In a curiously pointless editorial in yesterday’s New York Times, “What’s a European liberal to do?“, Sylvie Kaufman, the editorial director of Le Monde, dithers about the veil controversy in France. As you may know, France has banned the headscarf in public schools (but not universities) and by workers in hospitals, as well as full-face coverings in public anywhere. This is part of France’s commitment to secularism, and is not limited to Islamic garments: the school ban, for example, includes Jewish yarmulkes and big crosses, though discreet religious symbols are permitted.
And, as Grania reported here earlier, the controversy spread to Air France, which was requiring its flight attendants to cover their heads and wear loose jackets and trousers on flights to Iran. The flight attendants didn’t object to such dress when they were off duty, but did as part of their required uniform, for it violates the French principle of on-the-job secular dress. Air France eventually relented, but only insofar as allowi8ng its female flight attendants the option of not working on flights to Tehran. My feelings about that were mixed: although I know that such garb is required under Iranian law, and we’re supposed to obey the laws of lands we visit, in the end I decided that Air France should not fly that route so long as the government insisted that its flight attendants obey the Islamic law and therefore, as Grania said, “insult women.”
Insofar as banning the headscarf in public institutions goes, I’m pretty much in favor of it, so long as similar bans are enforced equitably for all religions. I well remember when I visited the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey a few years ago, and chatted with students who were Muslims. In that school headscarves were banned, and every Muslim woman I asked about it was in favor of the ban. “Why?”, I asked. The answer was uniform: if headscarves were allowed, the more conservative Muslim women would shame the liberal ones, saying that they “were not good Muslims.” All women would thus feel pressured to wear the headscarf.
As for face-covering garments worn in public, I’m not sure. Like headscarves, these are not only a symbol of oppression of women, but in many cases aren’t voluntary. (Remember what happened during the “ditch the headscarf” days on Facebook? And, of course, it’s only since the Iranian revolution, and the increasing fundamentalism in Afghanistan, that women have covered up. That shows for sure that they don’t do so by choice.) When women say they wear headscarves, niqabs, burqas, and hijabs out of “choice,” I think that’s sometimes making a virtue of necessity. Surely face-covering apparel shouldn’t be worn in courts, in banks, and in places where identification is necessary, but I haven’t decided if, like the French have done, such garb should be banned on the streets.
But all these difficulties are elided in Kaufman’s editorial, which seems to be a 1000-word exercise in virtue signaling. She says nothing new, but merely rehashes the French controversies, throwing in the Cologne sexual harassment/assault episode, in which hundreds of women were sexually harassed by Middle Eastern men on New Year’s Eve. That is not nearly as hard to judge as the veil laws, but Kaufman tips her hand by making the incidents seem controversial:
Confusion also reigns in the continuing debate over the New Year’s Eve attacks on women in Cologne, Germany, and the way they were analyzed by the Algerian author Kamel Daoud. In an essay published in Le Monde in January, he blamed the “sexual misery of the Arab-Muslim world” and its view of women for the attacks. “In Allah’s world,” he wrote, “the woman is denied, refused, killed, veiled, locked up or possessed.” He wrote later, in a similar vein, in The New York Times. But while many praised his argument as brilliant, some European academics, most of them French, attacked it as Islamophobic. The quarrel still rages.
Seriously? Islamophobic? While it’s surely invidious to use those episodes to cast all Muslim immigrant men as rapists, it’s also clear that many of these men were Muslim, that their acts were deplorable, and that these acts surely grew in part out of the Muslim tradition of sequestering women on the grounds that they excite uncontrollable sexual lust in men. (That’s the reason, by the way, that women are also covered and veiled.) It’s not Islamophobia to condemn the harassers, nor to argue that religious mores might be behind their actions. Kaufman is simply wrong to compare this “dilemma” with that of the headscarves.
In the end, she just throws up her hands at what she sees as a profound dilemma for liberals, producing a non-editorial with no conclusion:
If you live in France, you may be experiencing a degree of veil fatigue. Yes, the agonizing of liberal democracies over which values to safeguard first has been around far too long. Yet if moderates, both Muslim and non-Muslim, cannot solve these issues, the battle over culture and identity will be left to far-right populist movements or Islamist fanatics. If so, the terrorists will have won.
You know, I’m bloody sick of the “If we do X, the terrorists will have won” nonsense. The object of Islamist terrorists is not to make the West dither over whether Muslims should be allowed by law to wear headscarves, niqabs, hijabs, or burqas. The ultimate object of the terrorists is to take over Western democratic societies, converting them to societies ruled by sharia law. If we manage to keep terrorist actions at a low level (lower than now), and keep our societies secular and democratic, then the terrorists will have lost, regardless of what the West does about Muslim clothing.
Feel free, in the comments, to give your take on whether or what religious garb should be banned in the West.
Sub
sub2
You said it yourself in your first paragraph, it’s full-face covering not simply the veil that the French ban in public.
So I don’t get why in your fourth paragraph you say that you’re not sure about banning the veil in public.
By “veil” I MEANT full-face coverings. I’ve clarified that now.
I’m from the UK and I’ve seen the odd veiled woman from time to time. Unlike France & Belgium it’s unlikely that we’d ever have a ban on the veil, though the Prime Minister did (correctly in my view)give his backing to public institutions which did enforce a ban (NHS, Universities, Courts etc).
