Apostate’s line in questioning whether the people who would favor the burqa are actually interested in being part of this system of equal tolerance. It’s literally a paradox of political liberalism. What you’ve pointed out is another paradox of political liberalism, that it empowers individuals over other social units, which leads to social disintegration. And there is a big component of this disintegration (which is only partial, there are other trends the other way) that is not attributable to “liberalism” but to good old-fashioned racism, i.e., political liberalism breaks down when different groups don’t want to share or interact. Then everyone retreats into their separate enclaves.

  126. Donald wrote:

    To get the issue of the burka/abeya & niqab in proportion I live in an area with a significant muslim population. I see muslim women pretty much every day. I can recall only recall *one* burka in decades. The abeya & niqab combination is more common maybe 1 in 50 muslim women wear it. Probably a majority wear some form of headscarf but there are
    plenty who don’t. The most common form of dress is a long sleeved jersey with slacks, loose jeans or a long skirt but there are many who prefer a shalwar kameez. That’s the reality of a second/third generation muslim community in Britain, not the hordes of faceless women that the media likes to portray.

    France may have a slightly different mix due to its different places it had colonies but I doubt it’s that significant. I am not even convinced that Sarkozy is really concerned about French culture and identity with this proposal never mind some mythical European culture or identity. If he was he would be targeting Disney, Hollywood and Sky TV which are a far greater threat than a few muslim women. It seems
    more a case of distracting from the big problem he his unable to solve (the economic crisis) by courting popularism at the expense of a minority group. When, as it inevitably will, the proposal falls at
    the hurdle of human rights he can blame “Europe”.

    Incidently the abeya is remarkably easy to subvert should a woman choose to do so. A bright shalwar kameez underneath, push back the sleeves and don’t button to the bottom and you’ll flash colour at
    every step. Yet a few minor adjustments and you won’t upset your mother-in-law.

    A couple of corrections:

    Sharia law does not apply in the UK, nor as far as I am aware anywhere else in Europe. There is almost no call for it even among Muslims. There have been some minor changes to commercial and tax law to remove discrimination against legitimate sharia compliant transactions. There may be more in future but they will be debated on their merits and are
    unlikely to be controversial.

    Those who claim that the success of the BNP somehow reflects increasing racism and anti-immigration in Britain are misunderstanding the
    results. The BNP won 8% of the vote in two areas. Owing to one of the worst systems of proportional representation possible that allowed them one seat out of twelve in each of those areas on a very low
    turnout after a very poor campaign by the major parties. The actual number of votes cast for them was similar to previous elections. So yes, Britain has its share of racist thugs in suits but support for them is much the same as it has been for decades. More worrying is that the Conservative party has chosen to sit with the fringe right in the European parliament rather than the mainstream right grouping but that will probably just reduce their influence.

  127. NancyP wrote:

    On a humorous note, you’d be surprised at how much individuality people manage to express through their eyes when scrubbed in for surgery. Head covered by bouffant cap, nose and mouth covered by mask, everything else covered by long paper gown and shoe covers.

    OR nurses can be the champions of eye makeup.

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in the burqa / abaya discussion is the issue of dealing with those who are deaf or have hearing difficulties and rely on lip reading when interacting with non-ASL-using people. Common courtesy would suggest that the woman with mouth covered would uncover for purposes of talking with the lip reader. Does this happen in real life, or is it condemned by the usual pinch-faced clerical types seen in most religions?

  128. Vodalus wrote:

    Seattle Slim, I’d like to point out an assumption in your argument. You presume that an oppressive family which forces a French woman to wear a burkha would no longer be able to oppress her under the ban. But there’s a very easy way around the ban on oppressive clothes: prohibit the woman from leaving the house.

    Every argument that a burkha ban would liberate women and encourage cultural interaction ignores the fact that burkhas are only worn in public.

    If a woman is being forced to costume her entire body in a black robe, then she can probably be forced to stay hidden away at home. In fact, its probably even easier to enforce never leaving the house than never exposing face or hair. And if there is a threat of violence should she leave the home, then there is even less incentive for her to seek legal intervention on her behalf.

    Similarly, if a woman chooses to wear a burkha as a sign of her culture, banning the clothing will not promote greater interaction with the outside world. I personally can go for days without venturing out of the house and I don’t have any religious motivation to stay indoors!

    The comparison to banning American women from wearing shirts is apt. I would feel very awkward and un-inclined to interact with a society that made me “display the goods”. It might even alienate me further from that culture, as I’ve been raised my whole life to wear shirts. And shirts keep me warm, and hide my tummy, and make statements about what I believe in. Certain types of shirts even make me feel like less of a sex object. I could go on, but you get the gist.

