Headscarf Enigma: The Contested Terrain of Women Rights, Identity and Secularism in France

Abstract:

 

In this paper the idea of secularism, national-cohesion and integration and hijab (headscarf) as the signifier of Islam in predominantly a heterogeneous and a diversified society of France are to be debated. Segregation of sexes, women’s oppression and emancipation, and patriarchal notions of sexuality will come into play for an adequate understanding of the enigma of hijab. It will be demonstrated that how International political events associated with Muslims, the role of media in generating debates and shaping-up public opinion, French and Muslim history and culture, colonial past, crisis of identity and a symbolic resistance to the western culture  factor in. While unpacking several aspects and characters in this grand theatre of secularism vs. headscarves, I will attempt to draw an objective and impartial analysis. Symbolic role and multiple meanings of hijab, its conspicuous presence and religiosity in a liberal atmosphere will keep recurring in, to complicate the debate. However, the right to equality, citizenship, freedom of religion and conscience, the right to education, equal access to opportunities and non-discrimination shall remain the broader framework of discussion.

*

The Context:

It was March, 2004 when the French Government proclaimed “all conspicuous signs of religious affiliation” unlawful in the public schools with a majority vote in the legislature. The decision was taken on the recommendation report i.e. ‘laicite et republique’ of the prestigious ‘Stasi Commission’. Although it does not explain what “conspicuous[1]” mean but it was clear that, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Muslim hijab (headscarves) were to be taken illegal while in schools. The law came into effect on September the 2nd, the same year with the beginning of new session in the country. In itself, the law does not inscribe the removal of headscarves in particular, but as mentioned earlier, its mandatory compliance was too obvious and actually it was Muslim headscarf that was mainly to be discouraged[2].

This passionate epic de scarf, in fact, began with the expulsion of three Muslim girls from a suburban school of Paris upon refusal to remove their hijab (foulards), on October 3, 1989, by its principal declaring the very attire as a ‘sign of social garbage pail’. The decision was to defend laicite – the French vision of secularism – was his argument. Evoking substantial media and political response, the issue again emerged in 1993-4 and 2003-4 in the French parliament on expulsion of few other girls from schools; each time receiving a stronger political and public response. It is assumed that part of the reason was the growing influence[3] of anti-immigrants’ far-right political parties and several events associated with Muslim militancy in across the world. September the 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York was the most startling one[4]. Probably the issue would have disappeared in the annals of anonymity, had the press not presented it in an overly dramatic manner, underscoring perceptual threat of Islamic belligerence in the country and across Europe. But on simultaneously, media had also exposed French society to its profound crisis. How to deal with multiculturalism and dissident ideologies cum practices in the face of laicite, a doctrine of universalist enlightenment? Simultaneously, distressing events at home, and abroad like New-York, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Underground-blasts in Britain also stimulated public concerns about the Muslim’s ostentatious attachment to Islam[5].

Since then, a small piece of cloth has spurred gigantic debates all across France – even all over Europe  - dividing school-staff, academicians, media, feminists, politicians, rights-activists and even friends and families over its’ semantics and implications in a modern secular society. Hence les affairs du foulard du as known in French, has become worthy of debating with reference to women-rights, right to equality and diversity, freedom of religion and conscience, and inter-alia ethnic relations and racial discrimination[6]. The present essay strives to approach a conclusion from human-rights perspectives. Here come the controversial arguments and positions:

Secularism and History Play their Role:

Present day effort to protect laicite and republicanism is very much embedded into the eighteenth century enlightenment move of France, the famous 1789 revolution including the ‘charter of the rights of man and the citizen’ and 1905 law that separated interests of the church and the state. Referring back to the progressive thinkers and leaders like Phillip Auguste, Napoleon B. Parte, Henri-the IV and Jean J. Rousseau is a household affaire in the French society. Irrespective of any implicit or explicit reference ‘March 2004 legislation of prohibiting headscarves in public-funded-schools is very much a continuation of a struggle to keep religion, its’ public display and affairs of the state separate[7]. A very progressive and respectable position, off course. But under the present political stream of regression it implies other way round. The very adoption of the law is a success of laiciete renouvele i.e. the conservative notion of secularism and right-wing parties who are not willing to accommodate diversity in a secular fabric of the society[8].

