Burqa Ban: Coverage of a Law to 'Free' Women Leaves Them Voiceless
07/16/2010 by Alyssa FigueroaAs France's lower house of parliament approved a ban on wearing full-face Islamic veils such as the burqa or niqab, many U.S. news outlets left out a key voice in their reports: the Muslim women in France who are actually affected by the ban.
Several major outlets, including the New York Times (7/14/10), Washington Post (7/14/10) and the Los Angeles Times (7/14/10), have managed to cover the story without seeking commentary from a single Muslim woman. Out of 11 named sources used by these newspapers in their July 14 reports, only two were Muslim--both men, one a rector and one leader of a government council, each of whom discourage women from wearing the burqa.
Furthermore, 10 out of the 11 sources on the issue came from French government officials, most of whom unsurprisingly (since the ban passed 335 to 1) echoed the sentiment of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that these veils "could be a threat to women's dignity and freedom" (Chicago Tribune, 6/24/10). While the New York Times (7/14/10) quoted Daniel Garrigue, the one parliament member who opposed the ban, and another anti-ban official, it followed up with five rebuttals, along with a poll that showed French voters as a whole--most of whom are little affected by the law--support the ban.
On CNN (7/13/10), Republican strategist Mary Matalin and journalist Roland Martin discussed the ban with no debate:
MATALIN: You know what, the vote was 336 to 1 [sic] in the lower house of the parliament, and it's a good vote. The assimilation there of Muslims, who are the largest percentage in European countries are in France. Assimilation is tough when you have a full-face burqa. And it's also oppressive to women. No woman chooses to wear that full-face burqa. So I say to France, tres bien, good vote.
MARTIN: And I will say this, I mean, you do have to understand the cultural issues there. I think what this really says though is about freedom for women, in terms of French saying, look, they perceive that as being oppressive to women. And then if you want to operate in this country, this is how we are going to operate here. And so I understand that.
But I do think we have to be careful to recognize that there are cultural things that happen, more different cultures we also have to respect.
MATALIN: That is--I completely agree with that. The veil is a beautiful thing. All of my Muslim girlfriends say it's great. It's not only respectful and mindful of their religion, it's great for bad hair days. So we get that. But the full-face burqa, nyet.
MARTIN: Right, absolutely.
MATALIN: Tres bien, Francois.
But despite Matalin’s assertion, not everyone agrees that the burqa is exclusively a tool of repression, or that banning the burqa is the best way to promote women’s equality--and many of the dissenters happen to be Muslim women. USA Today and NBC News both interviewed Kenza Drider, who was born and raised in France and has worn the burqa for 11 years, who said (NBC Nightly News, 7/7/10): "I'm a feminist. I wear this by choice, and I submit to no man, only God." The Huffington Post (7/13/10) quoted an Islamic scholar, Abdelmotie Bayoumi, who has written books that include modern testimonies about the full-face veil: "A Muslim woman wears the niqab not because of religious duty, but as a personal freedom." Sahar (Nuseiba.wordpress.com, 7/4/10), a Muslim blogger, said that though she isn't personally fond of the burqa, she believes that "a woman's right to choose how to express her religion... or her culture as she sees fit is fundamental to her dignity and should be protected."
In covering a law targeting Muslim women, it is essential to include such perspectives, instead of simply packing the views of powerful leaders and Western ideology into a report.
Tags: Mary Matalin, Roland Martin
Posted in CNN, Gender, International, L.A. Times, New York Times, Race, Washington Post | Permalink | Trackback | Share
Diggit
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo
Facebook
StumbleUpon
July 16th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
While I do not agree with the Burqa ban (I think it is counter productive), is feminism a "Western ideology" as the author of this report insists?
http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/blog/2010/07/13/loi-contre-la-burqa-la-victoire-des-femmes-contre-l’obscurantisme/
July 16th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Muslim women are probably not choosing to wear a burqa but rather, are made to wear it by their husbands/fathers. Cultural and religious expectations aside, no woman would opt for the discomfort and visual restriction of a burqa if they were truly allowed to choose for themselves.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
When we see uninterrupted agreement among American so-called liberals and conservatives, we can be sure something is up. Witness the agreement over war in Iraq. Or the growing 'agreement' not that social security be cut or that 'austerity' measures be imposed to cut the deficit (at the expense of the poor and middle classes).
