Should Burkas, Niqabs, and Hijabs Be Banned?

it strikes me as a bit odd that you’re not allowed to cover yourself up, but if you want to wear a skirt that looks more like a belt, and a tube top that lets a roll of fat show, that’s fine. I wear whatever I want, why can’t other people?

The reasons I have to show my face in banks, airports, drivers licence, etc. apply to women wearing these. Any place that it’s required to see someone face is a place to ban this form of dress.

Isn’t it against the law in many states for an adult to wear a mask in public? Is this attire exempt simply because it’s religious? If so I would support whatever the current law is on non-religious attire. I don’t think certain items should be exempted just because of religion, but I also don’t think certain items should be banned because of religion or social issues.

Although it is obvious that the burka “fashion” is indeed a way of keeping Muslim women “in there place” so to speak, I do not believe anyone has the right to say what a person is allowed to wear.

In my opinion Muslim women need to find a way out of the abusive relationship that is Islam other than by law. Repression in this case my not end but if it does hopefully it ends because these women start seeing how opressive what they are involved in truly is.

Syria is right: this is a case of fundamentalism growing more and more – they are trying to eradicate that.

Personally, I straddle the line on the topic, but finally go with feminism and civil rights. The recent Syrian law resulted in women leaving their jobs at the university. That alone, to me, is a much bigger feminism issue that simply having one’s face covered in that it marginalizes intelligent women and excludes them from their chosen field of work.

If someone wants to wear a hijab I don’t see a problem with that.

However, if someone wants to keep his “property” in “its rightful” place by covering “it” with a rag – well that is clearly wrong.

I understand that there are woman who say that they want to wear these hideous things. And they are the losers from a ban.

But, to paraphrase, it is better that a thousand nervous women feel ashamed than one women is oppressed against her will.

This is what I’ve had to say about this elsewhere:

When I look at someone wearing a burqa, I see Lavar Burton wearing a slave collar. It disgusts me that anyone can be forced to wear something like that.

On the other hand, I can’t support the idea of outlawing it. Outlawing the burqa just exchanges religious oppression for government oppression. It’s not the government’s business to decide how people dress. That’s what they do in the parts of the world where women can be executed for not wearing this ridiculous costume. Do we want to lower ourselves to the same standard as a clique of theocratic dictators who long for the good ol’ days of the 6th century?

If France wants to deal with Islamic oppression of women in their country, they should come down harshly on all forms of discrimination and violence against women from those muslims who demand they wear a burqa. If a man attacks a woman for not wearing one, put him in jail for assault and add an extra 10 years because it was religiously motivated. Attack the problem, not the victims of the problem.

I’ll add the caveat that I don’t see a problem banning them from banks, airports or anywhere else where there’s a legitimate security risk. A blanket, can’t-wear-it-anywhere ban is out of the question.

I have no problem with the hijab. The other two, however, could pose a security risk. To me, this is not even an issue of women’s rights, one way or the other – it’s one of security. I think people’s faces should be clearly visible while in public. The safety and well-being of the surrounding people outweigh the religious observance of the niqab and burka wearer. Whenever two rights are pitted against each other, one has to prevail, and in this case, it’s the welfare of the general population.

The issue is more complicated than a simple freedom to wear what you like.

These face coverings are the visible expression of an alien, oppressive culture that seeks world dominion.

How happy would you be with someone wearing a T-shirt with “I hate … [insert your own country]”? How happy would you be if you saw these T-shirts every few minutes as you walked down your street?

Ban the burka and niqab in all public places.
Security takes precedence over religious rights.
Plus, I have to agree with the person who said that it is the equivalent of a slave collar.

You can’t with one breath tell someone that they are free and equal members of your society and then with another breath tell them that the exception to that freedom is that they can’t choose what clothing to wear. Not even theists are that hypocritical. For security reasons, in certain locations (such as airports), face coverings probably should be banned.

The best way to stop men telling women what they can wear is… for men to pass a law telling women what they can wear. ??? Sorry, that doesn’t work for me.

When a person walks down the street I, and by extension the state, have no right to force that person to show me any part of their body, without good reason. (unfortunately…)

Going into places where their identity has to be validated or security is an issue would obviously require the person to remove as much clothing as security or identification warrants.

Many women wear these garments either against their will or they have been coerced or brainwashed into thinking its right and proper to do so. Heck the Victorians thought it scandalous if a woman showed a bare ankle. But that’s no reason for a free country to fine the victim and reduce all of our freedoms. We didn’t abolish slavery by criminalising people who were slaves.

Lolz at Mary D, are you American by any chance? I care about my country, but we had the sex pistols “God save the Queen” to put it all in perspective, and we don’t take as much notice of what the media says, I speak as a nation, not an individual. I can hate my government, my Queen, all forms of authority, but I can still love my country!

