The burqa displeases. Why?
Is the woman-in-burqa as disturbing as a middle-eastern looking male with a beard? The latter appears to be textbook racism, and as lovers of freedom, we must reject this.
Is the woman wearing a burqa in the West the equivalent of a teenager wearing a hoodie in the UK? Now, the latter is a potential source of physical aggression, but burqa-clad women typically are neither verbally abusive nor do they ordinarily ask you for your wallet or if you happen to be currently inconvenienced, dear friend. So, this does not hold water either.
Is the burqa worrying because it is a potent symbol of Islam, i.e. of Arabic Islam, i.e. of an Islam that is not only foreign-born but obstinately insists of remaining utterly foreign, and this in an era of being associated with poverty, inappropriate wealth (amusing contradiction, this, but somehow petrodollars reek of, well, oil, and only occasionally oppression), terrorism, intolerance and hostility towards females and even more so towards non-Muslims? But this sounds suspiciously like the hirsute middle-eastern gentleman of our first example. Symbols can be despised, but must be tolerated, in any society that wishes to be free.
So, as long as Islam is accepted as a religion like any other, and not decried as a social institution which is a source of danger to freedoms and cultural identity, then its symbols too must be accepted. Hence the beard and the minaret (zoning laws, requirements of the theatre, village ordinances etc. etc. to still be applicable as relevant) cannot be stopped.
And thus, in this case, the burqa must be allowed, or, better put, must not be disallowed.
However, when it is a case of sub-cultures routinely mistreating women and the burqa preventing such women from a healthy social interaction with other members of the larger society, and of an atmosphere which makes it uncomfortable (varying degrees of discomfort: from raised eyebrows, to verbal taunts to physical beatings, confinement etc.) for women to make the decision on their own, then the ban is to be lauded.
Here is a popular opinion, set against the ban.
(Nesrine Malik, writing in The Telegraph; www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html)
> ...I felt infantilised, stripped of the right to dress how I pleased
> due simply to the fact that I was a woman, and hence, purely a
> sexual object to be concealed lest it should inflame desire....
> If anything, it seemed like a throwback to tribal, pre-Islamic times.
Ah, this hoary old device, to start with taking the position of the other side, before switching completely, in order to give the audience the impression that one's views are balanced and hence the conclusion is a logical, fair, even erudite one.
But our author is not skilled enough in the more refined arts of propaganda. She is devious, but not subtle. The burqa is (ostensibly) derided as pre-Islamic and the suggestion is clear: Islam is civilization, the world is made of those who chose this path (perhaps extending to the other Abrahamic religions) and the heathens, the latter being barbarians.
> It was a relief not to have to think about what to wear.
This display of inanity (in the context of defending freedom) sets the tone for the rest of the argument, hence the label "popular".
> The uniform black costume has a charming
> egalitarianism about it, and is both a social and physical
> leveller. Once social status or physical beauty cannot be
> established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened.
Yes, quite. But why would you wish to flatten hierarchies? The rejection of physical beauty is too horrifying a thought to be properly defended, for what can one say, apart from that the creation and enjoyment of beauty, of which "physical" beauty is no small part, is one of the noblest purposes of human existence. But that is a cultural prejudice. Perhaps the author would have us encourage uniform ugliness. What an uncouth idea! Even if it is perhaps utilitarian, and increases national crop output by 0.5%. Or some figure like that (for we wouldn't be worrying about how we look, nor admiring how others look, and hence have more time and energy to focus on praising some God or oiling our machines).
> Implicit in any law that proscribes women’s dress lies
> the most sinister, ideologically myopic assumption that
> a woman cannot be trusted not to succumb to pressure
> to dress a certain way.
"Most sinister" appears to be hyperbole and "a woman cannot be trusted not to succumb to pressure" seems to be either (worryingly) naive or a cheap trick to extend the issue to the realms of the absurd. Microinsurance in India, one of the world's emerging economies and worthy of interest because of its share of humanity, occasionally denies loans to men. Because men, in certain social contexts (ones which have nothing to do with academia or investment banking), cannot be trusted not to drink it away. Take this injunction to western Europe and it will be hailed as ridiculous and provoke an outrage. Similarly, when a young lady in Belfast starts wearing Gothic gear, this might be more than mildly shocking to her grandparents, but no freedom is under threat. When, however, this involves a sub-society which does not allow females common, quotidian privileges (accorded to males, even from a fairly young age), then the greater community takes a more proactive role in defending the personal freedoms of such a group. But only to an extent; the dwelling, for instance, may not be invaded. No different from how society attempts to protect children, or other vulnerable groups, from abusive parents. Chance remarks made by children (even when not capable of formulating intelligent arguments) are enough to set the apparatus in motion. And - now to employe a propaganda trick - this is not the apparatus of the Gestapo, but that of the Welfare State. Ah, that felt good.
I disagree with some other popular opinions supporting the ban too.
(http://divinepretenderexplorespolitics.blogspot.com/2010/09/burqa-politics.html)
> Burqa was never integral to Islam......Koran has only asked women to cover
> their breast since in those days many societies use to have topless women.
Only the breast? If it's all right for the Koran to "ask" (politely, I'm sure) that, why wouldn't it be all right for it to do the same thing for a burqa? This is the "It's not really Islam - that's why the ban is all right" school of thought. What if it were the "real Islam"? There's plenty of stuff in all religious books that are simply incompatible with our notions of a fair and free society.
> I believe if we live in a society where there is a rule to not be
> naked and hence cover our genitals so as not to offend other
> people it is completely legitimate to make a rule that one
> has to show their face to the people they are
> interacting with in a society.
What about Prada (or even Gucci, come to think of it) sunglasses? May one wear those? What about hats where the brim obscures the forehead? What about buttoning up the collar of a winter coat on a cold night, thus covering up the lower part of the face?
And large parts of our social lives and our economy are based on faceless interactions: internet discussion forums, online banking, buying train tickets at a vending machine and this blog.
> People who claim that we should be liberal in our
> society to allow others to practise what ever form of
> religious practise they want to do must try to see
> that liberty is the very sake for which this ban is
> been imposed in European countries.
There is no argument here, merely a (re?)stating of position. This is the "repeat my point often enough" school of thought. Usually to be seen with the "mention the Pope, the Flag or children's children often, when driving home a point" school.
Freedom needs to be not just defended but also encouraged, and in a consultative way, and without losing sight of the more fundamental freedoms and a sense of tolerance. So, no woman to be locked up or beaten for wearing a burqa (The converse takes place in certain countries). And no civil authority to break into people's homes to check whether there is a burqa hidden beneath the floorboards. And ultimately, if the burqa is an absolutely essential part of someone's life because it has religious value, then it might be a good idea to examine whether one is being consistent; whether living in a non-Islamic country, not under Sharia law, is such a good idea. Michael Moore moved to Canada, after all. But I am being facetious and, as every lover of freedom will understand, do not advocate putting people on ships and sending them off to Arabia, "for their own good".
In conclusion, I see the burqa ban as a temporary measure, and a necessary one, but perhaps not altogether sufficient. Merely banning the burqa will not guarantee increased, healthy inter-social interaction; I see the next steps as more platforms to interact, and more access to the works of various houses of art, philosophy (especially Nietzsche and postcolonialism) and religion.
