Earlier this week the French sportswear company Décathlon caused an uproar by announcing its release of a garment designed for the use of female Muslim runners. Dubbed the “running hijab”, the suit resembles a “burkini”, the full-body bathing suit worn by some Muslimas. The blowback for Décathlon was so intense that it withdrew its new product before it went on sale.

Zineb el-Rhazoui is a French writer and a former staff member of Charlie Hebdo She was born in Morocco and apostatized from Islam in her youth. At the time of the jihad attack in 2015 she was visiting Morocco, and thus escaped death.

In the following video Ms. El-Rhazoui takes part in a panel discussion about the running hijab on French TV. Her principal interlocutor is Aurélien Taché, a member of the National Assembly for President Macron’s party.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Below are excerpts from a report on the Décathlon controversy by the BBC:

Video transcript:

00:00 We lived through very intensive 24 hours, 24 hours of polemic, of confrontation,

00:04 sometimes even insults. And it all started with a tweet,

00:08 a simple tweet , posted on the internet by the spokesperson of the

00:12 party The Republicans, Lydia Guirous. Hell broke loose on social media.

00:16 Almost all of the political representatives condemned unreservedly

00:20 the Décathlon brand; and Décathlon ended up surrendering on Tuesday evening

00:24 by deciding NOT to put this Runner Hijab on the market, even though

00:28 nothing in the law forbids either selling it nor wearing it.

00:32 Aurélien Taché, you expressed an opinion that was dissonant compared

00:37 with the entirety of French political representatives.

00:41 Explain for us how we got there, and why this position

00:45 against the flow. —Well, how we got there? I don’t know if I can pretend

00:49 being able to explain it all by myself, but, anyway, what I’ve noticed, is that, truly,

00:53 there was this commercialization [of the runner hijab] by Décathlon, which earned a number

00:57 of strong reactions, among which… which caused

01:01 the answer from Décathlon, which said: ‘Look, we aren’t making a moral judgment.

01:05 We just want to democratize a type of sport, voilà, it’s the simple…

01:09 it’s really just for that reason that we put this hijab on the market in France.’ And I found

01:13 that this reaction was rather healthy and normal, and I don’t really understand why,

01:17 again, why in France… —So at the beginning you wanted to defend the position of Décathlon,

01:21 which had nothing illegal in it? —I think, I understand the position of Décathlon, saying:

01:24 ‘We are putting this garment on the market to democratize a type of sport.’

01:27 And I don’t understand, well, why in France it causes such an OUTCRY. Well, no, I DO understand.

01:34 Because every time that we talk about Islam or of the veil in France it causes a debate

01:37 that is totally passionate, to put it politely, and after some time

01:42 it becomes a little embarrassing for the immense majority of our Muslim fellow citizens and also

01:46 for our female Muslim fellow citizens, who made the choice to wear the veil — not all do that,

01:49 but some do — that every time we talk about their religious practice,

01:52 it causes such a debate in France, it’s something I cannot understand and accept.

01:55 Zineb El Rhazoui, this Tuesday, you on the other hand called for

01:58 boycotting the Décathlon brand. What was the problem for you?

02:02 First of all, I would like to say that the Décathlon brand made a wise decision by not putting

02:06 this product on the market, because the hijab isn’t

02:10 a sports product. It’s a RELIGIOUS product. And selling this product

02:15 surely isn’t, surely does not have a place

02:19 in a sports store, but rather in a store with religious products.

02:23 Of religious gewgaws, of I don’t know, of kippahs, of prayer beads, of holy water, voilà.

02:27 It’s not a sport product, since it’s a product

02:31 which, by definition, by essence, violates the spirit of sport,

02:35 violates the spirit of the Olympic Charter. I remind you that there is a

02:39 fight today that is being fought by universalist feminists

02:43 to demand respect for the Olympic Charter by the countries that violate it, like Iran

02:47 and like Saudi Arabia, that breach article 50, second paragraph, that says:

02:52 “No propaganda, political, religious,

02:56 or racial is authorized in an Olympic place, site or location.”

03:00 So you might tell me that Décathlon isn’t one of them… —No! —but what are the values

03:04 that the brand Décathlon has to promote? Are those the values

03:08 of sport, or are those religious, communitarist and SEXIST values?

03:12 It’s mostly that which has to be reminded of… —So, we will take time to untangle all those

03:16 questions, precisely about the Olympic Games, look simply at, for example, what went on

03:20 in Rio two years ago. And when you see for example a number of

03:24 athletes, an Egyptian [female] who was playing beach volleyball,

03:29 Doaa Elghobashy, who was veiled, Ibtihaj Muhammad, who is American and who

03:33 practiced fencing, and Rahma Ben Ali, who is Tunisian, and who was

03:37 an athlete defending the colors of her country in Tae Kwon Do.

03:41 It’s rather, really. It means it does exist.

03:45 It’s a breach of the Olympic Charter, of — I repeat — article 50, second paragraph

03:48 of the Olympic Charter that I just read, and above all

03:53 It contradicts the spirit, with the sensation of sport.

03:57 Why WOMEN would be deprived of the sensation of sport

04:02 under the pretext that their hair or their body arouses the gentlemen?

04:06 And today, when you see the sport federations and the Olympic Committee

04:10 authorizing this type of sexist, ridiculous garment, which wants to erase

04:14 the female body, in reality it hurts the athletes; for example

04:18 the female Tunisian champion of the 3,000 meter steeple in 2012,

04:22 was lynched in Tunisia, because she wasn’t covered.

