News Flash: Behind the Veil of France's New Law

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-carolyn-price/banning-the-burqa-behind-_b_849937.html 

Religions, religious values and practices, and the roles religion have in society are fairly controversial topics of discussion. Often times, many people support their religious values and practices as the right way of life, therefore neglecting and opposing any other religion different from theirs as wrong. To bring this conversation closer to home, although the Untied States has a large population of Christians, since the late 19^th century there have been many laws passed that promote the idea of separation between church and state­–especially in public education. In a nation that is very religious, these laws were among the first to differ from public opinion. The separation between church and state has removed religion from conversations to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to the freedom of religion along with the establishment clause and free exercise clause. However, while the American government takes a neutral stance towards religion, recently, many European governments have not made a distinction of such separation between church and state. For example, the French government has recently passed a law that bans Muslim women from wearing burqas or niqabs in public spheres. Intertwining religion and politics can be a dangerous move and an infringement on many people’s religious freedom. In this case—under the name of national security—the French government’s new law of banning burqas and niqabs not only infringes upon Muslims’ religious freedom, but it also forces Muslim women to assimilate to French mainstream society’s behaviors and further perpetuates stereotypes, stigmas, and misconceptions about the Muslim culture. 

For many religions, there are traditions and practices that accompany ones participation in the religion: clothing is one form of these traditions and practices. For Islam, many Muslim women voluntarily choose to wear a burqa, a garment fully covering the body, or a niqab, a veil covering the face besides the eyes, to avoid exposure in public spheres. However, in the recent years, many European countries like Germany, Turkey, and Italy, have had a growing attempt to ban these attires. On April 11, 2011, French President Nicholas Sarkozy passed a law that made it illegal for women, manly Muslim women, in France to wear burqas or niqabs in public spheres. This new law made France the first country to ban the Islamic attires. On AOL News, writer Robyn Price reports in her article “Banning the Burqa: Behind the Veil of France’s New Law” on the controversies that have arose from this new legislation. Price provides basic information that has been covered in other major media outlets such as the two women who have been fined for violating the law. However, Price also criticizes the way the media has covered this event; she argues that the media coverage is not doing the event justice because it is leaving many questions unanswered.

The flawed justifications used to reason the passage of the law banning burqas and niqabs in public spaces, specifically targeting women only, clearly illustrate a breach in Muslim women’s religious rights. Government officials have cited the need for prohibiting Islamic attires for national security purposes. However, Price questions this statement, stating that there is no correlation between crimes and people wearing burqas, niqabs, or anything covering their face. The lack of statistics supporting that these attires interfere and threaten France’s safety makes this reason illegitimate therefore clearly infringing upon Muslim women’s religious freedom as well as their right to participate in their religion as they interpret it. President Sarkozy also argues that the Islamic attires “is a sign of enslavement and debasement” (Price 2). As I read the comments AOL users posted on Price’s article, many users support the ban of burqas and niqabs because they see these attires as a form of oppression that Islamic men forces upon Islamic women; wearing these attires symbolizes Muslim women’s inferiority. Price states, “For them, the new law might feel more like a form of enslavement rather than the burqa that reflects their religious and personal sensibilities” (2). While these critics might hold some truth, I agree with Price’s point that making a law prohibiting Muslim from wearing their religious attires is as equally as appalling as these views AOL users have. What these French male politicians think to be a form of liberating Muslim women, is in actuality, still a form of oppression because MEN are still trying to control what Muslim women can wear; being forced to wear a burqa or a niqab is as bad as being forced to not have the choice to wear one as enacting on their religious freedom. 

