Banning the Burkini in Cannes: Continuing Oppressing Women Under the Name of Liberation

So recently, the mayor of Cannes in France issued a ban on burkinis. Burkinis is a made-up name for special full-body swimming garment: a hybrid between Burqa and Bikini. In reality, a burkini is a swimming suit composed of leggings and a sort of a short dress worn on top of it. Some burkinis have a hoodie attached and with some other you add a hijab that would cover the head.

I didn’t grow up knowing burkinis. I used to go to the beach and wear a bathing suit. Later, when I decided to wear hijab, I used to put a long dress and hijab. In water, this can be so uncomfortable and heavy and when you go to sit on the beach it collects tons of sand and you feel you instantly gained extra pounds of weight.

At some point I decided to stop swimming, as I felt so much annoyed by the sand and the curious looks. An experience that was supposed to be fun and joyful turned to become itchy and embarrassing. I had the impression everyone would like at me.

And then, I started hearing about some nice suits that modestly cover the body but are made of appropriate fabric that wouldn’t keep the water and would dry as soon as you are out of the water. At that time, no body called these suits burkinis. We didn’t have a specific name for them. We just called them bathing suit for hijabis.

I think they first appeared in Turkey and Malaysia ( I also read somewhere that it was originally designed by an Australian designer of Lebanese descent, Aheda Zanetti) and I remember one of my friends borrowed a suit from another friend who bought it from Turkey and took it to a seamstress and asked her to do something similar.

In Tunisia, Burkinis made their appearance in beaches in the early 2000s. Before then, many women swam either in bathing suits; some others in bikini but many women would wear long dresses or didn’t swim at all. The contact of the long dresses with water and by the effect of pressure and water, they inflate like balloons so women have to keep burst these bubbles of air each time they stand up in the water. Needless to say, that with a long dress, you can’t really swim and move fast. You just dip in the water and stay there. Moreover, once outside the water, the wet dress becomes so tight on the body revealing the shape of the woman and thus defeating the purpose of modesty that a full body suit is supposed to achieve.

Burkini came as the ideal creation. It gave women the opportunity to enjoy water, beach, swim with her friends, kids and family without necessarily looking like an alien.

I remember the first time I went to buy a burkini in Tunisia, it was like trying to buy alcohol in Canada when you are underage. It was in 2008, the dictatorship of Ben Ali was still in place and all sign of religious symbols were suspicious to say the least. Burkini, like hijab, was of course considered in Tunisia as a sign of affiliation with Islamic groups and thus selling them would mean for the regime encouraging women to join these mouvements. So I went to the souk and I asked some store about them. The seller would look at me and assess my real intentions and then once I passed the “test”, he would bring from, literally under the table, one or two packages with a burkini inside them so I can see the models.

But after, the Arab Spring, burkinis were freely sold even in large supermarkets and women who whished to buy one, could freely do so.

It is interesting to note that Tunisian beaches today are full of women wearing burkinis. Even some women, who are not wearing hijab, would go for a burkini.

(It must be mentioned here that women in bathing suits are not harassed but it is very common in these societies that men would stare at women so burkinis is a way to keep some of these unwanted stare away or limited. By no means, burkini would become a way to control to opposite sex attitudes, as this is a matter of education that has never been tackled)

Of course, for people who still consider women covering their bodies as a sign of oppression, burkinis joined the list of words and clothing that linked Muslim women to the world of darkness. For many Muslim women who didn’t want other people commenting on their bodies or showing off their skin for public consumption, burkini achieved the total opposite. It combined liberation with modesty: the best of two worlds!

The recent decision of France to ban burkini from the beaches in Nice is another example of anti-Muslim attitudes wrapped under the disguise of women liberation and combatting religious extremism. All what it will do is: to alienate French Muslim women furthermore and of course prevent them from a nice refreshing swim in the Mediterranean Sea.

What bothers me even more is the total silence of Western feminists. Their silence is disappointing for this is a perfect example of male interference with female choices.

When women are banned from driving in Saudi Arabia, all western feminists would mobilize and stand up (rightly so) to denounce the arbitrariness, abusive and patriarchal nature of such decision. When women in Iran are punished for showing more hair in public or going out with make up, the outrageous reaction of Western feminist is so intense ( and yes we should be outraged) but when Muslim women are banned from going to the beach wearing a burkini, all you hear is silence or whispers. The burkini ban perfectly fits the old equation, so why bother?

Islam= Women oppression

How can a country, considered as a beacon of rights and freedom go so low and do this to its won citizens?

