WUNRN
Intersectionality of Freedom of Religion or
Belief & Women’s Rights: Burqa Issue in the EU
By
Willy Fautré, Human Rights Without
Frontiers
The intersectionality of freedom of
religion or belief and women’s rights is one of the most complex human rights
issues faced by the world today. Down through the centuries, religious
extremism and interpretation of holy books have shaped traditions and cultural
stereotypes in a number of patriarchal societies. Some of these traditions and
stereotypes have been detrimental to women, and have survived until the 3rd
millennium.
The religious, sacred and cultural are
sometimes so intimately interwoven that it is difficult to differentiate
between them. Societies dominated by men and by the rule of religion have
adopted a number of practices which are not explicitly prescribed by their holy
books, such as the preservation of girls’ virginity by genital mutilation, or
the eradication of sinful sexual relations by honor killings. Clothing
restrictions and obligations imposed by states or by religious groups (but also
freely chosen by women) whether they are rooted in religious principles or not,
are now debated publicly, not only in the traditional Muslim countries but also
in European, American and Asian countries where Islam is a minority religion.
Problems arising from the problematic
coexistence of women’s rights and freedom of religion or belief are not only
acute in countries, regions or societies where Islam has been dominating the
culture and the traditions for centuries. Tensions between freedom of religion
or belief on one side and women’s rights on the other are also increasingly
experienced in the open societies of the European Union where religion has lost
its dominating position in politics, society and the daily lives of the
citizens. Throughout the last decades, the regular flow of asylum-seekers from
Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries has introduced an increasing diversity of
religions, cultures and traditions in European societies, a number of which
have failed to address modernity in due time and to integrate the culture of
human rights. This slow but steady process has resulted in overreaction, and even
hostility between some autochthonous populations and some categories of
migrants on such issues as the veil or the minarets. This has also triggered
debates on integration in Western societies, on the defense of national
identity and European values.
With regard to the wearing of religious,
ethno-religious and cultural symbols, the EU member states have adopted a
variety of policies ranging from their ban, to accommodation in the public
sphere, in schools and in state institutions.
This paper addresses the issue of the full
veil in public space as an example of the political management of
intersectionality between freedom of religion or belief and women’s rights by a
number of EU member states.
Definitions
The full veil whose purpose is to conceal the face and physical features of the woman’s body can take several forms[1][1]: the hijab, the niqab, the burqa and the chadri, just to name a few.
The hijab is an Arabic word meaning barrier or partition. The literal definition is defined as veil, screen, cover(ing), or curtain. In Islam, hijab is considered the principle of modesty that is required in the Qur’an and includes behavior as well as dress. The practice of hijab is observed through the wearing of a headscarf by Muslim women, sometimes including a veil that covers the entire face except for the eyes. Muslim communities have differing beliefs regarding how hijab should be enforced.[2][2]
A niqab is a face veil covering the lower part of the face (up to the eyes). [3][3]
The burqa refers to a full head to toe body covering with a small opening for the eyes.
The chadri, also referred to as the Afgan burqa, covers the entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille.
As there is a wide variety of clothing used to practice hijab in the Muslim world, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between veils. Therefore, the terms niqab and burqa are often used interchangeably.[4][4]
The full veil: a historical
perspective
The
oldest name of the practice of secluding women from public view is purdah[5][5]. It was a practice among women in
certain societies of living in a separate room or behind a curtain, or dressing
in all-enveloping clothes in order to stay out of sight of non-related men or
strangers in the Middle East and parts of
Purdah first appeared in ancient Persia and
evidence suggests it was also common in Babylon The word itself comes from
Urdu, a language closely related to Persian, and literally means 'screen' or
'veil'. The Arabic translation is 'hijab'. Before the spread of Islam, such all
enveloping garments were worn in the deserts of
In
Purdah was adopted by Muslim invaders in
the 7th Century. Historians have pointed out that the tent-style
burqa became the dominant form of veiling only after the Muslims defeated the
more advanced Persian and Eastern Byzantine empires. When these empires fell to
the Arabs, the latter began to imitate this practice since they were the new
upper class in society. Thus when the caliphate of
Purdah
was incorporated as one of the tenets of Islam by the prophet Mohammed, and
through Muslim conquest, this practice of segregation spread throughout the
Families observing purdah in the past often upheld strict segregation of men and women inside the home; the women's quarters or harem, was a place that was off limits to all men. Women were not expected to leave the house except in extreme emergencies. In such cases, a special shrouded horse drawn carriage was used to transport the woman, in the company of a male relative.