    It is just impossible to get away from the idea that this proposed law is really just a way for certain politicians to say “We disapprove of Islam.” The purported benefits don’t seem to have been thought through and the population affected by the ban is small (but deeply affected). Given the well-known racial tensions between white France and brown France, and it looks even worse.

  129. Kim wrote:

    When France colonized Algeria they had this great idea to forcibly unveil Algerian women, and the results included not only politicizing Algerian women’s bodies but also rallying Algerians around their faith to the point that it became pretty central to the national identity.

    “Wearing a burqa means you’re oppressed whether you realize it or not. LET ME FREE YOU BY FORCING YOU INTO MY VASTLY SUPERIOR CULTURE–OR ELSE!!!” Yeah, a little extreme.

    For all the people who strongly believe that immigrants should assimilate into their host country, how would they feel emigrating to a non-European country? How easy would it be for them to assimilate and integrate smoothly? Or say having been there for quite some time, how assimilated would their grandchildren be?

  130. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Kim,

    Good point. The same people supporting “assimilating” Muslims in the West are the first to moan about how Westerners are forced to do certain things in some Muslim countries.

    They dont realise the irony of their positions. They are advocating something they condemn in other countries.

    It is interesting that places like Saudi are getting more and more open. Western women dont cover their hair on a regular in Saudi anymore, they can get away with not doing it, even as Muslim women are going to be FORCED not to cover in places in Europe.

    Seems things are going backwards here.

  131. Guy wrote:

    First of all, I am a Chinese and lived in France for many years (I was originally born in Hong Kong and have since returned).

    The French State has always bossed its citizens around – this is hardly groundbreaking. It forced the Occitans, the Bretons, the Alsatians, the Flemish, to assimilate into the Parisian language and culture. It did the same for the European immigrant groups – Italians, Polish, Armenians, Spanish (there might be millions of people of Italian descent in France but no Italian-French community similar to Italian-Americans or Italian-Canadians).

    To suggest that France is a multicultural country is not consistent with actual French history. If the North Africans prove harder to assimilate than the Basques, then la Republique will simply adopt more severe tactics.

    Also, no one in France has suggested that Sarko is advocating a complete ban on the burqa. If anything, it will probably be banned in the public sphere – government buildings, hospitals, universities, court rooms etc. Again, this seems perfectly consistent with French republican tradition and laïcité.

    I am not saying what is happening in France is right or wrong, but a lot of you are talking about the situation in France completely out of its historical and social context. Plus there is a big problem when it comes to women’s rights in the Muslim immigrant community in France. I remember several cases where Muslim girls in the suburbs were repeatedly gang-raped by Arab guys, and there was one particularly shocking headline a few years ago where a Muslim schoolgirl was raped and then set on fire by an ex-boyfriend. Then there’s all the honour-killing that always seem to pop up. Unfortunately the burqa is merely one symptom of a huge set of problems that need to be tackled. Unsurprisingly, the women’s rights organisation Ni putes ni soumises (Neither whores nor virgins) has come out in favour of Sarko.

    On a personal note, I love France very much and never felt discriminated against while I lived there. Then again it seems to be easier for Asians and Caribbeans to assimilate into France and adopt French culture than it is for Muslims. To be honest, I suspect it’s the sheer size and speed of the Arab and African communities which have come to France in the last few decades (several million I think?). The smaller ethnic groups have assimilated far easier but society just seems to have exhausted itself out when it comes to the Muslims.

  132. Wendi Muse wrote:

    guy,

    thank you for adding a more cultural, historical, and in this case personal as well perspective to this post.

    i think the point that you make here is super important to my argument, “Unfortunately the burqa is merely one symptom of a huge set of problems that need to be tackled.” is it possible that sarkozy is using the burqa as a means to getting at other issues/problems/tensions that lie unresolved between the muslim immigrant community and the french population?

  133. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    It’s interesting. I see some burqa’s on the street in Beijing from time to time. I have never heard anyone here say they should be banned.

    Sarkozy ran on an anti-immigrant, anti-muslim platform. One of his big issues has been trying to return the Catholic Church to the public schools in France (kicked out during the revolution, for good, folks thought).

    Notice that every time his poll numbers are low, he discovers “another’ “human rights” issue that boosts him among racists of both the left and right. We should not be surprised.

    As to the burqua itself, why would it bother me, compared to any other form of clothing I don’t wear? Why would I care? I remember people who wanted to save females from the miniskirt, and then from “pants” in the office, as well as from a whole buncha stuff. Why do such movement always seem to be led by men?

