By Sara Gon
France has banned the wearing of the niqab and other European countries are considering doing the same. It is a strange response to the failure of European multiculturalism. A truly democratic, confident society should reinforce the principles and culture that characterise that society without removing rights to follow religion or culture.
Banning the wearing of the niqab in public will not assert the rightness or superiority of French culture. It just makes the French look spiteful and nervous. A woman in niqab may be a strange, and even fearful sight to a non-Muslim.
However, provided it does not harm the society in which it is worn, I don’t think there should be a problem with it. The wearer must uncover her face if law and societal safety dictate it. This is where a state shows its strength: tolerance for what the individual wants to the point that others may be harmed because of it.
For me the full body and face covering in large swathes of black fabric has an unavoidably sinister connotation, sort of Darth Vader’s mum saying: “Lukman, I am your mother”. The head-to-toe black has always evoked a visceral, negative reaction in me. This doesn’t derogate, however, from the right of the wearer to exercise a personal choice. Muslim women who wear head scarves, however, often look elegant, beautiful and dignified.
I recently had my first direct interaction with a woman in niqab. I attended a meeting with the parents of a boy whose mother had withdrawn him from my son’s school to avoid his expulsion. The mother had been unable to enrol him at another school and received advice to report our school to the educational authorities. The meeting was aimed at resolving the problem.
At the end of the original disciplinary hearing, the mother begged the panel to consider some alternative to expulsion. She said if the father found out, he would assault her and probably the boy as well. The only thing the panel could suggest was to withhold the formal request for expulsion (which has to be made to Gauteng department of education) whilst she had a chance to withdraw the child voluntarily. This moment of compassion came back to bite us in our collective arse.
The mother and father attended this meeting. He was dressed in trousers, shirt, tie and pullover. She was wearing niqab. We were sitting across a wide boardroom table. The father’s English was not clear so the mother did most of the talking.
I could see her eyes though not very clearly because of the distance. I could see some of the distress in them and hear it in her voice. I couldn’t see her expression and I couldn’t read any signals or body language that she may try to convey to contradict or support her words.
A second meeting was held with the mother and her daughter-in-law. The latter was a beautiful young woman wearing a headscarf — dignified, neat, elegant. On this occasion I experienced something different. I addressed the daughter-in-law more and I realised this was because I could see her expressions, her body language and her gestures. Therefore I could communicate more directly and more articulately with her. Gradually the mother ceased to be a part of the discussion. This was an unintentional consequence of the physical barrier between us.
The mother’s dress isolated her from the outside world — she was side-lined and eventually disappears from social discourse in a non-Muslim society. Her body language is completely muted. In her case, she is also abused and largely confined to home as she has no skills or means of support other than that provided by her husband. The father has no concern that any evidence of her abuse will be seen in public. She is hidden from society both inside and outside the home.
It is not for the state to intervene in a personal choice of dress on the grounds of culture and protection of the wearer. The state can implement laws, protection and redress. The individual, however, has to make some personal choices which neither the state nor other members of society can redress.
There’s larger metaphorical veil to be lifted.
Sara Gon was a labour lawyer for 17 years which included stints as mediator, arbitrator, acting judge. She is Chair of the industry tribunal of the Advertising Standards Authority and is a member of the exemption committee of the metal industries industry federation.
Sara, while I grasp your argument about an individual’s right to choose to cover their faces with black cloths provided that no one is harmed, I find your argument lacking on several fronts.
Firstly, as an attorney, you would know that harm and security are not the only considerations where clothing is concerned. In many countries, people cannot walk around naked in public (except in designated areas, like nudist beaches). Their simple nudity would pose no security threat or present any harm to others – yet they would in all likelihood be arrested under indecency laws. Here public sensitivity and societal norms dictate that all persons wear some kind of clothes to cover the essentials (i.e be decent).
By the same token, France also requires that all persons show their faces in public, as a French societal norm. Hiding behind a black cloth is not acceptable and it is alien to the French. Call it indecent, if you like.
Secondly, let us not assume that all Muslim women voluntarily wear the niqab or burka. For some, it is imposed on them.
In short, those who wish to hide behind black cloths can do so freely at home or at mosques. Those who wish to parade naked can do so at home or at nudist beaches. Simple really.
I’m not sure its as simple as being a case of failed European multiculturalism. On the one hand, as a South African, I understand the dangers of a government which enforces laws based on the way people look, but on the other hand, as an atheist, I appreciate the efforts of a secular society taking a small step towards standing up for a culture of non religion.
