We have an extra Jesus and Mo cartoon this week, with this caption:
A Friday Flashback, in light of Portugal’s pending burka ban.
This is from the Guardian on October 17:
Portugal’s parliament has approved a bill banning face veils worn for “gender or religious” reasons in public, in a move seen as targeting Muslim women who wear face coverings.
The measure was proposed by the far-right Chega party and would prohibit coverings such as burqas (a full-body garment that covers a woman from head to foot) and niqabs (the full-face Islamic veil with space around the eyes) from being worn in most public places. Face veils would still be allowed in airplanes, diplomatic premises and places of worship.
The bill stipulates fines for those wearing face veils in public ranging between 200 euros and 4,000 euros (£175 and £3,475).
President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa still has to approve the bill. He could veto it or send it to the constitutional court for review.
Jesus and Mo seem to agree, but for different reasons! What do you think about the ban?
“… worn for “gender or religious” reasons …”
LOL
Why the airplane exemption? I would think in an airplane would be the last place on earth that some vague amorphous human should be able to hide his/her face and any clue about what he/she might be up to.
I think in general people should be expected to show their faces when out in public. That’s a liberal value, too. It’s not a style of dress. It’s hiding the face. If Muslims are discomfited by social pressure from the host countries that welcomed them in, for their women to assimilate by showing their faces, that’s a feature not a bug.
“Why the airplane exemption?”
I’m going to assume the Portuguese legislators are not idiots (maybe a bad assumption, but let’s go with it), my guess is that the legislation requires the burka wearer to remove the face covering while going through security. Once past security, they should be free to wear what they want.
A lot of “idiots” in your world it seems, Edward. More intelligent malice in mine.
I haven’t flown in a while but to my recollection you don’t show photo-ID going through airport security. The agents just X-ray your carry-ons and walk you through a metal detector. The only time someone even looks at your photo-ID is at check-in and at the gate, by a flight attendant, not a peace or security officer. Do people in burqas get taken to a curtained area to show their faces before being issued a boarding pass or entering the jetway? The airline just wants to verify that your ID matches your ticket and that your passport has the visas or ETAs for the country you’re flying to, not that your face matches your ID photo. The airline employees don’t scrutinize your face the way the border guards do. You don’t even have to look up at them to make eye contact while you’re fiddling with your luggage or trying to calm a fussing child. In countries with exit controls, not Canada or the U.S., the Frontier Police do examine your face, often with face-recognition, as you leave the country en route to the international gates. Only in that last situation is there a basis to say that the identity of any passenger on the air-side has been verified.
I reiterate that inside an aircraft I would like to see the faces of every passenger to gauge if they mean me harm. No burqas. No keffiyehs wrapped around faces. No Ku Klux Klan hoods. Because they got through security of course they can’t have weapons….until someday they do. I don’t care about their identity. I just want to see their faces. The closer and the longer I have to be next to a masked passenger peering at me through little eye slits, the more I worry. I may not be able to stop him/her but at least I might have some extra seconds to put my body between the explosion and my wife.
OK, so I’m all wet and Portugal doesn’t worry about this on airplanes. Maybe they’re just indulging people afraid of germs and the burqa ban elsewhere is just to bully Muslims. Their country, their call.
You are wrong (at least in the US). TSA does make sure that ID’s match faces. They also X-ray bags and people. I once tried to bring a set of knives (a gift) on a plane. They were found and banned (I mailed them to myself). I once tried to bring a set of medical needles on a plane. They were only allowed in checked baggage.
There is the thing about how one may feel about mandatory face and body covering of women. And then there is the matter of security at airports and other means of mass transport.