Clearly, the law never meant to discriminate Muslims, as witnessed by various political acts in the past. Central Government of France and Municipalities have been supporting Muslim population in building mosques, constituting  Couseil Fracaise du Culte Musilman (CFCM), Counseil Regionnaux du Culte Musilman (CRCM), Counseil de Reflexion sur I’Islam (CORIF), construction of Muslim cemeteries, creation of a National School of Islamic Studies and declaring Eid holidays, national. In general the gradual presence of Islam in the public was facilitated from time to time[9]. There are others who believe that allegory of French discrimination against Muslims and Muslim resistance goes as early as colonial rule of France in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria and the atrocities committed during and before letting these colonies go, particularly Algerian uprising when from 1954 to1956 when the French rulers massacred hundreds of thousands of Muslims. The Commission’s report, however, does acknowledge respecting individual’s ref un-conve i.e. right to conscience, and maintenance of state’s impartiality one’s private affairs but in matters of national-unity, the latter shall prevail, it affirms. But J.W. Scot[10] argues that a profound discriminatory intent “is the subtext of headscarves controversy, but secularism was its explicit justification.” A political measure to restrain Muslims, perceived of becoming a growing threat to social integrity as demonstrated by massive protests, organizability and militarism in Europe, was thought to be necessary. Thus regulate and scrutinize Islam[11] but why through scarves was still a question?

In a predominantly western culture, creating their own society and political structure based on certain principles of Islam was ethnically inevitable for Muslims who hail from diverse regions, traditions and classes. In doing so they are naturally influenced by the overriding culture. Here, religion serves as a coping strategy[12] to live in peaceful co-existence. But it is not assimilation rather a negotiative mechanism of existence in a new society. Therefore, women were obliged to observe relative-segregation, an emblem of Islamic tradition[13]. Hard-line acts of integration usually prove counter-productive; generating equivocal reaction from opposite quarters[14]. Such measures help extremist outfits and religious clerics to exploit the sentiments of moderate Muslim’s. Commenting on headscarves controversy in Europe, pan-Islamist organizations such as Hizb-ul-Tehrir and Hizb-u-allah have been observed saying that, Muslims will have to choose between faith and nationality[15]. Say, they cannot simultaneously be French or the British and Muslims; in itself against the very spirit of Islam.

Media Moves Politicians and Public Opinion:

Both electronic and print media fraught with the images, illustrations and op-eds., on, and about the evil designs of Muslim, their malicious mores and communitarian tendencies, fanned public fears. Likewise extra-ordinary conspicuousness given to the headscarf, normally worn by a small number of girls, turned into an Islamist icon, something to desist or abhor. Vilified pictures of the few evil characters transformed the whole population into a ‘foreign community’ in the eyes of the French public. Distorted and self-serving images and reflections about ‘Muslim-others,’ incurred severe implications on Muslim women, particularly those wearing hijab[16]or mohajebeh.

Drawing the example of Banktown gang-rape-reports (in Australian media)[17] is an apt case of how media was instrumentalizing the event to paint obnoxious portrayal of Muslim barbarity as ‘a product of Arab-Islamic culture’ at the expense of undermining the genuine tragedy. Most of the comments and reports were undoubtedly orientalised and racialized described as ‘coloured and imperialist depiction of rape’ by Paula Aboud[18]. Obviously the real issue of violence against women, which is not uncommon in any society, suffered. No surprise that post 9/11 similes of ‘all Muslims as potential terrorists’ in the mainstream media evoked equally abrasive reactions. Several men and women developed interest in Islam and some of the women turned mohajibas after[19].  Precisely put, unnecessary reasoning and extrapolation of a minor symbolic association demonstrate how public opinion, politics, history and culture conflated in generating a law[20].

