A little over a week ago, I addressed some major underlying issues regarding the long debate of the
position of Islam and Muslims in France (veiled in a discussion of ..well, the veil) based on the country’s own position as a post-colonial state. Just as a refresher, I discussed the the impact of France’s colonial history on its understanding and treatment of its minority populations, specifically its 5 million Muslims.
Well, the issue is back in the headlines, but this time the news serves to defeat the proposal banning the burqa. According to the popular Le Monde (The World en Francais), there are only 367 Muslim women (out of 5 million Muslims) who wear the burqa.
Statistics on how many women wear facial veils are usually not available in France, which is wary of surveys of people’s religious practices because of the ideal of equality.
This means that until now, the issue of Islamic veils has been debated with much passion but little hard evidence.
Le Monde said the intelligence reports it had seen had been passed to government and would form part of the parliamentary debate into the issue of the veils.
Critics of the idea of a ban have said it would stigmatise Islam and would put moderate Muslims on the defensive, pushing them into defending the veils as a symbol of their religion even though they may not favour wearing the garments themselves.
The intelligence reports cited by Le Monde suggest that the reality of women who cover their faces in France, and why, is quite different from the description given by politicians.
The reports say most women who wear full veils are under 30 and do so to make a political point. Outraged by what they see as widespread anti-Muslim sentiment, they want to defy society and, in some cases, their own relatives.
French converts to Islam account for around a quarter of wearers, the newspaper said, quoting the reports.
Okay, quick poll – who’s seriously shocked? Is this really that shocking? Are you shocked? Are you? Answer damnit.
While not surprising, this was needed. Beyond needed. This news has turned the faces of the supporters of the ban red. As Le Monde asks, is it necessary to impose a ban on an exception, especially at the risk of further stigmatization of Islam? The answer is, quite simply, no. It’s not necessary nor worth the political and social backlash. France is home to Europe’s biggest Muslim population, which is also, albeit arguably, the most integrated into a European country’s mainstream national culture. As I’ve previously discussed, and as also briefly mentioned in the above-linked article, France has bigger fries to bake than the choices of dress by an extremely small minority of its population. Hopefully these statistics will force French politicians to move ahead from this issue which has enraptured its politics for over a decade. Perhaps, finally, President Sarkozy’s agenda will prioritize the socio-political marginalization of minorities over the alleged impending garment danger of 367 citizens out of almost a mere 62 million.
Perhaps. Maybe.
Related posts:
- Beyond Mini-Skirts and Veils
- Mini Tombak
- KGIA Update
- Sarkozy Reshuffles Cabinet To Pass Islamophobic Measure
- Syria Vs. Lebanon: The Eni Meeni Mini Mo Of Peace Talks
Is France's colonial history affecting its understanding of Muslims – or could it be something more recent, like the Muslim riots?
France stunned by rioters’ savagery
In pictures: Paris riots
More Pictures
Or could it be this…
How France confronts terrorism
One of the reasons for their expertise in the age of jihad is that they have been confronting Islamic extremism longer than most European countries.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:42 amIs France's colonial history affecting its understanding of Muslims (France fought a long, colonial war before it gave in and accepted Algerian independence) – or could it be something more recent, like the Muslim riots?
France stunned by rioters’ savagery
In pictures: Paris riots
More Pictures
Or could it be this…
How France confronts terrorism
One of the reasons for their expertise in the age of jihad is that they have been confronting Islamic extremism longer than most European countries.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 6:43 amWell, if you knew more about the riots then you'd know that they weren't an out-of-the-blue eruption. You'd know that they were not merely the result of the killing of a minority youth by a police officer but rather a reaction against the vast discrimination faced by African and Arab minority populations, both in the workforce and socially. They were not "Muslim" riots – they were riots by a variety of minorities.
As a Parisian friend of mine put it, this is the generation of young angry men who belong to neither their country of origins nor their country of birth. They are constantly told that they belong to the other and in this limbo they find themselves frustrated and lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/paris_riots/
http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/
But you wouldn't get it.
Posted by SanaKF | August 4, 2009, 7:01 amI didn't bring up the riots to offend, and you don't need to make excuses for them. I just pointed out that it may have some impact on perceptions in a way that affects the burqa controversy.
In the news now I read that officials are considering a sort of gradual ban. Sarkozy seems to want a ban, others seems to consider it, and then there are those who are against it. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 8:36 amAlso – weren't the youths electrocuted while running from a police office and not killed BY the police officer?
From BBC: "The rioting began on 27 October when two boys died in Clichy, electrocuted at an electricity sub-station as – residents say – they fled from police. The police deny this."
There is controversy over whether the teens were actually being chased (they ran away when they saw the police).
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 8:45 amThen they should leave France.
Most of the riots in Europe (not just France) are out of the blue.
The riots in the Netherlands and Belgium were caused by a bunch of Muslim hooligans with nothing better to do than cause trouble.
This is what happens when you import a bunch of immigrants without a screening process and without an integration process.