Beyond the fact that this new French law infringes on Muslim women’s religious freedom, it also forces them to assimilate to French mainstream sociality behaviors and values. Banning Muslim women’s right to wear burqas and niqabs in public suggest that this act and the people who perform it are not welcomed in France—even though Muslims make up 10% of the French population— because this practice is not aligned with France’s mainstream societal values. As Arwa Ibrahim expressed her concern that she can never fully be viewed as an American regardless of how many documents that prove her American-ness, this new law also labels some Muslim women in France as not being welcome. The neocolonial approach to the situation, the imposition of French behaviors and values (specifically in terms of dress), comes across as the French government is dictating what is superior and best for French society. These Muslim women are being singled out and this French law only suggests that they must assimilate to the “right” culture. To put this into better perspective, Price questions why we are not skeptical of western fashion “such as baseball caps, dark black sunglasses, and even designer scarves that cover their neck, mouth, and nose in the chillier months” (Price 2). As an ethnocentric society, people often overlook other people’s culture and only regard theirs as the norm; those people are not tolerant of differences and want to force everyone to adapt to their ways. Furthermore, this paternalism in France is not helping Muslim women at all, instead it is stripping Muslim woman of their autonomy. 

Lastly, this new law further exacerbates the stereotypes, stigmas, and misconceptions the media and society have already portrayed of Muslims and their culture. After the September 11^th Attacks, Muslims and those who look like Muslims faced difficulties in America as most people assumed that they were associated with or were terrorists. This stereotype and stigma was not only apparent in the United States but also in Europe, which is clearly visible in President Sarkozy’s reasoning for passing the new law banning burqas and niqabs in public. Using national security as a justification for the law further perpetuates the violent yet vulnerable image of Islamic people. According to Lila Abu-Lughod, she argues that we are putting to much emphasis on little things that do not address the greater issues women face. The Western focus on the veil and the obsession of needing to save Islamic women, neglects the greater context to why society is the way it is today, which the United States had part in. This law not only further portrays a negative image of Islamic culture and values, but it further glorifies the United States and Westernized nations as saviors when in actuality they are not.

In conclusion, the new French law banning burqas and niqabs in public undermines Islam’s legitimacy. It suggests that Islamic practices have no place in society, especially in a society that embodies westernized values. However, we should no longer be using the erroneous excuse of protecting the safety of the nation as a justification to suppress people of cultures that differ from western ideals. Therefore, instead of focusing on religious symbols like the veil, people should recognize the need for acceptance, tolerance, and respect for other culture and religious values. As Charlotte Bunch suggests the need to connect conversations about local and global laws, we must see the need to address this blatant attack on Muslim women and Islam. Although, this law seems to only affect Muslim women in France, we must learn to see that this is a women’s issue and a violation of their religious freedom as a human issue. Only when we do, so can we fully achieve equality for all without compromising any group’s cultural values.

News Flash- Transgender Inequality

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-yorkers-sue-birth-certificates-genital-surgery-requirement/story?id=13204628

A person is not always born into the "correct" body. Some people feel that they are men trapped in women’s' bodies and vice versa. People either undergo surgery for sex changes, or are classified as transgender. Transgender means that someone sees himself or she as the opposite sex and dresses and portrays herself as such even if they have opposite genitalia. Over the years people have become more accepting of transgender people and have learned to not be judgmental of these individuals’ beliefs. However, there is still discrimination against the transgender community even if it is not an outright attack.

ABC news reports about a man who was transgender and classifies himself as a woman. Paul Joseph Prinzivalli Jr, now a woman, has not undergone a sex change however, and still has male genitalia. Because of this reason, she cannot change her birth certificate to woman even though her social security and license classify her as a woman. The New York City Health Department says that she must have reassignment surgery on her genitals to be considered a woman in her birth certificate. The article quotes the chief of the New York City Health Department saying, "The health department must be satisfied that an applicant has completely and permanently transitioned to the acquired gender prior to the issuance of a new birth certificate." So, in order for a person like Prinzivalli to be considered a woman, something she already considers herself, she must have reassignment surgery.

Yet Prinzivalli not only has health conditions, which would make the surgery dangerous, but like many other transgender people she cannot afford to pay for the surgery. Tens of thousands of other transgender people, or as the article says “80 percent of women and 95 percent of men” cannot afford to get the surgery. Wealth is becoming a serious factor in establishing a transgender person’s sexuality. However, this factor of wealth is connected to the issue with identifications Prinzivalli faces.

