Who’s Protecting Whom?

67 thoughts on “Who’s Protecting Whom?”

1. WOW, Fe, you really stirtred the pot! Great article. What a conumdrum. Loved reading the different angles and ideas and realities expressed here. Andf. thanks for your 2 cents, Brendan, you TEP, you.

2. My 2 cents worth: when Sarkozy first proposed this some months ago, I felt that he was just expressing his anti-Islam, xenophobic side in a way that would not cause a huge ruckus in France. Oh sure, there would be sniping, snarking, what have you, but a sizable number of the citizens of la belle France would say nothing at all.

   He has been supported in this by none other than Jean-Marie Le Pen, former head of the National Front Party and Marine Le Pen, his daughter and the current leader of the party. They are as right wing and extremist as it gets in France, and it immediately made me suspicious of le Sark’s motives for doing this.

   After reading all of the comments here (so many, so informative!), I feel that there really is not a good answer for this. On the one hand, wearing such garments does isolate the wearer from society at large, forcing personal interactions into a mold that does not particularly go well at all with western culture. On the other, who is society to restrict gowns that are culturally a part of a religious faith? Oddly, here in the US, that is not an issue, despite all the rampant anti-Islamic rhetoric and rants about Sharia law being implemented here. Even the Beeb pointed this out, noting that we were doing nothing of the kind in spite of the general fear and loathing being expressed out loud these days on these shores.

   So, there is my quandary: lost in the dichotomy of freedom and restriction. No solutions from me, I’m afraid to say.

3. I was thinking of the middle ages and how canon law of the time was no different than sharia law. Everyone needs to take every precaution against going back to those evil times. Think of it like you think of protecting a child against tooth decay by forcing him to brush.

4. What i think is a huge difference between canon law and sharia law, is that Sharia Law becomes the law of the land. We’ve been vigilant about separating church and state in the US, but it is a different in Europe and England. I’ve read that the courts in England allow Muslims the practice of Sharia Law within their own communities, which is a dangerous precedent. Sharia law deals in absolutes that most of us never think about, like stoning to death, and cutting off limbs.

5. My belief is whether that containment is right or wrong it is going to change, evolve, and probably dissolve with relative circumstances. Generations come and go — look at Iran’s Green Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution of February 2011.

   However many ways you slice it, as communities and cultures come closer together — out of necessity — this adjustment period that is the 21st Century is going to be a bumpy trip.
   ———————————————–
   Amen, Fe!

   Uranus in Aries; a mini-epoch of the individuated self. Yet, although individuated, the early Aries point activity on Mother Earth herself seems to imply that this individuation has strong links with responsibility.

   Neptune brings saturated Aquarius energy to diffuse (why do I intuit osmosis?) into Pisces. The connective tissue between the self/world reciprocity seems like intuitive and even psychic connections developing between folk everywhere that breaks down some of these ‘sacred cows’ we’ve held onto for far too long.

   @mystes: The Berlinski elaborations make the power-society-gender triad very clear. I’ve tried to talk about religion/morality difficulties at root more than in manifestation and I would not wish to single out Islam or Burka issues in a way that could be distorted. Still, at some point, there has to be some intolerance of religion. It is intrinsically harmful and undermines autonomy – the basis of healthiness in humans. Dress makes a statement and self-emasculation is not something tastefully displayed. The message is ill-making and proselytising and, as mystes said, in essence dehumanising.

   Back to Fe’s point; yes, uncertainty in this world of ours has left people clinging to moralistic religious notions of easily demarcated right/wrong. The time is ripe now though. The astrology writes it on the wall. LEARN TO PROCESS UNCERTAINTY – learn the grey – turn this into your yoga and then your dharma. Now is the time for this world to grow up.
   Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke of a world ‘come of age’, around 70 years ago.

   On such a note, I was particularly impressed with Amanda’s link recently to an article on the Bolivian “Natural World’s Rights” legislation. What a fantastic thing. Governments beginning to get real. God bless, Bolivia!

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-worlds-rights/print

   Embrace life not death… We CAN do it… 🙂

6. Thanks, Burning River, but it was Chutzpah & MaryAnnB who punted over the Berlinski article. I’ve been multiculti all of my life — but my credentials in cultural sensitivity have long been modulated by this fundamental biological reality: women are vulnerable in a social body that puts its 90% resources into war gaming and empire building.

   Your view that our freedoms are hard-won and frangible is one I share. Life isn’t a compound in the Rockies, it isn’t a Witness Protection Program where someone comes along and says: No worries, we’ll just hide you. Any one who tries to do so usually has some curious ideas about what is possible once you’re thoroughly sequestered.

   For civil authorities to step in and say ~~Such sequestration is not in keeping with our cultural values~~ makes perfect sense to me.

7. ..that’s where the skew comes in, semantics: we are ‘defining’ burqa in two abstract, relative subjectives. We’d have to first negotiate conceptual definition before we could even consider debating the topic.

   ..still dude, the whole gender thing is frustrating for me. I don’t understand why it’s so different!?

   (..and yeah, the point of the knife. Bodies return to dust, the trip is forever.)

   Love ya cat,

   J

8. Jere, honey I still luvs ya. For sure. And no, castration would *not* make you a card-carrying V. I had a transgendered lover at one point in this very long life of mine, and I assure you, s/he developed great sympathy for the wimmens, but never tried to fool hirself or anyone else that s/he was one. S/he *did* participate fully in her boundary state, but knew that claiming s/he was living a woman’s experience was –correctly– out of hir scope.

   In your abortion argument you were trying to equate my ability to control *my* fertility with (some) Muslim women’s need to show that they *do not* control their fertility — nor their name, nor their face, nor their money, nor their spiritual powers. And that to abdicate those powers, to be controlled by their brothers, fathers, imam – even their sons – is normative. It is not.

   If the habib/burqa were a religious trapping, that would be another story. You want to protect the right to self-abnegation? Awrighty then, I got one for you. The 14th C. *French* woman who wrote the “Mirror of Annihilated Souls” stood barefaced in front of the Inquisition and declared that no one, NO one could tell her what to do with her body or soul, that her love for Love Itself exempted her from every earthly constraint on her freedom.

   She burned for it. But her book didn’t; it was secretly kept by the Inquisitor General himself who passed it to Meister Eckhardt who published it under his own name.

   These women aren’t wearing the box for God/Allah. They’re doing it so they don’t get the crap beaten out of them.

9. I’m at a loss, the wavelengths are askew.

   It was never personal Myst, I hope you see that. I respect the full gamut of input on these topics. Sometimes I choose to throw ‘all’ matter at the wall (confusion!? if you will).

   (..But, *personally*, the gender thing??!! No way dude??!! Seriously?? Not with *ME*!!??…)

   p.s.: It’s not ‘some other place’ this b.s. exists,.. we’re all sitting right here, right now. I choose to own my space even at the point of a knife.. believe me or don’t.

   ..and if I cut those jewels off woud I be validated?..

