Ban the burqua? Whatever for? OK, I have no particular reverence for the burqua or face veils or anything like them. They represent the height of silliness in female attire. They are no worse, however, than many other practices; like binding women’s feet in China so they can hardly walk (now thankfully no longer practiced).

Even modern Western women’s shoes, for example, are often ridiculous in the extreme. What man would ever try to wear something like five inch stiletto heels? They would (and do) stick right into the ground if the woman wearing them dares to step off the sidewalk onto a grassy area. Then there are other garments I find just as silly as the burqua… like skirts and dresses, often worn by women even in our frigid Wisconsin winters.

Female attire is more often than not, all about vanity. Women wear clothes that (they imagine) make them look good… pretty much for no reason but to attract the attention of men, and no amount of inconvenience will dissuade some of them.

Then there is makeup, which no normal man would submit to. The things women will do to their faces to allegedly make themselves look better is mind-boggling! I once knew a woman who spent two hours every morning putting on her face. She had all manner of substances to smear on her face, brush on her eye brows, and… has anyone ever seen a woman use an arcane instrument known as an eye-lash curler? Or maybe pluck her eyebrows out with tweezers?

Is the burqua a reaction to the silliness of women’s vanity? Perhaps. I really think, though, that the burqua has little to do with vanity and more to do with oppression as Mona says. Outright banning of a garment, however, makes little sense out on the street. It does make sense in certain work environments. Men who wear ties around machinery are begging for an accident, and I really hate it when some fool comes into my blacksmith shop wearing sandals or open-toed shoes.

As to fashion statements… well there is the punch line to an old joke: to impress a man, just show up naked with beer! If you haven’t the bravery to wear only skin, most men would accept a pareo as a viable substitute. We don’t care much about makeup, shoes, or impractical garments that make it difficult or impossible to step onto a fishing boat or the back of a motorcycle. Blue jeans, practical shoes, and whatever she wants to wear as a top works just fine for me.

The burqua will be relegated to museums only when women refuse to wear it. While it might be nice to bring much of the Muslim world into the twenty-first century with the rest of the world, it won’t do to simply drag them there kicking and screaming. Banning it will only prolong its existence… and cause much bloodshed and more of the oppression it represents.

A woman who is not free to wear what she wants… even if it is a burqua… is simply not free at all.

A few points to make:

1. It seems rather hypocritical to insist on freedom of interpretation of religion, while denying others the same right when you disagree with it.

2. Mona is imposing her own interpretation on the burqa. There are many reasons people might choose to wear it, and not all of them are from brainwashed/repressed people. Quite a few of those who wear the burqa in Western countries are university educated converts. Listen to what THEY have to say. See this Guardian article for the words of women who actually wear the burqa. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/26/sarkozy-france-paris-islamic-veils

3. “It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.”
Nothing can deprive a person of identity; it can’t be taken away. You could shut down your blog and twitter and facebook — and believe it or not, you would still have an identity! The women who choose to dress this way are simply curtailing their public persona so that their identity is channeled into a closer relationship with, in their view, God and perhaps their extended family and faith community, rather than with the vapid superficialities of fashion and public jealousies. Monks and nuns often isolate themselves for the same reason; no one suggests that they should be forced to endure the public glare for a certain amount of time each week.

The argument that it cuts people off from the wider society is problematic. As sociologists have noticed time and again ever since the seminal 1950 sociology text “The Lonely Crowd”, modern people are very often atomized and cut off from each other due to rampant individualism and the decline of the extended family. Cutting oneself off from whatever fleeting transient encounters occur in the public sphere doesn’t seem like much of a loss. You yourself, a single and childless journalist who enjoys much attention and all the reach of the media and of various social networks, have written about how hard it is to find any real friends/relationships in your thirties, whereas traditional women generally avoid this problem by having tighter lifelong relationships rather than dispersing their energies on numerous, transient, loose relationships. Perhaps it is you, not they, who is more cut off from your fellow man and more likely to die in lonely isolation.

4. Where do we stop? Why not ban other garments and actions that seem to cut people off from the mainstream? People covered in tats and piercings — they too are frowned upon by employers. What about needless breast implants? They bring much more harm than benefit to women, and the meaning their is much less ambiguous than the burqa: they bluntly say: your worth is not your personality, but your sex appeal. Let’s shut down all the convents too, and thrust the inhabitants back into the public sphere.

Finally, I will add that I myself have not been comfortable with the burqa for the reasons that many Westerners are uncomfortable with it. However, after knowing a couple of people who chose to wear it, sensitive, intelligent people with very rich personal lives, I can’t imagine intruding on their privacy and denying them the opportunity to go this extra step beyond what the religion requires, especially when there are so many other much more harmful and less ambiguous practices out there. You don’t protect from coercion by ignoring what they have to say for themselves and coercing them.

For a thoughtful feminist perspective on veiling, see this article by Naomi Wolf in the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html

A few points to make:

1. It seems rather hypocritical to insist on freedom of interpretation of religion, while denying others the same right when you disagree with it.

