The Trouble With Burqa Bans
>
Michelle Goldberg had a very good column in TAP Online the other day about the debate in France over banning burqas:
Ultimately, though, there’s no evidence that most burqa-clad French women regard themselves as oppressed. “There are women who wear burqas who are not being forced by anyone, who think that form of modesty is appropriate for who they want to be in the world,” says Scott. “It’s hard to distinguish between them and those who are being forced.” And so in the end, a ban putatively passed to further women’s rights could instead impinge on their freedom, and take from them something they value. Even worse, it could lead to those in the most fundamentalist of households being trapped inside their homes altogether. It would be cruel to limit these women’s options in the name of liberation, even if their clothes are a rebuke to the secularism that the French rightly hold sacred.
Putting her points on this together in a slightly different way, this sort of ban seems extremely unlikely to actually help anyone who’s genuinely in need of help. A woman whose husband and/or other male relations have enough power over her to force her into a burqa against her will is only going to be forced by those same men further underground by this sort of rule. The only kind of person who would be genuinely unveiled by this kind of legal measure would be someone with enough autonomy to be in a position to choose compliance with the law over compliance with tradition. The French have a strong tradition not just of secularism, but of a kind of illiberal egalitarianism that holds that everyone should really be the same, and I think it tends to push them toward measures like this that don’t ultimately help anyone.
72 Responses to “The Trouble With Burqa Bans”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Sorry, folks–I’m off the bus. This is admittedly a slippery-slope issue in which instance the value of personal freedom mandates that we go pretty far down the slope in favor of live-and-let-live. BUT: Is France and French society constrained to let people walk around completely covered and concealed from the world?
I don’t think so–I just don’t. And no exercise of ratiocination seems capable of overruling my common-sense gut feeling about it. Let folks move to places in this world where they may live as they feel comfortable: I don’t see that it’s France’s obligation to furnish that comfort in any and all circumstances, when such comfort is so utterly at odds with secular values and cultural traditions indigenous to it.
Fuhgeddabouddit.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I think it tends to push them toward measures like this that don’t ultimately help anyone.
Does Matt know that burqas are not banned in France, and probably won’t be? I’m not sure. He should talk about veils and kippahs banned in schools instead.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Goldberg makes two arguments here. The first seems to me straightforwardly fallacious. It’s logically and indeed psychologically possible for someone to be oppressed without regarding themselves as oppressed (and for that matter for someone to oppress another person without understanding, at least consciously, that their actions are oppressive). And this I think speaks to the point of what the French are debating: a ban on wearing burkas would be a societal statement that they are a sign and indeed an act of oppression that isn’t tolerable. That’s a powerful message to send to people and one that might very well have an impact on attitudes within the Muslim community in France and even elsewhere.
Goldberg’s second argument is logically plausible but without evidence one way or the other the possibility would have to be balanced against the potential benefits as outlined above.
It isn’t our way. France’s model of a democratic republic is different from ours. An effort to ban burkas here would contravene at least two First Amendment rights (freedom of religion and freedom of speech). I wouldn’t want to see something like that here. But Goldberg’s arguments against it simply aren’t very cogent.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:54 am
In France is it legal for people, such as men, to walk around in full costumes like Spider-Man or whatever? If so, then women can wear burqas.
If not, well, apparently then they need a debate about the legality or not of prohibiting face-covering in public, and not about burqa’as or religion.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Actually, it probably wouldn’t. SCOTUS has upheld numerous anti-masking laws–mostly originally intended as anti-KKK measures–BUT iirc, the most recent test specifically raised the 1st Amendment argument and was rejected.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:19 am
What is the proper context for this?
I guess it is a clash of two cultures. And which culture has priority.
France decided some time ago, along with most others, that public nudity was illegal. The French decided that the majority culture would prevail, even though that meant some minority rights would be abridged. Are religious rituals sacrosanct or just an expression of culture? Most people today would agree with banning human or even animal sacrifice, although that was once routine.
Believing, as I do, that religion is an anachronism that should yield as quickly as possible to progress, I agree with the French.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am
“I think it tends to push them toward measures like this that don’t ultimately help anyone.”
A few grotesquely oppressed women might be forced to stay indoors (this is called purdah, and it’s well known in Pakistan and Afghanistan), but the great majority of Muslim men simply can’t afford to have their wives sit in their apartments. And outlawing burqas creates a social pressure against the power of the local imam that allows both men and women to resist community coercion. So if you make burqas illegal you will reduce the number of women wearing burqas. That’s a good thing.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
MY may well be right that a burqa-ban or a ban targeted on burqas is likely to be counterproductive, but I’m with elle loco and larry birnbaum on this one, the excerpted arguments don’t cut it, but seem like the worst sort of squishy liberal multi-culturalism (and I speak as someone who doesn’t think that either ‘liberal’ or ‘multi-cultural’ are dirty words). Wearing a burqa isn’t to be put on a level with fashion choices through which people express themselves, but it’s part and parcel of a form of Islam that regards women as inferior beings, whose freedom to live as human beings among other human beings with all that entails–conversation accompanied by smiles, frowns, raised eyebrows, friendship with the people of the same and the opposite sex, –counts as nothing compared to the cosmic evil that would result if–horror or horrors–feelings of sexual attraction were to arise. Women who think that the burqa is an ‘appropriate form of modesty’ should perhaps be legally free to wear one, but let’s not kid ourselves, they have internalized a repressive attitude toward women that is loathsome.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I don’t think too many people are kidding themselves. There really are two separate debates, one about which people may choose to disguise themselves and cover themselves in public for whatever reason and whether or not they should, particularly given specific identified cultural or religious reasons.