   Jere

10. mystes: thank you for hitting this issue so hard and so intelligently and with such good back up. Women often easily are lulled into a false sense of security and safety, especially in the U.S. But it has only been one week since the signal episode of the assault on women’s reproductive safety and rights by the attempt to shut down planned parenthood! Ladies! The sabre-toothed tiger remains at the door. Any thought that we are safe and ok is only one pen stroke away from the 60’s (way before Planned Parenthood, ladies) and two pen strokes away from Fred Flintstone and the clitoris clippers who are still at it in some tribes in Africa. To put it in Russian tonight :we need to watch our fannies–very closely and wisely. So as much as I am for freedom of dress and religion. and as much as the person and motives are questionable re: the man and country creating this issue. there is not one of our rights as women, no matter how improperly those rights are handled by some, I repeat, there is NOT ONE right we have won as women for women that can be given up any time for any reason in the name of anything without. little by litle, (as we have seen the fascists take over the US in the last 10 years, little piece by little piece), great loss will be waiting shortly down the road for new genrations of dismissed, disrespected, disenfranchised girls and women.

11. Jere, tell ya what, babe. With those jewels hanging between your knees, you can’t co-opt the abortion argument on this issue. It doesn’t fit on any level. And besides, have you noticed how when confused, people tend to go for the hotbutton issue — abortion, taxes, immigration — as a ‘corrective’ comparison? Problem is these are two very, very, very different questions.

    I love all mystical fore-runners of religion. Gimme yer Rumi, yer Thomas Merton, yer Lal Ded (for Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism respectively). I am *not* so fond of the formal versions. Secular law was developed to hamstring those puppies for a GOOD reason.

    What you *can* do is go live in a society where women are treated like cattle and then come back tell me how you want to ‘fight to alter’ me for defending Western mores against soul-destroying religious mandates. Saudi’s good or maybe Iran or perhaps somewhere a little closer to home, like Utah. Oh wait, the Constitution still has some effect there. Never mind, almost anywhere in the middle East or N. Africa will do.

    Then we’ll talk.

12. ..Oh! Ok, here we go..

    I’m pregnant, I want an abortion. You won’t let me because ‘your’ idea of what I’m doing torques your moral compass. So you pass a law saying I can’t do this for ‘my own good’. I must really be that fucking stupid to think that me choosing to do what I want with my body isn’t some insidious plot masterminded by some fundamentalist freaks with nothing but evil in their veins (..actually, that’s not too far off). But shit man, it’s my choice. And if I choose to get that abortion, I’m gonna do it, hell or high water! If you won’t allow me, I’ll go somewhere else, or even better (gag), do it myself! But you know what, I’m gonna remember that I can’t do it around you, and I’m gonna fight to alter your position every oppurtune moment I have.

    I personally think the dictate is wrong. And I don’t like to be dic’t.

    Jere

13. ..Don’t wear a burqa, get raped?! Seriously??! Dude, I get the setting thing, I lived in the tenderloin in S.F. for a bit on the street (not that that’s really that bad.. if you’re not a fool), and Santa Cruz (just creepy scumbag punks). But France? France?!? WTF?!? Surely the enlightened French Aristocrats can conjure up a more equitable solution than telling folks how to dress!? (And if we really want to help those souls stuck in the super-fucked situations, we should just go military all over this earth and fuck up all the bastards, no?! Not make laws to slap those who are being slapped already!!)

    When I bundle up in cooler weather, my whole entire body is covered, even my eyes due to the hoods I wear. This would be considered criminal in France!?

    Again I say, fuck that shit.

    Jere

14. Hey Patty, It’s a mutual heroine society! You managed to survive a Catholic upbringing!! Woot!

    Re: the Sharia law potential: The cool thing about population growth in *any* sector is the number of kids who opt OUT –due to the privileges afforded by modernization– of traditional religious constraints. So those with Muslim provenance might be ‘fastest growing’ segment of the population, but “what’ll they do after they’ve seen the Big City?” as the song goes.

    It’s a big, yeastie brew. But if putting women in a big cloth box marks the rest of us as “meat,” well… Jere, I’ll see your vomit and raise you a rape. Seriously. Liberal queasiness about offending personal liberty to destroy others (specifically, women) has always put a strange taste in my mouth. It’s as if confronting actual fascism is too messy and dangerous, so we look for ‘signs’ of it in our own cohort. That is, it is *much* easier to argue with a fellow-liberal who wants to outlaw burqa, instead of dealing with the bastards who enslave their wives, mutilate their daughters and generally treat females in their lives as nothing more than speaking livestock. Those people are straight out, they will cut you. Whereas all I will do is quote long articles.

    In the meanwhile, when I go to Europe, I want to *continue* to feel that this part of the world is exceptionally non-violent, that I could walk around at 2 a.m. in Paris or Marseilles or Lyon and be perfectly safe. I do NOT want to find myself in Arabia Lite in the middle of Amsterdam. Given the fact that cartoonists and filmmakers have been assassinated in Europe for discussing Islam in an “unfavorable” light, I say – the laws controlling some egregious manifestations of a patently anti-western culture are overdue.

15. on a more somber note; we are shining light on a huge huge problem to be sure.

16. Jere, the crack-up you gave me made my day. Or is it that my day is up my crack? Or the formerly-inspected crack, now known as naked? Or perhaps that those who have something up their cracks should have to run through the spaghetti flogger naked?

    whatever the “case” – you have brought me to my knees.

17. Mystes you are my heroine.

    I still remember wearing a veil to Catholic church every day for many years until the rules were overturned by Vatican II. But the fish ban still exists.

    Canon 1251
    “Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.”

    Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays! You can do a penance on Friday to compensate for eating meat, but by and large, eating meat is a sin because man said so. Absurd? Hardly! The church has been successful for centuries in controlling the sheep with man-written thou shalt nots.

    The fastest growing segment of the population is of Muslim faith. It is just a matter of a very short time before they have the votes to enact Sharia Law world-wide.

18. ..Myst, I read the full article. The last two lines still make me want to vomit, “No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary. ..But they have, and it is.”

    Bullshit! (Unless this cat’s workin’ a cosmic conundrum, she’s full of shit!) I can see screwy phychology but, these words taken at face value, is as inane as me telling you that ‘I’ am you.. (..of course we know that’s true, but the words fall flat on their face!)

    ..I’m just sayin’, I don’t have the answer (just yet), but the whole criminal aspect of it is beyond asanine.

    Jere

19. More from Berlinski’s article:

    “At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. ,/b> In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:

    “‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.'”

20. Jere, about those gyno/protological exams, honey you just made my point.

    (and Chutzpah, thank YOU for the link…)

    Berlinski writes:

    “Let’s be perfectly frank. These bans are outrages against religious freedom and freedom of expression. They stigmatize Muslims. No modern state should be in the business of dictating what women should wear. The security arguments are spurious; there are a million ways to hide a bomb, and one hardly need wear a burqa to do so. It is not necessarily the case that the burqa is imposed upon women against their will; when it is the case, there are already laws on the books against physical coercion.