What Women-Rights-Activists and Academicians have to Say:

Sociologically speaking, women’s segregation and confinement draws from placement of prime significance on family and sacredness of home by Islam, of which women are assumed to be the custodians. The analogy can be drawn from ‘ka’ba i.e. the house of God on earth’ as the centre of religious life and a most sacred place for the believers. Setting them free in public sphere might disintegrate family structure and societal-cohesion, as conceived by Islamic notions. In other words, women are perceived to be the potential source of fitna (anarchy and social disorder) while theologically the term refers to any cause of social and political disorder emerging from within or without. Men’s honour depends on women’s piety, and sacredness of ‘social space’ called home. Their segregation and seclusion is assumed to be a divine prescription in a Muslim community, nevertheless a highly sexist and discriminatory notion under modern feminist interpretations[21].

Isolating women is, but one way of regulating tension between sexual temptations and social-order[22] in an Islamic society. They are required to remain unsullied, and behave and clad modestly in the public. Covering up certain parts of their body is a religious obligation, as prescribed in Quran. However in the matters of entertaining and satiating the desires of their husbands, they should never refuse. On contrary, many women see hijab and separation as empowering and emancipating, if not liberating, coupled with social order. We know that women are never removed from public spheres in most of the Muslim societies – except from conservative orthodox kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and a brief period of Taliban regime in Afghanistan – as long as they abide by the norms of decency. To others, Islamic ideology of gender is paradoxical and deceptive. It simultaneously allows women to interact with the larger society and exercise their faculties in the public yet remain reserve and reticent home-makers too. In Gole’s view, veiled-women are not only the metaphors of protest; rather demonstrate the spectacular survival of religions in the secular world despite all odds[23].

It is true that women’s equality and removal of religion from public-institutions is a shared value[24] in the French society, but it is the media and parochial politicians, who would boil-down the complex issues of gender into trivial debates like ‘banning the headscarf or not’ and ‘Muslim women oppressed or emancipated’? In contemporary French society, notions of diversity and cohesion are embedded into the questions of religion, race and gender. Ironically, the politics of veil is enmeshed into the conservative dogma of patriarchal protectivism and a sort of rescuing measures on part of the government, equally oppressive of women’s own opinion and freedom of choice[25]. In-fact two of the first girls expelled from schools were newly convert, against the will of their parents – father, a secular Jew and mother, a catholic nun. Third one withdrew from protest being beaten up by her father for wearing the headscarf[26].

The hypocritical and sensationalist media, without  denying its’ role in highlighting cases of rights’ violence, at times goes against diversity and women’s interests by quelling feminists and experts’ analyses and arguments to better serve its’ own political ends. As a consequence oppression-conscious Muslim women are caught in crossfire. Their views are usually subsumed in anti-Muslim streams of debate, while their protest over patriarchal control and gender discrimination within their own communities stands tantamount to disloyalty. Western feminism, less sensitive towards the racist behaviour and colonial tendencies of the west, undermines the contextual realities in the ‘politics of speaking and being heard’. Muslim women become double victim of sexism and racism[27] and turn out to be ‘others of the other’.

Noticing women as ‘careers or keepers of religion’ is nothing exceptional with Muslim societies. Even after the accession of enlightenment and secularism in Europe majority of women still hold religion close their heart[28]. For most women religion is a kind of spiritual experience that also serves as shield from day to day delinquencies. Getting married, and producing children in particular is a miraculous subjectivity of women’ life, intensely spiritual in essence[29]. It is just a cultural-essentialist belief that women who insist on headscarves sometimes even scarifying their education or career , stupidly follow their parents without intra-group criticism, questioning objectionable practices or striving to build-up their own personalities as conscious members of society[30].

Human Rights Conventions and Agencies Speak Out:

Most frequently referred Articles of ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ in this regard are ‘the right to private life, freedom of expression, religious expression and conscience, freedom from discrimination and right to education and equal opportunities[31]. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) considers, ‘public-moral and the rights and freedoms of others and social order as necessary in a democratic society[32].’ Focussing on Article 9 14 the European Court has upheld bans on Islamic-headscarves, both in case of Turkey and France[33].

