As a long time liberal, I was shocked, but perhaps not surprised, when I listened to the Today programme on my iPlayer earlier this week (I’m spending the summer in the US), and heard that the French parliament had voted to support legislation that would outlaw the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public places, including on the street, in France. Yet, many of my liberally-minded friends (well Liberal Democrat and Labour members) on Facebook were celebrating this action.
I know why people would argue that this is a positive action. As a young graduate, I started my first job in Tower Hamlets, working in a predominantly Bangladeshi Muslim community feeling that the hijab and burqa oppressed women. Yet, my views were soon to change. One of my colleagues, a woman of the same age as me, told me how she chose to wear the hijab as it empowered her. She did not feel like she was under the control of men eyeing her up on the bus. She told me that whilst many Western people thought that Muslim women were pressured into wearing hijabs, this was not usually the case. And if Westerners argued that the pressure was ideological rather than direct, she said many Muslims believe that western women face a ideological pressure from popular cuture and from men to use dress and make up in a sexually provocative way.
So, many Muslim countries ban women from dressing in this western style. But that does not mean that we should follow suit and ban the way a woman dresses in a Western country just because it does not fit in with the prevelant beliefs about the role of a woman.
There are many aspects of the way Islam is sometimes practiced that I disagree with, but there are equally aspects of the way many religions, and indeed ideologies, are practiced that I disagree with too. However, banning a religious practice, and particularly by singling out one minority group, should only be carried in out in rare circumstances if real harm is being caused to others. The results are otherwise antagonistic, in a global climate that does not need anymore antagonism between the West and Islam.
My friend from Tower Hamlets told me that she would feel uncomfortable taking her honeymoon in Turkey because of their attitude to the hijab. One of the women who was part of the group I am currently with volunteering in New York removed her hijab on entry to the US, but said she preferred to wear it (perhaps she was uncertain of the attitute of people here to Muslims following 9/11?). Why create an environment where women are uncomfortable about the identity that they have chosen? Sikhs are a well integrated community in the UK, yet they were allowed to wear their turbans when fighting for the UK armed services, and in the police force. This aids integration, rather than driving a community of “other” underground.
This ban reminds me of the intolerance that has led to so much of the tragic events in our history. I am sure the police in inner-city France have a lot better things to do than to fine the women (apparently under 2,000 in total) who have a piece of cloth over their faces when they are walking down the street. This event, to me, would just symbolise more conflict between Muslims and Western states, a conflict that I know will be exploited by an extremely small minority seeking to radicalise fellow Muslims through propaganda videos, which show emotive examples of how the West seeks to oppress them as Muslims, and they need to fight back.
Of course I abhore the way many Islamic states treat their citizens. Only last week was I in tears reading about the continuing practice of stoning women in Iran. However, I abhore the practices of many non-Muslim states, including how the USA and others still use the death penalty, and let their citizen’s live in inhumane conditions side-by-side the wealthy, and die because they cannot afford healthcare. But I firmly believe that banning any form of dress, particularly a religiously symbolic one, will not result in progress. Whereas, helping these women, many of whom live in deprived inner city areas, to access a good quality education would achieve a lot more.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
DarwIN Shrewsbury Festival, February 2025
Well, that's one way to report an opinion poll - The Week in Polls
Pruning the money tree
Milnbank Road of old #dundeewestend
Mark Valladares
Margaret
John Walller
Peter Davies
David Allen
56 Comments
Really, what France does is for the French to decide, in their own particular republican and secular context.
The idea that Muslim women embrace the hijab because it frees them from men eyeing them up on the bus sounds like an excuse, and a pretty then one at that (as well as being grotesquely insulting to men).
If people want to deny themselves basic contact with others, well fine I suppose, but what of my rights as a pedestrian when someone who has chosen to restrict their line of vision and identity runs me over? This isn’t hypothetical, it very nearly happened. How could the driver be identified if covered?
just asking. these issues challenge us all.
I too can’t understand how a liberal can approach things with a stick of banning without first having considered every other option. With the smoking ban the needs of non-smokers (and smokers) health needs couldn’t be guaranteed to be protected without a blanket ban, but we’ve barely started to try and transform the practices and traditions of muslims that use the covering of the female form as an oppressive tool, or to encourage muslim women to find their voice and identity, nor is it impossible to do so.
I’m mostly on the liberal attitude towards religious clothing in terms of government legislation, but your article is a bit flawed in that all the friends you mention wear the hijab, not the niqab or burqa. There is quite a gap between not showing your hair (hijab) to not being identifiable by your face (niqab) or at all identifiable (burqa). The purpose of these items of clothing is very different from just symbolising one’s beliefs (as a turban or crucifix might be). While I don’t see a pressing case for banning the niqab or burqa, I do find them a bit disconcerting in the way they cut the wearer off from other members of the public and can’t really see any positive side to the wearing of them. Isn’t wearing loose, full-length clothing and a hijab sufficient to stop men eyeing women up on the bus?
