Taking the veil [away] 6 May 2010 I am profoundly conflicted about European attempts to ban the burqa, that form of dress that covers all of a woman and leaves only a gauze strip for her eyes. On the one hand I think it is dehumanising, enslaving and deeply sexist. On the other, I do not think that it is the role of any government to ban or control what people wear so long as they do not harm the interests of anyone who cannot choose the harm. Like Robert Paul Wolf, whose blog The Philosopher’s Stone is becoming my daily must-read, I think that arguments for the ban are weak. Most of all I think they depend upon religious privilege – it’s OK when the prevailing religion has standards it imposes upon its adherents, so long as they are Catholic, or Protestant as it occurs in that country. But when a foreign religion does the very same thing, it is an affront to France, or Italy or the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The only way to make the burqa fall out of favour is to ensure that any citizen has a free choice about their religion, and that the accident of birth is no constraint upon whether someone has to remain Muslim, or Hindu or Objectivist. Any woman who is not compelled to take it up, and still does so, should be entirely free to do so. It is her right. Coercion must be removed in both directions, however, or it remains coercion. If the burqa is a threat to security, and way too many abuses of liberty these days are done in the name of “security” (or should we rename that according to the Nazi convention the Sicherheitsdienstabteilung?), then pass a law that all citizens must wear a badge prominently with their name and photograph. Otherwise it is clearly singling out one class of citizens to be second class. But that seems to be the way of it these days, doesn’t it? Politics Religion
Ecology and Biodiversity Genetic engineering and organic farming 14 Aug 2008 The heir apparent to some minor European royal family has again demonstrated his lack of knowledge and trust in scientific matters. The Prince, who has previously said that he talks to plants and consults gurus, apparently failed to talk to any actual, you know, scientists who might clear up a… Read More
Religion Dawkins on the nose again 16 Sep 2008 In response to the unwarranted flap over the education director of the Royal Society making comments that of course the media and the creationists spun to suit themselves, Richard Dawkins had this to say: Although I disagree with Michael Reiss, what he actually said at the British Association is not… Read More
Politics Catholic Blame Game 18 Apr 2010 Here, courtesy of Jason Brown, is a site that lists the latest scapegoat that the Catholic Church blames, instead of itself. So far they have blamed: Gays The Jews Pornography Television The Internet Pope John Paul II Victims of child rape Stay tuned for further exciting rationalisations and excuses! Read More
… then pass a law that all citizens must wear a badge prominently with their name and photograph. Hush! Don’t give ’em any ideas. Though, given the example of Arizona, it won’t be long before they come up with it on their own.
I have no particular interest in this, but this argument does occur to me: No reasonable person would freely choose to wear a burqa, therefore the state has an interest in forbidding the practice. This is the sort of reasoning, I believe, that is behind making certain contracts illegal. One example might be: no freely acting person with full knowledge would enter into a contract with a loan-shark.
@TomS: That’s not a good reason, as a large percentage of burqa-wearers in Western-Europe are recent converts to Islam from a suburban christian or non-religious background. As all new converts to a religion these women tend to be among the most pious and strict in interpretation.
Personally I do have a huge problem dealing with people who cover their face. The face communicates so much, and hiding means that a lot of that is lost. Especially when talking about people on the job, I find veils to be a problem. Are there any studies of what covering the face does to human interactions? Seems to me this is never brought up in the discussion.
This is an argument for a ban on covering one’s face in jobs that depend on communication between people, not on burqas specifically. The same goes for the other reason for wanting to ban the burqa: the (supposed) anonymity it grants the wearer. It’s the singling out of the burqa that is troublesome.
Following your reasoning make public nudism an acceptable behavior, which is not. The society already impose some limits to the way one dress himself, whether we like it or not.
I believe that it is in the public interest to discourage the wearing of the burqa and niqab. As John rightly points out, this clothing is a tool of oppression, created specifically to make women non-entities and non-participants in public life. No doubt that there are women who do wear it voluntarily. But their right to choose to wear it cannot be placed above the rights of those who are forced to wear it through intimidation and violence. Therefore, I support banning this clothing — but only in state-operated institutions. I think criminalizing this clothing in general is probably counter-productive, likely to create more problems that it solves. We must remember that the burqa and niqab are by definition, expressions of extremism, even for those who wear it voluntarily. Someone who wears such an outfit in the west is not interested in modesty; if any person in any country wishes to be unnoticed, he or she should dress as the locals do. Choosing to wear the burqa or niqab in the west is clearly a political statement.
