What those such as Sarkozy argue is that the burqa, which is a loosely-fitted garment that covers the face, hair and the body is an oppressive garment that is incompatible with the Republic’s ideals of liberal secularism. What that effectively does is to declare all the Muslim women who decide to wear the burqa as either unthinking and subservient or oppressed by the stereotype of the overbearing Muslim husband or family patriarch. This paradigm is fundamentally inadequate as it refuses to include those who after careful thought and with ambivalent husbands (sometimes husbands who are even hostile towards the idea) decide to wear the burqa. Such women are not compelled by society or overbearing family to take on the veil- the opposite of current stereotypes floating around the Western construction of the Muslim Woman. We do a disservice to these women in particular by condemning the exercise of a choice that wavers from the norm in western society. Indeed, it is this the very fact that we in the West are allowed to choose what we wear or don’t wear that makes as different from the dictatorial regimes of certain Middle Eastern countries where social mores and dress codes are dictated upon the entire populace.

I do believe that the burqa can sometimes be a vehicle for oppression and subservience and I would be the first to protest in cases where women are forced to take up a particular type of dress. In this vain there must be a way to ensure women who decide to wear the burqa do it of their own volition, just as the need to ensure women who choose to expose more skin than others do it by choice.

The preservation of the principle of liberty and being able to dress how one likes even if it this is against the prevailing social norms may seem to some as the typical politically-correct claptrap that is used so often to appease the religious communities of Europe but in this instance it most certainly isn’t. What I am arguing for is the preservation of the values and traditions native to the post-Enlightenment West, not alien to it.

Critics argue that we have a responsibility to those who have the choice made for them by their husbands and families. I accept that there are situations (albeit a minority) where it happens but familial and societal pressure cannot be solved by legislation. There are instances where non-burqa wearing women are pressured into certain courses of actions but legislation won’t solve these either. It is akin to calling for marriage to be banned because there are a minority of instances where women (and men) are pressured into it.

I do think of the burqa as an excessive piece of clothing that has its origins in antiquated aspects of Arab culture. I also believe, however, that if a woman wants to take on the burqa, it is her right to do this. In a free and liberal society, as long as a woman chooses to wear a particular garment or not wear a particular garment then it is her choice to do so and should be respected. We should not try and force women to be free when they do not feel trapped.

With reference to the French case, I understand the need for a separation between public life and private life with religion being under the purview of the latter. France has tried to embody this from the inception of the First Republic. However, secularism, in its desire to be as far from religion as possible, itself becomes a pseudo-religion- often rigid and dogmatic. Furthermore, with Le Monde reporting that French police estimate that there are only 367 burqa wearers in France, it is difficult to see why Sarkozy would use such an historic speech to highlight a minor issue that affects very limited numbers of French men and women.

- Josh