- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The niqab masks a woman. Similarly, most of the bad arguments attacking a Frenchwoman’s right to wear a niqab mask anti-Muslim prejudice. That prejudice is as despicable as the anti-Semitism that Dreyfus suffered for his Jewish heritage a century ago in France. In this letter I’ll pull aside the veil to display the naked prejudice behind it.
Claire Fontaine calls the niqab a “relic of oppression” and suggests that the oppression is mainly due to female relatives. That concedes an important point: many women who wear the niqab choose to do so. If we learned that as many Muslims as Jews or Christians felt they had freely chosen their religious garb, would Ms Fontaine welcome such Muslims into French citizenship? If not, something besides sympathy for the oppressed stands behind her attitude.
AnnieOrchids thinks, wrongly, that a covered Muslim woman is no more than cattle to her family, and says “good for France for denying this woman citizenship”. Several other writers simultaneously express sympathy for oppressed women and wish to deny them citizenship. What kind of sympathy or feminism is it that cheers on the state when it makes life harder for the person you call oppressed? I have a lot more trust in the sympathy Emma Lazarus expressed long ago –
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Who is “she”? The Statue of Liberty, a donation from France to the US and one attempt to express French values.
Etyfreak asks whether it’s progress to accept people who live by a seventh century code. If Etyfreak wants France to reject people - Buddhists, Christians, Jews - who live by still older codes, I’ll take her argument at face value. Otherwise I’ll infer that it veils prejudice.
Prejudice presupposes ignorance. Etyfreak is mistaken in believing that Muslims don’t accept the existence of atheists, pagans, and homosexuals. It is true that, like the Pope, some Muslims disapprove of atheism, paganism, and homosexuality. The demonization expressed in some letters couldn’t survive much knowledge of Islam.
Nkennedy thinks France is using rational tests for citizenship, but the argument is lame – namely, that France has a right to exclude someone with no concept of French values etc., and a right to defend itself against backward and totalitarian regimes. The question was whether it has a right to exclude someone for wearing a niqab. Would Nkennedy exclude covered women who understand French values and don’t make up a totalitarian regime attacking France?
Nkennedy thinks France shouldn’t let weirdos become citizens. Etyfreak sympathizes with conservative French who resist the influence of conservative Muslims, not noticing the irony. It was conservative Germans who compiled their own list of weirdos in the 1930s, and the tragedy is that not enough Germans stood up for the weirdos. If the French forget the lessons of WW II, perhaps Americans, who welcomed weirdos from the very beginning, can help them remember.
StefanMuc thinks it’s clear why the French wouldn’t want this woman to become a citizen: you shouldn’t impose your religion on others and you should take your civic duties seriously. Suppose I show StefanMuc that this woman isn’t imposing her religion on others and takes her civic duties seriously. Will he still oppose her citizenship?
SB argues that this woman is behaving in a non-French fashion and concludes that she just isn’t French. SB applies this point selectively. The French are used to seeing things they’ve never seen before. Every six months Pierre Cardin produces non-French fashions; every year every Parisian intellectual produces non-French ideas. SB, like Etyfreak, would like to build conservatism into French law, but if SB is willing to let Cardin and the intellectuals live on the left bank, we may suspect simple prejudice underlying the argument. How non-French is Islam? It’s precisely as non-French as Judaism is non-German.
Heliana, I wonder why a French citizen must be willing to “embrace French culture”, and why wearing the niqab is a sign that someone isn’t embracing French culture. As I just mentioned, the French are continually re-inventing French culture, and ever since Descartes their special genius has been to re-invent it radically, from the ground up. As for the niqab, I remind you that French culture is in part constituted by French colonization of Arab lands, and it’s a bit late in the day to proclaim to the colonized that Arabic and Islamic dress and customs are non-French. They were made French forcibly, by the blood of this woman’s ancestors.
Finally we have Uptoolate’s opinion that a child can get rickets from being nursed by a covered and cloistered woman. It’s just not true. Uptoolate says she’s a feminist, but that doesn’t keep her from being uncomfortable with the clothing these women wear. If she learns that they’re not causing rickets, would she be feminist enough to support a Frenchwoman’s right to dress in a way that Uptoolate herself wouldn’t? I am still waiting for a fan of Voltaire to proclaim “I disapprove of what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.”
There you have it. A bundle of specious arguments, veiling anti-Muslim prejudice and the scorn or distaste or hatred or failure of compassion that goes with it. The prejudice is fueled by fear of those who are different from us, and nurtured by ignorance – ignorance about Arabic immigrants to France and ignorance of Islam.
Women and Jews and those Joe McCarthy accused of being anti-American understand this prejudice. Now Muslims are learning how it tastes. I think we can do a lot better than this.