This is not about freedom, but rather the domination, even tyranny, of an elite that feel threatened by things they don't (or won't) understand.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Burqa is a requirement in the religion of Islam. Thank you for pointing out the biased media's reports against this islamic requirement. I have talked to many Muslim women who wear burqas and they are the most courageous women. No one has enforced burqa on them; they wear it by their own choice since they love their God, Allah. I suggest that one talks to a Muslim woman wearing a burqa before making any stupid statements that they are 'forced.'
July 16th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Kudos to BBC who was very definitely NOT guilty of this omission, but did quite a good job getting interviews with several such women.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
So here we are in a world of amazing equality that stems from brutally demolishing all differences. The world has tried long enough for peace. Now, it is time to have just one understanding of freedom. The mass murderers and colonizers of the 20th century are the leaders in this chest thumping bravado of superiority. The world must bow in respect. There is freedom only in certain postures of this confine but this is the new world. Where nations are hoodwinked in to sending their armies and now ever-growing mercenaries to countries to "liberate" people. At least the ones that manage to live. Hearts and minds were promised. The fine print was that they were referring to cadaveric samples. But no amount of words can reason with the hypocrisy that this new arrogant world order breeds essentially because they actually believe in it. At least the elites of their society.
There is no use trying to bring to their attention the convenient fluidity of their unshakable moral grounds. The similarity of a girl being denied education for not covering herself in Afghanistan and a girl being denied education in France for covering her head. The perplexing argument of the need to spread "goodness" in Afghanistan when the "state" forces a woman to wear a burqa and "goodness" of their hearts stripping a woman of her burqa in France. Who decides how we answer our questions about our curiosity about the universe. Who decides what is the way to please our "higher power"?
I am convinced today that the elites of this world are bent on leading nations in to conflicts. A fourth of humanity is dispensable to them. Planting hate for generations to come is accompanied by a mocking smirk conveying "there now that I have told you how much I hate you I feel good"
So President. Sarkozy claims to be the new god? Would only be fitting for a nation whose leaders are so convinced of the way we need to choose our eternity. Perhaps the French sisters who wear head scarves should look to the goddess – who else but Mrs. Sarkozy? Also known as Carla bruni. In addition to being a part time goddess she is also a wonderful "precision artist". A recent nude portrait of her sold for $91,000 on which one "critic" complimented her on "covering her modesty with just one hand". That is so liberated I think it will take us mortal beings a life time to be this comfortable with it. Some of us have been "trained" in Abu Ghraib" to be comfortable with our nudity but I guess our hearts and minds were elsewhere.
Muslims all over the world are expected to carry the guilt for the actions of a handful of individuals. With puppet democracies in place any rebuttal of this racism, let alone a demand for control of their own resources seems like a far cry to these arrogant elites. Mossadegh's of Iran should act as deterrents. History starts when nations like the French want it to. The plundering of resources of other nations and their subjugation on their way to greatness is too remote a memory. Perhaps Ben J. Wattenberg in his book "the First Universal Nation" best summed up the insecurity of the European governments (not people – for public opinion is easily manipulated in today's world) against Islam. After all the "spread by the sword" myth can hardly be applied to the peaceful growth and assimilation of Islam in recent times. Mr. Wattenberg in this book, written in 1991, long before 9/11, noted in a section titled "Islamic explosion":
"In 1950, there are 375 million Moslem in the world. There are 983 million Moslems in the world today. By the year 2020, PRB projection show almost 2 billion". He then goes on to write "The key question is: Is there are something about the growth of Islam that is seen as a potential threat to other nations and culture?" Furthermore, he writes "As Moslem immigration in Western Europe has increased, anti-Moslem sentiment has grown. Some European nations are not only trying to keep Moslems out, but are trying to oust those who are already there" and lest any one think he was referring to a lack of "integration" he also noted that "Most Moslems have moved quickly in to the American middle class".