I agree with everything in the post except that in my mind I don’t see how this would make you “conflicted” about it. I don’t think I’m conflicted about it, just squarely against the ban as a legitimate way of progressing humanity. Mike, I haven’t see John arguing that public nudity SHOULD be illegal in any of his posts (although this might be his position)
Actually I think the sole argument against public nudity is the effect it might have on children if they have previously been told that penises and vaginas are somehow terrible things. That, and good taste…
Even if people were forced to wear a badge, they’d still have to remove their appearance blocking devices to confirm they are the person on the badge.
Actually, the reference is to the ‘Duchy of Grand Fenwick’ Leonard Wibberly, The Mouse That Roared; The Mouse on the Moon; etc.
My problem with banning the burqa: any woman who is in fact wearing the burqa, not of her own choice, will probably not be allowed out in public at all if the burqa is banned. Exactly how does this help anyone?
As you say, if a woman chooses to wear the burqa or niqab of their own free will then they should be free to do so. It could be seen as their way of displaying their allegiance to their faith, much like me when I used to wear my Star Trek uniform. And I have read interviews with women who find the burqa almost liberating. They argued that they felt relieved of the pressure to dress and make themselves up to look attractive to men as well as being shielded from being ogled and leered at by men which made them uncomfortable or which they found offensive and even threatening.
I understand the desire to be free from the need to look attractive and even more the quest for protection from harassment. However, there are trade offs, at least for some women who live in some Islamic societies: to be insufficiently covered up in public, even accidentally, carries risk which differs depending on location. We all know about women who have been beaten, arrested, killed, raped and otherwise harmed by the authorities, civilian men, and even other women for not being sufficiently modest. It also means wearing too much clothing in very hot weather. Who wants to wear gloves when it is 110 degrees F? I have seen photos of Asian Indian women doing manual labor wearing saris and wondered what that is like. Even if women do not do physical labor for wages in countries where it is mandatory to wear the burka or other voluminous, hot or cumbersome clothing (I admit I do not know the answer to that) I am sure there are those who are doing family farming and other work where such garb is in the way or sometimes even dangerous.
My neighbour from Iran had massive difficulties trying to stop wearing a headscarf when she came to this country. She did not want too wear one but but use to freak out yards from her front door if she did not. She certainly did not find covering her head liberating but held certain fears about western culture based on what she had been taught about the west in Iran. As Ingrid has pointed out this would just make life far worse for the minority of muslim women that wear the burqa or niqab as they will be trapped in their homes. If trying to stop wearing a headscarf can cause so much anxiety, I would suspect it would be far worse for some one brought up wearing the burqa. All laws like this would do is make the life of muslim women harder than it all ready is and create further cultural division in Europe.
“No reasonable person would freely choose to wear a burqa, therefore the state has an interest in forbidding the practice.” Ouch. That’s a dark – albeit slightly Monty Pythonesque – road there, my friend. “You stand accused of unreasonable behaviour! How do you plead!?” I think JW nailed it. This is one of many complex and contentious social issues that simply cannot be resolved with the old fashioned appeal, “there oughta be a law!” Of course, it’s not just Muslim women on the receiving end here. What about me and my fellow Padawans, eh? If you say we aren’t reasonable, we will only become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
” … way too many abuses of liberty these days are done in the name of “security” (or should we rename that according to the Nazi convention the Sicherheitsdienstabteilung?” This wouldn’t be the internet if someone didn’t play the pedant and point out that “security” in German, Nazi or otherwise, is simply “Sicherheit”. “Sicherheitsdienst” would be the security service, or SD, you were referring to. I tend to find the arguments for banning the burqa unconvincing, but I also find unconvincing the arguments put forth by some for allowing their wearing to trump other interests in identification and testimony. I also think that someone who puts on the burqa in a Western country can only expect distrust in the same way anyone wearing a mask in public would. And, afterall, the idea of the burqa is that other people can’t be trusted to abstain from being led into evil unless all visual aspects of a woman are erased. That may not be why some women in Western countries adopt the burqa, but it does have something to do with why it it is the burqa and not the bikini they adopt as a sign of their Islamic beliefs.
It’s a play on “Department of Homeland Security”. Which should, I guess, be Heimatssicherheitsdienstabteilung. Got to love German…
Any laws banning them would be simply unworkable. For example, if burqa’s are banned, will balaclavas also be banned? Here in Canada, balaclavas are a necessity in certain situations. How about surgical masks worn by people who are afraid of germs? It could be argued that burqas serve the same purpose. All legal particulars aside… just let people wear what they want, that what you’re allowed to do in a free society!
If the intent is to prevent people from being anonymous in public so they do not commit crimes unrecognised, then prohibit sunglasses, hats, and makeup also. Party masks will mean instant jail time. In fact we should criminalise putting your hand in front of your face when being photographed… It transpires in Australia that nearly all burqa wearers are Australian born converts…
Germany does have a law against appearing in public with you face covered which is regularly invoked against people at political demonstrations.