Burqa ban will not protect women
11 Apr 2011This article was originally published in July 2010

Proposed bans on face coverings are a reflection not on Islam, but on European insecurity, says Myriam Francois-Cerrah
The Burqa debate has captured European imagination. Despite being worn by a fringe within a minority, the covering has emerged at the forefront of the European political map, and been met with near unanimous condemnation across the political spectrum. In Tarres, a village in north-east Spain, the parish council is currently debating the ban, despite none its 108 inhabitants actually wearing a burqa, while its nearby provincial capital, Lleida, formally passed a ban today. Barcelona recently became the first major Spanish city to ban the use of face veils in municipal buildings and in Belgium, a country which can’t even agree on a national language, a parliamentary committee this year agreed to ban face veils in public.
In neighbouring France, the lower house of parliament looks set to approve a ban. President Sarkozy has already stated his belief that the garment reduces women to servitude and undermines their dignity, saying the burqa is “not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity”. This, despite (or perhaps because?) not having consulted a single woman who wears the face veil in the committee set up to “discuss” the issue. In a move which presumably is not an affront to human dignity, Sarkozy announced that women wearing full-face veils would be turned away from hospitals, public transport and government buildings and his UMP colleague Frederic Lefebvre demanded that any woman breaking the proposed law, be “deprived of her rights”.
Absent are the voices which might question whether the French traditions of equality and secularism are truly threatened by 200 women wearing face veils. Or who might ask if, in fact, those ideals are not themselves threatened by a judicial precedent which singles out a minority of women for persecution, despite one of the key battles of France’s revolution having been inalienable rights for all citizens, regardless of class or creed.
The truth is modern France is in the midst of an identity crisis, just like, if not worse than, that being faced by the rest of Europe.
The homogenous nature of Europe’s intellectual elites has, like broader society, begun to shift. This change has led to a questioning not so much of society’s guiding principles, but of some of their real world applications. This challenge to the hegemony of the older European elites in matters of culture and power continues to be filtered through the, as yet unburied spectre, of (post-?) colonial superiority. Historically, the colonised Arabs needed emancipation from their debased state of being through the imposition of “French” culture, the so-called “civilizing mission”. Today, many French can’t tolerate the thought these former barbarians turned citizens might have a say in defining modern French identity. Meanwhile, the ripple effect of this discriminatory legislation is vindicating already widespread islamophobia and racism. French Muslims of Maghreb ancestry are already the victims of nearly 68 per cent of racist violence and in May, a Muslim woman’s veil was ripped off in what police describe as France’s first case of “burqa rage”.
It is no surprise that here in the UK, it was Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for a small semi-rural Northamptonshire county, who raised the ban, after stating that were a burqa-wearing constituent to come to his surgery, he’d refuse to talk to her. In other words, despite being her elected representative, Mr Holloborne would actively discriminate against one of his constituents and this, with uncritical support from portions of the media and political class.
This debate was never about the smoke-screen of security or women’s rights. It is about who gets to define Britishness and its limits in a post 9/11 climate where Muslims are suspect citizens. The reason this debate is rousing sleepy villages from Tarres to Kettering, is because in a Europe whose homogenous identity is gradually fading away, these rural cantons are the last bastions of a former concept of national self. The burqa ban is symbolic means of repealing dreaded immigration and its attendant cultural changes. In other words, it is a focus for Europe’s xenophobic angst.
The government’s attempts to present the motivations of the al-Qaida operatives as ideological, rather than more accurately, as political, has compounded the problem, blurring the distinction between Muslims and terrorists. Former head of counter-terrorism, Dr Robert Lambert recently stated, “we went to war not against terrorism, but against ideas, the belief that al-Qaida was a violent end of a subversive movement.” The remainder of the proverbial iceberg is a Muslim community whose allegiance to an ill-defined conception of Britishness continues to be called into question, marginalising them from the debate and leaving symbols, such as the burqa, open to suspect status.