2. Mona is imposing her own interpretation on the burqa. There are many reasons people might choose to wear it, and not all of them are from brainwashed/repressed people. Quite a few of those who wear the burqa in Western countries are university educated converts. Listen to what THEY have to say. See this Guardian article for the words of women who actually wear the burqa. guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/26/sarkozy-france-paris-islamic-veils

3. “It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.”
Nothing can deprive a person of identity; it can’t be taken away. You could shut down your blog and twitter and facebook — and believe it or not, you would still have an identity! The women who choose to dress this way are simply curtailing their public persona so that their identity is channeled into a closer relationship with, in their view, God and perhaps their extended family and faith community, rather than with the vapid superficialities of fashion and public jealousies. Monks and nuns often isolate themselves for the same reason; no one suggests that they should be forced to endure the public glare for a certain amount of time each week.

The argument that it cuts people off from the wider society is problematic. As sociologists have noticed time and again ever since the seminal 1950 sociology text “The Lonely Crowd”, modern people are very often atomized and cut off from each other due to rampant individualism and the decline of the extended family. Cutting oneself off from whatever fleeting transient encounters occur in the public sphere doesn’t seem like much of a loss. You yourself, a single and childless journalist who enjoys much attention and all the reach of the media and of various social networks, have written about how hard it is to find any real friends/relationships in your thirties, whereas traditional women generally avoid this problem by having tighter lifelong relationships rather than dispersing their energies on numerous, transient, loose relationships. Perhaps it is you, not they, who is more cut off from your fellow man and more likely to die in lonely isolation.

4. Where do we stop? Why not ban other garments and actions that seem to cut people off from the mainstream? People covered in tats and piercings — they too are frowned upon by employers. What about needless breast implants? They bring much more harm than benefit to women, and the meaning their is much less ambiguous than the burqa: they bluntly say: your worth is not your personality, but your sex appeal. Let’s shut down all the convents too, and thrust the inhabitants back into the public sphere.

Finally, I will add that I myself have not been comfortable with the burqa for the reasons that many Westerners are uncomfortable with it. However, after knowing a couple of people who chose to wear it, sensitive, intelligent people with very rich personal lives, I can’t imagine intruding on their privacy and denying them the opportunity to go this extra step beyond what the religion requires, especially when there are so many other much more harmful and less ambiguous practices out there. You don’t protect from coercion by ignoring what they have to say for themselves and coercing them.

For a thoughtful feminist perspective on veiling, see this article by Naomi Wolf in the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html

I liked Dale’s comment: “The burqa will be relegated to museums when women refuse to wear it:–I would add “when women in non-Muslim ruled countries refuse to wear it.”

When a piece of clothing or a symbol like the “A” for adultery in puritanical America is required by an official decree, it becomes oppression. However, when it is chosen freely as a personal statement, it becomes a fashion item. When it is worn as a political statement, it becomes provocation.

Teenage boys in America wear their pants down around their hips, covered by a loose shirt as a symbolic connection with prisoners who have their belts taken away in prison. This fad started as a political protest and has morphed into a fashion item. When the symbol becomes co-opted by mainstream fashion, it may disappear.

Muslim men in certain countries wear a long, loose garment which covers their bodies, and a kaffiyeh, which covers their
heads. They do not regard themselves as oppressed, because
they have REAL power and real choice. Women who are forced to cover themselves from head to toe and even wear gloves on their hands have no choice in certain countries, and they have NO power.

The ban on certain articles of clothing exists already in some
countries and in certain environments. Restaurants post signs
forbidding bare feet (clients must wear shoes) and/or signs
posting correct attire (men must wear jackets and ties) and/or
“no bikinis or swim suits allowed.” University campuses or
work places can post signs saying, “No burqas allowed” or
“head scarves not permitted,” all of which fit into areas where freedom of choice and freedom of expression are not abridged.

A general, legal ban on an article of clothing, like the burqa
becomes a kind of governmental control that would mirror the
governmental control that demands it. It’s the women who
CHOOSE to wear the burqa in a free country who are making a
statement, for whatever reasons they choose.

I heard your interview on NPR and I must say, both sides of the debate that were presented was….how should I say this politely, lacking in any substance?

Now, I’m not a fan of the burqaa, but having walked through Miami and New Orleans, I’ve had my fair share of what the polar opposite of the burqaa is and would be. Why not live and let live?! Obviously, some women prefer to flaunt their bodies in a bikini as an expression of social freedom. The other side does the opposite under the same flag. You don’t see anyone passing a law banning women from wearing bikinis, or tank tops where their breasts are about to pop out in any given minute, then why in sweet candy’s name would you want to remove the right of someone else to freely express their religious and social attire. The very same cause you seem to be fighting for?!

What makes your views different from the views of the very Mullahs in Afghanistan that absolutely insist on women covering from head to toe?

Besides, the government has no right whatsoever to tell me how to dress! If I want to wear shorts on a hot summer day, then no government should be able to tell me that I’m not allowed to and if that same government tells me that I have no right to wear a garb that covers my entire body, then I would tell the government to shove it.

I, too, am a Muslim, a feminist, and detest the fully body veil, known as niqab or burqa, but am against any outright ban on it.

This issue is not about what is or is not the “true” teaching of Islam, a question which laicite and the First Amendment behooves any sensible government to avoid altogether. More importantly, the recent sabre-rattling over the burqa should be a concern for anyone who values personal liberty. The oft-repeated alarmism against the Salafist bogeyman is a thinly disguised populism that seeks cowardly coercion over reason. How a woman chooses to work, think, or dress neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Taking away that choice is what erases a woman and patronizes Muslims as incapable of thinking for themselves. Isn’t this the very reason we point fingers at Saudi Arabia and Iran? Such bans will only open the door to further inquisitions driven by xenophobia and political opportunism. In 2005, for example, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found majorities in India, France, the Netherlands, and Germany all supported a ban on headscarves in public places. Tunisia and Turkey have already disenfranchised women who wear headscarves. As Thomas Jefferson aptly warned, “Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?”

