Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, publicly stated (June 19) his disapproval of the burqa/niqab, stating that it is not welcome in France and renders women “prisoners behind a screen.” His statements have set the stage for a possible nationwide ban – this ban would obviously apply to everyone in France…but reasonably speaking, it only targets the Muslim population, which makes up between 5-10% of the total population (64 million).
So how many women actually wear a burqa / niqab in France?
There’s no official number, but estimates are in the hundreds – which means it cannot be more than 1,000 women.
Why ban the burqa / niqab?
The case for banning the burqa is primarily based on two points.
- Wearing the burqa in public violates France’s intense adhesion to laïcité, or secularism.
- It is an oppressive article of clothing.
Modern france has always placed an emphasis on secularism, known as laïcité in French. Former president Jacques Chirac once said in an address to the nation that “secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic.” Given France’s intense dedication to keeping religion and government as separate as possible it only makes sense to ban the burqa – after all, it’s much more conspicuous than Muslim headscarves (hijabs), Jewish scull caps (yarmulkes), or large Christian crosses – all of which are banned in public institutions like schools.
The burqa certainly ‘seems’ like an oppressive article of clothing…at least by the majority of people living in western nations, in fact, the burqa concept is foreign to many Muslims. In most western nations you certainly couldn’t show up at a public courthouse or school wearing provocative/distracting clothing, but public decency laws typically only require covering of the ‘private areas’ as a bare minimum for leaving your private residence.
Why not ban the burqa / niqab? Most Muslim women wear it voluntarily, and it solidifies individuality contrary to popular western belief. Huffington Post blogger Sabria Jawhar states that the ban would marginalize Muslims:
In effect, by mandating a dress code the French government excludes many Muslim women from society. Muslim women who believe it’s their right to wear the burqa simply will not leave their homes. They will not engage the grocer and their kid’s teacher. They will not run for public office. The oppression will not come from their culture or religion, but the French Republic. (source: Huffington Post)
Alternatives to the ban.
Potential alternatives to an outright ban on burqas/niqabs include:
- Restricting the ban to public facilities (i.e. schools, courtrooms, government offices) – but this would still “marginalize” Muslim women that believe in wearing the niqab or burqa as they would avoid public facilities.
- Restricting the ban to public schools – France already has a ban on the hijab (headscarf) in public schools and Turkey already has a loose ban on hijabs at public universities, it’s a Muslim nation, where about two-thirds of the women wear the hijab.
- Restrict the ban to include only forced/coerced wearing of the niqab or burqa – interpretation would be very subjective, but sanctioned public assistance would be well-received by women that are, in fact, being forced into wearing the article of clothing…which could shine a light on potentially harmful/abuse domestic relationships.
References: Niqab and Burqa, What’s the Difference?
In France, the terms “burqa” and “niqab” often are used interchangeably. A burqa is a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan _ with only a mesh screen over the eyes. A niqab is a full-body veil, often black, with slits for the eyes. (source: Huffington Post)
Also check out
- ‘An American Muslim Woman’s Response‘ to the ban on Goatmilk
- The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) response to Sarkozy’s ”xenophobic’ approach to French Muslims
- Supporting the burqa ban as a way to ‘free’ Muslim women from the Telegraph UK
So… He marries a super model and suddenly he is the thought police?
My real problem with the idea of banning a particular piece of clothing is the ever popular and much maligned slippery slope. Teenagers around the world will back me when I say that how you dress can be as descriptive of your character and values as the words you speak or the actions you take. So when you remove someone’s ability to make that choice, to make whatever statement they choose about themselves, you take away freedom. Be it a Muslim woman choosing to express her devotion through the wearing of a burqa, or an American man wearing a USA T-Shirt emblazoned with “Don’t tread on me”, or an inner city gang member wearing his jeans so low the zipper drags on the ground; all of those examples are expressions of freedom. Just because the only one of the above is acceptable to FoxNews doesn’t make it wrong or criminal. Just different.
Really, has society devolved to the point where the cast of Mean Girls and the President of a nuclear capable nation are on the same side? One wonders what President Sarkozy would have said about the great blasphemy of the 1980s… The legwarmer.
Go bang Carla Nicolas, and stop opening your mouth you’re spraying stupid everywhere.
Burqa is not locking women, it is a buffer line between protecting chasity and exposing. Being naked and drunk is acceptabl but being covered and modest is inhuman.
French president wants Muslim women to be topless like his wife who posed topless in fashion shows. He has no right to ban the burqa because it is undemocratic and an unqualified attack on individual freedom. Burqa is not just a piece of cloth but a lot of ideological and cultural connotation to it. Women are just being exploited in the name of rights. Burqa protects women’s rights and treat each women like a princess. No one has the right to ban the freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country. The right to choice is a basic fundamental right the person should have.
One Muslim woman, Caroline Chaiima, writing in Lepoint.fr, said she wore a veil: “Let those most closely concerned speak. I am a French woman born in France, with French parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and I am a Muslim. I wear the full veil and I feel like saying: So what? I am happy behind the veil, I protect myself from depraved stares. Neither my father, nor my brother, nor my husband forced the full veil upon me; it’s a personal choice.
Iftikhar you make solid points and bring perspective to the issue that honestly I don’t have a great deal of first hand experience with.
The one thing I will note is tone. A lot of the distance between the sides. (I will address sides in a moment) Often times, not every time but often, when Muslim men speak on behalf of women it does injury to the very idea they are trying to promote. I understand that it may be cultural, regional, personal, religious bias that causes the words to carry that tone. In the West (at least “the West” in as much as I mean ME) when that tone is used I stop hearing mainstream Islam and start to be nudged in the direction of Extremist Islam. Not at all unlike a conversation with your average milk toast Christian and a Fundamentalist, or in more politically charged terms Extremist Christians. So when a Muslim man stands up to defend the “Princesses” of Islam and his burqa clad mother/wife/sister/daughter it rings false. Let the women speak for themselves, not in immodest dress, or using immodest words, but instead using THEIR words. Iftikhar mentions Caroline Chaiima, and while I have not read any of her writing I can tell you that by default I lend more credence to her voice for the simple fact she is one who is personally impacted by the discussion. I detest men who feel it is their right and moral obligation to speak for others, to protect things, enforce ideas that are their own upon those who may, or more pointedly, may NOT agree. So on some level I say when a problem is limited to a group or sub-section then discussion of that subject should be limited to those who have skin in the game. Abortion and Burqas belong in the same category. If you can choose to do either more power to you, if you are being forced to do either that is morally wrong, and the State telling you that you can’t do either, well that too is morally wrong.
What every free man and woman in this world thinks is important, and paramountly so… to themselves. And I guess it must be human nature to enforce personal beliefs on the collective, at least it will be… until it isn’t.
Every religious conflict ever fought comes down to a simple ideological argument: “My unprovable God is better than your False Religion, and I believe that so much that I will KILL you for disagreeing.” Aren’t there better things to fight over?
Its nice to see you posting on this topic, I have to book mark this site. Keep up the good work.
Hello, We are a stress control company from Spain and we are looking forward to expand to other countries. So we are looking for psychologists to join our crew. If you are interested send me a CV and I will contact you. Thank you.