The
law forbidding the veil in France: a
veil on reality!
Azar Derakhshan
http://www.iran-bulletin.org/veil-derakhshan.htm
Sometime ago the
French president Jacques Chirac established a commission composed of parliamentarians and academics, under the
chairmanship of Mr Stasi to review the question of the ‘veil’ and other religious signs in state
schools in France.
On the 11th
of December 2003, after months of deliberation,
the Stasi committee announced that state schools need to reform their
attitude towards this issue. In a speech delivered on the 17th of
December, Jacques Chirac announced his support for the new legislation and called on the parliament
to pass it as soon as possible. The French parliament approved the legislation
to ban obvious religious signs in schools
with a majority vote (494 votes) .
According to this
legislation ( to be put in practise on the 1st of September 2004,
all religious signs such as Islamic veils, Jewish head cover, Christian crosses
will be banned form state schools in France and disobeying the legislation will
lead to verbal warning, written warning , temporary or permanent exclusion.
The reasons why the
Chirac government passed this legislation
In a speech on the
17th of December, Chirac announced that this legislation is part and
parcel of a secular , non religious state. “This legislation will help us strengthen
the foundations of the republic and will lead` to national unity. “adding that
the new law “will help create balance” in French society. “
Pascal Devad the Chairman of Chirac’s party announced in
an interview that : “the main challenge we face regarding this legislation is
how to keep unity in society. If we don’t take this decision social strife will
spread . This law aims at creating unity amongst all French people.”(1)
As demonstrated by
the above quotes, Chirac and his party present no arguments regarding the right
of women or children, and clearly announce that their aim is to achieve
‘national unity’ in France. A unity which should be obtained by creating a
single enemy for the French ruling class and all other sections and classes in
France.
Social conditions in
France
The French system
relies not only on the exploitation of the peoples of other countries but also
on the basis of repression and exploitation of its own working class and
immigrant workers. Lack of any rights especially for immigrant workers is one
of the characteristics of French society, an issue that even liberal
intellectuals admit. These workers mainly come from North African Arab
countries. Workers who in previous decades had no right to bring their families
to France.
Humiliations of
other nationalities, humiliation of women and racist attitudes towards
foreigners are the cultural aspect of this imperialist order. Like other
countries, France is experiencing the results of globalisation. Although the
effects of globalisation are far more devastating in third world countries,
however in European countries and specifically in France, we see the gap
between the classes widening. Immigrant ghettos are common with growing poverty
and racism. These are the contradictions that in the words of Pascal Devad have
caused ‘social strife’. The law banning the wearing of the veil is proposed
within the framework of such social conditions. By proposing this law, French
authorities try to create new artificial conflict to hide the real and growing
social contradictions.
By creating this new
conflict they try and divide the poor and lower classes so that they can pursue
their economic plans at ease, i.e. to
attack of the welfare services, carry with mass unemployment and the erosion of
democratic rights. That is why the
French bourgeoisie needs to create an atmosphere of repression and usually the
lowest section of the working class is the first victim, in France that means
the migrant workers.
Claims by French
statesmen regarding secularism
Secularism or the
separation of state and religion and in particular in education was part of the
flag of the bourgeoisie ag the against
the feudal order and its reliance on church since late 17th
century and the political power f the church lasted throughout the 18th
century until the latter part of the 19th century. The overthrow of
feudalism and churches in France was achieved through a violent revolution. In
other words the church and the feudal order were overthrown through a
revolution and after the victory of the bourgeoisie secular legislation was
passed and practised.
The principles of
secularism were the separation of state and religion, freedom of speech, belief
and thought.
Neither the French
bourgeoisie, nor its theoreticians, ever claimed that secularism meant erosion
of religious belief from society. On the contrary an aspect of laicism is
freedom of religion and its expression in society. Of course the bourgeoisie
had no intention to abolish religion as it needed it for the exploitation of
the workers.
A brief look at conditions of education shows that
the French government has not only failed to take any steps for deepening the
separation of religion from the education system, but in the last few decades
it has actually strengthened religion in society and in the education system.