I’m pretty sure most liberals would prefer the issue to never have existed in the first place.
I would prefer that no one be wasting their time at all with silly superstitions based on nonsense thinking and handed-down mythmaking by tribesmen from centuries and thousands of years ago — it’s absurd and laughable and shameful.
But most of the time no one is asking me to evaluate their religious beliefs, so I don’t bring it into the public sphere a lot. I also try to think about how what I choose to say and how I choose to say it may actually affect peoples’ thoughts and behavior, and I want to avoid doing or saying something counterproductive even when I’m pretty sure I’m right.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
J,
Please give us the first and last name of a burka-wearing Muslim woman with whom you have discussed the issue.
You clearly have, since you seem to speak with a great deal of confidence about their subjective experience.
Here, how about: “Wearing stiletto heels isn’t to be put on the level with fashion choices through which people express themselves, but it’s part and parcel of a form of sexuality that views women as less than human.”
I see a certain breed of feminist make that argument all the time. Maybe there’s some truth to that. I still don’t abide the law telling people how to dress.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Many young women, whose mothers did no wear hijab (modest garb which varies from region to region) began wearing it during the 80s. The women wearing burqas in France are mostly young French women whose mothers did not wear burqas.
As long as the US and its Western allies persists in its military occupation of Muslim countries and claiming your moral and ideological superiority, it is only natural to see Muslims resisting, including annoying you with their garb.
The context is political, as in passive, non-violent resistance.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Even in the colonial times, over 90% of the colonized never worried a whiff about their loss of freedom. So would Ms. Goldberg have us believe that it’s not such a bad idea to go back to those times?
June 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Why won’t they just mention the two good reasons for banning the burkha?
The first is that it’s a health risk to the women involved. Human beings get Vitamin D through our skin, and primarily by sunlight hitting out skin. Wearing a burkha all the time outdoors prevents that, which is why in areas that have extensive or near-total burkha coverage, you tend to see much higher rates of Vitamin D Deficiency and Rickets.
The second is that it is a security risk. The burkha, by design, is supposed to conceal as much as possible the form and physical identity of the woman wearing it. That means that it makes them very difficult to identify if they were to commit a crime or be seen as a crime scene, increasing law enforcement difficulties. This is why, for example, they’ve banned allowing people to get drivers licenses with their burkha picture on them.
The second issue really resonates with me. I don’t care about the hijab – if devout muslim women want to wear it, it’s fine with me. I do care, though, about an outfit that prevents scene-of-the-crime identification and greatly enhances the ability of people to disguise themselves in public (and yes, there are cases of men disguising themselves in burkhas to get away from the law).
June 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
For example, take a look at the picture in Matt’s post, of the women wearing blue burqas. Just looking at them, could you tell whether or not they are male or female? If one of them held up a 7/11 dressed in that outfit, could you identify anything about them other than possibly height and some general body outline?
June 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Brett, you do realize that your argument that, “ZOMG!1!11! People could commit crimes while wearing burqas and be unrecognizable!1!1!!” applies equally to all sorts of masks, facial bandages, large sunglasses worn with floppy brimmed hats, balaclavas, skicaps worn with mufflers, etc.? The idea that the entire population should be prohibited by law from wearing an article of clothing because criminals might also choose to wear it is one of the most brick stupid ideas I’ve ever heard. A far better solution would seem to be the one followed in the United States — businesses (like banks, etc.) can post a sign saying they won’t serve you if you’re wearing a mask or other face covering.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
J,
“Wearing a burqa isn’t to be put on a level with fashion choices through which people express themselves, but it’s part and parcel of a form of Islam that regards women as inferior beings”
Please give us the first and last name of a burka-wearing Muslim woman with whom you have discussed the issue.
Cute. There are also all sorts of traditions about women having to walk some distance behind her man etc. etc., including in non-Muslim societies. Most of us would have no problem clubbing these traditions as oppressive to women. We don’t need to poll the women on this.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Yes, of course, you know better.
And not just enough to have an opinion – no, you know so much better that your opinion should be enforced by law.
I’m sorry, ma’am, but we have to arrest and fine you for your own good.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The idea that the entire population should be prohibited by law from wearing an article of clothing because criminals might also choose to wear it is one of the most brick stupid ideas I’ve ever heard. A far better solution would seem to be the one followed in the United States — businesses (like banks, etc.) can post a sign saying they won’t serve you if you’re wearing a mask or other face covering
This ignores the fact that you can’t hold social norms static at some boundary which seems reasonable to you. Once the society recognizes burkas as an acceptable cultural practice, businesses are not going to stick their neck out trying to ban it.
This dynamic is seen repeatedly when it comes to gay rights, women’s rights, minorities, smoking-in-public, abortion rights, all sorts of things. And its great for causes you support. Just don’t pretend that there is no slippery-slop issue here.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Joe from Lowell- I don’t want to argue in support of ban on burkhas, but seriously?
As a non-family member non-muslim male, the burkha clad women I have encountered during my life have not been willing to speak to me. I cannot ask them their opinions on the burkha, because I cannot meaningfully communicate with them. The reasons this is so may have some bearing on the discussion.
