An aggressive secular state often marginalizes ethnic minorities, and attempts to divide et impera minorities to weaken their ethnic roots. France has forcefully banned the face veil for women, referred to as Niqab by Muslims, under the pretext that it is oppressive for women. The law will come into effect later this year unless turned down by senior judges. Women who break the law will be fined. But the question is – what will this ban achieve?
According to the World Bank, France has a population of just over 62 million. The numbers of women who wear the veil are under 2000 – how can such a small group of women who voluntarily choose to cover their faces be a threat to French values, or public safety. It is unclear under what pretext the Niqab is being banned, since neither the justification, nor President Sarkozy’s comments give legitimate reason for banning women from wearing Niqab.
There are several arguments substantiated against the wearing of the Niqab. None of which can be held justifiably under a liberal state. First of all President Sarkozy has referred to the Niqab as a symbol of “oppression”. But his perception of the Niqab is subjective because his support for a law that restricts a minority from exercising their freedom – both freedom of religion and expression is not universally acknowledged. It matters little how other people perceive, and understand the Niqab because all women should be entitled to self-determination without intimidation. If we believe in Liberalism and human rights, we would then have to support women that voluntarily choose to wear Niqab on a daily basis. But if we choose to uphold liberal ideals but restrict women from exercising their freedom, then we would be contradicting liberal values that France supposedly upholds.
The image of the Niqab is controversial but it’s not one that threatens national security or public safety. Failing to distinguish between personal opinions, and prejudices against the Niqab inevitably leads to injustice to a small minority of women whom have found solace and tranquillity in determining for themselves how to dress. It is not a matter of safety, or a question of integration because European Muslims are integrated within their society – the calls of integration fall on dead ears because European Muslims are part of the European society, and their choices to cover up or not is at their own discretion. The 2000 women of France have not been questioned about their choices, but the choices are made for them – contrary to what a secular liberal state should promote. I do not wear a Niqab, but I fiercely oppose the calls of those who are against it because it is the choice of women. To me, it is a question of freedom – to what extent should we allow it, and if it’s banned completely, then on what basis? It is not a question of whether Islam promotes the wearing of Niqab.
Islamic clerics do not have an unanimous agreement on the wearing of Niqab. Some have opposed this ban, while others have perceived the Niqab to be conflicting with religious texts. But this is not sufficient to ban the Niqab. Although the drafting of the law does not directly refer to Muslim women, and Niqab, but in reality it directly affects them.
Some have claimed that wearing a Niqab is offensive because it symbolizes the subjugation of women. First of all, less than 2000 women in a country of 62 Million who wear it object to this interpretation and perception of the face-veil. The question of whether an “offence” constitutes a crime relates to whether a criminal sanction should be imposed for actions that are neither blameworthy nor wrongful in conduct. D. Husak in “the nature and justifiability of non-consummate offences” (1995) argues that “Immorality is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for criminalization.” Furthermore Jonathan Herring explains in criminal law (Oxford – text, cases and material) that “essentially, then, the harm principle is that each person should be allowed to do and say what he or she likes provided that this does not harm the interests of others. Simply because an activity is seen as immoral or harmful to the actor is not good enough reason to justify criminalizing it.”
For those who do not like the sight of women just showing their eyes, or even the sight of women not showing their face – what right do you have to impose your view? In the 21st century women have in the western world reached a stage where they can claim they are equal before the law. But it seems ethnic minorities are continuously marginalized and subject to prejudice in the western world for choices relating to themselves. If we want to be true believers in “freedom” we have to give it to everyone equally, even if we do not agree with what they say or do. But if we believe in imposing one culture, one identity, and one trend, then we need to label ourselves correctly – as dictators.
It is unclear what this law will achieve, and whether it will stop Muslim women from covering their face. If anything, it will make them feel alienated, marginalized, and attacked – in a country that claims to protect the rights of its citizens equally. What is of remarkable significance is the contribution of this law towards criminal law, and what constitutes as “crime” without having any harm since the Niqab does not pose a threat to national security, or potential harm to other citizens.
