President Sarkozy’s recent declarations against the burqa have fallen out of the news headlines but his words are still ringing loudly within and outside Western Muslim communities. Opinion pieces and letters continue to flood international and local papers, tugging back and forth. While such debates may be painful and trivial to read and listen to by many, they must be welcomed as they bring into light a far greater issue than any all-encompassing piece of fabric. Most importantly, however, there is a dire necessity for a more intellectually sound discussion outside the common “the mini-skirt versus the veil” parable. Albeit legitimate, this comparative argument is reductionist, focusing on a superficial detail. For on thing, it does not taking into account that the question of the veil in France is beyond basic issues of the place of religion in a secular state. This is the same problem found within the monologues expressing support for the ban; monologues arguing for the universal liberation of universally oppressed Muslim women. If we are to engage in this discussion, as citizens of a multicultural secular democratic state, education on the matter becomes an obligation upon each and every one us. We must engage and we must learn to observe outside the tunnel. After all, our own society faces watered-down versions of the questions being whispered and roared amongst the French state and its populace.
In 2005, France declared that any and all “conspicuous” religious symbols would be banned from public schools. While Christian crosses and Jewish kippas also fell under the ban’s radar, its most obvious target was the hijab, a head-covering worn by many Muslim women around the world. The French state repeatedly assured the ban’s critics that the action was necessary for sustaining the country’s foundational secularism and was not meant to isolate or harass a large demographic within its citizenry. But as the home to the largest European Muslim population, it was hard for observing critics to bat their eyes in any other direction.
A thorough survey and critique of the 2005 ban was provided by Professor Joan Wallach Scott’s 2007 book Politics of the Veil. Scott explores French notions of secularism, sexuality, individualism and history, in particular putting an emphasis on the link between France’s role as a former colonial power and its current relationship with its minority populations. This role is only one part of a far more complex and multi-layered situation in which France currently finds itself. The French Revolution created a republic with ideals of equality, individualism and secularism which reflected what it meant to be French in the post-revolution period. The issue of colonial history, however, is one which deserves more attention than it has received, especially in the discussion regarding the adornment of the veil – be it in the form of the hijab or the burqa – in the French public. 
Scott argues that the colonialist experience of the French in North Africa saw the veil as a symbol of both cultural and violent resistance. Algeria stood at the forefront of France’s efforts: ending France’s reach with the 1960s revolution. The adornment of the veil made the Algerian woman’s grasp to her ‘barbaric and backwards’ culture all the more apparent; she had to be unveiled for assimilation to be successful. This was, after all, in line with the imperialist European strategy of conquering a society through conquering its women first. During the revolution, however, the full veil took on a violent façade. Many men, hidden within the garment, attempted to assassinate French officials roaming the Algerian streets. This tactic proved to be successful. The veil became the physical manifestation of an entire people’s resistance to being conquered. As Franz Fanon discusses in his book The Wretched of the Earth, in the process of decolonization both the colonized and the colonizers are affected. They are no longer the same bodies of people which existed before colonization; they emerge from decolonization as partially, sometimes fully, reborn. France’s colonial experience has, thus, unsurprisingly left a legacy not only within the lands it attempted to conquer but also within the minds of the French state and populace.
The fascination with the unveiling of the woman of the so-called Near East is perhaps most perfectly depicted within the Orientalist artwork of the 18th and 19th centuries. These works portrayed themes and images which created a long-lasting impression. Many painters were unable to travel to the conquered regions, having to rely on secondhand accounts. Yet even those who were able to travel were often unable to gain access to women as models. Thus their illustrations were driven by both circumstance and self-fulfilling fantasy.
The artists collectively created a singular portrait of the Near Eastern woman as both a virgin awaiting her salvation and a seductress seeking her next willing victim. She would often be either confined within the cages of a harem, forced to perform for her bearded and overweight master or she would lounging naked in a large bath, being gently scrubbed by a black female slave. Thus, over-eroticization of the Near Eastern woman was not isolated to the oft-misunderstood harem; it was extended to all facets of her life, from the most intimate to the most familial and mundane. Additionally, her clothing deserves special observance. When clothed, her garments were often depicted as sheer and tantalizing, covering just barely enough.
