The distinction is obviously where you draw the line. If you, as you seem to imply, reject drawing a line altogether in either of these areas, and hold an individuals right to act as their own religious moral agent above all other authorities, then alongside the burqua you’d also logically have to allow female circumcision. Yes technically more ‘free’ but not something I subscribe to.
Where harm is done, in the oppression of women or the sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy, governments should clearly act. Sexual abuse is already a crime, regardless of any religious authority given to it, as should be the discriminative and significantly harmful measures ordered by whichever religion. As I’ve said, people can believe what they wish, but they should not be enabled to enforce these wishes upon others. Condoms are not banned in my country because of inflexible Catholic doctrine. If the church attempted to enforce this issue by damaging merchandise, then I would hope it would be prosecuted to the full extent of whatever available law. They are free however, to enact any non-harmful beliefs and practices they should wish divert themselves with. That is where I draw a line.
Misogynistic elements of scripture occur in each of the Abrahamic faiths. Consult 1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16 for the basis of the Christian veiled equivalent, which explains why you rarely see much of the Virgin Mary’s hair in her iconography.
Incidentally I used to be a nun but I got out of the habit. I’ll leave now.
My friend lasted about five years. She had some infertility issues, which were untreatable in SA due to the fact that women’t can’t actually be examined by a doctor, or even talk to one face-to-face. So she came back to the US, ostensibly to address the fertility issues, but she decided that being in SA had changed the character of her relationship with her husband for the much worse (although she really, really loved her MIL) and she got a divorce.
Looks like a few hundred. While 367 seems suspiciously precise, if the above article has any degree of accuracy, we can probably assume less than 1,000.
As noted these particular garments originally arose as a unisex response to extreme climactic conditions. Male desert nomads are often just as heavily garbed/veiled as women for the very sound reason of not wanting to die from exposure ( and it isn’t just heat - deserts at night can be extremely cold, so the garments serve double-duty for a poor population ). Or at the very least avoid getting sand blown in their mouths.
No, he wouldn’t, because female genital mutilation isn’t an example of someone acting as their own religious moral agent. It’s a procedure that is done to minor children who are not legally able to consent to the practice. If an adult woman wants to have her clitoris chopped off, then that’s her right. If an adult woman wants to wear a burqa, then that’s her right. If an adult woman is being forced to wear a burqa, then there are already laws in place to protect her.
Which laws? Perhaps you could make a case if assault or intimidation was involved, but the likelihood of someone in this position coming forwards is about as vanishingly small as the chances of a successful prosecution. The point is you can’t tell who are ‘willingly’ donning misogynistic and scripturally dubious, imperforate veils, out of submission to Allah, from those who are being compelled to in physically or psychologically damaging ways, and the effect that this has on an individual. This is why the law is being considered. To prevent harm to a certain number of individuals, another group would be limited in law to the extent of their actions within public space; in this case the extent of their veiling. This is not some new legal concept, or something I regard as an affront to freedom. Individual freedoms, in my opinion, have to be balanced with the harm they might incur to others. You seem to reject this basic tenant in favour of the supremacy of the religious practices of the individual, under the provision that they are an adult, in all cases.
People are not discrete entities, they have effects on the lives of others. Women who have themselves suffered female genital mutilation (FGM) are more likely to carry it out on their offspring. Human beings, in many or most cases, do not develop their own cultural and religious philosophy as independent agents. Where practices are significantly harmful and physically manifest, such as FGM, then outlawing them is less contentious. When this involves requiring a child to adopt complete veiling (a practice frequently begun in pre-pubescence, not as a ‘free’ adult) without physically identifiable damage, this is clearly going to be a more grey area. I draw a definition in favour of preventing harm to some, you favour the rights of other individuals to pursue their ‘independent’ action, regardless of the harm done to others.
Furthermore, I would imagine that if an adult woman wanted to cut her own clitoris off, and depending on her physiological state, most psychiatrists would regard that as reasonable grounds for sectioning. Having another individual or the state decide in cases where you are not mentally competent, is equally not a new phenomena.
Where harmful actions result to individuals, other than yourself, the state should be able to contest such matters, in my opinion. That said, I would want to see some form of thorough methodological analysis of the relative amount of harm done by the practice, before coming to some sort of legal decision. However, I am arguing that if sufficient harm were identified, that the state would have the right confront this issue.
But the “harmful action” in this case is women supposedly being told what they can wear. And the government response is to tell the women what they can wear. How is a dress code imposed by the state any less harmful than one based on religion?
Not at all. But what should be limited are actions that can shown to be harmful to others. Stoning an adulteress is pretty clearly a harmful action against another. Wearing a burqa doesn’t harm anyone else except, possibly, the person wearing the burqa. But if the person wearing the burqa isn’t complaining, the government has absolutely no right to arbitrarily decide that she’s being harmed and force her to take it off. This is doubly so in this case, when the actual harm being caused by the burqa is far from definite. What is the alleged harm? That the person cannot interact as fully with other people because you can’t see her face? That she is separated from mainstream society? While I agree that both of those things are bad, you’re setting an absurdly low standard of harm for restricting someone’s freedom.
Now, threatening to beat your wife unless she wears a burqa is absolutely harmful. But banning the burqa isn’t going to resolve that, because the problem is not the clothes, it’s the violence. If a husband is going to commit violence over a robe, he’s also going to do it over a late dinner, or an insufficiently scrubbed floor, or any number of other domestic infractions. You need to convince the woman to leave that situation, and that’s a problem that’s going to remain regardless of how the woman dresses.
Which, I think, brings up an interesting hypothetical. Let’s say a man is convicted of beating his wife. He serves his time, is released, and upon reentering society, his wife moves back in with him. This is a situation that has a much higher standard of harm than wearing a burqa. Does the state have the right to intervene there? Should the government force the woman to stay away from her abusive husband? Doing so would obviously be a violation of her right to association, but by associating with this man, she’s clearly putting herself at risk of substantial physical harm. If the state has the right to abrogate a woman’s rights over the frankly ephemeral harm inherent in the burqa, surely it has the right to step in to a situation like this?
I believe you are incorrect on this score. Although I may very well be wrong, my understanding is that women do not start wearing burqas until they enter puberty. Still legally minors, which does change the tenor of the discussion somewhat, but of course, so does mixing parental rights into the debate.
That’s reasonable, and I’d agree that, if a sufficient level of harm were incontrovertibly shown, a ban would be called for. I’m not sure how you show that, though. The idea is that the burqa is psychologically harmful, which is going to require a fairly high degree of self-reporting. And I suspect that most women who wear a burqa in France do so willingly. Even if it is harming them, they’re unlikely to perceive it as harm. There’s also the issue that these women are likely in domestic environments that are harmful in other ways, and how do you isolate the burqa specifically, from the effects of living in an abusive household in general?
Obviously ordering one set of imposed standards, instead of another, will inevitably be hypocritical. This doesn’t mean that allowing the imposition of a sometimes enforced, socially and economically isolating, identify-depriving, restrictive and misogynistic piece of attire is morally comparable with the legal limit not to wear it in public. Yes in an ideal world, where all women where emancipated, and chose it freely in adulthood, without being subject to duress, or for that matter, religious indoctrination as a minor, then I would not object. But that is not the world we live in. My approach to the dilemma is pragmatic, rather than idealistic.
I’m afraid pragmatism also works against you in this debate. As has been pointed out, the attitudes that lead to the burqa do not go away with the banning of the garment. If a man is so obsessed with the idea of his wife not being seen in public without an all-concealing robe, then he’s most likely to react to the removal of the robe by confining his wife to their home, or by sending her back to their home country. Either way, the lot of the woman in question has not been improved by the imposition of this new law.
The person wearing the burqua, the altered likelihood of their offspring from adopting the practice (such as aforementioned FGM, or as you suggest stoning), the surrounding social pressure for others to adopt the practice and conform to the defined religious standards. Simply because misogyny is intangible, and difficult to define and measure, doesn’t mean we should disregard it.
Women who have had FGM practised upon themselves are, in many cases, the very people who support it most and actually carry out the procedure on their own daughters. They may not complain, but that shouldn’t prevent government action to mitigate harm. Difficulty in quantifying the harm done by being sartorially de-humanised, does not mean we can pretend that it doesn’t occur.
The inability to effectively engage in education, or to find employment, or to participate with other human beings in the public sphere. The psychological consequences of the garments’ implied necessity in the subservience to men, and that your own physical body is a source of immorality in others; not their fault, yours.
I don’t consider that the potential effects, some of which I’ve outlined, and doubtless some I haven’t thought of, are trivial.
Yes I entirely agree.
If the husband began physical or psychological abuse, then the state should clearly aim to prosecute him again. If he was somehow an entirely reformed character and did neither of those things, and they were just a hypothetical risk, then no, the state would should not have the power to act. Hypothetically I might duff-up an OAP, but until I actually do so, or threaten said OAP so that they think I will do so, the state cannot justifiably intervene.
Ignorance fought. I had assumed it would be adopted similarly to the hijabs, typically upward of 6-7. Whilst sketchy, it seems to be most often adopted, in places such as Saudi Arabia and Oman at puberty, so between 8-14. In Oman, common practice appears to be on the 7th day of marriage, which usually lags behind puberty by a year or so. If the girl is physically mature for her age, it is sometimes adopted prior to marriage, or otherwise at puberty within the Baloch people ((cite). Regardless, they are not able to freely choose, and just because your parents instruct it doesn’t make it acceptable harm.
The inevitable difficulty of dealing with abusive relationships doesn’t mean you should sidestep the responsibility to tackle any of their outcomes. Where something that is manifestly harmful can be addressed, it shouldn’t be allowed to remain on the basis that, ‘yes we could tackle it, but the fundamental problem still remains’. You have to start somewhere, be it refusing to get up from a bus seat, or excluding transparently oppressive religious attire in public spaces.
The crux of the matter as you conclude, is the difficulty in quantifying the level of harm, and enabling those who have been socially conditioned, to form an independent perspective. The former can be at least partially quantified by psychological and sociological studies, but not without difficulty as you make clear. As for the latter, hopefully education can grant a better understanding of the cultural basis for this practice, the harm it does, and its modern irrelevance, but I’m not holding my breath.
So what is there to suggest, that we should maintain the status quo and hope than misogynistic attitudes and practices somehow fade with time? It simply won’t happen. It requires a prescriptive, pragmatic approach rather than a laissez-faire attitude. It would be my hope that eventually such a move would serve to liberate more women than are negatively affected during the initial confrontation of these attitudes. I would also hope that women who are treated as you describe, are given the full protection of the law.
On a social level, no. On a legal level? I don’t like the idea of a burqa. I think that, on a cultural level, we should work to discourage their use. But there’s something frankly rank about using the government to quash unpopular ideas. Even when it’s an idea that should be quashed, it’s an abuse of government, whose function (in this sort of situation) should be to provide a safe arena where these ideas can fight it out. It should not step in, except to protect the abilities of individuals to make their own choices. The absolutely last thing it should ever do is step in and make choices for the public. That’s tyranny, no matter how well intentioned, and is far more dangerous than the fashion choices of a vanishingly small fraction of a religious minority.
None of these are valid areas for government intervention. You’re criminalizing ideas, which is terrible abuse of government.
But if we wait until the husband starts abusing her, isn’t that too late? Isn’t it more important to prevent an action that has the likelihood of being abusive, regardless of whether any abuse has actually occurred? Is that not precisely what you’re arguing for in the case of the burqa?
You’re creating a false dilemma. Just because I’m opposed to this particular solution, does not mean I’m advocating doing nothing at all.
But this is a case where not all individuals are freely able to make that choice for themselves. I don’t see that the legal decisions of governments, outside of those who are empowered and educated enough to make their own choices, are necessarily tyrannical.
On a cultural level we are working to discourage racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination. But we have also approached these on a legal level too. It is using government to quash unpopular ideas, that are unfortunately not universally derided. It is still the right thing to do. Government is a powerful tool for progress, not just tyranny. Its actions are not comparable to those who do harm; it attempting to prevent harm.
It is not criminalising an idea, it is criminalising a garment, and only then in public space. In the same way actually, it is not illegal to think and be a racist, but it is illegal to manifest your discrimination.
In the UK it is illegal to advertise tobacco products in any medium. You might argue that this is effectively criminalising the idea of smoking, something intangible. People cannot be indoctrinated into perusing this activity, as something that damages both themselves (whether they accept this fact or not) and those which surround them. It is not a terrible abuse of government, it is preventing harm. If you wish to smoke, you are still free to do so, but not in public space.
No, this this is not what I am arguing for. Your scenario is highlighting the potential for possible future harm, that may or may not occur. Legal systems (excluding some very specific cases) cannot operate on the context of what an individual might do, only what they have done. The case for outlawing burquas in public space is not done on the pretext of what they might do, it is on what they can be shown to do and the affects they have on others.
I think the smoking analogy is perhaps more useful for drawing parallels, otherwise we’d have to cover issues such as the potential for actual rehabilitation, and the husband having served his punishment, not having to face further sanction. I still stand by the position that until actual harm is done, either physically or psychologically, the state should not intervene.
I’m not trying to paint you as someone who wouldn’t want anything to be done. However I disagree with you in so far as your rejection of using the law as a means to implement social change, rather than just relying on individual advocacy. By their very nature women who are veiled are oppressed and politically marginalised. Those who it is enforced upon do not have the power to make their own successful opposition. This is why the state should intervene.
And this is precisely why this law is so abhorrent. You’re not treating these women like adults, you’re infantilizing them. If they make a decision you don’t like, it’s because they’re too brainwashed and ignorant to see that they should agree with you. It’s as arrant an act of sexism as putting them in the burqa in the first place.
Removing a persons right to make their own decisions is not a progressive act.
Of course you can manifest racist beliefs in public. You can’t arrest someone for wearing a Klan robe, or a Nazi uniform, both of which outfits are far more socially damaging than a burqa. Nor is it illegal to propound racist beliefs, or follow racist teachings in your private life. You are not allowed to discriminate in hiring or services, but those protections were only adopted after it was demonstrated that legalized discrimination in those areas was causing massive, systemic damage to the fabric of society, and the drive for change was spearheaded by those most damaged by the practice. In this case, we’re talking about a law targeting (if the earlier cite is to be believed) fewer than a thousand people, and the supposed recipients of your largesse do not want your aid to begin with.
That’s a ridiculous comparison. The effects of tobacco are directly lethal. You can’t meaningfully compare lung cancer and emphysema with, how did you put it? “The psychological consequences of the garments’ implied necessity in the subservience to men, and that your own physical body is a source of immorality in others.” Those are bad things, but they’re not definite harm, they’re matters of interpretation. They’re ideas. You want to punish people for having the idea that women should be subservient to men. I don’t like that idea anymore than you do, but I’m not about to turn it into a thought crime.
That is exactly what you’re arguing for. The “point,” as you put it, is that you cannot tell “who are ‘willingly’ donning … veils, …from those who are being compelled to in physically or psychologically damaging ways.” And thus, you argue, it is necessary to ban burqas entirely, willingly worn or not, because of the chance that some portion of these woman have been compelled to wear them. You went further to say, “To prevent harm to a certain number of individuals, another group would be limited in law to the extent of their actions within public space; in this case the extent of their veiling.”
How is this different from my hypothetical? Sure, some abusive men might have reformed. Most probably will have not. Isn’t it more important to protect women from those abusers, even if it means limiting their rights to act on their own will in public?
Has no woman ever voluntarily removed her veil? Has no woman ever taken it upon herself to leave an abusive husband, even in the strictest of Muslim households? If so, then it is clear that they do have that power. The state should do everything in its power to protect them once they make that choice. It cannot make that choice for them.
Just because it is hypocritical and arrogant doesn’t make it morally equivalent. Replacing the harm done by the enforced burqua verses the harm done by requiring a less subjugating equivalent, is on balance a better outcome.
And in cases where the individual does not have the power to make these decisions? Less libertarian, but with a more progressive outcome. Libertarianism isn’t the ethical magic bullet you make it out to be.
I’m not versed in US law. In the UK however, incitement to racial or ethnic hatred is a crime. I fully support this, despite its confliction with libertarianism.
Abolitionism was enacted by those with the political power to do so. Slaves could not emancipate themselves. This does not make it abhorrent or infantilising.
Unfortunately we have not yet quantified those who, without being under duress, want to remain veiled, and those who do not, but are not free to do so. However, you cannot state that none want aid.
I hold it to be a reasonable parallel. Smoking does not always kill you. Some people freely choose to do it and claim it is not damaging, others effectively (and for the sake of this hypothetical) do not freely choose, and cannot liberate themselves unaided. It is, regardless of opinion, damaging to the individual, and inciting towards peers. This is why it is banned in public spaces, and comparable to the ban on the burqua.
You choose an incomplete section of my previous quote to try and paint a less damaging picture of the garment. If you consider that being ostracised from society, human interaction, employment, education, its de-humanising consequences, the psychological harm of political and religious enslavement and regarding your own body as the cause of evil, as not definite harm, then I absolutely disagree.
Well in comparing it with the concept of the smoking ban, no not everyone who smokes will get cancer and die. A proportion will though. To protect this proportion, the incitement to smoke by advertising and exposure to the social pressure of others who do so in public space, has resulted in a legal ban. Your example is conflating the possibility of future harm, with what is instead actual harm affecting a proportion of people.
Yes I am sure some women have that degree of self-determination and will. Unfortunately some do not. To return to your hypothetical, yes some people leave abusive husbands. Some do not wish to, or cannot, or even maintain that it is not personally damaging. Regardless, the state should intervene if harm is being done, whether the abused partner is accepting of this intervention or not. In some cases the state has to make that choice for them. F*ck hypocrisy and infantilisation, it is simply more immoral not to act than to do so.
No not “technically” or any other way “more free”. A fundamental concept of human rights is that “your rights stop where my nose begins”. A society that protects my right to burn witches is not “more free” than one that protects witches from being attacked for their religion.
There is no moral spectrum that starts with allowing me to chose what I wear on my head in public and ends with allowing me to abuse and mutilate children, they are fundamentally different things and allowing one IS NOT equivalent to the other.
LOL. That is a classic . “those people” should not be able to enforce their wishes on others. You on the other hand should.
If you had read what I have written, you’d realise I wasn’t trying to paint them as moral equivalents. And yes technically more free. Anarchy is the most extreme example of libertarianism possible. Limiting your rights to cut off someone’s clitoris or enshroud them, limits your rights to do something. By accepting that you should not burn witches, you are accepting an infringement on your state of liberty.
Equally, I never claimed I wasn’t a hypocrite either. But there are different shades of grey. Preventing harm done to some by marginally limiting the rights of others is the least worst option in my opinion. Everyone is a hypocrite. People who claim they are not are either idealists, who does not operate in the real world, or simply liers (note: I’m not trying to call you a lier, just that people shouldn’t always run scared of the label of hypocrisy).
