For some women, the niqab is a religious obligation rather than a cultural one. Not only is Belgium taking away these women’s personal freedom to choose how to dress themselves, but it’s also denying these women the right to practice their religion as they see fit.
Belgium’s recent ban on face veils has been all over the news lately. The ban, which fines women for wearing face veils, has ostensibly been enacted for these women’s benefit. Belgian Liberal Party MP claims that, with this ban, “We are the first country to break through the chain that has kept countless women enslaved.”
However, the idea was first proposed by the Flemish far right as “a first step against Islamization.” And, by reading the Independent article linked to above, it seems like this ban isn’t so much to “liberate” women from the burqa as to sanitize away their presence:
Local authorities in Belgium have already been allowed to clamp down on head-coverings. Jan Creemers, the Mayor of Maaseik, a small town on the Dutch-German border, said he had used a local ruling to deal with a group of heavily veiled women. “It became a problem in our town because we had about 50 women who walked around like that, which really annoyed many other residents. They kept coming to me to ask me to do something about it,” he told Belgian radio. “I spoke to a couple of these ladies to ask them very simply not to wear this kind of clothing. But one in particular refused point-blank so eventually the police opened legal proceedings against her.”
Apparently, “annoying other residents” is more important than these women’s bodily autonomy. There go the feminist ideals that Belgian lawmakers hastily pasted onto the ban.
In my interview with Australia’s “Accent of Women” program on 3CR radio, I stressed that banning any type of veiling and forcing any type of veiling are two sides to the same coin: they both criminalize women’s dress and take women’s choice away. Taking away a woman’s right to choose what she wear or doesn’t isn’t liberating for her.
For some of these women, the niqab is a religious obligation rather than a cultural one. Not only is Belgium taking away these women’s personal freedom to choose how to dress themselves, but it’s also denying these women the right to practice their religion as they see fit.
And in my interview on the Jeff Farias show, I point out that this ban has more to do with Islamophobia than with women’s rights. The ban is an attempt to force the few women who do wear a face veil to conform to Belgian (and European) standards of femininity and acceptable social dress. It’s also trying to solve a major issue (the threat of radicalization among Muslims in Europe) by treating a symptom of the problem rather than addressing the causes: disenfranchised and alienated Muslim immigrants and Belgian-born Muslims.
Belgium, don’t pee on a woman’s niqab and tell her it’s raining. This ban has nothing to do with woman’s freedoms or rights.
Fatemeh Fakhraie is a Contributing Editor to Altmuslimah.
I don’t know how do you identify women for legal matters if their faces are covered? Although it does seem that enforcing the wearing (in some muslim countries) or not wearing of a veil (in some western countries) is opposite sides of the same coin in one sense, there are civil and legal issues that I don’t see addressed. In a culture where women have independence they also have to be citizens. Citizens have rights and responsibilities, and the state must be able to identify individuals.
A veil is a separate thing from a head-covering. I’m not sure what these sentences mean:
“Local authorities in Belgium have already been allowed to clamp down on head-coverings. Jan Creemers, the Mayor of Maaseik, a small town on the Dutch-German border, said he had used a local ruling to deal with a group of heavily veiled women.”
Was it a face veil or a headcovering?
Also men don’t have this kind of freedom. If a woman in a veil shoplifts, will you take a picture with her veil on? How will she be identified?
It just seems there’s a lot more to this than just rights and freedoms.
@ Ghina: You bring up a good point. Religiously speaking, edicts allow women who wear face veils to unveil themselves for identification purposes, especially if it’s another woman making the identification. There is no reason that a woman in a face veil can’t carry identification around with her (which everyone does anyway) and lift her veil if an identification needs to be made. A ban still isn’t necessary.
But Belgium has so few women who wear a face veil that this isn’t an issue. If there was a rash of shoplifting being done by women in face veils, I might understand. But I’m willing to bet that the women that Belgium is so afraid of are all law-abiding citizens.
