THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 255, November 22, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
BAN THE BURQA? FRANCE VOTES YES.
By Benjamin Ismail
FRENCH CULTURE VERSUS ISLAMIC CULTURE -- ONE OUTCOME OF THE CULTURE WAR BEING WAGED INSIDE FRANCE:
THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT INDICATES THAT MUSLIM FULL BODY & FACE-CONCEALING GARMENTS ARE NOT
WELCOME IN FRANCE. THE FRENCH PARLIAMENT LEGISLATES AGAINST THE NIQAB & THE BURQA. FRENCH LAW NOW
PROHIBITS IMPOSITION OF ISLAMIC SPECIAL DRESS CODES ON MUSLIM WOMEN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF FRENCH
NATIONAL TERRITORY.
FULL STORY:
On July 13, 2010, France's lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, approved a bill outlawing the wearing of
"clothing intended to hide the face" in public spaces and slapping a fine and possible jail time on offenders; [1] on
September 14, the bill was also approved by the French Senate. [2] While the bill refrained from mentioning specific
communities or religions, it was common knowledge that it was primarily aimed at the Muslim full body and
face-concealing garments, the niqab and the burqa. Justice Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie, who presented the bill to
parliament, had specifically argued that being forced to wear these Muslim garments "amounts to being cut off from
society and rejecting the very spirit of the French Republic that is founded on a desire to live together." President
Nicolas Sarkozy was even more forthright, stating that "the burqa is not welcome in France because it is contrary to
our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman's dignity." [3]
In the run up to the full-face ban, President Nicolas Sarkozy made his position crystal clear: "The burqa is not welcome
in France because it is contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman's dignity."
An increase in the number of immigrants and converts to Islam in France wearing the full-face cover had set off alarm
bells about indigenous culture and traditions, [4] and the prolonged parliamentary debates preceding the vote had
centered on fears for the future of French values and the Republic. How well founded were these fears? And why did
the government decide to predicate the ban on a religiously and ethnically-neutral rationale rather than on the actual
considerations underlying it?
RUN-UP TO THE VOTE
The 577-seat National Assembly approved the law with 335 votes to one out of a total of 339 votes. After having been
amended, the bill set a maximum of a €150 fine per breach and penalties of up to €30,000 and a year in jail (doubled if the
victim is a minor) for anyone forcing a person to cover his or her face in public. [5] "Democracy thrives when it is
open-faced," enthused Alliot-Marie. [6]
Opponents of the bill quickly pointed to the small number of women wearing the burqa and the niqab; and indeed, a
2009 Ministry of the Interior study estimated the number of women wearing the burqa and the niqab at 1,900, including
270 living in French territories overseas. [7] Yet, it was not the scope of the phenomenon that alarmed both
parliamentarians and the public at large — a Pew Research Center poll done in April and May, 2010, found that 82
percent of French voters favored the ban [8] — but rather its underlying trends, notably that two-thirds of niqab and
burqa wearing women were of French nationality, including many second and third generation immigrants.
THE SITUATION IN EUROPE
The bill put France at the forefront of proactive states within the European Union, alongside Belgium, which had passed
a similar law on April 29, 2010. [9] The Spanish government, after some local initiatives to ban full-face covers in public
buildings, intends to present a law on the freedom of religion that will restrict their use in public places. [10] In Germany,
there is no general prohibition on concealing the face, though the issue has been hotly debated for quite some time, and
a few local bans, especially in schools, have taken place. In Denmark, wearing the burqa and the niqab in public places
has been restricted since January, 2010, while, in the Netherlands, several bills prohibiting the burqa and the niqab,
notably in the education and public sectors, are under preparation. In Britain, by contrast, the newly-formed
Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition seems to have taken a rather contrarian approach; Immigration Minister Damian
Green precluded such a move as "rather un-British," while Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman suggested that
wearing the burqa could be seen as an "empowering" feminist statement. [11]
This diversity of official attitudes and legislative approaches underlines the relative absence of an official EU position, as
Brussels prefers to leave its member-states the wiggle room to legislate on the matter, so long as they respect the
European Convention on Human Rights. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights had its say in 2005, in
response to a writ by a Turkish student who objected to the burqa ban at the University of Istanbul. The Court stipulated
that freedom of conscience, protected by Article 9 of the Convention, "does not always guarantee the right to behave in a
manner governed by a religious belief and does not confer on people who do so the right to disregard rules that have
proved to be justified." [12] A later attempt by Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to pass a
regulation allowing the headscarf in universities was struck down by the Turkish Constitutional Court. [13]
In France, a similar "law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools" was passed on March 15, 2004,
banning the wearing of the hijab (traditional Muslim headscarf) in public primary and secondary schools, alongside other
symbols, including crosses and the Star of David, and other clothing denoting religious affiliation. But, since the wearing
of the full-face cover was almost nonexistent in the early 2000s, no additional law on the matter was passed until July,
2010.