It is particularly insulting to Muslims who have long advocated religious reform from the pulpit, not through politicians. The best way to debunk the burqa as an Islamic symbol is to listen and discuss it with those who support it. Is the egalitarian spirit of Islam you promote so intellectually timid and impotent that it must rest on political stilts to gain favor in the 21st century? If this debate was truly about helping women, anti-burqa advocates would be more concerned with causes than symptoms, namely, a lack of education, poverty, and physical abuse. Truth be told, there is a small minority of Muslim women in the West, even very educated ones, who wish to wear the niqab and I respect that right. If you want to change their minds, talk to them like human beings.

I tend to agree with Yousef. The correct way to deal with anti-social behavior – and I can’t think of anything more anti-social than wearing garb that covers everything but a person’s eyes – is through peer pressure. That’s how a society sets the standards for what is “socially acceptable” and what is not. Most people, if they find something they are doing is drawing a severe adverse reaction, will change their behavior. In this case, since it involves religion, that peer pressure may have to come from within. Whether that works or not, I’m generally opposed to passing laws to regulate behavior, so long as nobody is getting hurt.

But that brings up another issue which is cases in which women are not wearing a burqa/niqab/chador of their own free will. That’s a human rights violation, and in most countries would also be a civil rights violation. What should be done in such cases? It seems like in most cases the perps would be the victim’s close family members, prosecution might do more harm than good.

Your position is blatantly hypocritical and completely devoid of substance. How can you call yourself a liberal if you believe in restricting a woman’s right to practice her religion as she sees fit? You may find this inconceivable, but there are many women who wear the niqab by choice, and would vehemently disagree with your ignorant, conclusory assertion that their choice of attire “has nothing to do with Islam”. How insulting and patronizing of you to argue that such women are being “erased”, when many of them wear the niqab out of an intellectual and spiritual conviction that doing so brings them closer to God.

For the record, I do not believe that the niqab is mandatory or even encouraged. But I’m certainly not going to lecture a woman who has made the choice to wear niqab on how stupid she is. It’s time feminists stopped acting like they know what’s best for all of humanity and that all women who don’t share their worldview are somehow brainwashed or weak-willed.

As a Muslim woman, I find it very essential to keep the personal human right of body exposure/dressing style respected. I am not veiled. I don’t like the sight of head-to-toe black covered women, as it makes me feel isolated and rejected. But still, if this is a personal preference then it has to be respected. Even if the majority/some/a minority of the Niqab followers belong to extremist religious group, some are not, they just feel comfortable behind the Niqab. I wouldn’t like to have someone preventing me from doing what I feel comfortable with. No.

JustMe

It’s rich to use “fiqh” and whore in the same comment.

I will continue you to delete your comments if you can’t comment as an adult.

to the commentators: So to be anti-Niqab on the internal dialogue but against its ban in France is not hypocritical?

Most people who’ve criticized Mona’s article admitted to be against the niqab but argue for the sake of human rights and diversity for it to be allowed…. how ironic?

Just for the record, there is consensus amongst most level headed Muslim scholars that the niqab does not exist in Islam. Some even attacked it ferociously, and not for mere aesthetic reasons, explaining how the concepts behind it are oppressive to women and carry deeper notions of female marginalization, and how THAT IS ANTI-ISLAM AS A WHOLE. Lets not forget that someone like Soad Saleh – a prof in Azhar, got death threats because of her stern anti-niqab views.

The debate stirs up sensitivities on all sides. And while the factors that play into this are exhausted of being discussed, the discussion is widening the gaps not closing them. And while Westerners use this discourse to criticize the objectification of sex in their pop culture, Muslims are divided amongst themselves and everyone’s confused – all the while no one’s doing tolerance any good. And discrimination against the Muslim woman increases either way, regardless of what her stance on this issue may even be – because at the end – you’ll be attacked for any opinion you choose to have on this issue

what I don’t understand if everyone who’s willing to defend

ISIS,

this isn’t about what’s Islam/anti-Islam, it’s about maintaining a woman’s personal autonomy. Yes, I dislike the niqab, I also dislike beards, Metallica, and Chevy Malibus, but that has nothing to do with what another person should or should not be allowed to choose. A majority of people in France “dislike” the hejab and support banning it, Should we ban that too? What if people start “disliking” mosques in a Western country? Niqabis in the West are not hurting anyone, they’re not forcing you to wear one, and you still have the right to have your say about it not being a part of the religion, so what’s your problem? A lot of Muslims do things not necessarily a part of their religion (e.g. drink alcohol, kills innocents, act greedy), but its only the ignorant and bigoted who infer that the religion necessarily sanctions that behavior. I know I’d be furious if other people started forcing me to practice my religion “properly” as it’s a spiritual bond between me and God.

The key word is CHOICE. Just as it is wrong for a woman to be forced to wear the hejab/niqab, it is just as wrong for the gov’t to say she shouldn’t be allowed to wear it if she CHOOSES. We should be targeting people who force women to go against their choice, not making choices for those women. If you want to change people’s opinions, talk to them.

JustMe or whatever your name is

Wow. And that was all in defense of the burqa/niqab?