In France, it isn’t a secret that women are allowed to go topless on beaches. There are even some beaches especially designated for nudists. But to prevent women to swim because of the length of their swimming suit is a silly and a simply revengeful reaction. Once again, one of the most vulnerable groups of a society have to pay for the incompetence and failures of the politicians.

At least, and for a small temporary confort, we have some powerful words from Arundhati Roy who commented about the banning of burqa in France in 2010:

“When, as happened recently in France, an attempt is made to coerce women out of the burqa rather than creating a situation in which a woman can choose what she wishes to do, it’s not about liberating her, but about unclothing her. It becomes an act of humiliation and cultural imperialism. It’s not about the burqa. It’s about the coercion. Coercing a woman out of a burqa is as bad as coercing her into one. Viewing gender in this way, shorn of social, political and economic context, makes it an issue of identity, a battle of props and costumes. It is what allowed the US government to use western feminist groups as moral cover when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Afghan women were (and are) in terrible trouble under the Taliban. But dropping daisy-cutters on them was not going to solve their problems.”

 

Xénophobie, racisme, islamophobie:que fait le Canada?

En 2007, le débat qui a eu lieu sur les accommodements raisonnables a polarisé la société quebqoise. Des demandes de certains groupes religieux ont été amplifiées par les médias et instrumentalisées par des partis politiques pour rentrer dans une spirale dangereuse où la présence de la religion, autre que la religion catholique, soit devenue une source de malaise.

Les choses se sont calmées relativement pour quelques années pour reprendre de plus belles en 2013 lorsque le parti québécois a bâti toute sa campagne politique sur l’interdiction des certains symboles religieux en publique. Mais personne n’était dupe, la « charte des valeurs » qui était supposée de faire prévaloir la laïcité au Québec était devenue le prétexte idéal pour interdire aux femmes musulmanes de porter leur foulard, ou parfois niqab dans les milieux de travail.

Si le reste du Canada ne sentait pas nécessairement concerné par ce qui se passait au Québec, en se montrant parfois au dessus de ces mêlées ou en évoquant les deux solitudes, tel ne fut pas le cas l’été dernier lors de la campagne électorale fédérale. L’ancien premier ministre Stephen Harper a voulu jouer au jeu dangereux de la xénophobie. Il a introduit une loi sur la tolérance zéro face aux pratiques culturelles barbares (projet de loi), il a voulu changer les procédures en place en interdisant aux femmes musulmanes qui portent le niqab de ne pas pouvoir assister à la cérémonie d’assermentation tout en portant le niqab. Il a continué à faire appel aux jugements successifs rendus par les différentes juridictions en faveur de Omar Khadr. Il a annoncé la création d’une ligne téléphonique pour reporter des pratiques culturelles. Il n’a voulu prendre que 1300 refugies syriens dans une période de 2 ans. Bref, on pourrait dire qu’il s’est comporté comme un mini Donald Trump.

En fin de route, il n’a pas réussi dans toutes ses tentatives mais malheureusement, le Canada se réveille aujourd’hui d’un long cauchemar qui est devenu une réalité. Pendant, des années le Canada a surfé sur les vagues de son ancienne réputation du temps de Lester B. Pearson comme quoi nous sommes un pays qui participe dans des missions de rétablissement de la paix. Stephen Harper a tout fait dès sa venue au pouvoir pour prouver au monde que le Canada est une puissance belligérante. Nous sommes allés en guerre en Afghanistan, puis en Iraq et Syrie dans des missions de combat. Nous nous sommes positionnés farouchement contre la Russie dans le conflit ukrainien.

Pendant des années nous avons surfé sur notre réputation que nous accueillons les refugiés à bras ouvert et pourtant aujourd’hui à cause du contexte international mais aussi à cause de toutes ces années de manque de courage des certains politiciens et de mauvaise fois d’autres, nous avons un grand travail de reconstruction à faire. Certes nous ne sommes pas l’Europe avec son lourd passé coloniale et ses rapports tendus avec ses communautés en l’occurrence Magrébines et musulmanes. Toutefois, c’est tellement facile de le devenir si nous ne faisons rien. Si nous nous n’investissons pas dans l’éducation, dans le transport en public et dans les opportunités d’emploi pour tous.

