Open thread: individual liberty and #NoHijabDay

October 11, 2015 • 9:30 am

by Grania

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Today is No Hijab Day, a protest started by Iranian-born Masih Alinejad against Iran’s government requirement of women to wear the hijab, and the enforcement of this by the so-called Morality Police. She won an award at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in February this year.

It may seem like a small thing, but in a country where dancing to music can and does lead to arrest and jail terms, it is an act of tremendous courage to defy authority.

Benjamin Franklin wrote (perhaps a bit too harshly):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Nevertheless, the idea is a valuable one and deserves some serious thought. How many times do those of us fortunate enough to live in freer societies choose not to challenge inroads to liberty for the sake of our own comfort?

74 thoughts on “Open thread: individual liberty and #NoHijabDay”

  1. “Our liberty ends where the liberty of others begins.”

    I want to agree completely with this, but I think there might be some exceptions. Having the total freedom to do as you please, as long as it doesn’t impact others sounds hedonistic, but what do I know.

    Also, I loved the Pharell Williams “Happy”, but freedom does not guarantee happiness.

    2. Indeed, fighting for your rights can often lead to unhappiness and discouragement (and worse), which is why most people don’t even try…

    1. I’m not a fan of rap music, but I am a huge fan of what this girl has done to escape traditional ridiculousness and to give such an important message to the world.

    2. Beautiful. Wonderful. People never cease to amaze me.

      Young woman speaks out about oppression in her culture. Risking her freedom, wellbeing, perhaps life, she composes and secretly records a protest music video and releases it on youtube. It goes viral. A certain someone sees it and offers her a scholarship to study music, thus allowing her to escape her oppressive country. There is yet hope for humanity.

  3. Not sure why you say Ben Franklin’s statement was a bit harsh. Considering his son, William was a Tory/Loyalist during the American Revolution might have had something to do with it.

    Jason Rezaian, the Washing Post reporter remains in prison in Iran and apparently has been given a verdict although I don’t know what.

    1. I think Ben Franklin’s statement can be considered harsh in some circumstances. If they’ve got nowhere else to go, I can imagine someone staying in an abusive marriage, for example. In developed countries, there is almost always somewhere to escape to in these circumstances, but in many places around the world there isn’t, especially for women and more so for children.

      1. Heather, I certainly understand what you are saying if you were talking about something John Doe said more currently. However, when you are quoting something from the 18th century, it is best to set your mind to the proper time to understand what is happening or being said. One possible reason that some folks today have such an incorrect view of history, even if you are just rewinding a few decades, is because they leave their mind in the present while attempting to understand the past.

        1. As an historian, that’s not something I do.

          In the context Benjamin Franklin was probably talking, I understand what he meant. But at any time, his statement can’t be applied generally. I bet there were a lot of slaves who put up with their lot because to do otherwise would have meant death, and I bet Franklin wouldn’t have wanted to encourage a slave revolt.

  4. Three of religion’s prime, “noxious” aspects to me are:
    (1) The pressing of a particular belief system on the young while discouraging or disallowing any consideration of alternate belief systems

    (2) The idea that a particular belief system “should” be somehow exempt from rational examination, mockery, or criticism

    (3) The notion that ALL people should follow one particular belief system

    The absolute worst, however, is when believers go on to feel that they have some sort of “divine mandate” to punish those who do not adhere to the first three: without this, religion could actually be a stimulating and entertaining aspect of life; celebrating the diversity of cultures and encouraging the lively interchange of ideas and the quest for knowledge. Alas, such is not so….

    1. Noxious is the correct word but wouldn’t these believers just get off the hook by claiming the Nuremberg defense?

  5. I have seen several freedom videos with “Happy”. It seems to be an international protest song.

  7. Big Niqab debate going on in Canada right now. And of course the backward regressive liberals are defending women’s right to wear it. How wonderful of liberals to defend people’s right to live by the religion of the warriors who conquered their ancestors. Don’t worry dear children. Liberals are out there defending the right of your ancestors religion to be indoctrinated into you as a helpless child.

    1. I’m not a fan of the niqab, but it would seem a funny kind of liberal who failed to defend a woman’s right to dress how she pleased. And are you really suggesting that parents shouldn’t have the right to give their children a religious upbringing? It’s just that suppression of religion by states never ends well.

      1. I will tell you right now that parents should not be able to give their children religious upbringing if it includes refusal of live saving blood, or refusal to participate in the election process.