I fully support the Belgians & the French ban on the veil as it’s entirely in keeping with French & Belgian secular values. However I’d be dead set against any proposed ban in the UK as it’ll violate the various “British values” which revolves around tolerance and the non-interference in religious practice. If adults want to be illiberal & eccentric, and it harms no one else, then it shouldn’t be a concern for the British State insofar as a sweeping ban is concerned.
Here in Birmingham, England, a city of about 1 million, 20 or so % of the population is Muslim. Around me, in places like Balsall Heath, Sparkbrook and Sparkhill, it is common to see women in veils, scarves or burqas. There was a recent piece by a British immigrant in and on Molenbeek; he described the boho character of the area, the different cultures and how, over time, the suburb changed because of the growing domination of the Islamists. To such an extent that the Jews moved out.
The Balsall Heath, Sparkhill, Sparkbrook triangle reminds me a lot of his description of the Brussels suburb. Moazzem Begg, the British Islamist, is from Sparkhill. Last week, the WSJ, reported that the man who says he was the man in the hat in the Brussels bombings, Mohamed Abrini, visited London, Manchester and Birmingham in June and July last year. It would not surprise me if he had come to my area. Where else would a jihadist look to hook up with Islamists?
On the question of women’s dress-codes, it is distressing to see them immured in black bags as one worries for their safety in the home: we know, according to the ICM poll for Channel 4 on what British Muslims really think, that Muslims are far more likely to think that wives should always obey their husbands. One always fears for them if they don’t. When one asks them, one feels that they doth protest too much about freedom of choice: or they don’t respond.
And could these arrests last night in Brum, connected to the Paris and Brussels attacks, also be connected to Abrini’s visit here last year?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36052896
Probably should not comment on this one because I have a healthy conflict with dress codes, even without the religious inclusion. Going all the way back to elementary schools in the early 60s when they had such ridiculous rules such as the hair cuts and shirt tails out. It should have told me I would not do well within the military mentality of dress.
What would be good to see with the religious requirements imposed upon women is a fully voluntary system that was meaningful. Then see how long all the covers stayed in place. Even in our modern western society it was not that many years ago that the female would not dare show any leg when out in public.
My school uniform at my state intermediate school (years 7 & 8) had to be no shorter than 8 inches above the ground when kneeling. That was in the days when mini skirts were the norm.
By high school, fashion had reduced the gap to four inches. The gap continued to reduce until three years later our skirts had to touch the ground when kneeling.
In my penultimate and last year at high school my skirts were below the knee because that was the fashion.
Throughout, the Free Presbyterian girls had their skirts at mid-calf level as a requirement of their religion.
Question might be…were there any codes for the boys or was this just regulations for the girls. More like Islam.
The boys had a uniform too, but there were no regulations about the length of their shorts. I went to an all girl high school. The boys’ high school (which my brother went to) had a uniform too but again, no regulation on length of shorts.
The boys did have regulations about length of hair though. It had to be cut short. Girls could have it any length, but if it was any longer than touching the collar, it had to be in pigtails or a pony tail tied at the base of the neck by rubber or elastic bands – nothing fancy.
Boys weren’t allowed earrings in pierced ears. Girls were, but they had to be plain gold or silver sleepers or studs, and only one hole per ear.
I like what the French are doing. This means that everyone is treated equally. Does this mean that the turban is also banned?
And what about the wigs worn by Orthodox Jewish women?
I think Kamel Ataturk banned the wearing of the Veil in Public Buildings in Turkey, the way things are going with the odious Erdogan I can see wear the wearing of this oppressive Symbol will become compulsory, No one should wear the Niqāb in Public, what would happen if I walked into a Bank wearing a Mask ? so why should they be allowed to do so? Its a Symbol of Female Oppression and should be banned.
As a motorcyclist and cyclist, I will quite often have my face covered whilst on the street, in public, either by a full face helmet or a face mask and glasses. If I am jumping off my bike, to nip to an ATM, I won’t remove them, however, if I was to go into a building, I would always remove them
I would say that this is a reasonable approach with regard to religiously motivated full face covering. I also realise that removing a helmet, is far easier than removing a Burka, so perhaps not being able to wear them inside public buildings would encourage people to stop wearing them at all in public, due to the inconvenience of removing them to enter places?
Your point about removing a burqa is interesting. I presume Islamic requirements could be met by having a sort of sack that came up to the shoulders, plus a removable hood. A bit like M&S’s burkini, but looser and maybe less stylish.
Or I guess a burqa could have a removable face-covering bit. The result would be – something like a nun, I guess.
(Not that I support burqas)
cr
I’m not sure what the ‘rules’ are with regard to burkas, or niqabs, with regard to them being one piece or several.
If they don’t have to be one piece, then a separate, removable, head section would be a far simpler solution than trying to change out of the whole things
When France first brought in the ban, my first reaction was to disagree with it, for 3 reasons: freedom to practice religion; the right of the individual to dress as they wish religious or otherwise; a loathing of ‘bans’ in general, concern that if we allow ‘the state’ to impose one ban, the next could be used against the good guys, a slippery slope.
