Sarko’s Militant Secularism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Many pundits, particularly those of an atheistic persuasion, will be delighted that Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that the burqa and the niqab should not be seen in France.
Sarko is not only, as Neil Clark suggests, satisfying the liberal-Left by saying that such garb represents an insult to women’s rights. He is also giving visceral satisfaction to the patriotic Right by refuting Islamic dress as un-French.
“It will not be welcome on French soil,” said the French president.”We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity.”
Yet les socialistes are protesting Sarkozy’s comments, as well they should. His words represent a dramatic — and possibly dangerous — over-extension of the French concept of la laïcité.
In 2003, when France decided to ban the Islamic veil from schools, there was at least an arguable case that state schools represented a public – and therefore necessarily secular — space. But to propose that hijab and niqab be expelled from French society is a more radical idea, one that carries a strong whiff of secular absolutism.
Sarkozy says that the Islamic veil is “not the French republic’s idea of women’s dignity.” Of course it isn’t. It would be a great shame if all French women began covering their faces. (Imagine if we could not behold the elegant features of Sarkozy’s wife, Carla Bruni.) But is it not an equal, or even greater, affront to women’s independence to demand that they show their faces? What if a woman chooses to hide her face from the world? Is that not a legitimate expression of her freedom, religious or otherwise?
Furthermore, it seems foolish for Sarko to spark this controversy at such a critical moment in Islamic-Western relations, especially with Iran in such crucial turmoil. When Jacques Chirac’s government banned the veil from schools in 2003, the move prompted populist indignation from Iran’s Foreign Ministry. Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi called it “an extremist decision aimed at preventing the spread of Islamic values.” No doubt Sarkozy’s outburst yesterday could again be used as propaganda by Iranian authorities; as further proof that the Godless West is out to get Islam.
But Sarko, a canny operator, must have known this risk. So why the did he he speak out now? Perhaps he knows that fomenting civilizational clashes is good politics.
Filed under: Uncategorized
And what pray tell is wrong with “….preventing the spread of Islamic values,”? The French have the right to define what is, and is not French in character. The idea that the French need to reflect on the opinions of foreign governments and peoples while ordering their own affairs is bizarre.
My guess is that Sarko is speaking out now in recognition of how much there is to be gained from it (see the recent victories of anti-immigrant parties all over Europe).
As for Meehan’s comment, yes, the French have the right to determine their culture. But insofar as immigrants are french citizens, then they also should have some say in the matter. Sarkozy’s statement represents nothing other than a governmental violation of the private sphere of its citizenry.
I assume he takes the same view vis-à-vis nuns’ habits, non?
Freddy Gray – your post is relevant, well-placed, important, timely. As the US socialists attempt to tie us to a permanent “nanny-state”, we need to discuss the division between individual freedoms, and the preservation of a national identity, as protected by federal governments.
As the French are obsessed with cultural purity, so many of us Americans (of the “US persuasion”), are obsessed with the constitution, and what it means to our political thinking.
Your proposition, that the “liberal-Left” are people who are concerned with *thinking* about the rights of others, and that people on the “partiotic-Right” are concerned with getting satisfaction for the wants of their stomachs, is probably just an aside, if I’m not missing something major.
As a careful wordsmith, obviously with knowledge and practice in multiple languages, you chose to place the word “ferment” into where we would have expected “foment”. As I have stated earlier, we don’t know how many layers down your sense of humor goes, so we will wonder if you were referencing the biblical edict to Christians (making up a large part of the “patriotic-Right”), to go and be a “leaven to the whole world…”, while setting “brother against brother”.
As anyone who has ventured into eastern Canada knows, in some French quarters, it is against the law to post any public signs in english. Been like this for years. This has *nothing* to do with secularity, but rather the French obsession over national and cultural identity, of preserving tradition.
I am simply confused as to why you would turn this into a “secular” vs “non-secular”, unless you are telling us that both these sides are easily co-opted by the *real* battle, between the factions of those who would wish to be our permanent ruling class, and have in turn distracted the capitalists and the nanny-state folks.
Just as there is a difference between the worker-bee and the queen bee, and a huge difference between the idealistic ACORN worker, and the secret white money-makers who run the show,…
So too, there is a difference between secular vs non-secular, and cultural/national tradition vs those who would take over “for change”.
It is awfully easy to throw rocks at those spouting “tradition”, but sometimes we idealistic intellectuals have to pause, and see if we are being “co-opted” in any fashion, by the movements who wish to come in and take over, and are adept at manipulating the sound-bite crowd.
Dear Barney Rebble, Thank you (I think).
Ferment was actually a sloppy mistake – now fixed. Thanks again. Ferment does sort of work, though, I suppose?
“What if a woman chooses to hide her face from the world? Is that not a legitimate expression of her freedom, religious or otherwise?”
It is likely that some cannot fathom any woman having such deep-seated religious beliefs that she would be willing to set aside her vanity for simple modesty in public settings. They would probably find the Amish style of dress equally befuddling (or even offensive).
This reminds me of an e-mail conversation I once had with a friend. He forwarded me a news article in which Muslim women were attempting to reserve private time at a public (university?) pool because they did not want to be seen in just their swimsuits by men other than their husbands. He forwarded to me as an example of Muslim religious norms infringing on American culture, but my response was that I wished Christian women (and men, of course) had a similar sense of public modesty when it came to swimwear. The Apostle Paul would be mortified by the dress that passes for “modest” among many American Christians today, both inside and outside the swimming pool.
