France, the Left and the burkini ban: It’s complicated

By Nora Mulready

My reaction to the burkini ban and ‘that photo’ was not quite in step with most people on the Left. Yes, the state shouldn’t be telling women what to wear but I can’t shake the niggling feeling that the reaction is a bit over the top. The French Courts have already ruled that the ban is unlawful and must be lifted. There will be push back from the mayors, and this one will likely run on for a while longer while they fight is out in the courts. Personally, I have mixed feelings. Do I think it was a great idea? Probably not. Am I outraged? Not really. Am I going to jump to the defence of an item of clothing that only exists because women and girls have been taught that it is ‘immodest’ to swim in public without covering their entire bodies? No.

I have by now read countless tweets, articles, facebook posts etc with reference to some variation of “a woman was forced to strip at gunpoint by the French police.” I’m sorry, but this didn’t happen. The French police carry guns. If they give you directions, did they tell you to tourner à gauche at gunpoint? No, of course not. There was never any threat that the woman would be shot, and to suggest there was is either deliberately dishonest or genuinely daft. This is France, where they subscribe to Human Rights law, it’s not the wild west of an ISIS’ ‘caliphate’. She was never in any danger from the police. Further, there was no ‘force’. A woman was asked to comply with a publicly advertised dress code, or leave the beach. She was given a choice. She choose to stay on the beach. In Venice recently I wasn’t allowed to enter St Mark’s Basilica without covering my shoulders. I had a choice, wear a shawl given by the church security, or don’t come in. I wanted to go in, I made a choice, I complied. It’s infantilising to suggest that women are incapable of making such a choice without feeling mortally offended, feeling vulnerable, feeling violated. We’re pretty robust, rational creatures these days, capable of weighing up our options and making decisions.

A big problem is that the Left has erected an impenetrable mental barrier to discussions of Islamic dress, from headscarves to burkas, to burkinis, supplementing what should have been years of legitimate, and healthy, public discussion and debate with the Pavlovian response:”it’s their choice”. We have nothing to say about the reason why people make these choices, we make no attempt to try and persuade women and girls that they don’t have to cover up (in fact, the very idea of saying that is considered insulting, even racist), we abandon Muslim women (and men) who makes these arguments, we abandon ex-Muslims who make these arguments. If our state schools taught all girls that they should cover their hair and hide their bodies, would our society accept that? I hope not. And yet for countless girls, we don’t just accept it but defend it in the name of equality.

I see the bukhini ban as an example of this conflict between secular liberalism and conservative religion, something France is having to grapple more than most. ‘Rights’ is a messy moral and legal area. Rights conflict. That’s why we have Human Rights law and Human Rights courts. Your right to swing your fist stops precisely where my nose begins, as they say, and very few such conflicts are as clear cut as that one. France is a secular Republic, its citizens’ right to secular public spaces is integral to its very foundations. Religious dress is integral to conservative Islam. These things clash, of course they do, and unless our answer is simply that one should always give in to the other, there are going to be messy clashes as we navigate our way through. One of the most helpful things everyone can now do is talk about it all, openly, honestly, and as far as possible, without fear. That requires a new acceptance that it is legitimate to discuss – and, if people so wish, to criticise – overt symbols of conservative Islam, including when manifested in women’s clothes. It also requires an understanding that in the current climate of Islamist extremism, a particularly raw subject in France, overt symbols of conservative Islam are going to be seen by many as more than an expression of personal faith or individual expression. This may be unfair, but it is the reality of the times we live in.

I don’t know where we go from here. What I am certain of is that we will make our way through it all far better if people of all perspectives can speak openly about how they feel. I’m not asking for bans, I’m asking for conversations, and for an acknowledgement that silence leads to tensions. I’m asking that political leaders on the Left stop leaving it to the far right to give voice to the secular instincts of secular Europeans, because as we are seeing in France, if the Left don’t help find answers, the Right will. I’m asking that if girls are gong to be taught that they need to cover up, they are also exposed to arguments that say they don’t have to. I’m asking for a bit of honesty on the Left about why an international context dominated by Islamist violence means there are likely to be stronger reactions to overt symbols of conservative Islam than to those of other religions. And I’m asking for the Left to see that if we want to help make things better, as opposed to standing on the sidelines as the diversity and equality we cherish is destroyed by extremists of all sides, we don’t only have a right to make these points, we have a duty.


