(Beggar in chador- Tehran. Photo by: Damon Lynch/ Flickr www.damonlynch.net).

"And say to the believers to lower their eyes and (..) do not show too much of their beautiful pieces, except what is outside, and put a veil over their breasts". (Koran. verse XXIV: 31)

Over the past six months in France, a parliamentary committee was appointed to recommend (though not legally binding) a ban to put the burqa in government and in public places and transport: 18 measures to be taken against the full veil. Sarkozy aim at immigration and the security issue and draws burqa argument, emphasizing the ideas already proposed by Chirac in 2004: on behalf of an alleged role in the emancipation of women, supports the petition submitted by 60 ministers from different political camps: "We can not accept in our country to have women prisoners behind a grid, cut from social life, deprived of any identity. Is not the idea that the French republic has about the dignity of women". While increasing the number of women who decide spontaneously, at least in theory, to put it on, the secular politicians of France is overwhelmingly against any kind of fundamentalism. Sarkozy, initially favorable to the "Laicité positive" (greater respect to religion in public life, including the veil) seems to be retracing his steps. Alexandre Del Valle, geopolitical and French essayist, says: "to save Europe we must promote a "patriotism supplement": integrating immigrants certainly not by adapting to their customs and rules anti-secular (and sometimes barbaric!) but trasmitting our love for our culture, civilization, fatherland. We are not a no man's land to be conquered". WHAT BURQA IS? The Koran does not talk about the burqa, but simply impose the veil. The burqa was introduced in 1900 in the reign of Habibullah, who imposed it to the 200 women of his harem, for not tempt other men when they were exposed outside the royal residence: it became an article of clothing for women of the privileged wealthy classes, and then, after the 50s spread equally to all classes. During 1961 a law was introduced to prohibit its use on public employees, but during the Civil War, under the Islamic regime and above all with the Taliban, came the absolute prohibition for women to show their faces, and therefore was restored. Not all Muslim countries impose this requirement; there are also various types of clothing ranging from country to country (but which we commonly call by the same name): BURQA: veil that fully covers women, covering the eyes. NIQAB: veil that covers a woman completely, leaving a gap on the eyes. HIJAB: the holding long and broad, simple color, usually brought together with a veil covering her hair, neck, shoulders and chest. CHADDR (or Chad): is a traditional Iranian garment similar to a cape. Iranian women do not necessarily have to wear this garment: today is popular among the poorest women, who are the most devout, but also varies by geographic region. In the Arabian Peninsula is very common the ABAY, the traditional hijab, a long black gown that covers the entire body except head, hands and feet: the head is then customary to use a simple veil, or niqab, which covers only the hair. The burqa is defined as a "real challenge to democratic societies"; in this case, a garment that sounds like a challenge to the values of the French nation. HOW MANY WOMEN DRESS BURQA IN FRANCE? The number is around 1900 women, two thirds of French nationality, half of them under 40 years: Sarkozy said that France has no place for extremism, and the burqa would be an absolute symbol: however it seems that a law that relates to 1900 women, a number quite insignificant compared to 6 million Muslims in the country, is a fight against windmills. REACTIONS FROM ABROAD The debate is growing in Europe. Politicians trampling the two main reasons for prohibiting: women's rights and security, because the authorities see it as an advance by Islamic fundamentalists. But one thing to talk about security, another to talk about rights. In ITALY, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that it was not wholly in favor of its abolition, but that the matter should be included in a larger program of “integration”. But here we should open another question: What integration is? Italian MEP Mara Bizzotto of the Lega Nord Party, said: "The burqa is a problem that affects both the sphere of women's rights, both the just and rightful demands of security and public order so important for the Union (...) These veils, in addition to known security issues, are the symbol of oppression and abuse of women that democratic Europe can not accept: that's why I think the burqa and the niqab in public places can not be tolerated, indeed, should be banned". But which kind of problem of public policy can make a woman hidden under her veil? The Lega Nord Party has also proposed, on 2 October, a text amending Act 645 of 1975 on the protection of public order, proposing to punish those who "because of his religious affiliation" in public wearing clothes that make "impossible or difficult to recognize": the penalty is, if you are caught committing crime, imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine of up to 2000 Euros. Also Emma Bonino said that "wearing the full burqa or niqab in public violates the laws of the state and the concept of full employment of individual responsibility". Lots of paradoxes: just thinking about the campaign of the mayor of Varallo, Gianluca Buonanno, who announced placards that read: "not Islamized city", to understand that the climate of intolerance towards foreigners is increasing exponentially. In short, we are sure that you are trying to protect the rights of women or the stakes are much higher? How credible can be a politician who claims to want to ban the burqa to expand the rights of Muslim women, saying that "Muhammad was pedophile" (Santanchè at “Sunday 5”, November 2009)? Well, basically, it comes to defending the rights of women, not the values of France, neither to protect public security. We want to deny that until not long ago, some practices still used today by some cultures as a handkerchief on his head, or arranged marriages, were in place and widely tolerated, even in our democratic Europe? This is not to decide whether it is right or wrong; our alleged emancipation took the features of a culture based on calendars and show girls: who are we to decide on behalf of others? Our "emancipation" occurred over the centuries, naturally. The hatred is fed by ignorance, and leads to the paradox of inhuman ruthless criticism of what you do not know: we feel entitled to judge a thing of which we know absolutely nothing. Slavery, subordination, or a simple act of faith that is afraid because ostentatious? Respect for women is a sensitive issue: those who strive at all costs to eliminate this symbol, are fighting a war that is not their war, while claiming to know better than them which is the best and fairest way of life. In BELGIUM the debate is still open, although some cities already banned the burqa (Antwerp, Ghent, Maaseik, Sint Jans Molenbeek, Lebbeke). HOLLAND: The draft law of the right to ban the burqa has never been approved: in 2008 with the victory of the center-left party, the previous proposal was abandoned, but was asked all government (including schools and hospitals) to include in their regulations prohibiting the wearing of any headgear that completely hides the face, including helmets and balaclavas. For its part, BRITAIN seems to have a completely different view: on January,22, Gordon Brown reiterated his choice for the free expression of religious beliefs in the matter of clothing: “In England we are at ease in front of the expression of different beliefs, whether they wear the turban, the hijab, crucifix or the kippa. This diversity is an important part of our national identity and one of our strengths” and that it added: "The British government understands the anxieties that accompany the additional restrictions of wearing religious signs in France", but stresses that this is a problem of French national policy. SPAIN: recently there has been talk of a judge who imposed to the witness to remove her full veil in court for compulsory disclosure of witness: but there is no law governing the use in public places. SWEDEN: a strong "no" to the burqa-ban: Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said: "The legislation should not lead to a separation of women from society", and this law could just bring the women to whom it relates, to be locked in the house. Let me conclude with an article extract from a newspaper in DENMARK, the Politiken, who commented: "An absolute prohibition against the phenomenon of sectarian minimal spread could paradoxically help to strengthen a certain religious conservatism", and also adds: "The best way to spread the burqa and niqab is just presenting them as problems, making them the symbols not just of the submission of the female gender, but of the protest and the challenge of a society that can not protect its minorities".