Muslims know as little about when the elusive peace that we all hope for is achieved as a French wondering what business of the state is their facial hair or clothing. Muslims are asked to bear collective guilt for the actions of a handful with deliberate and provocative misrepresentation of their scriptures when elected governments have destroyed countries and ruined millions of human lives. A fourth of humanity can not be wished away. Nor can it be robbed of dignity. I have no doubt in the abilities of human beings to make amends. It's the delay of decades or even centuries before we acknowledge prejudices that I fear.
July 16th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
One aspect of this that I do not see represented is that the burqa for many represents womanhood. It is a choice that signifies adult status, probably similar to but less harmful than bras, lipstick, nylons and high heels. Shall we remove the choice about these items as well? Oh yes, and mascara, eyeshadow, lash curlers, etc.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
[...] Burqa Ban: Coverage of a Law to 'Free' Women Leaves Them Voiceless [...]
July 16th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
A burqa helps women show others that there is more to her than her face, there's a personality, an intellect, a courageous person. I am a Muslim teen and find woman who wear it extremely empowering, because these women do not depend on their looks or physical appearance to gain respect of others, but they use their minds and wit. Women usually choose to wear it, it is against our religion to force anyone into anything. That is his/her business with only God, if someone chooses to wear a burqa why would you stop them? It's like saying Amish women are repressed because they wear bonnets and long skirts, or the men are even repressed because they keep follow same guidelines. Take an anthropology class, I'm sure you can find other cultures who have certain guidelines that are not of the norm, but no one questions them? No one bothers them? Muslims are just being put under a microscope because of all the violence in the middle east. And as you can see, there isn't even a comment by a Muslim woman, why not go to the source? I was born and raised in the US and this is just sad to me knowing my own culture and religion are being questioned by uneducated people who know nothing of the harmonious beauty of my religion.
July 17th, 2010 at 1:17 am
Cultural and religious expectations aside, no woman would opt for the discomfort and visual restriction of a burqa if they were truly allowed to choose for themselves.
That is demonstrably false. I have personally met women who wear it without pressure from their families or societies (other women in the family don't wear it, and the society is the US).
You're demonstrating this FAIR report quite well: You're speaking on behalf of veiled women.
July 17th, 2010 at 9:20 am
The laws of Ortodox Judaism require a married woman to cover her head. Some women wear wigs and some even shave their heads and then wear wigs or scarves. Using the same reasoning that is being used to ban the burqa, it seems to me that this Orthodox Jewish practice should also be seen as demeaning to women and be banned. Why the double standard?
July 17th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
If women, of their own free will, choose to wear heavy, black neck to floor garments and head scarfs in 110F temperatures, that's their prerogative – if indeed it is not forced on them by male relatives which I think it often may be the case.
BUT the full face covering, peering at the world and traffic thru a net is a bit too far. Suppose my religion mandated I wear a ski mask on the street, into banks and other public buildings and on mass transit? How long before I would be mobbed at worse or arrested at best.
July 17th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Slavoj Žižek writes along similar lines on p. 2 of Living In End Times. He notes that only about 2,000 out of 1.5 million French Muslim women wear a burqa or niqab, of whom a substantial portion are converts; and that an explicit element of the "pro" argument for the law was others' anxiety at the site of a burqa-clad figure. What does it mean that such a marginal issue garnered such intense attention, and why should the burqa trigger such anxiety?
(By the way, I was happy to hear the "week's press" bits returned to the beginning of CounterSpin this week — as excellent as the longer interviews were in the previous two episodes.)
July 17th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I live in a muslim country and have found that the veil is indeed an imprisoning device made to keep women mere shadows of men. People who care about women's rights should be against the veil. I often hear women fighting for the right to remain second class citizens behind the veil and locked away at home in the name of their patriarchal religion. This has nothing to do with 'western' values. This is about human rights and truly liberating women from an oppressive system. Aldous Huxley used to talk about the new totalitarianism being that of learning to love your enslavement. I find this to be the case in the land of islamic fundamentalism. We need to seriously reconsider a cultural relativist viewpoint that would allow women the freedom to remain non-persons.
July 17th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
@secular:
The point of this entry is that the viewpoints of women wearing veils is not considered. Now you can choose not to be a cultural relativist – that's a whole other discussion. I'll simply point out that your stance is in line with the point this entry makes – you're essentially saying that for certain issues related to a group of people, it should be decided without considering what those people think.