      2. We have a different definition of freedom of religion I guess. In my view the freedom should be granted to the individual not to the religion. I honestly don’t know how you square freedom of religion with childhood indoctrination by parents into their religion. There is no freedom of religion for the child in this situation, or for their parents who were also indoctrinated as children. It’s a vicious cycle of taking away the religious freedom of children who grow into adults who think they now chose their religion but they did not.

        Shame on anyone who supports childhood religious indoctrination. It is child abuse. True freedom of religion only happens in secular households. And true freedom of religion almost always leads to atheism.

        As fort the niqab, some women will tell you they want to wear it like some women will tell you they like want to have a pimp. Fool that you are supporting women’s right to have a pimp and I’d have to say the same about supporting a woman’s right to wear the niqab.

        1. “I honestly don’t know how you square freedom of religion with childhood indoctrination by parents into their religion.”

          Almost everything we believe is a result of childhood, and societal indoctrination of some form or another. At what point, and under what circumstances do we grant individuals the freedom to make choices, even if we think they are bad ones. I say when they are adults. If you were suggesting banning children from wearing one we might have a discussion. I wouldn’t necessarily object to banning unnecessary cosmetic surgery for children (breast enhancement for example), but even that, which could be physically harmful for life, isn’t a slam dunk.
          Additionally if swearing in ceremonies historically didn’t allow headgear I would oppose making an exception. I was supportive (assuming the circumstances were as I understand them to be) of the Canadian judge who didn’t allow any form of headgear in her courtroom, and wouldn’t make an exception for the hijab, but banning the Niqab post hoc seems like an intentional restriction on religious freedom, and even worse, one that specifically targets a single religion.

          1. I don’t see anything bad in specifically targeting a single religion, as long as it is exactly the religion that currently causes the world more problems than all others put together.

          2. “I don’t see anything bad in specifically targeting a single religion, as long as it is exactly the religion that currently causes the world more problems than all others put together.”

            Then in the US we should be targeting Christians, since they commit the lion’s share of terrorist acts here.

          3. Then, these crimes are vastly underreported, because all I hear about is some occasional nut attacking an abortion doctor. Anyway, I live in Europe, where we time and again have Muslim terror and I don’t remember any Christian terror. In Canada, pro-Palestinian thugs recently beat up Jewish counter-protesters with impunity. A lady bragged on Facebook that Jews will be scared in the future, and all that happened to her was that she didn’t receive a peace (?!) award.

          4. Are you aware that we have laws against polygamy? There are many women who “want” to be sister wives, but we don’t allow it. We have banned the practice “for their own good.” The only difference between these two situations is melanin. Certain overly PC liberals have no problem banning and criticizing religious practices of other cultures in the name of stopping the subjugation of women when they are white people. But the sight of melanin mixes with their white guilt and it makes them lose their mind. Suddenly they are not seeing straight and using phrases like “a women’s right to wear the niqab if they want.”

            “Almost everything we believe is a result of childhood, and societal indoctrination of some form or another.”

            Speak for yourself. Everything I believe is based on evidence. There is nothing I believe because that’s what I was taught as a child or because that is what my people have always believed. Yes we are all indoctrinated. Some indoctrinations are much worse than others and almost impossible to break free from.

        2. I wanted to add that your allies on the right who support this ban are not motivated by their concern for women who have been indoctrinated, they are almost exclusively motivated by bigotry. Ask them how they would feel about banning crosses.

          2. I’m a lefty liberal so I have no allies on the right, but if you want to play the “look who’s on your side” game, on your side of the argument are the mullahs of Iran, the kings of Saudi Arabia and men who honour kill their own daughters for the crime of being raped. I’m no fan of the right wing but I’ll take them as strange bed fellows on this issue over your teammates. And your assertion that the opposition to this is pure bigotry is just an assertion, with no supporting data. Many people call any criticism of Islam at all “bigotry” so the word kind of loses it’s meaning when used so misguidedly.

      1. You are defending a religion’s right to tell women what they can and can not wear, as well as supporting childhood religious indoctrination. Shame.

        1. Some schools of feminist have claimed that all women who want to wear (e.g.) miniskirts have been oppressed by the patriarchy and are contributing to their own oppression by wearing such things. Do you think that women should be prohibited from wearing miniskirts? (At citizenship ceremonies only?)

    3. “Big Niqab debate going on in Canada right now. And of course the backward regressive liberals are defending women’s right to wear it.”

      I see no reason why not to defend women’s right to wear it. I wouldn’t support, as some “regressive liberals” might, granting exception to women so they can wear them in banks, or when certain uniforms are a requirement for employment, but I see no good reason to ban them.

