Tweet
Hurriyet, Turkey
May 7 2010
Illiberal democracy in France (and beyond)
Friday, May 7, 2010
Mustafa AKYOL
I had coffee the other day with a colleague who told me why he had
recently declined a job offer from a French media company. In fact, he
was initially quite interested. The salary looked pretty decent, and
the city where he would have to live, Lyon, seemed appealing. He even
found a few nice possible schools there for his 10-year-old son.
But then came the bad news from Lyon. `We would love to welcome your
wife and child as well,' the employers said. `But, sorry, you can't
bring them for the initial 24 months.'
This, they explained, was the result of a new `immigration law' the
French Assembly had passed under the auspices of President Nicholas
Sarkozy. After two years, they added, the benevolent French Republic
would perhaps be kind enough allow the broken family to reunite. (Yes,
not certainly, just perhaps.)
`This is insane,' my friend wrote back to his would-be employers. And
then he, quite wisely, declined to move to a country that seems to
have little respect for the most quintessential human institution: the
nuclear family.
Burqa matters
Yet this was only the second news I heard last week about the growing
illiberalism in France. The other story even made the global
headlines: the ban on the burqa, the all-covering Islamic veil, which
the French Assembly will most probably pass next week.
Before that, though, let me note this: I am really not a fan of the
burqa, which covers everything but the eyes of a woman. I wish no
women ever wore that. As a Muslim, I also think it is not a
requirement of Islam, but a medieval tradition that is quite
burdensome on women. In fact, I am even willing to discuss whether the
headscarf ` which covers just the hair, not the face ` is a
requirement of Islam as well.
But all of these are my own opinions, and I don't think I have the
right to impose them on others. Most French politicians, however, and
the voters they represent, seem to believe they have that very right.
Nadine Morano, the `family minister' of France, makes this all obvious
by heralding that everyone who visits her country will soon `respect
the law and uncover their faces.'
What Ms. Morano probably doesn't realize is that her line sounds very
much like that of the Taliban, who ask all female visitors to respect
the law and cover their faces.
The `law,' in both cases, is an illiberal one that dictates to
individuals how they should walk around.
Another French politician who cheers for the burqa ban is
Jean-François Copé, the majority leader in the French Assembly. His
recent piece in the New York Times (`Tearing Away the Veil,' May 4) is
hilarious. He says the ban is necessary for `our republican
principles' and public safety, and supports the latter by referring to
`an armed robbery recently committed in the Paris suburbs by criminals
dressed in burqas.'
One really wonders if there was less crime in the Paris suburbs when
the burqa was not around, or whether criminals will really have a hard
time disguising themselves after the ban. Or will the all-encompassing
French Assembly pass other laws that ban large sunglasses, trimmed
hats and wigs?0
What is curiously lacking in Mr. Copé's piece is a consideration of
the effects of the ban on the women who wear the burqa. Will they
really take it off and join the open-faced majority? Or will they
instead avoid going out and stay in their homes? The latter was the
effect of the ban on the veil that another illiberal regime ` that of
Reza Shah of Iran ` implemented in the '20s. It was also the beginning
of a snowball-effect reaction that culminated in the Iranian
Revolution of 1979.
France, of course, is a much better place than the Shah's dictatorial
Iran, but it is still a persistent disappointment when compared to
truly free countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
Such a ban would be unthinkable in those Anglo-Saxon states, no matter
how hard their societies are pressed by the threat from militant
Islamists.
The two Wests
Similarly, French laws that dictate a certain interpretation of
history ` such as requiring that the Armenian ethnic cleansing of 1915
has to be called `genocide' ` would be unimaginable in Britain or
America. Even Holocaust denial, as delusional and disturbing as it
might be, is free in the English-speaking countries.
This difference, of course, is not just between the Anglo-Saxons and
the French, but between the former and much of continental Europe. And
the latter, I worry, is increasingly being dragged into what Newsweek
columnist Fareed Zakaria wisely calls `illiberal democracy.' The burqa
ban was first implemented in Belgium a few weeks ago, and another
unbelievable ban on minarets was legislated by democratic vote in
Switzerland last December.
In all these countries, it seems that liberty is seen as a value valid
only for the people who look, live and worship (or not worship at all)
as the majority does.
As a non-Westerner, let me assure you that this attitude is not going
to win hearts and minds in this part of the world. It will only deepen
rifts and consolidate prejudices.
