The burka ban is liberticide

[sparklingway]

'The burka ban is liberticide'
Headscarf ban in 2004 transformed the political climate in France into a French version of the "preventive war” against fundamentalism in the ideological context of the so-called 'clash of civilizations'. Ban on burka means women can wear it at home!​

Adnan Farooq

"Any woman regardless of her dress, her faith----whether she is an atheist or believer----can join a mobilisation for women rights. The participation of all women, wearing or not wearing veils of any kind, in political and social activities should simply be welcomed", says Catherine Samary.

French feminist and member of French Anti-Capitalist party (NPA), Catherine Samary is professor of economy at the University Paris-Dauphine and an associate to the Institute of European Studies (IEE) of the University Paris 8 Saint-Denis. She also writes for Le Monde Diplomatique and is Member of the Scientific Committee of ATTAC France. She was at the forefront of struggles to oppose the law promulgated back in 2004 that forbids wearing of headscarves for pupils in public schools. She was involved in the founding of two associations resisting that law: the "Comité une Ecole pour toutes et tous” (Committee Defending the School for Everyone) and the " Collectif des Féministes pour l'égalité” (Collective of Feminists for Equality). She is now opposing the project of a law banning the burqa from the entire French "public space”. In an interview with Viewpoint, she explains her point of view.

Viewpoint: Can this proposal become a law?

There is now a real project of law which, if adopted, would completely forbid the burqa in the entire "public space” (which means that women can wear it... at home !). But procedure for the vote, conditions for adoption, implementation and constitutional grounds for such a law are unsure: the final result is therefore much unclear. The proposed law will be presented in July to the Parliament. But will that be an "urgent procedure” or a normal one? The first one permits the government to impose a vote after only one debate in both chambers – as opposed to the regular procedure permitting two debates in each chamber. The urgent procedure is being advocated by some leading members of the ruling party, but others even in the government are hesitating or more in favor of a normal procedure. The opposition parties are divided on the content of the law itself but no-one would support an "urgent procedure”. Any way, the final vote for the law will not cast before October.

A unanimous "declaration” (without any power) was voted in the Parliament expressing a general "position” against the burqa. But part of the opposition (mostly Communists and Greens) did not take part in such a "gesture-vote”. The Socialists did not participate either claiming they would not vote a law completely banning burka because it has been criticized by the State Council. The State Council's advices and judgments are not compulsory; but are significant to reject a law by the Constitutional Council and by the European Court. The State Council says that there is no serious constitutional ground for a general ban.

The government does not care which confirms that it is a political gesture against a very marginal reality in France. The number of women wearing a complete veil, or a Niqab (in fact it is what has been called "burqa&#8221, is a few hundreds. Figures range from less than 400 to a maximum of 2000 according to police data – in a French population of about 64 million inhabitants and about four million Muslims. The huge majority of the Muslim population rejects burqa but would feel that a law against which only a minority practices, stigmatizes them, especially in the context of the recent campaign launched by the government on "national identity”, which was clearly Islamophobic.

The project is confronted with many contradictions. The government does not want such a law to be seen as a law violating religious freedom – so it has put emphasis on "security” issues, "republican values” and "women dignity”.

But first, a general prohibition comes in conflict with freedoms especially when it has been demonstrated that at least some of the women wearing the niqab claim that it is their choice and that it is, according to their interpretation, a religious one. Even if that is not considered as a religious obligation by the majority of Muslims, the French state has no right to interfere in such theological issues, and prevent religious practice which hurts no-one.

Hence the "security” issue is raised to protect "public order”. But laws do exist already obliging to show your face and women to lift their veils for security reasons (for instance to get identity picture, or when taking a child from school, or in a bank, and so on...).

The last formulation has therefore been to present this bill as a law defending "republican (egalitarian) values” and protecting women's dignity. But, as far as equality is concerned, in France the proclaimed universal equality between all human beings is absolutely contradicted in facts. The class, gender and racist inequalities both in political, social and cultural life are tremendous... To take only gender issues in general – which would be even much worse if combined with social and racist one ---- the proportion of women in political assemblies was so low ten years ago, that a specific law on "parity” had to be voted; but still there are less then 20 percent women in the parliament. Women's incomes in France are about 27 percent less compared to men for the same jobs in all professions. And as far as dignity and violence against women are concerned: there are 48 000 (declared) rape cases each year, 156 married women were killed in 2008 alone by their husbands, and so on. What "dignity” when you oblige a women to take off a dress she decided to wear for private reasons? Those women –--- even if considered as "victims”--- will have to pay a fine. Hence, the law will force those women to be in real prison at home or if they resist and go out, be forced to undress (?) and be fined. The law is not defending them but restricting their rights. The burka ban is liberticide. And it will not defend women dignity but increase racist aggression against Muslim women wearing veils – as it happened after the law of 2004.

