Oppression through the policing of clothing
France’s lower house of parliament recently approved a bill to ban the wearing of a burqa or niqab in public. People caught wearing garments “that hide the face” will be fined 150 euro and those who force women to cover up could be fined up to 30,000 euro and face a one-year jail term.
Some of those in favour of the ban say it stems from the French concept of laïcité, a model of secularism which upholds freedom of and freedom from religion so that religious practice is a strictly private matter for each individual. Others say it is an attempt to liberate and protect Muslim women from an oppressive practice, or that the wearing of the burqa prevents integration of immigrant communities, that veils are intimidating and that they present safety or security risks.
This ban will only impact on a tiny minority of people; those Muslim women who wear either the niqab or burqa. Many of these women are from immigrant communities and many are disadvantaged socially, politically and economically.
Is the clothing worn by these marginalised women really more of a tool in their oppression than all the other forces against them; sexism, Islamaphobia, racism, classism? If a woman is forced to wear the garments under duress, how will the ban help her?
It is likely that anyone with enough power over another to dictate her dress will be able to decide on her freedom of movement too. The punishment of women for their appearance is itself oppressive whether it is forcing them to cover or expose themselves.
This law would severely limit the freedom of Muslim women from the minority, highly conservative practices of Islam to go out and about and interact with others. For those women who choose this form of dress, the negative perceptions and reactions of other people is what is oppressive and divisive, not a thin piece of material.
What is important here is not so much the reasons why women wear the burqa or the effect of religion on their lives, but the decision by European state to impose a dress code on women in their public life. Safety and security concerns are meaningless. Are over-sized sunglasses to be banned too?
What about the wearing of surgical masks in public, or wigs and caps pulled low to cover the face? In one debate a clever chap from Northern Ireland asked if it would be OK for him to walk around Belfast wearing a full face black balaclava; bless him for not recognising the difference.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s has expressed his view on the burqa; “It will not be welcome on French soil. We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic’s idea of women’s dignity.”
How is the French republic’s idea of women’s dignity upheld by forcing her by law not to wear certain clothes? Sarkozy speaks in the guise of women’s rights, but ignores the voices of the women who would be affected by this law. Neither do I understand how policing women’s clothing choices could in any way serve to promote social and cultural cohesion in France or elsewhere.
Conservative MP Philip Hollobone hopes to ban the burqa and niqab in the UK. Thankfully he has little chance of success; immigration minister Damian Green has said banning the full Islamic veil in public would be “at odds with the UK’s tolerant society”. Hollobone has also said he will refuse to meet his constituents who wear face coverings, when he’d be better off ensuring he is representing them and their needs as best as possible.
I’m not a Muslim woman and don’t claim to speak for them. Instead I credit them with the ability to fight their own battles while I would ally myself with their efforts to wear what they want when they want, free from coercion from state or family.
Topic: Politics, Society and Culture
Region: England, EU, Global
Anybody here on Slugger who thinks it’s okay for a woman to wear (or be forced to wear) a burkha should do the following.
Book a flight to Yemen for next June or July, taking with you several metres of black cotton or similar material.
On arrival, sew yourself into those metres of black fabric and go for a long long walk in the 40ºC heat. (The men you see during your stroll will all be dressed in cool white BTW, go figure why.)
If you survive that with your sanity intact, come back here and tell us about your experience—and why the burkha is so wonderful and affirming.
Big Maggie
Don’t forget the net, the one that looks so much like prison bars, artfully placed between the forehead and the nose, just enough to see through, not enough to breath through. A disgrace that anyone in these islands would support the demotion of women.
With all due respect Rory but unfortunetly the world we now live in means its impossible for that type of culture to continue, especially in countries that are not muslim. When most buisnesses, security services and government agencies are rightly investigating and screening potential employees and clients and possible eniimies, it becomes essential that identity is known, how is this possible with burka’s.
By the way Pip, replied to your post on Tony Blairs thread this morning but it seems Slugger is still moderating public knowledge published in the Guirdian.
tacapall
My word it must be exciting! Click on the link to the little blog.
