Jayfor to Rev.

Faith. And France. And fashion. And freedom…

Nicolas Sarkozy is not mincing words. When it come to an issue that divides not only the French people, but the French politicians in Versailles, he has made his position crystal clear. In his first state of the nation speech to Parliament, and indeed the first made by a French President in over 150 years, Sarkozy put forward his views that he wanted to see an end to Muslim women wearing the burka (and niqab) in France. “Not welcome on French soil” holds a very powerful tone.

In his address, the President stated that it was not objections to the garments’ religious significance, but it was an issue of women’s ‘liberty’ and ‘dignity’. This statement is a brave one. Mostly, I believe, because it is peppered with all sorts of paradoxes. The first is regarding the use of the word ‘liberty’. What Sarkozy is proposing here is upholding a woman’s liberty by removing her right to wear a certain garment of clothing. This sounds strangely like one of Orwell’s examples of doublethink. So he must have at least one of two scenarios in mind. The first I can think of is the assumption that many Muslim women are forced into wearing clothes that cover their faces by oppressive partners or peers of significant religious influence. This is certainly plausible. The problem is that there is no way of finding out what proportion of women are oppressed in this way and what proportion would feel oppressed by having to show their face in public. This brings me to ‘dignity’, which I’ll address in a moment. The second scenario that comes to mind regarding ‘liberty’ is that Sarkozy believes the general public has the right to be able to see the faces of all other citizens. I don’t see how this holds up though. Ban tinted visors on motorcycle helmets? Ban oversized sunglasses? Balaclavas? Either way, it’s there to be argued.

So, ‘dignity’ then. Aspects of dignity are undoubtedly universal, but other can definitely be seen as subjective. In Western culture, almost any woman would feel her dignity had been stripped from her if forced, or hell, even suggested that she covered her face in public. Equality between the sexes is a notion that has shaped Western culture and so it seems logical that to be denied this equality by being denied the right to show your face in public is to say that you have been rejected by your culture. And this is undignified. But, of course, the opposite is also true. A Muslim woman who strongly believes that her religion (and by extension, culture) is shaped on the subversive role of women would surely feel equally stripped of dignity if she were forced to display her face in public.

With these paradoxes tangled like a kite in a power line, the direction we need to look is forward. In what ways would this shape the future? Both the following generations of Muslim women and also the shape of our own Western culture. Do garments like the burka suggest to our future generations that the necessity for women’s equality is only an opinion? Would the banning of such garments suggest that tolerance ends at a cultural divide?
The French Council for the Muslim Religion, Mohammed Moussaoui, brought up the problem of stigmatism. And it can certainly be seen that the passing of a law that bans the wearing of burkas or niqabs is inherently suggesting that the Muslim faith need be viewed with suspicion. At a time where tension between Western and Muslim cultures is ever mounting, suspicion can be a dangerous thing.