I can't help but recall the string of Afghani women refugees in a European country (I forget which) who got recently quite upset when there was a movement to ban the veil. They pointed out that from their perspective, such a measure was no different from when they were forced to wear it by the Taliban. When you remove the freedom to dress as you wish, the effect of feeling violated is the same, regardless of the actual measure and the claimed motive.
And really, do you not think those who force women to wear the veil don't do it under the pretense that it is better for them? Ultimately, your position is one of "I know what's better for others, and my viewpoint should be forced upon them".
July 18th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Yes. I am unashamedly saying this. Perhaps some slaves in the American South did not wish to be freed from slavery because the position they had with a certain owner was very comfortable and privileged, therefore, they did not wish to endorse the abolition of slavery. That does not mean that I would be wrong to impose my viewpoint on them. I do not apologize for the superiority of reason over ignorance. I guess we should just leave them alone and let their viewpoints stand even when it goes against their own human rights. Female genital mutilation is still going on in this part of the world. (By the way, some of the men I have spoken to who support the veil and the sequestration of women here actually speak of the virtues of female genital mutilation, because women are naturally 'out of control' if they are allowed to feel sexual pleasure.) If a woman or man supports this line of thought and practice, I have no problem telling them that they are wrong and the rest of the world knows better and is willing to support or even enforce their liberation. By their own voices, women here have expressed how child-like and ignorant they have been kept by a system of patriarchal domination and they would like to be liberated.. Are these other child-like voices, who willingly submit to oppression, voices that I should honor and respect when making vital decisions about human rights? Or should I consider the darkness that they have been submerged in which guides their voices and continues to enforce their less than human status. What about the voices of the women who are against the veil? If they want to wear the veil, let them go live in Saudi Arabia. We westerners have to submit to the very stringent rules of Saudi Arabia. Let them the French and the Belgians have the rules of their societies and cultures based on their own values, regardless of what Muslim women think. These veil-loving Muslim women are free to live as they want in the Muslim world. Covered and submissive to men and their patriarchal theology.
July 18th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Interesting comment above(Secular)where she points out that we westerners must conform to donning headgear in certain Muslim countries.Of course that statement is correct and an eye opener to this discussion.
I believe that France is being reactionary as much as thoughtfully contemplative.But Muslims have got to see that this is the way they are being viewed, and will be viewed, unless the part of them that will join in the fight against the terrorist element that lives among them- does not stand up.We need million man marches to Washington by Muslims shouting back this murderous ilk.And to be repeated the world over.After all they would rise up in defense of their religion.Yet these are the true enemies to them.People who claim to be Muslim but kill in the name of power and in doing so rob islam of its moral fiber.The saying that not all muslims are terrorists,but most terrorists are Muslim, should set their blood on fire.Because these killers have made that statement true.And made the world fearful of good people.And forced countries like France to act in ways that claim ownership of that fear.Jews with head covers are not seen as a threat.Muslims are.Maybe it is time for Muslims to blame those who have placed that mark on them.
July 18th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@secular:
Wow. Comparing FGM and slavery to a piece of clothing. I'd really like people to ponder over it.
And yes, absolutely: If someone is happy being enslaved, I'm dead set against forcibly liberating him. The important legislation is that enslaved people who desire to be free should be allowed to be free – that's the more realistic analogy.
FGM is different because it happens to children who don't have a realistic choice.
The problem I have with the veil rhetoric is that it is invoked in the context of men doing things to their wives that are already illegal under, say, French law (e.g. overarching control over their wives). Rather than actually enforce their own laws and coming up with ways to help them, they're trying to pass this. Let's not kid ourselves: They're not trying to free any of the veiled women – they're trying to kick them out: "You don't like the rules of our culture? Go elsewhere!" (And no, elsewhere isn't back to their homelands, as quite a few are native French).
It's like trying to abolish slavery by banning the use of a whip. If a husband is unreasonably controlling his wife, then removing the veil doesn't decrease that control. If you think it does, all I have to say is: Wow.
