French President Sarkozy Wants to Ban Burkas

[wintertime]

@Bookkeeper

Islamic confirmation that covering the face and hands is NOT a religious requirement:

Niqab is not required in the Islamic Law
Opinions of scholars in favor of displaying the face and hands
What is a woman permitted to uncover in front of other women and mahrams? - Islam Question & Answer

Interesting, Bookkeeper, thank you.

Asking which practices are and are not required is not unlike asking whether drinking/dancing is allowed to Baptists or whether head covering is mandatory for Christians. The answer is, it is if you think it is. – Marienee

But that doesn’t mean, the society you live in has to accept a practice as religious just because someone says that it is. Why is this important? Because the law protects religious practices usually quite well, even in secular states; and it’s harder to deny this protection if written edicts or the custom of an overwhelming majority demand certain behaviour, clothing etc.

If the religious edict clearly contradicts our constitutionally guaranteed rights, it’s still a no-win situation for the religious argument but, quite often, the answer is not that apparent.

The burqa is one example of a messy situation: If you consider who dictates the wearing of the burqa and how it is enforced, it is pretty clear, that it’s not just another piece of clothing, but that it is used in an oppressive manner – and this stands in sharp contrast to our view of the world and our guaranteed rights.

On the other hand, our societies avoid any intervention into people’s choices if possible; so, any woman who chooses to wear the burqa out of her free will within the borders of our countries, shouldn’t be hindered to do so – even if or rather because it is enforced elsewhere and not a choice at all.

A general ban has the unwelcome effect that Muslims can argue that we preach freedom more than we practice it; and the radicals have an opening to connect the ban with a stance against Islam itself and they might get support even from the moderate factions, because the supporters of a ban can’t easily explain how they can argue against oppression if they practice it themselves.

No, I still think a ban is the wrong choice, even though it is connected with the most hideous examples of oppression in the Muslim world.

But that doesn’t mean, it can’t be banned anywhere: schools are one of the locations where the burqa is so counterproductive that the personal choice of the student is less important than the demands of the school.

Students have to live with certain limitations of their personal choices, as do employees and visitors of security sensitive areas; specific bans are custom and anyone who wants to make the burqa an exception will have to explain it rationally.

[Marienee]

@wintertime

I
But that doesn’t mean, the society you live in has to accept a practice as religious just because someone says that it is. Why is this important? Because the law protects religious practices usually quite well, even in secular states; and it’s harder to deny this protection if written edicts or the custom of an overwhelming majority demand certain behaviour, clothing etc.

In America, generally it does mean exactly that. A sincerely held religious belief does not have to be doctrine in any established religion; if it is sincerely held, it may be the doctrine of the religion of you.

Protection of religious exercise in the form of conduct or abstention is by no means absolute – human sacrifice is not allowed however sincere your belief that your god says you have to – but once you have a religious belief backing behavior, then you trigger a balancing of the competing interests of the individual who wants to exercise their religion and the state which wants to control their behavior. Laws targeting religious conduct (like laws forbidding animal sacrifice) in the US are far more closely scrutinized, and the state has to show a greater interest to justify them, than do laws of general application which happen to affect religious exercise (like having your picture on a driver’s license). But even with the latter, if there is a less burdensome alternative, the courts will often require the state to offer it (like being allowed to affirm the truth of your testimony in court rather than swear to it). Or at least this was true until 1990, it is less true since then but I expect the law to develop further soon in this regard.

The custom of the majority or the alleged integrity of the culture plays as far as I can recall absolutely no part in this analysis in the US. But in comparison to the Dutch at least, we have a very small measure of respect for the notion of integrity of culture, or that it can be challenged by the additions to it by people of other cultures. From our perspective, the burden is on the state to justify a ban unless it is a general ban – if everyone were forbidden to cover their face then you might be cooking with gas.

[wintertime]

@Marienee

From our perspective, the burden is on the state to justify a ban unless it is a general ban – if everyone were forbidden to cover their face then you might be cooking with gas.

I think you have missed the part, where I stated my refusal of a general ban but didn’t mind bans in specific situations if they apply to everyone:

No, I still think a ban is the wrong choice,

(…)

Students have to live with certain limitations of their personal choices, as do employees and visitors of security sensitive areas; specific bans are custom and anyone who wants to make the burqa an exception will have to explain it rationally.

It is my impression, that many American schools are more restrictive towards students and their freedom of choice than European ones – and, in general, the public doesn’t seem to consider this unconstitutional. (I’d appreciate it, of course, if you corrected that impression if it were false.)