The Near Eastern man was also not safe from an overly exoticized depiction; he was a man unable to treat his women in their deserving manner. He was a man who kept a strong hand on his women, who were merely his sexual properties. It was the thus the duty of the European man to save the poor women and unveil her from the precincts of the harem and home. This fantasy has persisted till this day: Muslim and Arab women are confined to a veil forced upon them by their vicious men thereby making it the duty of the Western man to come and liberate the oppressed from their chains. And just like the feminist missions of the past, the men of today come to liberate the women of ‘backwards and barbaric cultures’ forgetting the strong patriarchal structures which still exist and exploit their own societies.
France now stands at a social and political turning point. It has been unwilling to see and accept that in its post-colonial condition it is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. Instead, it continues to push its homogeneous identity upon a heterogeneous populace in an effort to secure its power as a strong state. France’s ideological secularism is not the problem. Its inability to adapt to its reality is. The hijab and the burqa are not the problem. Their symbolic throwback to history is, as are the rigid structures and understandings of equality, sexuality and individualism.
Banning an article of clothing, which is both chosen and unfortunately sometimes also forced, does not provide any solution to the attack France sees coming from the nearby horizon. Such a ban only acts as its own resistance to the reality of its changing face. French Muslims, who have been living within the country for generations, consider themselves French above all else. Yet they are consistently told – socially, politically and economically – otherwise. The 2005 riots, by angry young men of immigrant origins is testament to the alienation and discrimination felt by those who have lived in France for two or three generations. These young men are no longer considered natives of the lands from which their forefathers came and at the same time are not considered to be “actually” French by those who are French “enough.”
By targeting how a small number of French women choose to assert and represent their sexuality, France is missing the real sources of the problem as well as implying that its foundation is perhaps far less stable than what it would like the world and its own citizenry to think. It is now time for France not to shed the various components of its identity, but rather to approach those very pieces with a broader outlook. Its minority population has been willing to adapt for decades, but can France accept minimal equity as a basis for greater equality as we have done so here in North America? 
Mr. Sarkozy, your efforts may be sincere; you are, after all, only trying to protect the criteria for what makes one“French” enough. Remember, however, that in your attempt to free woman from her draping chains, you restrict her sexuality, her own sense of her individualism and her being to the confines of your harem by dictating the dance she must do and the garments she must wear to please you.
Related posts:
- Mini Tombak
- A Long Time Coming?
- Sarkozy Reshuffles Cabinet To Pass Islamophobic Measure
- Regulating Women’s Bodies
- Syria Vs. Lebanon: The Eni Meeni Mini Mo Of Peace Talks
Excellent piece. Really gives a good hint into the European psyche.
Loved the ending!!
Posted by Khalid | July 23, 2009, 12:40 pmThis is a most interesting and sensible article. Congratulations Sana.
But we should keep in mind that in addition to the postcolonial issues you rightly insist upon, there is France's Centuries-old anticlerical tradition that is resurfacing on the occasion of these debates.
At the turn of the twentieth century, before the law of 1905 separating Church and State, French Catholics were constantly vilified and vehemently attacked by the Secular Left. Most intellectuals and most newspapers were constantly bashing the clerical establishment, Catholicism, and religion itself.
Arab intellectual Samir Kassir advised Arabs and Muslims to read Marcel Pagnol’s novels before criticizing the ban on the veil, in order to properly understand the violent “culture wars” that took place in France at the time of the Secularism debate, and the insults that were hurled at priests, nuns, and religious believers in general.
Posted by Karim | July 23, 2009, 12:56 pmpart II of my comment :
That's why most of the French do not feel that they are currently being particularly unfair toward Muslims. They tend to (conveniently) overlook the fact that Catholics were not a minority, unlike today's Muslims.