For what its worth, the hijab wearing muslim women I’ve spoken to about the subject have been universally against the hijab. But then, they were all college students residing in the United States. And then, a few years after our conversation on the subject, all of them concluded that they’d rather not make a fuss with their families and would simply wear it, even though they don’t actually believe in it.
That also may have some bearing on the discussion.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Related to this, why can’t I run naked in the streets? (or just wearing socks)
There are already laws against so-called indecency preventing mothers from breastfeeding their babies, so maybe there is a case for laws against over-decency.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Why oh why: Matt’s talking about what Sarko said at the ’state of the republic’ thing that he did with his address to a joint session of parliament (a first, very much taken from the American tradition) where he said that the burka was a sign of subservience.
The French have a strong tradition not just of secularism, but of a kind of illiberal egalitarianism that holds that everyone should really be the same
I’m not certain about this. The political manifestation is ‘everyone’s equally French’, which extends to having political structures on Saint Pierre and Miquélon that are no different from St Etienne, and the cultural manifestation is that everyone should behave the same and present the same face in their interactions with the state.
The big issue with French secularism is that it has acquired quasi-doctrinal status over the past century. To that extent, I agree with Ian Buruma, who’s written about the issue of tolerance and religion in the Netherlands in the wake of Theo van Gogh’s murder:
His position is that the institutions of the state ought to exist to protect those who don’t want to wear the veil from retribution, but shouldn’t be involved in enforcement either way with regard to religious or cultural traditions that otherwise don’t run contrary to the country’s laws. (The interview was given to Horowitz’s rotten Frontpage outfit, but it’s bucking against the Horowitz ‘oh noes, the mooslims are taking over Europe’ idiocy.)
June 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Yes, of course, you know better.
And not just enough to have an opinion – no, you know so much better that your opinion should be enforced by law.
I’m sorry, ma’am, but we have to arrest and fine you for your own good.
Way to change the topic, Joe. Did you miss this part from J’s original post?
Women who think that the burqa is an ‘appropriate form of modesty’ should perhaps be legally free to wear one, but let’s not kid ourselves,
Or is it your contention that you can’t disapprove of anything unless you’re prepared to ban it?
FYI, I don’t particularly think burkas should be banned and if some politician in the US raises the issue, I’d consider it to be grandstanding and pandering. But I also think its perfectly reasonable for France to draw the line at some other boundary on this issue.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
What I want to know is where in a secular humanist society is there a place for displaying the sado-masochistic Christ crucified on a cross around people’s necks? Certainly, in France where the populace has been yoked to the Catholic church for centuries, one would think such an image designed to coerce people by dint of some kind of kinky guilt trip to a particular belief system ought to be considered an anethema to contemporary culture.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
More food for thought:
It seems to me the burqa is not a huge problem in France, and this is just another attempt by Sarkozy to please his voters from the far-right. See also his refusal to let Turkey join the EU – this has more to do with anti-Muslim prejudice than secularism, feminism or anything else.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Thanks DJ! Of course one should talk to people and find out what they think and strive to understand their point of view, though there are real obstacles to talking to the burqa-clad and one might well be endangering them if, say, one were a man. Since one couldn’t conceivably have any reason to communicate with a woman not one’s wife or relative except you know what. But my point was that how the burqa-wearer ‘feels’ isn’t necessarily the last word on the subject. There is such a thing–however understandable and forgivable it may be–as being complicit in one’s own oppression, ‘knowing one’s place’ so to speak, when, really and truly, one’s place isn’t that of an inferior but of another human being on a footing of equality with every other human being. Sometimes, an outsider can see more clearly than an insider. (See Oscar Wilde, ‘The Soul of Man under Socialism’ on the virtues of outside agitators.) There are all sorts of dangers, to be sure, but it’s true. Jacques Chirac was, for instance, amazingly prescient about what a folly the war in Iraq would be. Perhaps his tone was too arrogant, that’s not the way I remember it, but if it’s arrogance to ever say anything about what’s wrong or could be better in another nation/culture, so be it. Not everything can be justified in the name of resistance to Western colonialism/cultural imperialism (and no, I’m not pretending there is no such thing and that they don’t have a terrible history and that members of non-western cultures aren’t amply justified in regarding ‘advice’ from Europe & the US with suspicion, especially at a time when neo-con idiots exert enormous influence.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Ok, I have to apologize to Joe from Lowell. I accidentally put his name in the Name field in post 19. I did this because I am incompetent- I have no excuse.
If Yglesias reads this, please change it.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
What I want to know is where in a secular humanist society is there a place for displaying the sado-masochistic Christ crucified on a cross around people’s necks?
As far as I know, crucifixes are banned in French schools and government buildings.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I’ve always deplored French-style secularism, even more than I admire their Healthcare. “Freeing” women from the veil is, at best, demeaning paternalism; at worst it is forced homogeneity and cultural bigotry. Said bigotry is on display all over France; and is, I believe a growing problem in Europe, not just a vestige of the past. Anti-islamicism is comparable to the antisemitism of the past; while it has, by no means, gone away.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“Is France and French society constrained to let people walk around completely covered and concealed from the world?”
This question is so strange I hardly no how to answer it. Let’s try this: France is “constrained” to let its people do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don’t cause clear harm to other citizens or society at large. You might as well ask, “Is the US and American society constrained to let people burn its flag in full view of other Americans?”
