Posted on 07/02/2009 4:02:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Parliament Monday that the burqa, the traditional dress worn by some Islamic women, will no longer be tolerated in France. “The burqa is not a religious sign; it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women,” said a straight-faced Sarkozy, whose lovely wife Carla Bruni has modeled high-end designers like Chanel, Versace, and Christian Dior. (Some may argue her best work is done wearing nothing at all. In 2008, a nude photograph of Bruni sold at auction for $91,000.)
Nevertheless, Sarkozy has decided banning the burqa is “a question of freedom and of women’s dignity.” Battling both gender inequality and religious extremism – and it’s not entirely clear which is Sarkozy’s target – is a courageous undertaking, but battling the burqa, as Western Europe has learned many times, is a losing fight, and completely irrelevant to either objective.
If you’re truly an advocate for women, at the very least you’d allow them to wear the clothes they want. Voting, driving and holding positions of authority are okay, but putting a robe on isn’t? And if you’re truly an advocate for religious freedom, you’d never ban a traditional religious practice that doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights.
But more importantly, if you’re an advocate for women’s rights or religious freedom, you’d want a stake in the global war on terrorism and Islamic extremism, which threatens both. When Sarkozy uses the burqa as a symbol of oppression – while France has happily criticized from afar the foreign policy of other Western states in the Middle East who want actual freedom from oppression – the irony is laughable.
But it’s also typical of the kinds of misdirected battles Sarkozy tends to pick, and one from which I hope our president doesn’t take any cues.
France has grappled with these issues for years, and banned head scarves and other religious garb from public schools in 2004. Divisions between French nationals and Muslims have grown both in width and in strength, and Sarkozy’s statement is in line with a recent ratcheting up of pro-secular rhetoric that looks to reduce the three major religions to their most common (and inoffensive) denominator.
As my friend Joe Grieboski, head of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy said, "It is almost as if the French Government has made it a mandate to eliminate religion from the public sphere. No faith is safe." And unfortunately, banning the burqa, even if only in sentiment, will please a great many French and Western Europeans.
But what would be characterized in the US as an aggressive foreign policy statement is in France merely a cultural commentary on race and nationalism. Seen through this prism, Sarkozy’s maudlin plea for “women’s dignity” is transparent and obscures the real agenda: promoting a Western, secular, (and, in particular, French) sensibility. It has little to do with women’s rights, and even less to do with religious freedom. And in case there was any doubt, it has absolutely nothing to do with national security.
But for the United States and the rest of the free world, national security is the main, if not only, issue. Getting along well with Muslims is a concern for political, not cultural, reasons. Americans don’t need Muslims to prove (by disrobing) their commitment to Western ideals. Americans just want to live in relative security, knowing Islamic extremism is being dealt with effectively. The United States keeps Islamic extremism separate from Islam, and by targeting the burqa, Sarkozy has lazily conflated the two.
France has the largest population of Muslims in Western Europe. For this reason, Sarkozy has a particular responsibility to get this right. Opting out of actual foreign policy in favor of an arbitrary (and offensive) sartorial debate is another example of inaction disguised as action.
All indications thus far are that President Obama plans to continue America’s commitment to democracy in the Middle East and security at home. But with timidity growing on Iran, it’s unclear just how forceful he intends to be. We should all hope he doesn’t revert to a Sarkozian model: all talk, no action.
I see nothing offensive against banning wearing veils to hide identity.
We wouldnt let a Christian walk into a bank wearing a ski mask, why allow Muslims to do it.
Why can’t Sarkozy be our President?
Obviously you don’t have to be born here.
Wrong! Politcal Correctness is the main issue for Obama and most of the world. Under Bush, security was the main issue (but with some PC).
“We wouldnt let a Christian walk into a bank wearing a ski mask, why allow Muslims to do it.”
I’d prefer Helen Thomas were a ski mask.
Thew only reason to wear a mask is so that someone can’t identify you while you commit a crime. Very few exceptions, and burkas don’t look like they would do too well on a ski slope.
oops — were = wear
where’s my coffee?
Simple answer here -- let women wear the burqa if they want to. Oh wait -- Islam DOESN'T CARE what women want. . . . if you’re truly an advocate for religious freedom, you’d never ban a traditional religious practice that doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights.
The problem with this pious statement is that the burqa is a religious practice which is based on denying that women have ANY rights.
Sarkozy stands up for women more than any women’s group.
Only cowards want to hide their faces
If you’re truly an advocate for women, at the very least you’d allow them to wear the clothes they want.
...
And if you’re truly an advocate for religious freedom, you’d never ban a traditional religious practice that doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights.
Sarkozy was born in France. His parents were from Hungary
I think the author doesn’t get it on a number of levels.
For one thing, the practical effect of a burka is to hide the identity of the person wearing it. In Spain, it was once forbidden for men to wear capes with collars that they could turn up over their faces, for this same reason; people who could not be identified hid behind their capes to murder each other. This is certainly something we have seen often with Muslims and it is a legitimate concern.
In addition, forbidding the burka takes the pressure off the Muslim women who do not want to wear one. Throughout neighborhoods in France, women are being forced to wear the burka, and this is what Sarkozy wants to prevent.
The Taliban were Wahabist Muslims - a sect of the Sunni from Saudi Arabia. Many of the Taliban were Arabs, not Afghani. Their support was primarily from Saudi donors.
In most (if not all) parts of the US, one cannot don KKK robes in public.
The burqa/niqab is nothing more than a symbol of defiance against Western Culture.
If one wants to wear them, then, by all means, MOVE TO A MUSLIM COUNTRY like Saudi Arabia.
I have no problem with a headscarf or modest dress. If kid’s parents make them dress that way, that’s their business, not mine. If an adult wants to dress that way, fine with me.
I do have a problem with covering the face! The author says “And in case there was any doubt, it has absolutely nothing to do with national security.” NONSENSE! Tell that to security at the airport.
Beyond security, it is offensive to me to have to interact with a person wearing a mask. I refuse to do so, & if forced to, I’ll get my own mask.
In WESTERN CULTURE, a mask signifies the wearer has something to hide, & is mostly associated with criminality. This isn’t ever gonna change, as it involves people’s personal safety. The more they are covered, the more they are looked upon with suspicion.
this is a crazy article, I don’t get it. Being forced to cover youself =
choosing to wear what you want. wait till some burqa bombs go off
and we’ll see how ridiculous sarkozy is.
I like Sarkozy more and more with each speech he gives.
We'd certainly get a MUCH, MUCH better looking First Lady!
Ms. Cupp manages to completely miss the point. I’m not convinced Sarkozy’s position is about “women’s rights”, although I suspect the writer would see things differently if the men in the White House ordered HER to wear a burqa.
The real point is to roll back the Muslim infringements on the rest of us. With one public statement Sarkozy has shifted the focus on the French imams from “what do we demand next” to “how do we defend the burqa.”
hh
let’s remember Europe does not practice the same “freedom of speech” we do. There is really no such thing as separation of church and state either...as many governments collect church tithings from YOUR paycheck. There are rules regarding what you can say in public, and even what names are appropriate to name your children.
It’s on it’s way.
There has already been an incident of “Muslim Brotherhood” thugs disguising themselves with burqas to enter and rob a bank in the U.S.
Any thought that it wouldn’t be used by terrorists and criminals is rediculous.
But the real point is allowing fundamentalists to suppress women by forcing them to wear burqas in the name of religious freedom is oxymoronic.
Well, maybe just moronic.
They haven’t proven that Obama was born here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.