• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

The Great Unveiling

A closer look at the banning of Muslim face veils

by Mark DeYoung

France’s lower house of Parliament banned the full Muslim veil last month. No French citizen will be allowed to publicly wear a veil that covers the face if the French Senate approves the ban this fall (and if it passes constitutional muster). A host of Western countries are putting various bans and rules in place for the burqa and niqab, but it is France (home to Europe’s largest Muslim population) that brought this issue to the forefront with their recent decision.

Muslim wearers of the face veil tend to be from the Salafist tradition. Salafists consider themselves direct followers of Muhammad’s teachings based on the first three generations of Islam.  While there are many different strains of Salafism (Saudi Arabia is governed under a form called Wahabbism), it tends to encourage very literalist interpretations of the Quran and believes in violent jihad. 

Dounia Bouzar, a French specialist on Muslim affairs, believes the ban can’t be justified in terms of individual liberty, yet admits to feeling relief that action is being taken.

“Imposition of this garment on women is one manner Salafists get individuals to renounce their individuality and submit to the extremist cult thinking that masquerades as Islam — but which is an abomination of it,” Bouzar said. “That Salafist influence and activity is spreading, and if it takes political action to prevent their cult from leading Muslims astray, so be it.”

It is the fear of such radical forms of Islam that appears to be driving the movement to ban Muslim face veils in Europe and even countries of the Middle East (Syria recently banned the full-face niqab at public and private universities). At the public policy level, many arguments are used to justify the ban. Martha Nussbaum, writing for the New York Times, laid out the most cited reasons. First, it is argued that law enforcement and proper security require the face be uncovered. A second related argument is that transparency and healthy relations among citizens cannot exist when people cover their faces. The third argument is that the burqa represents male domination and is a direct affront to women’s rights. A fourth, related argument suggests women only wear the burqa because they are coerced.

For the most part, these arguments seem quite reasonable and convincing, yet they may not stand up to greater scrutiny.

Take the security argument. While seeing an individual’s face is an important part of law enforcement, much personal identification is going the way of eye scans and finger print recognition. The ban on face coverings has more application when it comes to tracking and identifying individuals who may be part of criminal groups. Indeed, many places in the American south banned the KKK hood for this very reason. Yet where does the balance between personal liberty and national security meet? Would governments be justified in banning neck scarves that cover the face in winter?

The second argument concerning citizen relations, at face value, seems to make good sense. Think of how difficult it can be to truly communicate with someone even if they are just wearing sunglasses. Yet could such a “good citizen” justification be made to ban clothing and personal effects for other non-Muslim subsets of the population? Would we have to ban the wearing of lengthy hair that covers all or part of the face?

The women’s rights argument also seems quite reasonable. Who would argue that the permanent covering of the face in public does not involve some loss of dignity and a certain amount of subordination? Yet Muslims who defend the niqab compellingly point to the opposite end of the spectrum. They question the curious manifestation of women’s rights in Western societies where sexual objectification is the norm, as evidenced in extremely immodest fashions, a massive plastic surgery industry, and a destructive pornographic culture.  

The fourth argument concerning coercion does have some solid back up. A 2003 French survey found that 77% of Muslim girls wearing the hijab (which covers everything but the face and hands) did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. A newspaper exposé done that same year documented how Muslim women who refused to wear the hijab were insulted, rejected and often physically intimated by Muslim males. It is the men from the radical groups (such as the Salafists) who are pressuring mainstream Muslim women to wear the hijab. How much more then must these Salafist men be pressuring the women in their own sub-communities to wear the full burqa and niqab, which cover everything but the eyes? It would be hard to argue that any woman would wear it freely. Yet, this is still a subjective argument in some cases. Some Muslim girls say they wear the full face veil to be counter-cultural (when the rest of the Muslims in their family actually think it is anti-Islamic to cover the face).

Voices from inside the Catholic Church offered views on both sides of the ban.

French Bishop Michel Santier, speaking against the ban, stated, “If we want Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries to enjoy all their rights, we should in our country respect the rights of all believers to practice their faith.”

Cardinal Renato Martino, former head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and in favor of the ban, argued that “immigrants must respect the traditions, culture and religion of the nations they go to.”

Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice, who has worked with Middle Eastern Muslims for many years, thinks there is a better way. He argued for a crossbreeding of civilizations that transcends the flawed multiculturalism of places like Great Britain and tries to find common material and spiritual goods.

At the end of the day, this complex issue has compelling arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it is important to question where such measures might lead, good or bad. At the moment, such legislation is targeted at Muslims (for what seems to be a legitimate fear of radical Islam). How will we feel when the national secularization policies of France extend to the nun’s habit or the priest’s cassock (assuming one could find such things in modern day France)?

Clearly, there is a need to address the potential problems of a growing sub-community of radical Muslims in Europe and elsewhere. However, France and other countries need to fully analyze the potential damage these limits on personal freedom could have over time. Banning the face veil may not be the best way.

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)