June 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
A few grotesquely oppressed women might be forced to stay indoors (this is called purdah, and it’s well known in Pakistan and Afghanistan), but the great majority of Muslim men simply can’t afford to have their wives sit in their apartments.
I think the French might raise another solution to these families for which the burqa was that important: “Perhaps another country would better serve your cultural needs.” I dislike France’s attitudes of forced secularlism and “everyone must be equally French.” In this case, they’re basically saying which traditions of oppression of women they are willing to tolerate in their own country from immigrants. These laws might seem on their face to be objectionable to our American eyes, but the intent behind them isn’t that different than the fact that polygamy is illegal.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The French have a strong tradition (…) of a kind of illiberal egalitarianism that holds that everyone should really be the same,
This is of course total nonsense – you don’t know any French people, right? They’re the most headstrong and anarchic individualists imaginable.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
It is my understanding that Muslim women living in Muslim neighborhoods in Paris have been physically attacked by Muslim males for not wearing veils, etc.. Therefore the ban on veils gives them freedom to go outside without being attacked. If you like, in that respect it is comparable to the bans in American high schools during the late 1980s and early 1990s on students wearing bomber jackets to school. (Those wearing the jackets often were the victims of violent crime because when the jackets were stolen.)
For that reason, I am hesitant to condemn the French ban on veiling, although it does make me uncomfortable.
June 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
[...] I got the link to Goldberg’s piece from Matt Yglesias, who rightly highlights some of the potentially negative effects of a burqa ban. Where I think [...]
June 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well, this is true of almost any legislation aimed at protecting people from themselves. Sadly, MY seems to support a great deal of that legislation. For example, you could just as easily change a few words around and make this same statement about, say, smoking bans, and it would be just as true::
“Ultimately, though, there’s no evidence that most smoke-breathing bartenders regard themselves as oppressed. ‘There are bartenders who wear breathe smoke who are not being forced by anyone, who think that form of risk is appropriate for who they want to be in the world,’ says Scott. ‘It’s hard to distinguish between them and those who are being forced.’ And so in the end, a ban putatively passed to further workers’ rights could instead impinge on their freedom, and take from them something they value. It would be cruel to limit these workers’ options in the name of liberation, even if the smell of their clothes is a rebuke to the secularism that Americans rightly hold sacred.”
June 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I know I’m the illiberal ignoramus here…but: Not good enough, tomemos; not by a mile. I’m with Joe from Lowell, who touches on some of the absurdity of all the vainglorious multicultural correctness sloshing around here:
As a non-family member non-muslim male, the burkha clad women I have encountered during my life have not been willing to speak to me. I cannot ask them their opinions on the burkha, because I cannot meaningfully communicate with them. The reasons this is so may have some bearing on the discussion.
What is human freedom? Something more complex than the anything-goes superhipness on display here….
June 27th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I would be sort of interested if the commenters denouncing other commenters for being super multicultural, erm, ‘hipsters’ defending burqa wearing would actually identify and quote those who are defending the notion of the wearing of burqas.
Otherwise, get off your imaginary high horses and engage the actual subject under discussion, which is not if it’s a good thing that women choose or are pressured into wearing burqas, but whether or not laws specifically against burqa wearing or other displays of religion or simply against face-concealing clothing are a good idea.
Otherwise stop contrasting yourselves with imaginary strawmen.
June 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Elle Loco,
Just to keep things un-confused, we should note that the “Joe from Lowell” you’re quoting is not the real Joe from Lowell, but Patrick, who used Joe’s name by accident (see 26). The real Joe from Lowell said something quite the opposite of what you’re saying.
“What is human freedom? Something more complex than the anything-goes superhipness on display here….”
Is that Hector, by any chance? But seriously, I find this argument fascinating (not in the good way). You may know that in countries where the veil is required by law, it is often to justified to skeptical women as the real women’s liberation, since it frees women from the disrespectful treatment of passing strangers. Now you (and Patrick, and Bill, and others) are justifying a ban of headscarves for basically the same reason: the real freedom is the freedom from male compulsion, and so forth. You may call me simple minded, but it seems to me that real freedom is relatively straightforward: in general, let people do what they want. These convoluted arguments that true freedom is found in proscriptive laws strike me as the worst kind of rationalization.
If you want to prevent women from being beaten by their husbands, the thing to do is increase anti-abuse education and enforcement, in the same way that it makes more sense to outlaw lynching than to outlaw “uppity” behavior for people’s own good.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I have a lot of work going on this time of year, so I can’t write a long comment. But I would simply note one thing. It might seem surprising to see hipster feminists and Jihadist barbarians on the same side of the burqa issue. But if we look below the surface, it’s not surprising at all. Sheikh Qaradawi and Judith Jarvis Thomsen may not have loved the same things, but they were indistinguishable in terms of what they hated, that is to say, Christ and His Church. Just as Jefferson and Voltaire preferred Islam to Christianity, so it is with modern hipsters.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
As usual, Tomemos above gives the usual Georgetown-postmodernist BS: “Freedom means doing what you want.” Simply put, that is the creed of the five year old who doesn’t want to eat his broccoli. A civilised society, of course, would realise that five year olds must sometimes, for their own good, be required to do things they don’t like. Of course, I suppose that in the hipsters’ brave new world, nutritionally challenged five year olds would have voting rights as well.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“Way to change the topic, Joe.”