Aujourd’hui, le Canada a accepté 25,000 nouvelles personnes venant de Syrie. Ceci doit être vu comme un atout, une richesse et non pas un fardeau. Cependant, cela pourrait devenir un fardeau si ces gens là et leurs enfants sont laissés pour eux mêmes, si les écoles ne sont pas dotées de ressources éducatives appropriées si les programmes de formation professionnelles ne sont adéquats pour préparer une nouvelle main d’œuvre, si la planification urbaine de nos villes ne soit pas créative en permettant aux anciens habitants et aux nouveaux habitants de se voir et se de rencontrer si on n’investit dans la petite et moyenne entreprise pour encourager l’esprit d’innovation et de d’entreprenariat. Tous ces programmes doivent être étudiés sérieusement et pris en considération ni on veut éviter que la xénophobie s’étende et devienne la règle au lieu de l’exception.

Aujourd’hui la xénophobie n’est pas seulement quelques incidents malheureux isolés, ce n’est pas seulement une mosquée brulée à Peterborough ou une femme voilée à qui on lui enlève le foulard de force dans une rue de Montréal. C’est plus que cela. La xénophobie est une idéologie, une industrie qui fait des profits, des partis politiques qui gagnent des votes et des consommateurs qui la consomment et en redemandent. On ne peut pas combattre la xénophobie par des simples pamphlets ou par quelques mots de bienvenue. Il faut la combattre avec des programmes éducatifs et sociaux adaptés avec une infrastructure urbaine bien réfléchie et surtout avec une vision ouverte, intelligente, concertée et qui vise loin.

Mes notes lors d’un panel au Sommet de l’institut Broadbent, le 1^er avril 2016

 

 

 

Xenophobia, Racism, Islamophobia: How is Canada doing?

In 2007 the debate held in Quebec about reasonable accommodation has polarized the opinions in the society. Requests of certain religious groups were amplified by the media and exploited by political parties. All swirled rapidly down to a dangerous spiral where the presence of religion in the public arena, other than the Catholic religion, has become a source of discomfort for many.

After the Taylor-Bouchard commission, things relatively quieted down for few years and then took another steep turn in 2013 when the “parti québecois” has built his entire political platform practically on banning certain religious symbols in public. But no one was fooled (except for few of course), the “charter of values” that was supposed to uphold “la laïcté” in Quebec became the perfect pretext to ban Muslim women wearing their headscarves or niqab in the workplace.

The rest of Canada didn’t not necessarily feel concerned by what was happening in Quebec, sometimes portraying themselves as above this “racist discourse” or evoking the two solitudes, but not for long. Indeed last summer, during the federal election campaign, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted to play dangerous xenophobia play. He introduced a law on zero tolerance to barbaric cultural practices. He wanted to change the procedures in place and thus prohibiting Muslim women who wear the niqab to attend the citizenship ceremony while wearing the niqab. He continued to appeal to successive judgments by various courts that ruled in favour of Omar Khadr. He announced the creation of a 1-800 line to report “barbaric cultural” practices. His government only accepted to take 1300 Syrian refugees over a period of 2 years. In short, one could say that he acted as a “mini” Donald Trump.

At the end, Stephen Harper has failed in his attempts to divide and conquer. But unfortunately Canada woke up slowly today from a long nightmare that has become a reality. For years Canada has surfed on the waves of its former reputation gained from the Lester B. Pearson legacy as a country that participates in missions to restore peace. To the opposite, Stephen Harper has done everything since coming to power until he left to show the world that Canada is a belligerent power. We went to war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq and Syria in combat missions to kill. We have even positioned ourselves strongly against Russia in the Ukrainian conflict to the contrary of the Americans.

For years we surfed on our reputation that we are a welcoming nation that embrace refugees with open arms and yet today we have a discourse that would discourage politicians to accept more refugees for fear of terrorism. Certainly we are not Europe with its heavy colonial past and its strained relations with its Muslim and North African communities for instance. However, it’s so easy to become like them if we do nothing. If we do not invest in education, in public transit and in job opportunities for all.

Recently, Canada accepted 25,000 new people coming from Syria. This should be seen as an asset, a wealth to the nation and not a burden. However, this could quickly become a burden if these people and their children are left to themselves, if schools are not provided with appropriate educational resources, if professional training programs are not adequate to prepare them for work and if urban planning of our cities is not creative by allowing previous residents and new residents to see each other and meet and if we don’t invest in small and medium enterprises to encourage the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship. All these programs need to be studied and seriously considered if we really want to prevent xenophobia, islamophobia and racism to become the rule rather than the exception.

Today xenophobia, racism and islamophobia are not just some isolated unfortunate incidents. It is not only a burned mosque in Peterborough or a veiled woman to whom we take away by force her headscarf in a street in Montreal or Vancouver. It’s more than that. Xenophobia and islamophobia and racism are ideologies. An industry that makes profits, political parties that win votes and consumers who consume it and ask for more. We cannot combat them by some simple pamphlets or some few nice words of welcome. We must fight them with educational and social programs well thought and designed, with new urban planning and above all with an open, intelligent and concerted vision aimed for the long term.

