Bernard-Henri Lévy, why I am in favour of a law on burqa-the rule of the game-literature, philosophy, politics, arts<

They say "La burqa is a garment"; at most, a disguise "; we are not going to legislate on clothes and disguises" …. It's a mistake. The burqa is not a garment, it's a message. And it is a message that says the subjugation, the enslavement, the crushing, the defeat, of women.

They say, "it may be subjugation, but consented to it; take the idea out of your head of a burqa imposed by bad husbands, abusive fathers, bosses, women who would not want it" …. All right, then. Except that voluntary servitude has never been an argument; the happy slave, or happy slave, has never justified the land, essential, ontological infamy of slavery; and, from stoics to Elisha Reclus, from Schelcher to Lamartine to Tocqueville, all the anti-slavers of the world give us every possible argument against the additional infamy which consists in making the victims their own perpetrators of their misfortune.

It is said: "Freedom of worship and conscience; freedom to exercise and manifest, for each and every one, the religion of his choice; in the name of what would one allow himself to forbid a faithful to honour God in the manner prescribed by the sacred texts?". ". Sophistry again. Because we can't repeat it enough. The wearing of the burqa is not a Koranic prescription. There is no verse or text of the Sunnah, forcing women to live in this prison of scrap and fabric that is an integral veil. There is not a "shiyukh", not a scholar in religion, who does not know that the face, nor the hands, is considered in the Qur'an to be "nudity". And I am not talking about those who, like Hassan Chalghumi, the brave Imam of Drancy, say loudly to their faithful today that wearing this integral veil is outright anti-Islamic.

Thinking about starting a cooking Livestream. First episode will be how to make a blueberry pancake. Http: / / t.co / Fav7cRpqys

— Daniel Kelley Sun Jul 25 12:29:57 +0000 2021

They say, "beware of confusion!" Be careful, by focusing attention on the burqa, not to fuel an Islamophobia which only wants to be unleashed and which itself would be a disguised form of racism-it has been prevented from infiltrating, this racism, through the main door of the debate on national identity; are we going to let it come back through the window of this discussion on the burqa? " Sophistry, again. Unstoppable but absurd sophistry. Because this has nothing to do with it. Islamophobia, one cannot repeat enough, is obviously not racism. But their free criticism, on the other hand, the right to mock their dogmas or beliefs, the right to disbelief, blasphemy, apostasy, are rights too dearly acquired for us to leave a sect, terrorists of thought, nullify or weaken them. It is Voltaire that we are talking about, not the burqa. It is the Enlightenment of yesterday and today that we are talking about, and their heritage is no less sacred than that of the three monotheisms.

And then, at last, they say, "but what is it about, after all? How many cases? How many burqas? Do we need, for a few thousand, perhaps hundreds, burqas -listed throughout France-to trigger this uproar, to bring out this arsenal of regulations, to make a law? " That's the most common argument. This is, for some, the most convincing. Except he's, in fact, as specious as the first. Because of two things. Or it is only a game, an attire, a disguise (see above) and then, in fact, it is the -tolerance that applies. Or it is an offence against women, an affront to their dignity, it is a frontal challenge to the fundamental and dearly paid republican rule of equality between the sexes-and it is a principle, then, that we are talking about; and number, when it comes to principles, never does anything about it. Can we imagine calling into question the laws of 1881 on the pretext that attacks on freedom of the press are rare? And what about someone who, observing that racist or anti-Semitic attacks against people would decrease in quantity, would consider abolishing, or even easing, the existing legislation on the subject "? If the burqa is what I am saying, if it is this insult to women and their age-old struggle for equality, if it is an insult, moreover, to women who, at the very moment I am writing, are marching in open face, in Iran, against a regime of assassins whose burqa is one of the symbols, in short, if it means, this symbol, that humanity is divided into those whose bodies are glorious and have no less glorious face, and those whose body and face are outrageous, that is to say, if it means, this symbol, that humanity is divided into those whose bodies are glorious and have no less glorious face, and those whose body and face are outrageous, that is to say, if it means, this symbol, that humanity is divided between those whose bodies are glorious and have no less glorious face and those whose body and face are Filth that we cannot see and that we must either hide or neutralize, then there would be only one, if only a woman in France presented herself to the hospital or to the town hall, that she would have to be released.

It is for all these reasons of principle that I am in favour of a clear and clear law declaring the wearing of the burqa in public space to be anti-republican.