Obviously this law has political motives. Sarkozy government badly lost recent regional polls. The social crisis is there with very unpopular figures, about 10 percent unemployment again. Inequalities and discriminations are increasing. But it is easier to use a scapegoat. The project of the "burqa ban” symbolizes and wish to crystallize "fears” against the most fragile part of the population – Muslims. It is an attempt to win back right wing votes. If this government is defeated on legal front, it may go for a referendum. However, the implementation of this ban remains questionable.

Viewpoint: Can we attribute this debate to Sarkozy government alone as France was involved in headscarf debate and a consequent ban back in 2004? This debate is propping up in every EU country but in France it seems bit intense. Your comments?

True it is not only a Sarkozy's affair. It is a deputy from the CP (Communist Party) that organized the recent "consultation” about a project of law on burqa. The issue of Muslim veil is dividing all political families both from the right and from the left since the start of the debate in 2004. That first law was supposedly against "religious signs” in public schools, but in practice against the Islamic veil. It transformed the political and ideological climate into a kind of French version of the "preventive war” against fundamentalism and terrorism in the ideological context of the so-called "clash of civilizations”. And the French "civilization” is at stake in the debate of "national identity”... So there are both general features of the period, and French specificities in comparison to other European countries in spite of increasing influence of the French debates elsewhere (Belgium is close to be broken by key national and budgetary issues but its parliament was unanimously voting a law against burqa...).

All societies have been transformed by the slowing down of the growth in the 1970s and the "globalization”. The world has also been transformed under the whole ideological and political counter-offensive launched by the USA to reestablish its hegemony and, by the way, its control on the oil issues. The 1990s were a turning point: whereas the "enemy” used to be "communism” and the Soviet threat (and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was the last Cold War kind of legitimacy of the new arms race in the 1980s), a new legitimacy had to be found for imperialist "humanitarian” wars. It became the Islamic fundamentalism at the end of the 1990s especially after September 11.

This ideological context and the instrumentalization of popular fears about terrorist attacks occurred in Europe while the Muslim population was both growing and becoming a stable organic new reality as a minority religion.

In France, the dominant part of the immigrant workers in the 1960s came from the countries of Maghreb in the period of economic growth. They arrived from newly liberated post-colonial countries to get an income to send to their families and go back home. But in the 1970s (when the Muslim population was about 1 million) we also saw the slowing down of the growth, the turn and stop of the dominant policy concerning immigration and then family re-groupments. Women arrived and students came too. Families were established and they wanted to become full citizens with a huge part of that population being young and unemployed. Young people (being less than 25 years old) count for 35 percent of that population (in contrast 16 percent for the entire population). About 30 percent of those young are without a job and the majority lives in poor former industrial districts. These districts are increasingly becoming social and ethnic ghettos. About 20 percent of the Muslim population is composed of workers, 11 percent are middle class and 16 percent employees. Similarly, 33 percent among them claim to be believers and practicing their religion versus 16 percent among Christians. The arrival in France of women, and the stabilization of families meant an increasing "visibility” of the Muslims (where to pray?). For the first time, the issue of veil came forth at schools in 1989.

The French "clash of civilization” can be summarized and symbolized by the supposed conflicts between two "realities”: on one hand, a "French model” with two features. Secularism (the French "laicité&#8221 where the dominant Catholic religion (associated with violent conflicts in a long past) lost its political power. The state institutions became "neutral” according to the law of "separation” in 1905 as far as religion is concerned. The second feature is the republican aspect coming out of the French revolution: a supposed equality between all individuals. On the other hand, "Islamization” of the society, that is the alleged "communautarism” of Muslim's new visibility and demands.In the dominant ideological "clash of civilizations” between the 'French model' and "Islam” three aspects deserve attention:

First, the gap between republican rights and realities of the "French model” are hidden: France is presented as "the” civilization which is supposed to have brought freedoms and progress for women and all human being. This presentation forgets the colonization, the lack of women right to votes up to 1947 and women struggles for increasing rights since then; it also forgets still existing inequalities of all kinds, combining social, racist and gender discriminations in employment, housing, responsibilities. And this general feature plays against those "suspected” to be Muslims.

