The French ban on Muslim Olympians from wearing the hijab is not a secular value—its fascist oppression—and a symptom of France's systemic abuse of women
As a French person, I appreciate your point of view on France’s Islamophobia, misogyny, etc. I agree with you and I’m glad someone writes about this. Most French people just don’t get it. They need to live abroad to reflect on their own level of Islamophobia.
The only thing I would say is that Macron’s government sees itself as liberal & centrist. They certainly don’t want to be associated with the left which they demonize 🤯
My poor friend, you still haven't understood French secularism. Today's fascism is more the fruit of radical or Salafist Islam. In France women are free to dress as they please, unlike what I see in Muslim countries. We are a secular Republic, which means that in the public space, the hijab is considered to be religious clothing. Now please, my dear Sir, what about the ban on miniskirts in your beloved countries where Salafist Islam subjugates all women ?
When you live in France, you need to know that since 1905, secularism has been a constitutional principle guaranteeing the separation of the State and religions, as well as religious neutrality in the public arena. To answer your question more precisely, the secular French Republic, faced with the appearance since the 2000s of clothing promoted by Salafist Islam, such as the hijab, abaya and niqab, has adopted laws aimed at maintaining religious neutrality and avoiding all forms of proselytism.
A sizeable number of the players on France's mens football team (still can't bring myself to say soccer lol) are either observant followers of Islam or 'culturally Muslim' (Mbappe, Pogba, Kante, Dembele, Konate, Fofana were all in the Euro'24 squad). The list of Muslim Les Blues legends is even longer (Zidane, Ribery, Anelka, Benzema to name a few). It would be nice to see these prominent names to disassociate themselves with the French Football Federation (both the national team and the domestic leagues) until the country's sporting fraternity as a whole stands up for freedom of conscience - no ifs, ands or buts.
Wait, where is the IOC in all this? How is it within France's purview to make this rule? The Olympics don't belong to France just because they are being held in Paris.
It is ironic that the France of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité has a long history of prejudicial behavior whether it be against women, Muslims or Jews. The difference between an espoused ideal and a deeply flawed society.
Unfortunately not just France. Born and raised in the Netherlands, and having lived in Belgium as well, I can tell you racism and misogyny is alive and kicking there too. I would also argue slightly that it’s not even very “underbelly”, sadly it’s actually quite out in the open.
A secular society determining acceptable public garb is not fascism. An affront to free expression, yes, but Europe in general doesn't enjoy the rights we have in America. I appreciate Mr Rashids viewpoint, but calling everything fascism serves only to numb people to real fascist threats.
Europe doesn't enjoy the rights you have in America? Do a little research. Free expression hasn't been having a good run in America. The US is having its own struggle with fascism -- as Qasim says, "the erosion of basic personal rights by force."
Fascism isn’t a magical sign that says “I’m here now.” It’s the erosion of basic personal rights by force, which this is. And per Merriam Webster dictionary definition of fascism, forcing women to undress under threat of punishment is fascism.
fascism
>>>
>>> noun
>>>
>>> fas·cism ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-
>>> Synonyms of fascism
>>> 1
>>> often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
I have found this 'innovation' that some politician dreamed up to comfort French xenophobes absurd and cruel for so long.
As an American facing white nationalist fascism with a Christian face, I can understand the anxiety to maintain a hard secular line--to make secularism a value in its own right, more than the idea of neutrality that we supposedly have (which is currently under attack in the USA). Although the destruction of the Catholic Church in the Mexican Revolution was brutal and way too much--when you know the role of the Catholic Church in repressive domination, it becomes understandable. Mexican secularism is admirable, and fascinating, even if it is weakening after 100+ years. Mexico is more religious than the US but religion is more sidelined in politics than the US.
There are good reasons why people want that, which we are seeing now, and have seen throughout history.
The history of Europe (of the world) is littered with religion-caused catastrophe. Liberal democracy is in many ways, a reaction to this.
