Sun, Feb 08, 2004 page9

• France divided by headscarf ban

  The government, the media and the feminists say the Islamic scarf is a repressive symbol, but many French Muslims say the debate is racist

  • By Alex Duval Smith / THE OBSERVER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Jamila Farouk arrives at a sandwich shop at Odeon in central Paris bareheaded. She is not wearing the Muslim headscarf because she has not "attained the level of love, generosity and selflessness" implied in wearing full Muslim attire. "It is a journey -- the same as Buddhists undertake, only no one complains about them."

  But she adds: "The way things are going in France, sometimes I just want to wear a scarf to wind people up. They say our fathers and brothers force us to be veiled -- which is not true -- but they expect us to put up with the paternalism of government."

  "They" are the media, the government, the feminists and society as a whole.

  Farouk, a 30-year-old office assistant, believes the French law banning "ostensive" signs -- or "visible signs" as the Socialists would prefer -- of religious affiliation in schools and which was put before the French parliament last Tuesday (FEb. 3) is a deliberate attempt to marginalize Muslims.

  Farouk and the campaign to which she belongs, Le Mouvement pour la Justice et la Dignite (Movement for Justice and Dignity), are in a minority, even among Muslims. They were calling a second demonstration against the law yesterday. The first protest, on 17 January, drew fewer than 20,000 people.

  By a crushing majority -- up to 70 per cent in some surveys -- the French want the new legislation. Even though "ostensive signs of religious affiliation" in the draft law covers Jewish skullcaps and "manifestly excessive" Christian crosses, few pretend that its real target is anything but the Muslim headscarf.

  Farouk, born in France to Moroccan parents, lives in the Gennevilliers suburb of Paris where girls wear scarves "out of choice." She says Le Mouvement was created spontaneously by concerned citizens and friends of Lila and Alma Levy-Omari, two sisters expelled last September from a school in Aubervilliers, near Paris, for refusing to remove their scarves.

  Our interview is suddenly interrupted by the woman at the next table, Lynn-Allison Durham, 21, who says she just has to intervene.

  Durham, a history student, has an American father and a Tunisian-born mother. She has a great attachment to the French republican ideal of la laicite -- the secularist principle born in 1905 after a 100-year battle against Catholic interference in public affairs. The two women engage in a quick-fire debate. Durham says: "A school is a public place where you go, as a neutral being, to learn to have a critical mind. The scarf is a private matter."

  Farouk: "It is for teachers to be neutral, not children."

  Durham: "The scarf is a symbol of submission -- look at Iran and Afghanistan."

  Farouk: "We're in France, not Iran. In France it is very rare for a girl to be forced to cover her head. Often, if she chooses to, it is against her parents' will. If she is forced not to wear a scarf, she is submitting to the government."

  Durham believes the veil is a symbol of fundamentalism. But Farouk says the case in France is racism, not Islamism. She says: "Ever since the debate started around this law, people have begun to ... harass women wearing scarves, not just in schools. Mayors refuse to marry them. Banks won't open their doors to them for `security reasons'.

  "French law gives us the right to choose our doctor. If une petite francaise called Nathalie or Christine asks to change doctors, her wish will be granted. But I bet you that if Samira refuses to be examined by a male doctor, she will be seen as a difficult Muslim.

  "Where are the feminists when we need them?" Farouk adds. But many feminists are on the side of the secularists. Philosopher Elisabeth Badinter: "Most Muslim women here are in favour of the law. Soon feminists in the rest of Europe will realize the headscarf is a terrible symbol of submission. You cannot denounce what has been going on in Afghanistan while tolerating the veil in Europe -- even if women claim they are wearing it voluntarily."

  For Badinter, the French constitution and the history of the revolution provide compelling reasons for legislating against signs of religious affiliation: "The very idea of the secularist state [l'Etat laic] was born out of a battle against religious imperialism.

  "The concept implies that neutrality wins over individuality. It separates the laws of men from the laws of God.

  "For the same reason, religious instruction has no place in our schools, though there is a move -- which is encouraging -- towards ... introducing religious studies. Because of the nature of the secularist state, you will never see a policeman wearing a Sikh's turban. While he represents the state's authority, he cannot express his religious affiliation. The terms multi-racial and multi-cultural are not the same. In France, as citizens, we adhere to a social contract, and in doing so we step back from the symbols of our private affiliations."

  The debate in the run-up to drafting the law on religious signs in schools -- which dates from 1989 when then Education Minister Lionel Jospin decided it would be up to school principals to make case-by-case rulings -- has polarized opinions.

  Jacques Chirac and most mainstream politicians want the process rushed into law, so it is well out of the way when regional elections are held next month and the Front National is on the warpath again.

  Despite trepidation among some Socialists and opposition from the Greens and the non-Gaullists in the right-wing majority, Chirac, politically, has backing from most sides. Head teachers support the law, as do Jewish leaders. Even Catholics have almost come around to the idea.

  On Tuesday, as the law was put before the French parliament for debate, only some minor tweaking was expected, with the Socialists asking for the term "ostensive" to be replaced by "visible" and for more guarantees that mediation will be in place to support school principals.

  As if symbolically bringing the process to a close, Chirac has presented the Legion d'Honneur -- France's highest decoration -- to Bernard Stasi, the state ombudsman who last year headed the commission into the application of the principle of secularity. In his speech Stasi said: "Those who are against the law are against the integration of Muslims."

  He could have put it more subtly, says Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris mosque and president of the French Council of Muslims (CFCM) -- the body most willing to concede that a headscarf ban in schools could be a move for the greater good. "We believe Muslims must embrace a modern form of Islam in the name of the republic.

  However, we want more talks with the government, not statements," he said.

  Ahead the debate in parliament, French Muslims appeared more divided than ever. The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) is close to Morocco's King Mohammed VI, who in turn is close to Chirac. On the other hand, the UOIF's more radical members have been among the main proponents of demonstrations. The UOIF secretary-general, Fouad Alaoui, said: "Chirac's version of the secularist state ... excludes religions and limits freedoms. The headscarf is a prescript, not a sign. The law is unfair."

  Yamin Makri, spokesman for the more radical Collectif des Musulmans de France, feels both the UOIF and the CFCM have been compromised and lost their legitimacy among young Muslims. He said: "Chirac has done more harm to French Muslims than was done by 11 September. The climate is more hostile to us than it ever has been in France before."

  As Chirac seeks to hurry matters along, two questions remain: will the law banning ostensive religious signs stand if a case were brought before the European Court of Human Rights? According to the Levy-Omari sisters' lawyer, Gerard Tcholakian, it may not even stand scrutiny by France's own constitutional council. "It is questionable whether the law is constitutional under rules safeguarding religious freedom," he said.

  Another question is the extent to which the law will be enforceable -- especially in French overseas territories -- and whether it will make life any easier for schools. The only politician raising this issue is Communist Party leader Marie-Georges Buffet. "Teachers are still going to have to make the rulings. They will have the law on their side but will still take the flak," she said.

  In the sandwich bar at Odeon, Farouk and Durham have found common ground. They are talking about an advert in which a near-naked woman is promoting yoghurt. They agree that if a law banning extremes of prudery is on the way, so too should a ban on extreme displays of female flesh.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    CGA urges China not to use shipwreck for gain

  • 2

    International concerns raised after Lai’s flight blocked

  • 3

    China ‘incentives’ fail to sway Taiwan

  • 4

    Actor Darren Wang handed six months for obtaining others’ personal data

  • 5

    Pet cats outnumber pet dogs, survey shows