      1. No one is suggesting banning them outright. The debate in Canada right now is about banning them for swearing in ceremonies. But while we should allow women to wear the niqab if they really want to, none of us should be so ignorant as to think that their desire to wear it is not coerced by childhood indoctrination, as well as family and societal pressures.

      2. I don’t see any reason to allow an individual to wear in public any clothing that makes him/her unidentifiable. This can facilitate a number of misdemeanors and crimes. And let’s remember that radical Islam – the one that enforces the burqa – motivates horrific crimes.
        As for the “wish” of women to wear the burqa, it is certainly a wish no sane human being can harbor. Only those who have been indoctrinated into insanity can wish to walk packed in a tent in order to have a happier “life” when they no longer exist. If we agree to walk down that slippery slope, I don’t see any reason why not to allow women to be sold as slaves, or to donate both their kidneys or their heart while living, or… etc., as long as they “wish” it.

        1. “I don’t see any reason to allow an individual to wear in public any clothing that makes him/her unidentifiable. This can facilitate a number of misdemeanors and crimes.”

          Except I don’t think that’s the argument here except perhaps when people are entering banks. At least I’ve heard no call to ban parka’s, or hoodies, or fake beards, or makeup, or cosmetic surgery, or anything else that might make someone unidentifiable.

          1. Makeup does not make anybody unidentifiable, unless it is actor’s makeup. After cosmetic surgery, the person IS identifiable, just different from his old photos.
            Nothing is like the burqa, which has already been used in voting deceptions and in abductions. Even the headscarf is benign; its major drawback is that it paves the way for the burqa and also makes non-Muslims submit to Islam.

          2. Mike, what is your position of the banning of polygamy? You know that many women “want” to be sister-wives but our government thinks it knows better. Our government, with your consent, has outlawed this religious cultural practice for “their own good.” These women claim to be truly happy living in polygamy but our society feels like it knows better. Polygamy a misogynist cultural tradition we say that does not meet our values and so we have outlawed it. Bigots? How dare we tell these women they can’t be sister wives if they want to? How do you feel about this, Mike? Is this okay with you because the Mormon polygamists are white so it’s okay to outlaw their religious cultural tradition? But Muslims are mostly brown people so it’s racist to do the same thing? The only difference here is melanin, the sight of which which make some liberals loose their reason. I think it’s an overreaction to white guilt that causes this loss of common sense. Hopefully this polygamy analogy helps you see the light but somehow I doubt it will.

          3. “Mike, what is your position of the banning of polygamy?”

            I don’t see any particularly good argument for it’s being banned. That being said what arguments there are are far better than the arguments for banning the Niqab. Which to be completely honest seem like nothing more than bigotry. As I’ve pointed out there are a myriad of other things we could ban if the goal is truly looking out for people who are being pressured into doing things they would rather not do. How do you feel about banning porn? Certainly a stronger argument can be made for that than banning the Niqab. I guess that would be more problematic than targeting a group (Muslims) that people are bigoted against.

          4. So you believe the “sister wives” when they say that it is their own free choice? Is the banning of polygamy then bigoted against Mormons? Is the hit Broadway musical “The Book Of Mormon” bigoted towards Mormons? Or is it only bigotry when brown skin is involved?

          5. “So you believe the “sister wives” when they say that it is their own free choice?”

            I don’t know I can’t read minds. From my perspective no one could be a republican unless they’ve been “brainwashed”. Should we ban the republican party?

          7. People are not bigoted against Muslims. It is Muslims who are bigoted against other people. It is Muslims who consider all other people inferior and think themselves entitled to lord over others.
            Here, by “Muslim” I mean someone who really believes the nonsense written in the Koran, rather than the myriad of ordinary people who have just been unlucky to be born in a Muslim community. The latter individuals usually have some damage from the indoctrination, but are ready to co-exist with other people on equal terms.
            So, how to distinguish between these and those Muslims? No reliable method exists; and it cannot exist, because there are transitions of individuals in both directions – Muslim radicals repenting and moderate Muslims radicalizing. However, refusal to accept Western dress code is a strong indicator that the person may have fundamentalist views also on other issues. Therefore, I think that the disapproval felt by non-Muslims when seeing headscarves and burqas is not bigotry, but rather the same healthy reaction of disapproval as when seeing a Nazi swastika. For the record, I don’t think swastikas should be banned, except for government employees; I just refuse to admit that my dislike of people wearing them is tantamount to bigotry, as you are saying.

