French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking on behalf of a notoriously secular nation, has again caused controversy with his call to ban the burqa. Headscarves have already been banned in French schools, along with the Jewish skull cap and Christian and Catholic crosses. Sarkozy was quoted as saying,

“We cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity”.

The Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford agrees with Sarkozy.

“[Masking the face] has nothing to do with Islam but is a distinct product of tribal conditioning, cultural brainwashing and ancestral chauvinism”.

The French Constitution states a clear separation of state and religion, saying the republic “does not recognise, subsidise or remunerate any religious body”. Sarkozy is speaking from a rich history of anti-religious sentiment dating back to the French Enlightenment, when thinkers like Voltaire and Diderot regarded religion as intolerant and disruptive.

Wearing a burqa or niqab is an extreme interpretation of the Quran, which merely calls for women and men to dress modestly. At the far end of this lies the niqab or burqa while other less conservative Muslim women choose to use the hijab, a scarf covering the head and neck but leaving the face clear, a step down from the Al-Amira that also includes a close fitting cap underneath. Yet there is no mention of the burqa or niqab in the Quran.

“Tell the faithful women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarf to cover their bosom”, Quran, 24:31

In other words the Quran, like most religious texts, tends to be interpreted subjectively. What is concerning to many activists about this practice is the assumption that women cover up in order to prevent sexual assault, that without full body covering they leave themselves vulnerable to attack. A few years ago, an extreme Islamic cleric caused uproar when he described women without headscarves as “uncovered meat”, implying they invite rape upon themselves, condemning women while freeing men from taking any responsibility for their actions.

This attitude is not isolated to Islamic states. Every rape victim is at one time asked what she was wearing when she was attacked and the implication is clear. Muslim publication, The Siasat Daily, noted a number of comments from male Muslims on the benefits of the burqa.

One blogger, Zakir, used the example of twin sisters to illustrate his point, one of whom is wearing a hijaab, similar to the niqab, and the other a mini skirt.

“Around the corner there is a hooligan who is waiting for an opportunity to tease a girl. Who will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the mini skirt or shorts? Dresses that expose more than they conceal, are an indirect temptation to the opposite sex for teasing, molestation and rape. The Qur’an rightly says that the hijaab prevents women from being molested.”

Reporter Nissar Yusef quotes the Quran in a piece for The Siasat,

“The Qur’an commands her to cover herself with an outer garment ‘so that she may be indentified and not molested”, he said.

According to Yusef, incidents of assault and rape in France have increased 50% in the last ten years, accounting for three quarters of all adolescent crime.

“What does one concede when a head of state whose country has a swelling rate of rape refuses to allow his female citizens to wear modestly?”

Yet for many Muslim women the headscarf and even the niqab and burqa symbolise freedom.

In countries where the dress originated, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia covering up allows women to leave the house and participate in cultural and political life outside the home, including attending rallies and protests. Many women’s groups believe the issue to be far less important than topics like domestic violence, honour killings and polygamy.

“Violence against women is tolerated in the name of tradition all over the world. Women’s oppression is universal. Those who want to help address this sorry state of affairs should start not by telling Muslim women how to dress, but by tackling the root causes of this oppression both at home and abroad: discrimination, lack of access to services, and unequal economic opportunities”, said Director of the Women’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, Liesl Gerntholtz.

In another sense, freedom can simply mean avoiding being judged on their appearance and a release from the expectations and effort required to look physically attractive – an issue for many feminists in the West.

Raseena Sherif said,

“There are many things I found in the hijab as I grew up. Things as varied as the convenience of not having to spend considerable amount of worry and time on my wardrobe and outside appearance, to philosophical, spiritual, and you might be surprised to hear this, but even feminist concepts that I feel proud to stand up for and show my belief in.

Raseena’s comment reflects an opinion more prevalent amongst Muslim women than first believed.

“Just because the West views the burqa as a sign of repression and wouldn’t wear them doesn’t mean that the people wearing them feel repressed. Many Muslims views the burqa as a testament to their faith, especially in a nation in which they are in the minority”, said Frances in a blog discussion on the merits of Muslim dress.

French Communities Minister, Shahid Malik agrees,

“The freedom to choose is one of the great values of our nation….whether one chooses to wear a veil or burqa, a miniskirt or Goth outfit is entirely at the individual’s discretion”.

It is important, then, to separate religious duty from cultural preference.

“Britain is the best country in Europe for Muslims. Many French women come to university in the UK because they want to study and wear the headscarf, which in France they cannot”, said Ahmed Versi, Editor of Britain’s Muslim News.

“[Wearing a hijab and jilbab] was my own decision, without pressure, for my own personal development. I wasn’t rebelling against anything either. I was happier as a person, and it was a mark of devotion to give to my religion”, said Marriam Ghaffar, a student from Nottingham.

Is this in fact the sort of ‘false consciousness’ Karl Marx famously used to describe how the bourgeoisie or the rich maintain their power over the proletariat, or the working classes? Also a term often used in feminism to explain why women can mistake routines like makeup as empowering when really they are not. It is probably best encapsulated in recent trends towards women embracing pole dancing as a legitimate form of exercise, turning the objectification of women on its head by willingly participating in, and enjoying, the spectacle. Feminists would argue that these women are the victims of a false consciousness: willingly participating in something that in fact maintains their status as objects.

The same principle is being applied by Sarkozy, and others who support banning the burqa, when they argue that women are choosing this option under false pretences of freedom. Yet the whole concept of false consciousness is a dangerous one, implying a kind of patronising paternalism from the State. Interfering with a woman’s personal choice on the grounds that she only thinks she is making this decision when really religious doctrine is misleading her, is the shakiest kind of political platform.

Shahid Malik and activists like Liesl Gerntholtz are right in denouncing the government’s attempts to regulate what people wear. It is a slippery slope that opens the door for other infringements of civil liberties, and it is ironic that the path to ‘freedom’ should be secured through the removal of civil liberties. Whether this was a political ploy to distract the public from the economic crisis, or simply Sarkozy flexing his political muscles in order to secure the female vote, the ploy has my support. He has inadvertently pushed women’s rights to the forefront, allowing a discussion of the merits of the burqa and the attitude towards women it represents.