@Fatemah,
Yes there are a lot of details missing, and I suppose they can’t be covered in a few paragraphs. But the issue is if a camera is used to identify a criminal in the act, wearing a face-veil will keep us from identifying them.
What’s to stop a man from donning a veil and committing crime? Besides the fact that it attracts attention in the West of course. I think you’re not quite taking seriously the questions I’m asking, “a rash of shoplifting” was a little too flippant, it was a mild example.
I agree that there are serious questions to be concerned when it comes to face veils – issues that aren’t applicable to headscarves. I used to live in Philadelphia where many women wear niqab, and there were incidents where men in face veils committed theft.
I wonder then if the regulations couldn’t be nuanced – like face veils are banned in X Y Z locations but not elsewhere? Or is that too difficult to enforce? Just thinking out loud here…
My gut reaction to face veils, like Fatemeh, was that it was a breach of religious freedom. But I’m beginning to think beyond that and ask the hard questions. But even beyond those, I’m wondering what the motivation was behind the ban (and I’m sure the answer is out there, I just need to read it) – was it concern about shoplifting, other crimes, etc., or was it motivated primarily by anti-Muslim sentiment? I wonder if the purpose of the ban may not in itself make it illegitimate. It’s a valid legal inquiry.
(apologies for the hodgepodge of thoughts)
*questions to be considered
I do believe that some supporters of the ban on face veils may be anti-Islamic; I just think if we can be comprehensive in our assessment we can find a solution that addresses the real needs of all perspective without negating their concerns.
I’d love an article that conducts precisely that sort of comprehensive assessment – interested?
Good one! I wish I were a writer rather than an “editor” 🙂
@innominepatri—> well said, the sociological perspective is relevant. Also there is a generalized fear that the birthrate in the West is so low (not replacement value), that their culture will be replaced by immigrant culture
@asmauddin—> there’s your writer, the more comprehensive view that can start an honest discussion.
My distant relatives are a aflutter if the veil is not available to them in their own homes. But then they don’t live in the West.
@ ghina – even in France they may do as they please in their own homes.
And thank you 🙂
@ Fatemeh:
But Belgium has so few women who wear a face veil that this isn???t an issue.
Clearly that just isn’t true. However many women there were they felt it justified legislation. Why would this be? Have any of you considered that they may simply find the niqab offensive?
@ Ghina:
What???s to stop a man from donning a veil and committing crime?
They have and do. In Britain there have been veiled men bank robbers. Armed robbery. With violence. The veil works for them.
@ asmauddin
My gut reaction to face veils, like Fatemeh, was that it was a breach of religious freedom.
Nowhere does the quran mandate a veil. It is entirely cultural, therefore it is entirely non-religous an issue.
The wearing of the veil in non moslem countries symbolises cultural seperatism, causes offence against western sensibilities and stimulates only negativity. It is therefore an act of agression.
Peaceful coexistence is the key; those who take the veil carry with them a sign of isolationism and seperatism and show this symbol of offense to everyone they meet, wherever they meet them. Worse still, it is the first thing these people can see. Surely the world would be better served by preventing such negativity?
Understanding is half way to forgiveness. In the Bible the veil is the mark of a whore:
???When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.???
Genesis 38:15
And so to the Christians, and those descended from their culture, the veil is extremely immodest.
The niqab then is an immodest weapon used to highlight cultural and political differences. The balaclava is illegal in Britain for exactly these reasons.
If that is how they percieve it, then why wear it? What purpose does it serve?
Those who legislate against such items may be seen to be challenging rights and freedoms – but this is clearly not the case; they are demanding common decency and civility, they are forcing us all to adopt the moderate ground.
The only shame here is that it has to be made law before these people stop and think about the impact they are having upon their host culture.
If you live among non moslems, in a non moslem country, perhaps you should consider their cultural norms and values before imposing your own, alien customs upon them. That would surely be an act of love, respect and goodwill. And it would surely serve to minimise potential conflict.
Peace.