But my view regarding full-veil has since changed. I’m still genuinely shocked and saddened when I see a woman in a niqab or burka (or, should I say, NOT see her) but my discomfort and concern about choice/oppression is not the main argument for banning it; I think the main issue is the anonymity of people and the hiding of identity. In an open liberal civil society, we shouldn’t accept such anonymity and secrecy, not just for obvious security reasons (man in burka with matching suicide vest etc).
Some overlap here with the Apple iPhone encryption debate regarding anonymity, inability to trace ‘footsteps’, and information disappearing into black-holes etc. but I won’t rehash those arguments here.
I think it was Douglas Murray who recently mentioned he was asked a question at a public meeting by a member of the audience dressed in a burka (she in the burka, not Douglas), and he realised he wouldn’t be able to locate her after the meeting for a follow-up discussion as she was sat with a group of identically dressed people. He also quipped that when she started to ask her question, he didn’t know where to look as he couldn’t easily tell who was speaking.
Just doesn’t seem right, does it.
Chris G, UK.
Banned in public, no. Wearing a veil, if it’s a personal choice, is no different than visible tattoos, facial piercings or dressing up like a clown. You can present yourself any way you like, but I reserve the right to point, comment, mock and/or laugh.
For women who are forced into strict dress codes, I don’t think banning the veil will correct the underlying attitude.
To the men who force women to wear veils, if you don’t like me calling you an asshat when I walk past you, don’t act like one.
Insofar as banning the headscarf in public institutions goes, I’m pretty much in favor of it, so long as similar bans are enforced equitably for all religions…
…As for face-covering garments worn in public, I’m not sure.
Interesting. I’m the reverse: I’d probably support state and federal employee guidelines that forbid covering the face, but think headscarf bans probably go too far. Historically, hair coverings are far more a part of standard fashion than facial coverings. Also, let’s be blunt: we secularists never complained about our civil servants wearing yarmulkes and turbans. Any complaints, no matter how evenly we say we want the change to apply, are really a response to Islamic dress becoming more prevalent and how that offends our sensibilities. We’re arguing a general rule because we want to target and stop a very specific behavior, and that’s no good.
Maybe I’m just not socially conscious enough, but I don’t see any profound dilemma here. The general rule of thumb is pretty simple: when you’re walking down the street or conducting business with a shopowner or civil servant, you don’t negatively comment on that person’s choice of clothing unless they invite you to comment on it. There, dilemma solved.
Argh, html fail. The first two paragraphs are from the article and should be inset as a block quote.
I am of mixed mind about this issue. On the one hand, I don’t want dress codes dictated by government. I, like Randy, grew up in a time when dress codes were enforced in school. Many of those rules were ridiculous (and for much the same reasons Islamic men have for requiring women to wear a burka! In high school, restrictions on girls’ dress were mostly to prevent sexual excitement in teen-aged boys.) But, like Mike, I think wearing of face coverings is similar to wearing a mask. I think covering one’s face in public should not happen with a few exceptions such as wearing a mask for medical purposes.)
As John knows, he may choose to be extra safe by wearing a motorcycle helmet with full face covering. But, this is by choice and not all motorcycle helmets are full face. I suppose that one could say that Islamic women wearing head coverings, veils or burkas do so for safety so they won’t be raped by Islamic men who can’t control lust. But, I think it more reasonable for the men not to assume that all women not covered up are immodest and inviting rape.
I’m against a ban (and writing from the UK) because if a woman can’t be veiled she might not be let out of the house at all. We’re not helping someone with restricted freedom by restricting it even more, or giving someone else an excuse to restrict it more.
I think JAC is talking specifically about bans on coverings for kids attending school and civil servants on the job. He’s not necessarily talking about banning headscarves for Joe (or Jolene) citizen walking down the street, or for Alice the shopowner when she’s behind her own, private business, shop counter.
Now you could still argue that a schoolkid might be prevented from going to school and an adult living with their family might be prevented from accepting a civil service job. The first problem can be fixed with normal truancy laws: its illegal to keep your kid out of school, and if you do so, the state will punish the parents. Pony up money for a private school or send them to public school as per the rules. The second problem can’t be fixed without a more comprehensive ban. But I think in cases like this I’d favor more freedom. “Make it illegal” is not a good solution for every bad behavior. Familial pressure to dress and act a certain way seems to me to be one of those evils that is not best fought using criminal bans.
‘“Make it illegal” is not a good solution for every bad behavior. Familial pressure to dress and act a certain way seems to me to be one of those evils that is not best fought using criminal bans.’
I agree there. I’m instinctively against *any* enforced behaviour, which means I hate both families (or religion) that force their adherents to dress a certain way _and_ the idea of laws about dress. (Also, I think burqas look ghastly, although I, personally, would enforce them, as the lesser of two evils, for modern punks who mutilate their faces with bits of metalwork. Or at least brown paper bags).
But Ken Mann has a valid point – “if a woman can’t be veiled she might not be let out of the house at all.” Sadly, probably quite true in some cases. In those particular cases the burqa is the lesser evil. I feel the same about M&S’s ‘burkini’ swimsuit – I’d guess it will probably help* more women than it hinders**.
