President Nicolas Sarkozy said this week: "Islam is now the religion of many French people and our country, having known both wars of religion and fratricidal battles of state anti-clericalism, cannot let French Muslim citizens be stigmatised. I will not let anyone lead my country down this regressive path."
"Behind the full veil hide scandalous practices that are contrary to our history," he said.
"In order to say no to the full veil we are determined to wage a controlled political battle against fundamentalism … [so that] we can work towards an Islam which is compatible with the republic." These words beggar belief in a country that is supposed to uphold the values of liberal democracy and freedom. What is worse, Britain’s virtual silence is a silent approval of the path taken by France. Why is Sarkozy so afraid of this piece of cloth that is held to be theologically acceptable by a tiny proportion of his country’s Muslim population? What is so scandalous about this practice?
The problem that France has in reality is with Islam being practiced. We still have no idea what the president means by the politicised word: fundamentalism. Does this also include the banning of minarets and large domes that often symbolise a Muslim place of worship?
The threat that Sarkozy will "wage a controlled political battle against fundamentalism … [so that] we can work towards an Islam which is compatible with the republic" rings of authoritarian rule, not freedom and democracy. Here in Britain we have people like the UK Independence Party’s leader Nigel Farage also calling for a ban because he sees it, among his many other disjointed reasons, as a sign of an "increasingly divided Britain". The Ismaili columnist for the Independent, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who chairs the group British Muslims for Secular Democracy, also attacked the niqab and called for restrictions in key public spaces. Her vile attack on Muslim women included her claim that this face covering "invalidates their participatory rights and confirms them as evil temptresses".
Evil temptresses?! According to her skewed and erroneous thinking, she believes the niqab "makes women more, not less, conspicuous" even though this has nothing to do with how inconspicuous one looks, but everything to do with faith and conviction. And she certainly would not make a very good poker player if she believes that "communication is unequal because one party hides all expression". Britain’s politicians have not been very vocal in their condemnation either in what should be an outcry against this backward stance. There have been spurts of condemnation, but these have usually been restricted to the values of Britain; as if to say: we have our values, they have theirs; we would not do that here, they can go ahead and do whatever they like. That is not good enough because if Britain truly believes in freedom of religion, democracy, etc. then it should condemn France in this regard, just as it does of countries across the Middle East, Asia Pacific, etc. Is France somehow excluded from this criticism simply because it is part of the European Union and therefore part of the ‘family’? Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who converted to Islam after she was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, rightly said the French decision was "driven by Islamophobia - not the freedom or liberties of women".
However, one is not so sure of her optimism when she added that the UK "would not tolerate" a move like the one in France.