    What else does Sarkozy want to do for immigrant women? Anything? I suspect little or nothing.

    Intolerance is always an easy campaign issue, if you are not called on it….

    The economy is crashing, there is corruption in government, the environment is being ignored, hey, let’s talk about the burqua!! Should buy a little time!

    Great post Wendi. Thanks to Latoya for putting up with it all. And to those of you who thoughtfully addressed the issue, thanks. I always learn a lot here, whether I post or not…. sigh…. I get hooked in reading the responses..

  134. pm wrote:

    @Donald

    I would second your point about the BNP. Their success is hugely over-stated – they received 6% of the vote in an election nobody in the UK takes very seriously (the EU parliament) on a 1/3 turn-out. That’s 2% of the electorate in an election many treated as a chance for a protest vote, and after the entire established political class had been discredited with the expenses scandal. The real issue is that vast numbers appear to feel there is nobody worth voting for (fascists included). I dread to think what the turn-out will be at the next general election.

  135. Joseph wrote:

    @NancyP
    “Common courtesy would suggest that the woman with mouth covered would uncover for purposes of talking with the lip reader. Does this happen in real life, or is it condemned by the usual pinch-faced clerical types seen in most religions?”

    It fascinating to me that you would ask such a snide–and not incidentally derailing–question by using the phrase “Common courtesy would suggest”… Perhaps you do not understand what the meaning of the term?

    I have several questions of my own for the MODS:

    What does the facility of OR nurses with eye makeup or the interactions of the hearing impaired with covered women have to do with Sarkozy or France?

    Why was a comment that is a) Rude b) completely unrelated to the topic of the thread allowed? In contrast, the poster Guy #131, challenged Wendi in a way that moved the conversation forward. I don’t know what the purpose of this was, other than insult.

    Is religious identity not also exempt from biased characterizations like “pinch faced clerics” under the commenting policy?

  136. Laure wrote:

    Wendi Muse,

    I am not quite sure but I have heard that actually the Koran only asks Muslims to cover their head (and their hair for women), so a burqa could be perceived as an over-interpretation of the religious text (it could be interested to study the context of its invention and the “religious” discourse linked to its use).

    besides, i have also some difficulties in seeing the freedom in wearing a burqa as they dont have the right to wear anything else if they want to go out (and are even sometimes requested to be with a men). forbidding the burqa is not decreasing the freedom of these women as much as presenting it as the only form of clothing allowed.

    about free choice, all I was trying to say was that, education (mis-education?) can shape free choice, as it may have been the case for women who were against the right to vote.

    about a year or two ago, an italien journalist published a little comic strip about her burqa-wearing experience. She wrote that it was really unconfortable under relatively moderate temperatures, that children would loose their mothers in a croud of women wearing a burqa, that crossing a street was highly dangerous (as it was really difficult to look around) and so on.

    I also think that in the current context it should also be banned for security reasons as nobody can see who is under it and what he is wearing ( identity theft could also be possible).

  137. Golden wrote:

    If Muslims are going to move to France, they should expect to abide by French culture.

    Their attire severely segregates them, and, in my opinion, something can be done about it. If they are going to move there, they should conform a bit. I’m not saying, give up their religion or anything, but, as with the example Marc gives, they shouldn’t throw rocks at a French girl because she doesn’t dress like them.
    That’s just disgusting to me. No tolerance when you’re outside of your country and culture.

    I wonder how many Muslim women actually want to wear the burka and how many are forced to wear it.

    And the French are doing a lot of research on this issue, so it’s not like they’re making any rash decisions.

  138. Wendi Muse wrote:

    joseph,

    that was an oversight on my part that i will address now. thank you for bringing it to our attention.

    commenters:
    please remember, despite this being a difficult topic to discuss, that does not mean letting go of our civility. and that goes for people commenting on all sides of this discussion. thus far, with only a few exceptiopns, people have been level headed and fair in their comments. let’s try to keep it that way!

  139. Wendi Muse wrote:

    golden, what is french culture? please explain to me exactly what aspect of french culture, what consensus among its people, lends itself to intolerance of religious expression in one’s personal time while in the public sphere?

  140. Wendi Muse wrote:

    and again, what are the limits of said “culture”? one year burqas, next year plaid pants? i mean where do we stop?

  141. Daniel Jimenez wrote:

    I have lived in Spain pretty much my whole life, and although the relationship between the Muslims immigrants and the “natives” may not be the same as in France, it has a lot in common. I do not want to go off topic, but I think that the comparison that I am about to make can be useful for the debate. If the moderators think otherwise, please feel free to delete this comment.