Johns, Muslim immigrants in Europe have a strong propensity to avoid assimilating into their host countries. Sarkozy, himself the product of an immigrant family, takes exception to the alien and backward practices of France Muslims. If the Muslims are unwilling to become French they should be expelled.
Josephdietrich, there were nuns in what is now France before France existed. Indeed it was Roman priests and nuns who salvaged Latin culture in France.
I wholeheartedly agree with Freddy. The French are wont to laugh at the British for tolerating comunitarianism, and the very fact that the Hijab alarms our free societies is enough to encourage young moslems to take it up, but it is a grotesque betrayal of our principles to ban it except in the most limited circumstances. There are two forms of secularism: the Indian which accepts and respects all religions, and the French which imposes secularity as a state religion. I vote for the former, and, Thomas, I think it would be frighteningly unreasonable to expel people from your country on the grounds of how they dress
[...] males, banning the burqa would be an important step toward women advancing in society. UPDATE: Freddy Gray in TAC: In 2003, when France decided to ban the Islamic veil from schools, there was at least an [...]
This is secularism all around. “Rights, rights” is the cry of right and left. Meehan is right about the suppression of Islam, if one believes that culture matters. “Rights” are irrelevant to the issue as they’re nothing more than rhetorical weapons used to batter down cultural traditions.
And yes, public bathing is a far cry today from decades ago (which were a far cry from their earlier manifestations.) But sympathy for the heretical cult of Islam (and its insinuations into the culture) from “Christians” on the basis that “I wish our women were like that” is tiresome, ridiculous, and evidence of a lazy and uninformed mind.
Meehan: So the law shouldn’t hold for French Citizens if they don’t conform? I agree that social cohesion matters (obviously, it does) but that shouldn’t determine whether the rule of law is in force.
Septimus & Johns, when the law becomes a tool in the destruction of a nations culture, the law needs to be changed. As to the rights of immigrants who are French citizens, I argue that immigrants who adopted French nationality without intending to adopting French culture committed a fraud in the first place.
This goes far beyond a manner of dress. The adoption of the Burga is not an eccentric expression by an individual. It is the explicit renunciation Westerness. Such Muslim signifiers are a marker in the public square alerting us to the presence of a completely different civilization demanding a separate space in our society.
Our conundrum is that we rightly value individual freedom of expression but have no defence against those who’s expressions are not individual but are manifestations of alien systems.
Of course France, with its anti-clerical, civic “religion” of the republic is easy to lampoon. Still, I’ll side with the republic over the Muslims any day. Vive la Fanny Ardant!
Freddy’s take is the right take. Sarko is grandstanding for a domestic audience, his focus on Buqas is arbitrary and undermines individual freedom in the name of defending “culture”. Think about how the premise of his edict could be misused and abused.
Of course, Burqas are merely the symptom of the disease–a manifestation of a oppressive tradition alien to western sensibilities. But this is just a back-door way of outlawing a particular religious sect that nobody likes. Plugging up your runny nose will not get rid of a cold virus. For the small “l” liberal, there is little justification for the State to set mandates over what people can or cannot wear.
Absent aggression, imposing forceful mandates on dress, behavior, customs, and religious expression in the name of cultural purity is a form of fascism. “society” or “culture” cannot be victimized, only people–save the laws for them.
I suspect that Sarkozy’s calculation is that Europe is moving right and that this is a good way to reposition himself in light of that shift.
Whatever this move’s strategic merits might be (and I’ve lost even the pretense of confidence regarding my own country, how much less I would attempt to speak authoritatively across an ocean and a language barrier), it is an affront to freedom of conscience.
If they really cared about these women, they would leave window-dressing alone and work on improving their access to the legal system and their security against violent recriminations from their own men.
There is a lot to be done in that regard in all western nations with Muslim immigrant populations. It isn’t as sexy, but it’s the right thing to do, especially since “honor killings” are still going on.
Sorry Matt, but it’s frequently the Muslim women who are the most adamantine upholders of Islamic cultural backwardness. We keep speaking of these things as though they were matters between citizens of France who operate within the French legal framework. But Muslims do not see themselves as citizens of France first. They are, and will remain Muslims first. They adhere to the norms of their faith over the laws of France. But unlike the Christians who rejected Roman civic culture, they are a fighting faith.
The neo-cons are bent on a war of civilizations between the West and Islam. But we can see the incompatibility of Islam with our culture without being their dupes.
Thomas, don’t get me wrong, I’d be the first to agree that women are the victimizers as well as the victims of this type of thing, and I’d agree that the orthodox, mainstream Islam is pretty incompatible with what we like to call Western Civilization.
That said, if we make decisions based on our perceptions of their values rather than on our own values, then we’re doomed. We need to find ways to deal with Muslim citizens that don’t violate our values, especially equality under the law.
I think limiting immigration is one of the best ways for European countries to do this, along with a pro-natalist domestic policy. If we ban certain modes of dress for religious reasons, then we undercut our own ethos of religious freedom, and galvanize the opposition when it might be softening.
Matt, you put your finger on the central issue. Our values are those of personal freedom of expression. Islamic expressions like the Hijab are expressions of solidarity with a way of life that is incompatible that freedom. Western women wearing a low cut blouses make now social statement. I submit that the Islamic wear worn by Muslim’s in Europe is a statement of intent, that all women should be forced to be so dressed. So the Muslims use our laws about freedom of expression as a wedge to normalize their culture while intending to impose that culture on the rest of us when they can.
I agree that we and the Europeans need to restrict immigration. Furthermore I believe that immigrants who fail to adapt should be sent back. And that includes the many third world immigrants in our country.