May 7 2010
Illiberal democracy in France (and beyond)
Friday, May 7, 2010
Mustafa AKYOL
I had coffee the other day with a colleague who told me why he had
recently declined a job offer from a French media company. In fact, he
was initially quite interested. The salary looked pretty decent, and
the city where he would have to live, Lyon, seemed appealing. He even
found a few nice possible schools there for his 10-year-old son.
But then came the bad news from Lyon. `We would love to welcome your
wife and child as well,' the employers said. `But, sorry, you can't
bring them for the initial 24 months.'
This, they explained, was the result of a new `immigration law' the
French Assembly had passed under the auspices of President Nicholas
Sarkozy. After two years, they added, the benevolent French Republic
would perhaps be kind enough allow the broken family to reunite. (Yes,
not certainly, just perhaps.)
`This is insane,' my friend wrote back to his would-be employers. And
then he, quite wisely, declined to move to a country that seems to
have little respect for the most quintessential human institution: the
nuclear family.
Burqa matters
Yet this was only the second news I heard last week about the growing
illiberalism in France. The other story even made the global
headlines: the ban on the burqa, the all-covering Islamic veil, which
the French Assembly will most probably pass next week.
Before that, though, let me note this: I am really not a fan of the
burqa, which covers everything but the eyes of a woman. I wish no
women ever wore that. As a Muslim, I also think it is not a
requirement of Islam, but a medieval tradition that is quite
burdensome on women. In fact, I am even willing to discuss whether the
headscarf ` which covers just the hair, not the face ` is a
requirement of Islam as well.
But all of these are my own opinions, and I don't think I have the
right to impose them on others. Most French politicians, however, and
the voters they represent, seem to believe they have that very right.
Nadine Morano, the `family minister' of France, makes this all obvious
by heralding that everyone who visits her country will soon `respect
the law and uncover their faces.'
What Ms. Morano probably doesn't realize is that her line sounds very
much like that of the Taliban, who ask all female visitors to respect
the law and cover their faces.
The `law,' in both cases, is an illiberal one that dictates to
individuals how they should walk around.
Another French politician who cheers for the burqa ban is
Jean-François Copé, the majority leader in the French Assembly. His
recent piece in the New York Times (`Tearing Away the Veil,' May 4) is
hilarious. He says the ban is necessary for `our republican
principles' and public safety, and supports the latter by referring to
`an armed robbery recently committed in the Paris suburbs by criminals
dressed in burqas.'
One really wonders if there was less crime in the Paris suburbs when
the burqa was not around, or whether criminals will really have a hard
time disguising themselves after the ban. Or will the all-encompassing
French Assembly pass other laws that ban large sunglasses, trimmed
hats and wigs?0
What is curiously lacking in Mr. Copé's piece is a consideration of
the effects of the ban on the women who wear the burqa. Will they
really take it off and join the open-faced majority? Or will they
instead avoid going out and stay in their homes? The latter was the
effect of the ban on the veil that another illiberal regime ` that of
Reza Shah of Iran ` implemented in the '20s. It was also the beginning
of a snowball-effect reaction that culminated in the Iranian
Revolution of 1979.
France, of course, is a much better place than the Shah's dictatorial
Iran, but it is still a persistent disappointment when compared to
truly free countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
Such a ban would be unthinkable in those Anglo-Saxon states, no matter
how hard their societies are pressed by the threat from militant
Islamists.
The two Wests
Similarly, French laws that dictate a certain interpretation of
history ` such as requiring that the Armenian ethnic cleansing of 1915
has to be called `genocide' ` would be unimaginable in Britain or
America. Even Holocaust denial, as delusional and disturbing as it
might be, is free in the English-speaking countries.
This difference, of course, is not just between the Anglo-Saxons and
the French, but between the former and much of continental Europe. And
the latter, I worry, is increasingly being dragged into what Newsweek
columnist Fareed Zakaria wisely calls `illiberal democracy.' The burqa
ban was first implemented in Belgium a few weeks ago, and another
unbelievable ban on minarets was legislated by democratic vote in
Switzerland last December.
In all these countries, it seems that liberty is seen as a value valid
only for the people who look, live and worship (or not worship at all)
as the majority does.
As a non-Westerner, let me assure you that this attitude is not going
to win hearts and minds in this part of the world. It will only deepen
rifts and consolidate prejudices.