Uh, yeah. I went onto a thread about banning women from wearing burkhas, an wrote a comment about banning women from wearing burkhas. Bad joe! Bad!
Get TF out of here with this whining.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Like wear burkhas. Or, not wear burkhas. Point is, we know what’s best for people. Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!
June 27th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
El Cid,
If I’m one of the people you mean, this bit of the original Goldberg piece cited by MY is an example of what I find objectionable, in particular the bit about what the burqa-wearing set finds valuable.
. “There are women who wear burqas who are not being forced by anyone, who think that form of modesty is appropriate for who they want to be in the world,” says Scott. “It’s hard to distinguish between them and those who are being forced.” And so in the end, a ban putatively passed to further women’s rights could instead impinge on their freedom, and take from them something they value.”
As is this from comment # 11.
“As long as the US and its Western allies persists in its military occupation of Muslim countries and claiming your moral and ideological superiority, it is only natural to see Muslims resisting, including annoying you with their garb.
The context is political, as in passive, non-violent resistance.”
To be clear, I do not support blanket bans on the wearing of the burqa. I am arguing against a certain ground for opposing such bans, one which would remove the burqa, from the sphere of legitimate objects of disapproval by making it a matter of personal taste or a simple act of cultural solidarity like wearing a dashiki. It is a symbol of oppression, part of a system that imposes many onerous restrictions on women’s freedom and an actual impediment to full participation in social life. The burka, remember, is not like an evening gown or a kimono, which can be put for special occasions, but doffed at other times, at work, shopping, exercising, driving and so on. And as others have pointed out above, for most of those who wear the burqa, it’s not a choice, but a requirement backed up by the threat of violence, ostracism or pervasive disapproval, so though it may be right to insist that people have the right to wear the beastly things, broad-minded, ecumenical openness to other customs and other people’s way of doing things, though as a rule fine things, are not the right attitude here.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Hector, I believe in making five-year-olds eat broccoli, but I don’t believe that I’m somehow liberating them by doing so. If you believe in making people wear or not wear burqas, that’s up to you, but you don’t get to claim that your position is consistent with liberty, which is what elle loco and others seem to be saying.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“It might seem surprising to see hipster feminists and Jihadist barbarians on the same side of the burqa issue.”
This is completely wrong, of course. The “hipsters” Hector is referring to don’t want people’s clothing choices to be determined by the law in any way, whereas the “jihadists” do. Prohibiting people from wearing burqas has a lot more in common with compelling them to do so than with a libertarian position.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I say ‘blanket ban’ because I’m not sure what one should say about women wearing the Burka teaching elementary schoo, for examplel–it might well be that it would limit the power of the teacher to interact properly with children. Various bans not targeting the Burqa could have the foreseen but not directly intended consequence that Burqa wearers were prevented from doing this that or the other thing. How one felt about this would depend on how one feels about some of the issues discussed in this thread. I would see Burka-wearing as falling under a general right to do what one pleases, even things open to objection on other grounds, as long as it doesn’t have harmful consequences for others and doesn’t prevent one from discharging one’s duties. But those with a more robust commitment to some of the ideas I’ve been objecting to would draw the line in a different place.
June 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
But that’s a simple and true statement, and not a value judgment on the wearing of burqas, something which I think in general is insane.
It’s pointing out the locus of law enforcement and individual decisionmaking — i.e., once again, are you illegalizing a general behavior in which anyone can engage (i.e., men dressing up as Spider-Man or Darth Vader with full face covering) or are you specifically banning a dress habit associated with a particular religious origin?
I certainly have seen and heard interviews with Western women who choose to wear a burqa, and say all sorts of wonderful things about how liberating it is, etc., none of which I really believe except for the bits about being able to walk down the street without being ogled, and on occasion I’ve seen it when those same women have changed their minds, and stopped doing so. Of course I think it’s nuts and backwards and medieval, but I’m just me.
I object to people who become followers of Scientology believing and doing all sorts of crazy and awful things, but only occasionally does it rise to the level (i.e., beating people and embezzling) where the law can intervene.
I object to those various crazy nut cults where women dress like 19th century pioneer women and some jackhole pretends he’s the patriarch, and on occasion there are portions of this lunatic behavior which are illegal.
And people like Hector only object because the wearing of the burqa stems from some Muslim traditions, whereas if the tradition among many Christians were that all women dressed like Nuns but covered their faces too, they would be just fine with it.
June 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Just one legal point I’d like to make–France doesn’t have a Constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment right to free exercise of religion as we do in the States, so when we discuss France banning the burqa, we’re dealing with a totally different politico-legal culture than we have in America. A law banning burqas would almost certainly be struck down as void in the US. It’s possible the European Court of Human Rights would reach a similar conclusion, idk.
I’m pretty agnostic on the actual policy issue, but as much as I detest burqas and think anyone who says they aren’t oppressed by wearing one is a brainwashed zombie, the state ought to shy away from banning non-violent religious practices that don’t harm others. If there was a rash of crime or terrorism in France perpetrated by burqa-clad women, the argument for a ban would be much stronger…
June 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Hey asshole, if anyone of those types of outfits A)completely concealed a person’s physical identity in the way a burqa does and B)was mandatory for a certain segment of people to be worn all the time, I’d be just in favor of banning it as well except for special occasions (like Halloween).
