French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France.
"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.
"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.
Apologists for the burka sometimes argue that it empowers, not oppresses - that by covering herself, a woman ensures that she is judged according to her ideas and not according to her looks.
When I hear this specious nonsense, I always think: what "ideas"? What ideas can she have if she is deprived of an education, as so many Muslim women are? What if she gets the "idea" to do something crazy or unspeakable - like divorce her husband?
Sarkozy is right on here. Of course the burka oppresses women; sexism doesn't get more explicit!
The burka robs a woman of her identity and completes the process by which she is transformed from an autonomous individual into the property of her father or husband.
Sarkozy is wrong about one thing, though: the burka is a sign of religion. Arbitrary injustice is the kind of thing that religion does best.
4 comments:
I wish there was a "like" or "I couldn't agree more" button.
Sir,
I cannot say I disagree with your commentary in its entirety, but I do feel compelled to identify certain elements of it that deserve greater scrutiny and discussion. In particular, I find two points troubling.
The first is your tacit acceptance of Mr. Sarkozy's undefined understanding of "identity." He does not seem to consider that what he calls a "screen" that deprives Muslim women of identity could actually be a legitimate and important part of their identity. Though rare, there were fellow students at my graduate school that wore head-to-toe abayas; I suspect that they felt a strong sense of identity and belonging despite their attire.
The second is that Mr. Sarkozy is himself placing limits on personal and religious expression under the guise of liberating Muslim women. I grant that you yourself are equally opposed to all religion, but I find it troubling that you would second his repression of ideas (religious or secular) simply because they are not consonant with Western values. It seems that what he is really opposed to is domestic abuse and violence, so why not frame the debate more generally rather than singling out Muslims? Surely there are white, Catholic French women who are oppressed.
In his ban Mr. Sarkozy seems to assert a moral and cultural absolutism, which in itself may be as narrow-minded and dangerous as the "oppression" he seeks to defy. By outlawing the burqa in France he has only vaguely defined the outer limits of this absolutism. In fact, purdah is commonplace throughout the Muslim world in varying degrees. Shall we ban burqas but not the hijab? Do the face and hands alone constitute an identity? Why not the shoulder or leg? Of course, we cannot ban the salwar kameez and not the pantsuit. To what extent must a woman reveal her body to be sufficiently liberated in France? No doubt Mr. Sarkozy believes he has taken a tough stand against Islamic fundamentalism and its oppression of women, but I fear he has only iced a slippery slope. In doing so, though, he has brought to the fore a question of growing importance:
How do free and open democracies create a global and pluralistic society while maintaining the sanctity of their own values?
A fine point! I was too hasty to criticize the wearing of the burka, so I forgot to address the issue of banning it. I agree 100% that such a ban is antithetical to the ideals of a free society. And ironically, Sarkozy's singling out the burka is just as arbitrary as Islamic law's singling out women to wear it.
If women want to wear the burka, that should be their right. It's like when girls wear those sweatpants with lascivious writing on the butt; I may think it's idiotic and degrading, but that doesn't mean it should be against the law.
As for the identity issue, both Sarkozy and I take an outsider's view of Muslim identity, so our stance could easily be criticized as insensitive. But whatever Muslim women may think of their own religious identity, I personally can't respect an ideology or dress code that is based on adherence to superstition and that militantly imposes male superiority in all sectors of society save childrearing.
As usual, I think we largely agree. In retrospect, I probably confused your criticism of the wearing with your support for the banning. With regard to your clarification of the "identity" issue -- fair enough. It is one thing to disagree with a custom or to hold no respect for it, as you have done; it is quite another to say that it is "wrong" or to make it illegal.
Post a Comment