The Court observed that headscarves in schools conflict with the values of plurality and equality of sexes but unfortunately that falls against the ‘right to education’ under Article 2 of Protocol 1, of which several girls were deprived of, on refusing to oblige academic authorities. If equality doesn’t imply ‘sameness,’ then European Court has failed to comply ‘all-equal, all-different principle’ of gender-equality, religious-freedom and personal-autonomy[34]. Representing Human Rights Watch, the director Kenneth Roth said “banning headscarves in state-schools would violate rights to freedom of religion and expression in France, as with the laws in Muslim countries forcing girls to wear headscarves[35].

Ideally, the school is a space, where cultural boundaries are produced and reproduced allowing assimilative as well as pluralistic processes without determining the end or ends of any such interaction. What schools best need to do, is to provide an environment where negotiative and creative dialogue could happen without coercion, prescription or compulsion. Otherwise, it might breach the right to education and equal access to opportunities. Often the boundaries of personal choice and identity of immigrants and minorities overlap with the supra-ordinate culture. Normatively, schools need to nurture a liberal atmosphere in human-rights perspectives where respect for individual choice and freedom can flourish accordingly. Any regulation, to address assumed or essentialist problems might result in structuring or restructuring power relations between ethnicities or imparting the state with unnecessary monopolistic powers[36] as we are seeing in France at present.

Conclusion:

It’s only a complex and multi-perspective analysis with respect to human-rights, gender and ethnic-relations that can help us understand such issues objectively. In a culturally diverse environment the dilemma and dynamics of conflicting symbolism keeps rebounding time and again[37].

Instead of compartmentalizing, over-politicization and denationalizing a community, what needs to be done by French Government – and other European countries getting harder on headscarf – is to build inter-cultural bridges between communities ‘subjected to ‘othering’. Paternalistic and masculine measures of protectionism and hateful narratives/illustrations of barbaric Muslim men and utterly submissive women as portrayed in French and western media would not serve the purpose. Secular philosophy of human equality, integration and state’s separation from religion is quite respectable in its motives but needs to be exercised as undogmatically as Islamism or any ideology. Superficial perceptions must step-aside and give-way to other complex possibilities of human identities and emancipation. Defending human-rights of women, already victim of marginalization and sexism, will become difficult if racist exclusions and stigmatization becomes a norm. What needs to be liberated first, is the concept of gender-discrimination and women-rights, from the narrow confines of hijab debate. Alongside, political and media-activism of Muslim women must be encouraged to assert their right to speak and emancipate themselves from dual oppression[38].

Besides other measures Muslim men and women need to become active in research and epistemological production to de-orientalise, de-westernize and de-imperialize knowledge about Islam and Muslim women[39]. No denying the fact that unequal, patriarchal and oppressive religious structures govern women’s lives in Islamic societies[40] as they do in several other societies, including the west though less in degree. Yet it is not the state or the law to prescribe women to cuddle or discard certain norms or symbols like the dress-code. What they can best do, is to create economic, social and political conditions/environment and similar structures helping women to exercise their right to equality, individual choice, freedom[41] and the right to self-development an self-esteem.

End Notes and References:

[1] Before agreeing on “conspicuous” there has been a heated debate on the choice of word and its implications.  The word “ostentatious”, “visible” extra, and “outward” etc have been into the debate (Scot, J.W, 2007: 167-190).

[2] BBC News: ……. (15.12.2008) hit on September 29, 09, at 13:36 hrs.

[3] So much so that Nicolas Sarkozi, head of the conservative party UMP, once said that headscarves are like female genitial mutilation or like arranged marriages. …………, hit on September 30, 2009 at 08:54 hrs.

[4] Scot, J.W. 2007. The Politics of Veil. 21, Princeton University Press, New Jersey

[5] Scott, J.W. Ibid. 21-24, 35-37,

Brown, J.R. 2007. ‘Living Islam: Women, Religion and the Politicization of Culture, 69-65, London: I.B. Taurus Publishers

[6] Andrew, Mc. in Moghissi, H. 2006. Muslim Diaspora: Gender, Culture, and Identity. P.153, Routledge, London and Newyork.

