THE FRENCH EXPERIENCE: BETWEEN THE BURQA AND SECULARISM

“The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France,” Sarkozy told lawmakers.

The right of Muslim women to cover themselves is fiercely debated in France, which has a large Muslim minority but also a staunchly secular constitution.

In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.
Last year, France’s top court denied a Moroccan woman’s naturalization request on the grounds that she wore a burka.

Some lawmakers – led by communist legislator Andre Gerin – have called for burkas to be banned completely, claiming they are degrading to women. They also include housing minister Fadela Amara, a Muslim-born women’s rights campaigner, who has called the garments “a kind of tomb for women.”

CNN: French parliament to consider burka ban

The proposed law has a reminiscent echo to Thio’s 26th May parliamentary speech, which warned against secularism from being anti-religious. The French, with a proud anti-clerical and secular tradition, is considering a ban on the burqa – a parliamentary committee will “investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution” and return findings after six months.

This ban is excessive. While the intent behind the proposed law may well be a sincere attempt to emancipate the perceived oppression of Muslim women, the ill-necessity and ramifications of such a ban makes it a foolhardy gesture for secularism.

The debate firstly underscores the tension between the competing interests of religious freedom and France’s much-vaunted laïcité. The huge stretch in declaring the burqa as “a sign of subservience … (and) of lowering” discounts religious choice in favour of secular dogma, without critical appreciation of religious values and sentiments. Furthermore, the legal recourse of a blanket ban on socially-perceived ills is convenient, but this earnest approach to religious practices is a dangerous precedent.

The separation of church and state works mutually: the church does not involve itself in the affairs of the state, while the state does not meddle in the affairs of the church, unless in exigent circumstances to protect the interests of other citizens. However much it is not legitimate for religious values to be foisted upon a secular society, secular tradition cannot impinge unnecessarily upon the freedom to practice religion.

Religious freedom thus remains permissible in a secular society, with certain exceptions – particularly when the said religious freedom threatens harm or curtails the rights of other individuals. Whatever the merits of the burqa, there is little to suggest that it falls under the categorical exceptions. The ban is an excessive infringement of religious freedom – the burqa does not threaten secularism or the society at large, beyond being offensive to strident women rights’ advocates.

This does not however disregard the fact that there is a prolific social ill of female oppression perpetrated in the name of religious values. This consideration is probably the chief motivation for the proposed ban, although the blanket ban is disproportionate and runs the risk of indiscriminately and unnecessarily destroying religious choice.

The blanket ban will allow women who had hitherto been compelled to wear the burqa to be emancipated from the “tomb” clothing; the ban also unfairly restricts the freedom of women who may truly be sincere and willing to wear a burqa. The proportionate response to provide help for the former should be education and persuasion, not legal compulsion.

A social outreach programme to these women in burqa – educating them about their rights and providing the means to exercise these rights will cost more funds, time and effort to implement. However, this cost also enshrines the values of a secular society without rampaging unnecessarily upon religious freedom.

Furthermore, it avoids the ugly ramifications of fraying social tension and complicating the progress of inter-faith dialogues. The proposed ban, in a fervent attempt to cure a perceived social ill, will ironically exacerbate sensitive fault lines further.

~ by burningrepublicstate on June 23, 2009.