French Reporter

Freedom or Fascism? Why the Burqa debate must be encouraged.

Last night I posted a status update on Facebook which sparked comments.

This is what it said:

Sarkozy: Burqa is not a religious problem, it is a problem for freedom, it is a sign of subservience and an offense to the dignity of women

First of all, to clarify what is really going on in France, nothing has been legislated banning the burqa or the niqab in public*. French president Sarkozy has formed a commission to investigate the issue. This committee has six months to give its report to the French government.

The commission is made up of men and women, all of whom are elected officials and come from all sides of the French political spectrum.

Mr. André Gérin who formally asked Sarkozy's government to investigate the issue is a representative of France's left wing - an elected official of the communist party.

Several Muslim women of Sarkozy's government (Fadela Amara - Secretary of State of Urban Policy, Social Affairs, Family and Urban Solidarity, a Muslim of Algerian descent, Rachida Dati - Former Minister of Justice, equivalent to Attorney General in the US, a Muslim of Moroccan-Algerian descent and Rama Yade - Former Secretary of State responsible for Human Rights, a Muslim of Senegalese descent**) have also voiced their unease over the growing number of women who wear the niqab in public.

A majority of officials and the public in France agrees: this debate is not about preventing people from dressing as they please. It is about putting an end to the domination and tyranny of women. Of course it won't abolish female discrimination across the world, but it will show what a democratic and secular country won't (and shouldn't) put up with in the name of freedom. Democracy is freedom (of course this too can be debated), but it is not a forum for anarchy. In this case it is not about control over a woman's body or what she wears, but it is about standing up against a symbol of oppression in a country which founded Human Rights over two centuries ago.

There have been numerous complaints which have arisen recently in France regarding women who were unwilling to disclose their faces, not only for official identification purposes (please look at my previous post here for more about this).

Clearly the role of the French republic in this matter is to protect freedom and liberty. Aside from simply protecting the emancipation of women, the French government has a serious role to play in the emancipation of Islam on its soil.

The second largest religion in France, Islam is the first to suffer from the image which the niqab and burqa propagate in the western world. It sends a signal which many confuse and incorrectly corelate with the religion. In addition, wearing the niqab or burqa sends a signal of approbation, which implies that it is alright to distinguish yourself in public by covering your head and entire body in a medieval-like cloak which represents oppression. Scholars agree that the Koran does not require women to cover their head or body in order to comply with the religion.

I received a variety of comments on my status post, namely from two American friends who fail to see why this really is such a big deal.

One pointed out that legislating to ban a religious symbol in the name of freedom seemed oxymoronic. I understand, but take for example Bill Clinton's legislation to enforce Equal Opportunity in the workplace. Of course, the bill had its share of opponents, but the government imposed minorities in the workplace in order to counter discrimination in the US. Today, the French government is debating the burqa in France in order to overcome a problem it is facing not only with discrimination against women, but also with regards to discrimination against the Islamic faith. 

Consider also the position France and other European countries have taken with regards to swastikas and symbols of Nazi Germany. These violent signs are not only forbidden in most European countries, but selling an item which carries a swastika is a punishable offense. Would the same individuals who argue that banning the burqa impedes on personal freedom also argue that nazi paraphernalia should should be freely commercialized in Europe? 

I believe the burqa is just as offensive to women as a swastika is to a concentration camp survivor, many of whom today still work to remind younger generations of the hatred and intolence propagated by the Third Reich.

What most people are not getting is that allowing women to wear the burqa and the niqab is in fact saying yes to extreme ideology and oppression. This is not about religious freedom.

There are lots of other things that are oppressive and degrading to women such as pornography for example, and no one wants to ban that, commented a friend on Facebook. Why is this such a big deal? Why can't people just dress as they please?

The reason is simple. Women who wear the burqa and the niqab in France or other Western countries choose to single themselves out and to stigmatize their own religion.

The pornography argument just isn't valid. Of course pornography is degrading and offensive to women. But no one is forced to look at it unless they choose to do so. On the other hand women who cloak themselves in the streets of Venisseux, Trappes or other suburban towns in France are choosing to stand out in a place where they will be considerably noticed.

You really can't miss a woman wearing a niqab in France. Even if you'd like to ignore it, the uneasiness the niqab sets off is there. You can't avoid looking at it and seeing all it represents. The woman who wears it promotes a symbol of subservience, whether she means to or not, thereby creating an environment which will push more to believe it is acceptable to require other women to dress this way in public.

When a minority, no matter how small, begins to say it is ok to promote oppression, it is time for the government to to send a strong message on where it stands.