I work for a state owned entity in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The niqab is also banned in our company firstly, because it is not considered Islamic and secondly because management feel that women can not practically go about their work in such dress. It was an eye opener for me.
The French took the decision for a number of reasons, including several instances where wearers refused to show their faces when asked to do so by police officers. In other cases men refused to allow their face-covered wives, needing medical attention, be treated by male doctors in public hospitals.
France has never claimed to be multi-cultural, indeed any collecting of statistics based on cultural or racial factors is banned by law. In French eyes, everyone is treated as French, no matter where they come from.
It also amuses me that France is classified as a “fully democratic confident society.”
More accurately it is a revolutionary society in constant political and institutional turmoil — five republics, two monarchies, one empire and one fascist state since 1789, and still looking for a solution — many see the current arrangement as a sixth republic in all but name. Vive la France!
Sorry, I forgot an empire: that should read: “More accurately it is a revolutionary society in constant political and institutional turmoil — five republics, two monarchies, two empires and one fascist state since 1789, and still looking for a solution — many see the current arrangement as a sixth republic in all but name. Vive la France!
@Prisha; I know a lecturer at the medical school in Abu Dhabi. All woman students have had to sign an undertaking not to take up the niqab since 2007. The reason is simply one of communication. More than 50% of patients treated in UAE hospitals do not speak Arabic (Pakistanis, Indians etc). It is estimated that 60% of human communication is through facial expression. The haqib impeads communication unacceptably .
One can understand European countries banning the haqib on security grounds. There are more cctv cameras and facial recognition software than just about anywhere on earth. The haqib provides perfect disguise for terrorists, be they male or female.
The real issue is whether the niqab is really an Islamic injunction. If it is not, then whether it is desirable in countries where wearing it one not only makes one a prime suspect (just as someone travelling in a bus was wearing a ski mask), but it instantly defeats the purpose of not drawing undue attention to oneself!
Remember Muslim women at the start of Islam were required to dress in a modest manner (not niqab) so that they would be recognised and not harrassed by criminals lurking in the streets. It would be helpful to keep this in mind. In any case nowhere were they instructed to walk around dressed up like Ninjas! That was and is obviously an innovation! Therefore, it seems that a cultural practice has wormed it’s way into some peoples notion of Islam disguised as a mandatory requirement.
The real concern is what commands the thing that is inside the niqab? We have to understand the stuff that is inside. Is it a treasure that is safe because nobody can look for them? Is it a possession something enslaved as live stock? Is it a form of chauvinistic fear, guilt, worry, unease or shame? Is it the allegiance to tradition because it is accumulated wisdom of past generations? Or is it a mere opinionated girdle to hold women in when she goes out?
What is in the bag?
What is in the bag?
It is sad to see that in the so-called muslim countries the burka or niqab is enforced in the strictest manner claiming to be pure Islamic instructions. But on the contrary these same women in these same countries are not safe in their own homes from their currupt men, let alone in the streets!
Considering the dozens of thefts committed by niqab-clad women (who are actually criminals going incognito), you have to admit that the niqab is indeed a security threat.
Unfortunately the South Africam Muslim clergy will all jump on the bandwagon and shout out their disdain against the French decision to ban the niqab. However, these same clergy will not be able to provide one verse from the muslim scripture, the Quran to support their claims, yet they purport to be followers of the Quran.
The niqab today creates a phony and cumbersome wall between the sexes, who need to intermingle in the fields of education and business. Muslim society is all the poorer for the absence of bright female minds in these fields. And, as anyone who has lived in the Middle East will testify, the strict separation of the sexes has only lead to a myriad social evils. In this society the only use of the burka now is to make it a tool it a tool to make the women believe that they were, are, and will remain inferior creatures. As a Muslim I say ban it.
I have always supposed that the entire purpose of the niqab is to wall the wearer off from the outside world. But if some women are coerced into wearing it by their husbands, how would giving them the individual the choice help? The husband’s choice would still prevail.
The Government of France has the right to ban the niqab to fight terrorism or for any other valid reason. For example, it has the right to ban the niqab for the female driver to prevent car accidents. Muslims must follow the righteous law of the land:
[4:59] O you who believe, you shall obey GOD, and you shall obey the messenger, and those in charge among you. If you dispute in any matter, you shall refer it to GOD and the messenger, if you do believe in GOD and the Last Day. This is better for you, and provides you with the best solution.