There is no religious foundation to the Hijab/Niqab and I personally find it offensive. But that is not really the point. Societies work best when every individual & group is sensitive to others feelings. Utopia perhaps but still worth aiming for because then we wouldn’t need so many anti this that & the other laws. We are so determined to be non-discriminatory that in the end we allow, even encourage, any minority to parade its’ difference as a badge of merit & to hell with what anyone else thinks. Such activities simply create hostility. Tolerance should be two way affair which respects the historical background to where one is. Muslims would help us all & themselves if they remembered that and also remembered that in countries with their tradition a scantily clad woman gets no tolerance at all, and rightly so.
freedom of choice?
Obviously the ban on niqab & burkha is illiberal and women should be able to wear what they want, whether that is covering everything to their face or not covering very much at all!
However, I’ve always found the argument that it frees women from the prying eyes of men argument a bit frustrating. Once again it is left to women to change themselves to accommodate men’s behaviour. Just like in the UK, we’re told not to wear short skirts if we don’t want to be thought partly responsible if we get raped.
I have to say, I’ve always found the ‘eyeing up’ argument in favour of the burqa/hijab deeply offensive to my sex, as it implies we’re all violent rapists who at the sight of a woman’s hair will lose all control of our rampant urges and immediately leap on her. But I don’t have the right not to be offended by someone elses’ choices, which is as it should be.
A complete ban on burkhas is clearly illiberal. If women are being compelled by their partners to wear them, then their husbands will simply never let them leave the house if they can’t wear one any more. It doesn’t tackle the root of the issue, which is an extreme patriarchal culture in certain sections of society. You could begin to do this by empowering the women trapped in these relationships – for example, having compulsory English lessons for partners of immigrants. This again is illiberal, however, albeit to a lesser extent – there’s a distinction between the state saying ‘You must have this capability’ and the state saying ‘You cannot dress like this’.
There is, however, an argument for banning burkhas in areas in which there are security implications for face coverings – banks and shopping centres, for example. This is a ban on any face coverings, and so does not single out any particular group in the way in which this legislation does.
Freedom to wear or decorate oneself with what one wants — much, little; covering, revealing; studs, spikes, tattoos, sunglasses, wigs, collars, silly hats, ugly ties, floppy shoes — is a basic personal freedom. People express (or, perhaps, fail to express) who they are in their daily lives through the medium of dress.
That does not mean that dress can never be regulated. But as a basic freedom, the freedom to dress as one likes requires a strong countervailing public interest (e.g., in health or safety) to curtail it. For example, the dress of people operating machinery can be regulated to avoid the risk of clothes being caught by the machinery. The dress of doctors and nurses can be regulated to avoid conveying germs. The dress of chemists can be regulated to ensure the safe handling of materials or to protect the eyes. The dress of soldiers can be regulated both in terms of operational safety and in the general interest of uniformity in a disciplined organization. And so forth.
It’s unclear what public interest is protected by banning enveloping garments for ordinary citizens who are not in a profession that requires regulation of dress. The fact that they irritate or disturb people who look at them is not relevant at all; on the same basis, one might well ban long hair or eyebrow piercings or any deviation from conventional dress; indeed, if we banned everything someone found offensive, nobody would be able to leave his own house.
If the demand is that all persons ought to be identifiable at any time, then we ought to ban sunglasses, face paint, party masks, tinted windows — indeed, if there is a public interest in identifying any person at any time, we should all prepare to have 6079 SMITH W emblazoned on the shoulders of our coveralls.
If there are questions about impeded sight, etc., interfering with the operation of a motor vehicle, then that is a matter for driving regulations — not for an imposition on the general populace.
Yes – fair point that I was using examples of the Hijab to illustrate the Burqa argument, but my reason for doing so was that this was my personal experience of knowing women who choose to wear a certain type of religious dress.
I certainly wasn’t saying that women should need to cover themselves up to feel liberated from the view of men, but if these were the feelings and experiences of one of my friends, then I respect them. It was an example of why she, personally, chose to wear the hijab and other religious clothing. Those are her feelings, and they aren’t going to be changed by any kind of bans. (well – perhaps a ban on men making sexist remarks towards women who wear less clothing…) Just because someone feels a certain way, doesn’t mean that his/ her views are necessarily right, but their feelings are valid and they should be allowed to act on them if they are not harming others. We might go out wearing sunglasses one day because we don’t want to be so exposed to the world, and that is fine.
I agree with Adam on the case for removing covering of the face for security reasons, and that this should be any sort of face covering. But equally, if covering of the face is felt to be so damaging (not that I can see how it is), then the ban should be on any covering of the face, not just one religious grouping. As for the reference to causing loss of vision when driving – well there are already laws that cover dangerous driving, and again, these don’t need to be religiously specific.
I know the face is a culturally important part of the body, and the covering of it does make many of us feel unsettled or uncomfortable. But, as a liberal, I do not see that feeling unsettled or uncomfortable at the actions of others should be reason to ban something. (I felt a little uncomfortable the other day having dinner with an American guy who had a piercing under his eye on his cheek bone – and there are people who cover their faces with tattoos, but we wouldn’t think of banning that.)