    [. . .]
    “All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely. [My emphasis]

    Recently, on a New York Times blog, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum not only argued against the ban, but proposed that those who wear the burqa be protected from “subtle forms of discrimination.” It was a perfect example of a philosopher at the peak of her powers operating in a cultural and historical vacuum. “My judgment about Turkey in the past,” Nussbaum writes, “was
    that the ban on veiling was justified, in those days, by a compelling state interest — derived from the belief that women were at risk of physical violence if they went unveiled, unless the government intervened to make the veil illegal for all. Today in Europe the situation is utterly different, and no physical violence will greet the woman who wears even scanty clothing.”

    Nussbaum is absolutely wrong. There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),

    ‘there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home, clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”’

    Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.”

    And a bit more:

    “While it is true that some women adopt the veil voluntarily, it is also true that most veiling is forced. It is nearly impossible for the state to ascertain who is veiled by choice and who has been coerced. A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape.”

21. ..and for an over-dose of measure, if it’s security we’re after why not set up random proctological and gynecological checkpoints. That way we all know we’re safe. And hell, we’ll film it, and create a brand new fucking industry and pull our global dis-ease out of its shit hole!

    Fear is never the answer.

    …

    It is the dis-ease.

    …

    Jere

22. ..Shit, sorry, one more..

    ..And if we’re all hip to legislating openess, I vote we ban clothing entirely. That way there aint no way to hide!

    (It’s just fucking ridiculous!)

    (..hands in the air, shaking head..)

    Jere

23. I’m throwin’ in my last two cents before I drop it.

    “This whole legislature thing is Bull Shit!”

    You can’t demand someone to wake the fuck up! If you got the patience, sit with them. If not, mind your own fucking business. Develop your brain power to infiltrate the head fucks, but don’t try to control! I don’t need the authoritarians telling me what I can or can’t wear because of their ‘opinions’ as to why I’m wearing it.

    Bull Shit!!

    ..with that, I’ll let it be..

    Jere

24. Forgot to include this….it covers the subtle and not so subtle coercion to wear the veil.

    http://www.berlinski.com/?q=node/147

25. ‘the idea that for a catholic woman to show her face in church would somehow be disrespectful to god. huh? but a man’s face is not disrespectful??’

    Amanda – as i recall its more of a head thing than a face thing, like the Jewish skull cap, catholic veils tend to be lacy diaphanous things that you can still partially see through and be seen through – what other ‘symbol’ of active religious observation covers the entire face apart from the eyes? ( im talking specifically about the niqab here, not the hijab) what male equivalent is there?

    This is the problem i have with the niqab and i think you totally hit the nail on the head with your observations on supposed ‘modesty’ and avoiding the male sexual gaze – this is all about sex and control and not very much to do with living a religious life atall.

26. mystes – half:

    I was thinking about all the comments since last night and now this morning, and thinking about the arc of history of the world and the two cultures involved. This is a cultural struggle that has been going on for millennia. And we are dealing, rather imperfectly, with levels of resistance to societal change on both sides of the west and in the Islamic world.

    In its current iteration, both — fundamentalist Christians in America and fundamentalist Muslims in France are reactions to the rapid evolution of economics, culture and connection between countries and people. And well meaning or not, there is still a midieval streak in the world that holds people back from full cultural connection today. Religion, for lack of a better role model, serves as a means to contain uncertainty.

    My belief is whether that containment is right or wrong it is going to change, evolve, and probably dissolve with relative circumstances. Generations come and go — look at Iran’s Green Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution of February 2011.

    However many ways you slice it, as communities and cultures come closer together — out of necessity — this adjustment period that is the 21st Century is going to be a bumpy trip.

27. Half – yes, agreed that ‘rights’ are a fiction. Or better yet, an *invention.* But unless we throw out the entire Enlightenment, this is the fiction that was woven our current social compact, which allows multiple ethnicities to live –howsoever uneasily– side by side. Not in ghettos, not in reservations, not in colonias – but together.

    Visibly together. In such a way as to *pre-empt* and rout the imposition of surveillance. That is, facing each other.

    ***

    I had this really funny thought last night (well, this morning) as I was drifting off to sleep. People who dress in burqa are emulating the Ka’Baa, which is also veiled. And what is the Ka’Baa? A black meteorite shaped like a yoni, which the Faithful (or is it only Faithful men?) kiss upon entry to the Holy of Holies.

    Talk about your sexualization.

28. The question then becomes, is the repression of its free expression going to curtail it or force it to come out more vehemently?
    —————————————————-
    @Fe, the answer is neither, if it is handled by placing the issue in a wider framework. Most ethics are conducted in a ‘linear’ fashion e.g. they have a dichotomous, because conflictual, axis of reflection.

    Frankly, what heals that false division would be the development of a ‘wisdom diversity’ that unifies cultural practices in a framework of tolerance – but NOT around the things that divide, within religion. Things which divide are beliefs pretending to be based upon established facts that are incontrovertible. NO religion describes the world as it is in its entirety.

    In what respects, and to what degree, does religion describe anything? Well at least in terms of sociological realities it provides some connectivity. It speaks to connections of various stripe. In that sense it echoes or silhouettes ‘reality’ but it is not even an accurate facsimile of how life is for most people moment by moment.

    So, the critique of religion/morality is one thing (being highly necessary), a politically embodied response, on the other hand, cannot reflect the complexity of the human material involved and so either acts or fails to act – it reduces the issue to the pragmatism of choice – I (or the power base) choose one thing and I (or the power base) automatically exclude the polar opposite position (which merely replicates the false core of religion in division and polarities and ultimately war – passion really IS a killer at times).

    Ergo, politics is NOT a suitable vehicle for adequately addressing subtly ramified, massively complex issues, harbouring a protracted history of relations/development. It merely births zeal; which is a very poor substitute for real, transcendent unction.

    Cultures must develop tolerance and understanding on a much richer platform than the knee-jerk, power-laced, machinations of political will – such will always be unrepresentative. Whatever Sarkosy does MUST be wrong, because it must always be an incomplete response to the complexity. However, these are simply the limits of politics and law. One shifts or distributes the impact of a thing (rule or law of statute) and the ripple affects everyone. Individuals can only make adjustments. It’s too easy to criticise politicians in prominent roles. Dialogue needs to extend, action needs to ripple further. We benefit from being circumspect and watchful within our personal boundary.

    If I might also comment upon Eric’s point on ‘rights’, which carries profound difficulties – since it is born of the same tissue as religion; with ‘rights’ in essence just pretending to be more libertarian and by implication somehow more valid than other alternatives.

    The whole concept of ‘rights’ is a contemporary myth, an artificial construct imposed from the same strange roots as the history of religious oppression. Nobody truly has any rights. We have just developed frameworks to make such seem like a birthright. A social construction designed to preserve a person’s sense of quality of life has a history of origination and development. ‘Rights’ merely offers a carrier concept for primitive notions of protection and safety and is therefore part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative; thus being implicit within our inculcated notions of the social contract. It has no objective reality. You are NOT entitled to anything – even if you believe you are. Get over it!!