A French quote by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "La Liberté des uns s'arrete là où celles des autres commence" (which roughly translated means that an individual's freedom ends where the freedom of another begins) comes to mind. The freedom of one woman to wear the niqab is the bane of the next who's husband will say, "others are doing it, why won't you?"

This is where the discussion becomes more delicate. While it is so difficult to get niqab-wearing women to speak up (suffice to say that if they are wearing the niqab or burqa in the first place, they have already attempted to erase themselves from public life, to make their faces and bodies invisible to the world, one can only imagine how eager they are to share their thoughts publicly on tv or in the press), their choice to segregate themselves raises the same question : even if it is self-inflicted - worn by women who freely choose to do so - does that make it alright to openly promote a symbol of oppression? Should women, and more generally the French and European governments condone the behavior and do nothing to protect the rights that women have fought so fiercely to obtain?   

I believe the question deserves serious consideration not only by the French government, but also throughout the world. 

* The French government legislated in 2004 to ban any signs of religion in public French schools. This did not include universities of other public French institutions. To date, the French government has not legislated on wearing the burqa or niqab in public in France.

** Addendum as pointed out by David Oberschmidt : Following last week's ministerial reorganization, Rachida Dati has been replaced by Michele Alliot-Marie as the "Ministre de la Jutice", Dati will serve as a European member of parliament, and Rama Yade as been placed within the "Ministère des Sports et de la Santé"

The Burqa Non Grata

Why Sarko gets it and Obama doesn't

The everlasting debate over a piece of clothing deemed demeaning and humiliating by most people in the western world, is on yet again in France.

Following a request made by a communist member of parliament in the Rhône region (home to several heavily-immigrant-populated areas), French president Nicolas Sarkozy has officially appointed members to a commission which will debate the legality of wearing the burqa (which covers the entire body) and the niqab (which has an opening for the eyes).

The commission - formed by 58 elected representatives - is diverse and includes members of all political parties, left and right combined, which are represented in the French government. Sarkozy is asking for the government's support of the discussion and hopes it will bring, "legal propositions (in order to) counter a system which endangers individual freedoms in France." They have six months to investigate and present their official report to the government.

Two weeks ago during the Obama/Sarko press conference in Normandy at the D-Day commemorations, a journalist asked Obama what he thought about the controversial headscarf issue in France. The journalist was referring to a law passed in France in 2004 banning headscarves, veils or any other visible sign of religion in public schools (excluding universities).

Obama's response was homogeneous and consensual : "... as I said in the speech, I think that freedom of religious expression is critical... I will tell you that in the United States our basic attitude is, is that we’re not going to tell people what to wear ... my general view is, is that the most effective way to integrate people of all faiths is to not try to suppress their customs or traditions; rather to open up opportunities and give them a chance for full participation in the life of their country."

Many Americans feel the same way and believe that banning religious apparel seems intolerant. However, what appears unjust in the United States, is in fact necessary in France.

It is estimated the number of women in France who choose to wear the niqab or the burqa are a tiny minority, perhaps between 1,000 and 3,000. It is impossible to get an exact count but officials here agree it is on the rise.

If the number is so small, then what's the big deal?

The president of a women's rights organization "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises", Sihem Habchi, was one of the first to react. Her statement was that a debate should be encouraged to demonstrate what the reality of the situation is in France and to take a closer look at the deterioration of the condition of women in general.

In fact French women's rights' organizations are all for a reform which would completely ban the niqab and the burqa in public. Many feminists feel the  legislation passed in 2004 was not specific enough and did not fully protect women who could be forced by husbands or family members into wearing the niqab.

Habchi went on to say that France has a responsibility to show on which side it stands, in particular at a time when Iranian women are fighting for their own rights.

While France's left wing is divided over the issue, about half of Sarkozy's opposition (socialist) agree that the niqab and burqa should not be allowed in France.

Mr. André Gerin, a member of the French communist party, (he is the congressman who brought the debate to the public spotlight), said that today, people in certain neighborhoods in France are confronted with a growing number of Muslim women who wear the burqa, which cloaks and veils the head and the entire body, in what he described as a wandering prison. He considers such apparel to be degrading.

"The sight of women imprisoned in the burqa or niqab from Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia is already intolerable, but it is totally unacceptable when it happens in France," said Mr. Gerin. "We are not talking about an ostentatious display of religion but a serious infringement of the dignity and respect for women," he pursued.

