Great post by the way.

The Ministry of the Interior’s position is that since the objective is to reduce the influence of salafism (which has won the support of the Rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, a centrist French-Algerian), the law should target radical preaching rather than women’s degree of covering.

The French press on the Left and the Right agree this is an electoral ploy by Sarkozy to gain votes on the Right, including the Far Right, and to appeal to moderates affected by the economic crisis (the usual target and blame the immigrants strategy).

France is used to largely French Maghrebin Maliki Muslims, and is concerned about the rise of Salafism amongst this population, in France and in their home countries, and among French converts to Islam who tend to be a target for salafists, and adhere more narrowly to rules of covering.

On some level, I do agree with Sarkozy. In fact, one of the reasons I am not in favor of the niqab is precisely because (I think) it erases individual identity in face of others. But it’s also important to be critical beyond our comfort, and raise the questions that we may otherwise overlook. What assumptions are we making about “identity” or “social life”? What kind of violence does society carry out upon (the body) of the person when it makes him/her conform to it in some manner or the other? Should people be punished for not participating in society, or is participation (or non-participation) itself a punishment? What exactly is the relationship between the individual and society? When we talk about alienated persons, who/what exactly is (or does the) alienating? (Achelois, your comment above is already addressing part of this question).

But of course, this battle is being waged more on the level of symbol than anything else. I mean, what kind of social life are we talking about, anyway? Middle-class Paris? Or that of the banlieu? Or of the lonely child who stays locked up in his/her room all day browsing the internet or playing video games? Or of the fat kid who gets teased on a regular basis and maybe even hates his/her life? Of course, none of these are comparable, but they help interrogate the same key issues at stake here: individuality, agency, etc.

Even aside from these deeper structural issues, what concerns me most in this case is state power. The French lawmakers are insisting that the burqa should be banned because most women who wear it probably do it against their will. But what kind of will does the state impose on people when it requires them to dress or not dress in a certain manner? Or is the power to will itself the issue here — by making it clear that it’s not the father or brother or religion/culture, but the state that should have the monopoly on authority over women. I worry about this because in recent history the state has messed things up more than anything else. The politics of gender in Iran, for example, was forever changed when the government banned the veil in 1936, and when another government made it obligatory after 1979. (There’s a good related discussion about this at MMW)

Of course, it all is created by the non-Muslim society in a way so when Sarkozy says that a woman is socially cut-off, she is cut-off because she is not accepted by the French society in a niqaab and so she has to stay socially aloof.

And in their own culture, these same women are readily accepted, respected and honoured for veiling which is alright. I guess in a certain way women who insist on wearing a veil in France are not respecting the French secular culture – now they may be French nationals but nationality does not equal religious culture. I don’t know if I am making sense and certainly my views are coloured by the fact that I don’t like niqaab so I may be biased here.