The so-called "New Atheism" that is currently trendy in the US & UK (Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins' books…) has been a permanent fixture of French intellectual life since the 18th Century.
This is one of the reasons why today, part of the French Left, not necessarily out of bigotry, joins in and sometimes leads the campaigns against the veil. Those zealous secular French militants fighting against the veil may be (and they often are) misguided but they are not all inherently racist or anti-Muslim, as some Islamist preachers, opposed to secularism on principle, would have us believe.
Posted by Karim | July 23, 2009, 12:58 pmpart III of my comment :
You were perfectly right on target when you wrote : "France’s ideological secularism is not the problem. Its inability to adapt to its reality is." I remain a strong proponent of French secularism. Prominent intellectuals argued that French secularism, if properly understood and applied, is the best antidote to the clash of civilizations.
The problem is how to "adapt" without opening Pandora's box and without threatening the very foundations of the French secular system, which should be protected because it allows individuals to emancipate themselves from rigid, sectarian or essentialistic identities.
The other problem is that some politicians have a tendency to use these issues to pander to the xenophobes or to demagogically score political points against their rivals, hiding behind "secularism".
Posted by Karim | July 23, 2009, 12:59 pmpart IV (final part) of my comment :
I do not think the French would accept to imitate North America's multiculturalism. While the United States was founded on the principle of religious freedom, modern France was founded on the principle of complete secularism. Some even go as far as saying that opposition is between "religious freedom" and "freedom from religion".
As you pointed out, when we go beyond this traditional religious vs secular debate and add the universalism vs multiculturalism debate, the unhealed memories of the Algerian war, and all the other unresolved postcolonial issues, it definitely sparks an explosive debate.
Best regards, and again, congratulations on a very well thought article.
Posted by Karim | July 23, 2009, 1:02 pmThanks for the comments! Really appreciated.
I agree with you and definitely want to emphasize that what I've discussed is only part of a multi-faceted issue. And I agree that it is wrong to call the French state and ..I suppose. …"ethnically French" (as 3rd generation Algerians are also french) inherently racist. I do believe that they strongly believe that they are doing something which is right and for the betterment of not only society as a whole but also for its individual components.
While I do agree with secularism, I do not believe or support the sort of strict and extreme secularism which the French state is built upon. I think while it sounds great on paper, ever changing realities do require adaptive populations and frameworks of governance. France's approach to equality and individualism, I believe, undermine the latter greatly. While group divisions (be they based on religion or ethnicity or party affiliation) unfortunately often are morally radicalized by the groups themselves, I do think that forcing homogenization on a diverse population is more damaging than anything else. I mean, if you look at a lot of nation-building theory (Ernest Gellner did great work on this, although I disagree with him completely), homogenization is key.
But I personally am against homogenization of populations for the sake of a strong state and stronger governance. It's probably the Canadian brainwashing, but I think that while having a heterogenous population and a state accepting that its people are diverse may have a lot of problems, it's still a great model for countries with high levels of sectarianism. Canada's not the best example (see: Quebec) and it definitely hasn't taken the best route of multiculturalism (too superficial) but after having lived in a few countries, I personally have come to believe that it's definitely got a system which works well overall.
Then again, Canadians get fired up about something and then lose interest as soon as a hockey game comes on. We're a generally chill people.
Posted by SanaKF | July 23, 2009, 11:08 pmIf France is a place where wearing veils and burqas are banned, then people who want to wear them should go somewhere else.
Some people would say this is just another part of the "stealth jihad" being fought against western countries.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 8:04 pmSome people would say you're a paranoid nutcase. If you wish to be a paranoid nutcase, perhaps you should go somewhere else.
Posted by Sean2009 | July 24, 2009, 6:06 amI don't think you or the French, have understood the meaning of secularism (or liberty for that matter).