The believing women had to obey the righteous orders of the Prophet Mohammad, who was in charge of their country:
The French citizen may decide their affair after due consultation. They may vote and pass any law for the benefit of their country. The following verse narrates that the Muslims during the Prophet’s time used to decide their affair through the democratic process:
[42:38] ….. Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves, and from our provisions
You make it sound as if the Niqab is a prison sentence by quoting a story of a woman with an abusive husband. You can’t use an extreme circumstance as a basis for a wider societal opinion. And are you an expert in body language that you could hear distress in her voice and see it in her eyes? And even if she were distressed was it not due to the fact that her child’s schooling career was in jeopardy?
The only thing being veiled here, is your prejudice.
This long, rambling essay omits WHY the boy was facing expulsion.
For a school to take such a drastic step, he must have done something pretty bad. The only clue is the alleged violence of the father and that no other school would accept him. (Had it been a girl, there is a chance that the expulsion was a “cultural” issue)
So, between the lines of this politically correct lawyer’s writing we learn than despite the superficial, unthinking adherence to religious externalities, this family produced a child that no school wants to accept.
everyone seems to assume that Muslim females have a say whether they wear the niqab, whereas anybody in the know, knows they do it because they have to. given the choice i doubt very many would wear anything that removes their rights of association, and removes their identity, and infringes on their human rights
I agree with reality…Society and culture forvces women to wear those bags. And women who claim that they do it voluntarily are lying. They do it because they are promised paradise if they comply, otherwise eternal burning in a fire and snakes if they don’t. So how can they be doing it out of their own? My wife, sisters and cousins have all liberated them from this. Yet they are all nore knowledgeabe Muslims then those wearing those black bags.
Twice I had tenants of a particular faith (not race!). Never again! Their two Macho-boys were out of control and caused a lot of malicious, not only to the flat but also to the entire building, intercom, lifts car gate, etc.
Sorry, malicious damage I mean.
The being my first time, I don’t know if I’m entitled to comment in response to comments to my piece. It has been fascinating to read the varying views. The context? I am a liberal, politically very incorrect, and an atheist. I take the view that with very few exceptions, banning things does not promote religious tolerance nor does it advance a secular society. The boy? He was charged with stabbing a fellow pupil and then stealing a cellphone. His expulsion was sought from and supported by the education authorities. The education authorities (which usually advances the indiviual’s right to an education blindly) was sufficiently moved to agree with us that the rights of the other pupils, the teachers and the parents not continue to be victims of this pupil, outweighed his constitutional right to an education at our school. Sadly, his example is not unique. We deal with it all too freqeuntly. The damage almost always has its origins at the home where the mother does not wear a niqab.
What you observed here in SA has become the norm in most German public schools, and again it’s only the kids of a particular faith (not race!) turning schools into no-go zones. Other cultures cause no problems. On a more positive note, the offspring of Vietnamese refugees, known as boat people, score the best Matric (Abitur) results despite their poor, peasant background.- For the safety of their children even the staunchest atheist parents enroll their kids now in catholic or other Christian confession schools. Guess, why?
These comments are so typical.
Islam doesn’t command women to cover their faces. We are commanded to cover everything except our hands and faces (and according to the Hanafis, the feet, though I disagree with them).
The only women ever commanded to cover their faces were the wives of Muhammad (saaws) and this was due to their special status in society. They were also commanded to never remarry after his death. This is all in the Qur’an and is easily verifiable.
But we know from the hadith that if a woman wishes to cover her face there is nothing wrong with that. Asma bint Abu Bakr ra, amongst others, covered her face as a sign of devotion to Allah and a rejection of the duniya.
I do so as well. No one forces me to cover. My husband and I agreed that covering the hair and face were my choice when we were married (and having a marriage contract makes such terms possible, something Christian women are missing out on).
You might see us in public and see him wearing jeans and a t-shirt and me wearing a face veil, a head veil, and a long black dress, but that isn’t a reflection of the power of the relationship. He wears what he sees fit and I wear what I see fit.
The truth is, some men are control freaks. I know women who are forced to cover, but I also know women WHO ARE FORCED NOT TO COVER because their views don’t fit in with their secular families.
Oppression cannot be diagnosed by merely looking at a woman’s wardrobe.