Simply throwing this out there to acknowledge the tension for all liberal democracies when it comes to religion--religion shapes our choices and values, and many religions have potentially illiberal value systems. So there is always a danger of religious domination, and this can become dangerous to a liberal democracy because if you have enough people attached to a (only potentially) illiberal ideal, it can destabilize equality and freedom. All liberal democratic societies will have to figure out a place for religion, and manage its existence in some respect.
That said, this method is TOTAL BULLSHIT. It is racist, xenophobic and unnecessary. What does it DO to protect secularism? It confuses the private with the public! It makes no sense to promote the value of liberalism by suppressing the freedom of individuals (and in France, no less, a place where people have loved to do wild individualist things).
It DOES use Muslim women, and restricts their freedom, and controls their bodies in public, to make some kind of point about secularism in France. It is burdening them in exactly the same way religiously repressive countries burden women in order to show that they have maintained and preserved their religious heritage. As you mention, the mirror of how it works in both religiously repressive societies and this repressive secular display is impossible to ignore.
In both cases, the women do not have freedom, they are not respected as rational agents, and their bodies are a site of a cultural and social message where they are disciplined to display certain values in an authoritarian way.
We should hardly have to give an argument for it because the USA, as crappy as it is, and as illiberal as our Christian right is, is ALSO an argument why it is bullshit. Allowing people to diverge from 'the norm' for reasons of personal belief does not increase their social and political power over the state, does not meddle with any freedoms, does not reduce equality (the opposite, obviously). Forcing an arbitrary norm of self-presentation on some only singles them out for humiliation.
Also, many other countries besides the US show it is possible to have a sphere of privacy over the body in public without interfering with public values? Pluralism actually reinforces secularism and displays the public value of secularism--which is why Christian nationalists go bananas when they see Muslim women wearing a hijab uniform at Target or whatnot. And this IS assimilation but not to the norm. You create a society where people understand that others may do a variety of different things, and they have to learn about these differences, and this enhances personal freedom. You make it so the norm is 'try to understand the equality of the random other people you encounter., because they have a reason for doing stuff that's important to them, even if is different than what you do' Everyone gets used to it! (Well, almost everyone.)
This can reduce the possibility of religious domination. It strengthens secularism as a state value in a diverse society because everyone has a reason to believe in it. And France is a diverse society. (The cause of US religious domination is not 'letting people live in public life as a person with a religion.)
Is the problem that France thinks they are special so they ignore these many counterexamples to whatever they think justifies this nonsense? Is the problem that they have absurd paranoia about Muslims? Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Or something else?
What is the point of making this 'symbolic' gesture that destroys people's freedom and makes them less equal? And casts suspicion on some? It does not protect secularism at all. It means nothing. Do they think they can make people FORGET that other religions exist? That any religions exist? Do they think they are being fair when--surprise, surprise--there's just a few religions that HAPPEN to have people who will be impaired or distressed by these restrictions?
Nobody's BODY is the place to make your stand, and display what you value. That is authoritarian by its very nature. Whose crazy idea is this? It's like a fantasy that French people are some sort of 'neutral being' but oh, the qualities just happen to be such and so--no HIJABS--and this in itself is racist and xenophobic and Islamophobic.
Our garb is arbitrary! There is no neutral being. One cultural thing must be favored over another. You say yours is 'not religious' but it has an origin also, and expresses norms that are amenable to one religion over others.
The idea that you are 'repressing women to free them is absurd.' As someone who teaches Somali women once in a while (and I do not know what you would call their covering) the idea that what a woman wears on their body would automatically affect their mind is truly hilarious. Nobody is more assertive or free in thought and ideas than these women.
It is probably very hard to get through to the French and make them face the deeper problem because, AFAICT the French are even more in denial about their own racism than Americans (or at least as IN denial).
Off topic, I love how insistent people are to look beautiful and wear the clothing of their origins. I have never seen such a beautiful array of African and other forms of dress than in France (obviously I have never been to Africa). It seems like, given the wonderful diversity of some parts of France, it should not be hard for them to get over this-- but as long as it gets politicians votes, it may plague France for quite some time.
