Face Veil Ban: how France and Turkey have dealt with this issue - Research Paper Example

Face Veil Ban: How France and Turkey Have Dealt With This Issue Introduction Forbidding the Muslimwomen from veiling their face or not, had been an extremely debated subject and was considerably argued in several places particularly in Europe i.e. France, Italy, Belgium, Spain etc. Recently, it has acquired impulsive nature across Europe and had attained its peak when France, although being the third largest European Muslim population, officially determined to forbid all forms of face veils acknowledged as hijabs, burqas, niqabs. This triggered huge outcries in lots of places. That elevates the question if it was a correct decision? It is necessary to develop some introductory know-how about the face veils prior to commencing any deeper into the principal issue. The face veil consists of a piece of cloth intentional to hide a woman’s major parts of body with its purposes to contribute the Muslim women greater security and freedom and as it is known that the face veils have started somehow to symbolize a Muslim woman and has become an attached tradition. Nevertheless it is reasonably controversial but this peculiar practice appears to lack any religious origin as the Qur'an verses may be interpreted in diverse ways and it is normally assumed that the Qur'an only advocates the practitioners to wear modest clothes publicly but does not assigns that they must put on face veils. Besides, the Muslim brotherhood considers veil as a basic requirement of Islam and a symbol of resistance of colonialism and westernization. Across Europe, the Arab world, Canada and in America, there has been a revitalization of Muslim females wearing the veil since the 1970s. However the decision to allow this symbolic clothing in schools has been a controversial debate in France, Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey and many other European countries aspirinfg the values of secularism (Kwok). The primary argument for banishing of the face veils is that it restricts a woman's liberty considered as a violation of human rights and has attained the fame particularly in Europe where human rights are incessantly prioritized. Moreover the Western nations are assumed to have a state of Islamophobia after the terrorist attacks of September 11’ 2011. So here is an increased emphasis on delineating Muslim symbolism through enforcing bans on their religious representations in the name of law and security enforcement. As regarded by a number of French Muslims that the enforcement of such laws will be an attempt to stigmatize French Muslims rather than addressing the actual integration problems. The government remarks that comparatively few French Muslims affirm the full face veil as prescribed by religion. It is demonstrated by the fact that the burqa or niqab are worn by only a few French Muslims. Although, few critics argue that in encouraging the ban, President Sarkozy would have been primarily concerned with harvesting political back up from conservative electors and in establishing to the public that his government is working on to address their worries about the Muslims in France and their integration. This paper will attempt to seek out the enforcement of ban on full face veils in European countries particularly Turkey and France. The paper will address the scenarios in a historical development manner. Thus preceding France, Turkey’s attempt to ban the veil in 1980s is discussed prior to the recent French imposition. However after going thru the French scenario the Turkey’s stance on the French regulation will also be presented. Face Veil and the Role of Turkey and France The putting on of the veils has triggered far-flung political interest in recent years, predominantly but not merely within Europe. These present-day debates have concentrated on proposing new laws forbidding the customary wearing of Islamic veils, principally veils that hide the face entirely or partly – the burqa or the niqab – instead of hijab, the more ordinarily worn headscarf. The opponents and proponents of such prohibitions have depended on a diverse array of statements for their stances and in executing so have often relied upon the human rights language. On the contrary, such laws and ordinances have been vindicated on the grounds that they defend the equal rights and dignity of women, help maintain public safety and reflect values embraced nationally like official secularism. These rules and regulations are also criticized deeply on the grounds that they countermine women’s rights for equal treatment; freedoms of religion and of expression are counterproductive to their proposed intentions of promoting integration. In this extremely contended debate, the entire face veil has been portrayed both as a feminist statement and an emblem of oppression, while ignoring the fact that the meaning of Islamic veils is interpreted differently by various Muslim women (Nanwani 1431). France pioneered the European Nation in imposing a full-face veil ban in public places. It is inhabited by around five million Muslims, the biggest Muslim minority residing in the Western Europe. However it is assumed that only 2,000 women put on full veils. As proposed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, veils suppress women and thus aren’t welcomed in France. Under the prohibition that was passed on 11 April 2011 in the French parliament, no woman whether foreign or French will be allowed to leave her home within France, keeping their face veiled without administrating the possibility of a fine. The punishment for veiling oneself on public places was decided to be 150-euro ($217, ?133,) along with the instruction in citizenship. If a woman was found to be veiled on force, may result in the penalties of around two years in prison along with fines of 60,000 euro for someone who might have forced her to wear niqab or burqa. France pioneered the face ban in the Europe, although others are also studying alike measures such as Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Spain, Germany and Denmark, desirable to adopt this law amidst unsuccessful and controversial debates the place of Islam, national identity, crime, immigration and secularism. The French ban imposed