In 2010, 335 out of 557 members of the French National Assembly voted to approve a bill that would ban the wearing of a traditional Islamic full veil in public. One member voted against the bill, and the other 221 members abstained from voting, so when the bill went to the Senate for a final vote, they already had a seemingly good grasp on the support level they would get if the law were passed. On April 9, 2011, however, a group of 61 protestors against the law had to be taken away in police vans and detained. While the majority of the French population is not affected by this law, a small group of Muslim women (and a pool of potential tourist) are.
In 2009, French President, Nicholas Sarkozy made a statement claiming that religious face veils were “not welcome” in France because they goes against the country’s secular values ("French Senate Bans Burqa: Bill awaits President Nicholas Sarkozy’s signature" September 14, 2010).
This essentially sparked the discussion and consideration of a banning on religious face veils, namely traditional Muslim burqas and niqabs. The rationale behind the banning is that it not only goes against the countries secular values of equality and dignity, but it also “imprisons women” and causes a safety issue for the citizens of the country (Ristici April 11, 2011). While freedom of religion and religious expression is practiced in France, the law under which the ban exists was passed with the reasoning that it made the nation’s citizen to feel threatened therefore going against the Declaration of Human Rights and of the Citizen, which states that the actions of one individual cannot impede the well-being of another. While the grounds of this law may seem to be in the best interest of the French citizens, one would have to wonder if these are the sole intentions of this new bill. One could easily argue both cases whether it is that the law truly is in the interest of security or that it is another attempt by the French government to denigrate the country’s number 2 religion.
So which is the French government attempting to do? Do full-face veils pose a serious threat to citizens and the society as a whole, or is this a prime example of structural violence hidden behind the institution of federal government? Again, either side can be easily argued and fairly defended, but both cannot be true. With the history of the French government, in addition to its society’s general outlook on Islam as a whole, it is more than likely that the French government is using its power to authorize a blatant yet unspoken discrimination against Muslims.
There are enough grounds throughout modern history and enough ambiguity in France’s Declaration of Human Rights and of Citizens that can be used to back and defend Parliament’s decision on the law. For instance, if one were to argue that there is no issue with security while wearing a face veil, it can very easily be countered with the rebuttal there is no other secure and valid means of identifying a person if their entire face, or all but their eyes is covered. In addition, the fourth article of The Declaration of Human Rights and of Citizens, the official document France uses to indicate the natural-born rights of every citizen, states: “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.” If a citizen claims that the inability to identify others because of a veil makes them uncomfortable, that could be considered detrimental to their emotional and mental well being in which case the government could step in to ensure equality for all of its citizens. The declaration leaves room for the government to make laws as it sees fit. This gives them
Parliament also argues that full-face veils dehumanize women because they are forced into wearing them due to religious purposes. Of the 5 million Muslims in France, less than 2,000 of them wear these veils, so Sarkozy, made the assumption that any wearing of a burqa or niqab must be forced. This is why there is a clause in the act that states anyone found forcing another the cover his or her face in public would be subject to $48,000 fine in addition to one year in prison. The fine and prison sentence is doubled if the victim is a minor. On the contrary, however, wearing a face veil in Islam is a choice made by individuals. Of the few in France who are affected by this attempt of the government to “liberate” Muslim females from this practice, these women are not only willing, but also honored to wear burqas of niqabs. One woman, Kenza Drider, refers to wearing her veil as “a submission to God” and claims that she will under no circumstances stop wearing her veil ("Sarkozy say burka 'not welcome' in France" January 14, 2010)
It is extremely ironic of the French government to claim to denounce oppression and value freedom of the individual by creating a law that forces women to alter their religious practices. While the Forbidding of the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space makes no specific mention of the words “Muslim”, “women”, or “veil”, President Sarkozy made it clear in a previous statement that veils were “not welcome in France” (Ristici April 11, 2011).
The avoidance of explicitly using words such as burqa and niqab protects the legislation from constitutional scrutiny, but with the country’s history of banning religious clothing in public schools, it is almost certain that this law is the government’s way of demeaning the Islam religion. Though Parliament uses the security of the nation from extremists as a means of justification, Muslim women are the only members of the population affected by the law.
