Belgium has banned the burkha. (source) One might think that this is an intrusion on civil liberties — and I suppose that one could credibly argue that it is. You ought to be able to wear a burkha if you want to.
On the other hand, I question how many women wear burkhas voluntarily. I bet that sub-group of burkha-wearers is somewhere around 12 worldwide.
When you are up against one of the abrahamic cults (christianity, judaism, islam) sometimes it takes radical moves to push for progress. In Turkey, back in the early 1900s, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk helped make the burkha a thing of the past by decreeing that all prostitutes must wear them, and simultaneously banning the headscarf for women. Accordingly, the burkha became the uniform of the whore, and law-abiding women didn’t wear them.
Of course, pushing against a cult is difficult, and to this day Turkish women disobey the law – preferring to do that over the immodesty of showing their hair in public.
I don’t really see a whole lot of a problem with a woman voluntarily wearing a headscarf. But, the burkha is just a disgusting display of misogyny. On the other hand, if she’s a nutbag that wants to wear one, then what business is it of the state to intervene? Is it proper for the state to make the same judgment I make — that she can’t possibly be voluntarily wearing it, and thus ban burkhas to “liberate” women who might not be able to liberate themselves?
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Personal standards of modesty are all arbitrary, no matter how they were developed, and the shouldn’t be dismissed by the government because they are different.
You may not like what a burkha symbolizes in terms of the oppression of women, religious cults, etc. but that doesn’t make banning them right.
Here’s a somewhat different take on this issue, from last year when France was considering a similar ban. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/22/banning-the-burqa-in-france/ The upshot is that banning the burkha won’t keep women from wearing it (or from being forced to wear it) — it will just keep women who wear it from leaving their homes. I don’t see how that’s an improvement.
Meanwhile, Belgium continues to pay subsidies to the mosques that force these women to wear their goblin costumes.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35444.htm
Of course they also subsidize the Catholic Church, “Protestantism” (whatever that means), and Judaism, again whatever that means.
The Church of the Subgenius is not on the list, yet another reason I can happily praise “Bob”.
If you ever need a minister, I am ordained by Bob.
I think you may be surprised by how many people do make an informed, voluntary choice to cover. If they don’t, I can’t see how a law is going to make them defy those who impose it on them, they are much more likely to have to stay inside, where they cannot be seen. So this law traps the people it claims to help. I certainly wouldn’t call this ‘liberation.’
A pretty tough argument to beat.
I would imagine that when one is in public in a “free and open” society, one would not disguise one’s self. Or hide one’s self. It seems to follow that a society becomes free and open and maintains that state when individuals present themselves one to another in a free and open manner. To do otherwise might be interpreted as being disapproving of such a society and appear as a threat to or a mockery of freedom and openness.
The larger part of societal harmony is the day to day interactions between individuals. It’s cumulative, I see.
Well, I would imagine that when one is in public in a “free and open” society, one can dress oneself however one wishes. Clothing — even clothing that covers the face — is not necessarily a disguise or hiding.
There is an interesting clash in values here that is perhaps best illustrated by this: what about the right of a protester to attend a rally with a mask (or disguise)? How is that different (or to what extent could you enforce a ban on burqas but not this) than the right of a woman to wear a burqa? What about the right of a protester to wear a costume which disguises his/her true identity (eg. a Bush mask at an anti-war rally)?
And on the issue of participation in a “free and democratic society”, the USOC just heard – as its last case of the session – a case involving the question of whether or not people who sign a petition to force a ballot question have the right to anonymity. I wonder how the Catholic Alito, who can’t wait to jump to the defence of his anti-gay brethren in that case (by granting anonymity) might adjudicate a burqa ban…
I’ve been considering such questions. For a long time. I observe that the wearing of masks in public is usually associated with a holiday and thus is a yearly one-off. One can also use a mask to express an idea or a point of view at, say, a demonstration. Religious observances sometimes involve masks. Too, sometimes people just like to goof around.
In these cases the mask has a specific and limited purpose and is removed once the day or the moment has passed. The wearing of the full body and face shields as a matter of daily practice, especially when it is meant only to conceal the wearer instead of drawing attention to a point or in observance of some special character of the day, is what concerns me. It is as though the wearer is not only frightened of the notion of free and open, but is acting in a way that is antithetical to such a notion. That also goes for those who encourage or demand the practice; in spades.
