Politics of the Veil - Question #3

In July of 2010 the French Parliament voted to approve a ban on the wearing of veils that cover the face in public places. This vote made France the first European country to restrict a custom that some Muslims consider a religious obligation. The so-called burqa bill went into effect in 2011 restricting that those who conceal their faces, whether at a museum, theater or café, will face a fine of 150 euros. Joan Wallach Scott reflects on the aftermath of the bill’s passing in her novel The Politics of the Veil, and expresses her concern that “…rather than resolving the problem of integrating Muslims into French society, the law banning headscarves has exacerbated it (Wallach Scott).” The author draws this conclusion based mainly on the testimonials of Muslim women who have experienced how out of hand this law has gotten since it’s passing.

 According to an article in The New York Times by Dan Bilefsky, “A covered woman, who the French news media reported came from a Persian Gulf country, was at the performance of La Traviata with her husband. A male staff member told her that ‘…in France there is a ban of this nature, and asked her to either uncover her face or or leave the room. (Bilefsky)” The couple chose to leave. Similar reports have been made in the past few years, each testimony more uncomfortable than the next. The law itself has created a society of fear and skepticism among French civilians. Muslim women recount tales of being denied social services, barred from special ceremonies, and disrespected by those they work and socialize with simply because they were wearing a veil, even without a face covering. By passing and enforcing this law the government is giving the French public a valid reason to be afraid and untrusting of the Muslim religion and those who practice it. A government is a central force that is responsible for the care and keeping of all civilians within its legal bounds. When something is banned by this central force, those within it’s jurisdiction are led to assume that whatever has been restricted has been restricted for good reason – also known as their health and safety.

In light of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, France, this issue is more considerable than ever. Why has the passage of this law “exacerbated” Muslims from French society? Once again consider the purpose behind a government – to serve and protect each of the country’s citizens. “Each citizen” meaning all religions, including Muslim. Personal testimonies are one of the most trusted and effective forms of marketing, because people believe what they hear (especially in today’s social media obsessed society). If the testimonies of Muslim women who have to live as French citizens every day are not enough to persuade the French government to reform this regulation, then what will be? Is it fair to assume that because of the actions of a few Muslim individuals they all should be considered a threat? And it this is so, won’t alienating them only heighten their cause? A successful government is one that listens to and addresses the concerns of each individual, that acts ethically and that passes legislation for the greater good. I agree with Joan Wallach Scott that the testimonies of Muslim women who have been negatively affected by the burqa bill need to be shared with those in positions of power in order to reverse it’s passing and reintegrate Muslim women into French society.