04:26 A reminder of facts is very simple: since you’re writing,

04:30 you vote for laws as deputy, the law is simple, it is very clear in France:

04:34 religious signs are forbidden at school; a government worker cannot wear them

04:38 in public administration. Nothing forbids a woman to wear

04:43 a veil to go to practice her running, that’s clear. —The magazine Marianne

04:47 reports that Décathlon was already selling a very similar product.

04:51 It wasn’t called “running hijab”, but: “multi-function running bandeau.”

04:55 And basically it was the name that changed the nature

04:59 of its perception? —Of course it was its name. But in order

05:03 to go back to what was said about the Olympic Games and about the practice

05:07 of wearing the veil in different countries and that some athletes wear it.

05:11 The only question that I ask myself is whether it’s imposed on women or not. When in Iran

05:16 the veil is imposed on women in a coercive way, of course we have to fight against it.

05:20 Of course it’s shocking and scandalous that women be forced, either for…

05:24 not only to go on the street, but also to participate at the sport events, to participate at the

05:28 Olympic Games. Wearing the veil is imposed on them by their country. Of course I’m against it.

05:32 But in France we don’t have this type of situation at all. In France we have freedom of wearing

05:36 or not wearing, and besides I think that the value judgments that are made — you used the phrase

05:40 “religious gewgaw” and so on — fine. But WHO AM I TO JUDGE if such-and-such of

05:44 my female fellow-citizens should believe in God or not, how she is practicing her faith with a veil

05:49 or not; I reckon that it’s not my role, and I reckon that when you live in a free democratic society,

05:52 you shouldn’t make this type of moral/value judgment, and what happened with the recall

05:57 of the Décathlon is significant. It’s because of the word HIJAB. Of course it’s the word hijab.

06:00 There is this type of, again, debate that catches fire right away as soon as you start talking

06:05 about Islam or Muslim practices in France. And that makes you ask questions. —But it’s interesting…

06:09 —It makes you ask questions. Much bigger questions. We can discuss women’s rights, but it also causes,

06:13 of course, it’s an extremely important, essential subject, but the rights of those who believe,

06:17 also in France, or who don’t believe, but of those who believe, also, yes, and who are Muslims,

06:21 we could also discuss them, because there is clearly a subject there! —Zineb El Rhazoui,

06:24 a woman who wears this garment, or another, a veil, there are two ways of looking at the thing.

06:29 For you it’s submission, submission

06:33 by the woman, and others might say: it’s individual freedom. She’s wearing this veil

06:37 because it’s her choice, and she is the one who can decide about it. How do we settle the argument?

06:41 I think that many women make the choice of wearing

06:46 this garment. They aren’t necessarily forced

06:50 by coercion to wear it. I simply think that

06:54 this garment that has been proliferating for the last couple of decades

06:58 in Muslim countries, well it [this garment] reveals a sexist militancy that hides behind it.

07:02 I would like to ask a question of Mr. Taché, and here it’s a female citizen

07:06 who is asking a question of a representative: what do you think about the veiling of little girls,

07:11 for example of 11-12 years of age? —We won’t have a veil debate, Zineb El Rhazoui.

07:15 You ask me again to make a value judgment concerning French families. You think that I —

07:19 — as a representative I have to —I would like you to answer sincerely. —No, yes, I’ll answer you,

07:22 I’ll answer you. You think that I… I make the law and not the morals. If you think that the laws

07:27 should be expression of moral judgment and that I should have an opinion

07:31 on the way — under the condition, of course, that children aren’t mistreated — on the way

07:35 under the condition that the law be respected, under the condition, that is about the law, but the

07:39 moral judgments on a family raising their children in a religious way or not — I cannot make them.

07:43 But you have no judgment about the fact that a little girl, 12 years old, is wearing

07:46 a veil? As a political representative I think I shouldn’t make this type of judgment.

07:49 You’re telling me about… I can have a personal opinion —However,

07:52 you DO have one. Yes, this opinion interests me. —Yes, but no, but it’s not the subject.

07:56 I am an MP, and you’re not talking about my own children; you’re not talking about a little girl

07:59 I’ll be raising. —So you have an opinion, do you want… —Not at the same time. Listen to each other.

08:02 Those are children being raised by others, and I… and you were telling me about that little

08:05 12-year-old girl who was wearing a veil and who was raised in a Muslim family.

08:08 Would you ask me a question about a Catholic family, about a girl to whom

08:11 they put [unintelligible]? Of course not. —I can see you’re avoiding the question.

08:14 You’re hurrying to help veiled grown-ups. —You want to make me,

08:18 but you won’t succeed, Madame. You won’t succeed. The law isn’t there to impose morals.

08:21 And MPs aren’t there to impose morals. —I would like to answer you. —Listen to one another.

08:25 —Just one word, Zineb El Rhazoui. We will go back to what happened on Tuesday. It’s interesting,

08:29 of course, you will answer him, and first of all we will stay on this question, because we won’t

08:33 have a debate on Islam in general, or on the veil in general, but it’s interesting

08:37 to see the accusations that were brought up on Tuesday. —Yes, because we understand that all that

08:41 isn’t red and black [allusion to Stendhal’s ‘The Red and the Black’] and there are many nuances

08:44 in all that you can have as opinion and judgment. From this, two types of accusations emerge:

08:49 those who are accused of Islamo-Leftism, that’s in your case, Aurélien Taché,

08:54 the magazine Valeurs Actuelles calls you a new figure of pro-,

08:58 of Islamo-Leftism, and then those who are being accused of Islamophobia.

09:02 That’s your case, Zineb El Rhazoui. It’s either one or the other; we’re under the impression

09:06 that it’s impossible to send a message slightly more complex.