In an interview granted to Le Figaro newspaper, Dalil Boubakeur, the superintendent of the Paris Mosque, said that "the burqa is not prescribed in the Koran." He further notes that in pre-Islamic times, women in Afghanistan already wore the burqa, thereby explaining it is wrongly associated with his religion. Boubakeur said he supports the governmental commission as long as a dialog with Islamic officials is included. He told the newspaper, however, that because of religious and individual freedoms in France, he remains skeptical that a law banning the burqa will actually work. He believes a better understanding of the root of the problem, which in his view is due to a "hyper-affirmation" of identity and dysfunctional integration into French society, would be more successful. 

On the streets of Venissieux, a town near Lyon (Rhône) which is often designated as an example in newscasts because of its large immigrant population, the controversy seems to exasperate most. "They should look for a solution for unemployment instead," one woman was quoted as saying in the daily La Croix, as she scurried away with her fully-cloaked mother, in the sweltering June sun. No one seems willing to talk much much about these women, primarily identified as Salafists, a particularly fervent branch of the Muslim religion, assumed to be a very small minority.

Mr. Gerin, however (quoted above), disagrees. The former mayor of Venisseux says he has seen too many instances where women wearing the niqab have caused problems. In particular he says an increasing number of women want to go through the civil wedding* procedure, which takes place at the town hall, but refuse to show their faces. In addition, niqab-clad women are demanding ID cards and other official documents with photographs in which they are veiled.

Equally as alarming, the "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" organization has had a growing number of complaints from kindergarten schools, where teachers cannot recognize mothers coming to collect their children.

In a country which is built on the principles of separation between church and state, and which has always prided itself in a free, secular, public school system, open and welcoming to all, it is outrageous to imagine a young girl having to bear the brunt of the burqa at school.

The law passed in 2004 applies to minors attending public school in France, it does not concern students over 18 who attend universities, and are free to dress as they please. The idea was to protect younger girls who would suffer discrimination in public schools if they were being pressured to wear a veil. Furthermore, parents have a choice in France whether to send their children to public, secular schools or to private, religious ones. The measure was taken in order to keep France's public school system free of any outward signs of religion.

While it is hard to imagine anything similar preventing people from dressing as they please in the United States, it is difficult for women who live in the country which founded human rights, and who have fought so long themselves for equal rights, to be confronted to such an obvious and visible outward symbol of restraint.

The United States' Muslim population estimated at seven million people, represents less than 1% of its overall population. France on the other hand, with its heavy colonial past, has an official Muslim population of five million people, which make up more than 9% of its overall population. It is the country's second largest religion.

* In France, as in most European countries, individuals must get married at the town hall in order to validate their marriage. Traditionally, a religious ceremony may or may not take place - it is optional but not obligatory. This practice is fundamental to French citizens as it clearly shows the separation of church and state.

Why President Barack Obama Should Have Picked Morocco to Deliver His Speech to the Muslim World

I believe the President should have more seriously considered Morocco to address the Muslim world last week, and the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez would have been the perfect place. It is an Islamic Learning center – over 100 years older than Al-Azhar in Cairo– and historically has played a leading role in cultural exchanges between the Muslim and Christian worlds. Pope Sylvester II (Gerbert d'Aurillac), studied there in his youth, later bringing Arabic numerals to Europe by the end of the first millennium, and Moses Maimonides, a Jewish physician and philosopher, taught at Al-Karaouine for many years.

It’s just my two cents, but this university, historically tolerant for accepting Jewish students when others closed their doors on them (circa 1492), would have been one good reason the choice of location may have made the Israelis more receptive to what President Barack Obama had to say.

While Cairo was an understandable venue for the president’s speech–the country’s large population of 83 million alone make it a demographic giant of the Middle East and truth be told it is also a center of Arabic Learning for Sunni Muslims– in my opinion the choice also had its drawbacks.  

As written in the Washington Post last month, “by selecting Egypt, Obama could expose himself to criticism in the Arab Middle East for showing tacit support for President Hosni Mubarak, who has governed the country for nearly three decades with scant tolerance for political opposition. The 81-year-old Mubarak… has used his security services to harass and detain political rivals and is preparing for his son to succeed him.”

Furthermore, Mubarak’s push to make his current minister of culture, a painter named Farouk Hosny, the next director general of the UNESCO  (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) - despite the candidate’s open comments in parliament that Israeli books should be taken out of libraries and burned - shows that anti-semetic sentiments are prominent in Egypt.

Journalists and editorialists have been saying so much, albeit receiving little attention. Commentary magazine’s JonathanTobin, for example observes that “the overwhelming majority of Egyptians have rejected any notion of normalization with the Jewish state”.

