Transcription
Personally, I worked for several years with my veil. As I mentioned earlier, there are several companies that do not have a problem with that.
So indeed, we have the right to have disagreements. You underlined earlier that you don't understand and don't agree with this position. I don't see how the fact that a childcare assistant, or whatever function she occupies in this crib, wearing a veil disturbs or troubles the internal functioning of the establishment.
In fact, I would like to ask you a question: according to you, why does this bother some people? Or maybe you understand the position of this person who finds it disturbing.
I will answer you when I can. What interests me are your motivations. I wanted to start with that to tell you why I wear the veil. The veil that I wear is the fruit of a spiritual journey; it is a religious approach and a respect for God.
So I take this opportunity to say that it is not a sign of submission. I come from a family of four sisters, and I do not have a brother. I never had a discussion with my father about the veil; he did not intervene in this choice, which was mine.
We are still the main ones concerned by the debate, and we were absent for more than 80 debates. I think it is important that you have the decency to let me finish my speech.
So, I was saying that I am not married at the present time. When I hear speeches claiming that women are submissive, I wonder to whom I am submissive.
You consider that if you did not wear the veil, you would be in contradiction with God. That's not at all what I said, so don't distort it.
You think that it is for God that you wear the veil, so you would be a bad Muslim if you didn't. You are not laughing; this is my conception.
I will give you an example. We often hear questions in public debates about why we wear the veil. What I don't understand is the difference in media coverage. I rarely hear people ask why men wear turbans or why some Jewish women wear headscarves.
In the Muslim tradition, women wear the veil, married or not; there is no distinction between these two things. In the Jewish tradition, women cover themselves after marriage.
So why are your motivations in the minority? It is a religious choice, and it is a question of numbers. You say it is religious, but I will quote an Ambestanji that I often refer to in this program: the veil is not a Koranic prescription.
I often hear these questions in public debates about why we wear the veil, but what I don't understand is the difference in media coverage. I rarely hear people ask why men wear turbans or why some Jewish women wear headscarves.
In the Muslim tradition, women wear the veil, married or not; there is no distinction between these two things. In the Jewish tradition, women cover themselves after marriage.
So why are your motivations in the minority? It is a religious choice, and it is a question of numbers. You say it is religious, but I will quote an Ambestanji that I often refer to in this program: the veil is not a Koranic prescription; it is an Islamist innovation to appease the libido of sexist wolves.
The religious obligation of the veil was created by fundamentalists. It is a sexist imposition fought by rationalist Muslims. The Quran has never used the word "veil"; this term does not appear in any of the 3,234 verses it contains.
It is a later creation made by Sharia and supported by certain French translations. However, Islamists base their legitimacy on their so-called loyalty to the text that would allow us to be as close as possible to God's desire, or by using verses in Arabic that do not speak of it.
This first contradiction is not the last. I want to tell you that it doesn't exist.
Can I answer? It makes me smile gently because today we are lucky that 90% of knowledge is on the internet. You just need to get an example from the Quran or go on the internet to read the texts.
The word "veil" in the Quran, chapter 24... I don't understand.
So then, listen, Ambestanji must listen to us. I quote him; I thought he was an expert. He presents himself as an expert.
You say that the word "veil" exists in the Quran. Agreed. He chairs the Foundation for Islam in France and is a scholar of Islam. I think you agree.
He says two things: the law states that the veil is an attack on human dignity, and it also states that in the Quran, there are many more verses that prescribe knowledge than the wearing of the veil.
This is why the veil is in contradiction with knowledge.
Is that for you to see? When we made the law of 2004, I ask myself today: do we defend secularism, or are we falling into secularism?
Secularism is not a new religion that tends to erase or suppress all the others; it is the art of living together.
You say that you have just undergone no pressure. I believe you completely. But do you not feel that there is real pressure on girls, particularly in neighborhoods?
You can say that in the neighborhoods, there is none. No young girl is under pressure from her family, from her father, from her brothers in the neighborhood. It does not exist.
I think that there must be people who wear the veil under duress, but today, what I'm telling you is that it's not the majority.
Many of us feel that you want to generalize this isolated phenomenon and stick this label on us.
I feel like the second.
So I can finish; it would be nice.
I would like to add that when we associate wearing the headscarf with inequality, I feel oppressed by the vision of certain misogynistic people who want to define the notion of freedom for me.