The education system
in France has two types of schools, private and state schools. Private schools
are mainly religious schools. The legislation regarding separation of religion
form education is only valid for state schools. In France over 2 million pupils
study in catholic schools and the French state provides 80% of the budget of
such schools. All religious holidays count as official school holidays in
secular state schools. In the last 5 years Jewish schools have grown by 120
percent. In Alsace province, the religious education in state schools is
available and counts as a subject. Catholics, protestants and
Jewish French
citizens can use teachers associated with religious organisations to teach
their children in state school, these teachers often clerics can even wear
their religious costume to school and
the state pays their salary. (2)
In recent years with
the rise in poverty and unemployment amongst the Arab immigrant community in
France, the French state has provided a lot of facilities to strengthen Islam
amongst youth in Arab Ghettos. Around 1500 mosques and Islamic societies have
opened up in France.
The situation of
Muslim girls at school in France
From the first days
of the proposal it became clear that the addition of the Jewish and the large cross to the issue of the
Islamic veil was for appearance sake and not a genuine effort to stop religious
relics in schools. As the main aim of the legislation is directed towards Islamic
girls’ headscarves, we will deal with this issue.
According to
published statistics, amongst 2 million school girls, around 1000-2000 wear the
head scarf. In other words less than 0.5percent of school girls from the
500,000 girls form Muslim families. According to latest statistics in 2003,
around 1256 girls wore head scarves to schools and in 5 cases they insisted on
wearing the scarf leading to expulsion. (3)
So before we enter
the debate about this legislation, it is suspicious that in a country with
millions of school children , why should there be a need to pass legislation for something that will only
affect 1000-2000 cases. That is why many
people, despite their hatred of the veil and of course while opposed to force
veiling of children by their parents, have considered this law with doubt and
suspicion.
Methodology of
dealing with this legislation
What is the aim of
reviewing facts? For progressive forces surely the aim is to achieve change and
progress. Therefore a commitment to the interests of the oppressed and of
course for us the interests f the majority of women determines the method we
use to analyse a phenomenon and in particular a legislation. In any case the
essential question is: our analyses should reflect the interests of which group
of people. The current study looks at this legislation form the point of view
of the oppressed and the majority of women.
Therefore in a
biased but scientific method we cannot explain a phenomenon superficially. We
cannot study a law outside a time frame workd and a location. An important
aspect is to determine the main political aims behind legislation. A basic
historic need is to place this legislation within the framework of a system
dominated by a specific class. We have
to see whose interest this law will strengthen and who will be weakened by it.
In dealing with the
French legislation we are considering a number of inert twined issues. Amongst
them the women’s question, racism, freedom of clothes, freedom of thought and
religion. In a larger frame work we have to look at the aims of Imperialism and
the new world order in relation to women in third world countries. We also have
to deal with the plans if the French government in relation to the peoples of
the world and its competition with US imperialism.
WE therefore can’t
take a position regarding this law by dealing with solely with one or other of
it many aspects. Otherwise ewe will make mistakes.
WE can’t even deal
with this simply by looking at the issue of freedom of clothes or religion and
thought. In other words we cannot simply approve this law because it deals a
blow on Islamic reactionaries and might free a number of women from the burden
of the veil. AT the same time we cannot give points to reactionaries such as
Iran’s Islamic regime under the guise of defending anti imperialism or freedom
of religion and speech.
Any phenomenon
should be studied within its historic context and not in isolation from it. Any
event could have a different meaning and significance under different circumstances.
For example in a country such as France , where the bourgeois revolution has
been achieved and where feudalism has no role in the political scene, the issue
of the veil has a different significance to that of a country such as Iran . In
Iran the veil is the symbol of reactionary religious rulers who hold power.
Iran’s ruling class evaluates its political strengthen by accepting or denying
women’s right to challenge the rigour of the enforced veil or the degree to
which women disobey this law. But is this true in France? The answer is no .The
French ruling class does not exercise power through enforcing the veil.
Therefore we Iranian
women who have suffered under our skin 25 years of lashes given to women
accused of poor ‘he jab’ in Iran should control our hatred and strong
sentiments regarding this issue. We
must look at this form a wider perspective and try and understand the dynamism
of the current world order and the way in which exploitation of women is part
and parcel of this system.
The political aims
of the French government in proposing
this legislation
In the introduction
to this article we mentioned that the main aim
of the French government is proposing this law is to increase` the
atmosphere of repression. The ruling class need such an atmosphere and its main
victims are the lower sections of the working class, ie immigrant workers. For
many years now, French ghettos have a tumultuous situation. Every now and then
we see revolts by youth in such ghettos. Youth , who constantly face the , humiliation and repression by the
French police. The aim of this legislation is to create a legal framework for
repression of these sections of society.
