# The threat about niqabs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 15, 2020, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839 "2020-05-15T05:32:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/1 "2020-05-15T05:32:00Z")
You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah. And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/2 "2020-05-15T05:47:55Z")
**Moderator Action** Yeah, that’s a rant. Moving thread from MPSIMS to the BBQ Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/3 "2020-05-15T05:48:59Z")
Speaking as somebody who’s always supported the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab, I don’t see how the emergency practice of universal mask wearing as a public-health measure in response to a dangerous pandemic changes the merits of my position at all. Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that’s hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted. But if we return to a non-emergency situation where the wearing of face coverings in ordinary social/professional contexts is once again not considered an acceptable societal norm, then I’ll resume my position of supporting the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab. I don’t see anything bigoted or hypocritical about that. ---
**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:** [May 15, 2020, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/4 "2020-05-15T05:57:09Z")
OK, what? One = a religious statement, the other = a practical measure to reduce exposure to a deadly virus. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/5 "2020-05-15T06:05:40Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah. > > And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection. I think you’ll find that the Venn diagram of “people who are opposed to niqabs” and “people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM” is a circle. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/6 "2020-05-15T06:10:26Z")
Here’s what I [opined](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12188086&postcount=41) on the subject, minus the pandemic-mask issue, about ten years ago: > [@Kimstu](#): > > But if they are wearing veils out of deference to religious prohibitions against women participating in the public sphere, then ISTM they should not be attempting to participate in the public sphere. > > This is the “_burqa_ = _pardah_” argument that I’ve made before in threads like this one. Namely, the requirement in some Islamic cultures for women to cover their faces in public is part of the general principle of _pardah_ or “purdah”, the idea that women should stay “behind the curtain” of private and family life. > > Cultures that practice _pardah_ are maintaining the principle that women do not belong in the public sphere, and in particular should not interact with male strangers in any way. > > Total veiling of women (wearing combinations of garments variously known as burqa, niqab, chador, abaya, etc.) outside the home is intended as a practical compromise with the _pardah_ principle. It recognizes that the necessities of life compel women to leave the house sometimes to go shopping, go to the doctor, etc., and allows them to symbolically take the privacy of the house with them. The veil for _pardah-nishin_ women isn’t just a modest garment, it’s a symbolic cloak of invisibility signifying that they’re not really “in public” even though they have to be outside their private home environment temporarily. > > And I’m totally fine with that practice and think that Western societies that pride themselves on freedom and religious tolerance should accommodate it. _Pardah-nishin_ women should indeed be allowed to wear veils while riding buses, shopping at the supermarket, using gas station restrooms, whatever they have to do while being outside their home environment. Very few people find it practically feasible to stay in their own houses all the time, even if they believe in principle that they ought to do so, and I’m happy to follow the convention of letting veiled women go about their most necessary errands while visually pretending that they’re not really there. > > HOWEVER. I think that open democratic societies have a right to make their own rules about expectations for people participating in their public spheres. It is not unreasonable to expect that a person who is, say, applying for a job requiring them to deal with strangers, or enrolling in a class with other students, is tacitly consenting to participating in that society’s public sphere. > > And if that person insists on wearing a veil or following some other practice that is fundamentally based on the principle that they DON’T participate in the public sphere, then I think that’s somewhat disrespectful to the society they’re living in. If you want to be _pardah-nishin_, then be _pardah-nishin_, but if you’re going to voluntarily participate in society’s public sphere, then you can’t be _pardah-nishin_. None of the above is changed by the fact that nowadays we’re all covering our faces in public in what is hopefully a temporary measure to ameliorate a serious public-health crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/7 "2020-05-15T06:17:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that’s hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted. Why? The religious justification for niqabs is explicitly patriarchal; it’s a “good” woman’s moral duty, apparently, to go to such lengths to avoid inciting lustful thoughts in men and tempting them to sin. If I wear a face covering to protect myself from germs, and you wear a face covering because you’ve been conditioned by men since childhood to believe that negating your own individuality is an expression of piety and moral virtue, why should we be treated the same? Why can’t I object to this ugly manifestation of medieval sexism, even while wearing a mask to keep from getting sick? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/8 "2020-05-15T06:40:46Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > Why? The religious justification for niqabs is explicitly patriarchal; it’s a “good” woman’s moral duty, apparently, to go to such lengths to avoid inciting lustful thoughts in men and tempting them to sin. If I wear a face covering to protect myself from germs, and you wear a face covering because you’ve been conditioned by men since childhood to believe that negating your own individuality is an expression of piety and moral virtue, why should we be treated the same? Sorry, shoulda been more clear. If in the current circumstances somebody objects to the wearing of _niqab_ **specifically on the grounds that it violates our societal norms against covering the face in social/professional situations** , while they don’t object to anti-virus face masks on the same grounds, then they are being hypocritical and bigoted. If covering the face in public is now socially acceptable, then covering the face for religious as well as medical reasons shouldn’t be singled out as unacceptable. Of course, you are still perfectly free to have a personal preference about the intrinsic merits of those different reasons. But you don’t get to apply the _“tut-tut, musn’t cover your face because it’s socially incorrect in our society to do that when interacting with other people”_ smackdown to one of those reasons but not the other. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/9 "2020-05-15T08:22:44Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > **Moderator Action** > > Yeah, that’s a rant. > > Moving thread from MPSIMS to the BBQ Pit. I requested this move BTW. I wish ECG could have made that clearer. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/10 "2020-05-15T08:35:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I think you’ll find that the Venn diagram of “people who are opposed to niqabs” and “people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM” is a circle. As someone who works with the public I have to agree with this statement. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/11 "2020-05-15T15:24:35Z")