As for the integration issue, I think this can be better achieved by other routes, such as education and integration in the classroom. Being used to being around people from difference backgrounds and confident about interacting with them is a vital life skill, and I can see the intergenerational changes that have already taken place in the communities that I have worked within in Tower Hamlets and Islington, with the younger, educated women choosing not to have large families, but instead to go to university and have a career.
David – I totally agree with your argument. You’ve said what exactly what I wanted to say.
Thank you, Lucy! I noticed that you had struck just the same points I had in a message you obviously wrote at the same time. If yours had gone up first I wouldn’t have had to write anything at all.
This article mixes up the Hijab and the Niqab/Burkha which I think is a mistake.
There are at least some policy grounds for banning full face coverings (though I’m not convinced by them at the moment).
There are none that I can see for banning the Hijab
Have just spent way too long reading about this on Wikipedia …
There are two principles here, apparently: hijab and purdah. Confusingly, both literally translate as “curtain”.
Hijab (the name of the principle as well as the headscarf) just requires “modest” dressing, which may or may not include covering the hair. There is a verse, apparently, that suggest the face and hands should be uncovered but everything else covered.
Purdah is about segregating the sexes and preventing women from being seen at all by men. It is motivated by the virtue of “namus”, which is essentially the honour of a patriarchal character. i.e. His namus is violated if his wife or daughter is seen by other men, if she has an affair or even if she does not obey him sufficiently well. In some areas, if a woman is raped then her husband is treated as the victim and she may be punished. Namus is linked to the practice of honour killings and disfigurement as a way to restore a man’s “virtue”.
Wearing a hijab/jilbab is pretty much the most extreme interpretation of the hijab principle (which also applies to men, by the way, but does not require covering the hair). Wearing a niqab or burqa is an interpretation of the purdah principle, which implies it is not a woman’s choice, but done to protect her husband or father’s honour.
So … in conclusion I’m still not in favour of banning the burqa outright, but I think that it deserves criticism and cannot be defended with the arguments proposed in this article. I also agree with Adam that it is acceptable to require faces to be visible in security-sensitive areas. In any case, purdah prefers a woman not to leave the home, so her husband should really be doing the banking and shopping.
It’s not my thing exactly, but I definitely understand the feelings of a person who doesn’t want to be looked at, and is severely uncomfortable with going out in public when they feel people are observing and judging them on their appearance. It’s not really about how people look at them, it’s about them needing a greater level of personal privacy than you do. You might not be comfortable walking around naked – you feel exposed. They feel the same way about having their face uncovered. It’s not particularly rational, but if you don’t let people cover what they want to cover, then you’re forcing some of them to hide at home and not go outside. That is not acceptable. We must accept their unusual needs in exactly the same way that we accept wheelchair users need more space to move around in.
Thanks Andrew, I agree. I just want to explain further about my friends feelings of being on the bus and wearing a hijab (which are similar to why she wanted men and women to sit in different sections at her wedding). If I understand if correctly, this isn’t about men attacking women, but about reducing the opportunity for sexual desire and attraction to form inappropriately between men and women, perhaps because they aren’t married or because they are married to someone else. Again, just her point of view, but I don’t think she is worried about being attacked by men.
I have to take my motorbike crash helmet off when I am in a public place such as a bank or a supermarket so I can be identified, therefore the same should apply to all religions.
I don’t think that one can assume, from the type of garment worn, what the motivation for wearing it may be. I think there would be general agreement that no one should be forced to wear hijab or niqab, and if there is a local or domestic situation in which an individual, other than a minor, is being denied the freedom to wear her (or his) preferred dress (e.g. through force or intimidation) then there is a problem that can or should be dealt with legally. But I took it as given that we were discussing people who were wearing concealing dress of their own free wills. The question, as I understood it, was whether that will should be respected, or whether there is an overriding public interest in favor of restricting that freedom.
I believe it’s already required for all people to bare their faces for the purposes of identification photographs, and to expose their faces again at such junctures where photographic identification may be legally checked. I don’t know of any exceptions to that. I don’t believe, however, that people are required to make themselves identifiable at any and every place where they might be in the field of view of a CCTV camera.
A victory for fascism in Belgium and France, a disaster for the freedoms we are supposed to uphold in Western so-called democracies. In the 1930s we had fascism against Jewish women in the street, now we have fashion fascism against Muslim women.
Welcome back to the Nazis.
Plus ca change………..
Better to ban shell suits and tracksuit bottoms which are much more offensive in my opinion.
@James McNally and David: I watched some (Swedish) news coverage of the French parliamentary vote, and I thought that the most disturbing argument made for a ban was the idea that everyone who is in a “public place” (e.g. out on the street, not just in a bank branch) must be identifiable. What kind of social contract is this? Certainly not a liberal one. People make conscious efforts to disguise their appearance in public all the time – celebrities trying to dodge the paparazzi, private eyes shadowing a suspected philanderer (and indeed philanderers too!), for a couple of examples.
There is no reason why someone’s face should be uncovered and undisguised if they are just out walking their dog (literally or metaphorically). Where it is reasonable to demand that faces be uncovered is where security is important (e.g. a bank branch) or if there is a serious risk to public order (e.g. at a demonstration, where anonymity might encourage violence against the police or property). Strangely, airports seem to be burka-allowed zones – in fact I’ve seen more burkas or niqabs (i.e. full-face covering garments) in Heathrow airport than in central Beirut!