The repression of
the lower sections is only the beginning, this is to allow the state to quieten dissent while it is
pursuing repressive , occupation policies such as the Unites States.
It wasn’t even
important if this legislation was passed or not the whole debate and argument
around it in the press and media. was sufficient. The victims were immigrants
and Arabs living in France. In the debates on French TV regarding this law, the
representatives of foreign Muslims living in France were selected to be amongst
the most retrograde reactionary men and women so that they could depict all foreigners as part of this type of
backwardness. They were trying to portray the image that behind every veiled
woman there is a terrorist cell and to equate Islam with terrorism.
The effort was to
legitimize and rationalise the existing and prevalent racism in the legal and bureaucratic system
in France, by using this legislation. In fact the French bourgeoisie wanted to
strengthen anti foreigner sentiments in order to stop any alliance between the lower sections
of the working class amongst immigrants with the other poorer sections of
society and to unite the middle layers with this policy.
The French
bourgeoisie needs to unite the middle layers in support of future battles and imperialist wars. The French soldier had to be convinced
that he kill should be ready to die and
kill for France’s ‘national’ interests . The French bourgeoisie needs to
do what the US did after September eth 11th . To unite the country
for such aim it must create a frightening enemy and what better than Islamic
fundamentalism and terrorism.
The plan
to pass this law was an effort to make sure the French saw the image of
terrorist behind every immigrant child or woman. Every woman wearing a veil was
an enemy. Could there a better card to
manufacture ‘national unity’ of the French people around the interests of the
French bourgeoisie? Could there have been a better card to give racism and
chauvinism a human face? !
These are the issues
behind this legislation and anyone who sees him/herself defender of democracy
and for a world free of exploitation and repression must clarify his/her position clear regarding this issue ,
given the antagonistic position of the
forces in current world situation.
The opposition of
the majority of leftwing democratic forces in France with this legislation
We can clearly see
the French right behind this legislation, religious and no religious fascist
groups. The opposition to this legislation is mainly based amongst left ad
progressive forces. Those who organised the main anti US demonstrations and
anti war protests both against the war
in Afghanistan and the 15th Feb demonstration against an attack on
Iraq. Most of these forces are groups who have raised the flag against
globalisation, those who believe that ‘another world’ is possible, a world free
from exploitation and repression.
Even the most
liberal forces such as the writers of
“Lemonde Diplomatic” have argued
that a legislation that aims to attack the oppressed as opposed to the causes
of oppression, cannot be considered ‘progressive’ and in particular that it
will be women who will suffer from the punishments of this legislation.
The same monthly
argues that one cannot call this a ‘feminist’ demand , as never before has the
struggle for women’s rights taken up a call for suppressing women.
Many French
feminists believe that this legislation will drive a wedge between French and
Arab women , creating an obstacle in their unity against patriarchy.
According to many
such forces the new legislation challenges a basic human right, the right to
wear what we want.
The attitude of
Iran’s Islamic Republic regime to this legislation!
In reaction to this
legislation, the leaders of the Islamic regime , have suddenly become defenders
of the right to freedom of clothes, freedom of thought and religion!! I.e. the
very people whose rule has been marked by repressing women, flogging them ,
stoning them to death , slashing their faces for ‘poor veiling’ !
One’s blood boils
when one reads that ‘clerical students’
in Ghom religious schools , a place that crystallises the barbarity of Middle Ages, have announced
from their decrepit ‘hojreh’ ( study rooms) that the law to forbid wearing of
the veil in France is a ‘medieval’ law!!(4)
Anyone who is a
democrat gets furious when they hear the
delegates of the “Guidance” or president, now his soft heart is touched by the
law banning the veil in France!! and he calls this legislation anti democratic!
the weary principles upon which the rule of the Islamic regime is based upon.
So the attitude of Islamic reactionaries is predictable. They
use anything to justify their ideological bankruptcy and use any excuse and any
opportunity to do so , however at times the opportunities presented to them are
indeed of great benefit.
The reaction of the
Iranian opposition!
Amongst Iranian
opposition groups we face 2 attitudes. One is from those who in opposition to
‘imperialism’ end up defending feudalism ( Islamic religion and its feudal
superstructure) and those who in opposition to feudalism end up uniting with
‘imperialism’ .
