Is the ban on the veil justified?
The French president appointed a commission which recommended prohibiting all forms of religious signs in public.
The news that the French Republic has imposed a ban on women wearing the veil in public places has generated much controversy in the Muslim world. There are two ways of looking at it. First, that France, being a secular country, is right to prohibit ‘conspicuous religious signs’ in public spaces. The second, that the veil is mandatory for Muslim women and, therefore, banning it is tantamount to interference in religion. The first position is that of the secularists while the second is that of the Islamists. However, a third position is possible — that the ban is not in consonance with liberal-humanist values, which the French Republic celebrates. That, in fact, the spirit of the European Enlightenment, which has created both democracy and the concept of human rights and women’s’ rights, is to liberate human beings from the restrictions imposed by the Church and the state in medieval Europe. And that any ban or imposition of the state on what a person may wear or eat and drink negates the essence of personal liberty which the Enligtenment ensured after centuries of restrictions. But perhaps it would be useful to look into the history of this ban before analysing it any further.
Following the hue and cry over Muslim girls wearing the headscarf in French schools, the president of France appointed a commission under Bernard Stasi to report on the matter. In the December of 2003, the report of the commission was finally submitted to the president. The report recommended prohibiting “conspicuous religious signs in public schools — including veils, kippas and large crosses worn around the neck.”
Discreet signs such as little crosses, medallions, miniature Qurans and Stars of David were, however, allowed. This resulted in a law passed by the National Assembly in 2004 and now, in 2011, the law has become operative.
The problem with this law is that it does not discriminate between symbols and religious duties. While it is not a religious duty for a Christian to wear a cross, it is a duty for a Sikh man to grow a beard and wear certain items. Similarly, according to some interpretations of Islam, it is necessary for women to cover their faces with a veil in public. From the points of view of such persons, they are bound to be dressed in a given manner and have no choice in the matter. In short, these items of personal appearance are not negotiable. They are not additional, non-mandatory items like the cross or the Star of David. Instead, they are like going to church on Sunday or certain aspects of worship that are part of one’s religious duty.
Arguing about the veil, anthropologist Talal Asad makes the point that the Islamic veil signifies not just religious conviction in France but “the low legal status of women in Muslim society”. However, being French Muslims, women who choose to wear the veil are not all forced to do it. Indeed, there are many cases of women wanting to wear the veil in order not to be stared at; in order to assert their separate (Muslim) identity; in order to indulge a whim; in order to please someone they genuinely like etc. Of course, women are oppressed in most Muslim societies — as indeed, they are in others as well, but the veil is not necessarily the only indicator of their state.
There are those who argue, even in Pakistan, that if Saudi Arabia can have its dress code which even westerners have to adhere to, why can’t France? The answer is that two wrongs do not make a right. If one country has a dress code which it imposes by law on women, then it is that country which ought to reconsider its laws. If human freedom is a value to be respected, then such laws should be repealed and matters of this kind left to the individual’s choice and conscience. Such laws do not provide a justification for other countries to create similar laws which do not respect personal freedom.
The essence of liberal-humanism is that personal freedom should be respected and choice should be given to the individual to dress as he or she desires, subject, of course, to common sense and globally accepted norms of decency. Such an attitude would give French women the right to wear the hijab or the full veil if they desire, as well as jeans and miniskirts if this is what they wish to wear. The essential point is the desire of the individual. These should be respected by the state whose job is no more than giving protection to a wide diversity of lifestyles. If France does not do this, then it will give authoritarian countries the excuse to impose whatever they like in the name of their identity, which will increase the power of the state and fascist groups everywhere, whilst decreasing personal freedom. In a post-9/11 world of shrinking personal liberties, this is not what we need.
In short, the ban on the veil is basically against liberal-humanist values. It negates the basic value of personal freedom, which is the essence of a democratic state. It should be opposed by democrats and liberal-humanists in the same way as such people oppose religious dress codes in other countries of the world. One hopes liberal values prevail in France. France was, and should become once more, a society which guarantees the Sikh his turban and beard and a Muslim girl her veil, while ensuring that girls in miniskirts also go about their way without being harassed.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 25th, 2011.
Following the hue and cry over Muslim girls wearing the headscarf in French schools, the president of France appointed a commission under Bernard Stasi to report on the matter. In the December of 2003, the report of the commission was finally submitted to the president. The report recommended prohibiting “conspicuous religious signs in public schools — including veils, kippas and large crosses worn around the neck.”
Discreet signs such as little crosses, medallions, miniature Qurans and Stars of David were, however, allowed. This resulted in a law passed by the National Assembly in 2004 and now, in 2011, the law has become operative.
The problem with this law is that it does not discriminate between symbols and religious duties. While it is not a religious duty for a Christian to wear a cross, it is a duty for a Sikh man to grow a beard and wear certain items. Similarly, according to some interpretations of Islam, it is necessary for women to cover their faces with a veil in public. From the points of view of such persons, they are bound to be dressed in a given manner and have no choice in the matter. In short, these items of personal appearance are not negotiable. They are not additional, non-mandatory items like the cross or the Star of David. Instead, they are like going to church on Sunday or certain aspects of worship that are part of one’s religious duty.
Arguing about the veil, anthropologist Talal Asad makes the point that the Islamic veil signifies not just religious conviction in France but “the low legal status of women in Muslim society”. However, being French Muslims, women who choose to wear the veil are not all forced to do it. Indeed, there are many cases of women wanting to wear the veil in order not to be stared at; in order to assert their separate (Muslim) identity; in order to indulge a whim; in order to please someone they genuinely like etc. Of course, women are oppressed in most Muslim societies — as indeed, they are in others as well, but the veil is not necessarily the only indicator of their state.
There are those who argue, even in Pakistan, that if Saudi Arabia can have its dress code which even westerners have to adhere to, why can’t France? The answer is that two wrongs do not make a right. If one country has a dress code which it imposes by law on women, then it is that country which ought to reconsider its laws. If human freedom is a value to be respected, then such laws should be repealed and matters of this kind left to the individual’s choice and conscience. Such laws do not provide a justification for other countries to create similar laws which do not respect personal freedom.
The essence of liberal-humanism is that personal freedom should be respected and choice should be given to the individual to dress as he or she desires, subject, of course, to common sense and globally accepted norms of decency. Such an attitude would give French women the right to wear the hijab or the full veil if they desire, as well as jeans and miniskirts if this is what they wish to wear. The essential point is the desire of the individual. These should be respected by the state whose job is no more than giving protection to a wide diversity of lifestyles. If France does not do this, then it will give authoritarian countries the excuse to impose whatever they like in the name of their identity, which will increase the power of the state and fascist groups everywhere, whilst decreasing personal freedom. In a post-9/11 world of shrinking personal liberties, this is not what we need.
In short, the ban on the veil is basically against liberal-humanist values. It negates the basic value of personal freedom, which is the essence of a democratic state. It should be opposed by democrats and liberal-humanists in the same way as such people oppose religious dress codes in other countries of the world. One hopes liberal values prevail in France. France was, and should become once more, a society which guarantees the Sikh his turban and beard and a Muslim girl her veil, while ensuring that girls in miniskirts also go about their way without being harassed.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 25th, 2011.