(* women who would not be allowed, or would not allow themselves, to swim otherwise
** women who would otherwise wear normal swim gear)
cr
Ban the face covering only.
I agree with the others about dress codes – that is going too far.
In America, if a man wore a headscarf and walked into a restaurant or store people would think he was a terrorist ready to splatter ammonium nitrate all over the walls. That’s typically not the reaction to women. I cannot say what others think, but I see repression and isolation when I see a headscarf.
If a nation or company makes rules abolishing headscarfs that is not only their right, it is generally done with the greater good in mind.
I work with several Sikh men who wear the turban. No worries.
Yeah I’m not buying Kevin’s first claim either. Bandanas and do-rags aren’t exactly common, but when a dude is wearing one nobody I know runs screaming with the thought that he’s a terrorist.
In NZ, CanTeen (teenage cancer Society) sells bandannas to raise money. The idea is teenagers often wear a bandana instead of a wig if they lose their hair due to chemo, so it’s a good way to show your support.
I meant burka-style, full face, eyes only.
The other scarfs can be quite attractive.
Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn wore headscarves
Hermes and Chanel have always sold luxury scarves to non-Muslim women.
It’s not the attire that matters, it’s the intent.
All religious garb is a little off-putting to people outside that religion because the usual minimal intent of the garb is to signal that you are somehow set apart from the riff-raff.
With religious garb that requires women to hide themselves, there is added to that a bit of overt repression of women. It’s totally fair to see a scarf worn for that purpose as different from a scarf worn for fashion.
Now, maybe that distinction isn’t clear enough for law. So maybe we don’t ban the scarfs. But the distinction is real and often very obvious.
I was contemplating this very problem last night. I ate at a local pizza joint and a bearded man came in trailed by three women wearing hijabs (actually, I think they were khimars, covering shoulders also). In this state the three women seemed unacceptably like chattel of the man. I was struck that not all religious garb is the same. Had the man been wearing a keffiyeh (he was not), I would have had a reaction much closer to the reaction I have to all ostentatious religious wear, which is being mildly put-off by the intended message of “us vs the world”, but the reaction would be much more mild. Seeing the women in the khimars came much closer to making me actually angry, and I think that’s because that garment is expressly about oppression whereas most religious garments are solely about piety signaling. Of course, the women’s garments are also about piety signaling, but the repressive intent is so overt and strong that it overwhelms the mere piety signaling part of the attire.
I think it can be instructive to consider how we feel about lots of other religious attire. In general I find that I feel much more negatively towards the female versions than the male, and I think it’s for the same reason, the female versions are often about female repression. Seeing a priest in his robes, for example, stirs no feelings in me at all. Seeing a nun in her habit, on the other hand, makes me feel vaguely like she is someone in need of rescue. Nuns, after all, are often as covered as as covered as women in Islam. The one redeeming thing for nuns is that (my very dim understanding) they seem to be somewhat independent of men. Nuns are not always seen trailing behind a male priest, the way the women I saw last night were clearly being escorted by the man. Another kind of religious garb that gives me the willies is Pentecostal hair, bonnets, and prairie dresses. Again, it bothers me for the same reason: the message of female subservience overwhelms the mere message of religious piety.
So I think of this question has having two parts. One, what do you think about public religious garb, and two, what do you think about religious garb that has an obvious element of repression of one group (gender,caste, etc.) by another?
I’d happily pay for the ability to edit posts. So many edit fails above. Sigh.
All garb, but particularly religious garb (clothing or jewelry) can be quite useful. It is a visual signal to others that a person is making a statement.
I have occasionally worn my ‘We are all Africans (w/ Atheist A)’ shirt and I noticed many things:
1. I feel uncomfortable wearing it. I do not like to endorse a statement I think should be obvious to others.
2. I receive many dirty looks.
3. Surprisingly, I always get one or more compliments or respectful greetings.
I would be surprised if similar feelings do not occur to all people who wear something that signifies something that they want others to recognize as special.
I very often have my little red “A” pin on my vest/jacket in winter and sometimes I wear a teeshirt in summer with the “A”. I’m sure that most people have no idea what it means. When people do know, their reaction has always been positive. Occasionally I’ve been asked what it is for which has produced a range of reactions, from positive to awkward.
‘Pentecostal hair, bonnets, and prairie dresses.’
– give me the creeps. I can just see them standing by holding their Bibles as their menfolk burn another witch.
Public religious garb? My feelings depend on the ‘severity’ of it. Burqas are way up the ‘horrid’ end of the scale. Turbans don’t bother me.
Hindu women’s fashion is often gorgeous (may not be mandated by religion but it’s usually a sign the wearer is Hindu). Doesn’t bother me.
(As an aside, I once saw my Pakistani Muslim tenants’ teenage girls about to head out for a night on the town and they looked great – they were wearing flowing dresses that probably came from the Indian fashion shop and headscarves that complemented the style. Far more stylish than yer standard Kiwi chick’s T-shirt and jeans with holes in the knees.)
cr
Once ran into several generations of Pentecostal/Amish/Mennonite women hiking some fairly rugged trails in Utah. Womenfolk all in long dresses and all wearing identical sneakers. Menfolk in suspenders and long sleeves.
Not the most comfortable or convenient gear for hiking, then?