To be sure, in June, 2009, following violent protests at NATO's sixtieth anniversary summit in Strasbourg, a decree
relating to illicit concealment of the face during public demonstrations was passed, but was, at the time, aimed primarily at
masked delinquents. [14] It was only after a string of recent incidents involving women with full-face coverings — refusal
of a wedding by a mayor, [15] denial of French citizenship for wearing the burqa, [16] the booking of the first woman
driver for wearing the niqab — that the wearing of these attires became a hot public issue.
Appearances, however, are often deceiving. Rather than the hasty outcome of vigorous public debate, the government's
bill was the result of much longer and more deliberative discussions on the legal, cultural, religious, political, and social
aspects of legislating a ban, discussions which had begun in the French National Assembly two years earlier. These
deliberations convinced the government to change the legal basis used to ban the niqab and burqa from the principles of
secularism, gender equality, and other principles of a liberal democracy [constitutional democracy] to the more politically
correct and less contentious justification of maintaining public order.
FIRST ATTEMPTS
The first bill dealing with niqab banning was the socalled proposal No. 1121 "to fight against attacks on women's dignity
from certain religious practices," presented by Member of Parliament (MP) Jacques Myard on September 23, 2008. [17] In
the explanatory memorandum introducing the bill, Myard pointed to the March, 2004, school ban, noting that its
application had not created any "major incident." If the hijab was considered "a distinctive and proselytizing" sign, he
reasoned, surely the niqab could not but be viewed in the same vein. While carefully refraining from targeting the
full-body cover directly, he recalled the June 27, 2008, decision of the State Council validating a decree that had refused
French citizenship to a Moroccan Muslim on the grounds that she was wearing the burqa. The decree had defined such
dress as incompatible with the basic values of the French community, notably the principle of gender equality.
The proposed bill suggested a €15,000 fine and two months' imprisonment for anyone on French territory concealing his
or her face or encouraging others to do so, thus legislating two offenses punishable by the law. The bill stipulated the
doubling of sentences for repeat offenders and allowed authorities to deport foreign offenders. It also noted that the
prohibition referred to the "concealment of the face" and not to the wearing of any special garment. Though specifically
referenced in the explanatory memorandum introducing the bill, neither the burqa nor the niqab, nor for that matter Islam,
were mentioned in the bill itself.
Myard's bill raised the question of restricting certain religious practices protected by French laws and the French
Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it
provoked little public reaction, [18] probably because of the global financial crisis, which consumed the public's attention
at the time. Not having been vetted previously by the Commission of Constitutional Laws, Legislation, Universal
Suffrage, the Rules and General Administration (commonly called the Law Commission), the proposal was not reviewed
by the National Assembly, which would eventually discuss only the government bill. [19] Yet, it outlined the general gist
of the debate in clear and unequivocal terms: The burqa and the niqab were clothes flaunting religious extremism that
threatened the principle of laicism [i.e., the non-clerical, or secular, control of the political and social instutions within a
society; exclusion of ecclesiastical control and influence over government and politics].