In a climate of fear, compounded by a gloomy economic outlook, which historically has seen Europe retract into its darkest postures of xenophobia, such symbols can mobilise a disgruntled population, whose substantive concerns are less easily alleviated. The burqa has become a rallying point in an attempt at reclaiming a righteous posture of cultural superiority, which informed the glory of the former Empire. At a time of insecurity and ambiguity, it appears to offer an obvious point of certainty, by embodying Europe’s most sensitive issues, notably immigration, Islam and terrorism.
What it really offers is a glimpse of how our society treats minorities and manages diversity, the real measure of a civilised nation. There are those who will decry the burqa as the marker of a backward mentality at odds with liberal values and women’s rights. The truth is, only women who wear the burqa can truly tell us what its significance means to them. As a society, we must offer women the space to make informed decisions about all aspects of their being, not least their dress code, and ensure that the actions of our leaders are guided by a desire to empower women, not by cheap populism or misguided concerns. Once women are given the necessary parameters of education, safety and freedom from which to make informed decisions about themselves, we must not infantilise or marginalise them, out of a false sense of superiority. More broadly, we should never let the exigencies of a particular politico-historical juncture betray the fundamental ideals of this society.
Myriam Francois-Cerrah is a freelance journalist and a PhD candidate at Oxford University
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
« BNP Koran burning charge dropped • Singapore: British author appeals jail term »
Tags: ban, burqa, Europe, France, Islam, Myriam Francois-Cerrah



Max Beatson
Sadly this article fails to address the repression of women in Muslim states and the continuation of this within a European milieu. It fails to recognise that al qaida is both an ideological entity and an extremist religious group and finally attempts to blame western imperialism (colonialism) for the repressive, intolerant views and attitudes of a religion that has failed to come to terms with a liberal environment.
I agree that women must make this choice, but why is it that the womens face is covered? Has this nothing to do with those who have control and power. Is it no surprise that men have this power much as they do in the Catholic church another fine example of tolerance and truth.
Karl Pfeifer
European insecurity?
Syria bans face veils at universities
Veiled women in Damascus, Syria
Female students wearing a full face veil will be barred from Syrian university campuses, the country’s minister of higher education has said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10684359
stafford
I don’t really think anyone cares what these women think or wear. The issue is more that of the impudence of flaunting hostility to the norms of the host culture. There is too the danger of such garb concealing weapons or a criminal intent. The real problem though is that of a culture unused to the concept of the supremacy of the rule of law. This is something that Ataturk recognized in the Ottoman world where succession had meant assassination for half a millennium.
peter bennett
Ask women who wear the Burqa and have been
circumcised how empowered they feel.The British
Imperialists banned sati,disempowering
women.
Chris
Does anyone know the exact wording of this law? Does it just ban the burqa, or all clothing that completely obscures the face? If there’s a loophole we could just see a mass switch from niqabs to balaclavas or something similar.
mostafa
1- most of muslims who wear burqa or niqab in europe are converts so it is less probable that they have been forced to wear it when they were not forced to convert in the first place.
2- we can not expect everything to be issued in one article or a paper. please do not judge this writing on what has not said before judging it on what has said, we should understand the goal of writer and then see if it was sufficient or not.
3- whether they are forced by their culture or not, this is something that apply to others as well, a non muslim woman who feels the necessity to have make up and spend lots of time to be good looking when she wants to go out, do we see it as a free choice or a force of culture?
4- we should not look at muslim majority country sharia laws in order to copy their rules or to take them as an excuse to our legislation here in europe where we claim being liberal society, its absolute irrelevant holding on to sharia law to legislate in france or other so called liberal society.
Jay
To keep things fair, ban the nun’s habit also. Pay particular attention to the white coif and the black veil. Who knows what nuns are hiding under those robes, they could have weapons, bombs, or phalluses! The only way to deal with this is to outright ban the habit and any portion of it that may cover the face.
If you are going to ban one face covering, you need to ban them all. That includes ski masks, nuns’ habits, health masks, and anything else that could be used to cover the face.
If this is not applied across the board, it is simply religious discrimination motivated by fear, reprisal, and lack of understanding.