One cannot read this and not think how hypocritical this policy is. It reminds me of Haircut standards for men who compete in sports. Just as you stated, it is just as wrong to force someone to wear something as it is to ban someone from wearing something. What are the French afraid of? I did not know any of this, but it is truly sad that stuff like this goes on. Thank you for brining this to our attention!
you're absolutely correct; and, I don't think that they don't understand, it's just that if you allowed for people to have the right to autonomy then there's a domino effect right? like there are far ranging implications of instituting human rights, implications that most people would see as positive - but if you want MORE power and control in a political realm, then 'granting' (recognizing) people's rights is seen as a threat.
This is a difficult issue. I do support allowing women and girls to dress as they choose, but we must also recognize that the hajib is the world's greatest symbol of the oppression of women. Millions of women are forced to wear it under threat of shame, imprisonment, rape and death, usually accompanied by the loss of basic human rights for the women forced to wear it. Women who have the freedom to choose do a disservice to oppressed women by helping legitimize this symbol of their oppression.
We should also recognize that women living in the “West” who choose to wear hijab are easy targets for racists and acknowledge their courage in exercising their right to wear a head covering. Forcing women not to wear head covering as the Shah did in Iran didn’t work out so well, either.
“we must also recognize that the hajib is the world's greatest symbol of the oppression of women.”
No we must not recognize this because it is not true. We must instead recognize that men who enforce hijab or enforce removal of hijab, or in general force women to act against their will and personal autonomy, are the world’s greatest actors of oppression.
I'm currently reading "When God Was A Woman", by Merlin Stone, which gives the historical devolution of the worship of woman and the violent demise of those practices. So the framing of Eve is not new....
As a French person, I appreciate your point of view on France’s Islamophobia, misogyny, etc. I agree with you and I’m glad someone writes about this. Most French people just don’t get it. They need to live abroad to reflect on their own level of Islamophobia.
The only thing I would say is that Macron’s government sees itself as liberal & centrist. They certainly don’t want to be associated with the left which they demonize 🤯
Insightful article!
My poor friend, you still haven't understood French secularism. Today's fascism is more the fruit of radical or Salafist Islam. In France women are free to dress as they please, unlike what I see in Muslim countries. We are a secular Republic, which means that in the public space, the hijab is considered to be religious clothing. Now please, my dear Sir, what about the ban on miniskirts in your beloved countries where Salafist Islam subjugates all women ?
yes "women are free to dress as they please" should extend to muslim women dressing as they please!!
When you live in France, you need to know that since 1905, secularism has been a constitutional principle guaranteeing the separation of the State and religions, as well as religious neutrality in the public arena. To answer your question more precisely, the secular French Republic, faced with the appearance since the 2000s of clothing promoted by Salafist Islam, such as the hijab, abaya and niqab, has adopted laws aimed at maintaining religious neutrality and avoiding all forms of proselytism.
I responded to you here: https://open.substack.com/pub/themindfulmuslim/p/why-frances-secularism-is-ridiculous?r=47h7n9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
A sizeable number of the players on France's mens football team (still can't bring myself to say soccer lol) are either observant followers of Islam or 'culturally Muslim' (Mbappe, Pogba, Kante, Dembele, Konate, Fofana were all in the Euro'24 squad). The list of Muslim Les Blues legends is even longer (Zidane, Ribery, Anelka, Benzema to name a few). It would be nice to see these prominent names to disassociate themselves with the French Football Federation (both the national team and the domestic leagues) until the country's sporting fraternity as a whole stands up for freedom of conscience - no ifs, ands or buts.
Wait, where is the IOC in all this? How is it within France's purview to make this rule? The Olympics don't belong to France just because they are being held in Paris.
IOC is finger wagging and that's about it. Unbelievable cowardice.
It is ironic that the France of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité has a long history of prejudicial behavior whether it be against women, Muslims or Jews. The difference between an espoused ideal and a deeply flawed society.
