About two weeks ago, President Nicolas Sarkozy banned the burqa from French society, which - let's face it - was a long time coming. France has always struggled to grant rights for ethnic minorities without compromising France's sense of civil society and equality, and for Sarkozy, the burqa challenges these values: "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women."
As a woman and Muslim who doesn't agree with the burqa (read: burqa, different from niqab or hijab), I agree with Sarkozy's assessment of the problem. But in this case, his solution limits the freedom of a citizen under the very state system that is supposed to protect her rights.
Mona Eltahawy's take on Sarkozy's position was surprising - she agreed with him. "The best way to support Muslim women would be to say we oppose both racist Islamophobes and the burqa. We’ve been silent on too many things out of fear we’ll arm the right wing," she writes in an op-ed. She continues to say that the burqa is not Islamic, cleverly pointing out that it causes veiled women to get caught up in a perverted logic through which they perceive themselves as "candy."
Yet as much as I want to agree with Eltahawy, I am hesitant to agree that the best solution is to allow a democratic state to force its citizens to dress in a certain way. How would France, then, compare to Egypt that does not allow covered women to serve in the government or on national TV?
Another country that tried to impose dress rules upon its citizens was Pakistan, when Jinnah pronounced the national dress on the country's citizens. That was 70 years ago. Turn to any newspaper these days and notice how identity crisis remains one of Pakistan's worst problems.
When it comes to covering, we've been beating a dead horse with two arguments: ban the burqa and be considered intolerant and Islamophobes; or keep the burqa and struggle with the limitations a man subjugates on a Muslim woman by keeping her covered. This discussion has been almost parallel to the debate of Muslims' rights in western societies after 9/11. But hardly has the conversation really turned towards a woman's relation to the state.
This is exactly the discussion that Sarkozy's ban poses and the one we're not having. As a citizen, a Muslim woman should have the same rights as any other citizen living in that country - that is, after all, what the equality of law allows them. Which means that like other citizens, she should be able to dress as she pleases. But in this debate, either Islam in the name of man imposes rules on a woman, or the state does.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I'm old-fashioned but I still think there is something to be said of old-school development tactics - that is, empowering women through education and free thought so ultimately they decide what rights to fight for. This should be a woman's movement after all, and it will succeed, even if it's in the coming generations that we bear witness to this success.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with your assessment; why beef can a libertarian have when you say that instead of forcing a dress code for the women, you should let choose their attire. However, has the attire been chosen of their free will? I hint not just at the father/husband preaching the need for a burqa (or any other constraint for that mater) but also long-term social feedback that forces the woman to think that a burqa is indeed a good idea. I talk from experience on similar matters and not just for a pedantic exercise. Hence, letting the women empower themselves would take too long; France's dilemna is whether it wants that long time-frame. Given the constant immigration flows, the adjustment times stretches even longer.
I understand my argument takes me away from my libertarian principles and into the realm of a benevolent dictator. Maybe that is not such a bad idea.
Post a Comment