 "Photo: Evan Andrews")
Since midsummer there has been constant debate in France over a potential ban of the burqua, a head-to-toe coverage garment worn by some Muslim women in public spaces. The Dutch instigated such a policy last month, and it seems likely the French will soon follow. Although religious discrimination issues obviously dominate the debate, the French insist it is a matter of women's rights and the maintenance of their secular state.
The movement in France, championed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, is not as out of place within the French culture as it sounds to American ears. In 2005, the French government banned religious garments in schools, notably Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crucifixes. The mandate was met with little resistance, for the most part, and the controversy faded quickly. The professed motivation behind such laws is a French quest for total separation of church and state, called la'cité, which is pretty much the nearest thing they have to a state religion.
However, while many arguments in the burqua ban debate have centered around women's rights, some advocates of the ban have hinted at a goal of ostracizing Muslims, in order to quell the massive influx of Muslim immigrants to France.
The issue of a woman's right to choose to wear the burqua is morally fraught and highly individualistic. But even if women are being forced to wear these garments by their husbands, how would it be better for the government to tell them how to dress? Both are cases of authority figures who believe they're right and therefore, have the right to decide for the women in question how they should dress. If France really wants to be progressive, they should find a way to let women dress themselves for a change.
The heart of this debate is the question of France's interpretation of separation of church and state. The goal of la'cité, like its American counterpart, is to reach a sort of zero-state where there is no religious influence on the government and the government isn't interfering in anyone's religion. Of course, it's very difficult if not impossible to eliminate all mutual influence. But whereas Americans tend to err on the "religious freedom" side of the issue, the French prefer to have total secularism of state.
Lately, in their zeal for separating religious expression from public life, they've crossed the line into greatly interfering with individual's religious practices. Women who wear the burqua, or Jewish boys who wear skullcaps, do so because they believe it is mandated by their religion. By forcing them to go without their religious garb the government makes them betray their beliefs. It's not separation of church and state if you are using the state to interfere with someone's church.
What goes on in a small country across a very large ocean is normally of little concern to Americans. However, similar bans are being urged by Muslim groups in Canada and even considered by some individuals in the U.S. We can't let our country succumb to the kind of presumptuous arrogance that governs France, because we, in fact, don't always know what's best for everyone. People have a right to dress themselves according to the requirements of their beliefs. If we're so convinced Muslim women are oppressed, maybe we should try asking one for a change instead of deciding for her. ?
Kat Drinkwater is a senior university psychology and neuroscience major
Be the first to comment on this article!