The
practice of purdah has almost disappeared in
The full
veil in the EU
In November 2006, European Commissioner
Franco Frattini stated that he did not favour a ban on the burqa[6][6] but the EU member states have now adopted
a wide range of positions on the issue.
In
In
In March 2008, the city of Verviers
decided to introduce a city-wide ban on the burqa and any other form of
headscarf covering the face for security reasons, the justification being the need for police and other authorities to be able
to recognise a person’s face at all times.
In December 2008, the city of
Proposals on how best to prevent the
wearing of the niqab and burqa have been called for by the Danish government.
The majority of Danes support the government’s stance against the wearing of
the veils by Muslim women in the streets, while Prime Minister Lars Lokke
Rasmussen has said that the dress code is not welcome inside Danish educational
institutions. He said that he was waiting on new reports with suggestions on
how to prevent teachers, students and public servants from wearing the burqa or
niqab. Rasmussen claimed that neither the niqab nor the burqa have any place in
Danish Society. There is a penalty for Muslim men who force women to wear the
burqa, which has recently been increased to four years imprisonment.[9][9]
A
The interior ministry says an estimated 2,000 women out of a total
French population of 65.4 million, of which 5 million are Muslims, wear the
burqa and that this is seen by many as “a threat to the republic”. Though
statistics are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that the popularity
of the burqa is on the rise. French legislators indicated their fear of the
growing popularity of the garment by signing a proposal in 2009 to investigate
its spread throughout the country. In January 2010 a parliamentary commission
recommended a ban on the total veil – to be applied in public places like hospitals and schools,
and on public transport.
The Commission members maintained that
their recommendation was by no means an invasion of the privacy of a Muslim
woman or an attempt to curtail her human rights. It was agreed, however, that
donning the burqa was a sign of the demeaned status of Muslim women. It may be
recalled that the controversy started when French President Nicolas Sarkozy
declared last year that such attire had no place in France. He asserted that
the burqa was not a religious symbol; rather it symbolised the subjugation of
women. He called for a ban. The
security risk linked to the burqa and its clash with French republican values
are the two main arguments that have been put forth.
The commission stopped short of
recommending a full ban because not all of the 32 commission members could
agree. A parliamentary vote is due to take place in the coming months[11][11]. Polls have indicated that 65 percent of
the French population, including Muslims, would like a law banning the burqa.
A ban on the burqa may not help liberate
the 2,000 or so women in
The
Interior Ministry of Germany, a country of 3.2 million Muslims, has no plans to
implement any ban on the burqa. It is up to individual states in
The burqa is currently not referenced in Italian law. However, there
exists legislation that forbids covering the face in public places. In
existence since 1975, the law was introduced as a counter-terrorism measure
against homegrown guerilla groups and makes no reference to religious
expression. Some politicians have called for this decades-old anti-terror rule
to be enforced against veiled Muslim women.
In October 2009,
According
to a survey conducted in October 2009, 71 per cent of Italians are in favor of
a ban. However, a burqa ban in
Legislation in the
The
Dutch cabinet has not made a decision to implement a broad ban on the burqa or
niqab in public. There are fears about the legality of such a ban under
European human rights laws.[15][15]
According
to the Muslim community, only about 50 women were wearing the head-to-toe burqa
or the niqab. They said a general ban would heighten alienation among the
country's Muslims, who number approximately 1 million.
The
The
A recent survey found that 70 percent of Britons would be in favor of a ban in public places, schools, universities and airports.[16][16]. In January 2010, the leader of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) appeared to align itself with the ultra right wing BNP by calling for a ban on burqas and headscarves in public. Justice secretary Jack Straw said that this would be “a waste of police time” and reiterated that the current administration had no intention of imposing such a ban.
Ban
on the full veil: Pros and cons
Three categories of arguments are used by the supporters of a ban on the full veil: security, women’s rights and integration in the European values system.
Security
The identification of a person by their face has become a necessity in many aspects of modern life. Pictures showing the full face including the ears are requested for a passport, an ID card, a driving license, access to special services and public institutions, or the enjoyment of social advantages.