These are my notes for a panel at the Summit of the Broadbent Institute on April 1, 2016.

From Marois to Harper, niqab debate plays with xenophobic fire

The election is coming to an end. All the way, I resisted the urge to write about the niqab. Why? I didn’t want to create more controversy and stir the already ugly pot simmering in many people’s minds. But then, it became stronger than me. My brain isn’t as disciplined as my fingers so I found myself typing out thoughts about the niqab.
Who would have thought that “niqab” — a word not well known or used in the Muslim world — would find its way into political debates among party leaders and hundreds of articles in the North American context?! Even the U.S. and U.K. newspapers that covered the Canadian election did so from the perspective of the niqab.
For those who followed the Quebec election in 2013, Pauline Marois and her genius “strategists” (à la Lynton Crosby) introduced the Charter of Values disguised in noble arguments of secularism and gender equality, intended to ban wearing the hijab and the niqab in the public service. Now following the news during this federal election, I had the impression I was watching the same horror movie, this time in English.
The doors of bigotry and xenophobia seem to have been opened and very rare were those who stood up bravely and firmly trying to close them. It’s ironic that during Marois’ failed attempt at banning the niqab, English Canada looked at Quebec with superiority, insinuating that Quebecers were more uncomfortable with diversity and especially with the Muslim religion than the rest of Canadians.
Three years later, the rest of Canada found itself immersed in the same polarized debate à la George Bush: you’re either on the side of the niqabis (and thus you are oppressed, barbaric, misogynistic, archaic, anti-women, for Saudi-Arabia, for the Taliban, for the terrorists) or you side with us (and you are for security, for freedom, for women’s rights, for freedom, for gender equality, for universal human rights).
So Stephen Harper, following in the footsteps of Marois, started talking the niqab language. And all of a sudden, we discovered a “feminist” Stephen Harper who cared about women’s equality and who even set up a hotline for people to report barbaric practices, a.k.a., practices related to Islam.
When we were children, we were told that if we played with matches, we risked being burned. Has Stephen Harper heard this warning? Or maybe he is betting on being a superhero, a sort of inflammable one. He is playing with the fire of Islamophobia and simultaneously refuses to be blamed for it. Actually, he doesn’t even refuse: he ignores the consequences.
In this landscape filled with dangerous games, there is hope. Hope coming from women. These women don’t need men to talk on their behalf; for sure not the likes of Stephen Harper. A group of 538 women from various fields — political, academic, legal, religious, business — issued the statement “Respect Women” to denounce how the niqab issue was used in the election campaign. They stated:
“It troubles us that the current focus on the few instances of women wanting to wear a niqab during their citizenship ceremony has divided Canadians and stigmatized Muslim women. We are alarmed that this appears to have incited discrimination, and even violence, which undermines equality and respect for human rights and ignores the greater issues facing women in Canada.”
The group included prominent names like: the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Alexa McDonough, Sheila Copps, Maureen McTeer, the Right Reverend Jordan Cantwell, Marlys Edwardh, Dawn Memee Harvard, and hundreds of other women who joined their voices together. Their purpose wasn’t to defend the niqab. Their message was to refocus the debate:
“We are worried about the economic insecurity facing many women as we age in Canada. We are disturbed that women, on average, are not earning at the same level as their male colleagues. And we are troubled at the lack of investment in women’s empowerment and leadership across this great country. It is time to set aside the issue of the niqab and move to the issues that impact the daily lives of most women and girls in Canada.”
The journalists who were so eager to report on the niqab in the last few weeks were not as eager to report on the powerful voices of 538 women. Maybe this is not “hot” enough!

This column was previously published at rabble.ca

Petit lexique des symboles des femmes musulmanes

Ces derniers jours, j’ai l’impression que plus la Charte des valeurs fait les manchettes dans les nouvelles, plus les esprits des gens sont confus et plus leur vocabulaire devient imprécis et bourré d’erreurs. Un grand méli-mélo de termes, exactement comme dans un bazar perse ou un souk arabe. Ce charabia de termes et de mots à connotation barbare rajoute au climat de peur et d’ignorance.
Alors, par pure magnanimité et pour dissiper le brouillard qui s’est emparé des esprits et des dictionnaires, ainsi que pour sauver le Québec de la grande noirceur qui s’abat sur lui, j’ai décidé de faire un cadeau à Madame Marois et aux partisans de la Charte (allez dire que les musulmanes ne sont pas généreuses).

