The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

A ban on markers of difference

The general public in France sees the face-veil differently from French Muslims

The face-veil has played a political role in French society since the wearing of all "conspicuous" symbols of religion, including the hijab, was outlawed from schools in 2004. However, this debate has received new impetus in the past seven months, since President Sarkozy said that the face-veil, or niqab, was "unwelcome" in French society.

The French parliamentary panel tasked with informing policy on the matter yesterday recommended a partial ban on the niqab in all hospitals, schools, public transport and government offices. The report concluded that "the wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic". It also wants women who cover their faces to be denied state services, including work visas, residency papers or citizenship.

A complete ban on the face-veil in public was pulled at the last minute, following a challenge from the Socialist opposition and concerns over the legality of such a move.

Presenting the report, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Bernard Accoyer, said: "It is the symbol of the repression of women, and . . . of extremist fundamentalism."

However, the findings of the Muslim West Facts Project questions this claim. This collaborative research venture between the Coexist Foundation and Gallup, published as the Gallup Coexist Index 2009 at the end of last year, explores "attitudes and perceptions among Muslims and the general public in France, Germany and the United Kingdom about issues of coexistence, integration, values, identity and radicalisation".

Perhaps surprisingly for Accoyer, the report's findings do not corroborate his views.

With regard to "extremist fundamentalism", the report notes: "The general European populations surveyed are more likely to associate the hijab [sic] with religiosity than fanaticism, oppression, or being against women." Importantly, the general French population is more than three times as likely to associate fanaticism with the hijab than the French Muslim population.

Regarding the link between "repression of women" and the hijab, the views of the two communities differ by an even greater margin: 52 per cent of the general French population associate the hijab with repression, compared to 12 per cent of French Muslims.

First, it is important to note that there are differences between the hijab and alternative forms of veiling, as noted by Mehdi Hasan. The report can be rightly criticised for conflating the two. But there are more pressing points that need to be made.

Given the differences in attitude between the general and Muslim populations in France, the state should not be engaging in demonising and outlawing different forms of veiling. Rather, its resources should be invested in engaging with why such symbols and communal markers cause such consternation and discrepancies in attitude. As the report notes:

In terms of what religious signs and symbols are necessary to remove for minorities to be integrated, Gallup Poll findings show that the headscarf and face-veil strike the loudest chords among the general populations surveyed.

The removal of the face-veil from the public eye is not the way to reconcile issues of integration. Dialogue between and within different communities is the only way in which misconceptions and barriers to integration can be removed. Recognising the differences within and between communities, pluralising discussions and understanding the "other" are the steps to integration -- not wholesale bans on markers of difference.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

 

 

4 comments

ali's picture

One of the things that most amuses me is the idea that the West (Occident) does not try to force its opinions on the East (Orient), but rather that their values are universal and anyone who holds a different opinion is 'wrong', while exclaiming in shock when anyone accuses them of rampant orientalism. They routinely force their dress sense, music, political and economic values on others throughout the world while claiming they stand for individuality and freedom. France is one of the best examples of this.I honestly dont think they understand the irony of declaring Liberté, égalité, fraternité while banning individual expression and free speech & the right to wear what you wish. I recently discovered when speaking to an algerian that algeria is still very much in the grip of france because the politicans backed by the generals are mostly very pro-French. The French still run the country from afar and their economy does very well by, for example, dominating the car market. The Algerians are only allowed to buy French cars, which, as everyone knows, are famous for being crap. They would prefer to buy German or Japanese, but are not allowed. Why dont you get rid of these people and replace them if no-one likes them, I asked. The reply was: they dominate both the parties and no-one can make another party or the army will fight you. We tried to remove them in the 90's but failed. We are a colonised country.
Britain, France, America & Russia to name but 4 countries shit on everyone else, and while claiming to be spreading or standing for freedom of speech set up dictators throughout the world killing & imprisoning many who critize them. They claim to argue in favour of Amensty International and Human Rights, while a brief look at the wars they have engaged in enslaving the brown races of this planet shows otherwise. They are hypocrites. Manuel Noriega, General Pinochet, Allende, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein are all examples of dicators put there by the West to keep them under control, and Islam Karimov an example of a dictator given constant handouts due to his helping the West bully others (ie War on 'Terror') & steal what does not belong to them. Theives and murderers. According to the West a terrorist is someone who targets civilians to frighten them to alter their political stance. When i think of the 10 million dead Korean civilians killed for holding different political and cultural views i would laugh at the absurdity of everything that is printed in the paper about freedom, democracy and 'saying no to intolerance', but then its very funny.

Simon Gardner's picture

This is a straight feminist issue. The full-face veiling practised by some is misogynistic oppression of women by men. The French are quite correct to do something about it. Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Chris's picture

Banning these things would probably lead to resentment or more extreme reactions. But those face veils must be so uncomfortable and restrict the woman's view, as well as make her a target for racists - or even just for ridicule, because they look so silly. I just pity the poor females who are forced to, or who believe they have to, cover themselves up this way.

uiop's picture

The study's ideology is fundamentally flawed: the unstates assumption is that the Muslim respondents share common cultural, political, and social values with the West, and differences of opinion simply reflect Western ignorance or misunderstanding of Muslim culture.

In fact, other studies have shown that significant minorities of Muslims in the West support practices which are antithetical to Western values such as Sharia law, "honor killings," etc.

So when a Muslim says "A burqua doesn't represent repression to me, just religious devotion, feminity and family values," you have to know what he means by "religion," "feminity," and "family values." If (in the extreme case), the answer turns out to be "jihad," "not being seen outside the house," " and "there's nothing like a good Honor Killing to bring a family together," then the Westerner's initial suspicion is correct in substance if not in detail.

Latest tweets