A Conversation on the Burqa Ban

Below is most of a comments conversation that some acquaintances and I had on Facebook. I removed posts that I consider irrelevant to the discussion. I might post them if a reader begs me to. Nothing that I posted here is “improved” in any way, so all the spelling errors are sic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My brother: Any thoughts on France's burqa ban? I've generally felt that bans on this kind of thing are a bit totalitarian, but a friend of mine recently likened the burqa to "modern-day slavery." What are your thoughts? Should women be punished for wearing their religious clothing, as they would be under the new French law?

T: The burqa is a symbol of chauvanistic slavery. It's sad that the women who wear it tolerate it. France is simply saying they won't tolerate it. Which is good.(It won't last long.) Besides, it's a safety issue because of the face being entir...ely covered. It has nothing to do with religion. The mall I used to work security at had a zero tolerance policy for people walking through with a mask on- even on Halloween. Not only is it unsafe, but it also makes it easier to commit a crime without being recognizable. One guy even walked through with an all out Darth Vader mask. Did you see the story of the lady who wanted her driver's license picture with the burqa on? Holy cow.

My brother: I did hear about that story--what a mess that would have been for identification purposes. The burqa ban is interesting--it passed by an absolute landslide, and the 100 or so abstains were almost all leftists who didn't want to get caught up in the mess of it.

A: I don't agree with the ban, but I do agree that it is a symbol of a chauvinistic society/belief system. I actually get angry when I see women who wear it. It's like they are going along with the sadistic and profoundly unfair system of laws that keep women down in those parts of the world. The feminist in me screams and yells, kicking even. But I still don't think you can tell people what to wear on their heads.

My brother: A, I think yours is a perfectly sound viewpoint. I think it's possible to disagree with something without call...ing for an outright ban on it. I wonder if there's a more organic way to promote women's rights than bans like this.

Me: I'd say that a burqa can constitute a mask, and so any private agency has the right to exclude people who wear it, and any government agency that has a legitimate interest in seeing people's faces (ie a jail that needs to take a mug shot) has the right to make someone take it off. I also understand that people can read it as a symbol of chauvenistic slavery. However, the idea that it's a symbol of an unseemly thing is a social attitude that should be left up to individuals to embrace or refrain from embracing, and should not be enforced by a government as policy. Remember - lots of people think long full skirts are also symbols of chauvenistic slavery, and it would be a real shame for a government to prohibit women from adhering to their personal sense of modesty.

I don't consider the mere wearing of a garment to be necessarily coerced - even if the garment hides most of the wearer's body. It is conceivable that most women who do wear the burqa do so out of steep social pressure, or out of all-out coercion. But it is also conceivable that a woman can do it voluntarily, and if it's possible for a woman to wear it voluntarily - which quite a few do - then it should not be treated as slavery as far as government policy is concerned.

Like a few other government actions, this ban is an encroachment on the rights of private property owners, in that owners of private semi-public places like cafes, restaurants, and malls cannot tolerate women who wear burqas on their property - the women can still be fined, even if the owner of the property consents to the woman dressing that way on his property.

Me: And another thing: a national regualtion on what a woman may and may not wear runs completely against any supposed goal of liberating women.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: So what do you think about a Government who requires a woman to wear a Burqa, Isaiah?

Me: Probably a slightly more pronounced version of what I think of a government that requires women to wear any clothes at all.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: Isaiah, sorry but I don't get your response. :-/

My brother: It's interesting that you bring up governments requiring women to wear a burqa, Nancy--because Isaiah seems to be really honing in on that key word: require. Personally, I'm adamantly opposed to any government requiring a woman to wear a burqa; then in France the government is requiring women to NOT wear them. Amid all this requiring I wonder whether governments should be making any requirement about that at all.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: What reasons are there to require women to not wear a burqa? Is it for national security?

My brother: When the French government first made the recommendation, it said "to ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes." Other reasons given include public safety. I don't see national security as a reason; this follows a 2004 law disallowing children from wearing any overt religious symbolism whatsoever in French schools (that includes religious head-scarves and cross-shaped necklaces).