I support the ban as stated in France. In a free society, I don’t believe that people have “the right” to be oppressed. For if allowed, that right comes at the expense of those who would rather not wear the shame of Burka but have no choice via the will of their husbands.

I feel this is just a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the governments – they just want to spite the Muslim fundies somehow for all the terrorism, etc., even the ones living peacefully amongst their midst for decades, and this is the rather puerile way they choose to go about it.

This has nothing to do with security – they can always ensure safety by mandating that faces should be uncovered at certain security checkpoints like airport check-ins, etc. Hell, I am made to remove my cap every time I pass through airport security. How is this any different?

Regarding dehumanisation, I’d leave it to individuals to decide what makes them feel more human – covering up and calling it modesty / culture / decency / what-have-you, revealing all in public and calling it freedom / brave-new-world, or anything in-between in the name of latest fashion, boobquake, etc. Why should the government be legislating against / for one thing or the other?

everettattebury,

“Why are we all going along with the pretense that the issue of banning the burqa has anything at all to do with individual civil rights?”

Because it is hard to untangle the mess without brushing up against our own ideological sacred cows. Most ideologues have such cows. I can think of all manner of cows populating the fields of christians, libertarians, jews, anarchists, americans, etc. that would be threatened by this.

Also because if you do it for even slightest wrong reason then being consistent you could end up banning something like Halloween.

Okay, so should we allow public appearance in drag? Heavy makeup — like on clowns? What is this “security” you are speaking of? Sounds more like security theater, like forcing online posters to reveal their identity: you make the law-abiding folks suffer from unintended consequences, while the wrongdoers are hardly impeded at all.

To me it looks like there should not be a special rule on religious gear: if face covers are at all permitted, then allow the religious face covers as well — otherwise, you’ll see people dressing up in something looking similar to religious clothing, but not quite, and challenging your stupid laws in court (to think of it, where does religion end and national tradition begin?). I say, they’d be in the right in that case.

I understand the objection to this: Islamic face coverings are a symbol of oppression. Well, there are many other symbols of oppression, like yellow armbands or scarlet letters. Granted, they are no longer required by anyone — is that what makes them okay, then? If that’s the case, then deal with Islam and its abhorrent practice of subjugation of women, rather than subjugating the same women from the other side. Forced liberation is not true liberation: just something for the liberators to feel righteous about themselves.

This, in turn, pretty much boils down to how much religious freedom should be allowed. As far as I understand it, historically the argument was something like, if the freedoms don’t invade others’ rights, then you have them; otherwise, you don’t. In this case, I’d say that wearing a burqa itself doesn’t encroach on anyone else’s liberties — allow it; forcing someone to wear a burqa, however, is a violation of another person’s rights and should not be tolerated.

I regard to the hijab, yes it subjugates women, but I don’t care about a woman who was brainwashed into submission to wear it.

I did read an interesting article (sorry no reference link) talking about discrimination against women wearing the hijab, at least in so far as getting dirty looks.

The article interviewed a Muslim woman who, for the most part seemed pretty smart.

However, there were a couple parts were she hit logic-fail. This mainly happened when she said that the hijab is about preserving a woman’s modesty, preserving her beauty only for her husband or some such.

That’s bullshit. First that’s the same reasoning for putting women in the burka. In some ways with regard to that reason, the burka is more honest conclusion of that (and proving the vileness of such a philosophy)

Second, and most amusing, do she or anyone really think they are saving their modesty, beauty, or anything remotely like that by simply hiding their hair.

I’ve seen women walking around in their hijab wearing typical American style clothes. Clothes that compliment their womanly features with all the right curves in all the right places.

So a Muslim gal has a hot ass, a hot bust, but thank Allah I can’t see her hair!

I don’t care about the hijab one way or the other but the reasons for it are clearly oppressive and full of crap.

As far as the burka goes, it’s a security risk. At the very least there should be limits where it can be worn.

Guess what you bronze age screw heads, if you like oppressing women that much go back the the middle east.

I saw a woman with a burka at Publix not long ago. It’s one thing to see images on TV, but to see it in real life was disgusting. She might as well been made to walk on all fours with a leash around her neck* being led by the shit-hole of a man she was with.

*to be fair that kind of thing is all fine and good for a spot of fun between consenting adults… though not in Publix)

While I don’t like that they treat women like they’re the problem for rape, and how many are treated when they live in that sort of lifestyle, a ban probably isn’t going to free the Muslim women. If you believe that strongly that your husband has all the power, and if your husband believes that strongly that you should wear a burka, do you honestly think that now that they’re banned, the husband is simply going to say, Okay, honey, you’re liberated! It’s just as likely that this ban will further restrict Muslim women in that now they won’t go anywhere at all. I would like to see these items of clothing disappear off the face of the earth, but I don’t think banning them is the solution.