Yes, because a criminal will kindly take off their disguise before entering a bank/business/etc just because you put the sign up. Give me a break – there’s a reason why we have anti-masking laws (as mentioned earlier in the thread).
I’d be just as opposed to it were it a Christian tradition as well.
I outlined the security reasons, but I do actually think it is an oppressive garment as well. It basically says to women “You are the problem – it’s your appearance that is tempting us and compelling us to do you harm, so you should cover up.” They don’t stop to think, “Hey, maybe we should lose our half-assed 10th century views of female sexuality and stop acting like we’re living in a period where raiders are just going to sweep in and steal our women/cattle/mobile property.”
June 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I think that this discussion, as well as a lot of others which tend to be viewed as right/left (Social Security, seatbelts, commercial regulation) really comes down to the question of: in a society that has freedom as its ideal, how far do we allow people to fail?
We, as a country, have decided that, although we would like a system that allows anybody to become as successful as they can, we are not content to let people fail to the point that they die, or their children are not educated. Demagogues characterize that as “penalizing success,” but that misses the point.
I understand that it’s not so simple in the case of religious headgear; if we allow the full freedom and failure of free religious expression, the cost will be borne mostly by women. But I do not agree that practical considerations like the list that Brett provided above trump abstract freedoms.
The targeted nature of the thing makes me uncomfortable. It smacks of the khat prohibition effort underway in the US.
June 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
The French can do what they want, and will: I just started by asking whether France should by some a priori consideration be constrained to permit people to be walking tents with whom they may not interact socially or verbally.
That seems like a ridiculous proposition. Sorry. And tomemos, it’s NOT about “headscarves.” That’s arguing in bad faith.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Fine, a ban on burqas. Now we’re just dickering over price.
We are not debating about the French should be able to allow “people to be walking tents <strongwith whom they may not interact socially or verbally.” There’s nothing illegal about interacting with anyone, in and of itself, whatever they’re wearing. Nor would a burqa ban mandate that a woman say hi to anyone who said hi to her.
We’re just debating whether the garment should be banned. We’re not going to get anywhere trying to legislate social and cultural mores, and we shouldn’t try.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Pardon the messed up tags. What I meant to emphasize was that the French have no power to mandate that people be socially and verbally accessible, no matter what they wear.
June 27th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The ban on Muslim headgear began because of well documented cases of French citizens being physically attacked by Muslim men because they weren’t wearing them. To end this private enforcement of religious law, the decision was made to not allow anyone to wear them.
If you remove the word female, things become a bit clearer.
I don’t understand how you allow something knowing that the choice will not be voluntary for a significant number of people.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I see no reason for them to ban headscarves or veil in any situation—here is where you get into the paternalistic state dictating to women and girls in the name of liberation. But this really does bring up the issue of privacy in public and whether or not we have the right to be visually anonymous in public. It compares to walking around in a ski mask year-round, or wearing a stocking over your head. In this case, I think the burqa is simply not suited to western social mores–especially in heavily populated areas.
I take it these women can’t cash a check.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
So tomemos’s position is that France has no right to define how people might appear in public. Ya think? How about Ku Klux Klan hoods, with swastikas on ‘em?
Memo to MY: Can we now go to the clitoridectomy debate?
I live in NYC and am beyond experienced at dealing with various groups’ aggressive public piety. I often feel that I’m being pushed into the arms of Dawkins and Hitchens. Why do I need to put up with this BS? I guess because somebody’s revealed religion, according to some corrupted millenia-old text, says I have to. Awesome! How politically correct!
June 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“If you remove the word female, things become a bit clearer.”
I can’t understand this at all. Women, much more than men, are the ones who are systematically abused, and obviously I’m fully against that. Of course, women are also the ones whose behavior is restricted by laws, whether by their states, their religions, or their families, and some of us are against that too.
“I don’t understand how you allow something knowing that the choice will not be voluntary for a significant number of people.”
This is actually amazingly common. The choice of going to college, getting married, going into a nursing home, and many other major life decisions are often made under great pressure from others. It’s not the job of the state to adjudicate the pressures people get from their families, neighbors, etc. (Of course, I certainly think that the French government should encourage gender equality among all of its citizens, and should heavily enforce the law whenever women are beaten or otherwise treated illegally.
Anyway, you seem to be saying that if some people perform an action under compulsion, no one should be allowed to perform it voluntarily, and I don’t see the justification for that.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“So tomemos’s position is that France has no right to define how people might appear in public. Ya think? How about Ku Klux Klan hoods, with swastikas on ‘em?”
I certainly do think that should be legal—it is in this country. We count on social pressure here to keep people from walking around dressed that way, and it seems to work pretty well.
“I live in NYC and am beyond experienced at dealing with various groups’ aggressive public piety. I often feel that I’m being pushed into the arms of Dawkins and Hitchens. Why do I need to put up with this BS? I guess because somebody’s revealed religion, according to some corrupted millenia-old text, says I have to. Awesome! How politically correct!”
Are you now just complaining about having to come into contact with beliefs you disagree with? Get over yourself. If you hate it so much, tell those people to fuck themselves—you’re allowed!—or else found your own stupid country.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Wiley,
As El Cid said, if France wants to actually ban anyone from covering their face for security reasons—men, women, Muslims, Halloween costumers—that’s fine. To just ban a burqa is religious discrimination.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
tomemos: found my own “stupid country”? I guess I’ll just get over myself. If you will. Even though I’m not as perfect as you. Boo-hoo.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Oh, is sarcasm out of bounds now? After “Awesome” and “Ya think?”