          9. Alas, mayamarkov, there are plenty of people who are bigoted against Muslims, just as there are plenty of bigoted Muslims. Bigotry is something human beings are rather good at. I am not convinced that your attempts at distinguishing between Muslims whom it is justified to feel bigoted about and Muslims whom it is not so justified help towards ridding the world of bigotry. They (your attempts) seem bigoted themselves.

          10. Mike, you have the right analogy with the Republican party, but you are not applying it correctly. No one wants to ban Islam or the Republican party. We’re talking about banning one cultural practice or tradition. The correct analogy would be both you and I wanting to ban (outlaw) many republican ideas, policies, and laws that they have enacted. And we both speak hyper critically about Republican beliefs and traditions. And you know that being Republican is cultural, right? Just like being a racist. Republicans raise Republicans and racists raise racists. And they have a homeland (the south) where most of them live. It’s a culture. And it’s mostly a bad culture. It’s mostly wrong and you and I are right. Racism is wrong, capitalism is poison, climate change is real, gays and women deserve equal rights. Neither of us are “tolerant” of the cultural beliefs of the southern Republicans. We don’t “celebrate our differences” with them. We are hyper critical of them and we want to ban many of their cultural beliefs and practices. We are, by your definition, bigots towards Republicans.

            But we’re not bigots, Mike. It’s okay to be critical of the cultural beliefs and traditions of others. In fact we have to be. We are critical of our own culture and indoctrinations. All ideas and beliefs and cultural practices are on the table for discussion to see if they have true value. Capitalism and the niqab, both up for debate and criticism. And we can decide to dispense with both through discussions like these.

          11. “No one wants to ban Islam or the Republican party. We’re talking about banning one cultural practice or tradition. The correct analogy would be both you and I wanting to ban (outlaw) many republican ideas, policies, and laws that they have enacted.”

            No, a correct analogy would be banning republicans from wearing shirts, or hats expressing their allegiance to the republican party.

            “But we’re not bigots, Mike. It’s okay to be critical of the cultural beliefs and traditions of others. In fact we have to be. We are critical of our own culture and indoctrinations.”

            Being critical is fine, implementing bans is a different story. That being said do you agree with mayamarkov when he showed his true motivation by saying “People are not bigoted against Muslims. It is Muslims who are bigoted against other people.”?

          12. Say whatever you like, but the fact that a Canadian citizen is sought as a suspect for a bus bombing in my country is hardly a good advertisement for the unconditional, ultra-liberal acceptance of all things Islamic. We have an old Muslim minority of 10%, almost a million people, but you cannot see any of their ladies in a burqa, and the precious few who wear headscarves are looked at like square eggs by everybody, including their Muslim peers. And I haven’t heard of any of our Muslims being recruited to fight for the Dark Side. (Disclaimer: I am not saying that banning the Muslim dress code will make all Muslim moderates. Ataturk tried it, didn’t work. The French are trying it now in their schools, doesn’t seem to work. Because the two phenomena are not cause and effect, but two effects of a common cause.)

          13. “A correct analogy would be banning republicans from wearing shirts, or hats expressing their allegiance to the republican party.”
            Let me clarify that I am not proposing a ban on headscarves. I am not for banning anything and everything that I dislike. I even think that the French are wrong with their ban on heascarves in public schools. It is like switching off an indicator, and I think it is counter-productive. It is likely to make some conservative fathers pull their daughters from school at the youngest age when this is legal (we are talking about men who are not very enthusiastic about education of girls to begin with). This may be good in individual cases (Aqsa Parvez would most likely be alive), but generally I don’t find it a great idea.

          14. No. Mike, a pro Republican T-shirt is not analogous to the niqab. If you honestly think it is, I can see why you don’t understand any of this. I will have to conclude that your support for the niqab is based on your misogyny just as you assume everyone against it is a bigot.

    4. Justin Trudeau is simply following Canadian traditions of equality for all that was best exemplified by his father who famously said

      “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”

      when as justice minister he repealed all laws against homosexuality.

      All Justin Trudeau said was that the state has no right to tell this one person (and at best it will be one or two people a year) that she could not wear the niqab during a citizenship ceremony.

      On the other hand you seem to be supporting Stephen Harper, who is playing the extremely cynical us versus them game in order to get reelected. For the Tories it is scare tactics and fear that they are promoting.

      1. Canada is known to be a country where life is good (unlike that in ANY country dominated by Islam), so many people wish to immigrate to it. Which means that Canadian authorities have quite a choice whom to let in and whom not. I’d wish to know why, of all people on Earth wishing to immigrate to Canada, a lady in a burqa should be selected to be given citizenship. This is, so to say, my question of Life, Universe and Everything.