As a western feminist, I very much dislike complete but mandatory covering of women, and I would like to see that go extinct since to me it is a violation of freedoms. I also think that immigrants should work to integrate with their host countries, but that generally does not happen right away and much of it may not happen at a perceivable pace in many of our immigrant communities. We have enclaves of people from various parts of Asia (China-towns, for example), living in one area, speaking their languages, with bi-lingual street signs, and these enclaves are maintained for generations. Similarly for enclaves of people from south of the border There isn’t much grumbling about the hold-outs that I know about. So I don’t know if we should call for integration of very conservative Muslims while we don’t call out the same for other immigrants. Other than for the women’s rights part
There is the other thing about security in airports and other modes of public transport. Everyone is scanned when passing thru airport security. Showing a face is about identifying a person who holds a ticket, but that too should be done. I suppose that may be handled by shunting off covered women, and having their photo IDs compared to their face by a female member of security. That is, assuming that would be acceptable. I don’t know if that is done, to be honest.
Leslie wrote:
I agree 100%. If you want to live as if it is the year 1750 or earlier, then stay in the country were you grew up.
I expect I’m going to be in a minority here, but I’m ok with banning face coverings in public (without good reason, such as medical, or for protection, e.g. fire fighters). That’s because it is anti-social. Hair covering is fairly normal and has traditionally been accepted, but face covering has not been. It is sinister, often done to disguise identity, such as by bank robbers and highwaymen.
Does it go against liberal principles to regulate dress like this? To some extent, yes. But most Western countries require genitals to be covered in public, and, again, not doing so is considered anti-social. So if the state can legitimately regulate the covering of genitals then it can regulate the covering of the face.
This reminds of being in Egypt and asking our guide about the different ways women were dressed. Some were entirely covered except for eye slits. Others wore hijabs and jeans. He explained that it had to do with how conservative their family was, that they had to wear what their father dictated. After they got married, however, he said “they can wear whatever they want; that’s up to their husband.”
I find face coverings rude and anti-social, and feel those who wear them in Western countries disrespect the people around them. I’d go so far as to say that I find them objectionable. However, that doesn’t seem to me a good enough reason to ban them, as the cure is worse than the disease. I should be free to wear what I want, so why shouldn’t someone else, irrespective of how much it annoys me?
I see this similarly to how I see free speech; I don’t like listening to people spout crap, but I can’t expect to spout my own crap if I stop someone else spouting theirs.
+1
RE:
I don’t agree. Here in Canada, about 2 years ago, we had the case of a man who called himself Kayla Lemieux. He worked as a shop teacher in a high school in Oakville, Ontario. He came to work with gigantic strap-on prosthetic female breasts. (You may want to do a google image search for Kayla Lemieux Ontario.) Most parents did not like that. They organized against it. Eventually he left this school.
I also agree with Coel’s comment above (that is comment # 3).
See also my reply to Leslie’s comment (comment # 2). We don’t want very conservative Muslim immigrants: The males will refuse a female doctor, they will not shake the hand of a female teacher, etc. We don’t need them.
In a similar vein, I don’t want any Palestinian immigrants – because chances are high that they are antisemites. Why would I want people like this in my city, in my country? I’m not a liberal (philosophically speaking) who cannot or refuses to defend his own side.
For more on this, this article comes to mind:
Except you are only free to wear “what you want” within the laws of your country. There ARE laws that dictate what we may wear, and must wear. Maybe none that say what we may NOT wear? Western society dictates men may go topless but women may not. There’s no logic there, but we’re used to it, so we don’t notice it.
I don’t like burkas for all the normal reasons, in fact I see them like the US Confederate flag- for some they are important symbols of their culture and heritage but for many more they are a sign of great evil. Confederate flag = keffiyeh = burka. Same-same.
But I don’t like bans on how we are dressed, how we cut our hair, or how we choose to adorn ourselves, either. I am a first amendment absolutist and am glad such crap can’t happen here. I don’t like to see any gubmint telling anyone how to live their lives, so as much as I despise what the burka means, I am against the ban. Just so, I don’t like seeing the Confederate flag on people’s jackets, but I would fight for the right of those idiots to wear one.
