arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

The debate on the Islamic veil is not merely one on religious symbols in a secular society, its far more fundamental than that. It is a debate on the kind of society France and Europe are choosing to be. Is that society going to define secularism “ laicite” as it is constitutionally defined “ the neutrality of the state towards all religious and other convictions’ in order to build a state for all. Or is “ laicite” going to be defined as the hegemony of an atheist anti-religious discourse and its control over the state that will uphold it (atheism) as neutral and normative.

Are we going to build a diversified society guaranteeing the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious practice, freedom of religious manifestation and other freedoms, or are we going to be only free in copying the atheist way of life, or to accept that on the public sphere the atheist way of life has a superior rank and is the default neutral way.

The current French constitution, as well as those of Belgium and the Netherlands and most European constitutions, defines “laicite” as being a principal of neutrality towards religions and world visions. That neutrality should have as objective to guarantee the equality and freedom of all religions and world visions and not to favor one (atheism) above the rest.

Atheism is far from being the norm, and it is as metaphysical as faith, it is also a kind of religion.

We argue that the current debate on the veil can not be framed in the current constitutional principals or in those of the European convention on human rights. The political debate is tending towards a new definition of secularism “laicite” that will necessitate a constitutional fundamental change. It is no more to be defined as neutrality but as taking position; an anti-religious position.

The Case for neutrality

The odd thing about the political dominating discourse on this matter is that the veil is being represented as the threat to religious neutrality. The veil should be forbidden in official buildings because it is violating the principal of neutrality. But that neutrality should normally be exercised by the official institutions and upheld within the official buildings in order to create the space for all religions and visions to express themselves freely, and not by oppressing them. So it is the institution and the building that should be neutral in order to allow the citizen to be himself or herself within its confines, and not the citizen who has to be neutralized in his believes and freedom of expression. A student wearing the veil in a public school does not compromise the neutrality of that school but is just merely exercising her fundamental rights and enjoying that neutrality.

Now when we shift the discussion to a teacher for instance the situation is more complicated. The argument is that a teacher wearing the veil in a public institution is compromising neutrality because of the example position that the teacher has towards students. Students can be influenced by the fact that the teacher wears the veil and decide to do so themselves. But this argument can be reversed as students can also be influenced by the fact that a teacher does not wear the veil and decide not to do so. As a matter of fact it is more likely that a Muslim student will be asking questions on the fact that her teacher takes off the veil when she enters class and will be getting the impression that the veil is negative and incompatible with the serenity of the institution while not wearing it is compatible. So are we trying to set not wearing the veil as the acceptable official norm? With what argumentation can we justify that? Certainly not with that of neutrality; Saying that not wearing the veil is the norm is the same as saying that wearing the veil is mandatory, both attitudes are not neutral and reflect a fundamentalist approach, one religious and the other anti-religious.

The argument that a veil is a religious symbol is also inaccurate. The veil does not symbolize being a Muslim; the veil is an Islamic practice. A woman wearing the veil is not manifesting her religion, she is practicing it. Depriving women from wearing the veil is forcing them to stop practicing their religion and is a direct attack on the freedom of religion. That freedom of religion is protected by European conventions and can be restricted only in three cases clearly enumerated in the European Human rights convention. Restriction is only defendable in order to preserve the public order, health, and the rights of thirds. And none of these criteria apply to the formerly described cases.

So we believe it is fair to argue, that for the sake of neutrality, the veil should be allowed in official buildings and not restricted, and no discriminatory criteria should be promoted setting subjective and biased norms as being universal.

The Veil and the gender Issue

Another important underlying discussion in this debate is that of gender equality. Even though the debate in France was focusing on the concept of secularism “ laicite” and on defending what people conceive as the values of the republic, the veil is perceived by many western people and also many Muslims as an instrument of oppressing the woman and of emphasizing her inferiority towards the man. Even though abuse does occur and some women are obliged to wear a veil by their man, family or environment. Most women do wear the veil out of religious conviction and by there free choice. On top of that the veil has no reference to female inferiority what so ever. Actually the concept of Hidjab (veil) in Islam is common to men and women. It is related to (Hadjb) Veiling (hiding) the parts of the body that are considered desirable in order to avoid temptation that can lead to adultery. This is the core of the hidjab concept and this is common to both genders. Islam, however, considers that these desirable parts of the body are not the same for a man and a woman. The hair of a woman is considered to make part of these attractive features while the hair of the man is not considered as desirable. One can disagree with that characterization but it is anyway clear that the concept of Hidjab/Veil has nothing to do with underlining female inferiority. Some die hard feminists can argue that this is essentially discriminating since it does not equate between men and women by restricting the woman more than the man, but this argument can also be made to most legislations in western countries that do not consider a man who is walking in the street with a naked chest as breaking a law, while a woman walking with naked chest is very likely to be arrested or fined for that. So in this Islam does not do more than what most European and American legislators do, namely differentiating in the sexual connotation of male and female body parts. But the principal is not discriminatory in essence.

Sociologically speaking, certain cultural habits derived the Hidjab from its Islamic function and transformed it into a sort of status symbol and ethical criteria. This can be countered by Islamic awareness and knowledge and campaigning for the freedom of choice to wear a veil or not without being socially condemned, and not by restricting religious freedom or by equating the abuse with the normal practice. Abuse should always be fought, but should never be generalized and essentialised.

Conclusion

As we already said, this whole debate is about a choice of society, a political choice and unfortunately we have the impression that this choice is already made and that it is a choice intending on eradicating diversity rather than institutionalizing it.

It is a choice that is based on a political positioning that is essentially anti-islamic and assimilationist. This is not strange to the French approach of total assimilation when it comes to linguistic and cultural features. Only this time it is being harmful to the very same values of the republic that it claims defending: The value of freedom of opinion, of religion and neutrality. This political position is also reinforced by the international context and the definition of Islam and its civilization as being the main threat to western civilization. It is also a rejection of a multicultural society based upon diversity as the rule and homogeneity as the exception. This is a call for a society that strives towards homogeneity, and oppresses what it conceives as deviation from the one and only enlightened way to human fulfillment and emancipation. This is a project of society that imposes emancipation from outside and deprives the individual from self-emancipation and self-definition of that emancipation which are the conditions sine qua no of any emancipation by definition. Such a society will be the opposite of enlightened and will definitely lead to a brave new world scenario. A scenario that all democrats should try to prevent today before it becomes a fact tomorrow.