Unfortunately not just France. Born and raised in the Netherlands, and having lived in Belgium as well, I can tell you racism and misogyny is alive and kicking there too. I would also argue slightly that it’s not even very “underbelly”, sadly it’s actually quite out in the open.
A secular society determining acceptable public garb is not fascism. An affront to free expression, yes, but Europe in general doesn't enjoy the rights we have in America. I appreciate Mr Rashids viewpoint, but calling everything fascism serves only to numb people to real fascist threats.
Europe doesn't enjoy the rights you have in America? Do a little research. Free expression hasn't been having a good run in America. The US is having its own struggle with fascism -- as Qasim says, "the erosion of basic personal rights by force."
Fascism isn’t a magical sign that says “I’m here now.” It’s the erosion of basic personal rights by force, which this is. And per Merriam Webster dictionary definition of fascism, forcing women to undress under threat of punishment is fascism.
fascism
>>>
>>> noun
>>>
>>> fas·cism ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-
>>> Synonyms of fascism
>>> 1
>>> often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
One of my friends is French. Years ago I thought they elected a woman president. Tatiana answered, "Ha! Wouldn't that be nice."
I have found this 'innovation' that some politician dreamed up to comfort French xenophobes absurd and cruel for so long.
As an American facing white nationalist fascism with a Christian face, I can understand the anxiety to maintain a hard secular line--to make secularism a value in its own right, more than the idea of neutrality that we supposedly have (which is currently under attack in the USA). Although the destruction of the Catholic Church in the Mexican Revolution was brutal and way too much--when you know the role of the Catholic Church in repressive domination, it becomes understandable. Mexican secularism is admirable, and fascinating, even if it is weakening after 100+ years. Mexico is more religious than the US but religion is more sidelined in politics than the US.
There are good reasons why people want that, which we are seeing now, and have seen throughout history.
The history of Europe (of the world) is littered with religion-caused catastrophe. Liberal democracy is in many ways, a reaction to this.
Simply throwing this out there to acknowledge the tension for all liberal democracies when it comes to religion--religion shapes our choices and values, and many religions have potentially illiberal value systems. So there is always a danger of religious domination, and this can become dangerous to a liberal democracy because if you have enough people attached to a (only potentially) illiberal ideal, it can destabilize equality and freedom. All liberal democratic societies will have to figure out a place for religion, and manage its existence in some respect.
That said, this method is TOTAL BULLSHIT. It is racist, xenophobic and unnecessary. What does it DO to protect secularism? It confuses the private with the public! It makes no sense to promote the value of liberalism by suppressing the freedom of individuals (and in France, no less, a place where people have loved to do wild individualist things).
It DOES use Muslim women, and restricts their freedom, and controls their bodies in public, to make some kind of point about secularism in France. It is burdening them in exactly the same way religiously repressive countries burden women in order to show that they have maintained and preserved their religious heritage. As you mention, the mirror of how it works in both religiously repressive societies and this repressive secular display is impossible to ignore.
In both cases, the women do not have freedom, they are not respected as rational agents, and their bodies are a site of a cultural and social message where they are disciplined to display certain values in an authoritarian way.
We should hardly have to give an argument for it because the USA, as crappy as it is, and as illiberal as our Christian right is, is ALSO an argument why it is bullshit. Allowing people to diverge from 'the norm' for reasons of personal belief does not increase their social and political power over the state, does not meddle with any freedoms, does not reduce equality (the opposite, obviously). Forcing an arbitrary norm of self-presentation on some only singles them out for humiliation.
Also, many other countries besides the US show it is possible to have a sphere of privacy over the body in public without interfering with public values? Pluralism actually reinforces secularism and displays the public value of secularism--which is why Christian nationalists go bananas when they see Muslim women wearing a hijab uniform at Target or whatnot. And this IS assimilation but not to the norm. You create a society where people understand that others may do a variety of different things, and they have to learn about these differences, and this enhances personal freedom. You make it so the norm is 'try to understand the equality of the random other people you encounter., because they have a reason for doing stuff that's important to them, even if is different than what you do' Everyone gets used to it! (Well, almost everyone.)
