There is much to ponder about the reasons for the difference in British and French political approaches to Muslim dress. During the current election campaign in the U.K. the three leaders gently skirt around this delicate issue and even go easy on debating immigration policies generally.
But the Quebec and French governments meet the problem head-on. In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest and his cabinet have introduced sweeping legislation that effectively bars Muslim women from receiving or delivering public services while wearing a niqab, the face veil. According to the draft law, they would not be able to consult a doctor in a hospital, for example, or even attend classes in a university.
This follows the precedent in France where President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to ban the full-body veil, or burqa, in public places. No Canadian province other than Quebec has proposed anti-veil legislation.
What could be the reason for the difference? Is secularism more firmly established in the francophone world? Are Anglophones more tolerant than francophones? Are Francophones more dedicated to women’s rights than Anglophones?
Both in Quebec and in France there has been some outspoken criticism.
“Mr. Charest is talking about welcoming people from different backgrounds and that this is going to unite us,” said Shama Naz, a niqab-wearing woman who lives in the municipality of Kirkland on the island of Montreal, as quoted in the press. “This is actually going to isolate people.” The 33-year-old mother of two young girls, a native of Pakistan, predicts women will be discouraged from going to a doctor, to school or work. “It will isolate them from basic rights as human beings.”
In France, the daily Libération finds the plan a superfluous electoral tactic.
“No one outside of fundamentalist circles will defend the full body-veil, which violates the principle of secularism and female emancipation,” the paper writes. “The total ban on the streets, where the police will have to punish offenders, is the sign of a harmful intolerance of foreign cultures, which in addition hides a clear electoral ploy. An immense majority of Muslims condemn this symbolic clothing and will accept the law. But what will peace-loving Muslims think if not that the highest state authorities are being called upon to pass a law that once more stamps them as marginal, suspect citizens deserving special treatment?”
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
The only thing more abhorrent than the burqa or niqab is a law banning the burqa or niqab.
The same mentality might lead to banning circumcision of 8 day old Jewish males
or Christmas trees in public squares.
Laws must guarantee the full range of human expression, even if some of what’s being protected makes some other people uncomfortable.
True. That is why I would also oppose the outlawing of psychotherapists.
Although I don’t find niqab “abhorrent”, clearly this kind of approach is furthering the “other” mentality and discrimination. However, I agree totally that a law banning such a dress can have many negative impacts and leads in the wrong direction in terms of allowing for people to choose how to live their lives.
I totally agree.
If we believe in freedom of choice, then surely if a woman chooses of her own free-will to wear the niqab she should be allowed to do so. If she is forced to do so that is another matter. However, in cases which require the face to be shown, during a medical examination, or an oral test (when the niqab muffles the voice), or where one needs to see the face for ID purposes for example, the facial covering should be removed.
I must admit being in two minds about this, but having recently discussed this with another woman friend and listened to her violent objections to ANY kind of religious apparel including the wearing of crosses by Christians, turbans by Sikhs, banning circumcision of Jewish boys or the wearing of yamulks (not sure of the spelling) I came to the reluctant conclusion that banning these practices was a slippery slope. The only cultural practice that I think should be banned is female circumcision, which is barbaric and harmful to women. Wearing the burka or niqab does not harm the women physically.
I came across another objection, very surprising considering that the person who had it is a model of Virtue and Tolerance. She said she would have trouble TRUSTING a woman whose face she could not see – the eyes were not enough.
This made some sense to me. But since most of us never encounter a woman wearing a niqab in our daily lives it is an academic question and we cannot put our capacity for tolerance to the test.
It is indeed a slippery slope. Of course, I am against all forms of veils for women. The question is whom does it hurt. The woman wearing it, naturally. And it is impossible to know what constitutes free will. And Sarkozy demonstrates that the French are more anxious to assimilate immigrants, a commendable opinion. We, in the US, want everybody to choose their own way of dressing, wearing or not religious symbols. Basically, I prefer assimilation, but wearing symbols does not bother me; veils do, mostly because I doubt the free will. RK
We Canadians even allow Sikh members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to wear turbans and ceremonial swords.
Second reply. Your point about Sarkiozy and assimilation is absolutely correct. In the U.S. and Canada assimilation has become a bad word. Since the sixties it runs counter to the cult of multiculturalism. But I am not sure about the point about free will you make. Is the dress of Zen Buddhists or Orthodox Jews VOLUNTARY? Would they not face ostracism if they did not conform?
Why do you assume veils hurt women? Clearly many women are making this choice freely, and to argue otherwise would be misinformed.
It is in my view very dangerous to make someone do something against her will because her will is (in the view of the person making her do it) imperfect. This is an example of what the Marxists used to call (and the few still around probably still call) ‘false consciousness’. aka I know what you think better than you do, because I am enlightened.
If a person can get a public service without showing photo identification – and most public services are provided without even identification, much less a photo – then someone wearing a veil should be able to get them without unveiling.
It is interesting to see a case where religious liberty is being infringed not for some countervailing (not -veiling) law but for the abstract principle of gender equality, which requires in practice here that the actual expressed will of the woman involved be rejected.
The more I think about it, the less the Quebec law is defensible. I think it will die on constitutional grounds.
If I was a lawyer for a veiled Muslim women I would argue in the Supreme Court that if the Doukhobors were permitted to conduct their protests in the nude without breaking a law – they did, didn’t they, or were some of them arrested? – Muslim women should be allowed to wear their veils even without the excuse of a protest.
I’m afraid you’d be a bit of a rabble-rouser as a lawyer, Eric. Lawyers love to argue by analogy (someone said that a lawyer never tells you what something is, only what it is like), but one has to choose one’s analogy carefully!
I am just waiting for some fashion designer to come up with a burka in a beautiful material that I could quickly throw on when I don’t want to get dressed properly. I actually spent time in a bazaar looking for one, but did not like any of the materials. Since we now know that we need vitamin D, which comes from sunshine, covering the face in our climate must be unhealthy.
EK asks “if the Doukhobors were permitted to conduct their protests in the nude without breaking a law – they did, didn’t they, or were some of them arrested?”…
71 women and 77 men were arrested. The charge was ‘contributing to juvenile delinquency’. See the left-hand side of the page at this link:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19530910&id=CA8QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3634,1024347
Thanks for reminding me.
Usually the police use the charge PUBLIC MISCHIEF in cases of this sort. Juveline Delinquancy is certainly more imaginative.