    “Guy” got it right. In many European countries there has been a constant struggle between the central government and the regions within the country that possess their own historical personality. This struggle has been going on for centuries in some cases, and now the immigrants are victims of it too.

    Regarding Spain, you may have heard about the separatist movements of Catalonia and the Basque Country. Such movements, however, also exist in Galicia, Andalusia, Valencia and more, although in a minor scale. There is a conflict between the cultural identity that the central government want to impose to these regions and the cultural identity that these regions want for themselves.

    When Muslim immigrants (and other immigrants for that matter) come into the mix, bringing their own cultural identity, things get more complicated. Both the Spanish nationalists and the regional separatists find immigrants dangerous because they break the illusion of a culturally unified Spain or a culturally unified Catalonia, etc. How can Catalonia demand its independence based on its distinctive culture and historical traditions when it is progressively becoming a multicultural region? And how can the central government impose a unified Spanish identity over the separatist regions when the whole country is becoming a multicultural society too?

    For example: Jordi Pujol, former president of the Catalonian goverment, declared that Latinos were hard to assimilate because they didn’t understand the “cultural identity of Catalonia”. He also declared “without immigration, we would be better than ever”. Source here:

    http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=567871&idseccio_PK=1008

    On the other hand, the Spanish nationalists try to assimilate the immigrants to their own notion of what the “Spanish cultural identity” should be. For Example: Mariano Rajoy, president of the People’s Party, proposed an “assimilation contract for immigrants”. If the immigrant wanted to stay in Spain for more than one year, he/she would be forced to learn the Spanish language (no mention about the regional languages) and respect Spanish customs and traditions (reinforcing the notion of Spain as a culturally unified country). Source here:

    http://www.parainmigrantes.info/rajoy-y-sus-propuestas-sobre-inmigracion/

    Immigrants, specially those who maintain their customs and language, are a threat to the idealized visions of cultural unity that both central and regional governments have about themselves. In conclusion, I just wanted to agree with “Guy”. The prohibition of the burka is not just a religious or racial issue. The struggle between different national identities (something that has been going on for centuries in Europe) has a lot to do with it.

  142. Sobia wrote:

    @ Joseph:

    Re: NancyP’s comment.

    Thank you. It seems time and time and time again NancyP seems to come out with Islamophobic comments that are insulting to Muslim men and women.

    @ NancyP:

    What Joseph said.

    And what I said to Joseph. Your comments are again and again so patronizing to Muslims.

    @ Golden:

    “I wonder how many Muslim women actually want to wear the burka and how many are forced to wear it.

    And the French are doing a lot of research on this issue, so it’s not like they’re making any rash decisions.”

    To answer the first question – why not ask some Muslim women who wear the burka/niqab?

    Regarding French research – And what has this research found? Is it empirical research or is it “research”? If you can site some studies that would be helpful.

  143. Tim wrote:

    I oppose the Sarkozy ban. IMO it’s an unacceptable extension of social policy into cultural coercion. That said, I’m disturbed by many people dismissing the proposal by speculating on Sarkozy’s alleged racist motives. That’s irrelevant to whether the ban is good public policy or an acceptable use of government power.

    Furthermore, I think wearing burquas (for those women who choose to wear them) is problematic. They are expressing support for a highly patriarchal and homophobic religion (not to say that other religions are innocent!). Given the hate crimes by Muslim immigrants against gays in the Netherlands, I think wearing a burqua in Western societies is homophobic and misogynistic. I’m not saying any of these women don the burqua for that reason, but innocent intent does not absolve one from contributing to oppression.

  144. Wendi Muse wrote:

    daniel, i mention that in the article
    while i don’t necessarily find sarkozy racist, i think his proposal is one that lends itself to solidifying the french identity, whatever that means these days:
    “Within this attempt, Sarkozy is also acting to push a bigger issue. His real hidden agenda relates to protecting the French, and further, European identity, in the wake of rapid immigration from former European colonies. He is employing the burqa issue as a symbol, a metaphor for a greater “problem.” ”

    re: the idea of research. to clarify, the research is not about burqas. it’s being conducted to find out is the ban is consistent with the french constitution.

  145. Guy wrote:

    Hi Wendi,

    Thank you for your kind comments.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head: “please explain to me exactly what aspect of french culture, what consensus among its people, lends itself to intolerance of religious expression in one’s personal time while in the public sphere?”

    If you want to understand anything about French culture, then you should know that the French have absolutely no problem with going to great lengths to limit the presence of religion in the public sphere (its called “laïcité” and if I remember correctly, is contained in Article 1 of the French constitution).

