France's Burqa Ban: Fighting Oppression With Oppression?

On Monday France’s lower parliament approved a bill banning the wearing of clothing that intends to hide the face in public areas. The ban itself appears to target the conservative dress worn by Muslim women; specifically Burqas, large garments that cover the entire body save for a mesh over the eyes, and Naqibs, all-covering garments which have a rectangular slit over the eyes.  President Nicolas Sarkozy justified the move by stating that it would help fight the subjugation of Muslim women who are forced to cover themselves up, however in the process the ban itself appears to remove the human right of religious expression and defies French ideals of tolerance and liberalism.

Historically the treatment of women in Islamic nations is one tainted by male oppression, a trend which still exists in modern times and no doubt needs to be removed. However, whilst the bill does enforce a fine of €26,500 and jail time for those accused of oppressing women, it does impede the rights of an individual who chooses to dress in a veil of their own free will. The idea that all Muslim women who wear Burqas are forced to cover up is implausible; if people like the idea of  exposing their body by wearing little clothing outside then it’s plausible to assume others would do the exact opposite. Indeed if the objective was to punish oppression then shouldn’t those who choose to cover up be exempt? The bill itself essentially boils down to telling people how they should/shouldn’t dress, a notion that has an unnerving totalitarian shade.

Freedom of expression is an essential human right, although one that should be used wisely; wearing hosiery down the middle of a high-street would be deemed inappropriate and offensive to other people’s sensitivities. It’s something not many people would do because society upholds a system of moral values that delimits this expression. This important right also extends to religious freedom of expression, and through that nurture respect and tolerance for people’s beliefs. Of course there is a legitimate side to banning certain acts that are directly harmful to others, e.g. ritual human sacrifice, but the banning of religious dress is a direct oppression of human expression in itself. Combating subjugation is an important cause, but using oppression to fight oppression would appear to only cause more problems. Of course many Muslim scholars state that the Qur’an doesn’t explicitly state that women should wear such clothing, however neither does the Bible about Nuns or the Torah about Orthodox Jews. From this perspective the ban appears more of an attack on the religious expression of one group.

The ban also justifies itself as a precaution as the Burqa may threaten national security. However the oppression of people’s rights itself in order to fight extremism only further discriminates against a group of people who already feel isolated, and through this may even breed further extremist responses and further oppression. In fact the bill itself dosen’t mention anything about ski masks, biker helmets, and other items which can also be used to hide the identity of a prospective terrorist, and so appears oddly uncomprehensive for a bill declared to handle the threat of certain attire to national security. In fact it appears as more of a play on western fears of an extremist middle east; a radical attempt by Nicolas Sarkozy to bolster his flagging votes by appealing to the right in the face on an impending election.

The Telegraph hailed it as a victory for tolerance and liberalism; however the ban of a cultural dress is the complete opposite. Whatever the opinion a dress ban appears to be a dubious way of fighting oppression and bolstering national security; indeed oppression must be removed, extremism calmed, and people more integrated into society, but by removing them of essential rights it is only more likely to cause greater schism, despite what the Daily Mail might have you believe. Considering what the bill stands for its main aim appears to be to create a homogeneous national identity that ostracises beliefs and cultures that differs from the ideal.