Feminists hate burkas. They’re a mark of repression, they say. No woman would wear one voluntarily, surely, so they must be imposed by domineering, distrustful, misogynistic men. Governments who believe in freedom must prosecute women who wear the burka and, much more severely, the men who force them to.
The French Government is in process of enacting a law to do just that. This week it passed the lower house by a vote of 335 to one. The feminists, no doubt, rejoice.
Yet isn’t this victory for freedom actually its own kind of tyranny? How can people be free in a country whose legislation covers even the clothes on their backs?
Recent polling shows that 82% of people in France support a ban on full-face veils. A smaller, but still significant, majority (62%) of respondents in the UK do, too, while in the US, famed for its love of freedom, 65% disapprove of such legislation. This latter statistic must also be viewed, of course, in light of the fact that there are so few Muslims in the US – perhaps their stance would change if veils were more prevalent.
Modesty or no modesty, covering the face has a significant effect on relationships and daily encounters. When approached by someone with a covered face (whether concealed by a veil, motorcycle helmet or balaclava), we immediately feel discomfort. A criminal’s mask, as well as concealing his identity, has the added advantage of further intimidating his victims. Faces also play a significant part in communication. Eyes are particularly expressive, but a clear view of the mouth enables us to make out speech much more clearly when in a noisy environment, and can be vital for those who are hard of hearing. A mask, of whatever variety, is a barrier, creating immediate distance between wearer and viewer. A vibrant, interactive, relationally-rich community cannot flourish if some of its members physically cut themselves off from others.
So how are we to go about creating this vibrant community? Legislation is probably not the solution – free-flowing relationships are rarely created by fixing ever-tighter boundaries on their scope and expression.
It may be that certain businesses – shops, banks, schools etc – decide that for ease of communication and/or reasons of security, full-face coverings should be removed on entry to the premises. Many businesses in the UK have already achieved this by the simple expedient of posting a sign by their doorways stating ‘motorcycle helmets must be removed’. Anyone unwilling to comply simply finds him- or herself excluded from that particular service provider, and is thus faced with the choice of whether to find an alternative source or to adapt his or her principles.
Although there is a chance that this could lead to increased segregation, with different groups retreating into areas where people look and act like them, forcing everyone to abandon their differences is a far from appealing solution – community, not conformity, is what we’re wired for.
The BBC reported that Socialist MP Jean Glavany, who presumably cast the lone dissenting vote, said he opposed the ban on the grounds that it was "nothing more than the fear of those who are different, who come from abroad, who aren't like us, who don't share our values". The choice before us is whether to face our fears by building bridges to and relationships with those we don’t yet understand, or to force them to adopt our values and way of life or move somewhere else.
The latter may appeal to certain factions of our society, but it is neither a mature nor a humane attitude. The former is a harder route, but one which will bring both greater credit and greater harmony to a diverse nation.
Jennie Pollock is Executive Assistant at Theos
