Published: Thursday, October 21, 2010
It is therefore imperative that we distinguish between the two. Liberty is freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction and hampering conditions. While in the process of lifting control, if we rob people of their right of doing, thinking or speaking according to choice then verily, we have achieved slavery.
On Thursday October 7, 2010 France’s Conseil Constitutionnel, the guardian of the country’s constitution, ruled that a law banning the wearing of any face-covering veil in public places does not impinge on civil liberties. The law had passed both houses of the French legislature by overwhelming margins earlier this year and is scheduled to come into effect in the spring.
The ban pertains to the full-body and face covering — with an opening for the eyes and hands — worn by some Muslim women in public places. This covering is often called ‘burqa’ or ‘niqab.’ The law imposes a small fine on anyone wearing such a covering and a substantial fine on anyone who forces a woman to wear one.
While the law is carefully worded so that the words “women,” “Muslim” and “veil” are never mentioned in any of its seven articles, it is worth noting that the nearly 2,000 women who wear such veils in France are all Muslims.
Ironically, supporters of the law see it as a symbolic defense of French values such as women’s rights and secularism and find it liberating and beneficial to Muslim women even though it explicitly fines women who voluntarily choose to wear the veil.
Unfortunately, this law is not the first of its kind in France or in the world. Governments, public officials and politicians are constantly interfering with the personal, peaceful, non-violent, day-to-day behavior of women in their countries. Some want to force women to behave chastely, while others who consider this very chastity ‘oppressive’ to women have decided to ban it.
In Saudi Arabia, for example, women are legally prohibited from driving cars. If a woman is caught driving a moving vehicle, she will be prosecuted and imprisoned for breaking the law. This regulation is still upheld because the government perceives it to be in the best interest of the nation to prevent women from traveling in a moving vehicle without a man.
Another example of a government dictating a code of conduct for women is found in the country of Iran, where women are mandated by law to cover their hair and body. Iran’s rulers believe that this regulation will help the women rise above the limitations of physical beauty.
Notice how every government claims to be doing what is best for its nation. As citizens of a diverse and multicultural world, it is crucial that we do not limit our definition of ‘oppression’ to regulations that force women to wear a veil but extend it to include regulations that prohibit women from wearing a veil. Both are equally oppressive and in fact, the latter is racist.
The Oxford English Dictionary offers an expressive definition for the verb ‘oppress’: to keep (a person or group of people, esp. a minority or other subordinate group) in subjection and hardship by the unjust exercise of authority, power, or strength.
Increasingly, secular countries have been unjustly exercising authority to interfere with the personal freedom of women at a time when these very countries are using women’s rights as their main argument for the secularization of theocratic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Judging by example, as soon as the harmless personal practices of private citizens become the political debates of a government, oppression and human rights are likely to be compromised. This threat to human rights still exists when the lawmakers have the best interest of their population in mind, since what is liberating to some women may be oppressive to others and vice versa.
I must admit to you that as a Muslim woman, I take issue with the attribution of ‘niqab’ to Islam. The subject is surrounded by controversy and I am one of many devout Muslims who believe ‘niqab’ to be a cultural practice of the old Arab tribes and not an Islamic teaching.
I, just like the French government, wish to wake up one day to a ‘niqab’-free world where all women are convinced that they do not need to cover their faces.
However, the question here is not whether I think Islamic teachings require women to cover their faces or not; the question is whether the state is allowed any say in a woman’s free choice to cover or not. The answer depends on the type of state.
For instance, it would be futile to plead with the governors of a theocratic country that the government should not meddle with people’s religious practices since the rulers openly declare that they rule in accordance with religious principles, more specifically what they believe to be religious principles.
What we can argue about is when a secular state like France, where personal freedom is supposedly a priority of the state, implements a law that interferes with the peaceful, non-violent, private choices of its people, whether those practices are religious or not.
Oppression can take different forms for different people. If the government of France had the well-being of those women as its priority then why are those women complaining? Many people think they could easily answer this question by saying that these women have been brainwashed and do not know better. But that is a racist, sexist and subjective opinion.
The early enslavers thought they were doing their slaves a great favor by forcing them to work as slaves. They thought of slaves as lesser beings who need to be forced into the right path because the slaves ‘did not know better.’
Our present world has not come far from that early example; slavery is still practiced by many who think that Muslim women need to be forced into the rulers’ subjective view of liberation. True liberation is the result of choice and choice cannot be forced — it must be voluntary.
No comments:
Post a Comment