Almost a year later, on June 9, 2009, MP André Gerin and eighty members of all political persuasions (including Myard)
proposed a resolution to the National Assembly "for the establishment of a commission of inquiry on the practice of
wearing the burqa or the niqab on the national territory." [20] The memorandum included the content of the September,
2008, proposal, but went a step further by explaining the present state of laicism in France and by commenting on
current Islamic dress habits. The text spoke of "threatened … laicism" and evidenced the statements of a French imam in
2004 "in favor of corporal punishment for adulterous wives" as an example of where French Muslims could be heading.
Regarding the niqab and the burqa, it said that they were "virtual, itinerant prisons" putting women who wore them "in a
situation of imprisonment, and unbearable exclusion and humiliation." The MPs further stressed: "We also know that to
this dress is added a degrading submission to their husbands, the men of their family, and a denial of their own
citizenship." Finally, the proposed resolution recalled the September 15, 2008, decision of the High Authority against
Discrimination and for Equality. This decision confirmed the requirement to remove the burqa during a language course
given by the National Agency for Welcoming Foreigners and Migrations as part of a welcome and integration contract
— an optional contract mainly consisting of a day's civic training presentation and an individual meeting with a social
assessor, which foreigners admitted to reside on French territory and wishing to settle permanently can sign to show
their willingness to integrate.
On June 23, 2009, the requested Commission of Inquiry comprising thirty members was created to study the practice of
wearing the "full veil." Neither the burqa nor the niqab were mentioned in its mandate, as the expression "full veil" was
considered more neutral and general.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
On January 26, 2010, after six months of investigation, including the testimony of more than two hundred people in
France's major cities — of which about 10 percent were key figures of the Muslim community such as Dalil Boubakeur,
Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, or international public figures such as Tariq Ramadan — the Commission published
its conclusions in the form of a 650-page report. [21] After a lengthy exposition on the historical and cultural aspects of
the dress code in Middle Eastern societies, as well as a psycho-sociological examination of these practices, and a
comparative legal study of twelve countries — ten European countries plus the United States and Canada — the report
concluded that wearing the full-face cover affected "basic [French] values as expressed in the motto — freedom, equality,
fraternity — and poses a challenge to [the] Republic." Although the Commission admitted internal divergences over
details, the final conclusion underscored multiparty consensus among its members regarding the need for legislation. [22]
Meanwhile, on July 27, 2009, fifty-four Senators presented a proposal "to allow [for] the recognition and identification of
persons." [23] The proposed law prohibited an "item of clothing of someone in the public space that prevents their
recognition and identification" and punished violations by one month's imprisonment. Terms like the niqab or the burqa,
and even "full veil," were visibly absent from the explanatory memorandum, yet, upon closer examination, it was evident
that these clothes had been taken into account in drafting the bill. Indeed, the preamble invoked article 9 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, which allows the restriction of religious freedoms to ensure public safety, indicating that
the Senators braced themselves for any religious opposition that could arise from this legislation. Basing itself on the
legal concept of respect for public order, this bill clearly stood out from Myard's September, 2008, proposal, which had
referenced religious and ethical rationales.
On February 5, 2010, MPs of the Center-Right party, Union for a Popular Movement, proposed a bill "to prohibit the
wearing of uniforms or accessories that have the effect of concealing the face in public places and on public roads." [24]
In its preamble, the bill referred to acts of masked delinquency and to the practice of wearing the niqab. The proposal's
main significance lay in its second article, which specified penalties on law violations. Unlike the two previously
suggested bills, the latest proposal treated violations as misdemeanors, whose specific details were to be decided later
by decree. This created a glaring contradiction between, on the one hand, the explanatory memorandum emphasizing the
dangers posed by fully-covered persons, such as the growing threat of terrorism, threats to public order, and sexual
discrimination, and, on the other, the lightness of the proposed sentence, making wearing the full-face veil the least
serious possible type of infraction in France.