Interesting morals you have.

Thank you to all who have posted comments so far.

From now on, comments are being moderated because some lunatic upset at my opinion is threatening me and my mother in quite graphic terms.

I welcome comments – agreeing or disagreeing but phrased politely.

Any threats will be sent directly to the authorities.

Perhaps telling women what not to wear is just as condescending as telling them what to wear?

Aren’t they still being treated like children?

Just a thought.

Dear Mona,
i will talk not from a religious point at all.
I guess every person has his rights to do whatever he wants unless he harms another one.
So, if women are obliged to wear burqa that will be wrong. But if she wears one with her choice, do you consider this not her right?
I mean if you consider it wrong, then i can oblige you to wear veil and another person prevents a woman from wearing miniskirts and so on. If a woman burqa harms you (and i don’t understand how) then a bikini girls harms me too.

Erasing women from society and so on, that’s your point, other people have their point of view that this is good for society. Everyone has his thoughts, but no one should oblige this women to wear or remove burqa.

I hope i made my point clear.

Thank you for the comments which I am still moderating.

Please note that if you post a comment with more than two links in it, it will get caught in the spam filter.

Dear Mona,I like how your articulate your article yet I believe that everyone is free to wear whatever she or he wants.

When I read your article I had some comments and ideas I would have liked to try, but then again, I’m only a man, and hardly a muslim. So here’s what a woman had to say about it, which I agree with.

I beleive you should have left what JustMe wrote, or a sample of it. This never fails. But it’s your blog.

Thanks for the news comments. I’m still moderating and it takes a while to get to some messages but I’m clearing and posting as often ss I can.

Alif – why do you think I should’ve left JustMe’s graphic threats and insults?

Sorry for my English, I live in Italy. It is not an issue of freedom of choice. It’s a problem of recognition and contact between the sexes. In the West a person must be recognizable. Only serious illness can justify the coverage. Thieves come in banks and shops completely covered. I do not know who is inside the niqab or burqa. In my own experience I know that all women who wear the niqab or burqa and many women who wear the hijab refuse male doctors and male nurses in hospitals. They pretend female doctors and female nurses. This is not acceptable. This harms the freedom of other people. In Egypt now a woman nurse or doctor can’t wear niqab in the hospitals because the patient needs and wants to see in the face the person who care him/her.

As someone brought up in a fundamentalist Muslim household, I am against the burka as well and what it symbolizes. But the point here is that these discussions need to take place internally within the muslim community itself – it is not up to another, different kind of patriarch (sarkozy) to make that judgement from outside the community. How is *he* not being patriarchal by telling a whole group of women what they can and cannot do – what will and won’t be tolerated on French soil? I don’t see how that’s any better. Women can and should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Just for the record, there is consensus amongst most level headed Muslim scholars that the niqab does not exist in Islam.

This is just patently false and illogical. You seem to be implying that the level-headedness of a scholar is somehow tied to his/her views on niqab. That’s circular reasoning. A scholar can be level-headed and support the niqab. Level-headedness and niqab are not mutually exculsive, contrary to what you may like to believe.

Claiming that the niqab has absolutely no basis in Islam is an argument you cannot win. You will find scholars across the ideological spectrum who view the niqab as recommended or obligatory. Even those who disagree with it will not go so far as to call the opposite view baseless. There are too many intelligent, educated Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab for it to be dismissed as a cultural practice with no basis in Islam. Furthermore, the niqab has been worn for centuries in a diverse range of places such as Yemen, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf countries. And contrary to Ms. Eltahawy’s assertion above, the practice predates Wahhabism.

I think this debate exposes wider questions about feminism and Islam. People such as Ms. Eltahawy who call themselves Muslim feminists–based apparently on implicit assumptions that there are no doctrinal contradictions between Islam and feminism–must confront difficult questions about whether such an identification accurately reflects the cultural and social realities of Muslim life. I agree with Ms. Eltahawy that the niqab is anti-feminist and fundamentally incompatible with Western social norms. And yet, to Ms. Eltahawy’s dismay, women who wear the niqab are very much a part of the Muslim mainstream and the practice clearly has widespread grassroots influence. So instead of forcing our notions to fit some predetermined mold of thought and then engaging in dismissive and deluded fictions when it becomes apparent that the mold doesn’t reflect our cultural realities, shouldn’t we be questioning the mold? If the doctrinal difficulties of contorting our Islamic notions in unnatural ways aren’t enough to dissuade us from adopting fashionable foreign labels, then shouldn’t the disconnect between how we wish Islamic norms were expressed and how they are actually expressed force some soul-searching on the question of feminism?

Your post is now up on sheik yer’mami/Winds of Jihad

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/07/14/ban-the-burka-an-open-letter-to-mona-eltahawy/

In considering a ban on the burqa and niqab, is our concern for those women who are oppressed physically/emotionally/psychologically and do not have the choice to wear it or not? Or, is our concern for those who choose to wear it by choice, not to remove themselves from the sight of animalistic men, but for other reasons (perhaps freeing themselves from the trappings of society)?

I would posit that we can not have the same concern for both those groups and thus cannot impose a blanket ban in the name of that concern. To legislate on that concern for the woman who freely chooses the burqa/niqab is to disrespect and to repress her almost as the burqa/niqab represses her disenfranchised counterpart.