The police
need to be able to see a person's face in public because they may be on a missing persons’ file or be wanted in
connection with a crime. Doctors and dentists need to be able to identify the
patient they are treating, and the surgeon those on whom they are operating. In
Failure to abide by these procedures and
obstructions rendering individuals unidentifiable in modern society generate
human security risks.
There have been instances of terrorists
and criminals wearing the burqa to hide from the police and authorities. One of
the suspects of the failed attempts to bomb
Furthermore, the privacy of the
individual, including that of pious Muslim women, has now been made irrelevant.
The new screening machines that are being installed in international airports
will make possible an inspection of even the private parts of individuals. It
has been pointed out, in this respect, that if
anyone is responsible for undermining Islamic values, it is the terrorists who
have been using the human body as a weapon of extensive if not mass
destruction. Banning the burqa is one way of reducing the terrorist risk
factor, if not eliminating it, some think.
2. Women’s rights: the burqa as a coercion
Some argue the burqa represents a
perverted view of piety. According to the well-known Islamist, Dr Israr Ahmed,
men in the West have lost their manliness because they see and work with women.
That affects their perception of their sexuality. By strictly segregating men
and women, Islam keeps men in their most natural state of virility. The burqa
contributes to that “positive segregation”.
To the Western world as well as to many
Muslim women, the treatment of women throughout history under Islam is
symbolized by the burqa: coercion and segregation. Under Islam, many women
traditionally must remain covered, are denied contact with non-related men, can
be denied the ability to get jobs and education to the same extent as men, are
subject to violence and forced marriage, are treated as having less, if any,
political or social worth than men, and are discriminated against in a variety
of ways. Westerners, non-Muslims, and many Muslim women are actively fighting
what they consider the subjugation and subordination of women through the
imposition of the burqa. Liberal Muslims and women’s rights groups are
advocating the cessation of compulsory enforcement of the burqa so that women
can choose if they want to wear it. In
However, in relation to women’s rights, a burqa ban could further worsen
the plight of those who are coerced by family or by the dictates of tradition
to cover themselves in public. Many believe that by making the burqa illegal,
many women would be forced to stay
at ho me,further alienating them and depriving them of their freedom of
movement and their right to education.
Last but not least, some Muslim
women do want to wear the full veil, including converted French citizens, and
claim that their choice is also part of women’s rights. A
Frenchwoman, who took to the burqa entirely through her
own volition, protested: “
The
starting point of most discussions on European identity is the idea that a
community needs a common set of values and references to ensure its coherence,
to guide its actions and to endow these with legitimacy and meaning.[18][18]
One of the
most pervasive underlying assumptions in the discourse on European Muslim
integration is that Muslim religiosity is a threat to European values. Those
who believe in the irreconcilability of western and Muslim identity generally
argue that Muslim piety, expressed in religious symbols and moral conservatism,
contrasted against the backdrop of secular and sexually liberal
Muslim
women in
In
The debate on integration also rages in
The
32-member parliamentary commission that drew up the report on the wearing of
the burqa in January 2010 claims that all of
In
February 2010, the French government refused to grant citizenship to a foreign
national on the grounds that he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil.
The man needed citizenship to settle in the country with his French wife. But
Immigration Minister Eric Besson said this was being refused because he was
depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered.
Later, the minister stressed that French law required anyone seeking
naturalisation to demonstrate their desire for integration.
"It
became apparent during the regulation investigation and the prior interview
that this person was compelling his wife to wear the all-covering veil,
depriving her of the freedom to come and go with her face uncovered, and
rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,"
he said. [22][22]
Can a
civilisation that treats its women as inferior and its men as sexually
uncontrollable claim to be the bearer of the best values of common humanity?
This is a decisive argument in the debate on the burqa in
Conclusions
Freedom of religion or belief may be
invoked both in terms of the positive freedom of persons who wish to
wear or display a religious symbol, and in terms of the negative freedom
of persons who do not want to be confronted with, or coerced into it. Some
women do want to wear the burqa on religious grounds. Women’s rights has two
faces, but one common denominator: freedom of choice. Therefore a total ban on
the burqa in the public sphere cannot be justified by the desire to free women
from male coercion.
However, a state can decide to ban the
full veil on other grounds.
A state can decide that wearing a full
veil is incompatible with national values. As the problem almost exclusively
concerns female migrants and women living or staying temporarily in an EU
country, a state might have to clarify its national values and grant asylum or
visas only to those who declare that they share those values, and that they
will respect them.