10 thoughts on “France, the Left and the burkini ban: It’s complicated

  1. “A big problem is that the Left has erected an impenetrable mental barrier to discussions of Islamic dress, from headscarves to burkas, to burkinis, supplementing what should have been years of legitimate, and healthy, public discussion and debate with the Pavlovian response: ‘it’s their choice’. We have nothing to say about the reason why people make these choices, we make no attempt to try and persuade women and girls that they don’t have to cover up (in fact, the very idea of saying that is considered insulting, even racist), we abandon Muslim women (and men) who makes these arguments, we abandon ex-Muslims who make these arguments.”

    Except that the Left in 99 cases out of 100 is not having discussions with Muslims or Muslim women about these issues and in the remaining 1 case out of 100 it’s a hostile discussion between a defensive pious Muslim woman and a morally self-righteous Laïcité fanatic.

    The best thing the left (if it is genuinely interested in aiding the struggle for women’s liberation in Muslim communities) is fight to give these women more space, more legal rights, and more social support to make their own choices. The hijab ban has done the opposite and deepened their isolation, at least if what this ex-Muslim woman says is anything to judge by:

    “So. Let’s pretend (lolsob) that I am one of these women directly victimized by the very regressive ideology of modesty being opposed here. I have a bit of freedom being allowed to go to a pool in a burkini by my restrictive and intolerant family and community. And you’re going to ban me from that??? Thereby making it so on top of all my other restrictions I can’t swim too?

    “Thanks, now I’m more isolated and limited than I was before. ‘Cause you’ve also made sure I can’t go to public school or university in my hijab. Well, I guess I’m confined at home now, because no hijab ban law is going to matter to my family who view hijab as a matter of mortal moral incumbency. So here I am stuck at home, unless my family is able and willing to put me in private schooling. And on top of that more forms of public presence are slowly being restricted from me as well.

    “But sure, ban me from the public in attempt to champion my rights. That will fix things.”


  2. I’m glad someone picked up on the nonsense of “at gunpoint” or “men with guns” and made the simple analogy of how those guns are attached to their hips if even giving someone directions. I’m told a BBC radio 4 program used the “with guns” thing. Ridiculous.

    What has perturbed me is a view from some who would otherwise be against women being covered, suddenly declaring the burkini as “liberating” perhaps not realising that if you take that route, then all coverings are liberating if a lady says it is, and therefore ignoring a whole wider, if not historical religious (or cultural) manifestation of male control, that completely clashes with contemporary thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Mixed feelings on the burkini ban | Nora Mulready

  4. That famous photo, with or without guns in the caption, was not about a burkini. They were demanding the woman remove her ordinary day clothing which covered her shoulders. A very different incident from the one that’s gone viral.


  5. The burkini is a religious symbol, used to do Muslim proselytism.

    Women can use a diving suit to protect from UV sun light, in any secular country, because that is not a religious symbol,

    Muslims ask for freedom to violate secular state laws, because they want to make proselytism of Islam.
    On the other hand they ask foreigners to adhere to their religious norms. Why should Muslims be allow to break the norms of secular states? I think that they should respect the laws of secular states. Those norms are to stop any religious proselytism not just Muslim.

    The only way to warrant the freedom of beliefs, is a secular state which does not bias to any religion.

    If secular countries do not warrant scientific non religious education to all children, they are allowing political religious proselytism to be soiled in the mind of children.
    Those children sooner or later can be easily manipulated to perform terrorist attacks.
    That it is happening today with “spontaneous” terrorists manipulated by hate discourses spread on Internet, provoking very frequent attacks against Israel and Europe civilians.

    The right to an objective scientific non-religious education, both public and private, should be a Human Right!


  6. In my comment say:
    On the other hand they ask foreigners ….
    it should say:
    On the other hand, Islamic theocracies ask foreigners ….


  7. I take it as axiomatic and common ground humans have inherent rights and as per JS Mill, Locke, Paine, etc,the state only has the right to interfere / limit those rights where the rights of a third party are directly affected. Wearing a Burkhini does not directly interfere with the rights of any third party – even if it is a symbol or deliberate expression of Islamist misogyny or a an Islamist uniform (which I don’t believe). Consequently, the criminalisation of wearing it is a very serious matter. Those of us who are opposed to Islamism, and see much to fear and criticise in many expressions and interpretations of Islam, are particularly duty bound not to suspend our support of human rights in this context.

    However, being strongly opposed to banning the Burkhini does not mean that one cannot criticise the wearning of the Burkhini or suggest that there are problems with it.

    Of course if a woman is forced to wear a Burkhini by a father, husband, etc that is also potentially an infringement of her rights which, depending on the circumstances, may be a criminal act.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s