En fait, j’ai décidé d’écrire un guide lexicologique pour les novices qui se lancent dans ce débat pour la première fois. Ce guide peut aussi être consulté sporadiquement par les intermédiaires à chaque fois que les choses se brouillent. Je ne pense pas que les «pro» comme Bernard Drainville et compagnie en ont besoin! Mais à eux de décider…

Le hidjab ou hijab: mot toujours féminin, jamais masculin à cause de l’oppression des femmes musulmanes. Aussi écrit dans les commentaires des partisans de la Charte comme ijab ou idjab ou parfois même la «chose» ou le «torchon sur la tête». Ce mot est d’origine arabe et veut dire dérober au regard ou cacher.

Il peut être attaché de différentes façons. De gauche (pour les plus modernistes) de droite (pour les conservatrices) ou au milieu pour les vieilles mémères comme moi. Mais parait-il, selon les sondages, quelle que soit sa forme, sa couleur, sa marque, il reste très dangereux, d’où sa prochaine interdiction par Pauline Marois.

Le foulard: anciennement utilisée par les grand-mamans et les arrières grand-mamans québécoises pures laines pour aller à l’église le dimanche. Encore utilisé par des grands-mamans d’aujourd’hui qui sortent de chez le coiffeur de peur que leur mise en plis ne se défasse. La Charte des valeurs québécoises est restée muette là-dessus. Toutefois, quand on lui rajoute l’adjectif «islamique», il rejoint le mot hidjab et peut montrer des signes d’agressivité.

Le tchador: prononcé «chat-dort», mais rassurez-vous les souris, les politiciens, sont là pour le surveiller! Mot originaire d’Iran et qui veut dire littéralement «tente». Oui, oui, vous avez bien lu. Tente, comme la tente de camping qu’on prend avec nous l’été, avec la seule différence qu’elle est toujours de couleur noire. Ce symbole fait beaucoup peur, car il rappelle de mauvais souvenirs comme le film américain des années 90 Jamais sans ma filleou Khomeiny avec son regard perçant et ses sourcils froncés. Étrangement, le tchador ne fait pas l’unanimité entre les politiciens. Fatma Houda Pépin en a fait son cheval de bataille, suivi là dedans par Philippe Couillard, en prenant bien soin de la mettre à la porte et de s’approprier l’idée. Mais Bernard Drainville, lui, hésite encore. Car même s’il a pensé que le «chat-dort» sera interdit dans la fonction publique, il sera quand même permis dans les universités. Cherchez la logique!

Le voile: quand il est sage et innocent, c’est un voile qui recouvre la tête sans faire de dommages au cerveau, comme par exemple le voile de la mariée. Toutefois, quand il se marie à l’islam, deux mutations génétiques peuvent se produire. La première: le voile islamique. La femme devient opprimée, contrôlée, sans opinion. Elle montre des signes de détresse qui n’échappe pas aux yeux de Bernard Drainville. Mais heureusement, son visage reste intact. Cependant, avec le voile intégral, c’est la catastrophe. Tout le visage est couvert et on ne laisse qu’une seule petite fente au niveau des yeux et des petits trous au niveau du nez pour respirer. Au cas où le fabricant du niqab (toujours un homme) omet ces trous, c’est la suffocation totale.

Le niqab: mot qui veut dire «masque», mais pas aussi inoffensif que les masques portés à l’Halloween. Apparemment, il peut être porté par les voleurs pour effectuer des hold-upd’où la raison de son interdiction. Selon les rumeurs qui circulent, les femmes qui le portent sont toujours fâchées qu’elles n’osent pas afficher leur visage. Certaines préfèrent se tourner vers le mur pour parler à la classe au lieu de vous regarder en face.

La burqa: selon Nicolas Sarkozy, ex-président français, la burqa est un «signe d’asservissement» de la femme. Malgré tous ses efforts pour obtenir la nationalité française, la «burqa n’est pas la bienvenue sur le territoire de la République française», encore selon les dires de Sarkozy. Pauline Marois a tellement adoré les mots de Sarkozy qu’elle a décidé de lui emboîter le pas. Laura Bush, la femme de Georges W. Bush, ex-président américain, a imploré les Américains d’aller en guerre en Afghanistan pour sauver les Afghanes de la burqa. Michelle Obama n’a encore rien dit surement préoccupée par les frasques supposées de Beyoncé et de Barack.

Voilà, c’est fait! Si vous avez d’autres mots que vous ne comprenez pas, n’hésitez surtout pas à me contacter.

Ce texte a été publié sur le Huffington Post Québec