(Other than the sneakers, which strike me as probably the most practical footwear.)
cr
Agreed, but at least they were getting out on the trails. The little girls running and climbing around in long dresses, too. I think they had arrived by bus, with a non-religious driver.
Yes. I have mixed feelings about that. Obviously that particular group don’t lead an entirely closeted life. I can’t help feeling how much freer they could be if they ditched the religion and the clothes entirely, but maybe that’s just me. There are doubtless many people worse off.
cr
No. I would think the man is a biker or mechanic. They all wear do rags
I agree with your conclusions at next-to-last paragraph.
I think face coverings need to be banned in public. I find it very disconcerting.
Burkas are even worse. A burka showed up one day at my wife’s school and she was terrified by it. (She is in an urban district where violent parents sometimes show up in schools — a burka would be perfect cover for a raging disgruntled man (or woman!) with a gun.)
Headscarves? To me, that’s personal preference for all people, men and women.
Your argument is fair and balanced. Since you asked, I do not support a ban. In their own free time, people should be free to dress as they please, consistent with public safety and decency norms. Employers should be able to require dress codes consistent with the needs of the job, which certainly does NOT include appeasing a theocracy on one end of a flight route. As for women feeling pressured without a ban, they need to stand up for their own rights and not deprive the rights of others.
I would say that there must be some cases where women voluntarily wear the head scarf. The clearest example is where a non-muslim woman willingly converts to Islam.
I have no problem with headscarves. The use of one that the wearer is an individual willing to engage in normal social interaction with the wider society she belongs to, and is not seeking to exclude herself from contact with anyone outside her religious tribe.
Face coverings I believe should be banned in public places. Not only for the security reasons already mentioned in the thread, but also because they are a visible symptom of the creeping islamisation of western society – something I would like to halt, and if possible, reverse. I just do not want to see the streets of my country filled with shuffling, black-clad faceless ghosts, and I do not want to share my country with the religious attitudes they represent. Muslims who want to live, act and dress as though they were still in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Yemen should go and live in one of those countries. I do not want them in mine.
I agree with the security reasons and have little problem with regulating full facial coverings because of it. However, I feel I must say that I strongly disagree with your second part, banning a mode of dress simply because it represents a cultural set of beliefs (‘creeping islamisation’) you don’t like. We should not be doing that; that does not represent a free society but rather majority oppression of a minority view/culture.
“We should not be doing that; that does not represent a free society but rather majority oppression of a minority view/culture”
In virtually any other context I would agree. For example, I find ultra-orthodox jewish garb equally antiquated, ludicrous and indicative of a religious outlook that I detest and would like to see disappear. The crucial difference lies in numbers and intent. There is no continual mass influx of ultra-orthodox jews into western countries. Those that are here may want to remain largely segregated from the wider community, but by and large they make no demands on it and want simply to be left alone to practice their religion and culture as they choose. I find ultra-othrodox jews bizarre and I would ideally like them to abandon their religious obsessions and blinkered misogyny, but since they pose no threat to me I’m willing to live and let live.
None of these things are true for muslims. Their numbers are steadily growing, and many of them make no secret of their desire to see their culture supplant that of their host countries. For western culture to seek to maintain itself against an invasive threat is no more “oppression” than my desire to rid my body of cancer cells should I be diagnosed with it. And we all know that if muslims were ever to become a majority in the west they’d have no hesitation in oppressing any and all minority views, because that’s exactly what they do in their own countries.
The same arguments were made about the Irish and other immigrants in past decades. With a current Islamic population of 0.1% and a total immigration rate of about 0.3% of our population per year (and considering most of that 0.3% are from Mexico and Central America), the notion that Islam poses some sort of numerical threat to ‘US culture’ just doesn’t hold water.
The intent argument also seems to me just as blinkered and ill-founded. Again, the same thing was said about the Irish. And if there’s one constant about the various waves of US immigrants, it’s that the grandchildren of such immigrants rarely share whatever anti-American or extremist views their immigrant grandparents stepped off the boat with. Even if I granted you the dubious assertion that this fraction of 0.3% immigrants which are Muslim were out to change the constitution and turn the US into a theocracy, I wouldn’t be concerned. Because fewer of their US-raised children will feel that way, and even fewer of their US-raised grandchildren will feel that way.
Well, that’s fine for you over in the USA. I’m speaking from a European perspective, and over here the barbarians are already inside the gates and the influx shows no sign of slowing.
If things go on as they are, within a few decades Europeans will be seeking asylum in the USA as the demography of their own countries undergoes irreversible change.
Just an aside on religious dress. I think it is to serve as a constant reminder to respect the absurd restrictions on thought and behavior imposed by most religions. Which says something to me about how weak the hold of religion is that without these reminders we would just abandon faith and degenerate into our animal appetites.
I think that’s a good point. I struggle with this question not for the reasons most people give, but because I wonder how much of a choice wearing the burqa/niqab/etc is.
When something is done to honour a religious tradition it’s often because you believe something bad will happen to you if you don’t comply, and I’m not just talking about being beaten by your husband or shunned by your community. People believe there are supernatural or real world consequences to stuff like this. “God will punish me if I don’t adhere to the rules.” That’s a mental prison that’s pretty hard to escape.