June 28th, 2009 at 12:03 am
It would be cruel to limit these women’s options in the name of liberation, even if their clothes are a rebuke to the secularism that the French rightly hold sacred.
Forgetting the specific issue of the burqua, I find it concerning that anyone would think that it is “right” for the French to hold enforced cultural secularism to be sacred (as opposed to societal tolerance of disparate beliefs or lack thereof).
June 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Sorry if this is a repeat comment; I don’t have time to read the other 61. I would just point out that the picture is of an Afghan burqa, which is the most extreme for of covering associated with Islam and is not the burqa that’s being discussed in France. The burqa the French are talking about is more properly called niqab, the rectangular veil that covers (most often) the face from the eyes down and is worn with a scarf. The confusion arises, prehaps, because the Saudis call this niqab burkha. I am Muslim and like to wear both hijab and sometimes niqab. I agree that some women are pressured to wear hijab and niqab, but the majority in my experience wear it because they prefer to– often in opposition to the preference of their husband and family. Many Muslim women consider this form of modesty their religious right, and many consider it a religious duty. I agree with Matt’s observation that “banning” niqab will only cause women to suffer, some as they give up a preference, some as they give up the act that gives them access to larger society. I also fully support reasonable security accomodations, like women removing niqab in front of female security guards and so on, and I believe this kind of accomodation is supported by the principles of Islam.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hana, not only is that not a repeat comment, it is something that is missing from these discussions too often: an opinion from someone who would be theoretically affected by this ban. Your perspective is so reasonable I’m not sure how anyone could disagree.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Returning to the fray after an interval. El Cid (46) is right, the first of my quotations doesn’t mean what I took it to mean (it may imply it, but that’s another matter), though my second quotation is more telling.
This comes down to a disagreement about where the real and pressing dangers lie and what needs saying as opposed to what can be taken for granted.
I doubt anything in the following will elicit disagreement; the disagreement will be about whether it needs saying. If it doesn’t, great, but, like Elle Loco, I’m not so sure.
Commitment to liberal values, means taking a very broad view of the rights people have to behave, express themselves and so on in an enormously wide range of ways.
It’s a very good thing within a liberal society if people from diverse cultures, religious traditions, national backgrounds and holding widely different views on all sorts of topics are committed to the society’s fundamental values and see this as something they share with their fellow citizens–among other reasons because the survival of that society to some extent depends on it. Multiculturalism, the celebration of diversity, efforts at outreach between faiths and the like are to be applauded because they serve this purpose and no doubt for other reasons as well. But diverse as the views/cultural traditions, faiths and so on that are compatible with the fundamental values of a liberal society may be, there are views, traditions etc. whose own principles are irreconcilable with those of a free society, e.g., the various ‘fundamentalisms’, not only but not excepting the islamic variety. Our liberal principles commit us to tolerating them as well, but a special kind of problem arises. If Christian scientists have a right to deny themselves the benefit of modern medicine, do they have the right as part of the exercise of their religion to deprive their children of treatment too? What is a free society to do in the face of a minority community one of whose most cherished values is systematically to deprive half its members of basic freedoms?” Banning burkas isn’t the answer, but it’s a real problem, a problem different from the task we all face tolerating all sorts of things in other people we don’t especially care for.
Maybe I’m showing my age, but I remember people whom I admire and respect, and with whom I would go 80 percent of the way, sympathizing with Rushdie’s adversaries. So it seems to me, that this kind of thing needs saying.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you for your kind comment, tomemos. Perhaps concerns of the kind J expresses, that the burka (more properly, the niqab) is a “problem” of “a minority community one of whose most cherished values is systematically to deprive half its members of basic freedoms” would be alleviated if women who cover– and these women range from Christians who cover in the manner of the letter to the Ephesians, observant Jewish women who practice tznius, Muslim women who cover in a variety of ways, and women of other faiths also– were asked their opinions on the matter.
As an aside, I have wondered of the countries who limit the rights of women who wear hijab also limit the rights of Orthodox Jewish women who use a wig as a form of covering their hair. This practice and other Jewish modesty practices is beautifully discussed in the book, “Hide and Seek: Jewish Women and Hair Covering”, by Lynne Schreiber”. I mean, does anyone check? Do they try to pull the wig to test if it’s real hair? Do Orthodox women have to sign anything saying they’re showing their own hair, not a wig?
June 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
If you are interested in vitamin D you should take a look at http://www.vitaminD3world.com The site has good summaries of the data and offers a new preparation of vitamin D in a micro-pill formulation. The pills have been formulated with cellulose which absorbs water very quickly. This ensures that the pill breaks up very quickly to provide for maximum absorption. The micro pill is tiny and tasteless. Many vitamin D pills on the market have very poor dissolution properties resulting in poor absorption.
The site also offers to supply customers with a free supply of 400IU for their children and it also has a good newsletter.
best regards
Toby Lee
June 29th, 2009 at 2:15 am
The fundamental problem is allowing in a group who aren’t going to assimilate and who ultimately will change the French culture for the worse. Note that anti-semetic violence and anti-gay violence has increased with Muslim migration to Europe.
