The anti-burkini decrees issued by certain mayors contradict the principle of secularism that they claim to defend. Let’s remember that secularism establishes freedom of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of worship, and that the Republic respects all beliefs. It should also be noted that while conspicuous signs are banned in schools and the burqa is banned everywhere for security reasons, conspicuous signs are permitted by law in public spaces, including on beaches. Dressing as we please is an individual freedom that should not be relinquished.
These municipal decrees are mainly ineffective in combating fundamentalism. Without claiming a precise typology and refraining from categorizing people, we can distinguish different motivations for wearing the veil, the burkini, and, more generally, conspicuous religious signs:
– Voluntary non-assertive wearing: some people wear a conspicuous religious sign to live in accordance with their faith. A woman who is free and independent of any coercion has the right to wear the clothing of her choice, as long as she does not disturb public order and allows for her identification. Denying this right and penalizing her can only generate a feeling of injustice, rejection, and may even push her towards communal isolation. We cannot, even in the name of women’s condition, go against the freedom of women to dress as they wish, to not unveil their own bodies if they do not wish to.
– Assertive wearing: other individuals wear a conspicuous sign in a clearly assertive or provocative manner. They aim to assert their identity and lead a political fight for their cause. However, prohibition only fuels their claim: to forbid is to allow provocateurs to declare themselves stigmatized and victims of discrimination, and to give them arguments to persuade others to join them. The law banning the burqa led to a significant increase in the assertive wearing of this garment after its enactment. Similarly, it seems that the sale of burkinis has increased significantly since the controversy…
– Wearing under duress: if women wear a conspicuous sign under the pressure of their environment, penalization becomes a double penalty. They are victims of oppressive domination that imposes behavior and dress code on them, and instead of enabling them to break free from this dominance, we end up sanctioning them in return. When faced with domestic violence or sectarian drift, we do everything to help the victims escape through support and, if necessary, protective measures. Why in the context of oppression that deprives women of their freedom to dress and behave as they wish, should we penalize the victims and leave their oppressors unpunished? How can we, in the name of women’s condition, punish women who are victims of oppression?
As we can see, the anti-burkini decrees are counterproductive: they do not effectively combat the rise of fundamentalism in France and encourage communal isolation. Yet, amid these controversies, the feminist struggle itself is being exploited. Simply stating that the burkini is an affront to women’s condition does not mean assisting the women in question. In cases of voluntary wearing of conspicuous signs, just as some wish to do good for the people despite themselves, others would decide on women’s dignity despite them. In cases of wearing conspicuous signs under duress, a double punishment is inflicted on the victim without ever troubling the oppressor. But it is not considered that serious, as long as one claims to act for the condition of women…
by David Nakache, president of the collective All Citizens