By the way, some of the men I have spoken to who support the veil and the sequestration of women here actually speak of the virtues of female genital mutilation, because women are naturally 'out of control' if they are allowed to feel sexual pleasure.
By the way, some men who are in favor of torture are also partial to vaccines. Let's all reconsider our position on vaccines.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
By their own voices, women here have expressed how child-like and ignorant they have been kept by a system of patriarchal domination and they would like to be liberated..
And, as per the point of entry, you actually need to go speak to such women (at least in the US) to get these nonsensical perceptions out of your head. I'm not doubting such people exist, but the burka wearing women I've met – both in the US and in two Muslim countries – don't match anything close to what you describe.
If they want to wear the veil, let them go live in Saudi Arabia.
So you're suggesting that someone born an American, raised in the US, should leave the US and go to a foreign land and culture just because of a piece of clothing?
Well, at least you're being clear about it.
We westerners have to submit to the very stringent rules of Saudi Arabia.
I'm surprised that you consider Saudi Arabia as a role model to follow. So if Saudi Arabia is oppressive, it's OK for us to be?
Let them the French and the Belgians have the rules of their societies and cultures based on their own values, regardless of what Muslim women think.
No arguments there. I never questioned their right to do this. I am, however, within my right to criticize and point out their duplicity. And once again, this is orthogonal to the point of this FAIR entry, which is that even if they have the right, the media is remiss in not actually presenting the views of the people in question.
@michael:
But Muslims have got to see that this is the way they are being viewed, and will be viewed, unless the part of them that will join in the fight against the terrorist element that lives among them- does not stand up.
The statement is fairly ignorant. They stand up frequently. Just don't expect it to be on the news. This actually would be a good suggestion for a FAIR analysis piece. It's a common myth that Muslims are silent.
We need million man marches to Washington by Muslims shouting back this murderous ilk
Nope. You have to understand two things:
1) Muslims have the right to choose their way of protesting, not you. The notion that million man marches have some universal appeal/validity is flawed.
2) I've often noticed that people like you have this notion that such marches will actually do something about terrorism and similar violent activities. The terrorists simply don't care about such marches and will continue their acts unabated. As a famous writer recently pointed out: Nonviolent resistance works only when there is an audience that has influence over the other party. That's why they can work against governments (the audience being the voters), but not against gangs and terrorists.
The saying that not all muslims are terrorists,but most terrorists are Muslim, should set their blood on fire.
Again, no. You really want Muslims to be reactionary? That's how terrorism took hold in some parts.
Jews with head covers are not seen as a threat.Muslims are.Maybe it is time for Muslims to blame those who have placed that mark on them.
That's silly. In the US, I've met many non-African Americans who are quite scared of going into African American neighborhoods – even ones that have lower crime rates than the average for the city. So when a white person comes across an African American panics, and does something stupid, you're suggesting the African American person cannot place the blame on the guy?
If people get unreasonably scared, they are to blame. It's a two way street.
July 18th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
The burqa is a heinous symbol of misogyny and oppression of 50% of the population. Moreover, research has shown that wearing the burga creates a vitamin D deficiency because sunlight is blocked out. In pregnant women, this deficiency is passed onto the child.
Finally, the look scares children and many adults.
I am astounded that anyone tries to defend it. The burqa is morally and aesthetically obscene.
July 18th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
@Reader:
Finally, the look scares children and many adults.
I actually thought you were serious till you said this ;-)
July 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The burqa is morally and aesthetically obscene.
Either that veil goes or I do! And don't get me started on wide-brim hats and zinc creams!
July 18th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Please return to logic: "By the way, some men who are in favor of torture are also partial to vaccines. Let's all reconsider our position on vaccines."
Vaccines have no relation to torture. Female Genital Mutilation is part of the same brutal and oppressive patriarchal system as the burqa, as is the stoning of women to death for real or perceived adultery in muslim countries. This is not a non-sequitur, but you example is.
