by Izzy Abdi
Sunday, June 20, 2010
There is a growing threat of terrorism in the world and whether the level of such a threat is politically manufactured or truly at such a magnitude, the threat has produced an unprecedented fear. It is that fear that envelops society and creates social contexts, which in some democratic countries would have never been accepted, and those social contexts are a collective result of societies fear. Consequently, democratic societies view terrorism as a direct threat to the fundamental structure of democracy- and therefore, an obvious threat towards them.
The modern day terrorist is no longer Robin Hood, seeking to take from the rich and give to the poor, but too commonly of an Islamic background. Although other terrorists are just as effective, Presidents and Prime ministers alike, we will focus on the ‘portrayed-through-media’ terrorists. Muslim militants have created organizations that have redefined the common principle that ‘all humans have some sort of humanity’. There is no humanity in terrorism. Hence, a growing number of individuals in the Western World view Islam as a terrorist’s religion. The September 11, 2001 attack on the U.S.A and the July 7, 2005 attack on the United Kingdom have promoted the notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. France in particular, with the largest number of Muslims in Europe, has seen the increase in Islam; viewing it as a detrimental impact towards society. Muslim people in France are predominantly from North African descent and some of the Women are wearers of a ‘Burqa’ or ‘Niqab’. It is France’s governments wish to ban such Islamic garments that have become an ethical dilemma and stirred a passionate debate in the arena of moral dialogues.
The ‘Burqa’ or ‘Niqab’ is a face covering that Muslim woman wear in addition to the ‘Hijab’. The ‘Hijab’ is a mandatory hair covering that is a part of the Islamic faith for all Women. The Holy Quran states, “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31). However, France’s leader Nicholas Sarkozy is not fond of all forms of religious covering. In a speech addressing the issue of the Islamic garment, he states "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic." His party leader, Jean-Francois Cope, continues to state, “Veils that cover a woman’s entire face are a violation of individual liberty and a negation of one’s identity and that of others in a public milieu.”
In 2005, the French government decided to ban all forms of religious symbols from public schools- including the Hijab. The President makes the argument that ‘all’ religious symbols are forbidden, including the Jewish Yarmulke and Christian Cross. However, French Muslims have argued the point that neither the Yarmulke nor Christian Cross is mandatory in both religions and the Hijab is an obligation upon Muslim women. Therefore, the ban of eliminating Hijab-wearing girls from public or private schools would technically only affect the Muslim population. Nevertheless, the Act No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 regulating, in accordance with the principle of secularism, the wearing of symbols or clothing denoting religious affiliation in schools, colleges and public schools was enforced and headscarves were no longer allowed in primary and secondary schools.
The issue of the headscarf was the first step on Sarkozy’s agenda to promote the fundamental beliefs that France stands for secularism and a direct attempt in addressing the threat of Islam. He, like many other conservatives, is aware of the growing presence of Islam in France; and through Muslim militants international display of horrific attacks must promote a stronger sense of security and democratic strength in the face of such growth. There are two main arguments that the government has made in regards to the ‘Burqa Ban’ and both arguments are;
a) Manipulation and Oppression Vs. Dignity: The argument that is being made is that the Burqa and Niqab are both forms of oppression. The covering of a Women’s face is an attack on femininity and gender equality. Furthermore, since the religion of Islam does not impose such restrictions- it is a cultural manipulation intended to limit female progression in society. President Sarkozy states, “The Burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience."
b) Secular and Public Security of France: The Burqa or Niqab, both, cover the individuals face. Therefore, it is impossible to know who is underneath the veil. Hence, the growing threat of terrorism and the majority of ‘media portrayed’ terrorist attacks being co-related to Muslims- the fear of not knowing who is underneath that Muslim veil is a threat to France’s security. The President states, "We are an old nation united around a certain idea of human dignity, and in particular of a woman's dignity, around a certain idea of how to live together…. the full veil that hides the face completely harms those values, which are so fundamental to us, so essential to the republican compact."
The ethical dilemma is banning of religious symbols in a free, democratic society. Many opposition supporters argue the point that the state should not interfere in the private acts of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. If a state chooses to interfere in public displays of religion, without the premise of such displays being detrimental or counterproductive to society as a whole, the interference could be regarded as illegitimate and undemocratic. French government officials argue that the states interference with the Burqa is due to the security of the individual wearing the Burqa, as well as the society as a whole. There is a probable positive social result of such a ban, and that is the integration of those ethnic groups into a collective society; which would have otherwise not occurred with the presence of the Burqa. The main argument of it “negates the woman's existence, and it hides her identity, thus becoming a security threat’ is strongly opposed by the Muslim and non-Muslim community alike.”