    We all live on the same planet. Unfortunately we have not yet worked out the logistics of how to conduct a global love-in that transforms everything for the better! We are less evolved than we could be and are seemingly cutting our teeth in these phantom debates at the moment.

    Personally, my feeling is that the internet has truly opened doors to dissolution of many old, bullshit boundaries that are as arbitrary as the wind. The world is getting more connected. The sense of this is growing.

    Soon, Burkas will no longer be elevated to some false position of representing all that is wrong with anything or good about it. When, collectively, we penetrate the shadows, the sunlight will emanate its glorious new dawn. Nothing tangible will then imprison us and intellectual debates about attachments shall be no more…

29. Seems pretty simple to me: Sarkozy just agreed with Burqa. “You wanna be out of French social/legal structures? Fine.” By making burqa ‘illegal’ he is just acknowledging what the Islamic withdrawal from French civil society *already* says.

    It is silly to expect that the system that Burqa repudiates (e.g. French law) to behave as though it has a obligation to protect rights that Burqa does not *want.*

    Dazzling, really.

30. is it also linked to the 1906 law separating state and religion (I think I’m correct in saying that in France it is illegal to wear a cross on a chain to work?)

31. Hey all,

    Yes my first (gut) response was ‘Go fuck yourself Sarkozy!!!!’ as well – thanks Eric for putting it so eloquently yet again… Sarkozy defends women’s rights by restricting them!!!! And in doing so will push those poor women further back into the private sphere…I was just wondering the other day whether this is some neurotic personal come back or subconscious justification- a consequence of his wife exposing her body to the world in the past…now, don’t tell me that didn’t bother him – he is worst of them all!!!

32. ..Honestly, thinking about this issue has me realizing I could jump back and forth across the debate line all day long. And that I think is key. The issue needs to be continuously discussed, because I don’t believe words will ever do it justice. But, words need to be had in order to formulate concepts in order to transcend into ‘understanding’. Then, I can be aware enough to not think that running through random airports screaming “Bomb! Bomb!” is a good idea just because I have “freedom of speech”. It’s a maturity thing, and some cats are children who need nurturing, attention, not a heavy hand. (But that IS the can of worms.. and it’s a pretty big can).

    Jere

33. violetazure:

    Thank you for the context and the clarity, which, as you say, makes the new law even more disturbing, and for lack of better wording – highly insensitive.

34. As ironic as the law/protests may or may not be, as corrosive/catalytic as the law/protests may or may not be, I think it’s silly to criminalize expressionism. Of course, I’m one of those “ya got a boil? Don’t wait for it to work its way out, lance the fucker! Who cares about the scar?! It’ll be fun!”. I’d stand up for a klansman to wear his casper suit even though I’m utterly perplexed by bigotry. ‘I understand’ the broader history of this atrocious, pain-inducing expression, but the ignorant don’t. And by criminalizing their expressions, it’s more likely to sink deeper and fester in new and even more barbaric forms of expression, the blow up kinds. Awareness can’t be force fed. But it does need a forum for discussion. Some horses are just slow and dehydrated, and it takes a while to get them to the water. They ain’t gonna get there any faster if we beat ’em.

    Jere

35. Jere, it’s one thing to state publicly (where else would you state it?) that you are opposed to the way in which the values of your country/city/state are being expressed. Those values are enshrined as rights and you have a right –indeed an obligation– to critique and redirect them.

    It is entirely another to say that you are *not part* of the value-system or political entity that provides you streets, stoplights, electricity, education, the right to commerce, and guarantees (or is supposed to guarantee) your clean water and air. To wear burqa is to categorically place yourself outside and above that political entity, to state that you belong to your religion exclusively, and THEN demand that the political entity guarantee your right to remain outside of the thing that guarantees your right to remain outside.

    This isn’t just ironic. It’s corrosive. It’s a slow but sure method of using rights to dismantle rights.

36. It’s a bit off level but I liken this scenario to me getting kicked out of ‘family’ establishments for refusing to cover up the “FUCK WAR” patch on my backpack. I fail to see the inherent offense of my statement, and quite conversely see it as a public service announcement. Now, I do understand how some parents may not want to have to deal with the fact of my expression insomuch as they might actually have to communicate with their children regarding.. reality (what!? It’s not all disney?! What a mind fucker!). But, I view it as an oppurtunity for the dialogue at least to be surfaced, and not allowed to stay stuffed down in the shadows.

    Although I personally think the law is an asanine cover-up attempt at concealing the real issues, I do believe it’s provoking people to focus on and truly examine their thoughts and opinions regarding not just the religious and personal freedom’s issue, but the whole issue of divisiveness: “us” and “them”.

    So honestly, I think it’s one of the most awesome idiotic things goin’ down today. First thing I thought of when I heard this was “I’m a dude, I’ll go throw on a burqa and see what they think about that! 🙂 “, but then I started looking at French law and it’s not that they’re anti femme, they’re just really freakin’ paranoid. Seriously, if you wear a scarf in the the wrong way it can be considered criminal!?!

    ..I’ll just chalk it up to one of those ridiculous little straws that will have to be removed to ease the camel’s load. 😉

    Jere

37. A couple of points:
    1) a public space is different than a private one. I can*not* nail myself to a cross and drag it down the street. There are laws that proscribe (ahem) harming myself, being a public nuisance, littering (blood is hell to get off of sidewalks) … in short, demonstrating that level of psychosis would get me locked up for my own good. Eric, if you can’t find a specific law, I assure you that I would still be detained since there are general statutes against public or wanton violence.

    2) I am saying the burqa (I don’t use the article because the damn thing is an institution in itself) is tantamount to self-annihilation in a public space. It says: I am not a social actor. If you aren’t a social actor, then how can you claim guarantees of social space? To take burqa as your Law exempts you from participating in those rights. YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT YOU HAVE NO REGARD FOR THOSE RIGHTS. So now you want to invoke them? Say what?

    3) If the ‘custom’ was for men to wear 10 ft. longhorns and drag around a corpse, do you think this would be protected under the rights of free speech or freedom of religion? Of course not. They would obstruct traffic, threaten public safety and demand unwarranted social space and energy for the actors. Wearing burqa is no less onerous, although it goes in the opposite direction of ostentation.

    4) Because its Sarkozy’s law, it’s wrong? Hmm…

38. THANK YOU violetazure for your articulation. I have a dear friend whose current work is on this same issue of deVeiling the hijab and the discourse around it. i believe perspective (and context) is everything, which means that what is “right” is “according to who and compared to what?”.

39. also… doesn’t the wearing of any type of clothing to prevent the ‘sexualization’ of a woman’s body basically point to the fact that it has already been sexualized? and who exactly determines that a woman’s body is inherently more subject to sexualization than a man’s?

    and what is so inherently good about so-called ‘modesty’ in this sense? (which, i think, brings things back to half’s points about morality and religion. modesty in this sense seems to speak to assumed shame, perhaps.)

