By our correspondent in Paris

Most people in the West are obsessed with three things: money, sex and alcohol, not necessarily in that order. Under the rubric of freedom, women are paraded, virtually naked, in what is referred to as beauty contests. Cattle market would be a more apt description. Women must be available to satisfy men’s sexual desires but if they become pregnant, they must get an abortion or bear responsibility for rearing the child. Single parenthood has become a fad but most often these are mothers left with babies while men move on to have affairs with other women. There is little or no responsibility on their shoulders. Not surprisingly, depression is highest among single mothers, according to psychiatrists. Some women have now realized that the entire women’s liberation movement was a fraud and another way to exploit them.

Of late, the West has added one more item to its list of obsessions: Muslim women covering themselves. This is viewed as an affront to Wes-tern values but in reality it is seen as an impediment to men’s desires. While framed as symbolizing women’s oppression, they — Western men and women — have never bothered to ask Muslim women about their choice. If Muslim women wear the hijab or niqab, it is automatically assumed that they must be oppressed and Western men and women are there to “liberate” them. This is cultural imperialism. The underlying assumption is that Muslim women are not capable of thinking for themselves. White men and women feel obliged to liberate brown women from the clutches of brown men. How touching!

Led by the French, governments both in Europe and North America have joined the crusade against niqab. The level of anti-niqab, indeed anti-hijab propaganda is so intense that these societies are prepared to abandon their own much-touted values in order to strip Muslim women of the choice to choose a clothing of their choice. In Canada, for instance, the Quebec government introduced a bill in the National Assembly at the end of March that would deny government services to any woman wearing the niqab. There is a grand total of 25 women wearing the niqab. So why is the Quebec government so exercised to pass a law to ban it? If a niqabi woman were attacked in the streets of Montreal, presumably under this law, the police would not come to her rescue. Even federal politicians have applauded Quebec’s ludicrous move that has also received loud support from secular Muslims. It is interesting to note that these so-called Mus-lims are quick to point out that the niqab is not mandatory under Islamic law but when have these secular Muslims cared about Islamic law? In reality, there is a difference of opinion among scholars about the requirement for niqab but in the Western world, the issue is one of choice. If women in Canada can go topless (according to a 1996 court ruling) why can’t Muslim women cover their faces? 

In France, President Nico-las Sarkozy has found a gimmick that is sure to raise his sagging popularity among the Islamophobic and racist French: total ban on niqab in public. Sarkozy told his cabinet on April 21 that he would put forward a bill in May to ban the wearing of niqab in public places in France, des-pite a warning from senior legal authorities that the bill may be unconstitutional.

Sarkozy's bill would go further than initial proposals, including a ban on wearing the niqab and the burqa from streets, markets and shops, according to his spokesman, Luc Chatel. For the record, there are 367 women, most of them French coverts to Islam that use this kind of attire in France. Equally curious is the reaction of the right that is usually on the side of the Church, patriarchy and the moral order. It has suddenly become keen on secularism, feminism and freethinking.

In today's world, there are far too many experts, especially in the West, on Islam. They are also all obsessed with liberating Muslim women to the same level as Western women. In this quest, they insist Muslim women should not only abandon the niqab/burqa but also hijab and that they should walk around in bikinis if they want to be truly liberated. Seeing semi-naked women is considered freedom for women but their covering, by free choice, is branded as oppression.

The full veil “hurts the dignity of women and is unacceptable in French society,” Chatel quoted Sarkozy as tel-ling the cabinet. The idea of a ban is popular with the French where racism against immigrants is widespread, and within his own political party. An earlier proposal from a panel of the National Assembly suggested a bill banning the full veil in public places belonging to the state, like schools and public buildings, and in areas where facial recognition is vital for security reasons: airports, banks and even public transport.

Sarkozy’s push for broader restrictions was seen as a challenge to the Council of State, France’s top administrative authority, which warned in March that “a general and absolute ban on the full veil as such can have no incontestable judicial basis” and could be thrown out by the courts. The council said it would be clearer legally to simply issue an order that women would have to uncover their faces for identity checks as required. But Muslim women have never refused lifting the veil when required for security reasons or for passport photos. A law had to be based on the protection of public order, the council said, not on the grounds of personal dignity. Jean Leon-etti, a deputy of the ruling party, said, “The ban must be total, or it’s incomprehensible.” Western feminists call the veil repressive and a violation of women’s rights but many women that wear the veil insist they are doing it out of their own choice and see the ban as a restriction on their liberty.

In 2004, France banned the wearing of headscarves in public schools, but at the same time banned all signs of religious affiliation, so the law did not legally single out Muslims only, as ban on the full veil would seem to do. Belgium is also preparing to vote on legislation to ban the full veil, with a fine of up to $35 and possible 7-day jail term for offenders who do not have police permission to wear it.