The Muslim population in France is estimated between 3-6 million and those wearing the veil are estimated at 2000. Nevertheless, the numbers have increased dramatically after 9-11. It is the belief of policy makers and security experts that the increase of veil wearing Muslims is due to the extremist movements occurring throughout the world. In addition to the extremists, those who are usually wearing the veil in France are Muslim converts who have adopted a stricter interpretation of Islam. Although this is so, the ban has caused controversy in terms of government interference in basic human rights- such as expression of religion. The European Court of Human Rights states in Article 9 of its charter, “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” Furthermore in Article 10 it states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression…. The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
It can be easily understood that the French government is not breaking the freedom of expression or freedom of religion laws, because the sole condition of maintaining public safety is the ultimate concern and motivation in banning the Burqa. The laws are unlawfully broken, if and only the interest of the public was not of primary concern. Nonetheless, there are those who argue the point that such a ban will only provoke extremists to target France and the Burqa ban is an insightful way of asking for trouble.
Morality and Ethical decision making is a key factor in the maintenance of social order. Social institutions, such as the French government, have a responsibility to uphold the standard of morality and ethics in all of their decisions and judgments. Therefore, the question of whether it is ethical to deny individuals religious dress based on the premise of unwarranted concern and vast unfamiliarity of such customs creates the moral dialogue occurring today. Frances government proposed a 200-page report that states “the constitutional provisions and international agreements signed by France that set forth the fundamental principle of gender equality. The full veil is seen as contrary to these provisions. It is considered a regression of the rights and the dignity of the woman in our society…. A form of sexual apartheid with on one side the world of men that is open and on the other side the world of women. “
French citizens are condemning such an act through protests and boycotts. If the government forbids individuals to dress according to their religion and choice, isn’t that the same as those people who may be forcing the dress upon Muslim women? Both circumstances are a forefront for forceful authoritative displays towards Muslim women. At least, in the case of wearing the Burqa, there are those Women who sincerely choose to wear it without force or pressure. If the decision of banning the Burqa is more of Muslim assimilation into French society, the decision is no longer ethical or moral.
One’s decision to assimilate into society should be an individual decision; if assimilation is not a threat than there is no need for forceful integration. Although, the veil covers the face; is the covering of one’s face a severe indication of gender inequality? The wearers of the veil argue that they view bikinis and miniskirts as a detrimental dress for the progression of women in society. Furthermore, they veiled Women argue that if the veil is prohibited so should immodest clothes and socially unacceptably fashions. The argument is one of legitimate reasoning; if you choose to restrict one kind of dress because it is socially ‘uncomfortable’, shouldn’t we prohibit all kinds of dresses that are socially ‘uncomfortable’? The gothic attire, extremely revealing clothes and so forth.
Muslim leaders of France have agreed that if the Burqa were banned, such a ban would only alienate French Muslims creating a second-class citizen environment. In regards to the Burqa ban, the State Department published the following in its annual Human rights report; “the law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of faith. However, some religious groups remained concerned about laws permitting the government to dissolve groups under certain circumstances and prohibiting the wearing of "conspicuous" religious symbols, including Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, and large crosses, by employees and students in public schools. Some Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh leaders expressed concern about the law's potential to restrict religious freedom. Media reports estimated and the international Sikh community claimed that many of the country's Muslim school-age girls and Sikh school-age boys were affected by the law; many of the latter were denied a public higher education and forced to take up apprenticeship because they could not afford private schooling.”
In the Human Rights report, the State Department concludes, that such bans and restrictions are in fact an intrusion of freedom of religion. Although similar proposals have been made to ban the Burqa in the United States by various groups, journalists and policy makers- the United States government finds it to be an interference with the basic freedoms awarded to its citizens through democracy.
In conclusion, the ban on the Burqa is an issue of individual vs. community; therefore, we must understand which is more important. Essentially, the government’s argument of security and public safety is one of sound reasoning. However, the President’s decision of banning the Burqa due to gender inequality and lack of dignity is extremely contradictory. Although the Burqa is not a religious obligation, it is a sincere submission of modesty and humbleness by those who wear it. Hence, it is not fair to argue that dignity can only be found in ‘Western’ forms of dressing. Understandably, terrorism and the growing threat of what Islam does not stand for- is a major contributor to such bans and laws. Even the most secularist states have not banned Hijabs, or headscarves, from public schools. Yet, France is facing an immigration problem and the growth of Islam is posing a direct threat to its Roman Catholic heritage.
The Burqa ban is a preemptive strike on an Islamic garment. It is only 2000 people out of 3-6 million who wear the Burqa. Thus, the ban could be considered containment on an issue before it reaches an uncontrollable setting. Although, those wearing the Burqa make the argument that it is by choice and if the Burqa is banned so should other forms of dress, there was no mention or regard of their proposals made in the final draft of the law. It is clear that the Burqa ban is considerably the French’s modern day war on religion; Islam being a scapegoat for many international terrorists, the French have chosen to protect themselves from a religion misconceived by many.
by Izzy Abdi
E-mail: [email protected]