Faiza Silmi, a 32 year-old Moroccan woman married to a French national, was denied French citizenship this week on the grounds that the burqa she wears is incompatible with french values, specifically equality of the sexes.
Denied not because she can’t speak French, or doesn’t correctly understand the french code of secularism, but rather, due to the way she expresses her religious beliefs using her own body. What baffles me most, reading about this episode in Le Monde the reputable French daily, is the amount of journalistic negligence that seems to be permissible for Arab-interest stories when compared with the average fare. That day’s editorial only briefly suggested that French Muslims might find fault with the state judging their religious practice as a barometer of citizenship. The rest of the page described all the myriad ways in which this voiceless woman was indeed thoroughly oppressed, in submission to her husband and male relatives, and worst of all, so dominated that she could not even realize the fact of her submission. The classic false consciousness narrative that has existed as long as the white man’s burden. “How can one disagree with such a critique?”, read the last sentence.
Part of the problem with this woman being “voiceless” was the newspaper’s own fault: neither the editorial nor the accompanying news article contained a single quote attributed to her. For that, we had to wait for the New York Times article, where Faiza finally spoke in her own name. She repeated ad nauseam that the burqa was her own choice, and not in any way her husband’s. The female NYT journalist, who saw Faiza unveiled, took pains to suggest that the woman was not, to her understanding, oppressed, being instead of very sunny disposition, and in clear possession of her rational faculties. She even said, somewhat bizarrely, that Faiza had a happy, “moon-shaped” face. Her motivation for wearing the burqa, Faiza stressed, was modesty, to prevent men from leering at her.
To add insult to injury, the Le Monde article quotes only one “expert”, the very opinionated Olivier Roy, who seems present in the article only to concur that yes, this woman is clearly oppressed.
Of course, detail and nuance fade in importance when compared to the unspoken requirement of french citizenship, or rather, an outmoded French feminism: be girly, be sexy, show your skin, be like us, or leave. A civilizational test that has little to do with equality or justice and everything to do with cultural, and dare I say it, sexual anxiety.
The other story here is Fadela Amara, the Maghrebian female minister and Secrétaire d’état in charge of Politique de la Ville, or Urban Politics. She is one of the leaders of the group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Sluts nor Submissives) which lobbies for women’s rights in the underprivileged suburbs. The front page of their website carries a banner expressing “extreme relief” that Faiza was denied citizenship. Formerly, this group was instrumental on the public relations front in getting the veil ban passed. The French media and unfortunately also the New York Times have over-promoted her as a Muslim voice at the expense of all others, when in fact she declares herself a militant secularist. Not that there’s any contradiction there– many French citizens call themselves secular Muslims– but she is hardly an authority on Muslim affairs. Yet every single article about this case mentions that Fadela Amara, a practicing Muslim, approved of the citizenship denial, so there. This is like quoting Khalilzad for the opinion of ordinary Iraqis. Such is the lax journalism allowed when the subject is Muslim, about whom anything can be believed.
I don’t have an opinion on the burqa because it’s simply not my issue to judge, but I understand why it makes people uncomfortable, or is an obstacle in municipal affairs like photo IDs or security checks. This episode, however, goes beyond these petty technicalities and dangerously enters the terrain of regulating women’s bodies, in a way that feminists should be more alarmed about. I say this as someone with a foundation in queer politics, and an anti-sexist.
Related posts:
- Anti-Muslim Cartoon Runs in Michigan
- Who is More Unelectable than a Black, a Woman, a Hispanic or a Mormon?
- Happy Independence Day, Tunisia
- Bardot the Bigot Could Be Fined For “Race Hatred Remarks Towards Muslims”
- Free the P article
How is this any of your business? Are you a citizen of France? If so, I suggest you express your opinions at the voting booth and stop stinking up this blog with your opinions of how a state should exercise its sovereignty? France is my least favorite country on the planet, and I usually jump at a chance to criticize the French but for you to suggest that France should be prohibited from deciding who should and should not be granted citizenship is way out of line.
Posted by programmer craig | July 20, 2008, 4:29 am“How is this any of your business? Are you a citizen of France?”
