The Ban of the Burqa in France

On July 13th, the French parliament voted overwhelmingly to ban the full-face-covering niqab and burqa in public. While President Sarkozy himself lobbied for it, this law considers a 150 Euros fine for women violators and heavy penalties for the men enforcing female relatives to cover their face. As this wave of burqa ban is moving towards other European countries and the provincial government of Quebec, it is essential to take a moment and consider the arguments surrounding this issue and its potential implications.
The French lower house passed this legislation on the grounds of the necessity to maintain the French values of individualism and human dignity. Moreover, various women rights activists demonstrated burqa as a symbol of women’s suppression and saw this law a victory for gender equality. Although one might observe this legislation in favor of individualism, one can also illustrate the opposite. If individualism stands upon independence and self-reliance, then one has to be permitted to choose how to live. Based on this value one should not be forced to wear burqa, but one should not be forced to not wear burqa either. It is challenging to distinguish whether one is forced or volunteered to wear the niqab, but this legislation does not solve this problem. Its broad application ignores the details and builds upon a general ground of individualism rendering it hypocritical.
One might argue that the secular nature of the French constitution does not permit the usage of religious symbols. As the Christian cross is not permitted in the public, so should the Islamic symbols. This drives the discussion to the question of whether burqa is a religious or a cultural symbol. “Grand sheikh of al-Azhar in Cairo, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, described the niqab as a "cultural tradition that had nothing to do with Islam”” (Council on Foreign Relations). As a limitation of this article, I am not in a position to judge if burqa is cultural or religious. Nevertheless, if the Islamic sheikh is biased, so are the secular French MPs.
Some supporters of this law argue on the bases of security. As the face of an individual is covered, identification becomes impossible. However, the national security of any European country has never been threatened by an individual wearing a burqa. None of the terrorist attacks has occurred using niqab as a cover. It might prevent the usage of niqab for any threat for the French national security in the future. But there are far more significant areas related to security for the French government to focus on, including the French crime rate.
Polls show 82% support of the public for the ban (Pew Global Attitudes Project). However, among the 5 to 6 million Muslims living in France, fewer than two thousand wear the full veil. This low number raises major questions about the necessity for such a controversial legislation. The contemporaneous of this legislation with the “war on terror”, can assist the understanding of the reasons for the public’s support. Extremism is not the way to fight fanaticism. It is just a method creating justifications for further fanatic actions.
Edward R. Murrow once said: “History is what we make. If we go on as we are; history will make its revenge and retribution will not limp in catching up with it.”
Image: abc.net