The bill to ban the burka in France has been approved.
This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398 provides a number of quotes over and from french politicians I really want to react upon.
“President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed the ban as part of a wider debate on French identity but critics say the government is pandering to far-right voters.”
National identity. Important to many, but dangerous when it is combined with so-called national “norms and values” and implemented to define not what is a french identity, but more importantly, what is not. I would argue that establishing national identity as a category in public and private debates, in this particular case, ensues Islam and French “norms and values” as mutually exclusive categories. In my documentary “Delfts Blauw meets Hijab” I explore how categories of national and religious identity are established and how they are blurred by female Dutch converts to Islam. I am not that familiar with French political debates on Islam, but I believe we can pull parallels between this French bill and how Islam is debated in many countries in Europe. In these debates communities and concepts of Identity are perceived as ‘natural’ social units. As if they just come to be or evolve out of the natural process of things, without relations of power or perspectives and people. In the case of the French bill I would claim that by stating what is not democracy or emancipation, French national identity is formed. And forming a national identity based on exclusion, is not a good thing.
“After the vote, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said it was a victory for democracy and for French values.
“Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice.””
Excuse me, but emancipation according to whom? Also, I very much think a comment made by my brother is worth mentioning here: “French men pass law, telling women how to dress, to stop other men telling women how to dress”. I think its scary, that a law can be passed that regulates and controls my freedom as a woman to choose what I want to wear. If this is the beginning, where does it end? Will it be regulated whether tattoos can cover my face? Is a piercing already a violation of such “open-faced democracy?”
“The niqab and burka are widely seen in France as threats to women’s rights and the secular nature of the state.”
Karin van Nieuwekerk presents three reasons for negative reactions towards Islam in the Netherlands, that I think are valid also in this context, and are reactions we should be careful of:
Firstly, when cultural differences are no longer seen as a sign of diversity but one of conflicts, in which western culture is taken as the norm for successful integration. Secondly,when Islam is seen as the counterpart of western culture, in which the western culture must be ‘protected’ against the expanding Islam. Thirdly, when emancipation is seen as a fundamental attribute of culture and the headscarf functions as a symbol of suppression and incompatible with the self-image of an emancipated society.
To end with, I want to leave you with a different idea on emancipation or agency. In her article “The Veil in Their Minds and on Our Heads: Veiling practices and Muslim women”, Homa Hoodfar gives her opinion on how the group of the ‘Muslim woman’ is formed. According to her, western feminism is racist and normative. They use ‘the other’ as a way to feel liberated themselves. The Muslim woman in that sense is always placed in a double struggle to on the one hand fight sexism (which of course also plays a role in the Muslim community) but on the other hand to fight racism. The question is, why should a Muslim woman have to choose between her own interpretation of emancipation or agency and that of another? Instead Muslim women should develop their own tools in order to advocate agency.