on the Muslim veil has initiated a debate within the Muslim community that considers it as an attack on their cultural values and traditions. President Sarkozy has had a hard association with the French Muslim community. He has extended firm rhetoric to necessitate foreign descents to learn French, respect the law and should adopt the norms of French culture. His attempts to cater the integration matters had faced strong criticism by Muslims. The deeper drift for the legislation seems to be introduction of what its protagonists view as a groin defending the public arena in France from inequality and extremism. On the contrary, opponents, regard it as an unnecessary intrusive government impingement on a primal human right. This conflict is one of the more seeable recent clashes modeling the question of the status of the Muslim community in Europe, and the more poignant question of the willingness and capability of Europe to craft good on its dedication to human rights while dealing its relationship with the members of Muslim community residing in Europe and its neighbors. An unavoidable central point for these investigations is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and its rulings addressing the Muslim issues. The European Court of Human Rights has been appeared as the most efficient transnational human rights establishment on earth. The European Court’s jurisprudence on issues related to religion has emerged beside the background of changing attitudes towards state-religion relations that have been inclined successively by the developing cognizance of Islam in Europe. Proposals for imposing banishment on the wearing of entire face veil have provoked substantial and mounting interest at the nationwide European level. Most outstandingly, in France as the National Assembly on 13 July 2010 cast voting overwhelmingly to endorse a prohibition on the custom of putting on voiles integrals, veils that hide the face, publically. This legislation was approved by Senate on 14 September 2010 in an approximately unanimous vote. It was proposed to make it illegal to wear clothes such as burqa or niqab on public places by this legislation. The Constitutional Court of France on 7th October decreed that the prohibition on veil does not encroach upon political liberty. Although the court made an amendment to the law as it was approved by the French legislative assembly: The restriction of public wearing of veils was delimited to religious places as it would be an infringement to the religious liberty of individuals (Belkin 6). The French legislation followed the pronouncement of the Belgium’s lower house of the legislature in April 2010 to sanction a countrywide ban on the public wearing of full face veils. A similar ban has been planned to be proposed in the Netherlands by the Dutch government which is seeking support from major political powers in the country (Allen 150). Beside European Union, apprehensions concerning the veil have also been apparent in few states where Muslims are residing dominantly. Notably, Turkey has imposed a conventional ban on the wearing of the hijab publically, including by pupils in universities, on the grounds of the state’s official values of secularism, despite the fact that it has been disputed in the courts like European Court of Human Rights. The Turkey’s case is especially interesting for various reasons. It is one of the biggest preponderantly “Muslim” countries on the globe, along with being a member of the European Human Rights Committee and distinguishes the legal power of the European Court of Human Rights to understand inland legislation in reckoned human rights infringements. Moreover, Turkey has essayed the European Union’s membership since the 1980s, rendering a clear involvement for Turkey to unite with the West. Eventually, Turks are one of the leading Muslim immigrating communities within Europe and have significant Diasporas all over Western Europe. Still, regarded as socially fabricated category and what it entails to be a Muslim in Turkey or any other country is open to interpretation and debate. The exercise of covering is not universal or fixed but varies across place, time, class and religious interpretations. Veiling comes along in diverse forms, at different times, in different places, and its significances are both multiple and fluid. Post September 11, the western media transmitted Afghan women images wearing dark burqas that entirely covered their face, bodies, and even eyes. This peculiar kind of cover was dictated by the Afghan Taliban and is not usual. Muslim women, in Turkey, wear numerous forms of cover that range from mere headscarves within the rural areas to “Islamic high couture” introduced at fashion shows through models in Istanbul. According to an estimate only 3% put on the carsaf which is a long garment of cloak-type worn with a face veil and headscarf. In Turkey, the headscarves are not generally black but more often brilliantly colored, in diverse fabrics, patterns and designs. Some women also put on the jilbab which is a loose garment that wraps up the body but not always. In Istanbul the younger women can be viewed wearing a brilliantly colored headscarf that is snappily tied close to the neck and head, with high heels and tight jeans. Many women in the rural Turkey wear very loose tops and pants along with a headscarf fastened simply below the chin (Durham 1). In Turkey the foundations of secularism were laid down by Kemal Ataturk and were incorporated into the Constitution of Turkey in 1928 where Islam was ceased to be considered as the religion of the state. In succeeding decades, the government countered the mounting resistance of Islamic forces by making grants with intimate Islamic groups along with distressing the prescribed Islamic opposition (Peoples and Bailey 339). Until recently, the Turkish authorities represented religious freedom in a hybrid style. The state-court decisions and the political authorities banished veils in all public universities and schools, for women and deduced religious freedom, other individual rights and non-discrimination more strongly to the European secularism model while on the other mandating the religious morality and teachings in public schools in order to be considered as allowing