A Paradoxical “Liberation”
“In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom.”
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy famously uttered these words in June of 2009 in his support of the ban of religious face veils. His sentiment of women’s liberation was shared by many—others even followed with restrictive legal enforcements on hijabs, burqas, and niqabs. Though Sarkozy’s words communicate a desire for gender equality and freedom, they are deeply hypocritical. Autonomy and self-determination are essential to feminist theory: enforcing legal restrictions upon women’s dress is deeply opposite to the movement. Legal restrictions on Islamic dress not only serve to demonstrate the continued control of women, but reveal the cultural meaning many have attached to Islam. The veil serves as cultural archetype of Islamic female oppression and her fearsome, terrorist oppressor.
Throughout Muslim majority countries, there are both bans and enforcements on headscarves. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan have hijab enforcements. The control of women’s dress in these countries is largely frowned upon by the international community. But these criticisms hold insincere when spoken by those in favor of veil bans—both are indicative of control and religious intolerance. The looming threat of fines and criminalization deprives individuals of their basic human right of freedom of religious expression. When Sarkozy spoke of the moral wrong of the loss of identity of Muslim women, he meant the loss of a Western identity. Sarkozy’s intense ethnocentrism overlooked the fact that a woman can identify as Muslim and express her faith through the personal choice of the veil or headscarf.
Throughout Muslim majority countries, there are both bans and enforcements on headscarves. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan have hijab enforcements. The control of women’s dress in these countries is largely frowned upon by the international community. But these criticisms hold insincere when spoken by those in favor of veil bans—both are indicative of control and religious intolerance. The looming threat of fines and criminalization deprives individuals of their basic human right of freedom of religious expression. When Sarkozy spoke of the moral wrong of the loss of identity of Muslim women, he meant the loss of a Western identity. Sarkozy’s intense ethnocentrism overlooked the fact that a woman can identify as Muslim and express her faith through the personal choice of the veil or headscarf.
Bans and restrictions on Islamic veils in Muslim majority states are telling. The reasoning behind such decisions is often done to project an image of modernity, secularism, and anti-extremism. When Syria banned the Islamic veil in 2010, it was enforced by a secular government in Damascus in fear of extremism. The same fear followed in Tunisia. Turkey’s policies around Islamic veils have now relaxed to the allowance of the hijab, but the original ban was put in place to attempt a portrayal of a secular and modern state. These countries restrictions and bans of veils describe the Western cultural interpretation of Islam. It has been constructed as out of date, irrelevant, and dangerous. Such qualities that have been ascribed to Islam are easily projected on Muslim women wearing head coverings. They bear the weight of ignorant public assumptions of antiquity, subordination, and threat.
Human Rights Watch is an opponent of legal restrictions on religious clothing. Particularly for Muslim women, national bans can inflict more harm. Human Rights Watch acknowledges the effects of the ban both on women who choose to wear veils and those who are forced to. As previously discussed, restrictions demonstrate a robbery of autonomy. But for women who are coerced into wearing veils, blanket bans pose a severe threat: forbiddance of entry into public spheres. As explained by HRW: “But for women who are indeed coerced into wearing a full-face veil, the ban can have the effect of confining them to their homes and isolating them further from society by preventing them from using public transportation, entering public buildings, or even walking on the street.” Bans have the power to further push women into marginal ends. An environment of gendered, religious control undermines a woman’s freedom and accessibility.
Human Rights Watch is an opponent of legal restrictions on religious clothing. Particularly for Muslim women, national bans can inflict more harm. Human Rights Watch acknowledges the effects of the ban both on women who choose to wear veils and those who are forced to. As previously discussed, restrictions demonstrate a robbery of autonomy. But for women who are coerced into wearing veils, blanket bans pose a severe threat: forbiddance of entry into public spheres. As explained by HRW: “But for women who are indeed coerced into wearing a full-face veil, the ban can have the effect of confining them to their homes and isolating them further from society by preventing them from using public transportation, entering public buildings, or even walking on the street.” Bans have the power to further push women into marginal ends. An environment of gendered, religious control undermines a woman’s freedom and accessibility.
National and blanket bans on veils pose the most detriment, but local bans and restrictions do their part in demonstrating Islamophobic misogyny. Local bans seem to stretch from Spain to Russia. But far West across the Atlantic, Muslim women in the United States have been prohibited from wearing the hijab. They have been denied the right to wear headscarves in certain work environments and public places. Religious expression, a ferociously patriotic right, is made malleable for those practicing Islam. The American Civil Liberties Union explains:
“The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution bar federal and state governments from making laws or rules that specifically prohibit women from practicing hijab. In some circumstances, however, the Constitution allows neutral rules that apply to everyone, such as a rule barring all head coverings, whether religious or not.”
The neutrality is where discrimination rears its ugly head. The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project has a series of cases in which women are not allowed to wear hijabs or other head coverings. Driver’s license photos, public pools, extracurricular activities, and shopping malls can create barriers for women. The neutral barring of “all head coverings” targets Muslim women in particular. Deeply Christian garb often does not reach the extent of barring. This contrast of Western Christian wear and Islamic dress serve to demonstrate an American racialized binary of “us versus them.”
As Amaney Jamal explains:
As Amaney Jamal explains:
“….the way that Otherness is determined is through a process by which the dominant social group claims moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an essentialized, homogeneous image of Muslim and Arab Americans.”
|
Christianity, arguably the most present faith in America, sees no institutionalized discipline compared to that of Muslim women. The semblance of “neutrality” denies full religious freedom for the Islamic Other while conveniently accommodating Christians. Such manipulation of first and fourteenth amendment rights reveals the dominant social group and its claim of superiority.
Restrictions on Islamic veils act as a beacon of equality, progression, and peace. The guise of positivity conceals a larger issue of ethnocentrism, misogyny, and Islamophobia. To be true to the virtues of equality, especially in regards to gender and religion, states and institutions must trust women to express themselves freely. As YouTuber Amena asks: “Since when did freedom inherently require me to show parts of my body that I don’t want others to see?” |