Posted by Shafiq | July 25, 2009, 11:19 amIt's a peculiar kind of "secularism" that would require people to refrain from their religious practices, so long as they are not attempting to impose them on others. Although the primary emphasis of secularism is freedom from religion, if the price of that freedom is to rob the individual of their right to freedom of religion, than that is not secularism, but authoritarianism. There is no justification for dictating the personal choices of Muslim women either one way or the other in a truly free society. You could just as reasonably argue that forcing women to keep their breasts covered in public while men are free to go shirtless is an unreasonable imposition of Christian morality and dress that can only be rectified by forcing women to go bare-breasted. Women have been fined for indecent exposure for breast-feeding in public, and I just read where one woman got arrested for pedophilia for showing a picture of her breast-feeding her baby on Facebook. There is but one path to liberation: make all women remove their tops! Is there really that much of a difference between this kind of thinking and the mindset underlying the hijab bans? Think about it. I'm sure there's all kinds of special pleading that could be offered up here about the difference between the breasts and the face, but the fact is some Muslim women would feel as naked without the hijab as non-Muslim women would be if forced to go topless.
If France wants homogeneity in its people, perhaps they should adopt the Mao jacket and force everyone to wear it.
Posted by Sean2009 | July 24, 2009, 6:39 amCould not have said it better myself
Posted by Humani | December 5, 2009, 7:39 amAgreed. Except I would say this is an even bigger issue. Why should the state be dictating dress to anyone, ever.
Posted by Broadsnark | July 24, 2009, 12:12 pmRemember this? Pretty weird, huh?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 3, 2009, 1:09 am1. Proper hijab (concealment for the Muslim woman) dictates that the entire body must be covered, although the face and hands may be exposed. Some women choose to cover themselves further by means of a face veil and gloves, and this is perfectly fine.
2. The clothing must be long and loose-fitting so that the shape of the woman is not outlined in her garments. The preferred coverings include the jelbab and the abaya which are floor-length cloaks which come in various types of fabric and may be worn over a woman's regular house clothing. Pants are unacceptable unless they are worn underneath the outer garments.
3. Garments should not be transparent as to reveal the color of a woman's skin or to expose the hair or body in any way. With regards to the headscarf, it must cover all of the hair and be long enough to cover the woman's ears, neck and chest. Women should take care to ensure that the scarf is securely fastened, usually with pins, and that her hair is arranged so that it will not slip out of her scarf.
4. Colors and styles should be as plain as possible so that unnecessary attention is not drawn to the woman. In addition, the clothing should not be excessively rich and fancy in order to gain admiration nor excessively poor and ragged in order to gain sympathy. Modesty is the main goal.
5. Jewelry must not be displayed, and it is especially important that it does not make noise as a woman walks (an ankle-bracelet with bells, for example). Women in pre-Islamic Arabia used to wear such bracelets and stamp their feet in the markets in order to entice and attract men.
6. The dress should not resemble the garments of men,nor should it imitate the dress of non-Muslims.
7. Make-up (unless it is completely covered by a face-veil) and perfume are strictly prohibited for Muslim women when outdoors or in the presence of non-mahrem men.
8. A Muslim woman who wears hijab should also strive to make her actions consistent with her dress with regards to Islamic guidelines for speech, manners and behavior.
Hijab Basics: The Requirements of the Muslim Women's Dress http://www.islamicgarden.com/article1016.html
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 3, 2009, 1:07 am1. Proper hijab (concealment for the Muslim woman) dictates that the entire body must be covered, although the face and hands may be exposed. Some women choose to cover themselves further by means of a face veil and gloves, and this is perfectly fine.
2. The clothing must be long and loose-fitting so that the shape of the woman is not outlined in her garments. The preferred coverings include the jelbab and the abaya which are floor-length cloaks which come in various types of fabric and may be worn over a woman's regular house clothing. Pants are unacceptable unless they are worn underneath the outer garments.