It also brings to mind a toddler clasping her hands over her eyes and declaring, “You can’t see me.” I was taught that when I grew up I would be living in a world of adults. I need to have a talk with my last surviving parent, Ma. Hey, Ma . . .
I, a right leaning libertarian, am generally against bans.
The more I think about it, the more I come down on this position — I do think the burkha should be “banned” — but by social pressure.
The burkha is a disgusting item, created by a disgusting sub-culture (as not all muslim societies require it), and it says a lot more about the lack of self-confidence in the men who demand it than it does about the women under it.
Any family that tolerates the burkha should be collectively punched in the genitals, discriminated against, and should have rocks thrown at them in the street.
But… that doesn’t mean that the state ought to be making wardrobe choices for anyone. Not even in this extreme circumstance. If you don’t support Baldwin, Flori-duh in its decision to ban saggy pants, then I fail to see how you can support the Belgian burkha ban.
“…and it says a lot more about the lack of self-confidence in the men who demand it than it does about the women under it.”
Incidentally, many have theorized that the Burkha was created by men (long before Islam) who did not want other men to lust after their wives. Of course, they said it was to protect the women (and it was applied to all women of that culture to show it), but this can be interpreted as a sign of (I swore I’d never use this term) Beta-male mentality.
Marc, no question, I would have no objections to that particular brand of Islam doing an about-face on requiring burqas. (I’ve decided to mix up my spelling a bit). I think it’s largely a case of over-interpretation of a relatively vague commitment to “female modesty” (which is itself a sexist/misogynistic expression of male insecurity and need to control). But if we allow the government to ban burqas, then there’s nothing to stop them banning turbans, yarmulkes, or Doc Martens.
I tend to agree.
That said, there may be a worthy argument in the theory that burkhas are forced upon women by their short-dicked husbands, therefore outlawing them is the only way to ensure that the women are not oppressed.
But, I’m not persuaded by that line of thinking yet — and the points made above are a great parry to it. If burkhas are outlawed, then the women simply won’t be allowed out of the house.
Marco, I think that is the real question here, that women whose husbands won’t let them out of the house “uncovered” will simply lock them inside. I think I understand what the Belgians are trying to do, but I also question the method. Yes, you won’t see Burkhas in public, but what happens to those women behind closed doors? I think the law is shortsighted. Social pressure is a much better motivator – if you instill in society a view that the husbands of Burkha wearing women have “shortcomings”, I think you get to the goal much faster.
Maybe… I won’t pretend to understand the minds of such men.
What about the right and freedom of men to force their womenfolk to cover up?!!
As a ‘culturally’ muslim woman, I am both disgusted and drawn to the burka. When I was in Pakistan, I wore one. But, friends and relatives who have recently gone back to Kabul have not, and they said most women do not. I know women who ‘choose’ to wear it, but I don’t know how freely that choice is made. When I see women in the U.S. wearing the full on burka with gloves and glasses while their husbands wear shorts and tank tops, I want to punch the whoe family in the genitals. Yet, I act like its ok. It’s not,though, is it?
Damned my religion! It makes me think too hard.
I feel pretty much the same about the burkha that I do Chinese foot binding, but in most Western cultures we have a symbolic form of this: high heeled shoes.
What I would think would be fun to see, is a burkha cross-dresser. Seriously, I would do it myself if the people I’d be mocking were prone to rational discourse.
I knew a woman that worked in a lingerie store. All the time she’d get these guys coming in, wanting panties for their girlfriends who just happened to be about their size. She always wished one would skip the pretext and just admit is was for him.
It would be pure comedy gold to document this. White Western man goes in for his first burkha. “It’s for my girlfriend. She’s quite immodest! She’s exactly my size. Can I try it on?”
Bonus Points available in Belgium: wear this around until he is detained, then file a claim of discrimination for being upset at the cross-dressing. Or whatever. The whole thing would be funny as hell. Well, until they bomb your house. Then it would lose a little of the shine.