@Marienee

A sincerely held religious belief does not have to be doctrine in any established religion; if it is sincerely held, it may be the doctrine of the religion of you.

And who decides the “sincerely held” part? Can you just say, “I really,really do” and that’s it? Well, in that case, it shouldn’t be too hard for anyone to run around naked while doing sports, because they can simply state that they believe in their version of the ancient Greek belief; after all, the Greek word gymnasium can be translated with “a place to train naked”.

For some reason, I doubt that you could push that through as a public religious practice in America. Though, again, I might be mistaken.

[Marienee]

@wintertime

It is my impression, that many American schools are more restrictive towards students and their freedom of choice than European ones – and, in general, the public doesn’t seem to consider this unconstitutional. (I’d appreciate it, of course, if you corrected that impression if it were false.).

Yes, they are. A lot more, at least in relation to Dutch ones. And yet, also not, at least with respect to high schoolers. Because high schools in the US do not have tracking, the student body is considerably more diverse in general, so more control is laid at the school’s feet instead of being handled by social control.

But the application of constitutional guarantees in schools in our system is indeed a different and complicated body of law because the students are minors and the school is in place of the parents to a larger degree than here.

I think that no school in the states would be impractical enough to try to ban the burqua, because they could achieve the same end by making a general rule which banned headgear of all kinds in the classroom. Schools can ban gang colors, weird hair color, revealing clothing, this much I know for sure. But you never know what somebody is going to try of course.

I was taught in school by nuns who still wore habits, and the difference is a couple of square centimeters of cloth, so I have little patience for the burqua ban. I do understand that people’s frustration levels rise considerably when confronted with a society which signals that it not only does not follow the values of the dominant society but does not like them either.

Nudity in sport is sort of a spurious argument; I think something else might work better, like vax exemptions or animal sacrifice. Or even peyote use.

If the mexican flu turns into an epidemic, is it also going to be a violation of the dominant culture to wear a surgical mask in public? Of course not. If we could stop talking about clothes and start talking about the message, the whole matter might be more easily articulated. But maybe not, as I say, the perspectives on this type of civil rights issue between the US and Europe (at least this part of Europe, I hasten to add; the Dutch now even want to make citizens of other EU members take “integration classes” so I think it is fair to say there is have a high need for social compliance) are very different.

[Marienee]

@wintertime

And who decides the “sincerely held” part? Can you just say, “I really,really do” and that’s it? Well, in that case, it shouldn’t be too hard for anyone to run around naked while doing sports, because they can simply state that they believe in their version of the ancient Greek belief; after all, the Greek word gymnasium can be translated with “a place to train naked”.

Yes, really. It is inappropriate for a judge to decide what is and is not a sincerely held religious belief, though there are areas in which the people who carry out the laws do require some kind of evidence, which procedure is then reviewed by judges if it should come up. But they are far and away the exception --the draft and some medical issues I am sure of.

I saw a judge handle this once in a context of a divorce, in which the woman maintained that she could not be divorced because it was against her religion and her husband’s . The judge said that what was between them and God was between them and God but that in the eyes of the state they were not married any more. This is usually how it gets resolved.

[starryspice]

@jsgoddess

No. I think it is an example of abuse, not a symptom of it.

I agree with you that example is a better word than symptom, but I was actually directing that comment toward posters who were arguing that a ban on burqas is akin to treating the symptom rather than the underlying cause. My point was that sometimes treating a symptom does treat the underlying cause because the two are related in complex ways.

[wonky]

@starryspice

I agree with you that example is a better word than symptom, but I was actually directing that comment toward posters who were arguing that a ban on burqas is akin to treating the symptom rather than the underlying cause. My point was that sometimes treating a symptom does treat the underlying cause because the two are related in complex ways.

From reading the opinions of women who have actually lived the life, I’d say that yeah, you’re right. It’s extremely complex.

In some ways, it strikes me as having some similarities to outspoken racist comments. There are people who say that they like when racists feel they can be open about their beliefs because then everyone knows where the racists stand. But that also means that other racists are getting public reinforcement of their beliefs, which maybe perpetuates or even increases them.

Mohammed Moussaoui thinks the burqa stigmatizes Islam. Others think a burqa ban stigmatizes Islam. Divining our causes from our effects is tricky business when you’re dealing with the wackiness that is the human animal.

Of course, even when you’re dealing with a symptom that is only a symptom, symptoms can be bad enough on their own, as in the case with pain in your example. Having someone say, “Oh, pain is just a symptom” doesn’t make the pain less.