The trick here of course is that all-over covering of the body and face is not necessarily the choice of the individual who is covered.
That’s true, but unless it is by force, that’s not a concern for the state.
Since a Muslim woman who refuses to wear the prescribed clothing can be maimed or killed under Sharia law, it seems to me to be absolutely “by force” in every case.
Additionally, there is a big difference between a hijab and the Confederate flag – the flag is merely a symbol of oppression, while the hijab wearer is a person whose human rights are actively, cruelly, and currently being oppressed. Perhaps it would be more obvious if they were forced to wear a slave collar or a ring through the nose with a leash on it?
Portugal is, imho, correct to ban the burka in public spaces. Civilized society does not allow husbands to beat their wives in public (or private), doesn’t even allow cruelty to animals. For the public square to allow human cruelty and gender discrimination in blind allegiance to so-called “religious freedom” degrades the society in which we all live.
The aspects of Sharia law that are in opposition to our civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms – which we laud constantly and are supposed to be important to us – should be outlawed. Pronto. If you don’t like it, please don’t move here, or feel free to leave. Plenty of Muslim states to move to.
Thanks for that. I think that’s probably what the Portuguese burqa ban is really about. I was curious about why airplanes were exempt and that got us off on a tangent about public safety when I think the correct focus is, as you say, pushback against sharia law and creeping Islamification of our western secular societies. The burqa ban, and Québec’s proposed public prayer ban, are a healthy step in that direction.
This leads to the larger re-evaluation of freedom of religion. Muslim societies allow no freedom of religion. Non-Muslims can’t be “free-religion” absolutists the way they can be free-speech absolutists because if you allow too much freedom to religion you, or at least some members of your polity, won’t have any freedom from religion, or any freedom at all. While freedom of speech should be almost completely excluded from government control, freedom of religion, especially the free exercise thereof, needs to have hard sharp limits placed around it.*
Speech and religion are often thought of as similar freedoms but they’re not of the same kind. Suppressing the public practice of the more noxious aspects of Islam and other religions should be a proper function of the state. Very few things should be protected, that we would otherwise object to in a free society, just because they are religious observances or religiously motivated.
(* The cynic in me thinks that freedom of religion is the freedom to worship the Almighty God and his begotten son Jesus Christ our Saviour in any fashion you choose. At the time religious freedom was over whether you were Catholic or Protestant, or believed in filioque or not, that was a major concession by the State. Any broader view wasn’t religion. It was sedition.)
First, the proposed ban clearly targets religious groups. Wearing a full Donald Duck costume in public is no different in effect.
Second, I don’t think there’s enough evidence for a compelling case for banning any and all full body/face coverings.
Portugal’s intent with the burka ban may well be to make Muslims feel uncomfortable enough that they would stop moving to Portugal, and maybe even leave. That’s the point. The targeting of the adherents of a religion is a reason to embrace the measure, not to oppose it. Portugal may well have, in addition, good reason to prohibit full face coverings. If you’re in Portugal. (I took Jerry’s invitation to opine on the ban as from the point of view of the Portuguese.)
The Canadian province of Québec has tabled a bill that would prohibit disruptive praying in public. The measure is intended to prevent large groups of worshippers from assembling and throwing down prayer mats on sidewalks and sometimes in the roadway and obstructing the free passage of the public until they decide they have adequately discharged their obligation to piety. Only one religion does that and so yes, only one religion feels “targeted” by the bill. Freedom of religion is fine until its expression becomes a nuisance or communicates intimidation. No easy answer because we’re not used to religions that seek to constrain our foreign policy and convert us with the sword.
Leslie, I think there is an easy answer. We don’t want Muslim’s of a conservative bent in our country. If we don’t protect our own culture, who will? The more conservative Muslim’s one admits to one’s country, the more these conservative Muslim immigrants will try to influence the local culture, institutions, and politics in the direction of making it more consistent with their own illiberal values (antisemitism, anti-feminism, etc.).