3. Garments should not be transparent as to reveal the color of a woman's skin or to expose the hair or body in any way. With regards to the headscarf, it must cover all of the hair and be long enough to cover the woman's ears, neck and chest. Women should take care to ensure that the scarf is securely fastened, usually with pins, and that her hair is arranged so that it will not slip out of her scarf.
4. Colors and styles should be as plain as possible so that unnecessary attention is not drawn to the woman. In addition, the clothing should not be excessively rich and fancy in order to gain admiration nor excessively poor and ragged in order to gain sympathy. Modesty is the main goal.
5. Jewelry must not be displayed, and it is especially important that it does not make noise as a woman walks (an ankle-bracelet with bells, for example). Women in pre-Islamic Arabia used to wear such bracelets and stamp their feet in the markets in order to entice and attract men.
6. The dress should not resemble the garments of men,nor should it imitate the dress of non-Muslims.
7. Make-up (unless it is completely covered by a face-veil) and perfume are strictly prohibited for Muslim women when outdoors or in the presence of non-mahrem men.
8. A Muslim woman who wears hijab should also strive to make her actions consistent with her dress with regards to Islamic guidelines for speech, manners and behavior.
Hijab Basics: The Requirements of the Muslim Women's Dress
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 3, 2009, 1:07 amYou do know that this one particular interpretation, yeah? While there are a lot of points which are accepted by the majority of women who adorn the hijab, as well as scholars, there are also several which are not. There is no universal agreement by Islamic fuqaha on the face-veil. There are agreements on themes but not necessarily in how those themes must be manifested (there are many ideas, but not all of them take into account diversity of dress and modesty).
You can't quote something like that website and take it as the truth; I think that site is more Salafi (mistakenly called "Wahhabism") inclined, which means it's a much more strict interpretation. But what's interesting is that even in Saudi, the land of so-called "Wahhabism" women do not have to have their face concealed – they have to wear the abaya and hijab, but their face can be revealed. Although, it's different in the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, I believe. The only country in which women were forced to wear the full burqa was in Afghanistan pre-invasion (although even before the Taliban came into power a lot of women wore the full burqa given general rigid social structures of Afghan culture).
And for the record, I love my pants.
And what's the point of that anyway? Even if, let's say, that's EXACTLY what the VEIL actually IS – how does that change anything or contribute to this debate?
Posted by SanaKF | August 3, 2009, 10:08 amYou do know that this is one particular interpretation, yeah? While there are a lot of points which are accepted by the majority of women who adorn the hijab, as well as scholars, there are also several which are not. There is no universal agreement by Islamic fuqaha on the face-veil. There are agreements on themes but not necessarily in how those themes must be manifested (there are many ideas, but not all of them take into account diversity of dress and modesty).
You can't quote something like that website and take it as the truth; I think that site is more Salafi (mistakenly called "Wahhabism") inclined, which means it's a much more strict interpretation. But what's interesting is that even in Saudi, the land of so-called "Wahhabism" women do not have to have their face concealed – they have to wear the abaya and hijab, but their face can be revealed. Although, it's different in the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, I believe. The only country in which women were forced to wear the full burqa was in Afghanistan pre-invasion (although even before the Taliban came into power a lot of women wore the full burqa given general rigid social structures of Afghan culture).
And for the record, I love my pants.
And what's the point of that anyway? Even if, let's say, that's EXACTLY what the VEIL actually IS – how does that change anything or contribute to this debate?
Posted by SanaKF | August 3, 2009, 10:08 amIt doesn't really change anything, just sheds a little light – perhaps on the compulsory nature of the whole thing.
I've also been wondering if there is any concern about criminals using these outfits as a disguise?
France ponders burqa ban
…the veils pose "a problem of security and public order" by concealing the wearer's identity.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said burkas imprison women and would not be tolerated in the country.
Maybe it is not in keeping with French culture?
"These clothes exclude women from the national community, deny their identity" – head of the governing conservative party UMP, Jean-Francois Cope.
In Afghanistan, where the Taliban once ordered women to cover up, Suraya Pakzad, executive director of the Voice of Women organization, says she agrees with Sarkozy's view that the burqa is a bad thing, but disagrees with his conclusion.