“But perhaps an even more striking finding in light of the burgeoning Jew hatred now evident in Europe’s Muslim communities, has until now received much less attention. In a controlled comparison to European Christians (as the ‘referent’ group), European Muslims were nearly eightfold (i.e., 800%) more likely to be overtly anti—Semitic. Furthermore, in light of the Pew Global Attitudes Project data on Muslim attitudes toward Jews in Islamic countries, the Yale study likely underestimated the extent of anti—Semitism amongst Europe’s Muslim communities. Had more poorly educated, less acclimated European Muslims been sampled, the results would probably have been even worse. Pew’s survey previously indicated,”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/the_islamization_of_european_a.html
June 29th, 2009 at 8:41 am
France is its own country, and last time I checked, it was a democracy. I think democracies are entitled to some variation around the margins when it comes to the balance of individual freedom vs. societal interests–unless you think all democracies should look exactly like ours, which is all the way at one end of the individual-vs.-societal scale.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Rich in PA,
Precisely.
I realise there are Muslim women like Hana who think that the niqab, as she calls it, is just dandy. There are also twelve year old boys who prefer eating candy to eating steamed broccoli. I’m unsure why the twelve year old’s opinions are supposed to have much of an effect on our public discourse, and I’m equally unsure why the opinions of niqab-wearing women about the niqab are supposed to change our minds. Simply put, people often do things and desire things that are not good for them, or for society, and when the harm done to self or others is grave enough, society has the right and duty to coerce them for their own good. Please read St. Augustine’s Seventh Homily on the Epistles of St. John.
Humans are a visual species, with a great capacity (compared with other animals) to express emotions through facial expression, and much of our interaction with each other proceeds through facial interactions. I have no problem with women (Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever) wearing a headscarf, although I might think it’s rather silly. Full coverings though like the niqab, are against nature and the French state has the right to ban them if it sees fit.
Or in other words, scr*w the burqa, and scr*w the niqab.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Putting her points on this together in a slightly different way, this sort of ban seems extremely unlikely to actually help anyone who’s genuinely in need of help. [...] French have a strong tradition not just of secularism, but of a kind of illiberal egalitarianism that holds that everyone should really be the same, and I think it tends to push them toward measures like this that don’t ultimately help anyone.”
Some say : “They will stay home, we will see them no more.”
I am sincerely sorry for these ladies, many of whom are submissive to their awful foreign customs often without even knowing that they may rebel, but just “not see” is exactly what we want. BUT as cruel as it may seem, the primary objective of the prohibition of the burqa is not saving those who are prisoners, but spare us all this staggering show.
No one is forced to live in the West.
But in the West, we accept the view of others.
In the West, we do not walk in the streets naked nor with a burka or whatever : we accept the view of others on our faces. If it is part of some hinduist or islamic tradition/religion to do otherwise, leave the West. Nobody foreced you to live here.
If some, and some thrive in the easement, it does not oblige us to give it citizenship in the City.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I actually agree with Rich. There will always be tensions around the edges of societies, certainly about individual rights vs. the need for a certain social consensus that makes society a reasonably livable place for the vast majority of its members. French society does not need to look the same as American society, but I do believe every society is most healthy when it is clear and consistent, as far as possible, about its values and their legal implementation.
A concern I have about the banning of the niqab (and I would argue that it’s not a matter of the niqab “as I call it”, unless you also think that a certain piece of fruit is an apple “as I call it” or that a certain brand of Swedish car is a Volvo “as I call it”) is that the motive behind its banning seems to be always shifting and inconsistent. Sarkozy seems to think that Muslim women who wear niqab need to be protected from the Muslim men who force them to wear it, that their agency has been denied and needs to be restored. Unfortunately, the result of this is to deny agency to the Muslim women who choose to wear niqab. Another position, that Hector seems to hold when he draws an analogy between Muslim women and 12 year old children, is that the wearing of niqab cannot be an intelligent choice. An individual can certainly hold this belief, but equally those who wear niqab are entitled to disagree, and to continue to wear niqab unless some harm to others is proven. It does seem that some people have a sense of harm, or offense, when they see women wearing niqab or hijab. This might be because in the West we think that being open and available to others is a sign of friendliness and good will. I can understand people being taken aback when a woman’s clothing seems to say, “I don’t want to interact with you”. But many things in society are offensive and for our integrity as a society we need to be consistent in legislation that balances religious freedom and the right to expression against the right to a not too offensive social space.
In all the above objections to niqab I do think it is relevant and valuable to take into consideration the opinions of women who wear niqab because these objections are grounded in the assumptions of people who don’t wear it, i.e. “Niqabis are coerced”, “Niqabis are unintelligent or uniformed”, and “Niqabis reject Westerners and Western values”. I am not coerced, not unintelligent, and I am part of the West. I have lived in several countries and this country of my birth is the one I prefer. When we are infantilized by the assumptions of the very people who claim to have our best interests at heart, we can’t help but feel that with friends like these, who needs enemies?
In summary, I am not persuaded that the amount of time and concern spent on the niqab is justified. I would like to see more understanding of the role niqab and hijab play in the spiritual practice of Muslim women, and, although discussion of one’s clothes does eventually become quite tiresome, I would be glad to participate in any discussion that would put others more at ease with our choices. I hope I have been of some use in this conversation.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: A woman whose husband and/or other male relations have enough power over her to force her into a [...]