Monthly Archives: January 2010

The French are at it again.  Women’s liberation is a never-ending struggle; especially when so many women remain unaware that they need liberating.  Following 6 months of hearings before the French Parliament, as well as a host of other obstacles, the Sarkozy government perseveres in France’s ongoing crusade against one of the most dastardly institutions of patriarchal misogyny: the Burqa:

The French Government aims to outlaw the wearing of full veils on state premises and on public transport.

President Sarkozy laid down future action on the burqa, as it is popularly known, on Wednesday in an attempt to end a feud in his centre-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and calm passions in and outside France’s large Muslim population. Following the controversy, France is backing away from an outright ban on Muslim women covering their faces.

Mr Sarkozy, all main parties and most of the public are opposed to women wearing full veils but, after six months of parliamentary hearings, it has become apparent that a blanket ban would be unworkable and likely to backfire.

Amazing.  Even with agreement among all main parties, a full ban is still deemed impossible.   How peculiar.  What can be made of this?  The Guardian‘s Nabila Ramdani provides some clarity:

Despite this, Sarkozy left us in little doubt that all those who wear face coverings – whether burqa or niqab – are Muslims living in a country which increasingly expects everyone to “adapt” to the Gallic way. It was certainly no coincidence that the clampdown on religious symbols in state schools which began in 1994 centred on Muslim headscarves. Sixteen years on, the only reason Sarkozy has stopped short of a full burqa ban is because he thinks it would be thrown out by appeal courts under European human rights legislation.

Such legal challenges would be a huge embarrassment to Sarkozy, especially during his rightwing government’s ill-conceived national identity debate which is allowing racist and Islamophobic views to masquerade as 21st-century patriotism. Even anti-terrorism judges have captured the increasingly hostile nature of the arguments by saying that a full ban on the veil would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism.

It now appears that the French are just assuming their usual fallback position–surrender.  So typical, but with a modern P.R.-minded twist.  In the old days, the French would merely surrender to protect whatever holding of land they still held; or for the sake of their own lives; but now, the French surrender in order to protect the image of their President.  How could going after a discreet minority of Muslims be considered a major P.R. defeat.  After all, the French, like much of the West have displayed great courage when shoving secularism down the throat of practitioners of any other religion.  What’s the difference?  Ramdani explains:

Under such circumstances the real issue raised by Sarkozy’s burqa ban – and especially the watered down version – is not the freedom of the handful of few women who wear full veils (less than 2000 and most of them confined to isolated housing estates, according to all reliable estimates), but the very place of Islam in modern France. By targeting his tokenistic policies and soundbites at a harmless minority, Sarkozy and his cronies succeed in linking Islam with everything from sexism to national security threats. If these associations are genuine, then they should be dealt with in a manner which is honest and unambiguous. Anything less results in weak compromises engendering nothing but fear and suspicion, often without anybody really understanding why.

Oh, now we get it.  It’s because Islam is linked to terrorism, a serious national security concern for many Western nations.  Linking Islam’s tendency for blatant sexism makes anyone who opposes these bans both a sexist and a supporter of terrorism.  This is truly a clash of civilizations–a crusade if you will.  But let us not think of that in the Medieval sense, rather, this goes back to the idea of women’s freedom.  Given this, why  do so many persist in acting as if they are wrestling with some profound conundrum.  This is about proper gender roles, which transcends all discussions of religion, culture and morality.  Those not convinced may require some guidance.  Luckily, we have Inside Politics Daily‘s Bonnie Erbe to provide a strong independent American woman’s perspective:

…the issue of the burqa, what it symbolizes and how it resonates with immigration policies here in the U.S., raises some serious questions. Is it a sign of repression, even when the wearers aver they have “chosen” to don it? What is the impact of a woman’s wearing of a burqa or a headscarf on other women in that society? These are deeply personal questions to which every woman (and man) will have a very different answer.

Yes, that does sound like a very difficult and very personal issue to examine.  Especially when this very personal question jumps out of the “personal” box and becomes impersonal, affecting everyone.  We are indeed fortunate to have a worldly woman (and not a knee-jerk social conservative), who has been to the Middle East multiple times, to share her deep observations of this boundary-shattering matter:

when visiting countries such as Egypt and Morocco, where native women cover all but their faces, I am not likely to go out in public in shorts and a T-shirt, as I do here at home. Some culturally tone deaf Western tourists do dress as if they’re touring Disneyland, but most have the presence of mind to cover up somewhat, out of respect for another country’s culture, beliefs and tradition.

And let us not forget Ms. Erbe’s most important input, an account of her feelings on Muslim women in in Western Countries like the United States

I often wish Muslim immigrant women would repay the courtesy here in the U.S. Whenever I see a woman in full body garment or head scarf — and there are plenty of them in my community, where there are many immigrants — I take it as an affront.

I say this knowing it is highly controversial to do so, but it feels to me as if they are holding American women back. The women in my neighborhood do not cover their faces, but many go outside — even in the stifling Washington, D.C., summers — in full-body coverings. I wish they would adopt a “When in Rome . . .” approach and make full use of the freedoms granted to women in this great nation.

What is wrong with these Muslim Women.  I mean, look at them.  Look at all their piety, their dignity and their pride.

Who do they think they are?  Erbe continues, “In fact, I wish the U.S. would pre-screen for women who want to take full advantage of the freedoms they gain by moving from a society that represses women to one that does not.”

Notice Erbe’s undertone of suspicion when discussing the fact that many Muslim women in the western world insist on wearing traditional Muslim attire:

I have interviewed American Muslims, both immigrants and native-born converts, who say they choose to wear headscarves or full-body coverings. Some of them are highly educated and could easily have chosen not to do so. But, to me, many of them seemed to have ulterior motives — motives based on acceptance into a community or by a man who provides emotional or financial support. A true choice? Perhaps, but a heavily freighted one as well.

Of course, Erbe’s suspicions, that oppressive patriarchal Muslim men are behind this sentiment, are correct.   Besides, who in their right mind would oppressively cover themselves

when you could experience the amazing exhileration of being a women in the greatest time ever, to be a woman?

Even weak attempts at seduction

pale in comparison to the enticing allure of strong independent women taking full advantage of the freedoms that women of the past have fought so hard to gain.

At least in the spirit of national unity, this issue places Erbe and many social conservatives on the same side.  This is an odd development when you consider that Christians used to be more sensitive to any sort of religious persecutions.  Besides, do full coverings not evoke images of bygone Christian glory days in the Southern United States?  Apparently, these allegiances are not based on styles of dress, instead  they are based on old time sentiment.

Shortly before Republican Scott Brown’s historic win of the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy, MD Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, posed the question:

Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?

Chris?  You do realize that it was Ted Kennedy who did that?  Right?  It’s a good thing that this will be the man leading the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee in their 2010 efforts.