If they want to wear Burqas they should have stayed in whatever country they come from, where much of civiliization is stuck in a 8th century mindset
Working in one the hotbeds of islamic fundamentalism (Croydon believe it or not) one does begin to notice shifting sands on dress.
Five years ago I would say the atmosphere amongst younger moslems was very hot, not dissimilar to what I remember from Belfast in the Seventies. Consequently there were a lot of girls wearing the hijab with such bizarre combinations as girls attending some of the ‘better’ Schools (who insist on skirts) wearing the hijab and er miniskirts.
Whilst I have no scientific evidence, the amount of hijab wearing has decreased as tensions went down. Amongst moslems there seems to less of the segregationist nonsense that besmirches Christianity. There is not that holier than thou attitude the ‘I cannot break bread with you’ mindset of the Plymouth Brethern. Consequently most women wearing a niquab are invariably accompanied by other women. some wearing the hijab, some not and mostly in western dress.
In other words the Moslem community seems to be pretty relaxed about those who interpret the Koran strictly and those who don’t and quite happliy get on. Maybe we should do the same.
JAH
No I do not think we should do the same! I think we should concentrate on educating young girls and more importantly their families of the equality and opportunity that is available to them.
I was in another ‘hotbed’ Newham when a young man assured me that hundreds of young men in his community had gone off to assist the Taliban etc.
A young womans life is too important to gloss over the differences.
Rory,
There are plenty of ‘indecency’ laws out there which say men and women for that matter ought not to be seen naked in such and such a place. It is possible to argue that it isn’t indecent much like the burqa may or may not appear to be.
But in terms of the law you can’t say government doesn’t do social regulation and all things being equal we all must roll with it – or take responsibility for the consequences i guess?
Also, am I not correct in saying that Speedos have been banned in Alton Towers because of men wearing them around the poolside. I appreciate this banning isn’t as heavily regulated as the burqa proposal in France via law, but still you catch my drift.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/10/alton-towers-speedo-ban
C’est la vie Rory, c’est la vie.
- Oh, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned ‘live and let live’ unfortunately as mentioned above in my own post and in my others, the notion of ‘free will’ is really only a theoretical concept – as in practice many things are prohibited and curtailed as a result of legislation etc.
No matter how you try to justify it. No matter how, if you will forgive me, you try to dress it up, the fact remains that those of you who argue in support of this ban have awarded yourselves the right to determine how women should or should not dress, thereby adopting the very same dictatorial stance as those men from the Muslim community whose values you purport to despise.
You, of course, give yourself the noblest of reasons for your infringement of another’s rights – you wish to save the women and children, much like those earnest Christians of 19th century USA wished to save the women and children of the native tribes by ensuring that the young were taken into Christian schools, that the young boys had their hair shorn and they were all forced to wear Western garb and educated in Christian values so that the “savagery” could be bred out of them. This, as I have said, was the attitude that decades later resulted in a senior US military commander declaring with fervent reasonablness that his men, “Had destroyed the village in order to save it.”
God spare us all from do-gooders, there’s always an ulterior motive to which even they have blinded themselves for the sake of moral comfort.
Anyway, I’m off to the seaside for a few days so I can let you all get on with your moral crusade.
It’s pishing today, hope you packed your burqa.
LOL! I believe Rory’s going to the Red Seaside :^)
Actually, Maggie, I was in the far east – Steeple Bay in Essex to be precise, which is about as far east as I intend to travel for comfort and relaxation these days.
As Muslims are the bogey men du jour this is obviously a fashionable bigotry, but the belief that this practice applies solely to muslims is wide off the mark. Not only do orthodox jewish women cover their bodies, some even taking the veil, but jewish men have been known to cover their faces lest they lay their eye on some scantily clad minx. And this is before we even get to beards…I mean how the hell do we know its not fake – no to beards as well, and Groucho glasses !
