Following Nicolas Sarkozy’s statement last summer that burqas are “not welcome” in France, the French Parliament recommended a partial ban last week on any veil that covers the face. For now, that ban would only cover public transportation and public buildings such as school and hospitals, not women generally on the streets. It also only applies to burqas and niqabs, which unlike the more common headscarf or hijab cover a woman’s entire face with the exception of a small section for the eyes. But it marks an ongoing trend in secular France to rid the country of the Islamic headscarf altogether.
Proponents of the ban cite the veil’s oppressive meaning and the need to ensure women’s rights as the main reasons for why it should not be allowed in France. The headscarf – whether in the form of the hijab, niqab, or burqa – is a living symbol of the repression of women, imparted on women by their fathers, brothers, and husbands. Only by banning it, they argue, can we free Muslim women from the patriarchal confines that Islam bestows on them and bring about gender equality.
To be honest, this is always where the argument against the headscarf falls apart for me. It is undeniable that in certain countries and societies the headscarf is a tool of repression that keeps women veiled and separate from the rest of society. Of course, the veil is only the most outwardly symbol of this repression, and the real problem lies in the laws the prohibit education, employment, or even socializing for women. But the idea that Muslim women in the West, where headscarves are not required by law, are incapable of making the choice to wear it themselves is obscenely patriarchal and actually goes against women’s rights far more than advancing them. The fact that of the 200 people interviewed by French parliamentarians when considering the recommendation, only one of them was a Muslim woman who wore a niqab appears to support this. It’s not really about their rights, but rather about our view of their wardrobe choice.
I suspect that the true reason behind the ban and the 57% public approval rating for it in France is because the headscarf does openly signify religious and ethnic difference on the part of Muslim women. There are also cultural differences in the West that place a high premium on face-to-face communication, something that both the niqab and burqa prohibit. These were two points raised in 2006 by British MP Jack Straw, which kicked off a debate in the UK over what place the veil should have in British society. But in contrast to the high public approval for the ban in France, similar surveys in the UK found that 56% of the public would not approve of a ban except in limited situations involving security such as in airports or at passport control. The cause of this public difference is probably due to the different approaches that France and the UK take towards immigration: while France believes in assimilation towards all things French, the UK generally favors integration and multiculturalism.
Like the Swiss minaret ban, this is where the real debate over burqas and headscarves lies. Muslim women in the West are increasingly donning headscarves not just because of their belief that it is mandatory under Muslim doctrine, but because it gives them a sense of identity as a Muslim woman. Unlike in Saudi Arabia or Iran where headscarves are required by law, they are not forced to wear it but choose to of their own volition. In an integrationist society where people are expected to adapt to a certain extent but are also expected to not forgo their entire religious, ethnic, racial, or national background, this is relatively acceptable. But when immigrants and ethnic minorities are expected to assimilate and shed their backgrounds in exchange for a new national identity, such an obvious symbol of otherness like the headscarf causes major offense.
French lawmakers will probably pass the partial ban, and I won’t be surprised when new laws come up in a few years extending the ban. That is part and parcel of secular French identity. But in the future I just wish that they would be honest about the reasons for such laws rather than hide behind the nonsensical argument that prohibiting the choice is in the best interest of women and ensures their rights as individuals in a free society.
