A French parliamentary committee commissioned to review and report on the proposed niqab/hijab ban released its findings today, recommending a partial ban on the Islamic face veil. The report, nearly 200-pages in length, said that said any requirements for women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality, and recommended restrictions on wearing the veil in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of “radical religious practice” should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

The report has also called on the government to adopt a formal resolution to state unequivocally that the veil is “contrary to the values of the republic” and that the country of France says ‘no’ to the full face veil.

In his presentation of the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said of the veil:

“It is the symbol of the repression of women, and… of extremist fundamentalism. This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing.”

Fortunately, the commission was wise enough to exclude outlawing the veil in the streets, in shopping centres and other public venues, due to doubts about the constitutionality of such a move. The full ban was the major issue that divided the 32-member, multiparty panel which ultimately heeded warnings that a full ban risked being deemed unconstitutional and could even cause trouble in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.

A bill entrenching this partial ban is expected to be proposed later this year. Polls done earlier this year suggest that a majority of French citizens support a full ban of the veil.

President Sarkozy attempted to appease concerns that the government is attempting to limit freedom of religion, and stated on Tuesday:

“Our country, which has known not only wars of religion but also fratricidal battles due to state anti-clericalism, cannot let French Muslim citizens be stigmatised”

If you want my take on the issue, see my earlier post on the prospect of the ban. For an interesting take on the issues, compare the comments of Raphaël Liogier and Joan Smith.

The former argues:

Whatever form the committee’s recommendation takes in law or decree, it will probably not be enforced, but a symbolic gesture, and a symbol of capitulation. The French Republic has become so weak, so morally corrupted, that it is ready to kick over its most cherished principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, on the part of the political elite, out of cynicism and petty tactics; on the part of the general public, out of irrational panic, even hatred for Muslims. In any case, those women concerned, in the case of a ban, will either refuse to discard a garment that they feel does no harm to anybody, go underground at home, becoming still more economically dependent on their families, or obey – but with a desperate feeling of frustration making them vulnerable to recruitment by Islamist groups.

The worst about all this fuss is that we are completely off target. Women ­donning the full veil are not against modernity but represent rather its sophisticated product, just like ­westernised Buddhists. The veil, ­surprising as this may seem, is good news for modern values. Some smart young women keep a niqab in their bag but only wear it in Paris’s Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, in order to draw attention to the fact that they belong to the best Muslim set, that they really have got that Muslim chic, something like the equivalent ­behaviour in a gay district. This deep western social movement is no threat to modern values, but rather vindicates the ­latter under unexpected aesthetic guise: it is so ­individualistic and depoliticised that it is more of a real threat for Islamism and terrorist ­networks themselves.

Pretty standardly liberal argument. Here’s what Joan has to say:

The niqab and the burka are symbols of an ideology, not a fashion statement, and we shouldn’t be afraid of making a robust ideological response to them…
In effect, a woman in a niqab is wearing a mask, signalling her deliberate separation from people unlike herself. It’s hard to think of another form of dress which is so highly politicized — or so rejectionist of mainstream culture.

This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka. I’m aghast when they say it’s about personal choice, as though that removes the subject from the political arena; one of feminism’s most influential slogans – ‘the personal is political’ – exposed that as nonsense four decades ago.

No one is saying that women cover their faces for a single reason: a fairly small number believe their religion requires it, some come under family pressure, others adopt it for the political reasons I’ve outlined above. Whatever the motive, the symbolic meanings — separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame — remain the same. I don’t want to ban the burka but I do reserve the right to say, as politely as possible, that wearing it in the 21st century is preposterous.

I find the second far more convincing.