RS
No, I can honestly say I don’t care who is doing it, they should stop. It is anti female. It is also a very good disguise, one would be terrorist tried to get out of England wearing a burkha, pity he was so tall.
I understand some women in Israel have started to wear the veil in an excess of religious zeal. I think the Knesset are going to ban it…
Pippakin the ridiculous excuse of ‘it might be used for a disguise’ opens the way for banning beards and the like. If your offended by the sight of a women in a burka, remember she may well be offended at the sight of you in a minidress. And the bill proposed in the Knesset is more aimed at the Israeli arab women, who choose to wear it. The difference being France seeks for immigrants to assimilate to its vision of society, whereas in Israel its the natives who will be targeted. Also many hassidic women have to cut their hair and wear wigs, you’ll disagree im sure, but i doubt you’ll demand inspections of their headwear round Golders Green to prevent such ‘anti-female’ practices. There was no clamour for this before 9/11, we need something new to fear and Islam is as good a target as any, dig up McCarthy because we have muzzies in the basement.
RS
I know some Hasidic women choose to wear a wig to keep their hair covered, that is their choice and it does not detract from their independence or give the impression of subservience, some wear scarves, and again it is not subservient to do so.
The veil has become political but what it seems to me is often overlooked in the debate is the fight women in the west had to gain what equality they have. i would not see that threatened.
The veil does not mean a poor, meek woman. I have watched a veiled woman having a slanging match on a bus, something to do with being squashed, and I have known veiled women who were prostitutes. The thing is it is a very effective disguise. A veiled woman does not mean a Muslim woman, it does not even have to mean it’s a woman in there!
And no I would not ban it. I don’t see how that would help those women who are being abused. I keep saying I believe it is about education. It should be banned in schools which is not the same as banning it altogether.
I cant speak for anyone else but I have always felt the same way about the veil, certainly long before 9/11.
“Also many hassidic women have to cut their hair and wear wigs.”
Where would we be without religion, eh? Life would be so lacking in idiocy and farce.
It’s true though and some of those wigs are flash!
I remember a conversation with a young Muslim man. He was from Kashmir, an assistant hotel manager. He was asking about the veil and I mentioned, in an aside that Muslims were not the only ones who covered up. Since we were close to a Hasidic community I told him about the wigs, he was so shocked! lol indeed.
The inference in your argument pip is that you automatically assume Jewish women choose to wear their religious dress, and ergo muslim women must therefore all be forced to wear theirs. There is absolutely no evidence to declare either assertion factual. In fact you will find coercion and choice in both religions. You claim a vieled woman does not automatically mean a muslim woman. The same could be said for a man dressed in full hassidic gear, or a woman in a habit, or a fella in a dog collar. You declared the burka ‘anti-female’, but in a glorious exemption, having to shave your head and wear a wig is not anti-female either. But this is where we are at. Bigotry against muslims has reached such levels that the term is saddled as a ‘phobia’ instead of an ‘anti-’, we see people using their own definitions to determine whether or not religious dress is ‘anti-female’, we hear lots about the horrid forced female circumcision (not even islamic) but as Rory highlights, nary a word spoken against the forced circumcision of male infants. We hear lots about the inhumane halal slaughter, rarely is kosher mentioned in the same breath.
RS
I did not intend to suggest that Muslim women are the only ones facing abuse or that abuse does not happen in Hasidic or any other household, of course it can and probably does! does that make abuse of Muslim women more acceptable? No, not all Muslim women are forced to wear the veil or the burkha but some are and that is wrong.
The Burkha is anti female in the way it conceals and imprisons the female form. A wig does not do that nor does a scarf worn over the head and not concealing the face.
Male circumcision is horrible but it is neither as painful or as dangerous as female circumcision, being against both does not alter the facts.
As for Halal food, which I had not mentioned, whilst I dislike the idea of any animal suffering I have purchased and eaten both Kosher and Halal meat, does that make me a hypocrite, possibly but Im not sure buying factory farmed animals is any better.