That is a liberticidal vision. I defend a feminism close to choice, meaning that women must be free to dress as they wish, to wear a mini skirt, a head covering, a veiled hat, or whatever they like, without anyone being able to force them to do so.
The second question is: can I object something to that? Because indeed, you are right. I quite agree with the idea that we cannot say in place of someone that they are allied, quite simply in the public space.
It is perhaps truer in France, where, as you know, we have not adopted the multicultural model but a republican model, which is a little harder.
It is true that in France, if you want to see it hurt in some way or a culture, personally...
So let me finish.
Women must be free to dress as they wish, to wear a mini skirt, a head covering, a veiled hat, or whatever they like, without anyone being able to force them to do so.
The second question is: can I object something to that? Because indeed, you are right. I quite agree with the idea that we cannot say in place of someone that they are allied, quite simply in the public space.
It is perhaps truer in France, where, as you know, we have not adopted the multicultural model but a republican model, which is a little harder.
It is true that in France, if you want to see it hurt in some way or a culture, personally...
So let me finish.
It's difficult; it's a debate that we're trying to have in a calm way. I beg you, we want to hear you, but we have to be able to...
I beg you.
So the veil, in some way, clashes with our conception of the freedom of women and equality of diversity.
I wanted to tell you that secularism is not just a law; it is a way of living together in which, like me, I must accept being offended by many things.
I am shocked by the convictions of others; I am shocked by the behavior of others. You must also accept the criticism of this behavior.
You must understand when, in some way, it offends. If you want a certain way of living in France, it doesn't mean that we should ban it.
Okay, but maybe you can also understand...
After the break, it's true that Elisabeth's question about French customs can necessarily offend those who do not share Muslim culture or the Muslim religion.
They see the significant arrival on French soil of new rites, traditions, and ways of functioning that do not align with classical French tradition or the Muslim one.
My question is: can you understand that it shocks?
I understand that we have different positions, and the object of this debate is to discuss and have differing opinions.
Now, I think we must make a distinction between personal opinions and the law.
What the law says... You were talking earlier about the value of the Republic, republican values.
I was at the school of the Republic, so I learned liberty, equality, fraternity, and living together.
I was also lucky to have parents who taught me these values, but also the values of sharing.
So it is part of our values.
Your sisters are on time; you are four sisters. Your mother is veiled, and your grandmother was too.
The right to blasphemy is also part of our misfortune.
I finish answering because we have different positions.
The object of this debate is to discuss and have differing opinions.
Now, I think we must make a distinction between personal opinions and the law.
What the law says... You were talking earlier about the value of the Republic, republican values.
I was at the school of the Republic, so I learned liberty, equality, fraternity, and living together.
I was also lucky to have parents who taught me these values, but also the values of sharing.
So it is part of our values.
The time you said you were offended, then you said the veil can offend you personally.
From there to making a law to prevent women from wearing their veil, I almost have the impression that it is the opposite.
We occupy three... well, that means that 6.5 million Muslims today against 61 million non-Muslims.
I would just like to put back some figures in their place.
At a given moment, we will have to ask ourselves the question: who benefits from the crime?
Ah, but it's crazy!
No, I'm giving figures. Yes, magnificent, but the crime... what crime?
No, no, no, let me just finish.
I say that at a given moment, we went from immigration terrorism to veil terrorism.
I think that there are extremely dangerous amalgams there.
Because it is everywhere.
We... so that means that 6.5 million Muslims today against 61 million non-Muslims.
I would just like to put back some figures in their place.
At a given moment, we will have to ask ourselves the question: who benefits from the crime?
Ah, but it's crazy!
No, I'm giving figures. Yes, magnificent, but the crime... what crime?
No, no, no, let me just finish.
I say that at a given moment, we went from immigration terrorism to veil terrorism.
I think that there are extremely dangerous amalgams there.
Because it is everywhere.
We may be veiled elsewhere, at Peugeot, of course.
Of course, and I work with workers who are veiled.
But of course, if there is no security problem...
You said that 60% of French people, and those are the figures you put forward, were disturbed.
But in fact, it doesn't surprise me following the media relentlessness today.
You turn on the television channels.
Sir said it earlier: we represent less than a quarter of the French population.
I conclude we occupy more than three quarters of the public debate.
So the question I ask myself is: how do you explain this disproportion?
Which is clearly brilliant, very intelligent, very well-argued, and very solid in its convictions.
And I wear a scarf.