Causing more of an uproar last month, an open letter in the French daily Le Monde  (co-authored by philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy, filmmaker Claude Lanzmann, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel) reproaching numerous statements made by Hosny, including a claim that Israeli culture is “inhuman” and that the “Jews are infiltrating into international media…” shows that anti-semetic sentiment in Egypt is generally grossly understated.

In addition, had Egypt proved to be a more reliable ally of the United States in the fight against global terrorism, I may have better understood the strategy to choose Cairo to deliver a message to the Muslim world. Alhtough it is not fair to say that Egypt and Syria have encouraged the destruction of Israel, it is safe to say that neither of these countries has done much to put an end to the growing anti-semetism in their countries.   

In this matter, Morocco has recently proved it can embrace a serious approach in the fight against extremist ideology and terrorist violence. The Moroccan government has done this in its own country as well as throughout the North African region.

The overall success of these efforts would have been acknowledged had Obama picked the Kingdom to deliver his speech. In addition, other governments, including the United States, should take a closer look at what they can learn from Morocco’s approach to fighting terrorism.

Indeed Muslim countries are far from immune to the global terrorist threat. The attack in Casablanca  on May 16, 2003 proved this when 12 suicide bombers simultaneously hit several targets in the city, (a hotel, a restaurant, a Jewish community center and cemetery, and a country club for Casablanca’s Westernized middle class) leaving 45 dead—including the terrorists– and more than 100 seriously wounded. Comparing populations between Morocco and the United States, Casablanca’s 9/11 situation in the US would have left more than 400 dead and 900 injured.

These initiatives have proved successful, and in April this year the U.S. State Department commended the Kingdom of Morocco in its Country Reports on Terrorism 2008 for its innovative and bold approach to counter terrorism :

“…the Government of Morocco, and frequently King Mohammed VI, regularly and strongly condemned terrorist acts, wherever they occurred.”

The annual report to Congress goes on to acknowledge:

“The Moroccan government pursued a comprehensive counter terrorism approach that, building on popular rejection of terrorism, emphasizes neutralizing existing terrorist cells through traditional law enforcement and preemptive security measures, and prevented terrorist recruitment through comprehensive counter-radicalization policies. Morocco aggressively targeted and dismantled terrorist cells within the Kingdom by leveraging policing techniques, coordinating and focusing the security services, and expanding and bolstering regional partnerships. “

The success the Kingdom of Morocco has seen, the report explains, also comes from the social reforms they have implemented. Specifically, the National Initiative for Human Development (INDH), launched by the current King, Mohammed VI, in 2005, is a $1.2 billion program designed to generate employment, combat poverty, and improve infrastructure, with a special focus on rural areas. These measures are aimed at ameliorating the socio-economic factors that terrorists exploit.

As noted by the Moroccan American Center for Policy : “since its launch the INDH has been responsible for some 16,000 project benefiting more than four million people. Two years ago, the U.S. government’s Millennium Challenge Corporation signed a five-year, $697.5 million compact with Morocco that will indirectly assist the INDH efforts by stimulating economic growth through increased productivity and improved employment in high potential sectors including investments in fruit tree productivity, small-scale fisheries, and artisan crafts.”

The news laws are bold because they go as far as to charge anyone caught promoting terrorist acts through religious sermons or through posters and audio, visual, and other electronic media, with two years in jail. Such measures, yet to be enacted in other Middle Eastern or Muslim countries, show good faith and cooperation in the battle against terrorism.

The legislation also gives authorities the ability to seize the assets of terrorists and their accomplices, and a newer anti-money laundering law, passed in 2007 and implemented last year, facilitates the freezing of suspicious accounts,  thereby permitting the prosecution of terrorist-finance related crimes, and establishing a financial intelligence unit.

Despite these hardened rules which have already halted several nascent terrorist cells (most recently last month), it is important to note that the report to congress  emphasizes that “the Government of Morocco made firm public commitments that the struggle against terrorism would not be used to deprive individuals of their rights and emphasized adherence to human rights standards and increased law enforcement transparency as part of its approach,” noting that “non-governmental organizations were granted unprecedented access to prisons where individuals convicted of terrorism-related crimes were held… and terrorist suspects and convicts were generally accorded right and due process of law.”
In other words, if there have been human rights violations, they are most obviously an exception rather than the norm – which is a lot more than can be said of most other Middle Eastern regimes, not to mention our own Guantanamo.

The new laws encourage citizens to beware of terrorist activity and to provide the government with information which would help break up further terrorist activity. For instance, if convicted terrorists voluntarily agree to testify against accomplice Jihadists, they can reduce their prison sentences to half, including commuting death sentences to life terms.

