How the Dreyfus Affair Explains Sarkozy's Burqa Ban

Militant secularism has a long, troubled history in France, from paranoia over nun's wimples to the Dreyfusard anti-Jesuit campaigns. Where will it end?

BY RUTH HARRIS | MAY 12, 2010

France is once again beset by the politics of the veil. After a 2004 ban on "all conspicuous" religious symbols in French state schools -- a measure that barred the wearing of crucifixes, Sikh turbans, and Jewish skullcaps but was clearly targeted at headscarf-wearing Muslims -- President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken it a step further.

Now he is pressing for a total ban on the public wearing of the full veil, or burqa, by Muslim women, framing the legislation in terms of national identity: "[The burqa] will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," he said last year. The veil made women "prisoners behind netting" and "is not the idea the French republic has of women's dignity."

Indeed, the debate has a long history in France and is not merely a product of the right, though Sarkozy's opponents denounce it as a nakedly political attempt to attract anti-immigrant support. A powerful, and sometimes irrational, fear of religious influence -- once  Catholic, now Muslim -- has long been a part of French society, through the anti-clerical campaigns of the 19th century and the anti-Jesuit paranoia of the Dreyfus affair. It's impossible to understand the burqa debate without understanding the nature of the polemics that shaped it.

Anti-clerical sentiment became a major force in French political life in the 18th century, when philosophers attacked the Catholic Church as an enemy of the Enlightenment and a supporter of the oppressive monarchical government. Many of the early debates centered around women's bodies and freedoms, with religion depicted as attacking society's weakest and most vulnerable members. In La Religieuse (The Nun), Denis Diderot's 1796 novel, a young innocent, Suzanne, is unscrupulously pressed into taking the veil and then subjected to the sexual advances and moral perfidy of her superiors. In the work, the veil is a symbol of imprisonment, darkness, and unbridled, corrupt power. As historian Caroline Ford has shown, "forced claustration" became a legal cause célèbre in the 19th century, as lawyers denounced the loss of women's "civil personality" when they entered convents.

Anti-clerical campaigners condemned nuns' habits in much the same way that today's commentators rail against the full veil as the ultimate symbol of sexual and political oppression. The 19th century in France saw a massive growth in the numbers of women entering orders, and a corresponding increase in the number of wimples that distinguished their distinctive vocations. Nuns' habits were denounced as outward proof of the church's ability to enforce an unnatural spiritual and physical discipline on victimized women. Even today the occasional commentator acknowledges that the Carmelites and Clarisses Sisters, both contemplative orders, impose a strict confinement on their nuns and require a costume little different from the burqa.

Behind the fantasy of the victimized nun was the specter of the Svengali-like manipulating priest -- one that closely parallels today's fears over the power of radical imams. In his best-selling 1845 polemic Du prêtre, de la femme et de la famille, the 19th-century historian Jules Michelet argued that priests, and especially Jesuits, got between husband and wife to turn women away from the emancipation that Republicanism offered. Many mainstream French feminists in the 1880s and 1890s even opposed giving women the vote on the grounds they would cast their ballot as their confessors told them.

FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images

 

Ruth Harris is a fellow of New College, Oxford, and author of Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion and the Scandal of the Century.

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

5:01 AM ET

May 13, 2010

Well, burqas are "so 12th

Well, burqas are "so 12th century," so its somewhat of an improvement. Such a wide tolerance for religious freedom and cultural diversity can be dangerous. These people have fundamentally different goals for their society than do normal sane individuals. I love the ban.

 

BLUE13326

7:16 AM ET

May 13, 2010

It's poorly reasoned

It's poorly reasoned analogies like this one that people point to when they critique inductive reasoning and argument by analogy as a whole. The only point I'm left with when done reading this is that the subject is beyond the reach of the author. Or, to put it simply:
Nun's veils do not equal burkhas.
Dreyfus and the Catholic elites from his time do no equal radical imams (and, in fact, this part of your argument is so absurd that one has to laugh at it, and you, for making it).