The first approach
is presented by Nayereh Tohidi who has constantly defended ‘cultural
relativism’ . She is a strong defender of the ‘2nd Khordad’ (
Khatami) group and has written extensively in defence of Iranian state sponsored Islamic feminism. She
writes that the veil is a sign of opposition to colonialism and in order to
justify her defence of this symbol of slavery and to reassert her defence of
one faction of the Islamic regime she calls the veil
a manifestation of
the will to keep one’s identity in the face of imperialism’/ (5) It is clear
that the basis of this argument lies in the calls collaboration Ms Tohidi has
in mind with sections of the Islamic regime in Iran and of course her
theoretical justify citation in ‘cultural relativism’.
Another example is
an article by Arash Kamangir who mentions the opposition of the members of the
Islamic parliament with some glee , as the point of departure of these delegate
sis also ‘human rights’ and it is in this that Arash kamangir seizes the parliamentarians comment with pleasure
rather than anger!
Arguing on the basis
of the declaration of human rights to criticise bourgeois legislation is part
of a general outlook that cannot comprehend
the contradictions between the current world order or even the
contradictions in this declaration!
In opposition to
this view we see the position of groups such as Iran’s Worker Communist Party (
this is prior to recent split) . In order to oppose the reactionary feudal
superstructure in Iran, this group hopes for imperialist intervention. The
leaders and activists of this group have written extensively in defence of this
legislation claiming that the legislation was ‘progressive’ in abstract. (7) “ This legislation is the right step towards
secularisation of society and reducing the role of religion on peoples lives
especially women and their daughters in
Islamic communities. we support this legislation (7) .”
The arguments of
this group are similar to the arguments they used to defend US bombardment of
Afghanistan. “ this legislation in France will weaken the Islamic movement and
create an opportunity for the equalitarian freedom movement. (9)”
Many political
activists will remember their position at the time of US aggression in
Afghanistan. They used similar arguments to justify the bombings. Those days
they had illusions about US and Bush democratic aspirations. However after the
overthrow of the Taliban the US still
relied on religious forces in the Northern alliance and the remnant of Taliban
to form the provisional government, This group HKK has now given up on US
secularism and relies on European imperialists to deliver secularism,
As long as people
like them support non Marxists , non scientific theories they will remain on
the side of the right and imperialism in the political scene.
This group believes
that political Islam is the principle threat in the world and the “essence of
socialism is to fight against political
Islam(10) “
This argument puts
them opposed to most democratic forces in the world , a majority that has risen
against this war, a majority opposed to the French government . By attacking
the leftwing French groups Iran’s HKK ( please note this article was written
prior to the recent split in HKK ) .
Puts the French left
on the side of the reactionary Islamic groups: ”they claim to fight Imperialism
yet even their understanding of imperialism is as limited as those of their
Islamic counterparts.”(11) . In my opinion this group is upset that it
revolutionary organisations fight against their internal bourgeoisie.
At the end of this
section I want to emphasise that the law to ban women’s veil has nothing to do
with women’s rights and children’s rights.
Question and answer
section:
Question: What do you think of secularism and would
women benefit from it or not?
Answer: As I said at
the beginning of this article secularism is not the end of religion but only
signifies the separation of state and religion. There is no doubt that in our
society the separation of state and religion is an urgent demand and of course
Iranian women would benefit extensively from such a separation. However the
separation of state and religion is not the
end of the interference of
religion in women’s lives, as religious thought and belief persists in a
secular society as freedom of religion exists in a secular society. In Western
society secularism has long been achieved yet cultural, political and economic
oppression of women persist.
Political Islamic
groups are as much raised from the grave as those sections of the bourgeoisie
claiming to raise the flag of secularism. To expect the bourgeoisie, whose time
has come on an end, to wage a persistent struggle against religion is at best
foolish and at worst hypocritical calculation.
If anyone believes
today the secular gestures of the French government, those who follow
international events will either doubt this person’s intention of laugh at
her/his naivety. The French government strengthens religion within its own
borders and supports all manner of
reactionary Islamic states. As any other colonial class based state ,
France needs religion within and beyond
its borders.
Today the
wishes of women throughout the world are socialism and equality, because it is
only in such a frame work that we can talk of a struggle against religion. In a
socialist society the slogan to clear
society of religion is not a devious, empty slogan , because the ruling class
is no more in a position to use religion to extend exploitation of the working
class and to suppress women. In a socialist society political awareness is used to battle religious
backwardness and superstition not legislation and punishment. In such a society
laws are means to strengthen socialist relations rather than tolls to
strengthen the rule of the exploiting classes.