I do not understand why you insist on defending the oppressive system that turns women into non-persons just because a few delusion western converts to islam refuse to acknowledge the grave injustices that occur in muslim countries against women every day. I live here. I see it. I hear it from the women here very day. You can make your abstract arguments in the States about the harmlessness of a piece of clothing. Over here we know the very real destructive power of such symbols. We are on the frontlines of resistance. You are no help with your willful blindness to death threats that brave women here receive from thousands of men when they revolt against being forced to wear a harmless "piece of clothing." Again, let your friends be free to live as they desire in Saudi Arabia. Maybe after living here for a while they will wake up and stop being delusional about a woman's right to choose anything for herself in the name of the pillars of Islam. Just walk down the street and try to go to McDonald's by yourself if you are a woman. There is a sign on the door that says: Any woman without her lawful guardian (Male) accompanying her will be refused entry into this restaurant." This is the concrete reality of Islam as dictated by Sharia Law. You can choose to be a woman and follow the tenants of Islam. But in some western countries we are not allowing such ignorant and oppressive theologies to creep into our societies. Thank the French and the Belgians for protecting women from such disgraceful practices.
July 18th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Beetle again: "FGM is different because it happens to children who don't have a realistic choice."
Really? Go on over to Iran and try walking outside without a veil on. See if you have a choice. Maybe a trip to the jails where torture is routine will enlighten you to choice, whether for adult or child…
July 18th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Female Genital Mutilation is part of the same brutal and oppressive patriarchal system as the burqa, as is the stoning of women to death for real or perceived adultery in muslim countries.
Well, perhaps because FGM is nonexistent in many parts of the world where the Burka is common, and because FGM is also quite common in parts of the world where there is no Burka (and in fact, few Muslims). Trying to relate the two is fairly stupid, to be blunt. Oh sure – they're both related to patriarchal systems, but not the same system.
I do not understand why you insist on defending the oppressive system that turns women into non-persons just because a few delusion western converts to islam refuse to acknowledge the grave injustices that occur in muslim countries against women every day. I live here. I see it. I hear it from the women here very day.
My experiences with women in veils is in both the US and in Muslim countries (at least two of them). I've lived among them in their own lands.
I never said there aren't oppressed women in veils. It's just a bit obvious that when you see oppressed women in veils, you associate the two, because it is so visible. To get a clear picture, you don't look at oppressed people, and count how many wear veils. You take a sample of veiled women, and see how many are oppressed. That is something no one seems interested in doing. Even more important, you also have to see how many non veil wearing women in those countries are being oppressed, and I suggest to you that the ratio will be more or less the same. The reason is simple: The veil is mostly an orthogonal issue.
Nor did I suggest there aren't grave injustices being done to them. I just don't see banning veils lessening those injustices an iota. I said it in an earlier comment: If they're being oppressed, why not address it? Are you suggesting that if there is an oppressed veil wearing woman can no longer wear one, the family will treat them better, when they hadn't in the past?
Again, the message from the French is simple: Conform, or get out. It's not about helping these women. It's about not seeing them nor dealing with them.
You can make your abstract arguments in the States about the harmlessness of a piece of clothing.
I have in this comment (and perhaps in an earlier one) stated that my interactions with veiled women includes those in Muslim countries (live, not over the phone or email). I have repeatedly said that I know women wearing veils. I have repeatedly pointed out that it is important to consider their perspective and talk to them. After all this, to suggest that my arguments are abstract makes me question everything you're saying.
You are no help with your willful blindness to death threats that brave women here receive from thousands of men when they revolt against being forced to wear a harmless "piece of clothing."
1. I never denied such a thing. You have thus far failed to demonstrate how banning the veil will change anything.
2. How will a ban in France help those people you speak of, unless they're in France? Let's not forget the context.
3. If they are in France, don't you think it's better to handle the issue by going after those who give death threats? If the family threatens a female member with death threats if they marry a non-Muslim (which happens in France, in case you didn't know), would you suggest that France solve the problem by mandating that Muslim women not be allowed to marry Muslim men? Because that's what it sounds they are doing with the veil issue.
Again, let your friends be free to live as they desire in Saudi Arabia. Maybe after living here for a while they will wake up and stop being delusional about a woman's right to choose anything for herself in the name of the pillars of Islam.
