The veil on scaffold !Do you have any idea about this?
THE veil, the Arab cultural wear of burqas and niqabs that has become identified with Islam is being hoisted to be guillotined not just by the French who are historical professionals in the guillotine business, but also by a rare mixture of European, Arab and Islamic countries.
The anti-veil coalition of the willing include Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Syria; their partners in Europe include Netherlands, France, Belgium and Spain.
The veil had played not just religious, but political roles. In the Algerian war of independence for instance, people in veil were conveyor belts of weapons past French security check points as the colonialists were afraid to search such persons. Soon, they banned the veil. Respected Islamic scholar, the late Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon saw it as a clothing that does not allow men to see the woman as a sex object.
But not many agree with Fadlallah. The most surprising to me is Syria which has banned its teachers and students from wearing the niqab veil that reveals only a woman’s eyes. Hundreds of teachers in primary schools wearing the veil have been transferred to administrative jobs while public and private universities have been instructed not to register veil-wearing women.
It appears that Syria is trying to assert the secularity of the state, but there is a political undertone; conservative Islamism which is gaining ground amongst the poor sections of the populace may be a danger to the Syrian rulers.
The veil is the symbol of this growing conservatism or in some cases, of defiance.
But the unkindest cut is by the French whose lower house in the National Assembly voted 335 to 1 with the Socialist party walking out. But the walk out is not in protest against the decision, but the area of coverage. The socialists want the ban only in places such as public transport, hospitals and public buildings.
The bill goes to the French Senate next month where it is likely to pass an overwhelming endorsement. I say it is an unkind cut because in colonial times, France pursued a policy of assimilation and had given its former colonial subjects, their descendants and immigrants the impression that they are fully part of France. This may be one reason why with five million Muslims out of its total 64 million citizens, it has the highest number of Muslims in Europe.
Those who may be affected most are people of Algerian descent whose forebears had fought on the French side during the Algerian liberation war against French colonialism. When the French under Charles de Gaul were forced to give up Algeria, many of these French loyalists fled to their adopted mother country fearing for their lives in an homestead they had betrayed.
It will be surprising, if not annoying to many of them that after over half a century of assimilation, the French will claim that it wants to define what is French, hence the need to ban the veil.
Clearly, France is uncomfortable with the brand of Islam whose adherents had bombed civilian targets in various parts of the universe and subsequently changed the direction of world history. There was also the shock France suffered in 2005 when youths from minority sections of the populace engaged in bloody riots.
Clearly the move against the veil has little to do with asserting French culture; it is mainly a political one championed by the conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy with eyes on the next elections. The French argue that the ban has nothing to do with cultural, minority and religious rights. As part of the attempt to live this lie, the new law is called the “bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public”.
They claim that the bill affects everybody irrespective of religion and is therefore not discriminatory. But is motorcycle helmets which also covers faces not affected? The French makes exceptions of the helmet, health, skiing and festival masks.
Interestingly, some French believe that the ban is a move to liberate women of the Islamic faith. A legislator, Berengere Polletti, for instance, argued that women in veil are in “prison” and that the veil is “the sign of their submission to their husbands, brothers or fathers”.
This faulty thinking is reflected in the penalties. Fathers, brothers and husbands or anyone convicted of forcing someone else to wear the veil risks a one year prison term and $38,000 fine. If the ‘victim’ is a minor, this penalty is doubled. In the case of women found guilty of willingly wearing the veil, the penalty is $185. In 2004 France had banned Muslim headscarves and other religious symbols in its public primary and post-primary schools.
The French bill is quite liberal compared to the rule in Turkey, an almost wholly Muslim state; here, even the wearing of Muslim headscarves are completely banned. Additionally, political parties aligned to religion or even suspected to be so are banned. The military in Turkey assumes the right to overthrow any government that is seen as promoting Islam or any religion. Jordan bans the veil under the guise that armed robbers use them as masks.
Despite the various reasons adduced, the move against the veil is essentially political; a move by the majority against the minority, the ruling class against the ruled, the rich against the poor or some sense of cultural superiority, especially by the Europeans. To many of the anti-veil people, the wearing is a symbol of growing Islamic extremism.
In most of these countries, the veil is unlikely to go down without a fight. For instance, constitution courts might still strike the ban down on the basis that it conflicts with fundamental human rights. It is also not unlikely that the case may be taken to the European human rights court which may find it discriminatory. Whatever the outcome of such battles, it is clear that the concept of global citizenship is under attack; the stringing of the veil heralds the commencement of this attack.