 

CFISHER6

10:38 AM ET

May 13, 2010

Carmelites

If you read the author's article closely, you'll notice he mentions the Caremlite Order, and indeed, if you do a google search of the traditional Carmelite habit, you'll see that it is essenitally the exact same thing as a burqa. So, yes, his comparison is valid. And his comparison between imams and catholic priests isn't used to convey similtude in regards to their idoeology, but simply in the way they're perceived by society (dominating men forcing their women to cover). The comparison is somewhat valid, but not entirely. After all, a Catholic priest would have been able to have direct contact with the nuns, but an imam doesn't have such a direct role in one's everyday life (Muslim women aren't living in the mosque as "Muslim nuns" or anything like that).

 

LAL QILA

8:41 AM ET

May 13, 2010

Ban everything that Muslim women choose to wear

Ban everything that Muslim women choose to wear but don't talk about dangerous clothing of Hindoo women. Yes, thats the ticket.

Indian sarees cause driving accidents – High Court in Kerala to prohibit women in saree to ride vehicle

Concerned over the rising number of two wheeler accidents, the Kerala High Court has suggested an amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, prohibiting women in sarees from riding pillion on two wheelers and carrying more than one child in the vehicle.

Read more here: http://lalqila.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/indian-sarees-cause-driving-accidents-kerala-to-prohibit-women-in-saree-to-ride-vehicle/

 

NORBOOSE

11:49 AM ET

May 13, 2010

Key Difference

I dont support banning burqas, but you are missing the alleged purpose. A person wearing a saree is still very identifiable. Anyone (other than perhaps a very large man) can throw on a burqa and disappear. You can conceal almost anything in a burqa. These are legitamate causes for concern.

 

NYGDAN

7:09 PM ET

May 13, 2010

identifiable yes but

For the French, the burqa problem is that its a sectarian symbol, whereas the sari isn't. So they've banned sikh turbans and cross necklaces, and that has to include burqas.

The big problem with that argument though is that non-muslims wear burqas, and indeed the afghan burqa or the salafi ninja-chick outfits supposedly pre-date islam anyway, so they're not /really/ a matter of religion.

 

CFISHER6

7:52 PM ET

May 13, 2010

Actually, they are

Historicallly, the Hanafi and Shafi'i madhabs have considered it obligatory to wear the niqab or the equivalent of it; granted, most scholars from those two schools have taken less conservative positions as of late. In fact, very few Hanafi or Shafi'i scholars that I've heard from seem to retain this position. However, the idea that the niqab has no place within Islam is simply erroneous. Personally, I've never considered the arguments for the niqab particularly convicining--maybe it's because I am a Maliki...who knows? Still, one cannot say that it has no place within Islam.

 

MONTYC

10:48 AM ET

May 13, 2010

Its Not Just France

It is not only france that is uneasy with this form of Islam, I think most non Muslim (and indeed some Muslim) countries are too. Wahhabism has been promoted in western countries by Saudi Arabia for years, a practice they would be extremely intollerant of if the situation were reversed, can you imagine Jesuits being allowed to go to Saudi Arabia to convert the local populus?

That aside, the main objection is that this code removes people from wider society and is seen as devisive and unwelcome in most western cultures. Wahhabi's are also viewed as being particularly intollerant of other faiths and beliefs, and even the liberally minded can now be heard muttering things like "we should not tollerate intollerance".

I have mixed feelings on this, I think people have a right to religious expression, but I find this particular practice quite uncomfortable, almost offensive. It will be interesting to watch what other European countries do following this change in france.

Unfortunately either way it is the women concerned who will lose out, many will not wish to leave their home if this law is passed, which would be a terrible way to live.

 

NYGDAN

7:11 PM ET

May 13, 2010

propagandistic religion

"can you imagine Jesuits being allowed to go to Saudi Arabia to convert the local populus?"
Heck, forget about christians, Shia aren't allowed to openly practice their faith in S. Arabia, only mainstream Sunnis are.