As David said earlier, “if there is a public interest in identifying any person at any time, we should all prepare to have 6079 SMITH W emblazoned on the shoulders of our coveralls.”
To engage with the issue of why women may wear a burka or niqab, it is well worth pointing out that the religious justification for covering one’s face is highly tendentious even within Islam. Such garments are historically only commonly worn in the Gulf countries, Arabian pensinsula and in Afghanistan. In general, the sort of loose robes associated with Arab clothing make a lot of sense in countries where the sun is very hot (since the air within the robes insulates the wearer) but rarely anywhere else. I remember recently seeing a woman in a niqab in Cambridge, who had a heavy trenchcoat done up OVER her niqab. This was in blazing sunshine – she must have been uncomfortable. There is a lot that we (white Westerners) don’t understand about women’s motivations in wearing the burka – in particular the way that daughters of immigrants from areas where the burka or niqab are NOT traditional (e.g. Somalia) suddenly starting to wear them. Rather than banning them, we should be asking why people choose to wear them.
That said, I do feel free to criticise the concept of “covering up”. I am always disturbed by the attitude towards men that is displayed by those who argue that women must “cover themselves” (this includes wearing the hijab). The implication is that men are not expected to exercise self-control so women have to hide away anything that could cause sexual attraction.
Patriarchalism like this is not simply a “thoughtcrime” but actually blights the lives of millions of women across the globe and is a very real restriction of their freedom. There are clearly women who, like Lucy’s colleague, feel empowered by covering up. But I have met several young Muslim women who feel the exact opposite. Covering up is in many cases only the visible part of routine discrimination against women. Take Taghreed from Jordan, who is a graduate and has a decent job. She has to put up with her male colleagues at work constantly condescending to her (you know, comments like “let me do that for you” or “leave it to a man”), and if she stays at work late her father comes to drive her home so that she is not seen by neighbours coming home on her own “late” (i.e. around 6pm), which would lead to immediate rumours about unsuitable liasons. And then at the dinner table she is banned from talking about her work because it would make her brother (who is unemployed) jealous.
Or equally take the example of a young woman from Algeria who I also met. She started to wear the hijab when she was in high school because she had become the only girl in her class not to wear it and didn’t want to stand out. Once she started wearing it she found that she faced family and social disapproval if she stopped, so she continued to cover her hair through university. When she finally took off her hijab her father refused to speak to her for three years (happily they are now reconciled, and she said that he now accepted that she could not have achieved what she has had she done what he wanted).
I think the comparison with the Sikh turban was unfortunate: turbans are more comparable with crucifixes or Jewish skullcaps – they are statements of belief or affiliation. For too many women “covering up” is a statement of being subjected to discrimination. And maybe fewer women would feel empowered by the hijab if they realised that most men are perfectly harmless and are very capable of conversing or working with a woman without constantly imagining having sex with her. I mean no disrespect to your colleague, but sometimes people need to free their minds. For example, women in the UK are much more afraid of being assaulted on the street than men are, even though most violent crime is inflicted by men on other men. If a woman stops going out late because she is unnecessarily afraid of being attacked on the way home that is a restriction of her freedom. (Of course the whole disgusting discourse about whether women in short skirts share responsibility for being raped doesn’t help either.)
Thanks Niklas. The reason I made the comparison with the turban was because it is form of religious dress that might be argued to be unsuitable to be worn where a helmet is needed. But military and police uniform has been adapted to accommodate this religious dress, and as a result these Sikh men are well intergrated into society, even though they display a highly visible sign of religious difference that might be argued by some not to be suitable to be worn in those situations. Similar adaptations have, in fairness, been made for medical uniforms for Muslim women, which I believe is a positive step towards integration too. I guess my point is that I don’t believe that religous clothing always needs to be removed for people to integrate better, in fact I think that the reverse can often be true.
It is entirely reasonable for a private company to require this sort of thing, and equally reasonable for a competing company to provide for the needs of those customers who have a problem with it, and gain all those customers (there’s plenty of alternative ways to identify people). That part of the problem is best handled by the market, so the government should stay out of it unless there is evidence that the market is not getting the job done.
People should be able to dress the way they want in a supposedly civilized western country. That is stepping over the line telling people what they can wear..
I tend to agree with not banning things which are merely stupid, rather than dangerous – it only encourages more people to do them. I do think that there may be an identity issue in some cases – for example picking up young children from school, and would be interested to know how the libertarians defending the right to wear a mask in public would address this.
I am more concerned about banning school swimming lessons in Stoke during Ramadan in case fasting pupils swallow water, or permanently covering the windows of the swimming pool in Walsall because Muslim women don’t want to be seen swimming. (See BBC News website, both recent). This seems to me to be over-sensitive on behalf of religious minorities, at the risk of infringing the liberty of other groups. It is especially hard to take at a time when non religious students (or their parents) have to put up with the imposition of Christian worship at about a third of our state schools, or be made to feel unusual by excercising an obscure right to opt out. Religion should be for the temple/church/mosque if you freely choose to go, not for the school or other public places, and especially not when public funds are being used. Adjustments made to allow devout people to follow arcane religious teachings should not be made without considering the impact on the liberty of those who do not share their views.