40. violetazure — thanks for the bit of historical context on burqa-wearing. fascinating.

    chutzpa — my mind is trying to wrap around the idea that for a catholic woman to show her face in church would somehow be disrespectful to god. huh? but a man’s face is not disrespectful?? eegad.

41. Personally the burqa reminds me of Darth Vader and I find it creepy. That being said, I wouldn’t imagine telling a woman she’s not allowed to do it. My feeling creeped out is my emotional reaction and making something illegal isn’t half as effective as just breathing away the fear and re-locating my root. Even if a woman is coerced into wearing a burqa, telling a woman she’s not allowed to wear it is just another kind of oppression.

    France has always been proud to the point of arrogance about the sanctity and advancement of its culture so I’d guess this is just another act of ramming their idea of culture down someone else’s throat. La fille la plus agée de l’eglise- the oldest daughter of the Church, and one of the first northern lands to be conquered by Rome takes after her mother even in the post-revolutionary attempt to distance herself from the Church. I guess it works similarly in societies as in individuals- you can’t get rid of the emotional patterns learned from your parents just by taking the opposite stance.

    That being said I don’t think America is in any better shape so I’m not pointing fingers at France from a stance of perceived American enlightenment. So we have the First amendment- our military industrial complex forces capitalism down everyone’s throat and Europe’s religious/class wars are alive and well like imported invasive weeds choking the local trees to death in the so-called Land of the Free- which has the highest percentage of her people in jail of any country on Earth and lopsidedness of monetary wealth much like the France of Louis XIV.

42. Funny story. And bringing the conversation down an intellectual notch or two.

    A local muslim man, at the time the imam in town, asked me if I would be his third wife. I’d interviewed him a few times and he set me up with other locals back in the day when the money transfers to huge, needy families back home got screwed after 9/11. So we got to know each other that way. I always joked it off. Finally, he added: I would let you dress any way you want. Me: I’m never getting married again, anyway. But thanks for that. Good to know. Do you mean that, though? Absolutely, he said.

    What do you know. I got married again. (Seeing as this is an astrology blog, I will call Neptune in Aquarius in the 7th, mmmkay?) That year, one night, I was dressing up to go out for a birthday party. My new husband, nice Canadian guy, said: What are you trying to prove? You aren’t 19 anymore. To which his daughter added: You look like a biker slut. (She was six.) Add to that, the group ended up at the biker bar. Hee. Not my plan. Birthday boy bought me a lap dance. Her bum was a little close to my face. I placed my hands on her hips and politely said: I know I’m not supposed to touch you but I’m not blind. Later, when I got home, I waxed eloquent (to my new husband) about how amazing a woman’s body feels. HOLY! Wild guesses on how he took that? NOT good. (Neptune is in Pisces now, 8th house. YAY!)

    Fear, power, control, sex, expression, rights… What else? We all live these on a daily basis, no matter in what part of the world, no matter under what political regime, no matter what personal relationships… I am SO grateful for the years I have lived, and continue to live, in Yellowknife. It is so… INTIMATE. I live in close proximity to people from all over the world. The Vietnamese cab driver who tells me the sounds of Canada Day planes on a fly-by are not “fun.” And he tells me of his childhood in Vietnam. You name any part of the world, and they are represented here. I am always a moment away from a story about the struggle to live. To live FREE. (Guys from the jail who clean sidewalks. Homeless people. All in a two-block radius from where I live.)

    One more: I buy a coffee at a local coffee shop on my way to work. The young lady wears a veil of some sort. Not face-covering but head-covering. Specifically, ear-covering. The first two time after she started there, I’d order from her, and she couldn’t hear what I was saying. My internal response: Well, if you took that damn thing off, you’d hear what I was ordering.

    YES! I thought that.

    Third time, I leaned in and spoke a little more loudly and we smiled at each other. Adaptation. Care. Thought. More of that. (And, I swear, I think she stopped rolling her eyes when I requested soy milk.)

    Theory in daily moments. Thanks for your patience.

43. “The problem with this discussion is that most people have no idea what a right is. I don’t mean this to be sarcastic, I am speaking literally. And when we have rights, then we all have to put up with being offended.”

    So eric:

    You bring up an interesting point. Many of us, at least here in the US have a cartoon appreciation of what a “right” is, including freedom of speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and freedom of religion. These are all being carried out to the extreme for everyone’s offense, aka — hippies, Teabaggers, and the Nazis at Skokie — and you haven’t been following politics USA if you aren’t offended by at least some of what we’re hearing politically here in America.

    What is it about the Islamic culture that brings the US and the western world to biting its tethers? AND

    What is it about the rights of women to self-actualize down to their choices to express their own freedoms of dress and personal choice that have fundamentalists hitting themselves on the head trying to control?

44. my 2¢…

    has there ever been a ‘true’ separation of church and state in the so-called civilized world?

    i think we are definitely talking about hegemony here; of English, of religion, of thought … of so much. this law is just one more step towards the hegemony of fascism (or are we already there?), globally. sarkozy is one of several world leaders (current – germany and former-spain, australia) to declare multiculturalism a “failure”, basically justifying those who refuse to accept and truly embrace diversity in any form (“it’s my way or the highway”) as some unattainable fantastical utopia. i’m seeing this at a micro level this semester teaching (future?) teachers about multicultural education, and getting responses to the need to be critical about our individual socialization and hence worldview/personal perspective in the context of multiple -isms, as being “too sensitive” )when it comes to racism, sexism, classism, etc…). interestingly, those who argue this point tend to be the most privileged (“white” middle-upper class) and sheltered (in their experiences).

    i absolutely agree it’s in the language – i worried that when bush2 took over, and anything he said actually made sense to anyone, that we had a huge problem with making meaning from language. this is also what i’ve been experiencing with said students, and i’m reminded of the tbuggers, where there is such a manipulation of the rhetoric that it seems more about who can outspin whom when it comes to the double speak, some missing the point entirely because the logic train left long ago for the literal shortbus.

    were i (thank the goddes not) sarkozy, no i would not have passed the law (which would make me not him anyway – he’s serving his purpose this life). what would i do were i a muslim woman living in france depends on who i am, some may begin to question what the controversy is, and wonder did they really have a “choice” or were they just as socialized as we/most are when it comes to religion and cultural values. that’s a big if when it comes to the hegemony of thought. i don’t believe the french govt is acting in the best interests of any one but those who serve its fascist racist hegemonic agenda.

    in regards to the last question, i believe the word socialization is the key. these traditions are about protecting the interests they serve, which are most all ways about dominance and control, mind and body. i would say these are much larger and deeper issues that many of us can easily judge from the outside in (which doesn’t mean we’re right or wrong), but i would also say we must be willing to question and challenge our own socialization and systems of oppression as well. else, we continue the social reproduction all the way around.

    ♥☮♫

45. This is a complicated issue with an equally complicated history, so I feel that it’s best not to make generalizations about what wearing the veil (or burqa, chador, hijab) means in a given context.

