Secular leader from
India discusses
French efforts to ban burqa
The French government is considering whether or not to
ban the burqa.
At first glance, it seems like an
interference with religious freedom, but there actually
are two legitimate sides to the story.
Is the wearing of a burqa something that Muslim women
choose to do, voluntarily, to affirm their faith, or is
it a form a religious suppression imposed upon women by
domineering men? Would a ban on wearing the burqa in
public in France provide Muslim women with liberation
that they deserve and crave, or would it interfere with
their freedom of choice?
Do Muslim women choose to wear the burqa, or is it
forced upon them by their man, against their will?
Would banning the burqa solve a problem for Muslim
women or create a new problem for them?

Sanal Edamaruku, President of
Rationalist International.
Click on photo for larger image.
Sanal Edamaruku of India, the President of
Rationalist International, today published the
following commentary on the subject in Rationalist
International Bulletin # 181.
His commentary is re-published here, in whole, un-edited
and with Sanal's knowledge and permission.
Burqa ban, France and Sarkozy
To ban or not to ban?
Sanal
Edamaruku

Afghan widow in Kabul, November, 2001,
United Nations World Food Program.
AP photo by Laura Rauch.
The French Government wants to ban
the burqa, the Islamic full-body cloak that covers women
from top to bottom and allows them only to look out
through a mesh screen over their eyes. "In our country,
we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a
screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all
identity," president Nicolas Sarkozy said in his address
to a joint session of both the houses of parliament in
the Chateau of Versailles to extended applause. "The
burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of
subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it
solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the
territory of the French Republic."
Secularism
is not only a pillar of the French Constitution; it is
the essence of modern civilization and has to be
defended against all religious attempts to undo
historical achievements. Defending its secular identity,
France has always been an encouraging model for the side
of freedom and progress. But can a democratic state
simply ban a certain cloth because it is a sign of
subservience, religious or otherwise? What about women
who insist that it is their considered choice to hide
their bodies and faces under this ominous gown?
Shouldn't they have the right to do so? On what grounds
could they be stopped?
The case is different here than in
it was in 2004, when France banned the hijab and other
religious symbols from state schools. The concept of
schools as protectorates, where all children are equal
and cannot be touched by the claws of political,
religious or family powers, is one of the best
guarantees for a free society. And a secular "uniform",
bare of any religious power symbols, can contribute to
create a climate that encourages young minds to form
their own convictions and find their on way of life.
But the burqa ladies are responsible
adults, French citizens or guests, who enjoy the right
to individual liberty and self-determination. This
includes the right to renounce their liberty. And if
they chose a dress that looks like a mobile prison cell,
so be it.
It is quite possible that they
defend the burqa only out of unadmitted fear from family
and community pressure and that they would clandestinely
hive a sigh of relief if French state authority defeated
Islamic family authority and set them free. But things
need not be that simple. There may be other motives
also, motives that may not comprehensible or acceptable
for many of us.
Wearing burqa is not a fashion
statement. It is submission to a dress code. Violating
it may cause discomfort, even panic fear. This may be
unrealistic in France, where no Taliban moral police can
harass them, but the fear of breaking a socio-cultural
taboo can be so deep-rooted that it survives the change
of cultural context. In most societies public nakedness
is the most powerful taboo. Being paraded naked is
therefore one of the hardest torture methods. Many
people are not able to overcome their inhibitions and
enter a Finnish sauna, though nakedness is accepted here
and does not pose any whatsoever danger. For some women
who have never in their adult lives shown their faces in
public, it may be equally hard to put down the veils. In
such cases, friendly encouragement may be far more
helpful than a cloth-down-order.
If Sarkozy's intention is to help
these women to liberate themselves - provided they wish
to be helped at all - there would certainly be better
methods than the ban. Discrete consultation could be
helpful, a telephone helpline, financial support, safe
houses, education and assistance in finding jobs. Such
an offer should be made available to all others as well,
male or female, who need a helping hand to break out of
their private prisons.
But there is another side to it. The
faceless mummies leave many fellow citizens uneasy and
worried what sad, cruel and perhaps dangerous secrets
their ominous garb may conceal. It is a scary encounter,
not only because of the looming terrorist threat. For
others it is offending to be forced to witness the
degradation of a human into a faceless bundle of black
cloth. It is like meeting humans in slavery chains or on
dog leashes: deeply disturbing, an offence against
civility, public decency and morale. If not backed by
religious institutions or traditions, victims who fight
for their chains run the risk of being branded mental
patients.
Strangely, the more familiar sight
of Christian nuns in their wrap ups, ancient execution
equipment around their necks, does not disturb the
public too much. If Sarkozy could manage to take an
impartial look, they should be the next candidates for a
ban. Regarding free choice, most nuns are not better off
than their burqa sisters. They have been hapless
under-aged girls, when they were pushed under the veil,
and there was no return ticket. Unfortunately, Sarkozy's
impartiality is not beyond any doubt. "I am of Catholic
culture, Catholic tradition, Catholic faith..." he
states in his book, 'The Republic, Religions, and Hope'.
As a Catholic he may be praying to Virgin Mary, who is
in all traditional depictions shown covered by a veil.
And if he decides to visit the Pope together with Carla
Bruni, she would have to bow to the Vatican protocol
that demands that visiting First Ladies be dressed in
black and veiled. Prince Charles' wife Camilla recently
had to do so. Radical 'secularist' activism that turns a
blind eye to one religion is not very convincing and can
under certain circumstances even invite communalism - a
dangerous message.
Looking at it politically, burqas
are like banners symbolising Islamic fundamentalist
triumph: a highly offensive and provocative signal for
any secular society. If you try to force them down, they
could multiply and produce martyrs. China was not very
successful with the suppression of the Falung Gong,
because in a country with a great contingent of unhappy
citizens, even this obscure movement could emerge as a
symbol of resistance and become a catalyst for serious
unrest. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern
secular and democratic Turkey, campaigned vigorously
against burqa, but did not ban it when he implemented
his broad political, social and cultural reforms in the
spirit of enlightenment. He established laicity and
equality of men and women in the young republic and
created great enthusiasm, pride and hope. In a similar
move, France once curbed the dominant influence of the
all powerful Roman Catholic Church and established the
lay society. Now it tries to defend its secular identity
against the new religious wave of worldwide rising
Islamic fundamentalism.
But is a burqa ban really the best
defense? Islamic fundamentalists and their burqas are a
tiny minority among Frances' estimated five million
immigrants from Muslim countries. If the French
Government decides to crack down on them, the damage
caused to a democratic society committed to the values
of individual liberty and self-determination could
outstrip the benefit. Ridding the public eye of the
disturbing sight of a few willing victims of religious
suppression does not solve the problem; it pushes it
into the dark and out of control. Public education and
the offer of support to those who want to come out would
be in every respect a better solutionFrance:
To ban or not to ban.
Rationalist International Bulletin
is available in English, French, Spanish, German,
Finnish and Polish.
HOW TO GET YOUR FREE COPY OF RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL
BULLETIN REGULARLY?
Please send a blank mail to the following address. Don't
forget to re-confirm when asked.
English:
Rationalist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Spanish (Español):
Racionalista-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
French (Français):
Rationaliste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
German (Deutsch):
Rationalist_Deutsch-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Finnish (Suomi):
Rationalisti-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Portuguese (Português):
Portuguese_Racionalist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Polish (Polski):
Polski_Rationalist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com