RE: “Anti-niqab law limits freedom,” June 30-July 27, 2011
Bardia Sinaee made several valid points about novel French legislation that prohibits certain Islamic accoutrements in public.
I share his concerns about infringements of individual liberty. I would argue, however, that the new law is entirely justified.
This rests on the basis that the niqab is an affront to both civil society and the Muslim faith writ large. Furthermore, the niqab works at cross-purposes to the goal of sexual equality.
As it pertains to civil society, the niqab is an invidious tool of segregation. It impedes women from experiencing genuine social interaction by erecting a viable physical barrier. A substantial percentage of communication is non-verbal. Thus, the emotive power of the subjugated women is substantially eroded.
While I understand the libertarian concerns raised by the new legislation, the assertion that banning the niqab is “dictatorial” is logically flawed. Courts and legislatures are constantly reassessing what is acceptable attire in certain public fora. In mature democracies, we discuss these issues and arrive at community standards (for example, public nudity standards).
As for Islam, nothing misrepresents the Muslim faith more than the niqab. For the substantial number of Muslims who come to the West to escape stringent clerical edicts, the niqab symbolizes an anachronism — a failure for Islam to develop organically in a new cultural environment
This is an arbitrary double standard for the sexes. On the one hand, it presumes that heterosexual women cannot be sexually aroused by the body and visage of men. On the other hand, it implies that men are sex-crazed monsters — give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. This ideology subtly challenges the motivation behind campaigns like ‘No Means No.’
Furthermore, while the commodification of the female form in the West is equally troublesome, this does not serve as an argument in the niqab’s favour. Just because the West’s extreme is unacceptable does not make your equally extreme alternative palatable.
One is entitled to his or her hermeneutic of Islamic texts, but at the end of the day, there is no compulsion in religion.
In France, they’ll force you to expose your humanity: you have to ask yourself why a benevolent deity would ask you to hide your smile — your personhood. What would He have invested in that?
—Robert Graham,
second-year master’s of public administration