The King of Morocco, Mohammed VI, direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad, a privilege belonging only to one other leader in the Arab world, the King of Jordan,  benefits from the title of “Commander of the Faithful”. This gives him added respect and a firm grip on the masses of fervent Muslims in his country, in particular the poorer demographics more likely to be immersed in extremist ideology.

The fact that King Mohammed VI harshly condemns violent acts associated with Islam stating that they go against the country’s efforts to remain an open and tolerant, acts as a real deterrent to anyone sanctioning terrorist plots.

Morocco also has longstanding ties to the United States and its allies, including Israel. Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised this enduring alliance with the Kingdom.
As President Obama stated in his speech in Cairo (also mentioned by Bill Clinton before him), Sultan Mohammed III was, in 1777, the first foreign sovereign to recognize the independence of the United States. In a treaty established diplomatic relations between Morocco and the United States, forming the oldest such ties between America and any Middle Eastern country.

Re negotiations followed in 1836, but the treaty is still in force, thus being the United States’ longest unbroken diplomatic accord.

In June 2004, in recognition of the Morocco’s strategic support for the war on terrorism, President George W. Bush formally designated Morocco a “Major Non-NATO Ally of the United States,” making it one of only fourteen states to be accorded that status.

And while there are no full diplomatic relations with Israel, the Kingdom has high-level contacts with representatives of the Jewish state since 1986, when the late King Hassan II became only the second Arab ruler to openly host a senior Israeli leader, inviting then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to the royal palace at Ifrane for formal talks.

King Mohammed VI has also awarded the Royal Order of Al-Alaoui – a military medal of High merit and prestige - to several prominent Jews of Moroccan origin, including Dr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, current director of the International Monetary Fund; Dr. Yehuda Lancry, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations; and Rabbi David Messas, chief rabbi of Paris.

Moreover, during deportation in World War II, Morocco’s then-Sultan Mohammed V refused  to provide Nazi Germany with lists of Jews for deportation, stating that the Jews in Morocco were Moroccan above all, and could not be separated from the rest of the population. This is a little known fact that holds a great deal of importance. Although there are no numbers showing exactly how many Jews were saved on behalf of the King’s refusal to submit to the Germans, many Moroccan Jews were later able to immigrate to Israel in 1948.

Morocco also stands distinguished for a Royal Decree, issued three years ago : a pioneering initiative to train 50 Mourchidates or female spiritual guides, alongside the usual 150 male Imams who study and graduate each year. Their role is to promote moderation and religious tolerance in mosques across the Kingdom and in Moroccan immigrant communities abroad. In addition to memorizing the Koran and the study of Islamic law, the training program also forms candidates in psychology, communications, and foreign languages. Students earn a secular baccalaureate degree at the end of their training. Egyptian religious authorities have already implemented a Mourchidate program, similar to the Moroccan curriculum.  

Last month, a delegation of Mourchidates visited the United States, participating in an interfaith forum on religious understanding in New York City that included female Jewish rabbis and Christian ministers. ALthough religious Muslim scholars insist that women have always held an important place in Islam (citing for example Aisha, one of the Prophet’s wives who was instrumental in spreading the religion after his death), this initiative to legalize female guides is a first in the Arab world.

Unbeknowst to many Americans, last week, Fez hosted the 15th International Festival of Sacred Music. This year the theme was “The Tree of Life”, and the celebration was officially inaugurated by Princess Lalla Salma, the bride of King Mohammed VI.

Highlights of the festival included Muslim, Christian, and Jewish musicians from around the world. Among these were French jazz violinist Didier Lockwood, a Spanish band (Curro Pinana) who sang Arabic poems to Flamenco music, a Canadian singer and composer Loreena McKennitt, a Lebanese singer and composer Marcel Khalifa, an Iranian percussionist Keyvan Chemirani and other artists from Morocco, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Senegal, Egypt. This international event would have been the perfect follow-up to President Obama’s speech in Fez.

Following President Obama’s visit, Egypt has every reason to be happy, but Morocco can also celebrate its own successful and historic relationship with the United States. Although the battle against extremism will most likely be an ongoing one, the Kingdom can be proud of its achievements in this regard both for itself and for other countries in the world. Like their fellow Americans, Moroccans proudly embrace their unique culture of diversity – built on a long tradition of Arab, Berber, Muslim and Jewish co-existence. Let’s hope these two heterogeneous countries built on unity will encourage the rest of the Arab world to mend their own differences.