If the government prevents the wearing of a religious garment, for example, that can help someone escape the mental trap.
What is the end game? What does one suppose banning various types of attire will accomplish? Seriously, I’d love to know what we hope to achieve by the ban and how we would determine the ban’s success or failure. I’m not interested in ideologies, just practical consequences and how we go about measuring it. I’m assuming that most readers of this site support a scientific viewpoint, so why do we fall on the emotional reaction to the clothing, when such a reaction is very subjective? I currently live in a predominantly religious, and very Muslim neighbourhood, and I also grew up around old-order Mennonites (like the Amish), so I don’t have that negative visceral reaction to religious garb. Banning or allowing things is a public policy that should not be taken lightly and should not be guided by our visceral reactions.
That almost sounds like “let local customs prevail’ …
But you ask good questions that deserve a reply.
1. “voluntary” is an iffy claim sometimes. Women do get pressured or coerced into wearing a veil. We can help them by banning a veil and hurt them by accepting the veil.
2. As I asked elsewhere, can a man show up at a playground wearing a mask that obscures his face? I don’t like special exemptions for the religious, even less for certain religions.
3. The norms governing the public square are legitimately a public issue. Any bets on how many people arguing for allowing the veil are arguing for allowing nudity or topless women?
Not quite a “let local customs prevail”, but close. It’s more of a practical perspective. Will a ban on religious garb actually help any women or will it hurt? That is a question of fact that that should be verifiable and the parameters for assessing success/failure should be set out before any ban takes place. I just don’t feel that such an important civil liberty be trampled unless there is a reasonable public good to do so. Additionally, I don’t think that any of us are really thinking this through with an objective perspective. Why are we targeting Muslim attire when Mennonites and other religious minorities have been around us for decades and their clothing restrictions are not that much different. My third point that I didn’t really elucidate was also a pragmatic one. Is this a fight worth fighting? Often when bans are enacted people don’t always follow suite. Rather, most people, when they don’t agree with the point of the ban, react in an opposite manner. It is very possible that the ban will only serve to bolster the more extreme elements and push people further toward more fundamentalist thinking. History shows that with material wealth and scientific literacy cultures move toward a secular perspective and people generally move away from religion. I think Phil Plaitt’s “don’t be a dick principal” articulates this best.
I think there are two basic principles to apply:
i) no law should impose something on others when based on religious arguments.
ii) no religious action should be forbidden except for practical “secular reasons”.
i) Headscarf for all women in Teheran is a religious obligation: I would define this as intrinsically prejudiced law. In my case I would likely not frequent that country, if I did I would feel justified in breaking the law.
ii) If a Sikh cannot ride a motorcycle because his long hair and turban makes wearing a helmet impossible, then he should not ride a motorcycle because it is considered unsafe to do so without wearing a helmet. If a person’s choice of religion means that they cannot legally do what others can do, then that is a consequence of their choice.
ii) if a country’s law says that people in public should have their face uncovered, perhaps for security reasons or using the principle that a covered face avoids responsibility for one’s actions.
A headscarf would seem permissible, a facemask not. If a religious rule says that the facemask is necessary, I would say that the person should choose between their right to appear in public and their wish to obey their religious choices.
Freedom of religion does not exempt anyone from breaking secular laws: that would be an impossible precept. Someone hearing godly voices may commit violent acts and claim exemption. They may need special treatment as a result, but definitely not exemption from the law.
Disagreement seems to arise when a majority (or a politically dominant minority) are strong enough to impose their religious choices on all. The problem there is political: in any case the country concerned is not secular. The abortion issue in the US and Northern/Southern Ireland springs to mind. Not possible to separate the issue from religious thinking.
+1
+2
I have a Sikh friend who, although a rationalist, would not been seen dead in public without his dastaar. As he explains it, it is more than a religious symbol. It is something that is earned and reflects his honor, integrity and other good things. Fortunately, he does not ride a motorcycle.
Don’t know why but out on the west coast, bay area, the Sikhs do a lot of the local truck transportation work. Hauling seavans to the ports (drayage) as it’s called in the trade. But they ware the Turbans. At first it is kind of a surprise to see lots of them but you soon get use to it.
I work on the docks here, Australia. The Sikh guy’s don’t have much presence in driving but they do have a heavy presence in security.
You do get used to it.
But I haven’t got used to the Islamic stuff.
(Maybe because I don’t want to get used to it).
Agree, but note that for ii), it is now possible in the US to ride helmet-free in a few states. Which would allow Sikhs in those states to ride, if they want to risk it.
In an act that can only be described as one helluva nasty bit of karma, the woman biker leader of the “helmet optional” movement was killed the very day the law passed in her state. Yep, while out riding without a helmet.
I have had a few motorcycle crashes. I would be dead or debilitated without a helmet.
If a Sikh’s turban interferes with his vision or control of the bike, then no, he should not be permitted to ride. But if it just means he can’t wear a helmet – then, it’s his own risk. He’s not causing any risk to anyone else. He should absolutely be permitted to ride a motorcycle.
(And I note that a turban probably interferes with vision less than a helmet anyway)
cr
Michigan is a helmet-optional state. One of the objections to that position is that the victims of severe head trauma due to not wearing helmets are often dependent on the state for their continual care. I.e., choosing not to wear a helmet can have a negative effect on others.