    The origins of all this are all really complicated – the French revolution, the religious wars between Catholics and Huguenots, the Catholic Church’s support of the restoration of the French kings etc. It would take an encyclopaedia to explain.

    As for Sarko, the cynic in me tells me he is fishing for votes – from women who are genuinely horrified at the burqa, and from far-right voters who would otherwise drift off to the more extremist parties.

    To be honest, I don’t think a “burqa ban” would solve issues like misogyny, homophobia or sexual violence. The Dutch method of preparing Muslims for life in Europe is absolutely hilarious and very, very Dutch – when Middle Eastern immigrants come to the Netherlands, they show them videos of women bathing topless and gay couples kissing!

  146. Sobia wrote:

    Many people here have mentioned problems they have with the burka/niqab themselves. And that is valid. However, in this case I think it’s best to separate our views of the burka/niqab with what is going on in France.

    Personally, as a Muslim woman, I have huge problems with the niqab/burka and you’ll never find me defending it’s use. However, I do support a woman’s right to choose, even if I believe that choice is ill-guided. I really don’t think governments should be in the business of telling women how to dress.

    What if tomorrow, using the rape myth that women dressing scantily are making themselves more vulnerable to rape, the government decided to outlaw scant clothing? As much as I have problems with a lot of the hypersexual clothing out there, I still would not support a government telling women what to or not to wear.

  147. atlasien wrote:

    On a side note, but related to government telling women what or not to wear… is there any country in the world where women and girls are allowed to be topless in any urban public space without getting arrested for indecent exposure? I’ve lived in hot places almost all my life, and watching men and boys take off their shirts to play sports, or swim, or just hang out, can be really frustrating sometimes… it’s such a big part of male privilege but the vast majority of men don’t realize what a benefit it is.

    If it was legal in the U.S. for women to take their shirts off anywhere, I don’t know whether I’d do it or not, since I’ve become so accustomed to it. And it wouldn’t have to just be legal, it would also have to socially acceptable, since otherwise leering men would make it too unpleasant. But it would be nice to have that choice.

  148. Sobia wrote:

    @atlasien:

    I think it is in Toronto.

  149. Anna wrote:

    Ok, I’m French, though born and raised out of France. So I just want to say a few words, though I cannot give all the sources and argumentations leading to my points. Sorry for that!

    1. France has a problem with immigration, which is: France does not deal with integrating those “everlasting immigrants” who are indeed 3rd generation or more. Though it is slightly improving I think from what I hear and see in my friends, but the communautarism some of you are also talking about does not come from the “immigrants” who are not immigrants, but a big part of it is coming from France who does not allow this part of population its French identity. Getting good (same) education as white French, jobs, being aknowledged in History, and so forth… This ban is definitely NOT a way of making this gap smaller or of dealing with this problem. (I actually doubt it has anything to do with it.) This problem extends to the fact that religion is relatively banned from schools, you learn a little about the religions at school, and you have some civic class, but you will not learn how to practice your religion in school. (Though I think and really hope this is being changed in the last few years.) I think you should be able to learn about your religion in a public system, to learn more about it, all the aspects and all the debates, than what you might learn from your parents alone.

    2. gatamala wrote:
    “Should the government really interfere in garments? In intrafamily issues? How is that freedom?”
    I agree with Iggles, though Abu Sinan may be right Iggles might have chosen the wrong example. The government HAS to interfere in family-issues, because it has the executive power to ensure the law is being followed, the weak protected, … Which means you must not hit your wife or husband or children, for example, if you do, law should punish you. Freedom is not doing anything you want, especially in public! Which is difficult to argue with clothing, because you are not hurting anyone (well, some might argue you are hurting the feelings of other women…). I’m pretty sure though you are not allowed to run around naked. Oh, and pretty much all the islamic law-schools agree that you can and have to live in and follow the law of the country you live in. Which means you cannot marry four women in a country that does not allow it, for example.

    3. Ok, there comes the problem: what does a society find acceptable? indeed, that’s THE problem. I am uncomfortable with girls and women in thight skirts, too much make up and “too much” skin showing, but hey, I don’t have to look at them. I’m muslima, in Europe, and I know it’s very hard for us to find a way to clothe modestly while trying to fit in and integrate (which muslims should do I think, because they should take part in society). Especially young girls struggle a lot with it. How you deal with it should be a personal choice, as states the Coran “no forcing in religion”. You have to know from within what is good for you. Now the Hijab (in general modest clothing hiding your bosom) in the Coran is to protect and honour you as a woman. A lot of scholars agree on this and to say it should make people concentrate on your inner values, and not your BODY. So although I wouldn’t wear a niqab I think, not in Europe anyway, it is striking to me that France (along with other countries where it has been debated) rejects a clothing that hides, conceals the body while not interfering in sexist (=depicting woman as a seductive body) commercials for example. Which says a lot about the society and its attitude towards women (like you all said, shaving and waxing and make up, …).