    First, there is no Sura (verse) in the Qu’ran that requires an observant Muslim woman to wear a veil, chador, or hijab. Specifically, the 24th Sura calls on men and women to dress modestly, and for women to draw their veil over their bosoms. So it is incorrect to say that wearing the veil (in whatever incarnation and as it is currently understood) is part of the Muslim religion. It is more appropriate to view it as a custom or practice that is specific to different regions, cultures, and historical periods. It is also a practice that has been at times imposed on women, and at other times freely adopted as a symbol of identification and resistance (depending on the context). For example, women in Iran have had a very troubled history with the veil during the 20th century. In 1936 Reza Shah Pahlavi, in a effort to “modernize” Iran, imposed a law that made it illegal for women to wear the hijab in public; women who were caught doing so had the hijab forcibly torn from their bodies by the state police — a trauma that many women sought to avoid by just refusing to go out in public. During the revolution in 1979, women from across the political and religious spectrum adopted the hijab as a symbol of resistance against western imperialism — it was only after the Islamists co-opted the revolution and purged the other elements (i.e. socialists, communists, and other secular groups) that the hijab was universally imposed on women. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria all have similarly complicated histories around the issue of veiling, which is why it is important not to generalize about it’s meaning, but instead to view it within it’s proper social and historical contexts.

    Which is precisely why outlawing the hijab in France is so troubling — especially given the history of French colonialism in predominantly Muslim countries, and the concomitant fascination with (and fetishization) of veiled women since the 19th century. Tons of feminist scholarship on these issues have been produced in the last 20-30 years. If you seek a better understanding of why the veil is such a hot-button issue now (and why it has been so in the past), it might be a good idea to examine some of that research.

46. the touch law referenced is not secular law; it’s not enforceable by a cop. it is religious law in a secular society. In terms of touch as battery, that involves the intent.

    I’m not understanding why someone should be banned from dragging around a cross, unless all similar pieces of wood are banned. and last I checked, a person could nail themselves to whatever they want, so long as it is not someone else’s property. We are, however, talking about clothing.

    I am wondering where the government gets the right to intervene in this at all. There may be a totally ulterior motive here — such as getting ALL of their faces into the “terrorism” database. They may be stoking their long-dreamed-of world war between the Xtians and the Xlims.

    But pretending this is about religious “freedom” we are talking about French law. For them the Revolution involved destroying the interior of Notre Dame. It was nearly torn down!

    The German constitution is pretty creepy too — “freedom of religion” means “freedom from anyone’s religion being ‘offended'” and what the heck is that? Everything offends someone, so by that standard, nothing should be allowed. The problem when a government starts to infringe like this is it seems fine at first, then they jam the wedge in a little more, and a little more.

    We are all safer if they keep their wedge in their pants.

    Either the freedom of personal choice, which means participating in a culture, is honored in a society, or it is not. The problem with this discussion is that most people have no idea what a right is. I don’t mean this to be sarcastic, I am speaking literally. And when we have rights, then we all have to put up with being offended.

47. Touch = behaviour, and obvious we do have laws for that. Some good, some idiotic.

    We have learned –through the depredations of the industrial revolution and beyond– to live without social touching, or very, very little. What that has done has delivered us to a rabidly *visual* culture, where 80% of what we come to understand about a person is through infinitesimal visual cues — a change in the color of skin, swallowing, eye movements, changes in position, etc.

    Throw a bag over a woman and now she is unreadable on every level, except for timbre of voice. And even that is muffled and diminished *due* to the bag she is compelled to live in.

    So how do you conduct communication? You don’t. And what does this result in? Dehumanization, disconnection and anomie. Of which, apparently, we do not have enough?

    (Now, add to this the fact that we are all caught in our hall of cybermirrors and human communication has come under unbelievable pressure — but that’s a discussion for another blog.)

    In this regard, Sarkozky is thinking five steps ahead of the game.

48. Re: Sarkozy: “I still cannot believe that after six years of bashing Americans for electing Bush, they went and elected a Bush clone.”

    Crazy isn’t it? I feel the same way about my fair country. Not only did we elect Harper once (2006), then a second time (2008), but we appear to be on the brink of electing him a third time, and maybe finally giving him his damn majority.

    Fuck me.

49. Freedom of religion means the government stays out. Where religion is respected, it is neither mandatory, nor banned, nor legislated at all. But this is the American constitution’s approach. France also outlaws Scientology. I don’t agree with Scientology but the government intervening is far more dangerous to everyone’s freedom. In my view, a government interested in freedom of religion protects the rights of people to make whatever choice they want, or to participate in any culture they want — as long as it does not harm others (i.e., the Manson clan was not a religion).

    I personally think that an orthodox Jewish cashier who cannot, even inadvertently, touch the hand of a customer is putting her in a prison. So does the government then pass a law that says she HAS to touch the person’s hand?

    Let’s see, or women’s libbers who protest that women work as playboy bunnies. Well, if women are “liberated,” that means they get to choose to be playboy bunnies or whatever anyone else may think is distasteful. And so on.

50. My view is that the burqa is a prison, pure and simple. Just because women voluntarily submit themselves to it doesn’t make it any less offensive to the ideals (and/or reality) of gender equality and sexual self-determination.

    This is the old conundrum: do you protect free speech that incites fascism? My answer is, as always, I am open to openness. Otherwise, actions/laws/prescriptions that aim for and end in dehumanization and shame of the body must be shown and treated as EXACTLY what they are: slow death.

    Sarkozky may be Islamophobic, but this transcends his phobia, and even assholes get it right now and then. There are laws against nailing myself to a cross and dragging it through the streets. Burqa is no less than that.

51. FYI: The Academie Francaise is an advisory body, not legislative.

    On another note, LOL has now been accepted into the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as OMG and the heart symbol (a verb). As it is I can barely decipher text and facebook language. There’s something to be said for watchdogs, in some cases.

    Finally:
    “In 1992 a prominent US linguist stunned the academic world by predicting that by the year 2100, 90% of the world’s languages would have ceased to exist.
    Far from inspiring the world to act, the issue is still on the margins, according to prominent French linguist Claude Hagege.
    ‘Most people are not at all interested in the death of languages,’ he says. ‘If we are not cautious about the way English is progressing it may eventually kill most other languages.’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8311000/8311069.stm

    It’s been called the Empire of English, and it is no less aggressive, invasive, or bloody than any other method of annihilating cultures. Though it is far more insidious than banning a viusal expression of culture, the subject is rarely headline news.

    Just sayin’. @TEOTD I’m not sure I’ll be BOSMKL.

52. Oh why does this issue remind me of bras…
    There was a time when a “proper” girl had to wear a bra in a “proper setting.”
    Women burned their bras and declared themselves liberated.
    But some women were harassed because they still chose to wear bras.

    Freedom is such a loaded question.

    For some women, being naked is free.
    For others, that would make them feel objectified and rob them of their dignity.

    For some, their own
    ideas of “liberation” are imposed
    on others who have different ideas.

    Someday, maybe we will have a world, where, so long as no harm is being done and that can be ascertained, then we will have less fear and more acceptance of our differences.

    But, once again, in the name of doing good, some good and some harm results.