The country’s repeated bans on “conspicuous” religious clothing and paraphernalia is a prime example of both structural and symbolic violence throughout the nation. It is a way in which those in power belittle those with less power and hinders the cultural progression of said “less powerful” people. Structural violence is defined as the causing of harm by inflexibility and rigidity of the rules of the structure in dealing with difference. By definition, the Forbidding of the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space legislation is exactly what structural violence is. It is denaturalizing the basic human right of French citizens to practice religion freely as defined in the Declaration of Human Rights and of the Citizen. Banning cultural paraphernalia anywhere, whether it is in schools or in public spaces should not be tolerated by the people. It sets a precedent of inferiority amongst people of different religious and cultural practices. Allowing a government to dictate when, where and why one can practice his or her culture’s traditions when not only does their human rights declare they are free to do so whenever they please, but also the government has no solid, consistent grounds as to when they aren’t allowed to is mindless.
The French government has been very inconsistent in it’s reasoning for banning face covers in public areas. President Sarkozy initiated talk of the legislation by saying that “veils imprison women and contradict this secular nation’s values of dignity and equality” (Ristici April 11, 2011). Later on, after accusations were made claiming the ban was racist, it became a matter of security to the nation against extremists. While these many reasons have been given as to why the legislation is justified, the actual bill makes no reference to a reason as to why one is not allowed to cover his or her face in public. It does, however, imply that face covering is forced when it dictates what kind of punishment should be issued for those who force others to cover their face.
Consider this: If dissimulation of the face caused such a threat to the nation’s security and to the safety of French citizens, why is the punishment for those willingly wearing a face cover only 150 euros while the punishment for a man forcing a woman to cover her face for religious purposes results in a penalty up to nearly $39,000 in addition to one year in prison? (“French Passes Face-Veil Ban” September 14, 2010). This factor alone hints at the notion that security is not the true reasoning for the legislation, rather that it was put in place for anti-Muslim motives. In what situation does the government assume a man would force a woman to wear a full head cover for religious purposes other than in Islam?
Truth be told, it could very well be the case that men are forcing women and children to cover their entire face and/or body in the name of Islam, but the problem arises when conclusions are drawn without proper foundations. This problem is commonplace in any situation of “us vs. them” or “the west and the rest”. One side, those in power (or “the west”), believes they know what is best and come from a place without understanding. They don’t believe that “the rest” have a sense or morals or values due to the fact that they are different from one another, thus they try to push their “right” beliefs onto them.
The cycle of structural violence, discourse and misunderstanding will forever continue if there is no give and take. Unless there is a clear-cut, logical and consistent foundation on which the law was created, there is no justification as to why women who choose to express their culture by wearing a veil should be fined. The French government is making it obvious that they are attempting to “kill” the cultural presence of Muslims throughout the nation. Not to say that hiding their attempts would make the situation better, but finding the disconnect between the two groups would provide a way towards stopping the structural violence that occurs and ending the cycle of discourse. Simply understanding and accepting cultural differences would stop the unjust legislation from affecting the people, namely the Muslim women, of France. As it stands now, however, there is a structured attempt by the French government to cause harm to the Muslim culture in France.
Bibliography:
Aljazeera, "French Passes Face-Veil Ban." Last modified September 14, 2010. Accessed April 17,
2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2010/09/2010914184958118128.html.
BBC News, "Sarkozy says burka 'not welcome' in France." Last modified
January 14, 2010. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8458831.stm. Bowen, John. When the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space.
Princeton University Press, 2007.
Canadian Press, "French Senate Bans Burqa: Bill awaits President Nicholas
Sarkoz'ys signature." Last modified September 14, 2010. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/14/france-burka-ban.html.
Chesler, Phyillis. Fox News, "France is Brave and Right to Ban the Burqa."
Last modified April 18, 2011. Accessed April 16, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/13/france-brave-right-ban-burqa/. Lafayette, Marquis de. "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." Last modified
August 26, 1789. Accessed April 16, 2012. http://www.constitution.org/fr/fr_drm.htm.
Ristici, Camille. Huffingtion Post, "France Burqa Ban Takes Effect; Two Women Detained." Last modified April 11, 2011. Accessed April 17, 2012.