http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10611398.stm
One house of French Parliament (the lower National Assembly), with the support of President Nicolas Sarkozy, approved a bill 335 to 1 prohibiting women from wearing full-face veils in public. If the bill becomes law - it has yet to pass the Senate - it will have daily consequences for the 2,000 Muslim women currently estimated to wear the veils in France.
Some hail the measure as a victory for womens-rights activists, who see the custom as a means of marginalizing and repressing women in the Muslim community. They view the veil as a symbol of misogyny in an historically patriarchical religious culture.
On the other hand, and the BBC article does little to describe the contralateral view, a measure such as this, obviously targeting a specific demographic, is an outgrowth of unsubstantiated fear of a demonized minority.
Fair enough, but nowhere does the article decry the egregious invasion of privacy such a law would constitute. What right does any government have to determine the legitimacy of cultural practices? Well, some - there are atrocities committed daily in the name of religion (google Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani if for some reason you don't believe me). But governmental regulation of religious practices should go as far as any other measure designed to protect human rights, and no further. The question, then, is whether the French bill would specifically target human rights abuses, or whether it casts a net that is too wide with respect to practice, and too narrow with respect to demographic.
I'm not comfortable with the tradition. It is lopsided with respect to gender, promotes secrecy, encourages shame, and facilitates subjugation. But it is a choice - a choice that women have the right to make. Of course, when the veil is forced on women (as I understand it is in some countries. Though my knowledge on the subject consists of 5% watching the news and 95% Kite Runner), it is no longer a choice. It is the policy though, not the tradition, that is culpable.
How to dress, and how to express one's beliefs, is a matter of personal choice. I knew a girl in college who made such a choice. She came from a non-Muslim family but converted in high school to Islam. She chose to cover her hair as a sign of modesty (as do many Jews and probably practitioners of other faiths as well). I find such restrictive practices unsettling, but in the case of my classmate, it is hard to put her decision in the "marginalization of women" category. Her expression of faith was unpopular with her family, and seen as unusual by her peers, but she was undaunted - if anything, this was a display of courage and individuality.
So we need to be careful not to overgeneralize. The practice may very well stem from pathological views on gender. It may at times be forced on women who fear physical harm or social stigmatization. That doesn't mean it should be universally condemned, especially at the expense of basic freedoms.
I'm done - I'm starting this blog not as a soapbox for myself, but as a way for us to share opinions with one another. So: what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
well, just cause it's a cultural practice doesn't make it a auto protected. it has to be judged as nondetrimental to society. for example, KKK has a cultural practice that is definitely not accepted by us, and they can cry all they want about it being sacred to their beliefs, but we're never going to let them do it freely.
ReplyDeleteAre burqas detrimental to french society? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the situation, but if it was (terrorists masquerading under those), I could understand. It's kind of like how americans can't carry concealed weapons in public.
Your point brings to light a crucial distinction that is often overlooked, between what is tolerated socially and what is permitted legally. As important as it is that blatant racism be eschewed, it is almost as important that it not be outlawed. It's up to the people to decide what is socially and morally acceptable. It's up to the government to protect us against flagrant violations and to arbitrate dispute, not to legislate morality on the small scale. For example, I'm not allowed to buy beer in Georgia on Sunday, and that sucks.
ReplyDelete