Thanks for this piece Lucy. I am a Muslim but I would not ask my wife to wear hijab neither would I ask her to take it off if she chooses to wear one. I would like to also share how frustrated I felt when women in Turkey were denied education at the university, treatment at the hospitals, attending a court hearing and many incidents that would make you cry for the injustice they received. I have a humble background, something associated to being Anatolian. Not from the ruling wealthy class. Anatolian woman wear headscarf naturally. They see all woman around them wearing it and it just has not changed yet. I have seen old pictures of England where woman wear headscarf in a very similar fashion. My mother has always worn a headscarf too. When this unfair treatment was happening what I felt like was that I was not an equal citizen. The people who denied education to these girls did not want to see girls wearing headscarf to be teachers, doctors and have better education than their own children. Because they were used to having women wearing headscarf coming to their homes for cleaning, doing the basic chores for them, looking after the kids. But now the society was changing. These women who worked very hard for very little all their life did not want their children to be enslaved the same way. So they wanted their children to get a good education. And the children managed to break their shells and start to become respectable professionals. They did not like this. I cannot forget the furry of a friend when he saw a women with a scarf driving a car. That was rare at that time. It is a common scene now. And these people are making the majority of the population. I spoke in past tense because I am in a liberal country and I am not witnessing this everyday. In Turkey a small minority wont be able to keep the majority of the people under control like this. I will have to change. Woman wearing headscarf will change too. Like the change that UK has gone through a long time ago. Enforcing people to wear what we want them to wear will make them feel as outsiders. Everybody wont be capable of coping with this frustration. Lets instead continue to encourage everybody to express their identity as they wish. Then they will feel a part even if they are an unusual part and I am sure that they will jealously protect the environment that gives them this freedom.
Excellent piece Lucy, a well written post on what is clearly an emotive topic. I agree with the commenters here who say that it is illiberal to ban any piece of clothing, however much we may disagree with it.
That said, I think there is an exception that no-one here has covered and which didn’t occur to me until I read this excellent blog post on the subject. We all know that being able to see a person’s face is very important for communication and I think there is an argument for banning the wearing of such items by children. I do not know at what age the wearing of niqabs and burkas becomes usual, but I think there is a good argument that it is detrimental to the psychological development of minors to have this important form of communication cut off, and so I would be behind a ban for children below the age of 16, and possibly even 18, although that would be harder to argue for obvious reasons.
this is a completely illiberal act. My friend in France has now taken off the niqab and is walking around with a face/medical mask. I wonder how they will deal with that….
No, the ban hasnt split the liberal minded at all. No one liberal minded would ever suggest banning a certain set of clothes. The ban has separated liberal minded people from authoritarians and nanny-statists. Those supporting the ban have no right calling themselves liberals, full-stop.
“While I don’t see a pressing case for banning the niqab or burqa, I do find them a bit disconcerting in the way they cut the wearer off from other members of the public and can’t really see any positive side to the wearing of them.”
Then don’t wear them.
And leave it up to other people to decide what they wear.
France is completely wrong to ban the burqua and liberals shouldn’t be supporting this.
But there are some relevant vauses for concern about the new phenomena of burqua/niqab wearing. There is a real fear that for many, this is imposed in some way rather than freely adopted. In that case, I would say we should have draconian criminal punishments for anyone forced to wear such things.
That might be because liberal is a Humpty Dumpty word which, to be honest, adds nothing to any discussion. I have seen people who would describe them as such in support of this, but explaining why without recourse to the l-word. Lucy Watt’s approach seems limited to insisting it’s illiberal (whatever that means).
Plus, as others have said, she had used hair and face coverings interchangeably. The ban concerns the latter, not the former. Therefore, I am sorry to say, her anecdotes about certain Bengali Muslims are difficult to take seriously as we can’t know for sure what she was wearing.
Assuming she was hair covering, she like Lucy will have been an articulate and educated woman; not one of the disenfranchised masses which opponents of face-coverings, in theory at least, are concerned with. Such as Algerian teenage girls assassinated in for not wearing a head-scarf.
Plus, I’ve heard the one about it discouraging leering men (often from women in decorative scarves, or otherwise close-fitting clothes [1]): the implication being that non-participating women are inviting such attention. I don’t think my sisters (or Rushnara Ali, for that matter) are sluts because they show their roots, and I don’t know any men who leer.
[1] The weirdest sight I ever saw was an Algerian woman in scarf, but light cotton skirt as the sun shone behind. Let’s just say, we could see that she was at least wearing underpants.
They aren’t a set of clothes.
Disclaimer, I disagree with the burqa/niqab, but am ambivalent to it on the street. When attempting to acquire public services is different.
I was shocked to read that not only does Mr Hollobone want to ban the Burka pretending he is some sort of feminist, but he will refuse to talk to any constituents wearing one. If ever there was an argument for multi member constituencies then this is it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/champion-of-uk-burka-ban-declares-war-on-veilwearing-constituents-2028669.html
This whole issue is riddled with discrimination. As other commenters have pointed out it highly sexist against men. Can you imagine the reaction if it were Muslim men covering their faces? They would be all be in custody as suspected terrorists. The practice only gets to being debated at all because it is women doing it.
There is also pro-Muslim religious discrimination involved. Does the right to cover the face extend to non-Muslims? Who thinks it would be acceptable for non-Muslim men also to have the right to cover the faces? Would it be OK for me to go around wearing a balaclava? Or to go shopping in a stocking mask? I think any shopkeeper would call the police immediately, and be quite justified in doing so. The thing is that covering the face is about threat. It is deeply rooted in our society that the face is only covered for the purpose of hiding identity, which in turn suggests being up to no good. I, like Jack Straw, would feel extremely uncomfortable talking to a niqab wearer … of either sex and any religion. Moreover, the niqab is manifestly a uniform and threat is one of the primary functions of uniform (and yes, given the track record of football supporters, this includes wearing Man U strip!). How does my right to sport a Nazi uniform hold up? Remember the fuss about Prince Harry, and that was only at a party.
There always have been and always will be numerous social and legal restrictions on mode of dress in our society, and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in a dark place. Perhaps the most obvious is not being allowed to wear none — recall the naked rambler and assorted streakers!
Every human being has the right to follow the teachings of his or her religion and seek to please his or her Lord. No one can compel him or her, under any circumstances, to give up his or her duties.
What some French say about the hijab that it is a religious symbol [and, thus, may create religious differences in society] is not true at all. Symbols have no functions in themselves, as is the case with the yarmulke and the Star of David of the Jews,
No Western country has prevented the Jews from wearing the yarmulke or the Christians from wearing the cross, though such objects are symbols of religion. Why should they prevent the Muslim women from wearing hijab?
France is in verge of violating and hurting the sentiment of religious people. Earlier sikhs were banned from wearing turban, jewish from wearing skull caps, muslim women from head scarves in schools. These all things are violating the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Nude photography, nude art is always entertained in the name of freedom of expression…And it is being promoted.
it has been a controversial subject in all ages , in all civilizations…but still such things are allowed in the name of freedom of expressions….when it comes to right to freedom of practicing one’s religion then why are the french gov, banning a thing which is attached with some one’s faith. After all they have right to cover themselves by their will, so why are you forcing such laws which restrict themselves from wearing what they want to wear.
People are talking that it is for safety reasons. i wanna ask a simple thing how many time yo came across a men wearing cap & beard or a women with hijab/niqab & it harmed you???
It is more of a excuse then practical reason to implement gov, agenda for what so ever reasons.
And if this thing oppressed women then why are these women choosing this??
if french gov wanna ban this first they shoul ban this
“1 Corinthians 11:5 “
Hollobone is a bone-head (can i say that on LDV?), but proffering single examples to prove a point ain’t never going to work.
What next? Affluent, educated Westerners with all the accouterments their professional employment brings seizing on anecdotes from similarly affluent and educated Muslim women that they feel “empowered” by the head-scarf as examples of feminism?
Jack Straw did similar (although he’s partially deaf so benefits from seeing lip movements). I agree with Hollobone on this. This is not their moving about on the street… they are seeking services from a Government representative, and it’s plain rude not to reveal their face never mind the question of identification.
Then there isn’t an argument. Not only would multi-member constituencies be a poor idea (MPs are not local councilors), but, as I said, single examples are bad examples and strike of desperation to crowbar in an unrelated project.
Assuming this doesn’t involve killing/oppressing others, that’s fine. The individual should not, however, expect to be endlessly accommodated in pursuit of this (making no comment on the particulars of this example). If I donate all my wages to charity, I cannot then call for a 100% pay-rise.
So, what’s the bother?
Why does everything Islamic have to be discussed in terms of Jews/Judaism? Plus, this ban relates to all face coverings. Clearly, the Islamic mode is on legislators minds, but I would assume masked protesters would also risk breaking it (as well anyone who turns up at a demo in a mask should).
French Muslims are not to be prevented from wearing head-scarves in public, which is as far as your comparison can go.
French Sikhs faced exactly the same attitude over their turbans in Government locations extended to head-scarves, as have Christians wearing ostentatious crosses.
Schools are a special case. Every child should be defended against indoctrination into a particular faith until they are old enough to make their own decision, so I agree that all religious symbols should be banned within their walls (if I had my way, I would dismantle all our faith schools and follow the French secular model). Once they are adults they should be free to practice whatever faith they choose and wear whatever trappings go along with it, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Nothing in life is every black and white and there are occasions when I believe wearing a niqab or burka does impinge upon the rights of those around the wearer, however, not as much as forcing them to remove it would impinge on the wearer’s rights, and so I do not support the general ban.
So much talk of religious freedom, yet the very concept is an oxymoron. Religion is the antithesis of freedom, it is the embodiment of control-freakery. Every organised religion is built on a catechism of prescriptions and proscriptions, demands and laws, whose sticky tentacles probe right into the minutiae of daily life.
France is jealously defending the secularity of its society — and the shamefully neglected rights of the irreligious — by asserting the ascendancy of the law of the land, determined by the democratically elected bodies via the democratic process, over any other self-styled law.
Sorry, that last paragraph should read:
France is jealously defending the secularity of its society — and the shamefully neglected rights of the irreligious — by asserting the ascendancy of the law of the land, determined by the democratically elected bodies via the democratic process, over any other self-styled law.
Harkin,
Do you really believe this law is about freedom for the irreligious? It is about preventing Muslim women from wearing clothes that make those around them uncomfortable; nothing more, nothing less. How is imposing such an anti-Islamic law any less the embodiment of control-freakery, prescription, proscription, demands or laws with sticky tentacles probing right into the minutiae of daily life, than the religious laws you apparently dislike so much?
Ellie, French society is far more rooted in principles the liberalism which emerged during the 18th and 19th Century than those appropriating the term in the early 21st Century for their sole ownership. I already have observed that observant members of other faiths are treated similarly… stop trying to sow conflict by presenting this as a unique assault on Islam.
There are arguments both for and against this legislation (I tend towards the latter), but it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest this is simply a sartorial choice akin to hoodies.
As a matter of fact, I’ve just discovered that the face-coverings are prohibited from Mecca and Medina as the concealing of one’s identity is held to be antithetic to the spirit of openness in Islam.
.
@Harkin
“France is jealously defending the secularity of its society — and the shamefully neglected rights of the irreligious — by asserting the ascendancy of the law of the land, determined by the democratically elected bodies via the democratic process, over any other self-styled law.”
Au contraire mon ami, the French are riding rough-shod over the right and freedom to choose what you wear in the street.
Clothes police arresting women in the street and marching them home, fining them and giving them a legal record, is fascism of the most despicable sort. It is profoundly undemocratic, and probably breaks all the international human rights and anti-discrimination laws in the EU and UN.
I am a WASP but I would happily go to jail to protest the rights of Muslim women to wear what they choose.
It is also profoundly inflammatory and will quite rightly provoke a strong Muslim reaction and backlash.
Belgium and France are in self-destruct mode, they are playing with fire by banning Muslim dress.
The consequences are serious, for democracy, for international relations, for peace.and for race relations.
My first degree was in Modern European History from Queen Mary College, University of London, and I can smell a reprise in France of the rise in fascism in Nazi Germany a mile off.
France unfortunately has a dishonourable history of domestic Fascism which does not auger well for the future of a free Europe or a free world.
Fortunately for us, Germany is a lot wiser and will probably resist the French dalliance with fascism.
This time French secularism has gone way beyond civilised fair-play and is promoting religious discrimination in public. History tells us this can only end in tears. Democrats who want to preserve our hard won personal freedoms in the West which taken us 2,000 years to achieve would do well to resist current French extremism.
“Every organised religion is built on a catechism of prescriptions and proscriptions, demands and laws, whose sticky tentacles probe right into the minutiae of daily life.”
and introducing a prescriptive law which probes into the minutiae of the daily lives of some Muslim women is the answer to this….
“As a matter of fact, I’ve just discovered that the face-coverings are prohibited from Mecca and Medina as the concealing of one’s identity is held to be antithetic to the spirit of openness in Islam.”
this is not true, the face covering is only not permitted when performing the ritual around the Kab’ah, as clothing there for both men and women is restricted…
Kehar,
I did not attempt to sow conflict: in a subject as emotive as this there is certainly no need to add extra. Nor did I suggest in any way that this was a “unique” attack on French Muslims, I am very well aware of the relationship between French culture and religion and I know of plenty of other similar confrontations with symbols from other faiths. None of those, to my knowledge have as yet gone so far as an outright ban, however.
I agree it is disingenuous to suggest this is a sartorial choice akin to whether or not to wear hoodies, please point out where on this thread anyone has done that.
Ellie, at every point a commenter has said summat like “wear what you wish, and let other people wear what they wish” they are doing just that (unless they also wear religious attire). The conflict which you and others are sowing may not be as strong as that done by the likes of Hizb ut Tahrir, but when this legislation is presented in terms of banned burqas and not all face coverings or the claim this is a unique restriction against observant Muslims (as opposed to Sikhs wishing to wear turbans in Government offices, or Jews wearing kippas and snoods for that matter) there is a false impression of a single-minded onslaught against French Muslims presented.
Tony, I’m willing to be corrected, but I think we’ve all seen unveiled men and women walking around the Kaaba. Here is one such picture. Here are Thai Muslims, including women, on the Hajj.
kehaar, i think you are confusing the face covering with the veil.
Kehaar,
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. It does come down to letting people wear what they wish and I don’t understand your problem with that view. Are you saying that Muslim women don’t have a choice and that these clothes should be given special status and elevated above the law to reflect that?
As for this not being a law that unfairly targets Muslims; everyone here knows it applies to all face coverings, but as hardly anyone wears any other sort of face covering it is patently an obvious and thinly veiled attempt to ban Islamic face coverings, nothing more, nothing less. The letter of this law may not be anti-Islamic, but its spirit most certainly is. To suggest anything else is woefully naive. You are denying a conflict that clearly exists, but that does not make those of us pointing out that the Emperor is naked wrong.
No-one is denying there have been other examples of people being required to remove other religious symbols, but those are invariably in work places where those setting the rules feel they break an underlying secular value system. That is a very different issue to a blanket ban covering every Muslim woman wherever in France (or Belgium) she may be.
I do not like full face covering for religious or any other ground. It cuts off and isolates people, emphasising differerences and active as a barrier to communication. I am however still totally against the idea of a ban.
I do not believe that the state has any buisness interfearing in the way people choose to dress, beyond the absolute minimum required by safety and decency considerations.
For me, I wouldn’t say that it’s a matter of “opression” or “empowerment”. There are some situations in which members of the public are uncomfortable and sometimes intimidated by those wearing a fully faced burqa. Just as someone with a motorcycle helmet should remove their helmet in the workplace, it seems reasonable that this should apply to all those who wear attire that covers their face. I support a women’s right to wear a burqa if it is a practice of their faith they wish to indulge in, but when it can affect others, and when other people respect laws similar to this, I don’t think for the sake of religion it shouldn’t face the same consequences.
I do not wish for a large scale fine on women who wear them, but in public places, just like smoking or wearing a motorcycle helmet with the visor down, they should respect others by perhaps removing this. I do not see this as an intolerant move by the government if there were to do this in the workplace. If they were to, however, impose such a ban in the public, I believe that this could be a move that would be regarded as opressive and unfair.
“it seems reasonable that this should apply to all those who wear attire that covers their face.”
How about the big (almost oversized) sunglassess that seem to be the fashion now. They certain cover a high proportion of the face – and that’s the only way I can see that a law could be phrased.
As a British Muslim living in a deprived London ward, I agree with Adam Bell – about 7 posts down – women should be encouraged to interact more through language lessons and made aware of their responsibility to the British state.
But i’m more inclined to ban the full face covering outright. A society cant work if ciitizens can roam around anonymously in public, how can there be trust if there is no identity? Its a security issue if anything, even in muslim countries, criminals use the burqa all the time for their nefarious deeds. Check out the story on Pakistan’s Red mosque…
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6270626.stm
If a leading cleric isn’t above it, why would a determined criminal be?
Its been tolerated in Muslim countries for years as an unchangeable fact of life – but why should Britain or Europe put up with it.
Also, the niqab (full face covering) is accepted by 99% of clerics as not compulsory in Islam – check out any Islamic advisory website. That’s why most muslims aren’t fazed about the ban – they may disagree with it in principle but it doesn’t affect them. In fact most i know personally, are backing it.
The main reason a burka ban is imperative is that putting a burka on a woman here ensures that she will never integrate into British society. Rather the opposite. The Salafi Muslim doctrine that demands face-covering is openly hostile to everything British society represents, a point ignored by smug faux-liberals who think this is only about a choice of what to wear. Eh, Cllr Wright?
The Economist showed that a majority of Muslim women are actually in favour of the ban. Why? Because for most Muslim women it is not a free choice but something they’re forced to do by their fathers or brothers or husbands – and the consequences of disobeying can be serious.
Don’t Liberals believe that one of the most fundamental human rights is equal access to public space? Islam doesn’t demand that men cover their faces before they go out, but its more extreme advocates place special conditions on how women dress outside the home. It’s a typical example of patriarchal practice, based on the notion that women should be under the control of their male relatives at all times, and it’s incompatible with any notion of universal human rights. It limits women’s contact with non-relatives and maintains barriers between people who have different ethnic and religious backgrounds. (Of course it does. That’s what it’s for.)
Poll after poll shows Britons, particularly older ones, feel that the Burka can be threatening. Two thirds of British people would support a ban on Muslim women wearing face-covering veils in public similar to the one approved by French lawmakers last week, a Five News poll found last Friday. That figure rose to 80 percent among people aged over 55.
How about delving a bit deeper than the superficialities, folks.
Of Course if its doesn’t involve any wrong thing like violence etc, by the way most of the religious teachings are not of that sort however disagreement can be there which is ok, every one has a right to agree or disagree but oppressing some one to not to wear something in a society where some one can be nude, and do obscene things in the name of “freedom of expression” is really unbelievable.
If some one object that this is obscenity then people can alleged them that they are backward, narrow-minded & bla bla bla …………. But you are forcing some one to not to wear hijab y?? because these teaching doesn’t go down your throat ????
People are talking about a lot of security concern this is bullshit reason if someone is honest to him or her self he or she will know that how much this reason carry weight.
I don’t support a blanket ban but why do you say we should respect burka wearers? Would you respect someone wearing KKK robes? Also we have a ban on political uniforms in the uk (passed in the 30s due to blackshirts) I take it you would respect the right of the BNP to wear Nazi uniforms? The burqua is the uniform of islamic extremists and advertises hate for our society.And what about minors? Should they be forced to look at life through a letter box? The comparison with the hijab is simply silly with respect.