Experience has shown otherwise. FYI, Saudi Arabia has quite a few Western women "converts" who live and work there. They complain about a lot related to how women are treated. Clothing, though, is rarely a complaint. And if you'd ever bothered to go to Saudi Arabia, you'd know that in some cities, plenty of women don't cover their hair, let alone their face (and don't get thrown in jail for it either).
Again, your comments simply emphasize the point of this entry: Get the perspectives of those actually involved and affected – they'll shoot down as silly/false your attempts to connect legitimate oppression of women with the veil. It's always irritating to hear a non-Muslim speak about how Muslims suffer, and then when Muslims contradict them, try to say, "No, no – I know your countries better than you. You are suffering!"
Just walk down the street and try to go to McDonald's by yourself if you are a woman. There is a sign on the door that says: Any woman without her lawful guardian (Male) accompanying her will be refused entry into this restaurant." This is the concrete reality of Islam as dictated by Sharia Law.
Yes, such signs are quite common in Saudi Arabia. And this has what to do with the veil? If you're trying to connect the two by invoking Shariah law, then you don't know much about Shariah:
1. Most Islamic scholars state up front that wearing the veil is not required. Some Saudi scholars disagree, but there are no shortage of Saudi scholars who aver that it is not mandatory. And in most other countries, the notion that the veil is mandatory is much rarer amongst the theologians.
2. In most countries where Muslim women wear veils, there is no such sign, and women can typically go to whatever restaurant that they want alone.
Beetle again: "FGM is different because it happens to children who don't have a realistic choice."
Really? Go on over to Iran and try walking outside without a veil on. See if you have a choice. Maybe a trip to the jails where torture is routine will enlighten you to choice, whether for adult or child…
Umm…Not sure what you're trying to say here. If anything you're making my point stronger: That women should have the choice. Something that France has decided they don't have.
And your comment makes me wonder if we're talking about the same thing. Veils are not mandated in Iran. Clothing is, but there's no requirement to wear a veil. By veil, I'm referring to face coverings (of which the Burka is one of them).
July 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Perhaps a few women do choose to wear the burqa without being forced to by their father, brothers, or husband, but they only choose it because male religious leaders tell them to. It's fundamentally wrong for religious or political leaders to tell women they have to make themselves invisible any time they're in public. The burqa, and hijab in general, makes the inside of their home the only place that women can be comfortable. I was forced to wear hijab when I visited Iran, so I know how uncomfortable it is. Any religion that tells women they shouldn't show their face or their hair or their arms in public is wrong, whether it's Islam, orthodox Judaism, or anything else, because it tells women they are not welcome in society. The fact that some women have internalized the message and actually prefer to erase themselves from the world only shows how dangerous the philosophy is. If banning the burqa is what it takes to convince women that they are worthy to appear in society, then banning the burqa is the right thing to do.
July 18th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
t's fundamentally wrong for religious or political leaders to tell women they have to make themselves invisible any time they're in public.
Then ban such speech – not the clothing.
If banning the burqa is what it takes to convince women that they are worthy to appear in society, then banning the burqa is the right thing to do.
And that's a fairly unlikely "if".
July 18th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
This notion, that all women who wear the burqa are oppressed by it no matter whether or not they believe they are, reminds me of what some fundamentalist Christians say about queer people. That is, queer people are only homosexually oriented for pathological reasons — frustrations with the opposite sex, bad parental relationships — whether or not their queerness seems natural to them.
Since it is certainly true that some people are pathologically queer, and it's logically possible that all queer people are pathologically queer, these Christians will not be convinced otherwise — that is, unless they get to meaningfully know a healthy queer person or at least wholly listen to one. But they can't come to know one because they live in such an insular way; and they won't really listen if they ever hear one speak, because they've already decided they won't believe in genuine queerness.
July 19th, 2010 at 2:20 am
[...] much of the American press while reporting the story couldn’t even bother to speak to Muslims themselves and gather their views on the [...]
July 19th, 2010 at 4:45 am
I guess its high time Sarkozy and the French clowns start looking at the REAL issues in France – retirement age and the economy for instance – rather than concern themselves with women's wardrobes and undergarments.
If a law is what is takes to enforce adherence to "French culture"; we are not far from the day when the Indian Sari or Japanese Kimono is outlawed in France.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Iran is secular. you CAN choose to wear the veil there. that may be one of the only places where women DO have a choice b/c there is no shiria law.