So I support the measure proposed in Portugal. It sends a clear signal that if you want your wife and daughters to wear a burka, etc., then you are not welcome here because some of your values are not compatible with our culture.
I recommend this book:
Brian Barry: Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Harvard UP, 2001
Barry said about this book:
Its core “is a demonstration of the unrecognized pervasiveness of cultural relativism among contemporary political philosophers and its obnoxious consequences in providing aid and comfort to oppressors and exploiters all over the world.”
Consistent with the classical liberal principles, the Portugal ban punishes those who force someone to wear a face veil. But it didn’t stop there.
The fear that the presence of women who wear burkas will likely lead to all our daughters being forced to wear burqas in public or to some other unspecified security threat, and its present consequence (the imposition of monetary punishment and ultimately imprisonment for civil disobedience for women who voluntarily choose to wear burkas) are strong arguments for a constitution that prohibits such laws to exist in the first place—both the law imposing the religious norms on the society and the law impinging on the freedom of religion. I’m assuming that changing the constitution requires a supermajority, like in the U.S.
Many Muslims claim that Islam itself makes no obligation for women to cover their bodies and faces. They insist that their religion is not so intolerant as that. So women are wearing burqas not as religious observance but as a social custom, analogous to female genital mutilation. (Whether they do so voluntarily or are made to by their fathers and husbands is not material here. The point is that Allah does not require women to wear burqas, say the imams, to honour their observance of the Islamic faith.) After all, some Muslim women wear only headscarves, some wear niqabs, and some wear burqas, some even wear their hair free. The principal sects of Islam don’t seem to make a consistent distinction, more the degree of social conservatism extant in the particular country and the degree to which the government has the state capacity to punish violators.
Portugal can therefore take the imams at their word and reject any notion that the burqa ban smacks of any infringement on freedom of religion at all….and then go ahead and enforce the ban with whatever punishment it sees fit. Along with banning Donald Duck costumes that hide the face if it wants to.
Portugal doesn’t want foreigners wandering around with their faces covered claiming that the government has no authority to force them not to. It’s not banning the free practice of Islam.
Donald Duck makes a good point. Halloween; Parades; – Maybe a better law would say that law enforcement officers may ask you to show your face and you are obliged to do so?
Telling them not to is the same as telling them too.
I don’t approve of a government dictating how people should dress, but banks have rules about taking off motorbike helmets before going in, so you can be identified, and I think there are places where face coverings of all types should be removed, like airports. I think a law like this should be addressed to everyone, so it’s not seen as a dig at a particular group.
A lot of the men who come and screech at women’s rallies cover their faces in balaclavas and wear dark glasses, I feel more intimidated by them than I do by a woman in a burka. I don’t know the solution to that, on one hand they have a right to dress as they like, but on the other hand they dress like that specifically so they can commit violence against women, without being identified. Having a law that they can’t cover their faces would probably decrease the violence, but such a law would probably be impossible to write without breaching, someone’s human rights.
Why do you think it is a human right to hide your identity while you are out in public? There is no such right.
Wikipedia has an article entitled “Anti-mask law.” (Germany, for instance, has had such a law for 40 years.) It starts by stating:
If there were a human right to hide one’s identity while out in public these laws could be appealed to, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. But such a human right does not exist. Just as their is no human right to be a woman (that is, to be treated as a woman while you are a man), nor do children have privacy rights vis-à-vis their own parents (as has been asserted by radical trans activists to justify why schools should have no obligation to tell parents when they socially transition a child at school.)
“I don’t approve of a government dictating how people should dress…”
I do. Public nudity is disallowed nearly everywhere. Even a 7-11 can legally regulate a dress code for small monetary reasons, so a barefoot customer won’t step on broken glass.
I see this issue as being about government protecting the civil rights of women in a free society which is supposed to take that seriously.