    4. What I would really love to know is what islamic scholars think about the niqab and the burqa. When I learned how to pray, I learned this: all of a woman’s body is considered nakedness, exept her face and her hands (and in some cases her feet). And: you must not cover your face when you pray. As for the public, of course, not being alone with another man except (with) a mahram (family member/someone you cannot ever marry) and not show your nakedness to such a man who is not a mahram. Now, this is interesting: although your face and your hands are not considered nakedness, men shouldn’t look at them (intensely), not twice at least. Women, like men, should lower their gaze and not “look” at (watch) the other’s body. Anyway, this means I should not be afraid as a woman to show my face in public. Though I wonder if all the men (”western” and muslims alike) can consider a woman veiled without orientalism (making her a body).

    I agree with you all! read Edward Said, read Spivak, and others… You can learn a lot about the veil too (the British in Egypt, Amin, …) as a way to mark societies as “backward”, the unveiling supposedly good for the women, while they did not grant them more rights to study, go to school, …
    And lots of people say while the veil did protect at some time in history (and YES it was a social marker of rank in society before it became a political statement/reaction in the last years), we should now turn towards more education for girls to protect them. (Or maybe other initiatives to empower women, which also have to be taken “from within”, it is to muslimahs to decide too.)

    So, this is my conclusion: the government CAN prohibit complete veiling (it is already prohibited actually, though obviously as it did not state niqab and burqa some felt it had to be changed).
    This ban is NOT any part of the solution to the problems of integration that lie ahead of us French.
    What I will now do some research on, as soon as I have more time, is this: what do islamic scholars and French muslim representants say about that all?? (supposing, of course, that burqa and niqab are muslim, though I am sure non-muslimahs may wear them too for some reason or another) (Especially since I must not cover my face when I pray, I would be interested in those arguments telling me why I might want to hide it in public.)

    And personnally, the most striking might be this, as some of you said: what do we accept, as a society? why is covering a body (from the public eye) WRONG while showing it is often considered RIGHT (or at least okay, symbol of freedom…) ? (On what basis do we feel this is right? (sexual, personal, or other freedom?) does this fit into the debate on pornography and the female body?)

    ok, last remark, have you read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi? if not, you should probably, or at least watch the film.
    There is a hilarious scene, where she runs after her bus and is stopped by some watchmen, because when running her “behind” makes “indecend” movements. To which she wonderfully answers (sorry for my bad translation): “then just don’t look at my ***!”

    (and logically but also islamically speaking, she is right, if you see something indecent, then look away!)

    changing the way you dress does not integrate you so easily. You stay a “foreign” body to many eyes. (Or become one to “your” community who might think you betrayed her.)

    I wonder if this will change so soon. We have a lot to learn about History. Colonialism too, and post-colonialism. And in Europe, especially about critical whiteness. (In the States too I guess.)

  150. Anna wrote:

    oh, and about Afghan burqas. It was shocking, those years ago, but what shocked me even more was this: people KNEW how bad the situation was for women there long before. Then, when the Taliban bombed those statues, everyone was sooo sorry. I was sorry too, but hey, statues are still things (though what a heritage!), and women Humans! But the situation of women only became a matter somehow when people looked for a reason to be really against the Taliban. As in many other cases, they were taken as a symbol for the “backwardness” of a society to legitimate some (colonial?) action. Not sure if they really were a true matter at that time either.

  151. Donald wrote:

    I’ve never heard of any woman being arrested in the UK for indecent exposure even if totally nude. The police generally take the view that if no one complains they aren’t going to do anything about it. People only complain if a man is nude and even then the police would generally tell him to cover up rather than go to the trouble of an arrest.

    Of course that doesn’t reflect what women actually do. Going topless or nude is rare and generally a publicity stunt of some sort.

  152. Anna wrote:

    yes, interestingly enough, male nudity (in public) is considered somewhat pervert I guess, maybe sexually aggressive? don’t know, but differently from female nudity.
    Though being only topless for a woman is not the same as being a naked man. Being topless has become quite accepted on some beaches around the world, hasn’t it? though it is not the same as being completely naked obviously. Anyway, you would be looked and commented on if you do it “in public” – in a city or some place, where it is not the “code”.