"I am against the burqa being imposed by force. But what Mr Sarkozy is saying is another type of enforcement on women. No one should be able to compel someone to dress in a certain way," she told Reuters.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:55 amIt doesn't really change anything, just sheds a little light – perhaps on the compulsory nature of the whole thing.
I've also been wondering if there is any concern about criminals using these outfits as a disguise?
France ponders burqa ban
…the veils pose "a problem of security and public order" by concealing the wearer's identity.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said burkas imprison women and would not be tolerated in the country.
Maybe it is not in keeping with French culture?
"These clothes exclude women from the national community, deny their identity" – head of the governing conservative party UMP, Jean-Francois Cope.
In Afghanistan, where the Taliban once ordered women to cover up, Suraya Pakzad, executive director of the Voice of Women organization, says she agrees with Sarkozy's view that the burqa is a bad thing, but disagrees with his conclusion.
"I am against the burqa being imposed by force. But what Mr Sarkozy is saying is another type of enforcement on women. No one should be able to compel someone to dress in a certain way," she told Reuters.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:55 amAnd for the record, I love my pants.
What is someone came and told you that you couldn't wear pants, or you would be severely punished? Many women are treated that way under Islam, but obviously you don't care about them.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 5:53 amAnd for the record, I love my pants.
What if someone came and told you that you couldn't wear pants, or you would be severely punished? Many women are treated that way under Islam, but obviously you don't care about them.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 5:53 amOh the irony!
You'd be offended if someone told you that you couldn't wear pants but you have no problem Sarkozy telling women that they can't wear Burkahs
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 10:15 amIt doesn't really change anything, just sheds a little light – perhaps on the compulsory nature of the whole thing.
I've also been wondering if there is any concern about criminals using these outfits as a disguise?
France ponders burqa ban
…the veils pose "a problem of security and public order" by concealing the wearer's identity.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said burkas imprison women and would not be tolerated in the country.
Maybe it is not in keeping with French culture?
"These clothes exclude women from the national community, deny their identity" – head of the governing conservative party UMP, Jean-Francois Cope.
In Afghanistan, where the Taliban once ordered women to cover up, Suraya Pakzad, executive director of the Voice of Women organization, says she agrees with Sarkozy's view that the burqa is a bad thing, but disagrees with his conclusion.
"I am against the burqa being imposed by force. But what Mr Sarkozy is saying is another type of enforcement on women. No one should be able to compel someone to dress in a certain way," she told Reuters.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:55 amIt doesn't really change anything, just sheds a little light – perhaps on the compulsory nature of the whole thing.
I've also been wondering if there is any concern about criminals using these outfits as a disguise?
France ponders burqa ban
…the veils pose "a problem of security and public order" by concealing the wearer's identity.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said burkas imprison women and would not be tolerated in the country.
Maybe it is not in keeping with French culture?
"These clothes exclude women from the national community, deny their identity" – head of the governing conservative party UMP, Jean-Francois Cope.
In Afghanistan, where the Taliban once ordered women to cover up, Suraya Pakzad, executive director of the Voice of Women organization, says she agrees with Sarkozy's view that the burqa is a bad thing, but disagrees with his conclusion.
"I am against the burqa being imposed by force. But what Mr Sarkozy is saying is another type of enforcement on women. No one should be able to compel someone to dress in a certain way," she told Reuters.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:55 amYeah that is pretty ironic lol
"told you that you couldn't wear pants" should say "told you that you must wear hijab"
In THIS COMMENT you can see what that can mean.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 3:42 amBut that wouldn't be a problem in a liberal society would it? Muslim or not, you can choose to wear whatever you want to, but not if Sarkozy has his way. Islamic Law is for an individual to interpret however he/she wants and for him/her to decide whether they're going to follow it. With common law, people don't get that pleasure.
Posted by Shafiq | August 6, 2009, 1:01 pm