By this logic, why are YOU here commenting on this blog?
Are you muslim, French, or Moroccan? For that matter are you Palestinian or Arab?
No? Then stfu.
Posted by Kate | July 20, 2008, 6:36 amMack, thanks for the insight. Its called an opinion PC.
I’m just glad you’ve brought to my attention the fact that there is an alternate view in this story. From what I’d read previously, Faiza was so submissive to her husband that she didn’t even realize she had the right to vote.
Its a totally different story when the woman is making her own independent choices about the way she is dressing. I agree with Mack, it does seem suspiciously like the state is trying to control people’s bodies.
Posted by Mohammad | July 20, 2008, 9:09 amI think it is rather simplistic to argue that if this woman wants to wear it, that it is ok.
Most of us are happy to do what we were brought up to beleive in, you will find many Somali girls, for example, willing and even eager to be circumcised but it does not alter the fact that it is barbaric. The real problem was that they were brought up to believe it right that it should be done to them.
I am not suggesting that wearing a burqa is comparable to that, it is hardly a terribly serious issue, but it does represent a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to be a whore.
The growth of such attitudes due to Islam and third world versions of Christianity is compromising the more liberal principles we have been fighting for for centuries. Good for the French I reckon, pity nobody in the UK stands up for British values.
Posted by xoggoth | July 20, 2008, 12:43 pmI think it is rather simplistic to argue that if this woman wants to wear it, that it is ok.
Most of us are happy to do what we were brought up to beleive in, you will find many Somali girls, for example, willing and even eager to be circumcised but it does not alter the fact that it is barbaric. The real problem was that they were brought up to believe it right that it should be done to them.
I am not suggesting that wearing a burqa is comparable to that, it is hardly a terribly serious issue, but it does represent a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to be a whore.
The growth of such attitudes due to Islam and third world versions of Christianity is compromising the more liberal principles we have been fighting for for centuries. Good for the French I reckon, pity nobody in the UK stands up for British values.
Posted by xoggoth | July 20, 2008, 12:43 pmOh bum. I blame your spammy thing for that.
Posted by xoggoth | July 20, 2008, 12:45 pmIt makes sense that they would deny her citizenship. Usually, when you try to gain citizenship, you have to show them that you can fit into the landscape of the country by memorizing a bunch of history or in this case, not wearing head-to-toe black covering. Practically speaking, she should have done everything possible to gain citizenship and then, worn her burka for kicks. Also, the French have a right to deny her the right to citizenship for the practical reasons, like, identification on the basis of a face sketch. What if she went missing? Or robbed a bank? Or, was needed as an eye-witness to an investigation? Fabric texture and eye color are hardly useful.
Posted by Anonymous | July 20, 2008, 4:49 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmmohammad, yes, the sad thing is that most french media accounts did not find it odd that her voice was absent. it confirms the original thesis that she is oppressed and would not have a voice anyway, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
xoggoth, I find your logic convincing, but I would ask you to apply the liberal principle of equality of the sexes to this woman. What if I took your sentence and substituted wearing a burqa for being a whore? It would read like this: “a cultural attitude that is contrary to the Western idea of complete equality where women should be entirely free to make their own decisions without male pressure, even if that decision is to wear a burqa”. Faiza repeatedly said her decision actually came in opposition to male pressure, that is, because she wanted to prevent men from looking at her. She also said neither her husband nor brothers forced her to wear it. Why does she not have as much a right to be a whore as to cover herself from head to toe? Where is freedom of dress in this equation?
anonymous,
I know in islamic countries like saudi arabia where many women wear burkas it’s still the case that those women must show their full faces on their passports, so that is not really an issue.
Posted by Mehammed "Abou" Mack | July 20, 2008, 5:00 pmYa 7aram. This situation is so ridiculous. The French society seem to have a phobia for all things Islamic. Faiza’s story is just another example of France’s discriminatory policies towards Muslims and Arabs.
