There’s another piece by Jon Henley in the Guardian today on the vexed issue of the banning of religious symbols in French schools. I’ve expressed my view on this several times already: on the old normblog site here on November 14; and then also here and here. There’s a dimension of the issue, however, which I didn’t address in any of those posts and which is highlighted by a couple of the statements Jon Henley reports:
Spilling out of their school in Saint-Ouen, north of Paris, they are so keen to get a word in that on a bitter afternoon, they are queueing up on the pavement. Many went on the march. Most are against the law. A few are in favour, and happy to say so.
“For years we’ve been warning about the fundamentalists, the radical imams, the huge step backwards that they represent for women and Muslims in general in France,” says Lydia, 16. “This law is really necessary. You’ve got no idea what pressures some girls come under.”
Ratiba, 17, interrupts. “Nobody has ordered me to wear one. If I do it’s because I want to. Our religion tells us to, it’s part of our identity. France calls itself the cradle of human rights. Here of all places we should be able to show who and what we are.” Lillia, 16, agrees. “The veil should be for us to choose. This law discriminates against us.”
…..
“In all Muslim countries women are fighting to free themselves from the veil and affirm their identity,” says Anne-Marie Lizin, a socialist backing a ban. “It’s not normal that in certain parts of Brussels there are more women in veils than in the streets of Algiers.”
The position I’ve previously taken on this corresponds to the view expressed by Ratiba: that if it’s felt by someone as part of her identity, she must be free to affirm it. It’s about rights of free expression and the right to be who you are.
The view expressed by both Lydia and Anne-Marie Lizin, on the other hand, is that a ban would in fact protect women and girls from unwanted pressure to affirm a different kind of identity than the one they would choose for themselves if their choice was genuinely open.
From which a question. Why isn’t the proper legislative course in these circumstances to continue to permit those who want to wear religious symbols to do so, as should be their right within any liberal order; and to make it a punishable offence under law for anyone to coerce or intimidate another into the wearing of religious symbols – or anything else for that matter – against their will? The question is genuine and not rhetorical. It’s possible that there would be difficulties with legislation of this kind of which I’m not aware, and if so I’d be interested to hear what they are. Obviously, social or family pressure is a slippery thing to deal with, but is it altogether beyond the reach of the law? I doubt it. In any event, abstractly considered, this seems to me a better course, though I hold the view tentatively for now in anticipation of some possibly compelling counter-consideration. (I’m aware, incidentally, that there’s an age aspect to the problem. But so is there with laws against hitting children. The question would be whether the appropriate kind of legislation can be fashioned round, and fitted to, the relevant practical difficulties.)