New York is faced with a complex issue. Transgender people are denied some aspect of their identity because they lack complete identification that distinguishes them as only one sex; but at the same time should a person with male genitalia be considered a female?

The transgender community is faced with a dis-service and type of discrimination with this issue of identification. In Prinzivalli's case, not only is she not considered to be completely female, but she also is faced with difficulties of mis-matching identifications. Noah Lewis is quoted describing one issue, he says, "When transgender people are forced to present an ID that does not match, they are laughed at and turned away at the DMV or applying for a job". This problem with matching identifications also feeds the poverty that many transgender people find themselves in. Because many do not have matching identifications it is much harder for them to find work and they are “less employable”. The decision to have reassignment surgery is a lifetime commitment that needs serious contemplation and may not be the best choice for everyone. Changing one’s sex requires years of hormonal medicines and therapy to even be ready for the surgery; it is not an easy decision. By requiring surgery in order to change your birth certificate, the state is making more obstacles for transgender people, that eventually leads to unequal rights. Just because a person does not feel they truly are the sex they were born into, it does not mean they should not receive valid identification like the rest of society. Sam Berkely touches on this discrimination and inequality when he says, “To have a document that says I am female and I am not completely legitimized by the city where I pay taxes, doesn't make any sense. It sets me up to be a second class citizen and for discrimination." The state is basically placing transgender people in a lower class they cannot rise out of.

However, the state does face a difficult, complex issue when it comes to transgender identification. Everyone deserves equal rights and a fair chance at opportunities, so could mixing the sexes possibly be unfair? What if a college student has male genitalia but classifies himself as a woman; should he be allowed to play on a women’s sports team? If he is not on any hormonal medicine, wouldn’t that give him an unfair advantage over the other girls. However if this is the case, transgender people should not be prohibited from activities like sports because they are different from others. So what should people do about this?

I have not found an answer or possible solution to this problem. Society cannot change over night and I believe it will take serious innovative thinkers to fix this gender issue. I think that once people stop focusing so much on what is perceived to be a “normal” male or female, they will start to accept transgender people more. Everyone is different, sexual expression should not inhibit a person from leading the kind of life they want to. This article really opened my eyes up to transgender discrimination on a higher, federal level.

Responding Post: Safety, Saving, or Not

Although Ibrahim's essay "Living While Muslim" specifically targets Muslim American women, she touches upon topic that are relevant to many people whole struggles with identities, especailly those born in one country but raised and live in another. As an Chinese citizen living in America, I can empathize with Ibrahim's situation of always feeling like and outsider although we live in American and--to some extend--consider ourselves to be American; but no matter how long we lived in America, or what documents we have to prove our "American-ness," we usually are viewed as what our physical appearances show. After 9/11, Arabs, South-Asians, and Muslim Americans all were viewed as terrorists and face difficulty when traveling as they are commonly the ones needed to be searched--some see it as random selection while other view it as racial profiling. Under the name of protecting the safety of the nation, these "random" searches are justified and miss the main elements of the problem; like we have discussed in class about how supremacy crimes lack the conversations about the roles race, gender, and sexuality have in crimes committed by white heterosexual men, this discrimination against these groups of people in airports also disregard these factors. Therefore to what extend, does protecting the safety of the nation goes to far as to racial profiling and discriminating those whose does not fit into the the characteristics of being American? Ibrahim calls for this issues to be prevalent to not only Arabs, South-Asians, and Muslim Americans, but it also affects all travels and global citizens.                           

Abu-Lughod's "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others" and Bunch's article "Whose Security" both provide reasons to further support Ibrahim's argument that this issues is prevalent to all and they also give suggestions to what can be done to globally to remedy this problem. Both authors criticizes America's obsession of using the idea that we are saving Muslim women to justify our actions overseas. However, in actually this reason hides the real agenda behind America's intervention in the Middle East. By saying that America is saving Muslim women it suggest that these women need and want to be saved, it undermines the Muslim culture, and imposes American values as the right one. On another note, both authors provide solutions to correct such notion. While Abu-Lughod suggest that people should be more tolerant, acceptable, and more respectful of other cultures, Bunch suggest that local politics should also incorporate global politics to expand such equal protection under the law to all. I agree with both authors suggestions. I think if a super power nation like the United States takes the initiative to understand and recognize that women rights is also a human right and that we can no longer use the idea of cultural relativism to justify that these issues does not pertain to us, then we can progress a step forward to realizing how everyone in the world is connected and we cannot just fix one nation and leave another to perish in poverty, inequality, discrimination, poor education, hungry, etc. While these suggestion are great solution, it is a bit too idealistic to be achieve. In a world obsessed with power, wealth, and superiority, no nation will see the need to help out another. We live in a world that upholds the tragedy of the commons: the individual interests outweigh the common goods.                            