A state can ban the full veil on the
grounds of public safety. The police need to see the faces of everybody on the
streets in order to prevent criminal activities (i.e. hold ups) and
suicide-bombings, to identify criminals or prisoners on the run, to find
missing persons, and so on.
There may be features of certain
institutional settings which are incompatible with the wearing of a full veil.
People must be identifiable by teachers and professors (for a university exam
or), by healthcare institutions (for medical exams and surgery), by social and
administrative services (for allowances, passports, ID cards), at post-offices
(to get a registered letter), on public transport (for holders of a pass), etc.
For security reasons at the workplace, the full veil may also need to be
banned.
In his 1959 study of discrimination in the
matter of religious rights and practices (E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1, p. 33), the
then Special Rapporteur of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities, Arcot Krishnaswami, said: “A prohibition of the
wearing of religious apparel in certain institutions, such as public schools,
may be motivated by the desire to preserve the non-denominational character of
these institutions. It would therefore be difficult to formulate a rule of
general application as to the right to wear religious apparel, even though it
is desirable that persons whose faith prescribes such apparel should not be
unreasonably prevented from wearing it.”
In her report about her fact-mission in
Macedonia in 2009, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Asma
Jahangir wrote: “If a policy decision has been taken at the national level that
interferes with the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief with regard to
wearing religious symbols, issues of proportionality and religious tolerance
need to be thoroughly respected. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would
like to reiterate that the following questions should be answered in the
affirmative: Was the interference, which must be capable of protecting the
legitimate interest that has been put at risk, appropriate? Is the chosen
measure the least restrictive of the right or freedom concerned? Was the
measure proportionate, i.e. balancing of the competing interests? Would the
chosen measure be likely to promote religious tolerance? Does the outcome of
the measure avoid stigmatizing any particular religious community?”
On the other hand, the state alone should
not bear the burden of accommodating specific religious and cultural practices.
There is sometimes a price to be paid by the persons who choose to put their
conscience above the law. Jehovah’s Witnesses and non-religious pacifists who
are conscientious objectors to military service have opted for decades to pay a
high price for their choice: a prison term, a criminal record and the denial of
access to employment in the public sector. Women who have chosen to wear the
full veil in a country where such garments are banned may also have to pay a price
for their choice. Time will show if their commitment was genuine or if most of
them will find some form of reasonable accommodation with the modern world.
================================================================
To contact the list administrator, or to leave the list, send an email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.
[1][1] See pictures at http://atheism.about.com/od/womeninislam/ig/Women-in-Islam--Buraqa--Chador/index_g.htm
[2][2] LAKII.com. Definition of the Hijab. Feb 2010. http://www.lakii.com/lakiibooks.php?doWhat=showarticle&topicid=5&articleid=84
[3][3] Sensagent.
Burqua/Nijab. February 2010. See http://dictionary.sensagent.com/burqa/en-
[4][4] Encyclopedia: Different terms for muslim dress http://keywen.com/en/NIQAB
[6][6] Reformatorisch dagblad (in Dutch): Brussel tegen boerkaverbod, 30 November 2006.
[8][8] De Morgen, Londerzeel verbiedt burkini in
zwembad”, 16 December 2008. http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/989/Binnenland/article/detail/555405/2008/12/16/Londerzeel-verbiedt-burkini-in-zwembad.dhtml
[9][9] See Euronews 30/01/2010 http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/30/burqa-ban-debate-gains-momentum-across-europe/
[10][10] Ice News, 27 January 2010
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/27/denmark-calls-for-burka-ban-proposals
[12][12] See adnkronos international “Northern city ignores outcry and lifts burqa ban” http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1409234542
[13][13] See BBC “Dutch MPs to decide on burqa ban” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4616664.stm
[15][15] See “Burqa debate” http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/30/burqa-ban-debate-gains-momentum-across-europe/
[16][16]
See public opinion survey http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-ontent/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.26_Burqa_BRI.pdf
[18][18] Euractive article http://www.euractiv.com/en/culture/european-values-identity/article-154441
[19][19] Integration, “The Guardian” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/20/muslim-integration-gallup
[20][20] See
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=153 or
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RPTJQRG&source=login_payBarrier
[21][21]
[22][22] BBC News site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8494860.stm