Second, secularism or "French laicité” with its "neutrality” of the state institutions and servants is often wrongly identified with "anti-religious” ideology, and prohibition of religious "signs” in the "public space”. The law of separation between state and religion in 1905, like the constitution, is not against religion. It gives an institutional framework to protect all religious freedoms in the context of more general freedom of thought; it obliges the state to protect minority religions, granting equality of rights to people of different faiths. Therefore, Islam which was marginal in France became now the second big religion, and should be given the same rights as the others.

Third, and that is the paradoxical aspect of Islamophobia. The victims of discrimination are transformed into a danger for the given laws and rights. 'Communautarism” has in the French debate a negative connotation meaning specific rules and functioning in closed "communities”. When Muslims demand spaces for their mosques they are presented as a peril–--like minarets have become "symbols” of expansionism in Switzerland. Islamic veil has also been presented, in that context, as the "sign” of a fundamentalist offensive against the French "model”. But all serious enquiries show that the wearing of the veil has a lot of different causes, among which the pressure from "Salafist” currents is marginal: women choices (often in conflict with parents...) are part of a complex set of political, cultural, social context where demand to be fully accepted as Muslim French citizen, and fight for dignity against Islamophobia and French neo-colonial pseudo "emancipatory” laws play a decisive role. The new generations are no more ready to "disappear” like their parents tried to do. Neither they are ready to support the existing power and ideology in order to be "integrated” or accepted.

Viewpoint: Well, if ban on burka is a distraction offered or a pretext to win back rightwing votes, how come head of the committee formed to legislate on burka ban was a member of the French Communist Party? It seems even left is divided on this question. Isn't it?

Yes, all parties have been divided since the debate on the 2004 law including the Communist Party and Greens. You can defend the "French model” from a kind of left perspective and arguments with different and sometimes conflicting logics: you can find radical anti-religious leftist currents claiming that secularism means no more religious "expression” in the public school and life – (faith should only be intimately and privately expressed), and the law in defense of "laicité” should forbid all forms of collective ("communautarist&#8221 public religious expression. Religion is perceived by anarchist or a part of Marxist currents including in the radical left only as "opium”. Lutte Ouvrière (one current of the radical left) was in favor of the law against religious signs (in spite of the fact that in general it has critical approach to "bourgeois laws&#8221. I was member at that time of the LCR (Revolutionary Communist League) – which decided later on to form the NPA – where majority position was "neither the law nor the veil”. So it opposed the law, and clearly said that it was mainly stigmatizing the Muslim population; but it wanted to claim in the same time its critical approach of the veil as "a sign of oppression”.

Viewpoint: What has been your personal position?

I was in the minority position of the LCR which was more radically against the law. We put more emphasis on the post-colonial context, against a population subjected to discriminations and post-colonial racism. The French state was having similar position as the French colonial army in Algeria pretending to "emancipate” women (taking off the veil same time when French women had even not the right to vote). More concretely, we thought that the "neither, nor” majority position inside the LCR was preventing it from a mobilization against the law.

The main reason was a refusal from the majority of the LCR to involve our members in actions with the victims of that law: women wearing the scarf. The argument was that this kind of front would have been anti-feminist (even for good anti-racist goals), a form of "support” of the scarf. They claimed we would be mobilizing on "religious grounds” and not social or political ones. According to our opponents within the LCR and within the feminist movement, our support to the young Muslim girls wearing the scarf was a "lack of solidarity” with the other women resisting against the veil imposed in Muslim countries.

It was a very new and sharp, emotional debate – because in reality all of us were anti-racist and feminists. The very positive asset and democratic practice of the LCR was to make the debate public (in our journal and magazine) and impose no discipline (therefore no sanctions) to the minority which decided, like I did to involve in campaigns against the law with Muslims.

Viewpoint: You have been accused of preferring anti-racist position over feminist position. Your comments.

I refuse this presentation because I'm not making such choice and I refuse any kind of "hierarchical” approach between anti-racism and feminism. I am ----and we should be---- fighting against all combined oppressions and exploitations. In general they involve social, gender, racist issues. The concrete "equilibrium” and emphasis are changing according to certain contexts which have to be analyzed. But here, it was possible to combine explicitly feminist standpoints and anti-colonial, anti-racist ones – and avoiding religious "basis." And that was the first point. We were clearly fighting on "democratic” socio-political grounds. Defending the right for young girls to wear a scarf in the public school does not mean that you are "for” it. But we opposed any legitimacy of the post-colonial French state to "emancipate” women. That was the second aspect.