Posted by Fuck Muhammad | November 11, 2009, 11:43 amThe riots were hardly Muslim. The youths were of a wide range of religious beliefs and from all over the continent of Africa.
Posted by JillianKF | August 4, 2009, 4:36 pmUm, have you seen the pictures?
A "wide range of religious beliefs" – pray tell what others were represented in force?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 10:35 pmYes I've seen the photos. May I recommend this site, which explains at least the 2005 riots? http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Roy/
Although you may be right that the majority of people had a Muslim background, every in-depth assessment I've read stated that the riots had almost nothing to do with Muslim identity and almost everything to do with race and disenchantment with a system that favors native French.
Posted by JillianKF | August 5, 2009, 3:23 amBut c'mon, we all know converts are the most dangerous Muslims there are
Posted by JillianKF | August 4, 2009, 4:35 pmRiots and Islamic terrorism form a natural subtext to this discussion, but to discuss them as directly pertinent to the question is to wave a red herring (if I may mix my metaphors). The niqab/burqa is not a natural generator of riots or terrorism, and Sarko is undoubtedly smart enough to know this. To address the riots, he is working to liberalize France's workplace laws (which will in theory benefit some of France's marginalized immigrants) and drawing up plans to rebuild the banlieues; and the French are already fairly good at fighting terrorism (thx Eag for the Globe article). The niqab/burqa ban is a very different issue: does a nation have the right to regulate cultural expression within its borders? And if so, what is the smart way to do that (e.g., is the burqa ban a clumsy measure that will produce the same pushback in France as in, say, the Shah's Iran)?
Posted by Suddha | August 4, 2009, 6:26 pmRiots and terrorism are pertinent to the discussion of a ban on this sort of camouflage or shrouded Islamic clothing in that they may have some influence on attitudes and perception as a whole. Some feel that this disguised clothing may contribute to dissimulation and hinder assimilation and adaptation to the culture – precisely what is being blamed for these criminal riots – some sort of obstruction to a healthy adjustment to society. So if these clothes contribute to that, something which has already caused such a terrible problem, why not consider a ban?
does a nation have the right to regulate cultural expression within its borders?
That is a good question. And the answer I suppose is yes, but if it is wise or fair is another question.
what is the smart way to do that… is the burqa ban a clumsy measure…
Another good question – some in France think that a gradual ban would be better than an immediate ban.
Islam expert Abdennour Bidar called the full veil a "pathology of Islam" embraced by hardline Salafists who tell Muslim women to cover themselves as a way to "get back to their roots."
"It's up to the republic to help Islam in our country choose its destiny and help French Muslims resist this pressure," said Bidar.
Al-Qaeda's north Africa wing warned that it was ready to "take revenge for the honour of our daughters and sisters."
Mali and France discuss al-Qaeda threat
hmmm if Al Qaeda wants it so bad… maybe we shouldn't?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 10:57 pmI would, cautiously, defer to Muslims who consider the veil problematic. But I think that the aforementioned riots have a strong basis in economic structures – at least as strong as in cultural strictures and tensions. I certainly don't think that the mere presence of the veil causes riots. This is more about societal homogenization. Moreover, "healthy adjustment to society" raises a question: whose society? Should a (hypothetical) naturalized French citizen who is totally law-abiding be prevented from wearing the veil to promote her cultural assimilation? Would you similarly support a ban on the wearing of crosses, the open carrying of rosary beads, or the traditional Hindu bindi (red dot)? All of these bans would promote the French secular universalist cultural project.
As for Al-Qaeda (and associated movements), I'm not ready to base my political views on what they want or don't want. After all, they have no known position on a lot of things that are important to me. What, after all, does Zahwahiri think about the next Nobel prize for literature, or miscegenation for that matter?
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 2:33 amOf course, there's always Spivak's formulation – the urge of "white men to save brown women from brown men." :-p
But it makes more sense to think of it as the urge of French people to save (their universalist/secular idea of) French culture/nation from brown people – but in a strictly cultural/nation-building sense. Discussion of violence (which leads inevitably to discussion of the structural conditions that produce that violence) is interesting, but something of a sideshow in this case.
Posted by Suddha | August 4, 2009, 6:29 pmYou think that issues of structural conditions which produce violence are nothing more than a sideshow? Why would you dismiss something so important like that? Perhaps what you perceive as an urge of French people to save French culture/nation from brown people is ACTUALLY an urge to have assimilation and harmony.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 11:06 pmOnly a sideshow in this particular case, or discussion – that of a particular type of clothing. The veil/niqab/burqa does not directly cause violence, and a discussion of placing a ban on such attire is more productively discussed in the context of cultural engineering. I don't dismiss it as an issue, but as an issue pertinent to this discussion and this discussion thread.
As to widespread French distrust of their Muslim population – perhaps assimilation is impossible without widespread cultural denaturation. It is an inevitable tension, and one that can be observed in the US as well. And in both places, there are inevitable correlations with race-culture correlations. It's the nature of things.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 2:16 amBeing unemployed or feeling discriminated against does not directly cause violence, does it, but those are the excuses the apologists come up with for the riots?
