Earlier this month, France’s lower house of parliament approved a bill to ban Islamic face veiling,  or the burqa.* Though not yet law, the bill is expected to pass through the French senate in September. Lawmakers have somehow framed this proposal as a boost for security and women’s rights, but—as anyone who reads into the social implications will realize—it is neither.

In terms of security, I can see how covering the face inhibits police work. Therefore, a sweeping ban of all face “masking” could be understandable (though exceedingly over-cautious). This particular bill, however, exempts face covering for artistic events or carnivals—blatantly overlooking the fact that such events are obvious targets for crime and terrorism. The bill also excludes motorcycle helmets, fencing costume, ski equipment, and masks for medical reasons. In other words, let’s call this what it is: a law against looking too Muslim.

And the difference is…?

Let me be clear: No one should be compelled to veil. I actually applaud the bill’s imposition of heavy fines on anyone who tries to do so. However, just as no one has the right to force a woman to cover her face—no one has the right to force her not to. Which brings us to women’s rights: If the French government made a mandatory mini-skirt law, exposing the legs for security reasons or what not, people would be up in arms. So what about a woman who feels that her face is private area not to be displayed in public? Has the government any more right to force a woman to expose that part of her body than it does her legs, breasts, arms, or anything else? Government dictation of which body parts a woman can or cannot cover is no victory for women’s rights. Rather, it should be viewed with as much indignation as would be a government mandated cleavage-quota.

Aside from this bill, an ominous amount of Muslim-minority directed legislation has come out in recent months. Even Switzerland, renowned for its tolerance, limited construction of Islamic prayer towers by employing such welcoming propaganda as this:

Additionally a leading candidate for New York City mayor is up in arms over a proposed mosque in Manhattan (claiming it is too close to the former world trade center site). Luckily, current mayor, Michael Bloomberg, demonstrated a firmer grasp of mayoral boundaries by rebutting, “Government should never—never—be in the business of telling people how they should pray, or where they can pray.”

Well said, but shouldn’t we also apply that to the business of telling people how they should dress? With similar bans being proposed in Spain, Belgium, and Italy, the French proposal brings to mind Martin Luther King’s observation that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Regardless of a citizen’s religion or nationality, when a democratic government starts dictating what people can and cannot wear, the world should be on alert.

Therefore, let’s take a moment to revisit the proposed law’s theatrical-exemption: It does not apply to public performances. So, in the event this law passes, what would happen if the citizens of France (and anyone else visiting the country) exploited this artistic loophole? In a simultaneous, nation-wide performance of political street theatre, citizens could go about their daily lives while donning full face coverings. The stage of this particular “play” could include all public areas in which face-covering is banned (aka: everywhere) and its duration would extend to the day the law is repealed.

En masse or individually, burqa or otherwise, everyone covering their faces as a form of theatrical public protest should be exempt from legal action. If police do harass these “performers,” strength in numbers would bring world-media attention, allowing French citizens to demonstrate that their country is not as intolerant as their lawmakers increasingly indicate. Hopefully, the French legal system would soon realize that it has more important matters to deal with than prosecuting thousands of “face covering tickets” that thousands of citizens would refuse to pay.

But why wait to see if the proposal passes? The bill has gotten this far through the implied consent of silence. In order to protect our right to religious and expressive freedom, citizens may need to turn up the volume. Perhaps then, our governments would understand that they do not, and will never, have permission to dress or undress our bodies.

_______________________________________________________________________

* “Burqa” usually covers the entire face in black. “Niqab” (which would also be banned under the ruling) often exposes the eyes. Hair-covering headscarves, or the “hijab,” would not be publicly outlawed, though they are already banned in French schools and public service,

Posted in Uncategorized
2 Comments Posted by ChrisB