An article in the American magazine Newsweek dealt with changing conditions in France due to the outbreak of the Corona epidemic in the country, and its writer Fatima Khumailat commented that France in 2010 banned face coverage in public places and thereby deprived Muslim women of their right to wear the veil.
Khumailat, a researcher at the Aix-en-Provence Institute of Political Studies in France, added that after a decade with the largest pandemic the world has seen in centuries, the French government obligated its citizens to wear masks in some public places; And she added that at the time of writing this report, both laws were in effect.
"It is clear that there are many differences between the veil and the medical muzzles," she said, citing the absurdity and a setback by the French government on framing the "headscarf ban."
Thus, according to Khumailat, the anti-veil law is explicitly based on the idea that "the Republic lives with the face exposed", and many government posters and publications published at the time, which are still displayed in storefronts, can be read as a reminder of "the values of the Republic."
Today, with the adoption of laws and decrees that compel people to wear masks and thereby conceal their faces, “republican values” appear to be contradictory and ambiguous, and the comparison of the two laws may appear deceptive, but the different meanings that “basic values” may carry in different contexts actually expose citizens to great legal insecurity.
For example, the researcher cited that if a Muslim woman hides her face for religious reasons, she is subject to a fine and she may be forced to complete a citizenship education class, where she will know that being a "good citizen" means revealing her face; Meanwhile, the government itself is telling all citizens that to be a "good citizen" it must adopt what are called "barriers to signal" that include covering the face.
The researcher considered this unbalanced reading of the same behavior, depending on the context and the person doing the work, is at best arbitrary and most discriminatory. It allows the government to judge people's intentions (why do we do what we do) instead of judging the facts of their actions, which according to the researcher's opinion rehabilitate the "crime of opinions" when it comes to Islamic religious freedom.
Khumailat stated that after the recent attacks on the Paris police headquarters, French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner mentioned various references to "extremism" that must be reported: Refusal to kiss the cheek (which is a common French habit), non-shaking hands, not mixing with colleagues, etc.
She said that these same behaviors are encouraged today, along with other customs, such as social separation, as a health and national imperative to protect the country from the epidemic. She wondered, does the French government suggest that its citizens should “radicalize” to be part of the national community? She answered, "Of course not," but regarding committed Muslims, voluntary social divergence is still seen as anti-patriotism and a symptom of extremism.
Once again, she asked, why is it more legitimate to follow health rules rather than religious beliefs, if these do not harm anyone and can in fact protect others? Not only against diseases - as many of these social practices are more healthy than the usual handshake in the West - but also against sexual harassment.