Response

My sister works in DC and is practically obsessed with foreign policy, so naturally I have gotten an earful at various dinners. At first I was bored by her constant discussion of the topic, but as I matured I became more attentive and listened more, even voicing my opinion sometimes. While I was reading Charlotte Bunch's article I was reminded of all these conversations and arguments my family would get into over the dinner table. However as I was thinking about these conversations I realized that we never talked about feminists impact on foreign policy. I was a bit ashamed when I came to this realization since I am a woman and feel that I should be aware of women's impact on governmental decisions and policies.

Reading through the article I found myself focusing on Muslim women's struggles. I cannot imagine living in a community where women were not given many of the rights that men took for granted. I kept thinking about our Colgate community and how if I were born a Muslim woman I would most likely not be taking this course right now. Though it was not the point of her article, Bunch's writing really made me think of all the luxuries and opportunities I have on a daily basis.

Caroline Potoclicchio's Main Post

“ A Peril in War Zones” was a very interesting article to read because it talked about the stigma that comes with war, and also how a lot of sexual assaults and rape cases miss the radar. The article focused on Captain Margaret White who was deployed to Iraq. She had begun a relationship during training with a warrant officer and had ended things when she got to Iraq. After trying to end things with him, He would leave notes at her door, force her to have sex, and asked her to marry him even though he was already married. She said she felt safer outside of the wire then she did in the shower. She also said she would stop drinking water before 7 so she wouldn’t have to go to the bathroom by herself late at night. The military and Pentagon has changed the way they handle sexual abuse. They define sexual harassment and abuse to broadly include actions such as stalking and groping. It is thought that the strains of combat, tension, close quarters in remote locations, and boredom can trigger conditions for abuse. Women fail to report abuse in fear that they will lose their positions in the military and be sent home. They also are afraid that their comrades will react hard harshly, towards them.

In the chapter “All men are in Militias, and All Women are Victims,” Enloe talks about a man named Borislav Herak who had been oppressed. He did not know much about the politics of his country, and cared more about flipping through pornographic magazines, but once war hit Sarajevo, his home place, he fled to the mountains and was taken in by a militia who was “pursuing ethnic Serbian territorial control. ”The rest of the chapter talks about why militias resort to raping and abusing women during their combat. An interview with Borislave Herak reveals why he committed 16 cases of sexual abuse towards women. He says that he was commanded to rape women, because it was supposed to allow them to gain morale and confidence on the battlefield. The control they had with the women was supposed to transfer to the battlefield. However, Borislav states that he felt somewhat guilty, and it didn’t help with his morale, it was when he ate and drank with the men that he felt most bonded with them.

In Chapter 8, “Spoils of War,” Enloe talks about how a 12- year old girl of Okinawa was raped by three U.S Marines. She talks about the widespread belief that soldiers have uncontrollable drives that they need to satisfy. U.S base commanders have worked with local and national officials to provide “safe and commercialized sex,” however there are arguments that come with this too, including the fact that many view prostitution and rape to be connected with each other. However, I do not know what side to take because part of me feels like these issues are not exactly the same. Prostitution is women who are trying to make money by having sex with men. Women are consenting to sex for money, which is a whole different level then rape. Rape is when women do not consent and are unwilling to have sex. However I am open to hearing other peoples ideas about this issue.

I think that all 3 articles had a significant impact on my awareness of women in war zones and the militia, and the themes of sexual abuse were all relevant within all 3 articles.