Not over my covered body; veils must be a woman’s choice
Last year, France’s women’s rights minister, Laurence Rossignol, using extremely offensive language, compared Muslim women who chose to wear the head scarf to “negroes who accepted slavery.”
This week, Andre Lamoureux, political scientist and spokesman for a Quebecbased movement for secularism, called the niqab “a political symbol of the enslavement and de-empowerment of women that is supported by the most repressive regimes on the planet.”
Both promote the idea that the veil is sexist, a symbol designed to signify the submission of women to men. It would seem benevolent then, to liberate these women, regardless of what their desires may be.
Yet, it is telling “other” women what they must and mustn’t wear that reveals a history of colonial paternalism towards those who are “different.” European colonialism, both British and French, politically used the image of the veiled woman to fuel their colonial objectives.
The history of Western imagination of the veil is complex, but can be simplified into two main perceptions: the inaccessible-sensual-harem woman and the oppressed covered woman. In both scenarios, an itch that she be viewable.
Painters such as Jean-Léon Gérôme in the1800s introduced the Eastern woman to the West using his own sensual fantasies to portray them in harems, lying and bathing nude in front of each other. Popular culture is full of examples of how this image is still perpetuated.
At the same time, the veil was usurped by the colonizers to show the inferiority of the colonized and give an aura of moral justification to the occupation.
Take for example Lord Cromer, the British administrator to the Egyptian colony in the late 1800s. He writes that “he (the colonizer) came not as a conqueror, but in a familiar garb of a saviour of society.” Addressing the veil and its implications, he writes “by confining the sphere of women’s interest to a very limited horizon, cramps the intellect and withers the mental development of one-half of the population in Moslem countries.”
His words seemingly hold a concern for the equality of women — ironic for a man who enacted laws restricting women’s education and was opposed to the suffrage movement in Britain.
Even today we are bombarded with images of the “poor veiled woman” who is in need of outside intervention to gain freedom. We are told that if she resists, it is her internalized oppression that has prevented her from using her brain. We, steeped in our patriarchal, paternalistic benevolence, most definitely know what is best for her.
This is not to ignore the politicization of the veil in parts of the Middle East, it is used as a way to entrench their culture from the threat of the “West.” In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, the veil is used as a method to “protect our women” from the modernization of the West. Women’s bodies are used as a stage to gain authenticity and give moral advantage to each side.
As we know, Quebec, throughout its history has always faced tensions between protecting its French-speaking culture and grappling with minorities within its community. Having a distinct selection process for immigration, Quebec targets francophone countries in order to protect its culture and maintain its language.
This requirement has led to large numbers of French-speaking Muslim immigrants to the province (mostly from past French colonies). The increase in the Muslim minority population has seen a plethora of fear, anxiety and intolerance toward the community in the last 15 years. The veiled Muslim woman is (again) at the forefront characterizing the inability/ unwillingness of the Muslim community to assimilate.
The seeming threat to Quebec’s culture led to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission being established to examine reasonable accommodation of minorities. The release of the report in 2008 promoted “laïcité overte” an open secularism that promoted harmonization and tolerance for the veil and face covering. Yet, here we are a few years later with Bill 62.
Although it is important to question whether such a ban will, in reality, ensure state neutrality or achieve its objectives, I am here to talk to you about the veiled woman.
Actually, I am here to ask you to talk to the veiled woman. In fact, it is not about you. It is about the veiled woman, about all women in general. Do not make the bodies of women a stage to play your dirty politics. Let us decide what is good for us. Let us speak for ourselves. Let us do what we want.
Women’s bodies are used as a stage to gain authenticity and give moral advantage to each side