    5. I know the counter argument is that they’re being forced to wear it so banning it actually helps them, but I’m wary of any argument that goes “we’re banning this for your own good” that isn’t decided on a case-by-case basis using evidence and not mere assumption. And if you have that evidence in individual cases, maybe just prosecute the person forcing them to wear it…

      1. In a world where British authorities allowed thousands of young non-Muslim girls to be enslaved by Muslims, lest be accused in Islamophobia, your suggestion sounds sarcastic.

      2. Quote from former British Islamist Maajid Nawaz:
        “We were encouraged by Omar Bakri to operate like street gangs and we did, prowling London, fighting Indian Sikhs in the west and African Christians in the east. We intimidated Muslim women until they wore the hijab and we thought we were invincible.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2331021/I-watched-man-stabbed-London-street–felt-nothing.html#ixzz3oNzZOOWm
        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook”

        (Emphasis mine.)

      1. “I see it more your way, Matt, than that of the subsequent commenters.”

        You really support banning the Niqab? I mean I understand the motivation, we’re protecting them from themselves, or from those who would force coerce them into wearing it, but the same argument could be made for banning breast augmentation surgery. Women have been brainwashed into thinking they have to look a certain way, they are pressured by society, and spouses to get risky surgery. We should just ban it, and save women from themselves, and being coerced into dangerous surgery. It seems like a better argument considering the risks of surgery, and potential side affects after the fact.

        1. No, I wouldn’t go that far. I was free associating to the sorts of liberals who from their comfortably western middle class mindsets wax idyllic on the “freedom” and “political statement” that niqab wearing represents and brook no dissent concerning coercive and freedom-depriving religio-cultural traditions. Those “liberals” annoy me.

  8. “How many times do those of us fortunate enough to live in freer societies choose not to challenge inroads to liberty for the sake of our own comfort?”
    Destorying freedom bit by bit for the sake of comfort (security) is the root axiom of all political collectivism, such as the Progressive movement in the United States. The left-progressives have commited atrocity on freedom in slow motion. Their crime is no less hideous for the velvet glove it wears on its fist.

    1. The way I’ve heard the quote (variously attributed to Franklin, Mill, and others) is “The country that will trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both, and deserve neither.”

      But, to your point, I like the way Mencken puts it: “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

      While this is the purview of the right, I don’t overlook the silliness of the left, who in their scrambling efforts to appear non-racist make no effort to combat the greater danger, religion.

      1. While I agree that religion breeds atrocity in 1) the indoctrination of the innocent; and 2) nightmare when its irrational commands are put into law, I hold that the Establishment Right/Left are equally guilty of trading freedom for security.

        If the left is to be exempted from its sins for it, they cannot claim opposition to religion until they renounce their own irrational axiom, that the individual is to be subservient to the group. They should take off that hat.

        1. I will not need your approval for my opposition to religion nor your assumptions about my position, or your definition of what the left is.

  9. What the, “pseudoliberals” don’t seem to notice is that there’s a subtle difference in people having the right to wear whatever form of headgear they want to and people being coerced by violence into doing so as part of their, “membership” in a sexually repressive belief system. There are also necessary societal, “identification” issues here: the police need to be easily able to identify individuals by their ID, Driver’s license photos, etc. I won’t defend the “right” of a Pastafarian to wear a colander on his/her head in those circumstances, either: societal rights have to sometimes, “trump” individual rights for society to exist. I wonder if any of these P.L.s are wondering, “Here we are, fighting so hard for women to wear the hijab (or burqa) as they wish; why are Iranian women celebrating taking it off?”

  11. There are places in the world where Pastafarians are legally entitled to wear colanders on their heads for drivers license photos.

    Dress codes are as diverse as the people in the world and the cultures they live in. Can you imagine a woman wearing a hijab in a jungle village where little or no clothing is worn? Where women do not cover their breasts and men wear penis sheaths? Can you imagine the shock in our cultures if nudity were considered an acceptable form of “dress”? What a range of possibility! I would prefer that individuals be able to wear what they want as long as doing do would not put them in danger.

    2. Wearing burqa which makes you unidentifiable puts other people and their property in danger.
      Even countries that recommend the burqa seem to understand it. They order women to be accompanied by (identifiable) males when walking in public.

  13. Since we’ve had the Nobel prizes for science & literature brought to our attention, I think it’s worth mentioning the following in connexion with this post: ‘The Nobel Peace Prize 2015 was awarded to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet for its decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution of 2011.’

Comments are closed.