Enough, this debate is going in circles. I say education is even more important than tolerance, and when a Muslim woman asks why you should care if she is beaten (which she was) you can tell me its about individual choice. If the couple had been English I would not have hesitated to call the police to lock the bastard up but I was being tolerant. Instead I called their immigration worker and persuaded him they needed more space! Who says violence doesn’t work, and perhaps they did need more space. It must be traumatic to be in a strange country and in a small bedsit.
<>>
Then the logical extension of that is that you must also call for religious dress for women from other denominations to be banned.
<<>>
But the argument practioners of the burka would argue is that little or immodest dress is ‘anti-female’. If you do not think cutting/shaving your hair and having to wear a wig (as well as dresses below the ankle and long sleeves) is also anti-female, you are simply using your own definitions to justify the singling out of one religion/culture. Furthermore, by banning one form of religious dress, you cannot realistically expect it to stop there. Once the ban of the burka is achieved, the Pam Gellers and Robert Spencers of the world will move onto the niqab, and then onto etc etc etc !
<<>>
But how often do you hear people condemn male infant circumcision? And it is painful, very painful, and as evidence suggests, has long term effects on the victims.
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs
<<>>
What on earth are you talking about? that sentence makes no sense.
<<>>
There we have it, all the pretense is laid bare and you get down to the nuts, or at least what you presume to be the nuts of the issue.Tthe image in your head of Muslim immigrants is that of an abused wife and a domineering husband drowning in a tiny bedsit. I rest my case !
“No, not all Muslim women are forced to wear the veil or the burkha but some are and that is wrong.”
Then the logical extension of that is that you must also call for religious dress for women from other denominations to be banned.
“The Burkha is anti female in the way it conceals and imprisons the female form. A wig does not do that nor does a scarf worn over the head and not concealing the face”
But the argument practioners of the burka would argue is that little or immodest dress is ‘anti-female’. If you do not think cutting/shaving your hair and having to wear a wig (as well as dresses below the ankle and long sleeves) is also anti-female, you are simply using your own definitions to justify the singling out of one religion/culture. Furthermore, by banning one form of religious dress, you cannot realistically expect it to stop there. Once the ban of the burka is achieved, the Pam Gellers and Robert Spencers of the world will move onto the niqab, and then onto etc etc etc !
“Male circumcision is horrible but it is neither as painful or as dangerous as female circumcision, being against both does not alter the facts.”
But how often do you hear people condemn male infant circumcision? And it is painful, very painful, and as evidence suggests, has long term effects on the victims.
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs
“and when a Muslim woman asks why you should care if she is beaten (which she was) you can tell me its about individual choice.”
What on earth are you talking about? that sentence makes no sense.
“It must be traumatic to be in a strange country and in a small bedsit.”
There we have it, all the pretense is laid bare and you get down to the nuts, or at least what you presume to be the nuts of the issue.Tthe image in your head of Muslim immigrants is that of an abused wife and a domineering husband drowning in a tiny bedsit. I rest my case !
RS
“It must be traumatic to be in a strange country and in a small bedsit.”
There we have it, all the pretense is laid bare and you get down to the nuts, or at least what you presume to be the nuts of the issue.Tthe image in your head of Muslim immigrants is that of an abused wife and a domineering husband drowning in a tiny bedsit. I rest my case !
How on earth do you reach that conclusion from the one case I mentioned? It was one couple and BTW I treated them in exactly the same way as I would have treated any foreign couple who would obviously be unfamiliar with the law and customs of a new country! And that as I keep saying is what it is about. I have not said Im in favour of banning the veil. I keep saying its about education and yes I am concerned that all women entering this or any western country are made fully aware of their rights.
Before you decide I must be racist. The couple were white, the social worker was Asian. I did not get around to asking him which particular country they or he were from.
Im not convinced those who favour the burkha are concerned with womens rights and womens equality. I think they are more concerned with politically correct views taking precedence over the facts. After all who is going to know if women in a small community are being abused.
For the rest, male circumcision is safer and easier, which is not to suggest it is better. I don’t think it is and no, a woman does not need to shave her hair to wear a wig.