Posted by Madame Mansour | July 20, 2008, 8:09 pmThis is a violation of basic human rights. Just like how governments such as the Iranian govrenment are condemned and highly criticized for forcing women to cover themselves up, The French government should be condemned for depriving this woman from her right to become a citizen because she chooses to cover herself up. Thw whole idea of “compatibility with French values” sounds like total bullshit to me. It doesn’t sound logical. Is there a law in France defining “French values” and requiring it’s citizens to behave compatible to it?! I would have understood it more if they had required her to show her face in her passport picture. That would be a matter of identity and not values.
Posted by Nima | July 21, 2008, 11:21 amSalam! I really like your analysis here. Would you mind if we featured it on MMW (with all links and credits due)?
Posted by Fatemeh | July 21, 2008, 9:34 pmHayr said …phobia and basic human rights. burga …incompatible with WOMEN’S bodies/Feminists Alarmed.
Posted by Anonymous | July 26, 2008, 7:59 pmhayr said
Posted by rv. dr. Hayr Gutierrez.,Ph.D | July 26, 2008, 8:05 pmThis information was actually very important for the Human rights, the diplomacy and the communautarisation !!
Concerning Le Monde i think that its credibility is acknowledgly less important than before and every one could admitt it mainly comments governemetal news with governemental info or accepted expertise…they just try to have the mor readers with the less problems to deal with.
I could have been the same for many other subject, but i reckon this one was particularly uncovered!!
Posted by marigae | August 10, 2008, 8:15 pmcraig: Being french, I’m quite glad to hear people commenting on french “internal” issues. (In exactly the same way that I’d appreciate if americans could care more about foreign opinions, but one can always dream…) You do not have to be french to have an opinion on french politics, nor american to have an opinion on US politics.
That being said, I’m being more and more baffled and stunned by the change of tone most french people have noticed in their media. Le Monde is indeed not quite the reference it used to be, and is the most heavily criticised by people, like me, who used to read it every day back in 2001-2004.
Nima: As far as I know, there is no law defining french values, and it would be contrary to the “universal values” that french people used to believe they upheld. So, no law defining french values, but, consequently to the last presidential elections, we now have a “Ministère de l’immigration et de l’identité nationale”. This calling is rather unheard of (except during our glorious Vichy government) and roughly translates as “Governmental office in charge of immigration and national identity”. So our executive power did make the connection…
What is the most striking in this affair are the following two points:
-1- French media have been rather lamely and shamelessly endorsing governmental ideas (or ideology) with little professionalism. Looking at who owns them might tell you why. For instance, have a look at Serge Dassault’s biography: member of the senate and of the majority, weapon seller who hardly finds anyone else than the french state to buy its planes, and owner of a quite a pie of the dominant french media. Numerous other situations yield conflicts of interests. To give you a few hints, look at the ownership of TF1, the main TV, or the market shares of the different actors of the local regional press. Not to mention what happened to the newspaper “Les Echos”. I mean, I do not feel comfortable giving lessons to China when it comes to freedom of press.
-2- The climate of hate campaigns against anything arab or muslim. Of course, there are problems in french suburbs, and there’s no reason to hide it. But finding scapegoats is the only thing officials think of. Real people have some islamophobic ressentment, but their feelings are far more complex than what we can be read in newspapers, and they are still very much attached to some traditional french political values, like “laïcité”, which is usually hastily translated as “secularism” (France is not Turkey…). These values are being thrown away by our current government, and people tend to disagree…, but you know…, we voted for that. At least so says dominant media. Back to point 1.
Anyway, France will stay the way it is now until either people stop watching TV, or either our elder die in mass during a heated summer. Until then, there’s no hope: Fox News has nothing to boast to Jean-Pierre Pernault.
Concerning the fate of this woman, well, I guess I have to face it: Tariq Ramadan understansd “laïcité” (i.e. french-type secularism) much better than Sarkozy.
Glad to have fled this country.
Best wishes from neutral Switzerland.
Posted by Anonymous | August 11, 2008, 2:48 pmYour post Regulating Women’s Bodies | KABOBfest was very interesting when I found it over google on Friday by my search for ministere culture. I have your blog now in my bookmarks and I visit your blog again, soon. Take care. Parejaspareja.es
Posted by www.parejaspareja.es | June 26, 2009, 5:16 am