Somewhat ironically, the Saudi position on non-sunni sects is like laicite as described above, 'you can practice it, but only in private'.

 

SQUEEDLE

3:37 PM ET

May 13, 2010

My comments in the related

My comments in the related article notwithstanding, I am still in support of free religious expression. I fail to see why a law needs to be passed in a country of many millions, which will apply to only about 300 (that was the last figure I read, probably here).

If a law can be passed to ban the burqa everywhere, then obviously one can be passed to ban any outward expression of religious adherence (or not) whatsoever. Given the long history of European's easy swings toward horrifying levels of oppression of religious and ethnic minorities, if I were a Jew, Muslim, or especially a Roma right now I'd be pretty worried about the political trends.

If a society truly values diversity and freedom, then one must accept that there will be people who separate themselves by being different, and that difference is most readily expressed by choice of clothing and other wearable symbols such as jewelry and head coverings. A society that tries to prevent such differentiation is essentially xenophobic and conformist.

 

NYGDAN

7:12 PM ET

May 13, 2010

' A society that tries to

' A society that tries to prevent such differentiation is essentially xenophobic and conformist.'

Or, in this case, secular.

 

POLE64

2:04 AM ET

May 14, 2010

Comparison between imams and

Comparison between imams and catholic priests isn't used to convey similtude in regards to their idoeology, but simply in the way they're perceived by society (dominating men forcing their women to cover). The comparison is somewhat valid, but not entirely.

 

RENEMF

2:33 AM ET

May 14, 2010

draw the line !

"philosophers attacked the Catholic Church as an enemy of the Enlightenment and a supporter of the oppressive monarchical government" - and rightfully so, as it still is. Whatever little progress has been made within the church over the centuries has been due to the popes letting themselves be dragged forward screaming and kicking for no other reason than to maintain the maximum of what's left of their relevance. This is true to some degree for many religions, and certainly very much so for Islam.

"A powerful, and sometimes irrational, fear of religious influence" - what's irrational about it considering that France for centuries was the heartland of the oppression exerted on humanity by the roman church through destruction and suppression of knowledge, the acquisition of wealth by fraud and theft, and the psychological and physical destruction of lives.

"demonizing Muslims as oppressors of women" ? Oh come on - inequality of women lies historically and ideologically at the heart of Islam.

In my view everyone can be as crazy as they want in private. Where I draw the line is at using public resources (money, space, organizations) to support the exercise, display and spread of that craziness. I don't mind seeing women dressed up like penguins walking down the street. However with the Niquab/Burqua there's an additional problem: we don't allow men in ski masks to roam public places like shopping malls, government buildings, banks etc. Why should one allow women (assuming they are) to escape identification by security installations ?

 

ZHANGLONG

9:31 AM ET

May 14, 2010

The hot summer

http://www.ongoin.com
You do not miss it.
We need your support and trust!!!
free shipping
%uFF08Jordan wholesale%uFF09
Dear customers, thank you for your support of our
company.

Here, there's good news to tell you: The company
recently

launched a number of new fashion items! !

Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy.

%uFF08Jordan wholesale%uFF09

http://www.ongoin.com

sdfsdfdsf

 

COMPASSIONFORBOTHSIDES

12:11 PM ET

May 14, 2010

Men in ski masks are not part of religion or culture

First of all, the author is a woman. And makes an excellent point.

Secondly, this security argument is bogus. There are few places we enter where security requires us to identify ourselves. In those places one can adopt fingerprint scanners like customs/immigration already use.

To say that one can not identify these women in Burqas, which makes it a threat, is to say that no one else is capable of wearing a disguise. Famous actors walk amongst us in disguises. If I am a criminal, I could simply wear a fake beard, dye my hair, and wear sunglasses.

Why not outlaw tinted sunglasses since it's quite difficult to see people's eyes and recognize them?

If your police are so incompetant that all it takes is a disguise to evade capture, then you need to hire better investigators, not ban hats and masks.

