Why Frances burkini ban is an affront to the very freedom it seeks to uphold
One of the official
reasons given for the ban on the burkini is that it constitutes a security threat.
It is indeed very
difficult to
understand
what this means
M Arijit
Secularism, in the western sense of the term, means separation of religion and state. It mandates non-involvement of religion in the activities of the state. In France however, secularism is much more than a maxim. It is part of the core identity of the French Republic.
But in fairly recent times, Frances brand of secularism has assumed a far more dogmatic form. All kinds of religious symbols are banned in public, and what constitutes a religious symbol is being interpreted in a progressively wider sense. Hence the ban on the niqab, and now, in some towns on the burkini.
One of the official reasons given for the ban on the burkini is that it constitutes a security threat. It is indeed very difficult to understand what this means. If it is simply easier to carry around concealed weapons in a full-body suit, can this also not be said of other kinds of clothes like tracksuits and the like which cover the entire body? The burkini does not even fit the definition of a niqab, which covers the persons face in addition to their body so there is no question of concealment of
identity.
French officials also seem to think that the burkini is anti-secularism. But secularism is far more about separating religion from politics than it is about making the populace adhere to a particular lifestyle. It is enough to believe that one must not impose ones religious beliefs on others. It is not necessary to abandon the practice of religion or indeed, avoid wearing religious clothing in public. But France clearly thinks that the people must actively demonstrate their commitment to its brand of secularism. In essence, they must display their disapproval of religion, which in France, is not just meant to be separated from the state, but considered a liability.
However, it is the third justification provided for the burkini ban that is the most puzzling. Apparently, banning full body covering is essential to protect the freedom of women.
Secularism might be interpreted to mean not just separation of state and religion, but also precedence of state law over religious custom. But such multiple meanings cannot be derived from the idea of freedom. Freedom means the ability to choose your thoughts, beliefs, actions and affiliations. Freedom can never become dogma because that would be antithetical to its very meaning. Freedom cannot be imposed one cannot be forced to be free. The French state, by telling women what freedom means, takes away the very freedom it seeks to provide. Freedom becomes a doctrine or an ideology, and thus defeats its own purpose.
France is not Saudi Arabia or Iran, but alas, its secularism has become justification for egregious acts of misogyny such as forcing a woman to remove her burkini in public. It is incredible though that in 21st century Europe, a significant section of the French population does not think this to be an act of pure sexism. Here we see how the transformation of the idea of freedom into a doctrine ends up creating new and pernicious forms of discrimination and as usual, women are some of the worst affected.
It is significant that these bans are being put in place at a time when Europe is reeling from frequent terror attacks as well as an influx of refugees. There is little doubt that increasing far-right xenophobia has not just influenced public opinion, but also made it easier for officials to institute discriminatory legislation.
However, there is another side to this story, which must not be ignored because of our rightful indignation at the recent events in France. While it is essential to uphold freedom of choice for all, it is also necessary to recognize that France and the rest of the progressive west has an added responsibility to uphold this freedom precisely because it is much preferable to slavery. In other words, the ideals of freedom of expression, gender equality, secularism and democracy are simply better than religious or cultural ideas which seek to impose a certain way of life on people. Thus our anger at a ban on the burkini in France, or an act of anti-Muslim hatred in any other part of the west, is an acknowledgement that the ideals these countries claim to uphold are of a superior nature.
It then follows that we do not confuse the wearing of a burkini with the propagation of womens freedom, as some on the Left have regrettably done. Wearing a burqa or a burkini is an act of pre-censorship, one that promotes the idea that a woman is responsible for her own safety from men who, by nature, cannot control their carnal urges. It gives credence to the belief that womens bodies are irresistibly attractive and hence shameful if exposed in public. Religious conservatism dictates that women must uncover their bodies only before certain members of their family, thus reinforcing the idea that womens bodies are commodities for use by men. This is a thoroughly masculine view of sexuality, completely exclusive of the desires and aspirations of women. Essentially, wearing a burqa or burkini reinforces patriarchy by creating a pathway to freedom for women within the framework of the existing dogma.
But recently, the inventor of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti, also claimed that the outfit has nothing to do with Islam, since it can be worn by anyone. This is obviously a ridiculous suggestion, a poor defence against the allegation that the burkini contravenes Frances secular laws.
DNA