I am aware of that, but I note the ‘only’ adverse effect there is financial. It seems to me that if you are going to be consistent about that, you should also ban all high-risk activities like skydiving, many organised sports, maybe all motorcycling…
Or possibly insist that all participants carry appropriate insurance, in which case the premiums for Sikh or other helmetless motorcyclists would presumably reflect the increased personal risk.
cr
Good idea re insurance!
What I’d like to see here in Germany is a matching, step for step, of strong anti-discrimination measures and a complete revision of Germany’s stupid “integration” attempts (which are not integration at all but pointless attempts at assimilation, which celebrates “German” culture, rather than promoting universal human rights, and inter-cultural contact), and with direct and explicit opposition to religious extremism (primarily Islam) — for example, making immigrants sign a statement declaring support for equality, secularism, and the right of their children to marry whoever they want, freedom of movement and of association for all, etc. Banning face covering in public would be part of that. In other words, for each restriction on Muslims, the Muslimophobic Pegida morons also should get the message that *their* version of “German culture” is not worth protecting or preserving either.
And I would kick religious instruction out of state schools completely (and replace it with *education* about religion, same for all) — which of course will never happen because the churches wouldn’t stand for it.
…And I propose to implement these changes as soon as I get out of this armchair…
Yes, how racist of those beastly Germans to want to promote German culture (there’s no need for scare quotes)in Germany.
Of course they should just open their borders, invite the whole Middle East to come and stay (oh, I forgot, Merkel already did that) and revel in all that wonderful diversity.
I guess I worded that poorly. Those aren’t scare quotes, rather, referring to those who take it upon themselves to define German culture in a way that excludes anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow definition. The Pegida crowd would exclude Alexander von Humboldt if he was still alive.
I don’t see any way of dealing with the problems inherent in much Islamic culture unless we simultaneously prevent the racists from exploiting the situation.
And the borders are way too open — far more people have left Germany to join ISIS (possibly including soldiers from the Wehrmacht), than have arrived with refugees. And far more crimes have been committed by neo-Nazis than refugees.
Despite libertarian leanings I have come to support bans on the veil in public. I like the bans in some places on the veil in government buildings or when interacting with officials. In court obviously (this was much contested in Canada).
A man in a goalie mask shows up at the playground, or wanders into a bank or Social Security office. How do you feel? I feel like that shouldn’t happen.
Some relevant stuff from Reason and Charlie Hebdo
Reason https://reason.com/archives/2016/04/13/moral-sheepishness-not-muslims-to-blame
Here’s the Charlie editorial https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/
I think it’s problematic to ban any kind of clothing that people opt to wear. So long as people are free to wear what they want, there shouldn’t be a problem.
What if someone wanted to wear a headscarf for non-religious reasons? Or dress as a nun just to be provocative?
Personally I’d like to see all religious trappings banned in public. No public displays of crucifixes (wear them under your shirt); no yarmulkes; no prayer shawls; no collars tuned backwards; no male or female bishops in floor length purple dresses; no priests and ministers in black or grey suits that are obviously “priestly garb”; no wimples and other medieval dress for nuns; no overt religious bling; no hijabs, niqabs or burkas; no turbans; no religious badges; no religious lapel pins; no dirty-looking unkempt beards; no rosaries; no whatever else; oh, and no tax exemptions for religious twaddle.
For why? for because “community cohesion” that’s for why.
‘community cohesion’ ?
The watchword of any good totalitarian state. Do you have any idea how Orwellian that sounds?
(Or were you being ironic?)
cr
Nice jack-booted police state you have there.
How about we play a game, like the children’s cake-cutting game (‘you cut the cake, I get the first pick’) but with social policies. You get decide how much power the state has to regulate dress. I.e., if they can criminalize it, and what happens when someone gets prosecuted. I get to decide who gets prosecuted according to your rules, and what dress counts as religious. And just so you everything is out on the table, I’ll say up front that I have it out for secularists, humanists, and liberals. As the government enforcer, I’m going after them with whatever powers you decide to give me.
Okay, let’s play. Tell me how much power I get to regulate dress. Afterwards we can switch roles, but I will tell you that that second run of the game will be quite boring, because I will give you essentially no power to regulate dress…just as I would choose in real life.
I think banning head coverings is attacking a symptom, and while I could be convinced by data that doing so actually cures the disease of Muslim religious orthodoxy, I haven’t seen such data.
I would favor a concerted effort to attack the lack of integration into society instead. A lot of these problems seem to stem from the fact that most Muslims live in enclaves where Islamic culture rules, and where the children are steeped in it and see little else until university age, after which they go live in the same enclaves. I don’t like outright bans or forced integration, but the government should be able to design incentives for people non-Muslims to move in and Muslims to move out, thereby breaking up the enclaves and exposing the children to a wide variety of views from a young age, allowing them to hopefully move to a more moderate or non-religious view as they grow up.
Also, with the spread of government surveillance of everyones movements via facial recognition, the ability to cover your face in public is an important defense that should be demanded and protected.
When this subject has come up before, I have heard one counterpoint…
That if women are prevented by law from wearing the full burka/face veil when out and about, that their families and husbands will just keep them inside 24/7. That they will become permanent prisoners, essentially.