Four days later, Senator Jean-Louis Masson underscored the evolution of the "law and order" basis for proposed
legislation on the full-face cover by presenting his bill "to prohibit the wearing of uniforms hiding the face of persons in
public places." [25] In Masson's opinion, it was impossible to legislate a ban on religious dress because of the principle
of laicism, which prohibited state interference in individual religious choices. However, public order could be invoked
without "specifically targeting the full veil worn by Muslim women." While using the justification of public order as its
underlying rationale, this proposal differed from the February 5 version by imposing one fine on women wearing the
full-face cover for religious reasons and another for lawbreakers hiding their faces while perpetrating a crime. This
differentiated penalty system stipulated a single €5,000 fine for the simple concealment of the face (an offence that
clearly applied to those wearing the niqab or the burqa), as opposed to a three-month imprisonment for masked
criminals.
On April 27, 2010, the Union for a Popular Movement came up with a new proposal, this time for a resolution on "the
commitment to respect republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine them." By way of
strengthening its case, the proposal relied on six pieces of landmark legislation: the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen, the Preamble to the French 1946 Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of
December, 1948, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November, 1950, the
1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union of December, 2000, as entered into force on December 1, 2009, and, in
particular, Article 20. Having concluded that the full-face cover was a radical and discriminatory practice against women
and that the principle of freedom of religion did not justify it, the French National Assembly reaffirmed its intention to
implement all appropriate means "to ensure the effective protection of women who suffer violence or pressure, in
particular women being forced to wear a full veil." [26]
THE ROAD TO THE BILL
Although the resolution's single article was not legally binding, it underscored the clear discrepancy between the
principles it reasserted and the rationale used in the previous bills. Indeed, in a report that had been ordered by the
Prime Minister and handed to him on March 30, 2010, the Council of State, advising the government on legal affairs,
including the preparation of bills, ordinances and certain decrees, argued that a total ban of the full-face cover on
French territory "could find no unassailable legal basis." [27]
This was not what most MPs thought. A study published in May by the National Assembly described the wearing of
the full-face veil as "self-denial and a denial of others [that] forbids the establishment of a relationship between people.
This practice carries in itself a symbolic violence which destabilizes the social pact." Concealment of the face was not
only an attack on the dignity of the human person that "attests to a fundamentally inequitable vision of relations
between men and women," the study added, but was also "a source of threats to public order." [28]
This parliamentary discussion was eventually followed by the submission of the government's bill on May 19, 2010, for
a total ban on the niqab in all public spaces and not just in places where public services were offered. The bill described
the wearing of the niqab as "symbolic violence" that ran counter to the "republican social contract," thus causing a
disturbance to "the public order." [29] Based on the jurisprudence of the Council of State, the bill stressed that "certain
practices, even [if] lawful," might be "contrary to human dignity" and could therefore be prohibited. [30] As such, it
provided for a total ban on wearing any clothing hiding the face.
The bill added the possibility of requiring offenders to serve a probationary period of citizenship. However, its
uniqueness lay in its far stricter penalization of persons forcing women to cover their face than the female violators
themselves, imposing a €15,000 fine and one year imprisonment on perpetrators. Previously, only the 2008 Myard
proposal had targeted people other than those actually hiding their faces.
Socialist opposition parties responded by submitting their own bill [31] the next day — the last proposed bill in the
run-up to the July, 2010, resolution. The opposition MPs argued against a "burqa ban" in all public spaces, citing the
March 30, 2010, opinion of the Council of State which expressed doubts about the "possibilities of [a] legal ban on
wearing the full veil." They also referred to a February, 2010, assertion by the European Court of Human Rights whereby
"to condemn [people] for wearing these clothes falls under the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention, which protects,
inter alia, freedom to manifest religious beliefs." [32] In the opposition's proposal, only places of public service would be
affected by the ban and only if the identification of the person in those places was deemed necessary. The difference
was significant because public places (parks, shops, streets) were to be excluded except in cases where chiefs of police
invoked public safety concerns as a justification for prohibiting face concealment.