I suppose halloween is the next threat to national security?

 

NIMBLEHUMAN

12:46 PM ET

May 18, 2010

:)

That mural is wicked hot, I wonder if there are any burqa-clad rockettes in Las Vegas...

On a more serious note, I see the concern with a burqa being able to conceal the identity and even the gender of the wearer, but Nikolas Sarkozy is an anti-Muslim bigot and to fail to see this move as a part of his greater bigoted agenda is to fail to see the forest for the trees. Security concerns aside, the man just doesn't like Muslims and has made this abundantly clear from the very start of his presidency.

Especially being a Jew himself, Sarko should know better than to follow a hate-based agenda.

 

YIPEE

11:01 AM ET

May 20, 2010

Will you wear a burqa?

Few issues with Burqa (viel):
1) Western countries want freedom for all, except Muslim women who have to move like salves covering their faces.
2) Muslims population is growing rapidly. With Western countries policy of one vote for one person, some countries may have Muslim population become majority in few decades. What if the Muslims vote that all women have to wear Burqa. Will you let women in your family wear a Burqa?
3) Muslim countries have their own rules. Why can the western countries not have their own rules? If you do not implement today, it will become more difficult in the future
4) If Muslim women get used to not wearing Burqa now, they will get used to the freedom, and refuse to wear it in future!

 

AGEE

9:58 AM ET

June 6, 2010

Maybe I dunno

1) Muslims have all the freedom in the world to seek help from social services, &c. if they feel abused and wear whatever the hell they want in the West. Or at least they did. ¬_¬
2) Well that's how democracy works. So if that happens (which it most certainly won't because that's actually pretty laughable to say the least), tough shit.
3) Oh but we do have our own rules. Our rules are based on the freedom of the individual. We can't say we're all about liberty one minute and then take it away from the vulnerable the next.
4) Ok and what do you proposed to the rather fucked up (and I mean that in the most amiable sense, I promise you) women who believe the burqa makes them attractive (or hides the ugly, as it were). There will always be oddballs among us, we shouldn't punish them for liking different things to ourselves (unless these things are really harmful things...like murder, for instance, lol)

I'm not a Muslim but seriously, moronic posts like yours actually make me want to go out in a burqa in protest. What alot of it comes down to is this whole IDEA that you have this right - this God-given right - not to be offended. It makes me sick because the truth is, you really don't. [/rant]

 

ARJUNA

11:46 PM ET

June 7, 2010

How the Dreyfus Affair Explains

In my view everyone can be as crazy as they want in private. Where I draw the line is at using public resources (money, space, organizations) to support the exercise, display and spread of that craziness. I don't mind seeing women dressed up like current political news penguins walking down the street. However with the Niquab/Burqua there's an additional problem: we don't allow men in ski masks to roam public places like shopping malls, government buildings, banks etc. Why should one allow women (assuming they are) to escape identification by security installations ?

 

MAKATHEMA

11:06 PM ET

June 10, 2010

How the Dreyfus Affair Explains

As said on the post "France is once again beset by the politics of the veil. After a 2004 ban on "all conspicuous" religious symbols in French state schools -- a measure that barred the wearing of crucifixes, Sikh turbans, and Jewish skullcaps world top news stories but was clearly targeted at headscarf-wearing Muslims -- President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken it a step further".

 

GLENN STALEY

12:25 AM ET

June 11, 2010

French Burqa Ban Addresses Radical Islam

France is a catholic country but a very secular government. But you know, a veil is a cultural thing. Not all Muslim women wear veils. You have to choose to wear one. So you can make an argument that look, this isn’t a religious expression. This is cultural. I want to be modest. And I don’t want to show my face because I’m a Muslim woman. And you Sarkozy have no right to tell me what I can wear and what I can’t wear. xerox phaser 8400 solid ink But there’s a reason why Sarkozy is doing this. In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. xerox phaser 8400 solid ink The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.