This week the Spanish city of Barcelona announced that it will officially ban the burqa and the niqab from all government buildings. The move mirrors actions taken by the French government in 2009 to ban these face-covering garments in all public spaces throughout the country. Immediately after the ruling in France, members of the Muslim community along with certain factions of the liberal blogosphere voiced their outrage at what they perceived to be a discriminatory law designed to target Muslim women.
In response, proponents of the law, including some from within the Muslim community, defended the new legislation by noting that the face coverings are not required by Islam, but rather they are a cultural relic worn in some parts of the Muslim world. It is also a fact that the same law also banned jewelry displaying the crucifix and the Star of David, along with any other recognizable religious symbol. Furthermore, according to French officials, the burqa and the niqab are symbols of the oppression of women, which according to them, is inconsistent with French values. And personally, I couldn't agree more, which is why it’s so odd that I find myself in the unusual position of siding with the purveyors of religious faith.
As I’ve made clear in several of my previous blogs, I have nothing but contempt for organized religion, and I’ve always resented the privileged status enjoyed by religious doctrines and practices. For example, during high school and elementary school I wore a lot of hats, but all my schools had a rule that hats had to be removed inside the building. Unless of course, the hat was a part of your religion. I simply couldn't (and still don't) understand why religion was grounds for an exemption while politics or personal style were not. As a foundation upon which to base ones beliefs and conduct, religion is the least reasonable (almost by definition) and the most protected.
Therefore, given my experience in Canada, I was surprised to learn of that elected leaders had decided to stand up to religion in this manner, by banning all religious symbols from the public sphere. I also suspect that much of the outrage among the opponents of the law comes from the fact that they're accustomed to the privileged status afforded their faith, and so any law that places religion on equal footing more logical, thought-out belief systems and cultural practices is immediately seen as an attack on faith.
But the problem is that the law doesn't target faith in general. While it may nominally apply to all faiths, the reality is that it disproportionately affects members of one faith in particular. And it’s no coincidence that members of that faith have historically been, and continue to be severely marginalized by French society.
But even worse than the law's discriminatory aspects, is the fact that it explicitly infringes on a woman's freedom of expression. Choosing to display ones membership in a religious group is a political statement that these women have a right to make, even if that statement reinforces an ethos of female subjugation. For this reason, I stand with the critics of the new French law in support of a woman's right to cover her face and body with the symbol of her own oppression.
Agree Kai. Though I'm an atheist, one of the cornerstones of civil society is the freedom of expression, so I'm not a fan of the French decision. Personally, I think they're dressing up religious intolerance under the guise of liberal values. A better solution would be to engender religious (and non-religious) tolerance in their society. Oh, I can dream.
I agree with all the above comments. I think that telling women how they can and can't dress in public is a form of cultural imperialism -- we are telling women that they have to expose more of their bodies in public to be "legal." How exactly is this liberating? I was taught by nuns in full habits. We could only see their faces and hands. The modest clothing in public was congruent with their beliefs. I have friends that are veiled in public, but will remove the veils if they are among only women. This is congruent with these women's beliefs about modesty in public. Mandated public exposure does not reflect respect; it suggests contempt and arrogance.
It's also ironic.
I think the adverse effect of the law is that these women will be more reluctant to seek government services as a result of the ban, further marginalizing them as a result. Reasonable accommodation has its limits, but there needs to be more outreach to these communities so they don't get pushed further to the margins.