Widespread cultural "denaturation" in France? Deprive France of its natural character, properties, etc? In other words you are saying that France should submit to the Islamization of their country? Somehow I think that idea is not going to go very far.
It is an inevitable tension, and one that can be observed in the US as well
The U.S. does a much better job of being a mixing pot. Everyone knows that. The U.S. doesn't have the kind of problems that France does. By "inevitable race-culture correlations" do you mean the inevitability of submitting to or tolerating neo-Islamic fascism? Because that is certainly a mistake.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 6:05 amAs to inevitable race-culture correlations, all that means is that most Muslims are brown or beige. Sortof like how most poor people in the US are brown or black, and sortof like how most people who speak Yiddish are white. It has nothing to do whatsoever with "neo-Islamic fascism." Nor does it have to do the inevitability of the triumph of the global Salafist jihad. And the reason that the idea of race-culture correlation enters the picture at all is because it seemed necessary to clarify my use/abuse of Gayatri Spivak's quote, and my culturalist spin on that. Please ignore it if it muddies the waters, as I mostly wanted an excuse to quote her.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 7:11 amAs to inevitable race-culture correlations, all that means is that most Muslims are brown or beige. Sortof like how most poor people in the US are brown or black, and sortof like how most people who speak Yiddish are white. It has nothing to do whatsoever with "neo-Islamic fascism." Nor does it imply the inevitability of the triumph of the global Salafist jihad. And the reason that the idea of race-culture correlation enters the picture at all is because it seemed necessary to clarify my use/abuse of Gayatri Spivak's quote, and my culturalist spin on that. Please ignore it if it muddies the waters, as I mostly wanted an excuse to quote her.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 7:11 amAnd swooon on that quote.
Posted by SanaKF | August 5, 2009, 7:53 amUh-oh – I can't tell if that's approval or mockery. :-p
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 7:57 amApproval.
Posted by SanaKF | August 5, 2009, 8:15 amThank goodness – I have a deep-rooted phobia of offending people on the internet, only surpassed by my terror of the stealth jihad.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 8:18 amDon't worry about the former from me ..but the latter..
Posted by SanaKF | August 5, 2009, 8:36 amSpeaking of jihad… Are the Taliban in Afghanistan fighting a real jihad – a holy war sanctioned by God – as they say they are or is it a false jihad (making them blasphemers)? Are the insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq fighting a real jihad or a false one? What about the bus bombings in London, was that holy war sanctioned by God or not? what about blowing up the trains and commuters in Spain, was that real jihad or false jihad? What about 9-11 was that real jihad or false jihad?
Which are true and which are false?
And are there many seperate jihads, or one big jihad with many parts?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 21, 2009, 9:08 pmSpeaking of jihad… are the Taliban in Afghanistan fighting a real jihad – a holy war sanctioned by God – as they say they are or is it a false jihad (making them blasphemers)? Are the insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq fighting a real jihad or a false one? What about the bus bombings in London, was that holy war sanctioned by God or not? What about blowing up the trains and commuters in Spain, was that real jihad or false jihad? What about 9-11 was that real jihad or false jihad?
Which are true and which are false?
And are there many seperate jihads, or one big jihad with many parts?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 21, 2009, 9:09 pmPerhaps I really am that stylistically obtuse – the denaturation sentence is indeed fragmentary enough to lower my mark in a composition class. To clarify:
The cultural denaturation I refer to is that of Muslim immigrants asked to assimilate into the mainstream of French society. Let's note that "denaturation" here need not have a negative connotation, but rather is an inevitable part of the immigrant experience. Do all people in the US with the last name Heurtz still speak German? That's just how it happens. And nothing that I have ever written, on this website or anywhere else, even romotely suggests that the French should assume dhimmi status, or convert en masse, or anything of that sort. Historically, it is the immigrant who bears the brunt of cultural denaturation, with perhaps a bit of it imposed in reverse upon the dominant host culture – sortof like how spoken Italian no longer has any great following in the US, despite the ascendancy of pizza as a popular food.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 7:55 amOnly a sideshow in this particular case, or discussion – that of a particular type of clothing. The veil/niqab/burqa does not directly cause violence, and a discussion of placing a ban on such attire is more productively discussed in the context of cultural engineering. I don't dismiss it as an issue, but as an issue pertinent to this discussion and this discussion thread.
As to widespread French distrust of their Muslim population – perhaps assimilation is impossible without widespread cultural denaturation. It is an inevitable tension, and one that can be observed in the US as well. And in both places, there are inevitable race-culture correlations. It's the nature of things.
Posted by Suddha | August 5, 2009, 2:16 amFrench President Nicolas Sarkozy said burkas imprison women and would not be tolerated in the country.
"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.
Islam expert Abdennour Bidar called the full veil a "pathology of Islam" embraced by hardline Salafists who tell Muslim women to cover themselves as a way to "get back to their roots."
"It's up to the republic to help Islam in our country choose its destiny and help French Muslims resist this pressure," said Bidar.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 6:06 am