[7] Brwon, J.R. ibid. 11-33.

[8] Andrew, Mc. in Ibid. 153.

[9] Brwon, J.R. Ibid. 43-49.

[10] Scot. J.W. Ibid. 90.

[11] Dreher Ho 2009: Dreher, Tanja. Ho. Christopher, ed. 2009, ‘Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion.’ 1-15, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

[12] Martin 2005, in Aune, Kristine, Sharma, Sonya and Vincett, Gisselle. 2008. ‘Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization’. 146. Ed. Ashgate Publishing Company, USA.

[13] Askantber, A. 2002: 51.

[14] Dreher Ho Ibid, 1-15.

[15] Afshar H. et al 2008: 168-169.

[16] Brwon, J.R. 2007, Brown, J.R. 2007. ‘Living Islam: Women, Religion and the Politicization of Culture.’ 92-94, London: I.B. Taurus Publishers.

[17] A Muslim gang of Lebanese origin raped several white women in the suburbs of Sydney in Australia in 2000. Despite focussing on the crime and effective measures to deal with it media was playing up the case and specified the very act of violation as if promoted by Islam and Muslim Culture, See Aboud, P. In Dreher Ho. 2009: 122-125.

[18] Dreher Ho Ibid. 122-125.

[19] Ramji, Rubina. 2008. ‘Being Muslim and Being Canadian: How second generation Muslim Women Create Religious Identities in Two Worlds’ in ed. Aune, Kristine, Sharma, Sonya and Vincett, Gisselle. 2008. ‘Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization’. Ed. Ashgate Publishing Company, USA.

[20] Brwon, J.R. Ibid. 92-94, 155-157.

[21] Douglas Compo in Asaktanber 2002: 31, 39-40.

[22] Mernici: 1975 in Asktanber, A. 2002: 32

[23] Asaktanber, A. 2002: 33-38; Gole 1991 in Aaktanber, 2002: 135.

[24] Brwon, J.R. ibid. 81-85,

[25] Dreher Ho. Ibid 1-15.

[26] Scott, J.W. Ibid. 30-31.

[27] Davis, Y. et al Hussain, S. in Dreher Ho. Ibid. 81-91.

[28] Asktanber. Ibid. 39.

[29] Aune, K. et al. Ibid. 223.

[30] Andrew, Mc. 2006: 154 in Moghissi Ibid, Ramji, R. 2008:199 in Aune et al Ibid Asaktanber Ibid. 213.

[31] Articles 8, 10, 9, 14 2 sequentially.

[32] Marshall, J. 2008. Marshall, J. ‘Conditions for Freedom? European Human Rights Law and the Islamic Headscarf Debate,’ 640-645Human Rights Quarterly,Vol.30, The John Hopkins University Press.

[33] DW BBC News, DW-World Deuche Welle,……, (10.11.2005) hit on September 29, 09, at 13:34 hrs.

[34] Marshal, J. Ibid. 641-645.

[35] HRW, September 28, 2009. Human Rights Watch, ………., hit on September 28, 2009 at 13:20 h

[36] Andrew, Mc. in Moghissi, Haideh. 2006. Muslim Diaspora: Gender, Culture, and Identity. 158-158, Routledge,  London and Newyork.

[37] Andrew, Mc. in Moghissi, Ibid. 154.

[38] Dreher Ho. Ibid. 7-11; Abu-Lughod, 2002: 788; Ann A. 18-29 in Dreher Ho. Ibid. 10, 18-30.

[39] Aboud, Paula. 2007:136-145 cited in Dreher Ho. Ibid. Abood, Paula. 2000, ‘Seeing Rape through Race-Coloured Glasses,’ in ed. Dreher, Tanja. Ho. Christopher, Ed. 2009, ‘Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion.’  Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK.

[40] Askatanber, A. Ibid. 41

[41] Jill Marshal, Ibid. 654