    I don’t know about the U.K., but I know there are some towns with beaches for example (I think that was in France) where you are not allowed to wear only bathing suit or shorts in the shops. Which they might have to prohibit to tell you: this is where the beach stops. Which would mean there is also a minimum decency criteria…

  153. Donald wrote:

    I wasn’t comparing nude male with topless female but nude male and nude female. Logically they should be the same thing but they aren’t either socially or in practice legally.

    As far as not following the local dress code that can get you looks and comments pretty much anywhere usually from the ignorant. I suppose the nearest equivelent to a topless woman would be a man in a skirt. Both would get attention, mostly unpleasant, and could be dangerous. And that’s in a city with an established gay scene.

    The beaches you mention are fairly common in small southern european resorts where a local tradition of modesty is waived for tourists on the beach itself. The signs are a reminder to tourists of what is expected elsewhere.

    Which brings us neatly back onto topic. It isn’t only the muslim world which expects women to hide their shape and hair. The styles may be different but long dark frocks and headscarves are traditional dress in much of South Eastern Europe.

  154. atlasien wrote:

    On another side note…

    Then, when the Taliban bombed those statues, everyone was sooo sorry. I was sorry too, but hey, statues are still things (though what a heritage!), and women Humans!”

    I agree with you that the Western media did not cover the bombing of the Bamyan statues well. But beyond that, almost everyone missed the point of what the Taliban did…

    The primary purpose wasn’t religious desecration. It was to commit terrorism and ethnic cleansing against the minority Hazara people. The Hazaras are Muslim, but the statues were their beloved cultural patrimony. Their region doesn’t have a lot of arable land or other sources of wealth, but in the past, between periods of war, the Buddhas attracted tourism and economic development to the region. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Hazaras… they even forced many Hazara men, under threat of death, to help them destroy pieces of the Buddhas. The Hazaras were forced to be complicit in the destruction of their past cultural history AND their future economic livelihood.

    To understand what they did, imagine someone forcing Egyptians to blow up their pyramids.

  155. a muslima' voice wrote:

    btw just wanted to say that in islam modesty is encouraged for both men and women however it seems societies (both here in the west and in the middle east) seem to only focus on women.

    however maybe thats not surprising as most societies are patriarcha and hence seem to have an obsession with boobies, whether they be clothed or unclothed.

  156. Dr. Matthew wrote:

    I frankly find this perspective rather naive, in that the “choice” to wear a burqa in public is treated as a greater right than the obvious inability in some Muslim cultures for women to choose to be seen or heard in public. I also don’t quite buy this idea that it will lead to all women being locked inside the home. By sheer virtue of the impracticality of managing a home with a single breadwinner who also must maintain and accomplish all tasks outside the home, such an outcome seems very low, at best, and a reactionary fear tactic, at worse.

    The history and meaning of the burqa is varied and has been written on extensively, but to ignore that blatant effect of that invisibility that occurs when half of humanity is banished from being seen renders this a superficial analysis. I am skeptical that Sarkozy’s motives are pure, and even more skeptical that this will be an effective tactic, but ignoring the social impact of the burqa on women’s lives is unproductive.

  157. Joseph wrote:

    @Dr Frankly
    I find it frankly patronizing for a western man to claim that he knows what is best for Middle Eastern/Muslim women… a position that requires the purposeful disregard for the stated preference of the women in question, in effect, silencing them. The burqa does not render Muslim women invisible, it renders them invisible to your gaze. In other words, they are women whose faces and bodies are not for public consumption. They cannot be used to sell anything or as a metaphor for anything. Frankly, they belong to themselves.

    In other words, your preference is for Muslim women to be seen, but not heard. Frankly, that is the same colonial bullshit dressed up as feminist concern that western authority has been using as an excuse to control Middle Eastern populations for the last hundred years.

    Frankly.

  158. Sobia wrote:

    @ Joseph:

    “In other words, they are women whose faces and bodies are not for public consumption. They cannot be used to sell anything or as a metaphor for anything. Frankly, they belong to themselves.”

    I will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. A woman’s body, has been and can be used and consumed regardless of what she is wearing.

    Unfortunately this is not something we as women have much control over. It is mainly men who consume women’s bodies and considering they have more power than we do very often this consumption feels out of our hands.

    Additionally, as a Muslim woman who does not cover her face or body shape (most people, including Muslims, never guess that I am Muslim) I would like to think that I am not choosing to put my body out there for consumption. I would also like to think that my body belongs to me too.

    I know you did not mean it this way, and I know you were defending these women’s choice to cover their faces, which we I do as well, but this statement sounded a little too close to the “women who cover themselves from head to toe get more respect from men” argument so many Muslims make to get Muslim women to cover from head to toe.