It’s not a contradiction to be morally opposed to religious face coverings as being oppressive\* and supporting wearing face coverings out of medical necessity. That’s my stance, but it’s a small enough issue that it isn’t worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it’s necessary _to_ be uncovered such as for identification purposes. - even if some wearers don’t consider it to be oppressive. For instance, FGM is largely enforced by women but that doesn’t make it non-oppressive. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/12 "2020-05-15T15:41:40Z")
Quebec Suddenly Fine With People Covering Their Faces > **[Quebec suddenly fine with people covering their faces](https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/05/quebec-suddenly-fine-with-people-covering-their-faces/)** > > QUEBEC CITY - As the province re-opens the government of Quebec has decided they’re actually super cool with teachers, civil servants and people accessing government services covering their faces. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/13 "2020-05-15T17:24:49Z")
The contradiction is with those claiming that there are policy reasons we MUST be able to see people’s faces, as we must be able to identify people upon sight to avoid crime and such. This is one of the most common supposedly “religion neutral” and excuses for banning the niqab–even when, say, the president of France explicitly said the goal was to stop Muslims from wearing it. The same governments saying that allowing wearing a mask is too difficult a burden to allow for freedom of religion are perfectly okay saying it’s not burdensome here. That is a contradiction. If it’s too much of a burden, then it would be under all circumstances. The whole niqab ban has always been about religion, despite people claiming otherwise. And the OP, living in Canada, is likely in one of those places that pushes the niqab ban. The US assholes who refuse to wear masks aren’t really who he’s talking about. At least, that was my presumption when I read the OP, and why I came in here planning to support him. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/14 "2020-05-15T17:28:34Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > it isn’t worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it’s necessary _to_ be uncovered such as for identification purposes. That’s my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they’d still be necessary during the pandemic. So far, I’ve seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared. If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying. ---
**Author:** ![gdave](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gdave/32/3683_2.png) [@gdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gdave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/15 "2020-05-15T21:24:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they’d still be necessary during the pandemic. > > So far, I’ve seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared. > > If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying. I am generally opposed to bans on on wearing niqabs, and I generally think the reasons typically given are specious. But. There is _nothing_ contradictory or hypocritical about banning niqabs on the grounds of public safety _when there is no pandemic_ and then later requiring face coverings on the grounds of public safety _when there is a pandemic._ It is entirely possible, logically, for there to be simultaneously a public safety threat from people concealing their faces in public and from people not covering their mouths and noses in public. It is also entirely consistent with a genuine concern for public safety for officials to weigh the threat of each, and decide that in pre-pandemic times, the threat to public safety of individuals concealing their faces outweighs concerns for religious/cultural/personal liberty, while in a time of a global pandemic, the public safety threat of spreading COVID-19 outweighs the public safety threat of individuals concealing their faces. Again, I personally think the “public safety” rationale for banning niqabs is specious, but if you grant the premises of that rationale, there’s no contradiction with requiring face coverings in different circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![velomont](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/8491ac/32.png) [@velomont](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velomont)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2020, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/16 "2020-05-17T02:17:44Z")
Leaffan, for my own clarification: ･ do you believe that religion = race? ･ have you read the Quran? ･ have you spent any time in an Islamic country? ･ do you believe that religion is a choice? ･ do you know any Muslims? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2020, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/17 "2020-05-17T11:26:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they’d still be necessary during the pandemic. > > So far, I’ve seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared. People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all. Oh, and mugshots of local bad guys in my local paper all show folks with orange jumpsuits and a surgical-type mask hanging around their necks, but bare faces. But other than that… apparently it’s not necessary to bare your face in public at this time. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2020, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/18 "2020-05-17T12:19:45Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > There is _nothing_ contradictory or hypocritical about banning niqabs on the grounds of public safety _when there is no pandemic_ and then later requiring face coverings on the grounds of public safety _when there is a pandemic._ It is entirely possible, logically, for there to be simultaneously a public safety threat from people concealing their faces in public and from people not covering their mouths and noses in public. > > It is also entirely consistent with a genuine concern for public safety for officials to weigh the threat of each, and decide that in pre-pandemic times, the threat to public safety of individuals concealing their faces outweighs concerns for religious/cultural/personal liberty, while in a time of a global pandemic, the public safety threat of spreading COVID-19 outweighs the public safety threat of individuals concealing their faces. > > Again, I personally think the “public safety” rationale for banning niqabs is specious, but if you grant the premises of that rationale, there’s no contradiction with requiring face coverings in different circumstances. Yep. A lot of the anti-mask laws in the US are old anti-KKK laws. But the immediate public health threat today vs the KKK is different from what it used to be. I’m assuming I’ll need to drop mask for TSA, but I don’t know anyone who has flown recently. And TSA is in flux now anyway. Sounds like the current hubbub is about measuring temperatures. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2020, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/19 "2020-05-17T14:07:37Z")
> [@velomont](#): > > Leaffan, for my own clarification: > > ･ do you believe that religion = race? > ･ have you read the Quran? > ･ have you spent any time in an Islamic country? > ･ do you believe that religion is a choice? > ･ do you know any Muslims? No No Yes Yes Yes ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2020, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/20 "2020-05-17T14:43:03Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all. > \ That is a breach of protection at the moment cashiers are most vulnerable. The stores I see have plexiglass directly in front of cashiers, but not in front of the card scanner. If people are removing their masks that close to cashiers for face recognition, they should be told to use a different method to open their phone. Cashiers are at great enough risk as it is, they don’t need additional risk. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839.md?page=2)