Me: Sorry, I was being facetious. I believe that a national government should have a very minimal role in dictating what people wear. It does have an understandable and excusable reason to require people to dress fully and formally for an appearance in federal court, or for a visit to any other meeting of the national government. I do not believe that should include a requirement to wear a face covering. A national government has an understandable and excusable reason to require minimal dress standards for certain public places like public parks and beaches, though it has just as understandable and excusable reasons to designate certain parks and beaches as clothing optional. It's also understandable and excusable for a government to require people to show their faces in their drivers' license photos (though of course I oppose government mandating any kind of licensing, including drivers' licenses). All of these considerations above are very time- and place-specific.

Some national laws dictating what one may or may not wear would be understandable and excusable regardless of place and time - for instance a ban on wearing a live bomb vest. But a national law regarding what people wear in their personal and day-to-day lives, without being necessary to address a public safety need, is an unjustified intrusion into the individual's personal sphere.

Rules about what one may and may not wear on the sidewalk or a city bus are more understandably the role of local governments; though here too I think it is more justifiable to err on the side of liberality than on the side of astringence (and some cities are just too big for me to call "local"). And I would be reluctant to step foot in a city that required its women to wear burqas in public - if that's what you're asking about.

E: Aww, shucks, Nate considers me a friend. ~;)

I think if we don’t look at this as telling people what to and what not to wear but, rather, look at it as a matter of human rights one might think differently.

Obviously, in our society, more legislation is almost always viewed as a bad thing - Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do! We view it as protecting our liberties to do whatever the hell we want (within reason, of course), even screaming at the top of our lungs against our government.

But there are many times in history where legislating human rights was, indeed, the only way to foster equality. Take desegregation for example. Or women’s suffrage. Or the current issue of gay marriage. Sometimes legislation is the only way to FORCE people treat everyone equally. It may not be pretty but if people aren’t going to stand up for others on their own, and the group does not have or does not think it has the power to stand up for themselves, then what possible other course of action do you take, other than to be content with the status quo?

I don’t want governments to legislate away our rights and freedoms. But I want everyone treated equally, whether bigots, misogynists and homophobes agree or not, and I support any legislation that forces them to do so.

You can show me a plethora of women saying that they are wearing the burqa by choice, but I will never believe that is a choice that comes from free will. Too often women in Muslim societies are oppressed and they don’t feel they have other options. They have been raised to believe they are less than their male counterparts and all of the aspects of their lives (food, education, choice) have reinforced that belief.

I am not saying that all Muslim culture is misogynist. Indeed, there are many Muslim communities that choose to treat women as equals and believe in a different interpretation of the Koran. But having traveled through Muslim countries as a woman, I most certainly felt oppressed and unable to express myself. And I didn’t even live there.

So…that’s my .02 since I apparently started this interesting discussion! Thanks, [my brother], for continuing it! ~:)

Me: I agree that legislation to end government discrimination is appropriate. About legislation that forces private groups and individuals to integrate, I offer the perspective of this article. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010.../0526/Rand-Paul-and-the-Civil-Rights-Act-Was-he-right "Starting in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960, lunch counters throughout the South began to be desegregated through direct but peaceful confrontation – sit-ins – staged by courageous students and others who refused to accept humiliating second-class citizenship. Four years before the Civil Rights Act passed, lunch counters in downtown Nashville were integrated within four months of the launch of the Nashville Student Movement’s sit-in campaign."

About gay marriage, I offer the perspective of this article. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-faith-edit_x.htm The solution called for here is not forced integration.

I would not believe for one milisecond the idea that *NOT A SINGLE* woman who wears a burqa does so freely. That's just such a broad statement it looks wrong on its face. Of course the ideas people are raised with are going to have an effect on the choices they make - that doesn't mean that the clothes they decide to wear are necessarily going to be clothes they were forced to wear. And besides ideas that people are raised with, what about ideas that people adopt? What about the white English or American women who convert to Islam and start wearing burqas on their own? I don't see any firm ground to assume that they too were somehow coerced into donning the burqa by some radically constricted gender role that they inherited.