“”Before you decide I must be racist.”"
pip, Islam is not a race. And apologies but i did not read about your treating that couple in your earlier replies.
“”"I think they are more concerned with politically correct views taking precedence over the facts.”"”
And what pray tell are these facts?
“”"After all who is going to know if women in a small community are being abused.”"”"
So lets just assume she is…right?
“”"For the rest, male circumcision is safer and easier, which is not to suggest it is better. I don’t think it is and no, a woman does not need to shave her hair to wear a wig.”"”
So you must have a ‘painometer’ upon which you decide which religious/cultural practices are acceptable and which are not. If you accept something is wrong, ignoring it, whilst crying loud about a similar practice in another culture is simple bigotry. And some women cut their hair, others shave it (as i mentioned above), but according to you such a requirement is not ‘anti-female’. It’s nice to have your own definitions isn’t it?
RS
My definition of an abused woman is one who is forced to do something she does not want to.
Oh there are enough facts out there RS. You need to check honour killings, forced marriages, refusal to allow wives to learn English. In some northern towns in England it is impossible for a girl to get a cab without the entire community knowing about it. She cannot leave. There was a Labour MP who worked tirelessly for her constituency who were largely immigrant. I wish I could remember her name.
Honour killings and forced marriages happen to men as well but less often and with even less understanding. A bit like those men who are beaten by their wives. Who would believe it.
It is not about race or religion. It is about womens rights, and yet again you are accusing me of wanting to ban the veil. I don’t want that. Not because I agree with it, but because I believe that unless the women are educated and independent it would do more harm than good.
RS
I almost missed it! I know what Islam is, but since the subject is about those whose first language is not English, yet and since I was referring to recent immigrants I made the situation and my opinion clear.
“My definition of an abused woman is one who is forced to do something she does not want to.”
Indeed.
“Oh there are enough facts out there RS. You need to check honour killings, forced marriages, refusal to allow wives to learn English.”
Im well aware of such instances. But such abuse happens in other religions and cultures as well. As i said above, their is both coercion and choice involved in the burka. There is absolutely no evidence to claim its all one way or the other, just like in other religions. Much as you’d like to pretend other wise. Any attempt to ban religious dress on the pretext that the wearers are all forced is patently absurd and disingenuous. Any attempt to ban such dress because it ‘makes a good disguise’ is also ridiculous. You brought up the issue of abuse and you also brought up the ridiculous ‘good disguise’ excuse. Which is strange given you claim you do not wish to see a ban. The point you miss is this – if the Pamela Gellers of this world score a victory with such a ban, it will not stop there. Next will be the head scarf, then minarets, then who knows what next.
“but since the subject is about those whose first language is not English”
Not the subject is about banning religious dress.
“I made the situation and my opinion clear.”
No…you didn’t !
RS
How many times do I have to say Im not in favour of banning the burkha or any other form of clothing!
It’s about education! The veil is not a religious requirement, it’s a cultural ‘nicety’. Honour killings etc are not part of the Quran they are cultural and they are unacceptable!
Sharia law is not acceptable.
Education is the key and it should start when people arrive. The British government have now started teaching new arrivals and this will help women to be aware of their rights. It will also help men know they must leave certain aspects of their culture in the old country and that applies to everyone of whatever colour or religious persuasion.
I hope that is clear enough.
Pippakin can i just say that i think your no nonsence,comon-sence aproach to everyday isues is refreshing in these modern times in which we live.Keep up the good work.
Crazy Cat Lady???
I thought I was she!!!
Ah stop! You’ll have people think Im talking to myself! and quite possibly being sarcastic with it!!!
Blessings
Where would we be without religion, eh?
We’d no doubt conjure idiocy and farce from other sources Maggie.
Certainly a difficult decision as to either ban or not ban the burqa in public but I would agree with those calling for a ban of ALL religious clothing otherwise the French law could be viewed as discriminatory.An interesting and well balanced presentation nonetheless.
Frances Mc