On the ‘Burqa Ban’

Today, France banned the burqa.  Let’s be clear about what that means…France has banned not only the oppressive Afghan burqa, but also any form of facial covering, usually referred to as niqaab or the “face veil.”  While traditional in various places from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, the niqaab is considered by most–but not all–to be an “extra” in Islam, not mandatory, but pleasing to God.

Before I comment on the law, let me say that I personally find the idea of covering my face to be about as oppressive as I imagine Heidi Montag’s ridiculous silicone breast implants to be.  Both, to me, seem like prisons, capable only of holding me back.  Martha Nussbaum, in her recent New York Times column, makes a similar comparison, stating:

A Catalonian legislator recently called the burqa a “degrading prison.”  The first thing we should say about this argument is that the people who make it typically don’t know much about Islam and would have a hard time saying what symbolizes what in that religion.  But the more glaring flaw in the argument is that society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects.  Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans — all of these products, arguably, treat women as objects, as do so many aspects of our media culture.  And what about the “degrading prison” of plastic surgery?  Every time I undress in the locker room of my gym, I see women bearing the scars of liposuction, tummy tucks, breast implants.  Isn’t much of this done in order to conform to a male norm of female beauty that casts women as sex objects? Proponents of the burqa ban do not propose to ban all these objectifying practices.  Indeed, they often participate in them.

Nussbaum’s column, incidentally, is advocating for an end to such bans.  I wholeheartedly agree (with that point, though not the entirety of her column).  I’ve heard Muslim friends speak out against face veiling time and time again, and when they say it, I sit back and listen, take it all in.  But when it comes from a white male?  That’s patriarchy I just can’t get with.

The problem is that those advocating for such bans consider neither the feelings of the Muslim woman nor the repercussions of such a ban.  Their assumption is that any woman shrouded in black must have been forced to do so (a rather incorrect assumption: try googling “proud niqaabi” and you’ll see what I mean).  They are not concerned with women’s feelings, they are concerned merely with “liberating” such women…which for your average Sarkozy type probably means removing them from the burqa and placing them into a tailored suit with 4-inch heels.  No thanks.

The second, less considered issue, are the repercussions such bans create.  What exactly will be the punishment for wearing a burqa on the French street?  Will the woman be arrested, or will her burqa be torn off?  In either case, what type of punishment might she face at home?

Or will these bans simply force niqaab-wearing women off the street and into their homes, sequestered from society?  How is that possibly better than their being able to roam comfortably in public?

I imagine that Sarkozy types believe that banning niqaab will simply “free” these women, pushing them to stand up to their husbands.  Maybe they imagine that such women will not only take off their niqaab, but their hijab too, and become a “normal part of society.”

More likely, they’re not concerned with women at all, but rather with assuaging growing irrational European fears of dhimmitude and the caliphate.  And just as likely, these bans will have little or no positive effect on the women they’re supposed to “help.”