THE PUBLIC DEBATE
Despite the sweeping support for the ban in parliament where the burqa and the niqab were seen as contravening the
principle of "vivre ensemble" (living together), some segments of the media, together with politicians from the
opposition, sought to promote their own beliefs by deriding the ban as a political ploy aimed at creating a diversion. [33]
After accusations by Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux that the husband of a woman driver booked for wearing the
niqab was also guilty of polygamy and cheating on welfare, the case turned into a political squabble that exacerbated
the already polemical "grand debate on national identity" [34] launched by the government in November, 2009.
Conducted on a national scale until January, 2010, the debate generated considerable controversy and drifted into
other spheres not directly relevant to the issue, such as "national identity" and "immigration." [35]
Indeed, the debate initially meant "to address the concerns raised by the resurgence of certain communitarianisms,"
of which the case of the burqa was one example, and aimed at making all French citizens think carefully about what it
means in the early Twenty-first Century to be French. [36]
An Internet website allowed anyone to contribute to the debate by consulting a textual database and glancing at the
positions taken by leading figures, as well as to respond to a questionnaire or to provide reflections. The debate was
also conducted locally through meetings in each of the 96 departments and 342 districts in mainland France and in the
departments and territories overseas. These meetings were chaired by local civil servants or by one or more national
parliamentarians, MPs, or Senators. [37]
However, the debate on national identity was strongly denounced by various parties from the opposition. Even though
"the government said that more than 58,000 people [had] participated in the debate on an Internet site," [38] a poll
conducted in January, 2010, showed that only 22.2 percent of the French found the debate "constructive," while 53.4
percent thought it was an "electioneering move." [39]
CONCLUSION
Does the vehemence of some media criticism imply that the banning of the niqab and the burqa is too sensitive and too
complex an issue to be determined by law? Quite the reverse in fact. The question of whether France should legally ban
the wearing of the full-face cover on its territory was answered in the affirmative, resoundingly and unequivocally,
during parliamentary debates held over the past two years. The only remaining problems for its enactment are more a
matter of form over substance, namely, what will be the best rationale for this legislation?
Nor should lingering doubts about the bill's constitutionality be overstated. While the media rarely tires of reiterating the
possibility of the French Constitutional Council or the European Court of Human Rights ruling against a ban — a ruling
presented by opponents as a possible propaganda coup for religious extremists [40] — this eventuality is highly unlikely.
An EU decision to invalidate the French ban would have to be based on the unlawfulness of the government's bill or
some of its provisions. Yet, this possibility has been fully anticipated by the government which, by changing the bill's
rationale from the principles of secularism or the dignity of women to public order, has greatly reduced the likelihood of
invalidation. Moreover, and contrary to the received wisdom in the media and press, [41] the extent of the prohibition
specified in Article 2 of the government's bill is not fully challenged by the Council of State's ruling. Although the
Council found no "unassailable legal basis" for a total ban, it does not automatically follow that such a ban would be
unconstitutional. Furthermore, Belgium's April, 2010, ban on face-concealing attire in public spaces created a powerful
precedent and made it easier for other EU states to follow suit. [42]
Thus far, the French bill has triggered no reaction from the European Court of Human Rights or the European Commission,
which is loathe to legislate on the subject. [43] Years of parliamentary debates preceding the ban may not have provided a
definitive answer regarding the validity of a total ban. Nonetheless, they helped delineate the substantial contradictions
between the republican principles of secularism, human, and female dignity and those of Islam and its radical drifts.
Additionally, the discussions have helped sharpen the legal options available to implement the values that various
parliamentarians have sought to affirm so forcefully.
It is precisely these tensions between long-held French notions of religious freedom and governmental disinclination to
interfere in the religious sphere that explain why one of the most avowedly secular Western societies has found it so
problematic to legislate against dress codes that contradict its ideological ethos, despite overwhelming public support for
such measures. Meanwhile, countries where Islam is the state religion, such as Tunisia or Syria, have had few qualms
about banning the public donning of the niqab, basing their decisions on a desire to combat what Damascus termed an
"ideological invasion" [44] and what Tunis called a "sectarian form of dress which had come into Tunisia uninvited." [45]
NOTES:
[1] No. 675, Sénat, July 13, 2010.