religious freedom as designated by Islamic human rights law. Hence, secularism was represented as a liberty to exercise religion but under a rigorous state’s control. However, with the coming of Islamist reformist to power under the control of the JDP, the religious liberty had been re-interpreted legally as a right to follow one’ religion while secularism was re-formulated as a social order which holds such freedoms. The new interpretation removed the state administration of religious liberty and the power was transferred to public regarding the religious practice. Since then the Muslim veils were not considered any longer as an obstruction to a secular ordain and the ban was removed completely in 2010. As Turkey’s elucidation of religious liberty has changed from a stress on religion-free secular ordain and individual rights to religion-friendly secularism and collective rights, a question is raised regarding the Turkish formulation of human rights as a rule, shifting nearer towards the view proposed by Islam. Such amendments might have significant effects on the women rights whose explanation of religious liberty does not demand wearing veils along with the prospect of EU-Turkey, where Muslim veils are more and regarded as a symbolical representation of radical Islam and broadly hostile to human rights including women in general (Bullock 100). Turks for a period of more than 85 years lived in a state following secularism, ruled by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who refused headscarves in his movement to secularize the Turkish society. A ban was imposed on wearing scarves in official buildings and civic spaces, but the matter is profoundly divisive for the nation's preponderantly Muslim population, as majority of Turkish women together with the daughters and wives of the president and prime minister wrap up their heads. Turkey's constitution was rectified to alleviate a rigid ban at universities, permitting headscarves tied roughly under the chin in 2008. However, the headscarves that cover the neck and all-enwrapping veils are still banned. The ruling AK Party having roots in Islam proposed that the ban had caused many girls being refused to seek education but the secular administration proposes that relaxing the ban would lead to the proliferation of Islam into public life. Summary Banning the customary wearing of veil has been under debate during the recent years as the French parliament passed the bill of implementing it nationwide. The French case is not the only one that formed the basis of the argument. The face veil ban is on the way to enforcement in all the corners of Europe and almost each state in an illustration to the nationwide application of the national values of secularism that prohibit the display of religious customs publically. Turkey although being a Muslim majority country has also imposed such a ban nationally including the academic institutes like universities. The imposition of such ban is based on the grounds of improving law and order situation of the country as well as expression of implementing integration. However this argument is rejected by the practicing Muslim community who considers it as a violation of basic human rights of liberty, equality and freedom of expression and thus such laws are challenged at the courts (Kwok). In France the ban was introduced on Muslim headscarves in the year 2004 while Turkey imposed such a ban in the reign of Kemal Ataturk. The measure encountered overwhelming public and political support in all countries where the separation of religion and state is enshrined legally. The main argument revolves around the integration of Muslim women in the Western society which is restricted by wearing these customary clothing to veil one’s body entirely. More arguments proposed in favor of the ban include that such attire obstructs the communication thus hindering the performance of Muslim women employees. However it is also claimed by the proponents of the full face veil ban that it is assumed that Muslim women are forced to wear such an attire thus prejudicing their equal status in society and it has been observed that the penalty imposed on violation is much greater in case of forced violation. The against arguments include that such a law violates the civil liberty of women, infringes the freedom of expression thus least welcoming the inhabitation of Muslim community in the country and its been worn by a little minority of the resident Muslims hence not needed to be banned (Cooper and McGinley 273). The argumentation for and against goes on with the law, but the fact that only 2000 Muslim women among Millions of those residing in French used to wear such an entire veiling clothes is completely overlooked by both sides. Also the interpretation of the teachings of Quran regarding the dressing of Muslim men and women are different in different parts of the world and also a debatable aspect. Hence the claim that the law infringes the religious liberty of Muslims requires the unanimous decision from the Muslim scholars that what actually modest dressing means (Vakulenko 42). Works Cited Allen, Anita. Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide? Oxford University Press, 24 Nov 2011. Print. Belkin, Paul. France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy and Issues in U.S.-French Relations. DIANE Publishing. 2011. Print. Bullock, Katherine. Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil: Challenging Historical & Modern Stereotypes.IIIT. 2002. Print. Cooper, Frank Rudy and McGinley, Ann C. Multidimensional Masculinities and Law: Feminist and Critical Race Lenses. NYU Press, 2012. Print. Durham, W. Cole. Islam, Europe and Emerging Legal Issues. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 01-Feb-2012. Print. Kwok, Pui-Lan. Globalization, Gender, and Peacebuilding: The Future of Interfaith Dialogue. Paulist Press, 2012. Print. Nanwani, Shaira. The Burqa Ban: An Unreasonable Limitation on Religious Freedom or a Justifiable Restriction? Emory International Law Review 25. 2011. (1431-1475). Peoples, James and Bailey, Garrick. Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. 9th ed. Cengage Learning, 2011. Vakulenko, Anastasia. Islamic Veiling in Legal Discourse. Routledge, 2012. Print. Read More