Proposed Legislation to Ban the Niqab in France: A Commentary

Samantha Watson, a recent graduate of Johns Hopkins SAIS, shares her opinion on the politics of religion surrounding the possible banning of the niqab in France. Admittedly approaching this issue as an outsider, Watson explores the dynamics of women’s rights and public safety embedded in this heated issue.

On Tuesday January 12, 2010, a top lawmaker in France, Jean-Francois Cope, filed legislation that would ban the use of the Islamic niqab attire in the public sphere if passed into law. Cope has been reported to cite gender equality and public security as the primary reasons for the ban. As a latinamericanist, with little knowledge of France or Islam, I have little to say about the specifics. However as a proponent of secularism, public safety, and gender, religious, and racial equality, this proposed French legislation evokes a variety of conflicting responses.

As a relatively new mother, I am increasingly aware of public security issues. The thought of any one roaming around with their face covered and with no way to identify them is scary. Anyone, man or woman, Muslim or not, could hide inside a niqab and conduct any number of crimes, including kidnapping a child—an image the media has put forth. Yet my child and my daycare provider would know it wasn’t me if I showed up in a niqab. Likewise if a mother normally picks up a child in a niqab the staff would recognize her voice, her movements and style of speech.

Yes, there is a chance that the unidentifiability of this type of dress could allow for impersonation, fraud and crime. As with any security threat, the issues should be considered.

However, those dressed in niqab are not the only ones wandering around making identification difficult. What about those wearing ski masks? Or a hat and sunglasses? What about scarves that are worn to protect the face from cold, but end up hiding the identity of the wearer? What about performers, mascots and wearers of masks? If the issue is that of public security, why is only the niqab being targeted? Shouldn’t the target be the covering of the body and face to the point of unidentifiability?

And if covering the face is the problem, where do we draw the line on prohibition? Ski masks serve the purpose of protecting against extreme cold. And niqabs serve a religious purpose. Who is to say which is right or which should be banned? It seems in a secular society that champions individualism, the only legal means of creating such a ban would be a ban on all face coverings. Say goodbye to clowns and mascots, say goodbye to winter scarves if they cover your face, and be ready for ad hoc, uneven enforcement. Who is to say who is a danger, and how can racial and religious prejudices be avoided?

The idea that such a ban would combat radicalism has also been thrown around. As Peter Nasuti put it: “Not only does ‘hard’ secularism fail to stop the spread of extremism, but it can alienate believers and thereby lead them to embrace fanaticism in reaction.” For a group that has repeatedly been demonized in the public sphere to have the option of religious practices stripped away can do nothing but radicalize. France has a small minority that wears the burka and an even smaller minority that wears the niqab. No real cases of public security issues have been presented, and yet this group is being targeted, yet again by another Western nation. How should any Muslim perceive this except as discrimination and as a loss of rights? How can we expect a people that are continuously losing rights in a number of countries to do anything but radicalize? How will this serve public security? Ben Franklin’s old adage that “If we restrict freedom to gain security, we will lose them both,” is especially salient here.

The pursuit of gender equality as a reason for this ban is bogus. Women who believe, or whose husbands believe, that the only decent, religiously-sanctioned attire is the niqab are not suddenly going to dress differently because the law changes. These women’s lifestyles will be further restricted to home and cars accompanied by male family members. This may mean a woman who was working may no longer be allowed to. This may mean women that were allowed to socialize at their friend’s homes, to go shopping together and pick up the kids at school will no longer be permitted to do so, or no longer feel comfortable in doing so. A family’s pursuit of decency and religious compliance coupled with the niqab bans could reduce the number of years of schooling for female children. The number of blows a policy like this can take on gender equality are great.

To the policymakers, I say this is not your battle. Pursuing this line of thought and action will result in increased tensions, increased radicalization and decreased gender equality. It is not secular to prohibit the expression of religion. I believe secularism is a prohibition on governments, not citizens. The role of the state is to require gender equality—to intervene when a man beats his wife or when a woman is denied work because of her sex. It is also the obligation of the government to ensure that the pursuit of an individual’s religion is free of harassment and persecution. This policy will directly contradict both of these goals. I implore you to stop this line of debate.

State documentation, through licenses, photo databases and fingerprinting, can help diminish security risks. However targeting those dressed in niqab increases tensions and marginalization. Public security policies, such as documentation, must be administered in the same manner across all groups. To require those using niqab to carry a photo ID or undergo additional searches must be accompanied by policies that require those wearing extreme outer wear, Goth-type attire, and other means of hiding identity, weapons or other security risks.

To the women of Islam and their many supporters, there are public safety and gender issues surrounding this type of attire. NPR’s Michelle Martin reported that most religious leaders agree that Islam and its texts do not dictate the use of the niqab. If this is true, consider the benefits to its non-use, to switching to a burka that allows for better identification. No one can pretend to be you or an anonymous “Muslim woman” if faces are shown and can be identified. A woman subject to domestic violence will no longer be able to hide bruises behind such attire. In the West, a clear sign of abuse is the increased covering of the body regardless of weather, how can you tell with the niqab? I do not presume to know what is best for the women of Islam. I am clearly a white, western, loosely Christian, liberal woman. I simply wish to note some of the concerns and encourage that current debates WITHIN the community continue and be amplified. It is easy to focus on the limitations being placed on the community, but also focus on the nuggets of truth that fuel these misguided policies. If the community as a whole delves further into debate about the pro and cons, it may find that this practice no longer serves its best interest. But then again, it may very well continue to serve your religious and spiritual needs if not others.