  159. method wrote:

    Joseph, I think you take a special delight in misunderstanding and taking offense at people’s comments. Both of NancyP’s points were about the burqa and interesting. What commenting policy would prevent someone from writing “the usual pinch-faced clerical types seen in most religions”? Being anti-racist means being pro-religion now?

  160. Wendi Muse wrote:

    update: al qaida threatens sarkozy:
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/01/world/AP-EU-France-Al-Qaida-Burqa.html

  161. Joseph wrote:

    @Sobia
    That isn’t what I meant, so thanks for the chance to clarify. Of course you are right that women have a tricky time no matter how they chose to dress, and I am not romanticizing the veil. I’m not Muslim and have no religious or cultural investment in the veil debate one way or another–for me it is just clothing. The point I was trying to make is that historically, the indignant rage a covered woman inspires in western men has come down to the frustration of the gaze–which in this context is both male AND colonial–and not any true feminist feeling.

    Of course covering is not a perfect solution to patriarchal incursions on to women’s bodies, particularly intra-culturally. But I think there is historical precedent for covering as a defense against the hungry western eye. I’m thinking here of Algeria, another example where the French forcibly de-veiled women as a mechanism of control… Malek Alloula has written about the parallel exercise of generating pornographic postcards using the entirely nude bodies of Algerian women, another colonial experiment in bodily control through display.

    Anyway, I just want to be clear that I am not advocating for Muslim women to cover (or not) because it is better in any way–I really don’t care how Muslim women dress at all. But I do care that the obvious colonial history of this action in France has not been considered. Either because of ignorance (as in Dr. “Frankly” above) or purposefully, to bring colonial practices of bodily control into the 21st century.

    I hope I am being more clear.

  162. Sobia wrote:

    @ Joseph:

    Yes you are. Thanks! I knew what you were trying to say, but for the sake of those who are not familiar with the discussion I was hoping you would extrapolate/clarify. And you did.

    Thanks again!

  163. Joseph wrote:

    @method
    If you have questions about the commenting policy you should direct them to the Mods, not me.

    Thanks.

  164. Kerry wrote:

    I see I am coming to this a little late but thought it was an interesting blog and has obviously garnered very interesting commentary. It seems a lot of those leaving comments are American and I dont think truly understand the differences in Europe. I am a Canadian immigrant living in the UK. The problem people have with a lot of immigration in European countries is that they have adopted policies similar to Canada and the United States that cannot work in very old and small countries. There is not the space nor the same “pioneer” attitude. These European countries have established histories, unlike the US and Canada which are very new countries populated by immigrants ( I am not forgetting this land was already populated by First Nations). I think assimilation is extremely important and does not mean forgetting or giving up your own culture, which is why we have China towns and Little India’s all over our North American ( and European) cities. I think Marc is making a very important point in that we are completely forgetting what the situation is like in France for the native French, regardless of what happened in the past or anything about colonialism.
    That being said I have no problem with the burqa because I think Muslims should assimilate, I have a problem with it because I have a problem with religion. As an atheist and therefore without the belief in rules and regulations based on fantasy written many moons ago HOWEVER I do feel it is the right of others to practice these beliefs as much as they like, as long as it does not inflict any harm on anyone else. And I am sure you would find it quite hard to ignore that the most popular religions in the world have done harm to others. I, in particluar find it hard to understand why a religion that has a history of incredible violence and oppression toward women and incredible violence toward anyone who does not believe in Islamic thought to deserve so much defense. Why are people so many leftist and thoughtful people so willing to put themselves on the line for a religion so full of right wing ideas and hate?
    What is so wrong with pointing out the injustices served in the name of God by a particluar religion?
    It is very easy to point out of course that old phrase ” Not all muslims are like that”, but its not just media spin, the hate and oppression is right there in the Koran, just like its right there in the Bible. And anyone can pick and choose what they want to believe from a religion, but then whats the point? Why believe at all? Its not a matter of race or culture, it is a matter of religion and so many people seem to be confusing that. It is not racist to be unwilling to adhere to every religious symbol because people who share those beliefs are generally from a different race.
    Thats just plain old secularism.

    In respect to the burqa, I dont think Sarkozy is pure in his motivation but I dont see why this is such an issue. I dont think anyone has the right to, OR should be forced to, whichever excuse it is, have their face completely covered.
    Anywhere.
    In the world.
    At all.
    It is a construct by men to remove any trace of humanity, and I honestly do not understand how it could be viewed as anything else.
    It is so easy to sit back in our priveleged worlds and think of these issues as happening to “the other” and excuse oppression because “thats just their culture”.