[griffin1977]

@jsgoddess

It’s extremely complex.

Again, it’s really not that complex. Yes there are all sorts of issues regarding islamic custom and wearing veils that are complex and nuanced. But this one is not. In a free society the state DOES NOT have the right to force you TO wear a burqa in a public place, it equally DOES NOT have the right force you NOT TO wear a burqa in a public place. No “ifs”, no “buts”, what you do or do not wear on your head to express your religious beliefs if your business, NOT the states.

[wintertime]

First of all, Marienee, I don’t think there is any fundamental difference in our points of view, so any objection of mine is a minor one.

@Marienee

I was taught in school by nuns who still wore habits, and the difference is a couple of square centimeters of cloth, so I have little patience for the burqua ban.

Sounds as if you didn’t go to a public but catholic school; in that case, religious garment worn by teachers and/or students is acceptable, because it fits within the specific milieu.

It can also be acceptable at a public school in the subject “Religion”, if representatives of other denominations are also welcome to wear their attire; as long as the same rule applies to everyone within a social context, it’s alright with me.

But it wouldn’t be acceptable attire for teachers in general at a public school in a secular state – the context is different, religion has to accept a subordinate rule.

It is inappropriate for a judge to decide what is and is not a sincerely held religious belief, (…)

(…)

The judge said that what was between them and God was between them and God but that in the eyes of the state they were not married any more.

Which means that religion doesn’t trump the law, even if it’s just about the regulation of a divorce and not about the most valued rights of the constitution. People are free to believe whatever they want on both sides of the Atlantic, but their actions have to comply with the law; if they dismiss it in a conflict and follow their belief instead, they are in trouble – and rightfully so.

@Marienee

I think that no school in the states would be impractical enough to try to ban the burqua, because they could achieve the same end by making a general rule which banned headgear of all kinds in the classroom.

That’s pretty much my view too: if something like the burqa is banned for practical reasons within a certain environment, like a school, it can’t be singled out, but needs to be included into a more general rule that addresses the problem per se and not a specific garment.

@Marienee

Nudity in sport is sort of a spurious argument; (…)

Spurious? Well yeah, a bit ;); I think you realized that the example itself wasn’t meant too seriously, but it was supposed to introduce a point that I … forgot to address.

When one of my (half-Swedish) cousins visited friends of her father in Boston, she forgot one sunny afternoon that the American attitude towards nudity isn’t as relaxed as the German or Scandinavian one; and if I remember correctly, there was an incident with the police that the family didn’t find funny at all, neither did their neighbours.

Our rules wouldn’t have hindered her, the rules over there apparently did – but does that mean America is oppressing the free choices of women while Germany and Sweden are strongholds of freedom?

Nah! What it shows, are differences in social norms that lead to specific attitudes which are both mirrored in the respective body of law.

We all enjoy a lot of freedom; we are just more relaxed or more restricted in details.

The burqa seems to peeve some French social norms (at least for some part of the French society; how many agree, disagree and why or why not, is mostly unknown to us) and though I disagree with a ban for all the reasons I’ve already expressed, I think it’s a bit hypocritical to act as if America doesn’t value certain social norms enough to add them to their body of law while other nations might consider some of them unnecessarily restrictive.

Still, before we misunderstand each other, the situation that led to the proposition of a ban is quite another matter and I agree entirely when you say:

@Marienee

If we could stop talking about clothes and start talking about the message, the whole matter might be more easily articulated.

Please, do!

[Miller]

@griffin1977

Again, it’s really not that complex. Yes there are all sorts of issues regarding islamic custom and wearing veils that are complex and nuanced. But this one is not. In a free society the state DOES NOT have the right to force you TO wear a burqa in a public place, it equally DOES NOT have the right force you NOT TO wear a burqa in a public place. No “ifs”, no “buts”, what you do or do not wear on your head to express your religious beliefs if your business, NOT the states.

It’s even simpler than that. You don’t have to even get as far as abstract concepts of the proper role of government in society. All you have to do is ask, “Will this ban accomplish the stated goal of making life better for Muslim women in France?” And the answer is a resounding “No.” It will, in every manner, make life harder for them, not the least in that it puts the onus of punishment for wearing a burqa, which has been identified by some in this thread as a form of abuse, on the person wearing the burqa. This proposed ban is, therefore, quite literally persecuting the victim for being a victim.

Of course, if you look at the unstated purpose of this proposal, which is pretty clearly an attempt to stir up popular political support by attacking an already unpopular minority, then it’s a smashing success.