*Blog originally posted here*.
*Due to recent events in France, I believe the words here are as topical now as they were in 2014*
This week the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), upheld France’s 2010 “Burka ban”. This law essentially made it illegal for Muslim women in France to wear face covering veils in public.
The law had been challenged by an un-named French woman of Pakistani decent. Her lawyers had argued that the law infringed upon her human rights. More specifically that it was against “the right of respect for family and private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of speech and discriminatory”
This law being upheld by a body designed to uphold people’s human rights is disturbing…especially when one takes into consideration the courts comments as to WHY, they believed the French government was right to impose this ban.
The court claimed it was in the spirit of “social cohesion” and that the laws were aimed at “helping everyone to integrate” This is what is troubling. Here is a law, being upheld by a European court because, essentially, it helps people to conform. It ingrains the notion that homogenization is a good thing and that people’s individuality should be subservient to the notion of “state”.
People will say many things in support of the ban. That it’s a matter of security, that it’s a matter of gender equality. They may also say that it’s not as big issue. It’s simply a piece of clothing, but let’s be very clear exactly what this law represents. It is a national law (that has been upheld by a Europe wide body), that states that it is acceptable for a government to tell people what they can/cannot wear. If government can impose its will over something so fundamental, on the grounds of social cohesion, where does that ideology end? Since when has forcing people to integrate into some preconceived notion of nationality or culture been a good thing?
Is it ok then for a conservative Muslim state to make it that ALL women Muslim or otherwise HAVE to wear a Burka, on the grounds of social cohesion? In the spirit of helping everyone be the same and integrate? I mean we wouldn’t want Christians, atheists or liberal Muslims upsetting social cohesion and alienating themselves from the rest of society would we?…
Would we in the “liberal” West think this was ok? If a woman wishes to wear a Hijab, or a Burka in public, on what grounds does anyone have to tell them no? Surely the clothes an individual being puts on their body should be the choice of that individual?
The European court in this instance has given a little bit more power to the state at the expense of the individual. This affects ALL of us, regardless of religious belief. Governments have no right to declare what it believes is how people should “integrate”. This fascist principle believes that if we keep stripping away individuality piece by piece, that in the end we will all integrate and be the same and be good, loyal citizens.
You are not a race, you are not a nationality, and you are not a culture. You are an individual. If you wish to wear neon pink spandex, cowboy boots and a fedora, then you should be free to choose to. I’ll think you’re an idiot, (I mean, what self-respecting man wears a fedora??), but I will uphold your right to do so. All this law has done is to uphold the belief that the government has the right to take away your freedoms to make you fit in with what their notion of what is right.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, Hitler based his ideology on a very similar belief. All these Jews, not integrating…living together…believing different things. Well Hitler certainly did all he could for “social cohesion”. Largely by killing anyone who stepped out of line of what he thought a true German was.
This law doesn’t advocate killing people for being “different” though…of course not. Just the right to arrest people, fine people, and in some cases even imprison them for wearing clothes that the government has deemed unacceptable. To claim that telling women what to wear is a blow for women’s rights is even more galling.
Keep in mind; this is a ban against wearing these items IN PUBLIC. It’s arguable that in certain occupations, the need for seeing a face is important. This however, is a matter of private business practice. Similar to making people wear a work uniform. A private business owner has the right to tell a possible employee that “this is what you will/won’t be wearing”. The potential employee then has the right to say “no” if they so choose, and not take the job.
All that happened this week is that governments across the continent were given a little more power and individuals given a little less. That the idea of “state” was given more credence and the idea of personal freedom was given a little less.
It can be dressed up in notions of “security” and “gender equality” but in the end your humanity has been chipped away at, so that you can become a more subservient “citizen”
When you can’t even wear what you wish, something so simple, what other freedoms do you think government can take away from you to “keep you safe” and “promote social cohesion”?