The French trying to lift the veil

It’s a rare occasion when a news headlinee in the New York Times catches my eye. With so much coverage on the war on Iran (not a typo) or Obama’s road show which the Germans are not that happy with, ones eyes tend to glaze over. Then there are copious reports on McCain’s latest statements which are not that bright and make one wonder whether he could after all be presidential material. Oh, and let’s not forget the doom and gloom in the economy.

The report in question provides a fairly neutral discussion on a recent ruling by the highest administrative court in France, denying a woman the right to French citizenship. The reason the woman did not receive her citizenship, although her husband is French and she has been living in France for several years, is because she is perceived to be a radical in her practice of Islam by wearing a full veil.

Could the wearing of the niqab, the facial veil that only exposes the eyes of the face of the person to the outside world in conjunction with a full body covering, be so offensive that it became the reason a citizenship was denied? This topic amongst other issues brought on by cultural and religious differences of immigrants to Europe are hotly and emotionally debated by all sides.

The French court ruled that the woman was not sufficiently assimilated into the culture of France in that the niqab represents a symbol of the suppression of a woman’s rights and submission to her male relatives.

On the other hand, the ruling could be in line with the law introduced four years ago that banned religious clothing in public schools. Possibly the issue is more against fundamentalist religion rather than protecting a woman’s rights. After all, earlier this year a court in Lille annulled a marriage on request of a Muslim husband whose wife had lied about being a virgin. That ruling hardly puts the rights of a woman first.

No matter what the issue could be, the question still remains a difficult one to find an answer to. As a woman I experience a real pang of pity every time I see a woman draped from head to toe with only the eyes visible. I imagine what her life must be like.

Of course not every Muslim male is a dictator and it is probable that most women are treated well within the family and the marriage. But what about those who are not? They do not have a chance to escape. The number of honour killings reported on and prosecuted in the UK are quite substantial and these are the ones that are noticed. In many cases young women disappear and nobody bothers to report it.

Besides physical and emotional abuse a woman may suffer at the hands of her husband and family, the fact that she is a slave is what really gets to me. No doubt there are women that find this enslavement acceptable, having been brainwashed from birth that this is a tradition and religion she needs to follow.

But what about the young, intelligent girls growing up in European countries who are denied education and a chance to make their mark? They are condemned to marriage and child care with no option of another kind of life. This is not to say that marriage and child care is all bad. It is the lack of choice that gets to me.

On the other hand, the right to practice ones religion in whatever form is also something I feel quite strongly about. This in spite of the fact that I don’t believe that formal religion has necessarily been in the best interest of the ordinary folk. Alone, the Catholic Church for instance has its immense wealth to thank for the fact that sins are paid off with money which the church collects. I haven’t seen a bank account in the name of JC as yet, but could be wrong.

It is the choice of everybody to be allowed to believe in whatever they wish and hope that it makes them happy. This includes polygamous sects and Scientology. As long as the person following the religion has a choice to leave, without fears to their personal safety, they should be able to believe in anything.

That said, it seems to me that often the religions that inflict the most restrictive norms on their followers tend to enforce the submission of the woman to the males in her family, whether husband or other.

Just the way the followers worship is a clear indication as to how many rights the women have. In the most restrictive religions, women are either not allowed into the mosque or only into the upstairs gallery of the synagogue. Even in supposedly enlightened Europe, the Church of England voted to consecrate women as bishops only as recently as July 2008.

Women have fought hard and long for the rights they have. And these rights are not enough as yet. Women, for instance, still do not earn equal salaries for equal work, never mind being able to break through the ever present glass ceiling.

The final dilemma that I face in trying to make sense of the religion and civilisation conundrum is whether one should drag the obedient and submissive women screaming and scratching into a life of opportunity and choices? After all, social science studies have shown that too many choices don’t necessarily lead to greater happiness. They could be better off in their restrictive religions after all.