Genuine TRIGGER warning here (gross, food related).
While we are on the subject of ‘cultural exceptions’…I came across this charming little story a few minutes ago…
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/curry-chef-prepared-food-wiping-090211117.html
The human face is our prime means of interpersonal communication. We have evolved an acute neural machinery to recognize, remember and read faces. A person who doesn’t show their face — for whatever reason — removes herself from the fundamental human social contract. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want, but if they hide their face, they cannot expect to be involved in meaningful social interactions by others…
I do not believe law should dictate dress codes. If a fully covered halloween ghost commits a crime, prosecute the individual; don’t ban ghost costumes.
While I agree with Jerry Coyne about many things, I find this article short-sighted and a-historical. When Reza Shah first tried to westernize Persia, he banned the veil–over the objections of many strong-minded and vocal Persian women. Yes,a generation of un-veiled women didn’t want to be told they had to wear the veil, but there is surely a reasonable ground between “have to” and “can’t.” I think it’s called “CAN.” As some of the comments suggest, the idea that a veil can’t be a subtle adornment seems odd to any student of, say, Renaissance painting. Or any American woman older than fifty.
Back in 1956, during the time of school consolidations, court cases were fought over the right of veiled women (Roman Catholic nuns) to teach in public schools wearing their veils and long dresses. In my home county, a year-long boycott followed the closing of a small public high school in a Baptist community; the Bradfordsville parents didn’t want their children to be taught by women in costumes which looked a lot more like burqas than like what nuns wear today. The nuns won their right to teach in their medieval garb. Later they decided on their own to shorten the skirts, reduce the all-swathing veil to something like a headscarf, and then abandon it. Their conversion-to-Christ efforts, they said, would be more successful if they looked more like mainstream Americans. But it was their choice.
I challenge Jerry Coyne to carefully read Iranian feminist Simin Daneshvar’s 1969 novel, SAVUSHUN. I think he’ll like it, and perhaps learn from it.
I’m for the effort to assimilate Muslims into European culture. I think it’s the only way to have a stable democratic society. Using forceful means, such as the banning laws, may, in the end, be necessary. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. I want to see limitations on ethnic and religious schools which are primarily responsible for perpetuating the foreign culture. Public schools are the only possible way to instill enlightenment values in a whole generation of Muslims who are otherwise likely to isolate themselves into impenetrable enclaves.
‘I decided that Air France should not fly that route so long as the government insisted that its flight attendants obey the Islamic law and therefore, as Grania said, “insult women.”’
With respect, that is hardly practical for an international airline. As far as human rights issues go, insisting that visiting aircrew comply with local law and wear headscarves is pretty low on the list.
If Air France is expected to not-fly to Iran because of this incompatibility with French law, were would the list end? Scrub the US, which still has capital punishment (and periodically carelessly executes innocent people). Scrub Saudi Arabia for all sorts of reasons, not least burqas. Scrub most of the Middle East, most of which bans gays (does Air France have any gay flight crew?). Scrub Russia and China (various human rights infingements). Japan? – one word – whaling. South America? – some countries there ban abortions outright, arguably worse than Iran in that regard. Ditto, of course, Ireland.
It is not the job of airlines to pronounce judgement on foreign countries’ laws. I don’t think they should stop flying a route for any reason other than significant risk to their staff or passengers.
cr
Oh, and I’d add that Air France flying to Iran, seen as part of easing relations with Iran, is likely to be good for the more liberal parts of Iranian society – including, of course, most(?) Iranian women. Cutting Iran off from the outside world can only ever strengthen the hardliners.
cr
I’m for banning women news anchors from wearing their little Catholic crosses around their necks on camera (we have some in my neck of the woods). Non-Catholics don’t wear little fish symbols, etc. No religious proselytizing on camera.
I’m for banning plastic Jesus’s on the dashboards of cars or other religious symbols on vehicles. (There’s a big old truck that sometimes parks on an overpass above a major freeway with “Jesus is Lord” painted on the side. Makes me yell “He’s not my lord, you ignorant proselytizer!”). Wonder how many accidents that truck causes?
I suppose somebody will bring up free speech and the First Amendment. But I don’t care. My word isn’t law.
Although I agree with the views of many here I’d also point out that *some* women regard starting to wear the veil as a rite of passage into adult womanhood – and look forward to that day.
Just because we think such garb is oppressive doesn’t mean that it is seen that way elsewhere. However I do think (Westerner that I am) that women should bear no criticism for wearing *or* not wearing the veil unless it is a requirement of employment or business (e.g. passport control, banks, schools).
I think that the face-covering garment which makes identification difficult or impossible should be banned in all public spaces.
As for the headscarf, I think women should be free to choose whether to wear it or not. I admit, however, that necessities sometimes force us to abandon our lofty principles. If France or another country with dangerously advanced Islamization decides to defend herself this way, I do not feel in a position to judge it, only hope that it would help.
In this case, I agree that the measure should spread to visible symbols of other religions as well. This would nicely end the debate among French Jews whether to wear the caps that instantly identify them to wannabe Jew-killers, or to “capitulate to fear” (read: self-preservation) and merge with the crowd.