53. To me the new French law looks like a great big smoke screen and a clever, strategic move for those currently in power in France who have much fear about the growing political power of the French Muslim community.

    If the law had ruled out ALL forms of religious dress for both men and women to be worn in public, then it would be a (more) equitable and fair law. But banning the attire that a Muslim woman might choose, or not choose to wear is once again, using women to provoke and inflame a minority out of political fear and a desire to keep power consolidated in the hands of the few that currently hold it.

    Imagine the uproar if Jews were not permitted to wear whatever level of traditional (religious) clothing they wished to… the would be riots and protests instantly here and in much of Europe. What if Catholics could not wear their rosaries in public, or a Sikh their turban? Such laws would rightly be called discriminatory. But I feel that something else is going on here.

    By singling out the Muslim society and faith, and holding up the P.C. smoke screen of pretending to “liberate oppressed Muslim women”, yes, they create more tension and friction between the general population and the Muslim community. But this could also create friction within the Muslim community as well. This might be especially so for moderate-modern Muslims who fit more easily into modern French society who might not be so offended by the new law. But the more traditional Muslims will most likely find this to be intolerable and they will first turn on their own, more moderate brethren. So this course sets the greater French Muslim community against itself, and also against the general public and fractures any growing consolidated base of power that might have been growing within the French Muslim communities, thus de-powering the political strength of that community. Additionally, when there is more tension focused in one narrow area of concern, the politically powerful are free to do other things while the public is generally distracted.

    Like sell more nuke plants when nobody is looking.

    That is what it looks like to me.

54. Half:

    See my responses below your quotes:

    “Perhaps even more than a question of religion, however, this whole subject is a question of its illegitimate child, morality. The two are tough to distinguish and often intertwined. Still, there are religious expressions unencumbered by hardcore morality and that allow a diversity ethic within their frameworks. Hinduism would be a fine example of such expression.

    Morality is the deeper problem and any religion that co-opts a God-concept to buttress such moral enslavement, is of the most dangerous variety.”

    This is a point in the subject matter that is confounding that in effect, the French government won’t allow women to wear what feels “modest” to them. In Sarkozy’s words: “We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind a mask, deprived of all social life of their identity.” yet, in making the choice to appear modest, women who choose the garment do not feel imprisoned by sexual subjugation.

    “Islam gets a bad press and regularly heavy maligning – but this is editorial gloss for political advantage. However, in reality, ALL religion that functions as described above, is a problem. The more major and uniform and militant it is on the world stage, the more it should be brought to heel – for all our sakes.”

    The question then becomes, is the repression of its free expression going to curtail it or force it to come out more vehemently?

55. If Sarkooky wants to help French women, he should start with reform of divorce laws. He is using allegedly rescuing Muslim women as an excuse to mess with Muslims; let’s not forget he is a Neocon student of Dick Cheney. Let’s not forget that France bombed and otherwise waged war in Algeria for a generation.

    The tension between French men and women is a little like the black guy working for IBM in the 1960s. But the tension between the supposedly liberal values of the French secular society and the deeper current of religiosity is just as insidious. It’s subtle in a way that’s impossible to parody. This is a country that thinks that it’s not influenced by religion, but they very nearly ran out of saints naming all the metro stops. There seems to be this disconnect that freedom from religion implies freedom of religion and vice versa. We have just as big of an issue in the States, though somewhat in the other direction. We forget that living under theocracy infringes on everyone’s 1st Amendment rights. But the side that’s ‘winning’ doesn’t care about that till the game turns on them.

    I don’t trust a word Sarkozy says. He is simply a liar. I still cannot believe that after six years of bashing Americans for electing Bush, they went and elected a Bush clone.

56. Fe,
    The very best thinking I’ve read to date on this was by Claire Berlinski last year.

    Her full essay is at http://www.berlinski.com/?q=node/147 but the one thing she wrote that convinced me to support legal banning against the outrage of government interfering in private rights was:

    “There is no nation on the planet where the veil is the cultural norm and where women enjoy equal rights. Not one.”

57. Everyone:

    The more we discuss, the more I see the levels of subjugation: on a direct level, by the French state in France, and by us. If we don’t acknowledge our own forms of discrimination, we are coming at this topic with tools producing mixed results.

    chutzpah:

    Yes, being forced to wear a burqa is as bad as being forced NOT to wear one.

    Carrie:

    You drive a profound hammer home that the clashes in culture: religious, sexual, race, ideals, is represented on the bodies of women. In America, I am reminded of that cult where the “wives” of the leader were made to wear garments that reflected their commune. Not to mention the internalized guilt driven on American women about having sex too early, virginity pacts and abortion in the culture war with the Religious Right.

    Eric:

    When we talk about subjecting Planned Parenthood to funding scrutiny, that is an act of nationalized sexism against women: the health of our bodies is secondary, therefore we are secondary.

    Sarkozy does take the cake in terms of subjugating the women who choose to wear the burqa, versus the Muslim women who do not – who comprise the larger majority of Muslims in France. And yet the Taliban have been known to force educated women against their will into wearing the veil and full body covering. Maybe we are viewing the French burqa law through a lens of cultural confusion about Muslim women, French customs, and American generalizations of culture – one of the things that get us into alot of trouble when these generalizations are mixed in with a military campaign to “Shock and Awe”.

58. Amen, Aword.

59. To be honest i cant see this restriction catching on in the rest of Europe so i guess it could be specific to France and whats happening within their culture.

    – i never realised they had to go through all those hoops to get words approved, i love the fact that English is such a hotch potch language in the way it develops, slang words regularly get absorbed into the Collins dictionary.

    Go back 50 years and i would have been wearing a veil to church if i was still a practicing Catholic, i still would if i went to church in a more traditional country but wearing the veil for a Muslim has more complex meanings i would have thought than the ‘show some respect in Gods house’ idea.

60. I must be confused. I only ask, have Orthodox Jewish women been told they cannot wear wigs or hats?

    Have Christians been told they cannot wear the cross around their necks?

    Have I been told I cannot wear a jacket of my own choosing?

    And Who Says?

61. “The burqa is not a religious symbol. It’s a sign of enslavement, of debaseness. I want to say this solemnly. The burqa will not be welcomed on the territory of the French republic. We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind a mask, deprived of all social life of their identity.”

    My gut response was — go fuck yourself, Sarkozy.

62. Thanks, Len.

    I think the term here is hegemony. I’m abit aghast that a modern industrialized country would make this type of restriction. But this is also a very French, anachronistic custom when you think about it, and racist.

    But then again, racism and classism are inherent in French culture – as Amanda has pointed out to me, when you control the language so tightly you have to have a learned committee to review, accept and approve new words into the French lexicon. Oy vey.

63. The key distinction in addressing this question is that between religion and faith. The question of personal choice can easily be harmonised with a faith perspective; much less so with religion.

    Basically, religion suggests, whether on the basis of creed and/or tradition, that what happens within religious structures is a direct correlation from ‘what is’ or ‘truth’ or ‘fact’. It implies a metaphysic of ‘givenness’.

