After years of news stories about Islamic extremists in
Afghanistan forcing all women to wear the infamous burkha under the Taliban
regime, the American public and the rest of the world is more than acquainted
with the foreboding dark veil and most likely despise the idea of it.
How then could we ever possibly accept a smothering,
all-consuming piece of fabric that purposefully extinguishes the faces, bodies
and voices of Muslim women? Many are still required by custom to wear the
controversial garment – probably under dire penalties or even the threat of
execution. Coming to peace with persistent injustice has never rested well with
our revolutionary spirits here in the US, not to mention the bewildered
sensibilities of other freedom fighters in the international community.
Times have changed, though, and many women are now free from the
compulsory sheet of oblivion. Nevertheless, women who were formerly required to
obscure their physical forms solely because their very appearances had been
considered sexual temptations are still regarded at best as ambivalent pieces of
property that men trade amongst themselves in the context of patriarchal
matrimony. Even without the burkha, such a disempowered reality may still colour
the lives of many women in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world.
Still, strides have been made in the international community in
favour of progress with regard to the stifling veil, possibly to the point of an
ironic form of oppression: forcing women not to wear the burkha.
That’s right – oppressive. In France, for example, President
Sarkozy has made his country’s political stance entirely clear: "The burkha is
not welcome on French territory… In our country, we cannot accept that women be
prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all
identity" (The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2009).
While most would have to agree that France may be doing a great
service by banning the burkha – which would allow women and girls who were
formerly forced by their families to remain covered to finally rediscover
unfiltered air – it may be somewhat extreme to declare that women cannot have a
choice over what they wear, especially if it is of a religious nature. In fact,
though it may defy the bounds of common sense, there are some women who actually
prefer the flowing anonymity of the burkha disguise and claim that it can
actually be comfortable.
While most of us might never sympathise with such sentiments,
can we abolish a practice – a choice – from women’s free will? It may be
comparable to the government declaring that they will ban tank tops and
miniskirts for women’s ‘own good’, for it may protect them from unwanted sexual
harassment or violence. As much as we may not like the burkha, the government
should not be able to control its use as a garment of choice.
Notwithstanding, France in particular has already legally banned
veils and other religious insignias in public schools in 2004 – albeit with good
intentions. Perhaps they do not have an amendment that protects individuals’
religious identities, like our own Constitution. Moreover, in the eyes of some
dissidents, France’s previous and current rulings may be equivalent to
disallowing crucifixes and Jewish skullcaps in the public sphere. Though such
adornments are not as stifling as the burkha, one can always create an argument
about how the torturous history of the cross guilt-trips and oppresses the
masses while the skullcap oppresses human hair.
Tit for tat aside, it is clear that abolishing choices that do
not harm third parties, even if those choices are unpopular or undesirable for
the vast majority of people, does not necessarily result in the intended purpose
of progress. Importantly, progress is not progress if it is compulsory. Or
rather, forced freedom is not entirely liberating.
