A Matter of Choice

France’s cultural and legal struggle with the question of Muslim immigration arose again with French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to outlaw the wearing of the burqa in public places. His suggestion seems serious, since Belgium moved one step closer to passing a similar bill last Thursday, and comparable debates are occurring in Italy and the Netherlands. Supporters argue that the law would defend women’s freedom and help ensure safety on public transit. However, we oppose the bill soon-to-be under consideration in France as an unjust and unjustifiable measure.

Many proponents of banning full veils in public places argue for it as a means of liberating women who currently wear them, believing they suffer under an oppressive culture. However, this argument is invalid on several grounds. First, it assumes that women who wear the burqa are uniformly forced to do so, which is simply untrue. Like all personal choices, women decide to don this attire for many reasons—some good and some bad, some based on coercion and some on freedom. To tar all burqas with the brush of oppression is condescending and inaccurate. Furthermore, the law itself is clearly coercive. It places specific limits on how women may dress, and enforces these restrictions with the power of the state. The plan to free women from private mandates enforcing one set of clothing standards with a public mandate enforcing the opposite set is logically inconsistent. Although the proposed bill would level substantially greater penalties on those who force other people to wear the burqa, it still penalizes women who themselves elect to wear it. Since the bill targets the burqa even when coercion is not present, it cannot be defended as expanding women’s freedom.

Some proponents of the ban support it on the basis of security concerns. The form-concealing burqa, it is alleged, poses a unique safety risk on public transportation. However, terrorism in France today is predominantly Separatist, not Islamist, and women are rarely directly involved. France reported zero Islamist failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks in 2008, as compared with 137 separatist ones. That being said, we recognize France’s concern for the safety of its citizens, and admit that banning burqas may provide some security advantages. Still, such benefits in no way justify infringing on a woman’s right to choose the veil or reject it.

We firmly oppose the French law, and do not believe that it can be defended as a security measure or a feminist one. It acts only to restrict the individual choices and religious expression of French citizens. We recognize the strain that Muslim immigration and integration are putting on French culture but encourage the nation to find a happy medium where the individual religious practices of Muslims are respected, even while preserving French culture. Much has been made over what it means to be truly French—but surely no particular style of dress or worship is more truly French than the enlightenment ideal of genuine religious pluralism. This bill poses a clear danger to that ideal, and it ought not be passed in a fog of anxiety and unfounded rationalization.