Forced to Cover, Forced to Uncover: How Women’s Clothing Became a Global Battle for Control

This story by Syed Salman Mehdi originally appeared on Global Voices on November 17, 2025.

Across continents, women face the same struggle under different names. Some are told to cover their faces in the name of morality, others are told to uncover them in the name of freedom. The result is the same. A woman’s right to choose remains in the hands of men and lawmakers rather than her own.

The year 2025 began with Switzerland enforcing its nationwide ban on the burqa. Soon after, Portugal followed, and now Canada has joined the list through Quebec’s expanding secularism laws. The idea behind these bans is often framed as liberation, yet the outcome feels more like restriction. In these societies that call themselves “free,” women are once again being told what they can and cannot wear.

In Quebec, the government has recently reinforced its secularism policy with a new law that prohibits students, teachers, and even volunteers in public schools from covering their faces or wearing religious symbols. While the officials defend this move as necessary for equality and neutrality, it has become an obstacle to education and employment for Muslim women who wear the hijab or niqab. Those who once taught or took care of children are now excluded because they choose to practice their faith.

See Also: From A Mere Concubine to Becoming China’s Sole Female Emperor During The Tang Dynasty. Who Was Wu Zetian?

The policy has spread further into childcare. The government plans to ban religious symbols in daycares, claiming it protects young minds from religious influence. Yet many daycare directors and staff argue the move will worsen staff shortages and push out skilled workers. A teacher wearing a headscarf is not preaching a sermon. She is caring for children. The idea that her clothing threatens neutrality exposes a deeper fear of visible diversity.

Political competition in Quebec has made the issue worse. The Parti Québécois recently vowed to ban religious symbols for elementary school students if elected. The ruling Coalition Avenir Québec party also plans to restrict public prayers. Both sides are pushing minorities towards marginalization and promoting such measures in the race for secularism.

This debate has now centered on the courts. The federal government has questioned the exercise by Quebec to use the “notwithstanding clause” to shield the analysis of Bill 21. Ottawa argues that this clause, used repeatedly, weakens the Canadian Constitution and undermines minority rights. 

Legal experts remain divided. Some call this use of the clause preventive and dangerous; others say it preserves provincial independence. The coming Supreme Court decision will determine not only the limits of religious freedom but also how far governments can go in shaping private choices.

This wave of bans is not limited to Canada or Europe. In some West Asian and South Asian countries, the control works in the opposite direction. In Afghanistan, women are forced by law to wear the burqa. In Iran, they face punishment for removing the hijab. In Saudi Arabia, although some restrictions have eased, women still live under moral policing. Even in places like Syria, Jordan or Egypt, traditional pressures push women to conform. Across borders, the message is consistent. Whether it is forced covering or forced unveiling, women’s bodies remain the battleground of political and cultural agendas.

The contradiction is striking. Western democracies, while condemning religious coercion abroad, impose dress codes of their own. They argue that removing the veil helps integration, but in doing so, they push women further to the margins. A Muslim woman who chooses to wear a headscarf in Paris or Toronto should not have to defend her choice any more than someone choosing not to wear one in Tehran. The heart of freedom is the ability to decide without fear or punishment.

The argument that these bans protect equality is weak. True equality comes from opportunity, not uniformity. Excluding women from classrooms, offices, and daycares because of their dress strips them of economic independence. It also conveys a message that religion and serving the people are not compatible. The more the government controls what individuals believe, the less accommodating society becomes. As history has recorded, when one group starts to lose its freedom, it will become limited in no time.

See Also: The Man Behind the Revolving Door: Theophilus Van Kannel Hated Opening Doors for Women, So He Invented a Solution

Most Western leaders promise to champion the rights of women in other countries, yet they do not defend those of their own. The very cries about religious conservatism in West Asia are cheers of the laws, limiting religious expression in Europe and North America. This double standard exposes the political nature of the debate. Religion is not the real threat. Fear of difference is.

What is missing from these debates is the voice of women themselves. Few policymakers ask how women feel about being told what to wear, either in Kabul or in Quebec. For some, the hijab is an act of faith. For others, it is cultural or personal. The right answer is not to remove or enforce it, but to respect the choice behind it. When a woman decides for herself, that is freedom. When others decide for her, that is control.

The challenge today is to protect individual freedom without turning it into another form of dominance. Governments must stop using secularism or religion as tools for social engineering. It is not about a woman covering her face or not, but about whether she will be able to live without being judged and discriminated against.

Freedom should not depend on geography or ideology. It should mean the same in Toronto, Tehran, or Kabul. The real measure of a free society is simple. It is not how women look, but how much control they have over their own lives.

In conclusion, the struggle over the veil has become a mirror reflecting society’s fears and insecurities. Different parts of the world claim to defend with dignity, yet deny women agency in different ways. True liberation will come only when a woman’s appearance is no longer a matter of state policy or public debate. Until then, the world will continue to argue about freedom while denying it in practice. [VP]

Suggested Reading: