# Banning Burkinis (or Veils/Headscarves) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085 "2016-08-17T15:43:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/61 "2016-08-17T20:55:06Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > France, I get it. You are anti anything that might be viewed as suppressing women. I don’t know if it’s that so much as that France, or at least a significant segment of French society, is opposed to public displays of religion at all, especially on state property. there was, for instance, the ban on “ostentatious religious symbols” in state schools, including the hijab, but also kippahs and large crosses. The whole relationship between the church and the state in France is a long and contentious one, dating back to the Revolution, and I don’t know that the ban is to stop the suppression of women so much as it is to keep religion out of the public eye. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/62 "2016-08-17T20:55:17Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Cite for any holy book that contains the word “homosexual?” Depending on the language translation that would be a complicated issue, but Leviticus 20:13 says: > [@](#): > > If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. The meaning is the same as homosexuality, no? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/63 "2016-08-17T20:57:45Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The liberal camp tends to be more prone to internal conflicting interests of this sort than the conservative camp. Women’s rights and “respecting foreign cultures/religions” will inevitably clash if that foreign culture/religion - in this case, Islam - is repressive of women’s rights. The conservative camp is equally prone to clashes of this sort. Think of the significance put on self-reliance and personal freedoms, versus the pressure to conform with conservative social values. > [@](#): > > The tiebreaker has typically gone to Islam, and I’m curious why. Well, in this case there is an open question as to what extent society ought to respect women’s rights in general, by outlawing specific women’s actions in particular. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/64 "2016-08-17T21:00:37Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The liberal camp tends to be more prone to internal conflicting interests of this sort than the conservative camp. Women’s rights and “respecting foreign cultures/religions” will inevitably clash if that foreign culture/religion - in this case, Islam - is repressive of women’s rights. > > The tiebreaker has typically gone to Islam, and I’m curious why. > And **levdrakon** , I’m with **iiandyiiii** …“wut?” is the only reasonable response to your rather confusing posts in this thread… There’s no tiebreaker here, and it’s not a liberal vs conservative issue. It’s that few of us see any value in disallowing by law any item of clothing, whether it be burqas or white hoods. Did you think that liberals are in favor of clothing bans? ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/65 "2016-08-17T21:01:46Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The liberal camp tends to be more prone to internal conflicting interests of this sort than the conservative camp. Women’s rights and “respecting foreign cultures/religions” will inevitably clash if that foreign culture/religion - in this case, Islam - is repressive of women’s rights. > > The tiebreaker has typically gone to Islam, and I’m curious why. > And **levdrakon** , I’m with **iiandyiiii** …“wut?” is the only reasonable response to your rather confusing posts in this thread… The idea espoused here, that tiebreakers go to Islam in the liberal camp, is one that I have seen more accusations of than actual examples. For my own part, liberty for all trumps the antiquated cultural ideals of how women (or minorities, or infidels) are treated. I don’t pretend to represent all liberals in any way. And add me to the list of people baffled by **levdrakon** ’s musings in this thread… ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/66 "2016-08-17T21:07:28Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Holy books don’t do anything. They’re inanimate objects. It’s something else. > > What I’m going to call for ban of, is killing gays. Gotta problem with that based on your verses? First off, they aren’t my verses. Second, your ban for killing gays just because they are gay already exists under French law, so what’s your problem? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/67 "2016-08-17T21:08:23Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Depending on the language translation that would be a complicated issue, but Leviticus 20:13 says: > > The meaning is the same as homosexuality, no? Ambiguous? Yes. Homosexual? Not the least little bit. “As a women” is as ambiguous as you can get. Among other things we condemn in modern society. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/68 "2016-08-17T21:08:56Z")
[QUOTE=krondys] The idea espoused here, that tiebreakers go to Islam in the liberal camp, is one that I have seen more accusations of than actual examples. For my own part, liberty for all trumps the antiquated cultural ideals of how women (or minorities, or infidels) are treated. [/QUOTE] Trouble is…who decides what is or isn’t ‘antiquated cultural ideals’? Are long skirts or women’s caps ‘antiquated cultural ideals’? Where do you draw the line on what women themselves can decide they should or shouldn’t wear based on their culture? There are quite a large variety of garb that women from different cultures choose to wear based solely on their cultural identity after all. A woman in my building wears traditional African garb every day, for instance. Should that be banned because many African cultures tend to dictate women’s garb on similar lines to Arabic culture, which means women need to be covered to one extent or another? Myself, I think if women are allowed to choose (as most in France probably are), and CHOOSE to wear what they think is traditional garb from their culture or religion then they should. If a woman is being forced to against her will…then, perhaps, society can step in and rectify the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/69 "2016-08-17T21:15:16Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > What I’m going to call for ban of, is killing gays. Well said. I, for one, am fully in support of extending the law against murder in France to also include the murdering of homosexuals. Wait. Doesn’t it already cover that? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/70 "2016-08-17T21:20:44Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > Well said. I, for one, am fully in support of extending the law against murder in France to also include the murdering of homosexuals. > > Wait. Doesn’t it already cover that? I don’t know. Some feel the confederate flag is offensive. Some don’t. End of discussion? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/71 "2016-08-17T21:22:00Z")
The French concept of “freedom of religion” is quite different from the US’s. It’s bound up in the law of “laicite”, which mandates secularism, to the extent that public displays of religiosity are forbidden. > **[French Law 'Laicite' Restricts Muslim Religious Expression](https://www.npr.org/2015/03/04/390757722/french-law-laicite-restricts-muslim-religious-expression)** > > NPR's Audie Cornish is in France, which has Europe's largest Muslim population. France is a secular country, and it has a law called "laicite," which maintains a strict separation of church and state. So this has nothing to do with being pro-women or anti-women or specifically anti-muslim. It’s how the French do things (which sounds strange to Americans accustomed to our interpretation of the First Amendment) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/72 "2016-08-17T21:22:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Ambiguous? Yes. Homosexual? Not the least little bit. > > “As a women” is as ambiguous as you can get. Among other things we condemn in modern society. If _“If a man has sexual relations with a man”_ = _“Homosexual? Not the least little bit,”_ you’re intentionally being obtuse. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/73 "2016-08-17T21:24:13Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I don’t know. Some feel the confederate flag is offensive. Some don’t. End of discussion? Depends. If it’s a state or government agency? Then there should be a discussion about whether it continues. Private citizen? Then there could be a discussion about bad taste or racism, but that’s it. Pretty sure that murder, however, is still going to be illegal and that discussion on the pro-murder side is going to be half-hearted at best… ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/74 "2016-08-17T21:28:28Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If _“If a man has sexual relations with a man”_ = _“Homosexual? Not the least little bit,”_ you’re intentionally being obtuse. Define sexual relations. Penis to vagina? Men don’t have vaginas. Men being affectionate with other men? Have you never been to the middle east? Do the religious texts define orgasm? What, exactly, defines “as a woman.” What defines “sexual?” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/75 "2016-08-17T21:33:07Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > The French concept of “freedom of religion” is quite different from the US’s. It’s bound up in the law of “laicite”, which mandates secularism, to the extent that public displays of religiosity are forbidden. > > [French Law 'Laicite' Restricts Muslim Religious Expression : NPR](http://www.npr.org/2015/03/04/390757722/french-law-laicite-restricts-muslim-religious-expression) > > So this has nothing to do with being pro-women or anti-women or specifically anti-muslim. It’s how the French do things (which sounds strange to Americans accustomed to our interpretation of the First Amendment) A “burkini” isn’t a religious garment, however; it’s swimwear that meets some cultures’ interpretation of a religious requirement for modesty. Banning it is equivalent to banning kosher foods or charitable giving. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/76 "2016-08-17T21:33:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s the problem with this thread: so far, it’s a debate in search of someone to take the “resolved: the French law is sensible and justified” side. I’ll take that side. Or, at least, I’ll take the side that says the the French law is not _entirely_ unreasonable. The fundamental issue is how to deal with cultural minorities that limit the individual rights of some subset of the minority. It’s a sticky issue, because when the state intervenes, then it’s the _state_ that’s limiting the rights of (a sometimes different) subset. And the state, of course, has much rougher methods at its disposal than intra-cultural forces. There’s a strong correlation between restricting the public appearance of women and restricting them in other ways. And the thinking goes that if those cultures import the public modestly restrictions into France, perhaps they’ll import the other restrictions as well. Which would be bad. There are women who would like to be free to go out in public without covering themselves up, but their fathers/husbands/cultural leaders would not like them to do so. Now, if there’s a _law_ against covering up, that’s going to have two effects. The women with particularly strict cultural prohibitions against going out are just not going to go out. They can’t go out covered due to the law, and they can’t go out uncovered due to culture. That’s bad, and this group has definitely been harmed by such a law. But on the margin, there are some (perhaps many) women who will still be able to go out, and will now be able to do so without headscarf/burka/whatever, which they secretly want to do and can now blame on the law. Their families might want them to cover up, but they want to not have to bail their daughters/wives out of jail even more, and so they’ll grimly accept that they can’t exert that particular control any more. And a new norm has been established. Of course, another group that has been harmed is the women who _want_ to cover up, who feel that it is the proper thing to do and are not being unduly pressured by their community. And now they have to go out in a state of partial undress. Quite distressing, I imagine. Some of them will get over it, some of them will change their mind, and some of them will be forced out of public life. This group is also harmed (to different extents) by the law. Now, it would be great if the state could instead somehow only let women who wanted to ditch the cover do so without community oppression, but there’s not really a plausible way to do that. That said, I do think this law is problematic. Because it doesn’t really solve the problem of women’s bodies being controlled, it just changes the controller. But there is an argument for it that’s about increasing personal freedom to wear what you want by providing cover for women who can’t speak their mind to point to a regulation and abide by it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/77 "2016-08-17T21:39:19Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’ll take that side. > > Or, at least, I’ll take the side that says the the French law is not _entirely_ unreasonable. > > The fundamental issue is how to deal with cultural minorities that limit the individual rights of some subset of the minority. It’s a sticky issue, because when the state intervenes, then it’s the _state_ that’s limiting the rights of (a sometimes different) subset. And the state, of course, has much rougher methods at its disposal than intra-cultural forces. > > There’s a strong correlation between restricting the public appearance of women and restricting them in other ways. And the thinking goes that if those cultures import the public modestly restrictions into France, perhaps they’ll import the other restrictions as well. Which would be bad. > > There are women who would like to be free to go out in public without covering themselves up, but their fathers/husbands/cultural leaders would not like them to do so. Now, if there’s a _law_ against covering up, that’s going to have two effects. The women with particularly strict cultural prohibitions against going out are just not going to go out. They can’t go out covered due to the law, and they can’t go out uncovered due to culture. That’s bad, and this group has definitely been harmed by such a law. > > But on the margin, there are some (perhaps many) women who will still be able to go out, and will now be able to do so without headscarf/burka/whatever, which they secretly want to do and can now blame on the law. Their families might want them to cover up, but they want to not have to bail their daughters/wives out of jail even more, and so they’ll grimly accept that they can’t exert that particular control any more. And a new norm has been established. > > Of course, another group that has been harmed is the women who _want_ to cover up, who feel that it is the proper thing to do and are not being unduly pressured by their community. And now they have to go out in a state of partial undress. Quite distressing, I imagine. Some of them will get over it, some of them will change their mind, and some of them will be forced out of public life. This group is also harmed (to different extents) by the law. > > Now, it would be great if the state could instead somehow only let women who wanted to ditch the cover do so without community oppression, but there’s not really a plausible way to do that. > > That said, I do think this law is problematic. Because it doesn’t really solve the problem of women’s bodies being controlled, it just changes the controller. But there is an argument for it that’s about increasing personal freedom to wear what you want by providing cover for women who can’t speak their mind to point to a regulation and abide by it. Good post. Maybe this is a good solution – no restrictions on clothing, but it’s against the law to force any adult to wear what they don’t want to wear (hard to enforce, but at least it’s on the books). Further, lots of public advertising campaigns to show that police and social services are open and welcoming to Muslim women (or any women) who are being forced to wear clothing they don’t want, or being abused in any other way, and any woman can ask for and receive asylum and protection against their families, even up to and including relocation to another part of the country with a new identity if they so desire. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/78 "2016-08-17T21:43:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Maybe this is a good solution – no restrictions on clothing, but it’s against the law to force any adult to wear what they don’t want to wear (hard to enforce, but at least it’s on the books). Sounds like you’re assuming “force” means “stand over her with a whip”, when it really refers to social consequences. You can’t pass laws banning that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/79 "2016-08-17T22:00:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Sounds like you’re assuming “force” means “stand over her with a whip”, when it really refers to social consequences. You can’t pass laws banning that. I mean force through threat of violence, which I think does probably occur in some circumstances. I don’t believe there should be laws against social consequences and cultural influence. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085/80 "2016-08-17T22:01:34Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’ll take that side. > > Or, at least, I’ll take the side that says the the French law is not _entirely_ unreasonable. > > The fundamental issue is how to deal with cultural minorities that limit the individual rights of some subset of the minority. It’s a sticky issue, because when the state intervenes, then it’s the _state_ that’s limiting the rights of (a sometimes different) subset. And the state, of course, has much rougher methods at its disposal than intra-cultural forces. > > There’s a strong correlation between restricting the public appearance of women and restricting them in other ways. And the thinking goes that if those cultures import the public modestly restrictions into France, perhaps they’ll import the other restrictions as well. Which would be bad. > > There are women who would like to be free to go out in public without covering themselves up, but their fathers/husbands/cultural leaders would not like them to do so. Now, if there’s a _law_ against covering up, that’s going to have two effects. The women with particularly strict cultural prohibitions against going out are just not going to go out. They can’t go out covered due to the law, and they can’t go out uncovered due to culture. That’s bad, and this group has definitely been harmed by such a law. > > But on the margin, there are some (perhaps many) women who will still be able to go out, and will now be able to do so without headscarf/burka/whatever, which they secretly want to do and can now blame on the law. Their families might want them to cover up, but they want to not have to bail their daughters/wives out of jail even more, and so they’ll grimly accept that they can’t exert that particular control any more. And a new norm has been established. > > Of course, another group that has been harmed is the women who _want_ to cover up, who feel that it is the proper thing to do and are not being unduly pressured by their community. And now they have to go out in a state of partial undress. Quite distressing, I imagine. Some of them will get over it, some of them will change their mind, and some of them will be forced out of public life. This group is also harmed (to different extents) by the law. > > Now, it would be great if the state could instead somehow only let women who wanted to ditch the cover do so without community oppression, but there’s not really a plausible way to do that. > > That said, I do think this law is problematic. Because it doesn’t really solve the problem of women’s bodies being controlled, it just changes the controller. But there is an argument for it that’s about increasing personal freedom to wear what you want by providing cover for women who can’t speak their mind to point to a regulation and abide by it. There is also this ‘law of unintended consequences’ problem: that the state, by passing laws specific to one religion or cultural identity, sets itself up as oppressive to members of that religion or identity, such that breaking or challenging the law - for example, by wearing the outlawed garb in question - becomes a point of personal pride, regardless of religious feelings. Instead of the clothing symbolizing ‘oppression of women’ (the ostensible reason for the ban), the clothing may, in such a scenario, come to symbolize ‘resistance against the state’ or ‘religious/ethnic pride’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-burkinis-or-veils-headscarves/763085.md?page=5)