The associations and fronts we built were for the women's right to chose as the fundamental issue for emancipation and a specific emphasis was put on the idea that going to a public school was certainly the best concrete help for women emancipation. On the contrary, forbidding them to enter the public school was pushing them back home, or to private religious schools. or to build a frustration through a forced suppression of the veil that will certainly not help fighting against the forced veil.That was the third aspect. Our position was neither "for” not "against” the veil. It was for freedoms and rights for women, and against all kinds of violence, against the forced veil and against prohibitionist laws – so in favor of secularism (laicit&#233 and against atheist or theocratic repressive states.Both associations that I contributed to establish at that time – CEPT (Collective in Defense of Public School for All) and CFPE (Collective of Feminist for Equality) had such platforms.

Viewpoint: What if a state like in Turkey or Pakistan introduces progressive measures on polygamy or circumcision, should we oppose it merely because it has come from above. Ayub dictatorship in Pakistan, for instance, introduced progressive family laws. Should we oppose these family laws mere because a conservative majority in Pakistan does not want progressive legislation that otherwise corresponds with feminist demands?

I'm radically in favor of concrete analysis of concrete situations I emphasize on contexts. Therefore I'm very reluctant to answer a question about a context I don't know. But I can make some general remarks which could then be discussed more precisely.There are needs to distinguish three aspects to be carefully discussed (which I'm not able to do here) in your questions: the aspect of "procedure” (is a progress from above a real progress?); the "issue” itself - polygamy, circumcision or veil are not "the same"; and third aspect is "context”. France is not Pakistan or Turkey.As a general comment on the "procedure”: of course a law can protect "the weak” part of a population against the pure relationship of force (children, women, old persons); and a law prohibiting violence and killings can be very important. So the question is not as such a "law”, but the real transformation of consciousness, behavior, real social relations that it produces... So the question is then: what comes before, and what comes with and after the voting of the law, in order to transform all that. Second: laws to increase social rights and protections for women are not the same as laws which prevent young girls from going to public school if they wear the wrong dress!

Third : the French context against burqa, for instance, is a complete marginal issue, in a country where Islam is in a minority position and confronted with a campaign on "national identity” which mobilizes Islamophobi.

Feminists must stay independent from state in any case, and put the emphasis on ground actions, self organization, education. It is very possible that different judgment is passed by feminist on the opportunity of a law in a given context: it is a broader issue for political and social organizations. Feminists were divided in France not only on the law about the veil issue but on "parity” (against the very weak representation of women in parliament and elections in general, should a "law on parity” force the parties to have equal number of female and male candidates – and fine them if they don't respect it ? You could find "good” feminist arguments on both sides). A law as such would not change the reality, the mentality and the socio-economic and cultural background. But will it help or not? And why? A concrete balance sheet must be done which means the complete freedom of criticism of the law and the means to analyze its effects.

Viewpoint: Some feminists in France have resisted burka-clad women joining their demonstrations. Why they did it and what was your reaction to their objection on burka clad women?

In practice it is not burka-clad-women joining feminist demonstrations that happened, but women wearing different kind of veils or scarves. Some were in the associations I was myself involved in. And I was fighting with my friends/sisters to enter the demonstrations. My argument is very simple: it is a feminist statement to say that any woman regardless of her dress, her faith----whether she is an atheist or believer----can join a mobilization for women rights! The involvement of all women, wearing or not wearing veils, in political and social activities should simply be welcomed! The feminists who resisted such participation repeated the argument I have already quoted that if you wear a veil, you don't show solidarity with women in the world who are forced to wear a veil. But our slogans could be clearly in solidarity with women in the whole world. And I don't see how we help those confronted with and repressive regime through repressive laws and prohibition against other women.I think behind the demand to stop burka wearing women to join the demonstrations, lies a fear. There is a genuine fear that feminist conquests can be lost. Let us answer to those fears, let us resist against all concrete attacks against women conquests. And you will discover that religious women, wearing or not wearing the scarf or a veil, will be with us in that resistance. In Iran, the "One Million Signatures Campaign” is not against religion but for concrete women rights defended both by atheists and believers who consider and interpret Islam differently from the dominant ruling people.

Viewpoint: How have the French media reacted to the ban on burka?

Media were very divided unlike 2004. Back in 2004, mainstream media were supporting it but this time many questions have been raised for instance about the implementation of this law. What for instance if there is a woman coming for tourism along her family from Saudi Arabia to visit Paris. Will she be arrested at airport and be fined?

http://viewpointonline.net/fullstor...iberticide&f=full-6-june-25.php&y=2010&m=june