    Even though faith may take some of its bearings from religion, what distinguishes it, is the core value of the individual choosing and also therefore having a uniquely configured perspective, not harming psychology and not precluding experimental approaches to discovering a modified, evolving personal truth.

    Religion is prescriptive and intrinsically violates its adherents. Said adherents may CLAIM that they are choosing, but the concept of choice deployed evokes no confidence in practice within an astute observer that the person speaks freely – not least because the ‘believer’ is appealing to a system that is heteronomous (e.g. regulated, and with a locus of authenticity, OUTSIDE the self) rather than autonomous (e.g. governed in essence from WITHIN the authentic self).

    On the vexed question of translation into cultural practices: Faith would respect diversity and would naturally produce it within a permissive framework. Consequently we would not see identity markers identifying groups. Durkheim was the first significant theorist to demonstrate in depth how communities have revivified psychological sentiments in external markers or emotive carriers/receptacles. Such social codifications serve to preserve the spirit of the religious ideology underlying and effectively render it sui generis – it takes on a form that transcends the ideology and makes it live – this preserves a type of infectious quality – one which begins to give the impression that the ideology is self-evidently true.

    Religion is naturally happy to see its sentiments transmitted in this way.

    Of course, this is how religious bodies of practice are preserved down generations – without them religion could not survive – it is a psycho-social DNA preservation imperative. Interestingly and importantly, these systems COULD be preserved with a private face through private worship and ritual enactments. They do not need ‘public’ity to survive.

    However, once such practices are allowed to become publicly valid expressions within broader culture/society, we immediately risk psychological/cultural oppression. Mass mentalities are not healthy and we must guard against them becoming spectacles of validity. What we do/manifest/express in public is watered down in personal choice – and actually quite interesting if representing authentic choice. As a collective expression, on the other hand, there is ALWAYS at least some risk of problematic consequences because propagating a ‘truth’ edifice which is actually false. Religion claims facticity and this will never be demonstrable. Religion overreaches. Faith says ‘I choose’ and that is more provisional, does not seeks proselytes and is content in its own boundary.

    Perhaps even more than a question of religion, however, this whole subject is a question of its illegitimate child, morality. The two are tough to distinguish and often intertwined. Still, there are religious expressions unencumbered by hardcore morality and that allow a diversity ethic within their frameworks. Hinduism would be a fine example of such expression.

    Morality is the deeper problem and any religion that co-opts a God-concept to buttress such moral enslavement, is of the most dangerous variety.

    Islam gets a bad press and regularly heavy maligning – but this is editorial gloss for political advantage. However, in reality, ALL religion that functions as described above, is a problem. The more major and uniform and militant it is on the world stage, the more it should be brought to heel – for all our sakes.

64. chutzpah,

    You make a good point about the new converts and recent women wearing the veil. I also have to say that in a Western culture, wearing the veil does the exact opposite of what it is intended to do; it in fact draws MORE attention to the women wearing it because it IS so different from mainstream Western dress. Though it may cover her secondary sexual characteristics and her head hair, it still draws attention to her and in this climate of “anti-terrorism” perhaps the wrong kind of attention. It almost is like the sashes the Jews were forced to wear during WWII; it singles out all Muslim females by their religious beliefs and ethnicities and therefore can make them targets of Western prejudice and/or oppression/abuse.

    Just more rambling thoughts on the issue.

65. fe,

    Excellent article, especially in light of the recent US attacks against women’s rights. If I were French (and I am not nor can I speak for them or pretend to know what it means to BE French) I would think the better way to handle this would be to enact a law which protects a Muslim woman if she chooses to wear/not to wear and then is harmed (by employers, husbands, relatives) by her choice.

    Example 1: A Muslim woman chooses on her own to wear the veil in whatever form she chooses and is denied a job, an apartment, or is fired from her job for doing so. She should be protected under the law because her wearing of that veil is part of her religion and she should have the freedom to prctice that up to the point that doing so harms another. However, if her veil wearing makes it difficult for her to do her job (the veil could get caught in machinery etc) then that is different and should fall under health and protection laws meaning she would have to choose between her job (and their safety rules) or her religious beliefs. That may sound wrong but safety laws pertain to all regardless of beliefs so if the woman wants to wear the veil she will just have to try for jobs in which doing so doesn’t present a safety issue for her or any other person.

    Example 2: A Muslim woman chooses not to wear a veil and is harrassed by her relatives and husband (perhaps occasionally even abusively). She should be protected by the law so that she may seek redress (via divorce or other way) in order not to have to suffer any abusive attacks on her dignity, person or social position.

    Both these scenarios don’t impose on the woman in question anyone else’s beliefs; she is free to don or not don the veil and that right is protected under the law. To me that would have been the better way to handle the issue.

    On a broader note, the French response to Muslim women wearing the veil really shows how when cultures clash, it is often worked out upon the bodies of women (via restrictive laws, rape, abuse, traffiking, etc.). This means the cultural clash contains within it a hidden issue of fear or hatred of women and a desire to control them. This is usually seen when a poorer culture is “taking back” their country from a strong powerful (and wealthy) one, such as the Taliban’s treatment and killing of women as a statement against Western nations’ wealth and sexual freedoms. In this case, it is the powerful, wealthy nation attacking the women of the weaker and poorer Muslim people of Middle Eastern origin. Many times in war, women are raped or enslaved as a symbol of the victor having subdued the vanquished.

    Why is it that every time there is a clash of cultures, ideologies, nations, beliefs, property, or status this is done upon the physical persons of women? I mean women are the weaker sex physically yet they bear the brunt of the violence. The fear of women runs so deep that it always comes out at such times.

    Without placing blame on women, I ask myself what can I do as a mother to help my children see me in a better way so that they don’t grow up fearing women. Or how can I help them be aware of this issue and how they see women. I don’t have the answers but I sure as hell want to try to do something so that this next generation is not violent toward women.

66. Hi Fe,

    I dont undertsand why your description of what the burka stands for in the Muslim world does not mention any of the ‘negatives’ that have to be mentioned in a debate of this kind.

    – many people including Muslims and also including Muslims living in non western society feel that the burka is not a symbol of protection but one of oppression, we all know of times in our lives where we may have be coerced in the nicest possible way to do something or to feel something is right – just because some women say that they have not been forced to wear the burka does not mean that they have not been expected to in a cultural or peer sense.

    – i find it interesting that apparently its mainly converts that wear the full veil as i have read a fair few articles about convert muslim women feeling that they have to go much further in their expression of their religion to feel accepted – where i live only young women wear the full veil and to them from what i have heard its a political statement, there are about the same amount of muslims here as there were 15 years ago but back then not one burka.

    You mention that being modestly dressed is expected of both muslim genders but im hard pushed to see any traditional male muslim outfit being as restrictive as the burka

67. Fe:
    Thank you for bringing awareness to the complexity of the issue and causing me to think more deeply about the subject. Freedom of speech/expression would seem to be the standard. The equal opportunity to exercise that freedome would seem to be the question.