Also, if our concern is for the dominated and oppressed woman then I suggest that perhaps a ban would not help her in any way. If she is so repressed by the men in her family and neighbourhood then with a ban on wearing the burqa & niqab in public (the only place I understand it is worn), will she not simply be banned from leaving her home/prison at all?

It is clear to me that both these women exist. I would propose an open minded/respectful philosophical discussion to challenge women who see women as “candy” in wrappers. And I would propose communication to discover what we CAN target, legitimately, to REALLY free women suffering in oppressive Neanderthal SUBcultures.

It is not clothing that dehumanizes women but the culture that imposes (easten burqa) or promotes (western skimp) it.

Mona
Congratiulations for taking such a couragous stand.
In France this is quite a popular move.
While in the USA this seems to be completely misunderstood and denigrated.

Some of the misunderstandings
1. French are xenophobic and against islam. – Yes some are, but most are not, as evidenced by the 2002 presidential election where 80% voters voted against an extreme right wing candidate.

2. This is a populist move. Yes possibly , but Sarkozy made a promise to take action before being elected. Also one of his ministers Fadela Amara(a muslim and ex feminist leader) is pushing hard for this law.

3. The French are betraying secularism. – Actualy french secularism/laicite is about the state protecting individuals against pressure from communities/religion.
So it is doing exactly what it is expected to do.

4. The french should have a First Amendment
In fact Freedom is part of the french constitution. But it is balanced against other things in the constitution notably Equality and Solidarity.
The constitution also defines the limit of personal freedom as being where it infringes others freedoms or the law.
This is why in France freedom cannot limit Equality ( something the burqa does).

5. Such a law would be impossible in USA.
Wrong. In the USA you already have restrictions on what you wear for blatant historical religous reasons. Also you have various restrictions on what you do based on religous reasons – eg access to alcahol on a sunday.

In fact Freedom is part of the french constitution. But it is balanced against other things in the constitution notably Equality and Solidarity.

Freedom is “balanced” against equality and solidarity? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. And I’m a libertarian. Partial freedom is not freedom.

The constitution also defines the limit of personal freedom as being where it infringes others freedoms or the law.

That’s because France is a socialist countries, which places society as a whole ahead of the welfare of individual members of that society. The proper limit of the freedom of an individual is when that individual’s exercise of their rights and freedoms steps on someone else’s. I have no understanding of “freedom” that includes government placing restrictions on freedoms because they are seen as harmful to the government(the “law”).

This is why in France freedom cannot limit Equality ( something the burqa does).

Can you define for me what your concept of “Equality” is, in that statement? Because my understanding of “equality” in a society is that all people are to be treated equally, under the law. So this statement seems to be saying (to me) that a law is required to guarantee Muslim women are treated equally by the law. That’s a circular argument. If the law does not presently discriminate against women who wear a burqa, then a new law to prevent that discrimination is not required. And if the law currently discriminates against women who wear a burqa, the most logical solution is to fix that, rather than to ban the burqa.

5. Such a law would be impossible in USA.
Wrong. In the USA you already have restrictions on what you wear for blatant historical religous reasons.

I don’t even know what that means. Can you explain? With examples?

Also you have various restrictions on what you do based on religous reasons – eg access to alcahol on a sunday.

I take it you’ve never been to the US? Blue Laws (which are pretty rare these days) are limits on what businesses can do on the Sabbath. There is no law anywhere in the US that prevents people from drinking alcohol on the Sabbath. And as far as I know, there never has been. It is true that in the past we have had many religiously inspired laws, and some of those are still on the books in some jurisdictions, but whenever somebody tries to enforce them there is a huge public outcry about it. We have been moving in the other direction for decades, and bans are not popular in the US.

Hmmm… I feel like I am coming across like I defend the burqa, which is not my intent at all. I do believe the burqa dehumanizes women. I personally have a great deal of trouble trying to relate to somebody as a fellow human being, if I can’t see their face.

I’m just having trouble with the idea that the state can pass laws to protect people from dehumanizing *themselves*, for their own good. That kinda sounds like it might be OK, but there are a lot of things that kinda sound like they might be OK which are in fact REALLY BAD ideas.

I find all the passionate defenses about a woman’s right to control her own body very interesting. My standard question here has become, would you then support a woman’s right to prostitute herself?

Its possible you do, and that is fine and at least logically consistent. But, I find that most people who are passionate about women’s rights to their own bodies when defending niqab would not extend that passion to other areas where women are not allowed to control their own bodies.

The fact is that we, as a society, have rightly or wrongly imposed certain limits where we feel the others are so egregiously damaged by individual actions that it justifies placing limits on the individual to engage in those actions.

Libertarians generally disagree. And, if you are a libertarian, I can respect a defense of the niqab. But, if you’re not libertarian and accept that there are such circumstances where an individual must be limited, then the defense of the niqab becoms a value judgement dressed in libertarian guise.

Mona is simply making a different value judgement. She believes the niqab crosses a line where all women and society at large are damaged. I happen to agree with that value judgement. If you disagree, that is fine. But let’s talk about it for what it is — a different value judgement.

I find a level of intellectual dishonesty in all the passionate defenses of a woman’s right to her own body. I suspect for many people, it is just limited to the niqab.

Yasmin, I think Prostitution is a bad example, because it isn’t difficult at all to show how Prostitution harms many people, not just the people engaging in the practice. I do have a big problem with the way prostitution is prosecuted in the US, because it seems to me women engage in the practice end up being victimized twice. Once by the lifestyle, and once by the system. Or maybe three times, if we count the extreme societal disapproval they face. I am a Libertarian, but I’m ambivalent about criminalization of drugs and prostitution. Those two items don’t seem so obvious, to me. The burqa does. I’m waiting for somebody to explain to me how the burqa harms people (other than the woman who decides to wear the burqa). That’s all I need

For what it is worth, I think gun control could be finessed into a better example of what you are trying to prove. That’s the one where a lot of libertarians don’t make the cut.

Craig, thanks for the response. I am confused at how gun control is a better example than prostitution. At the end of the day, assuming no minors are involved, certainly high-priced call girls can be said to be engaged in voluntary acts with consensual clients in some private location. With the amounts of money they charge, it is difficult to know who exactly is exploiting whom in those circumstances. Guns, however can and do kill innocents all the time.

But, that is neither here nor there. Yes, I’m going for limiting individual freedoms based on broader social harm. I don’t believe women who wear niqab are necessarily being forced, though I imagine some form of pressure or coercion, if not outright force, is involved in a large number of cases.

But, I believe identity-less women are harmful to all women. I think covering the face is unlike covering any other part of the body. Your face is the center of your physical identity when interacting with the rest of the world. You can cover any part of your body, and you still retain your public identity. That is untrue when covering the face.

The concept behind hijab is modesty, But, the concept behind niqab is that the ultimate level of piety for a Muslim woman is to be faceless, without identity or expression. It effectively removes that woman from society as a hallmark of her virtue.

As a Muslim woman and a Western woman, I support wholeheartedly the right of every woman and man to be modest to the degree each finds acceptable without interference. That, of course, includes hijab.

But, when women choose or are pressured to erase themselves from society as an act of supposed virtue, it harms all women. It legitimizes the concept that physical erasure from society can be not only acceptable but desireable for women.

BTW, anecdotally, my understanding is that women who wear hijab are some of the most vocal opponents of niqab, not necessarily in terms of supporting a ban but in terms of opposition to the practice.

Guns, however can and do kill innocents all the time.

Yes, you correctly identified the part where many people who call themselves libertarians fail the test. And that’s why I think it is a better example to use when trying to determine if somebody is really a libertarian, or just tries to sound like one.

I don’t have time right now to reply to your interesting comment, but I’ll be back later

At the end of the day, assuming no minors are involved, certainly high-priced call girls can be said to be engaged in voluntary acts with consensual clients in some private location.

Yes, but that’s a “best case” scenario. And even then, the argument can only be made that nobody is being harmed for as long as it remains confidential.

Yes, I’m going for limiting individual freedoms based on broader social harm.

That’s where we disagree. Societies don’t get harmed. People get harmed. Like, in the example of the call girl you just used, that doesn’t harm “society” – it harms the loved ones of the individuals involved. But in that example it’s not an easily quantifiable “harm” that is being done, which is why I have mixed feelings about criminalization of drugs and prostitution. That’s also why I wanted didn’t like this using this scenario to argue the point

I don’t believe women who wear niqab are necessarily being forced, though I imagine some form of pressure or coercion, if not outright force, is involved in a large number of cases.

You are undoubtedly right.

But, I believe identity-less women are harmful to all women.

I can relate to that argument. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that governments should be in the business of social engineering. Even if a majority of citizens would like things to be a certain way. The “bikini” counter-example comes to mind. How difficult would it be for some to make a seemingly valid claim that women exposing their bodies is harmful to all women? Obviously it wouldn’t happen in the US but it does seem to be an equivalent argument, right? And since we are talking about France… France has a LOT of nude beaches. How healthy is it for young boys to be around nude adult women? I’m sure I would have been loving that when I was a kid, but I bet we could find a lot of psychologists who think that’s a really bad idea.

I think covering the face is unlike covering any other part of the body. Your face is the center of your physical identity when interacting with the rest of the world. You can cover any part of your body, and you still retain your public identity. That is untrue when covering the face.

Yep, I’m with you on that. And on your next paragraphs, that I’m omitting.

BTW, anecdotally, my understanding is that women who wear hijab are some of the most vocal opponents of niqab, not necessarily in terms of supporting a ban but in terms of opposition to the practice.

And that’s my argument for the right way to go with this. Make it socially unacceptable to wear garb that covers everything but the eyes. Making it illegal seems excessive, to me.

Societies don’t get harmed. People get harmed.

Agreed. I was sloppily using the words “broader social harm” when I should have said that the individual decisions by some women to wear niqab affect other women and girls who live in the same society. Those women and girls have to live with the acceptability, and to many desirability, of women being faceless to the world. Women who wear hijab face a dual harm — from some in their community who think they are not going far enough and pressure from outside the community for being “one of those extremist women”.

France has a LOT of nude beaches. How healthy is it for young boys to be around nude adult women? I’m sure I would have been loving that when I was a kid, but I bet we could find a lot of psychologists who think that’s a really bad idea.

Ironically though, in the US, public nudity including nude beaches and nudity in public television or movies, is limited on exactly these grounds — harm to minors. I think we could easily point out many hypocrisies in French stances with respect to minorities in general, women in general and specifically Muslim women. But, does that necessarily make a ban on the niqab bad conceptually? Is it possible that in their xenophobic meanderings, the French are not actually wrong in this case?

And that’s my argument for the right way to go with this. Make it socially unacceptable to wear garb that covers everything but the eyes. Making it illegal seems excessive, to me.

Hmmm… so, is that internal pressure, or are we talking about something like “No shirt, no shoes, no face, no service”?

Social pressure is problematic in a different way though, isn’t it? It encourages people to make life difficult for someone at an individual level without any clear guidelines. You can legally wear the niqab if you want, but you can’t shop in this establishment, you can’t eat at that restaurant, you can’t have this other job or that apartment. They have the legal right, but they are deliberately marginalized from society furthering their isolation and increasing their sense of frustration.

So we’re clear, I’m not talking about setting up paddywagons that are hauling off niqab-clad women to the clink. But, I would be fine with a law that clearly states that covering one’s face when out in public is not a right anymore than full nudity when out in public is a right. A law which clearly states that this could result in being asked to show their face or else denied service, etc. would make clear the minimum standards without encouraging random and sporadic social pressure.

Hi Yasmin,

I think we are on the same page for the most part. I think there is an argument to be made that covering ones face in public poses a security threat… but Sarkozy didn’t even say anything about that. Also, I think there is an argument to be made that forcing employees to work with somebody who won’t show their face is a violation of… something or other. That would make for a very uncomfortable work environment, if nothing else. And you are right, “denial of service” on the part of individual establishments is not really desirable because that’s classic discrimination and we aren’t really shooting for discrimination.

I’m not really sure what type of peer pressure would work, but that is how people traditionally set the bounds for what is or is not socially acceptable in a culture. In this case, it may be more difficult because women who wear niqab in the west are already making a point of setting themselves apart from the society they live in.

I don’t really have any good suggestions. If a law is to be passed, I hope the French at least base it on something sound, and not this “incompatibility with French values” BS. That’s no basis to start determining what is or is not to be legal.

One more comment: a law vs social pressure would also protect hijab-wearing women, in my opinion. Social pressure is also difficult in its ability to be consistent across society. Overzealous individuals who are motivated by bigotry would extend that to include women wearing headscarves, and indeed this is already happening in France.

A law which establishes that covering the face is not a right could, and in my opinion should, also establish that covering all other parts of the body is completely legally permitted. This gives clear legal recourse to every woman who wears the headscarf and is marginalized in any manner.

I’m not saying that is how France would write the law, but that is the kind of law I would support.

Bravo. Well said. The burqa should not be tolerated, it is the ultimate in oppression.

I’ll try to keep this brief. My thought is, why are women expected to make such a huge sacrifice (covering themselves) while the men make no similar effort? Women are human too, and so subject to lustful thoughts. I think if one sex has to do something like this to protect the (evidently quite fragile) sanctity of thoughts, the other should be required to do the same.

Agreed.

I’m agnostic, not religious, and part of my choice to not align myself with a religion is for silly rules like this which seem to serve to enhance the male role in society at the expense of the female.

Bottom line, if Allah doesn’t want one of His followers to expose a kneecap or ankle or nose or what have you, I think it is not unreasonable for Him to come down from on high and make clear His reasoning.

To move forward in life embracing and promoting such a philosophy without question seems at best naive, at worst, arrogant, particularly since its implementation necessitates an uneven balance of power in favor of whomever isn’t required to wear the burqa.

Banning does not always stop anything but always increases government and puts more people in jail. Education and outreach are key. You are doing lots of educating and outreach – as I see. Keep on doing so. Burqa ban will never happen but I want you to keep on doing what you do. Women who are born into patriarchal religions need empowerment !

If I want to wear a burka I should damn well be able to. If some women are coerced to wear it then what we need to address is that coercion. Not a piece of cloth.

Craig and Yasmin have touched on some of the deeper issues concerning attire and rights in general. These force me to ask a few questions.

“Yasmin, I think Prostitution is a bad example, because it isn’t difficult at all to show how Prostitution harms many people, not just the people engaging in the practice.”

I believe that the possible harm inflicted by prostitution is comparable to that inflicted by divorce. Also, prostitution need not inflict any harm at all, if practiced conscientiously. No, laws against it seem to stem from majoritarian moral outcry, which should have no place in government.

“But, I believe identity-less women are harmful to all women.”

The burka hardly erases an identity. Even if it does cover the face, an identity is comprised of more than facial expressions, or even a voice. If the lack of an identity can be construed to inflict harm, I must say this “harm” seems somewhat abstract at best. Indeed, following the same logic, I could say that overweight people are harmful to all people. Perhaps they are in some abstract sense, but that doesn’t mean we outlaw obesity.

“How healthy is it for young boys to be around nude adult women? … I bet we could find a lot of psychologists who think that’s a really bad idea.”

I’m not so sure if that’s true. National Geographic cites the opinion that nudity and nude beaches work as equalizers, and can boost the self-esteem of those who frequent the areas. In a culture that equates nudity with sex and views sex in the worst of lights, it is easy to assume that science is the basis of our bias. I doubt that any study has been done on the effects of nudity on the minds of young men. If you find such a study, I’d like to read it.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0721_040721_tvnude_2.html

if i arts it is offending my religion women should have the choice to wear them people should respect other peoples religion. if we respect you. you should respect us

Ultimately, the niqab is worn not for the salvation of women, but the salvation of men. These practices are to keep men from lusting after a woman, and making him sin. The practice has derived as a means of control, both over the woman, and over a man’s feeling of guilt. Mostly, it is a man’s inability to deal with his own inferiority that forces him to find a solution, but his vanity makes him act out against that which he perceives is forcing him to sin. Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin, then it is better to pluck it out. He never said anything about striking at what you are seeing. The niqab takes the place of plucking out one’s own eye.

A pity, really……..

Ultimately, though, I think it should be a woman’s choice to wear it or not. Education should be used to show these women that wearing the niqab is superfluous and unnecessary.

And Sabir gave absolutely no proof to give weight to the claim that ‘Claiming that the niqab has absolutely no basis in Islam is an argument you cannot win.’ His whole argument is, ‘You are wrong, because I say so!!!’

good comment, mona! i agree burqas should be banned. the argument that some women wear it voluntarily is hypocrite. the vast majority does not. it’s easy to show… look at the percentage of burqa-wearers in countries where women have a true choice. then look at the percentage of burqa-wearers in countries where they have no choice. notice anything?

so is it asking too much of those who want to wear a burqa to forgo this “privilege” to show solidarity with those who are forced to wear one? appearantly it is. so that’s why we need a ban.

simply because a woman in a burqa is an abused woman, deprived of the right to communicate with the outside world.

What if women who “want” to cover their faces be required to carry a state issued card identifying one man or boy of any age, living in the same country, who agrees to similarly cover his face? That man would wear a tiny tattoo on the tip of his nose and a GPS bracelet which would broadcast his location, so that everyone might check to see if he were compliant whenever he’s in public. The man could be a father, brother, husband, son or friend. He could only serve in this role for one woman or girl at a time.

Thus, for any woman or girl who is being pressured to cover her face, for whatever reason, at least one man or boy will be feeling the sting of what she is being asked to do. He may begin to perceive that it is an unreasonable request for him or other males in her life to make of her. He may bring his moral suasion into the picture against the other men in her life.

For any woman or girl who is eager to cover her face of her own free will, she may begin to question her judgment when she has difficulty finding any man who places enough value on her doing it to be willing to endure it himself.

Of course, there will have to be a way for faces to be seen at banks. Perhaps facial recognition systems can help with that. One cannot be allowed to drive without good peripheral vision. I’m sure there are plenty of other times when the face covering will have to be either disallowed or allowed to be foregone.

Under this plan, every man who has no tiny tattoo on his nose will be announcing to the world that he has no wife, or sister, or daughter, or mother, or friend for whom he was willing to serve in this role. Men with no tattoo will find it difficult to press anyone, relative or stranger, to cover their face.

Firstly, Amazing to see such rational arguments from everybody! Loving the level of engagement people!
Secondly, it seems to me that everybody, those supporting the ban and those who are against it are coming from the same set of assumptions, the same mindset.
The Burqha or any other article of clothing is not by itself anti-women rights, or identity erasing any more then a flag IS a nation. It is when a specific pattern of colors and designs is CHOSEN as being a symbol of a nation, then ‘disrespecting’ it is equated with ‘disrespecting’ the nation.
Similarly, it is not the waring or banning of the burqha that is anti-woman rights or anti-islam respectively, by itself. The question is what does it symbolize! To some it symbolizes female suppression, and since it physically covers the entire form it lends itself very easy to such symbolism! To some it symbolizes the right to practice ones religion as one wants, and being such a standing-out-in-certain-usually-less-clad-societies, visible in even a casual interaction, it lends itself very easy to being a test. If people can take this without discrimination then they leave me free to practice my religion, goes the underlying thinking.
But of course no matter what symbolism you ascribe to the burqha, the fact remains that it is YOU who are seeing it as such. Millions of people making such choices, ascribing a symbology to it gives this simple garment of cotton or wool or silk or nylon a conflagrant texture.. it becomes a rallying point, where both/several sides can draw the battle lines.
Now the trick about symbology is that it can only work if sufficiently large numbers of people believe in it. The more people who stop seeing the burqha as a symblol of anything, the less the fights between people who clash as to what it is a symbol of.
Here, let me put in two more cents, about the mindset motivating the actions suggested.
The mindset that one persons actions have to be regulated by another.. the mindset of those people who want to force women to wear burqhas because thats the way to demonstrate their commitment to their religion, the mindset of the people who want the government to force the woman to be ‘liberated’ and force others to not force her, the mindset of people who want peer pressure and other devices to force women to stop wearing the burqha..
The mindset that says that the world will be a better place if a person is NOT left to live the way they want to, but instead MUST live in a certain way to fit ideals that I hold!
If I realised that it is NOT my responsibility to prove that I am pure/religious enough OR its converse, liberated enough, pro-woman’s right enough…
If I am a person insisting that women wear burqhas, and i realize that her wearing a burqha will not help ME get closer to God/whatever the goal of religion is…
That dictating what other people do in general is foolish..
Anyway, you get the picture.
Apologies both for the length, and for not fully fleshing out my arguments.

Part of the brain contains the Amygdalae. These have many functions but one specific function is to assess faces of people when passing, meeting, conversing with them.

A full face covering denies this brain function and it is no wonder that many people feel affronted by full face coverings.

I have seen no arguments which suggest that full face coverings are other than tradition, which Muslim tradition also calls for stoning of women/genital mutilation/honour killing/identity erasure by burqa & hidjab. All intended to achieve the complete and utter subjugation of women.

Full face coverings should be banned in Australia

As being a Newbie, We’re permanently exploring online for articles which can be of support to me. Numerous thanks