Ever since its revolution 220 years ago, France’s motto has been “liberté, egalité, fraternité” which more or less translates into English as “liberty, equality, brotherhood.” It is a motto the French take seriously. So it may come as a bit of a shock to some that French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants the burqa banned. It seems like an attack on individual liberty — in this case the freedom of Muslim women in France to choose to cover their faces and not be seen.

This is not the first time that politicians in Europe have seized on the burqa. Four years ago, there was a move in the Netherlands to ban women wearing it in public but a change in the government coalition in 2007 saw the plans being dropped although there is still talk of a ban in schools and by public officials.

In Denmark, judges are not allowed to wear it when in court, nor indeed any religious or political symbols including crosses and skullcaps — although the decision, made last year, has to be seen as specifically anti-Muslim one, coming as a result of pressure from the openly anti-Muslim Danish People’s Party. And, of course, in France, the wearing of any overtly religious clothing or religious symbols is banned in schools and public buildings.

In both the Dutch and Danish cases, the issue is a racist one. Right-wing politicians have used the burqa to whip up anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment. This is not the case in France, where secularism is a pillar of political culture. President Sarkozy, who has called the burqa an offense to French ideas of women’s dignity and a sign of subservience not of religion, may not be trying to outflank the far-right National Front as there is across-the-board opposition to the burqa. A parliamentary commission, instigated by a communist, has been set up to investigate the use of the burqa in France, home to the largest Muslim community in west Europe — five million and growing — and it has the backing of the Rector of the Paris Mosque, the most authoritative and respected Muslim in the country.

The French government will nonetheless have to tread carefully. Despite its much publicized plans to reach out to French Muslims following the suburban riots two years ago triggered by the death of two teenage sons of African immigrants, many still feel as marginalized as they did before the disturbances. There will be those — beyond France as well — who will rail against any burqa ban as a racist and anti-Muslim move by a right-wing government in a country riddled with Islamophobia and with a history of colonial oppression of Arabs. There will certainly be those who will see a ban as a political opportunity for themselves.

But if France must tread carefully, so must those who would criticize. There has to be respect for cultural traditions. It is right and proper, too, that Muslims, when in France or any other non-Muslim country, accept the laws there — providing that those laws do not impinge on their faith, nor do they stop them from exercising their beliefs. Banning the burqa does just that.

Support Tsvangirai

The Independent in its editorial yesterday commented on Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s call for global support to his government. Excerpts:

What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change, was denouncing his country’s presidential elections, which had delivered victory to Robert Mugabe, as a “violent sham” and his supporters were being attacked by Mugabe’s thugs.

But this weekend Tsvangirai, having been sworn in as the prime minister of a coalition government with Mugabe’s Zanu-PF in February, was in London calling for Zimbabwean exiles to return home. And on Sunday he requested an increase in aid for Zimbabwe from Britain. Given that reversal, we should not be surprised that Zimbabwean refugees gave Tsvangirai such a hostile reception when he addressed them at Southwark Cathedral on Saturday. In African politics, such abrupt switches can be an indication of financial corruption.

Tsvangirai denies being “co-opted” by Mugabe and tells an encouraging story of free elections in Zimbabwe within two years. What the Zimbabwean government needs from the outside world now, he argues, is no longer isolation, but support.

It is true there has been an improvement in the condition of Zimbabwe in recent months. Inflation has come down from the astronomical levels of last year and many schools have reopened. Yet there is also plenty of evidence that Mugabe’s grip on the country has not substantially loosened. Amnesty International says the human rights situation remains “precarious”. The security forces are still largely controlled by Zanu-PF.

It would be naïve to imagine that Mugabe will meekly accept Tsvangirai’s plans for his incremental marginalization. And the reluctance of our own government — and others — to channel any aid directly through Harare while Mugabe remains president is understandable.

But Tsvangirai, who needs no lessons in the brutality and tenacity of his coalition partner, has come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the Zimbabwean people for him to work for change within the confines of the unity government. His judgment merits respect. And, risky as it might seem, his strategy deserves our support.