This can reduce the possibility of religious domination. It strengthens secularism as a state value in a diverse society because everyone has a reason to believe in it. And France is a diverse society. (The cause of US religious domination is not 'letting people live in public life as a person with a religion.)
Is the problem that France thinks they are special so they ignore these many counterexamples to whatever they think justifies this nonsense? Is the problem that they have absurd paranoia about Muslims? Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Or something else?
What is the point of making this 'symbolic' gesture that destroys people's freedom and makes them less equal? And casts suspicion on some? It does not protect secularism at all. It means nothing. Do they think they can make people FORGET that other religions exist? That any religions exist? Do they think they are being fair when--surprise, surprise--there's just a few religions that HAPPEN to have people who will be impaired or distressed by these restrictions?
Nobody's BODY is the place to make your stand, and display what you value. That is authoritarian by its very nature. Whose crazy idea is this? It's like a fantasy that French people are some sort of 'neutral being' but oh, the qualities just happen to be such and so--no HIJABS--and this in itself is racist and xenophobic and Islamophobic.
Our garb is arbitrary! There is no neutral being. One cultural thing must be favored over another. You say yours is 'not religious' but it has an origin also, and expresses norms that are amenable to one religion over others.
The idea that you are 'repressing women to free them is absurd.' As someone who teaches Somali women once in a while (and I do not know what you would call their covering) the idea that what a woman wears on their body would automatically affect their mind is truly hilarious. Nobody is more assertive or free in thought and ideas than these women.
It is probably very hard to get through to the French and make them face the deeper problem because, AFAICT the French are even more in denial about their own racism than Americans (or at least as IN denial).
Off topic, I love how insistent people are to look beautiful and wear the clothing of their origins. I have never seen such a beautiful array of African and other forms of dress than in France (obviously I have never been to Africa). It seems like, given the wonderful diversity of some parts of France, it should not be hard for them to get over this-- but as long as it gets politicians votes, it may plague France for quite some time.
One cannot read this and not think how hypocritical this policy is. It reminds me of Haircut standards for men who compete in sports. Just as you stated, it is just as wrong to force someone to wear something as it is to ban someone from wearing something. What are the French afraid of? I did not know any of this, but it is truly sad that stuff like this goes on. Thank you for brining this to our attention!
Thanks for reading!
Ugh. Why is this concept so blinking hard to understand? It's HER choice!
you're absolutely correct; and, I don't think that they don't understand, it's just that if you allowed for people to have the right to autonomy then there's a domino effect right? like there are far ranging implications of instituting human rights, implications that most people would see as positive - but if you want MORE power and control in a political realm, then 'granting' (recognizing) people's rights is seen as a threat.
Yes, I agree. They absolutely understand.
Thank you so much for this. I would never have known. This information is important for the world to know.
Thanks for reading Anna
This is a difficult issue. I do support allowing women and girls to dress as they choose, but we must also recognize that the hajib is the world's greatest symbol of the oppression of women. Millions of women are forced to wear it under threat of shame, imprisonment, rape and death, usually accompanied by the loss of basic human rights for the women forced to wear it. Women who have the freedom to choose do a disservice to oppressed women by helping legitimize this symbol of their oppression.
We should also recognize that women living in the “West” who choose to wear hijab are easy targets for racists and acknowledge their courage in exercising their right to wear a head covering. Forcing women not to wear head covering as the Shah did in Iran didn’t work out so well, either.
“we must also recognize that the hajib is the world's greatest symbol of the oppression of women.”
No we must not recognize this because it is not true. We must instead recognize that men who enforce hijab or enforce removal of hijab, or in general force women to act against their will and personal autonomy, are the world’s greatest actors of oppression.
Agreed. Man should not force things either way. A woman should be free to choose if she wants to wear it or not.
Your information is welcome and enlightening. France, of all places.
I'm currently reading "When God Was A Woman", by Merlin Stone, which gives the historical devolution of the worship of woman and the violent demise of those practices. So the framing of Eve is not new....