July 19th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Ever notice how not a single one right wing extremist is able to point to any scraps of evidence that veils are whole scale forced on women?
Yeah, me too!
July 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Iran is secular. you CAN choose to wear the veil there. that may be one of the only places where women DO have a choice b/c there is no shiria law.
The Iranian government/constitution is anything but secular. It is one of very few (3-4?) countries in the world that explicitly states it is based on Islam/Shariah.
However, the veil is not mandatory (AFAIK). Clothing in general, though, is enforced.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Regarding the pathological concept: Wouldn't you consider it pathological if a man decided to cover his face and body from head to toe so that no one could recognize him? Would you want to do business with a man who hid his face? Would you want such a man shopping in your store? Wouldn't it be easy for a man wearing a burqa to rob a store or a bank and not get caught? So why would we excuse a woman disguising herself in that way? If a person craves anonymity so desperately that he/she wishes to disguise him/herself every time they go out in public, then he/she has some serious self esteem issues and needs to get help.
There is a continuum of people's comfort levels with clothing: at one extreme is the burqa wearer, and at the other extreme the nudist. There are places for nudists to practice their preference for self-exposure: I know of a nude beach in my city, and I know people who go naked in the privacy of their homes. By the same token, if people want to mask their faces, aside from on Halloween, they are also free to do so in their own homes, and logically if they're doing it for religious reasons it would be allowed in their place of worship (does the ban in France have an exception for that?) but when they're out in society, they need to be considerate of others. It is not respectul to mask one's face when dealing with strangers.
Also, I don't need to see evidence that veiling is forced on all veiled women, or even the majority of them, to know that the ban is doing good. If there is one women in all of France who's being forced to wear the burqa, and the burqa ban frees her, then it's worthwhile. The voluntary burqa wearers should be happy to sacrifice their optional extra clothing to allow the forced burqa wearers to finally show their faces. And the same goes for hijab (women's dress code of a head scarf and long sleeves and pants, even in the hottest part of the summer in the middle of the desert). Those women who live in a country where they have a choice should all give up wearing hijab, to avoid giving the slightest justification or support to those governments and religious leaders who force it on women against their will. These despots need to see that women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are living happy, productive, morally upright lives throughout the whole world without the need to cover their face or their hair or the rest of their bodies, and they are the only ones backward enough to think that women have to cover themselves to have a place in society.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:33 am
My problem with the criticism here is that it seems to be asking the newspapers to do something that would be perhaps even more deceptive: increasing the mix by one pro-burqa burqa-wearing Muslim woman and one anti-burqa burqa-wearing Muslim woman. Certainly, it would be nice to get a more diverse opinion, but as the comments here show: the issue is complex. I'm not too interested in any particular opinion on the subject, anyway. Some data might be nice. A study or two? Journalism of this type is generally useless, regardless of how many burqa-wearing-woman-on-the-street opinions you get.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Here's one woman's protest against the ban. The incredible video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61n9KnK-gqc
August 18th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
"I suggest that one talks to a Muslim woman wearing a burqa before making any stupid statements that they are 'forced'."
Easier said than done! I've never been able to get a woman in a burqa to ackowledge my existence in any way, much less actually speak to me. I've been threatened by their escorts, however.
And I find it interesting that the people clamoring on about womens' right to veils have no problem at all with Muslims demanding that the topfree women on French beaches cover up, because they "offend Islam."
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:01 am
I personally do think that forcing a woman to cover her body IS misogynistic. That being said, forcing a woman to remove her clothing or change her traditions is just as bad.
telling women to 'rebel against tradition' implies that they are not already do so. It also takes away the power and symbolic importance of the action if they DO decide to remove their burqas.
November 27th, 2011 at 7:37 am
[...] different than Muslims putting their women in burqas and not letting them drive. (Actually, on CNN Martin declared the need for cultural "respect" and hedged on a burqa ban in [...]
November 27th, 2011 at 8:51 am
[...] different than Muslims putting their women in burqas and not letting them drive. (Actually, on CNN Martin declared the need for cultural "respect" and hedged on a burqa ban in [...]