[2] Associated Press, Sept. 14, 2010.
[3] The New York Times, July 14, 2010.
[4] "Étude d'impact: interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public," Assemblée Nationale, Paris, May 2010.
[5] No. 675, Sénat, July 13, 2010.
[6] BBC News, July 13, 2010.
[7] "Étude d'impact," May 2010.
[8] "Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe," Pew Global Attitudes Projects, Washington, D.C., July 8, 2010.
[9] Fox News, Apr. 29, 2010.
[10] La Croix (Paris), July 4, 2010.
[11] The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 19, 2010.
[12] Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, Nov. 10, 2005.
[13] The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2008; Pierre Tristam, "Turkey at Loggerheads with Itself over Veil Ban," About.com, June 9, 2008.
[14] Le Monde (Paris), June 20, 2009.
[15] Le Figaro (Paris), Oct. 15, 2007.
[16] L'Express (Paris), July 11, 2008.
[17] No. 1121, Assemblée Nationale, Sept. 23, 2008.
[18] Centpapiers.com, Oct. 9, 2008.
[19] This, however, is not an uncommon practice as a mere 10 percent of proposed bills become laws. They are important, however, in that they alert the government to the desires and concerns of the MPs, and in this respect Myard's bill achieved its main objective.
[20] No. 1725, Assemblée Nationale, June 9, 2009.
[21] No. 2262, Assemblée Nationale, Jan. 26, 2010.
[22] "Mission d'information sur la pratique du port du voile intégral sur le territoire national," Assemblée Nationale, Jan. 26, 2010.
[23] No. 593, Sénat, July 27, 2009.
[24] No. 2283, Assemblée Nationale, Feb. 5, 2010.
[25] No. 275, Sénat, Feb. 9, 2010.
[26] No. 2455, proposition, Assemblée Nationale, Apr. 27, 2010; No. 459, resolution adopted, Assemblée Nationale, May 11, 2010.
[27] "Étude relative aux possibilités juridiques d'interdiction du port du voile intégral," Conseil d'État, Mar. 30, 2010.
[28] "Étude d'impact," May 2010.
[29] No. 2520, Assemblée Nationale, May 19, 2010.
[30] No. 136727, Conseil d'État, Oct. 27, 1995.
[31] No. 2544, Assemblée Nationale, May, 20, 2010.
[32] Affaire Ahmet Arslan et autres c., Turquie, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, Feb. 23, 2010, sect. 2.
[33] Libération (Paris), Jan. 21, 2010.
[34] "Grand débat sur l'identité nationale," French Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity, and United Development, Paris, accessed Aug. 26, 2010.
[35] L'Union (Reims), Feb. 4, 2010.
[36] "Organisation du débat," French Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity, and United Development, Paris, accessed Aug. 26, 2010.
[37] Ibid.
[38] The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2010.
[39] Le Point (Paris), Feb. 1, 2010.
[40] No. 2544, Assemblée Nationale, May 20, 2010; Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), Mar. 30, 2010; Reuters, Jan. 15, 2010.
[41] L'Télégramme (Paris), May 21, 2010.
[42] Le Monde, Apr. 29, 2010.
[43] Le Figaro, June 28, 2010.
[44] ABC News, July 20, 2010.
[45] Noha Mohammed, "A Triple Whammy," Egypt Today, Jan. 2007.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
France -- People, Politics, Government, & Public Policy:
French Internal Security Policy & Suppression of the Islamist Fifth Column;
French Foreign Policy -- France, Europe, the Middle East, & the U.S.A.;
United States Foreign Policy Toward France
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Benjamin Ismail holds a degree in Chinese Language and Civilization and a Master of Arts in Advanced International
Studies from Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris. He specializes in Sino-Central Asian
relations, studying the role that Islam plays.
The foregoing article by Benjamin Ismail was originally published in the Middle East Quarterly, Fall, 2010, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(URL: http://www.meforum.org/2787/france-ban-the- burqa)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
November 22, 2010
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity