Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…
An interesting, if somewhat inflammatory article comes to us today from Barbara Kay at Pajamas Media, in which she calls upon “the West” (however we are to define that term today) to ban the burqa and nix the niqab. She pulls no punches and comes right out of the gate praising France and Nicolas Sarkozy (of all people) for their attempts to ban the primarily Muslim full body covering for women in that country.
President Nicolas Sarkozy had called for a ban on the public wearing of the burqa altogether. But as of this writing, apparently a compromise has been struck and the burqa will be banned in public buildings only.
A partial ban is better than nothing, though, and may hopefully serve to inject some steel into the spine of other European nations who feel threatened by the rise of anti-Western radicalization amongst their own growing Muslim populations.
It may be my fundamental libertarian streak or the way that Ray Bradbury’s seminal works have embedded themselves in our collective conscience, but I always develop an alarming tic in one eye when I hear people using words “government” and “ban” in the same sentence. Of course, that may just stem from the way that “books” so often follows those words in short order. When you mix in a subject like this which also incorporates questions of religious practices outside of Christianity, the discomfort level rises further. Still, Ms. Kay anticipates my concerns and addresses them early on, albeit in a rather dismissive fashion.
Critics will claim that these garments do no harm to others and nobody has the right to interfere with women’s religious choices in a free society. But President Sarkozy got it right last June in explaining to Parliament why the burqa is “not welcome in the French Republic”: “The burqa is not a sign of religion; it is a sign of subservience.”
As with most things, subservience and religion tend to be in the eye of the beholder. It’s certainly true that the burqa is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Quran, but it does instruct both men and women to dress and behave “modestly” in public. If you give any religious group a couple of centuries to play with phrases like that, you never know what you’ll get, but the religious traditions of the faith have also built up a heavy reliance on the concept of Namus, which ties in many stifling features in an effort to preserve the virginity, modesty and anonymity of females in the various families and clans.
I’m not here to defend a practice like this… far from it. Women have had to overcome a lot of challenges to get where they are in America and much of “the West” today, and I have no interest in sending them back to the dark ages. But a question such as the one raised by Barbara Kay comes with a whole slew of concerns in a society which provides the choices she mentions above and doesn’t place restrictions on which religion, gender or hair color gets to enjoy them.
But none of this addresses a deeper, underlying issue which merits attention, but is dismissed by the author in this brief throw-away passage:
Algerian-born Fadela Amara, France’s cities minister, reinforced her view in an interview with the Financial Times: “The vast majority of Muslims are against the burqa. It is obvious why. Those who have struggled for women’s rights back home in their own countries — I’m thinking particularly of Algeria — we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties.”
I will readily agree that it might seem “obvious” (particularly to modernized, western oriented thinkers) that the “majority” of people would oppose dressing up women in burqas, but there are any number of practices from various religions which can offend modern sensibilities. If you’ll forgive the brief digression, let’s take a look at a couple of them.
Amish families – quite Christian by definition – still largely dress their women in neck to floor, black, formless dress designed to modestly hide the female form. They also keep them away from electricity and all modern channels of access to enhanced education and related advances. Remote, non-reformed Mormon groups (also ostensibly Christian by most accounts) also enforce very strict dress policies on females, along with other atrocities as viewed by the majority.
To ward off the protests I’m sure will follow, I’ll borrow a phrase from Ms. Kay and say, “critics will claim” that nobody is threatening to murder the Amish or Mormon girls in an “honor killing” if they don’t comply. (Though an argument could be made in the latter case on some of those compounds.) But that’s not the point. Murder and other violent treatment is already against the law in these western societies and, as such, must be ferreted out and punished where it’s found. The question at hand is whether or not a government such as ours can be allowed to forbid the wearing of the offending garb.
But let’s move away from the clothing specific questions for a moment and hit another subject near and dear to the hearts of many women’s rights activists – the Jewish “purity laws.” There are more of them than you can shake a stick at and they include provisions such as identifying certain days of the month when women are considered to be “unclean.” At such times, men are not to lie on the same bed nor even sit upon a chair where such an “unclean” woman has sat. How can any modern woman or feminist inclined man countenance such a society among us?
Last year I had the pleasure of interviewing A.J. Jacobs, author of the fantastic book, “The Year of Living Biblically.” It’s the story of his search, as a young Jewish man, for meaning and faith by attempting to follow every law in the Bible for an entire year. (You can still listen to the replay of the interview here if you wish.) I asked him that very question and he explained that many women in very orthodox Jewish communities are not offended by the laws at all for the same reason that these families employ the services of textile experts to inspect all of their clothing to make sure it’s not composed of two different types of fabric. You don’t need to know the reason, A.J. informed me. That’s not what’s important. You do it because that is your understanding of the instructions from God as practiced by your community. (It is worth noting here that not all Muslims enforce the burqa rules, just as not all American Jews observe the purity laws.)
But I think some critics who call for “outlawing the burqa” the most loudly may either have an ulterior motive or at least feel a bit more free to do so. There isn’t much of a political price to pay today if you condemn the practices of Muslims. By contrast, however, questioning some of the practices of Jews which are clearly offensive to women isn’t quite as safe, is it? Because that is immediately viewed as questioning Judaism as a whole, and by association, Israel. And that’s a big Bozo No-No in most conservative, Republican circles, don’t you think?
Modern society has a clear duty to help women who find themselves subjected to such rules against their will, and we certainly provide an atmosphere here in the United States where they can try to break free from those chains. But shall the federal government be handed the power to outlaw a particular style of dress in the process? More government control is rarely the answer to anything, and sometimes the people can influence the actions of their members through social pressure without handing another power to Washington.
63 Responses to “Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…”
Oh no, you can't get away with “encourage modesty”.
Not long ago Christianity used to kill you if you didn't comply with it's dictates!
You must never forget that it is Secular law that prevents this today, not Christianity somehow “wising up”.
Long ago, Kings executed serfs who didn't obey them. Religion (the philosophy of “natural law” in particular) fought that! History strikes both ways.
FuzzyFace, even though the conversation has fairly well played itself out overnight, your comment deserves at least one more attempt at clarification. When I spoke of the “risk” involved in criticizing Muslim practices vs. Jewish practices, I was referring to the *political* risk in offending conservative / Republican readers, voters, etc. and not the risk of physical violence from members of the offended faith. Given the way I phrased it in reference to Barbara's article and conservative punditry in general, I thought that was clear, but obviously I didn't make it clear enough since you read it the other way. I in no way meant to imply that there is some vast cabal of American Jews out there ready to perform honor killings of writers who criticize the Jewish faith or Israel the way there are Muslims ready to go after people like Rushdie, et. al and you are absolutely correct in that analogy, so I apologize for the confusion. There are many of these readers who also point (correctly) to the axiom that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all the terrorists are Muslims. (I say “correctly” with the provision that you limit your definition to international terrorism and not the domestic variety.) There is no parallel with Jewish terrorists, and in fact I can't even think of one off the top of my head.
But the fact remains that among conservative and Republican readers here in the United States, Muslims aren't exactly popular at the moment and publishing material which is critical of them in any way doesn't exactly send your readers into a frothing frenzy against you. Conversely, Republicans view themselves as the party which defends Israel and the Democrats as failing in that area. This tends to create a rather knee-jerk reaction from those same readers if you are critical of Israel, etc.or, by extension, any aspects of the Jewish faith in general.
Further, it is very likely true that I was ready to get my feathers ruffled as soon as you decided to label my critique as antisemitic, since I've run into it too many times. Our overly sensitized society is full of folks who are ready to throw red flags and go on the verbal war path at the slightest suggestion of a perceived slight, and as I writer I run into it frequently. If you write anything about problems with “inner city schools” you will easily find people who will interpret that as phrase as meaning “black” and immediately begin screaming “RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!” even if the writer was only seeking to point out failings with the teachers union and our urban education system in general.
Likewise, if you question any of the policies of the nation of Israel (as I have done in the past) or, as in this case, even mention anything to do with practices within the Jewish faith, there are those who will immediately jump to the barricades and scream, “Antisemite! You're just blaming the JOOOOOOOS!”
After you hear that enough times, you get pretty tired of it. I hope that clears us up on your original objection.
And while we're touching on the honor killing subject, though this one came from somebody else, there have absolutely been cases of young people getting killed on some of those “Mormon” compounds if they didn't toe the line. It's well documented. And if it offends anyone that I referred to the polygamy minded followers of that sect as “Mormons,” then I'm sorry, but that's what I've heard them call themselves in interviews and I don't know what other generic religious label they fit under.
jazz
just one point of clarification,
“There is no parallel with Jewish terrorists, and in fact I can't even think of one off the top of my head.”
I assume you have forgotten the early history of the modern day state of Israel. The British would argue that many of the religious zealots of Palestine were every bit terrorists. This fits right in with the general tenor of this piece. People in power – (thanks Prof) always see the oppressed who fight that power base as terrorists.
The American Indian and the American colonist who rebelled against their lawful King were both guilty of what we call terrorism today. Subjectivity is a major part of terrorism, in politics as well as religion.
Sure, Hemm, I see what you're saying. But I was referring to the modern, post-9/11 era. You just don't see stories about any radical Israelis sneaking into our country and blowing stuff up, hitting the subways in London and Tokyo, etc. Even the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians in the strip, while many people object to them, are actions of “the state” so to speak, and not the rogue actions of one individual or private group.
jazz
“But I was referring to the modern, post-9/11 era. You just don't see stories about any radical Israelis…”
i suggest you ask the Palestinians if they believe Israel uses terrorism in Gaza when they throw bombs from planes instead of roof tops.
The more general point I'm making is this. Would this entire thread have been produced if the discussion had been if Nuns should be allowed to wear habits or priests wear backwards collars? I just believe too many people change their cognitive analysis based upon whose ox is being gored.
Of course such a thread would have produced calls for government to get out of religious matters, but the comments would have been uniform in condemnation. We have a real problem with our subjectivity over-riding our objectivity. We see it in religion and politics alike, and everybody is all too aware of the failings of the “unbelievers.”
The photo id argument I made seems reasonable, the photo is for identification. It's also to draw similarities between this and the prosecutions of fundamentalists who refuse to allow their children medical treatment as prayer is all they need. People are free to practice religion largely as they wish in the US, but some things are considered unacceptable within our system of laws. I, for one, lean toward fewer laws, but legal subjectivity has many times overrode that logic. Why can minors get wine in church for religious rites but Southwest American Indians NOT use Peyote in their ceremonies? The reason is simple, our view points are subjectively skewed against the unfamiliar.
jazz
onje last point.
“while many people object to them, are actions of “the state” so to speak, and not the rogue actions of one individual or private group.”
State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. Hitler is the obvious example, but so are our wars Iraq and Afghanistan. Our response to Kadafi's terrorism was to blow up part of his family. Rouge actions are merely our excuse for justifying our own terrorist acts.
OK.
Yeah I've heard all that natural law catechism stuff, but its the results that count and the results are corruption, war mongering bloodshed, torture and murder. From the church and by the church. That is history.
The “collective” is simply the people collected. Corporations make profit by gleaning more than it costs to produce the product and pay the bills by taxing a little more from all their customers collectively. Collectively the Democrat or Republican vote elects or fails to elect their candidate. It's merely a term.
Yes power corrupts. That’s why we change leaders. Shame we cannot change CEO's by vote eh' Prof? However I am incorruptible prof, so it is not a “law” it is only indicative. I believe in myself.
We are responsible for our leader's behavior if we re-elect them…are we not? We are also responsible for our leader's behavior by asking to much from government and expecting our leaders to produce what we want. They can't be all things to all people though they try to make everybody believe that they are in favor of everybody’s particular issue. Which is an impossibility. It’s a weakness in our form of government IMO.
Slepp well prof. and don't sweat the small stuff.
I'm shocked. Did you get your rabies shot, it seems that way from your coherent post.
Try “Duck Soup” instead of duck feathers.
If you count atheism and worshiping the government like it was some kind of genie or god as religion then, yes, all that comes from religion. If you don't then, well, religion has a lot of catching up to do before it can hold a candle to ordinary governments, especially the few atheistic ones like Hitler's and Pol Pots. That's the real history.
It works the same as revolutions: often you get something worse than what you got rid of. You're usually stuck with the “Truth or Consequences” bit about taking what you got, or going for what's behind the curtain.
Thanks, I did. But a pot of strong coffee helps fill in the gaps.
“I was referring to the *political* risk in offending conservative / Republican readers, voters, etc.”
which suggests that liberals and Democrats see nothing offensive in antisemitic comments; and perhaps you can point to American politicians who have been voted out of office as a result of reasonable questioning of Israeli policies (where “reasonable” means the kinds of questioning applied to other nations).
“Likewise, if you question any of the policies of the nation of Israel (as I have done in the past) or, as in this case, even mention anything to do with practices within the Jewish faith, there are those who will immediately jump to the barricades and scream, 'Antisemite! You're just blaming the JOOOOOOOS!'”
And there are also those who excuse any actual antisemitism by making the claim that *any* criticism of Israel is so-labeled. In my experience, the vast majority of such criticisms *are* antisemitic, as they hold Israel to a different standard than any other nation. I would be interested if you could point to claims of antisemitism in the case of informed questioning of Jewish practices.
That's not to say that I don't recognize that false accusations of racism are made – but it doesn't excuse gratuitous rants against Judaism that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and it doesn't excuse claims of mythical Jewish influence.
That people hurl accusations does not make them true. Claiming that rebellion is tantamount to terrorism is to make the term meaningless, and reflects the fatuous Reagan clam that “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Terrorism is specifically the use of violence or threats directed against non-military targets. Bombing a military HQ or a base is never terrorism, whether the bomb is dropped from a plane or carried by a suicide bomber. The same bomb dropped on a school or restaurant IS terrorism.
fuzzyface
“Bombing a military HQ or a base is never terrorism, whether the bomb is dropped from a plane or carried by a suicide bomber. The same bomb dropped on a school or restaurant IS terrorism.”
So you agree that Israel's bombing of private homes and schools resulting in the death of civilians is terrorism. So, the only questions left is if I criticize the Jews for killing innocents, does that make me antisemitic?