I don’t think the articles of clothing should be banned. I do, however, think there should be laws in place that restrict men from forcing women to wear them.

She should be free to choose what she wears, and if she chooses to express her modesty by wearing a hijab or a burka, more power to her.

I have no personal issue with any of them, although for purposes of safety (both of the public and the person), I would say only allow the Hijab.

If it’s against the law to let people walk around naked, the flipside of the coin is that people also may not be allowed to cover everything but the eyes.

A nudist may think no one should be offended by him walking around freely, and that they should respect his lifestyle choice, but that doesn’t mean we allow him to do it.

No matter how civil libertarian we want to be, there are still accepted limitations on our freedoms to dress (or not dress) as we choose.

See that’s why I’m saying we have the wrong discussion. Rather than discuss whether people have the right to wear whatever they want, we should discuss the cultural backdrops that limit those rights and how we can protect individuals to exercise their freedoms.

To make that plain, anybody thinks that I, as a guy, could wear the burka today anywhere I want? Or would that cause a massive outrage perhaps even violence?

No, we are not free, at least not in the proper sense of the word. And we don’t really discuss the real limits to our freedoms, but surface issues like the niqab.

In a free society people can wear the burka or the revurka, and they are free to choose. Man and women can make that choice and it’s their individual choice.

The problem is that the burka and the niqab are not in a neutral context. They indeed mean something and while some defenders of the right to wear them claim it’s a free exercise issue, in reality it is an issue of protecting a certain cultural doctrine, one that is in fact sexist both against men and women.

But we won’t be addressing this sexism by explicit bans of freedoms. After all the goal is to elevate the freedoms.

Things that so dramatically obscure the identity of someone should not be permitted in places which require easy identification. I think the potential for misuse is too great here, and it really worries me, but I don’t think banning this clothing specifically is the right way to target this — it could be umbrellaed under legislation requiring x% of the face to be visible (things like glasses can be very obscuring as well). Legislation is always tricky and I don’t think there are the best motives behind this, but the security threat legitimately worries me.

I think burkas and niqabs should be banned in public places – businesses, restaurants, schools, government facilities, basically anywhere that isn’t a private residence. The security issue is one reason. The dehumanizing issue is another. You can’t have normal interactions with people if you can’t see their faces. There is even an area of the human brain specialized to processes other people’s faces. This is an essential thing that people should be able see.

I don’t see freedom of expression as an issue here. If women want to express their modesty or devotion to islam or whatever, they can wear a hijab. That is their right. Muslim women aren’t the only ones who ever cover their hair for religious reasons, and no one ever objects to seeing a nun in the airport with her hair covered.

What bothers me about this issue is that if I go to their countries, I’m forced to cover up, restricted to where I can go, and often must a male escort to go anywhere, thus being forced to follow THEIR customs, yet they’ll complain if we expect them to follow our standards in our countries. Why the double standard?

I think it’s a valid question to ask: If they have no respect for us and how we choose to dress, WHY should we have any respect for them?

I think burkas and niqabs should be banned in public places – businesses, restaurants, schools, government facilities, basically anywhere that isn’t a private residence. The security issue is one reason. The dehumanizing issue is another. You can’t have normal interactions with people if you can’t see their faces. There is even an area of the human brain specialized to processes other people’s faces. This is an essential thing that people should be able see.

So you would be in favour of banning anything that covers anyone’s face outside of their private residence?

Banning head scarves is one thing, but isn’t it discrimination for universities not to allow niqab-wearing women to even register? I understand the reasoning behind it, but it seems like it’s got the issue turned around. So you’re keeping someone who might truly benefit from the financial freedom a college degree would allow from getting that degree? I really doubt that ban is going to have the desired effect.

I think it’s a valid question to ask: If they have no respect for us and how we choose to dress, WHY should we have any respect for them?

Because they have no respect for freedom, and we do. Someone else’s bad behavior is no excuse for your own. I think most three year olds have heard that one.
“But Bobby set HIS cat on fire! Why can’t I torch Fluffy?

Hemant,
I believe you are on the wrong side of the issue. No problem with the Hijab but everything else should be banned. Respectfully.

Banning the wearing of religious clothing is unethical, especially in this instance. As a feminist, atheist woman, I resent the reasons why any woman in any religion must dress a certain way, and that includes the Orthodox Jewish rule that a woman must cover her hair (either with a shawl or a wig) when she leaves her house or is in the company of non-family.

These bans specifically target Muslim women, violating what I consider a human right to practice your religion in a personal, peaceful way (i.e. I don’t consider it a human right to kill people in the name of a god, to impose your religious beliefs on others, or to harass familes during funerals).

Banning clothing-purdah doesn’t actually SOLVE anything. It humiliates the Muslim women who choose to engage in the practice, it worsens Western-Islam relations, it alienates non-radical Muslims, and it might endanger women who engage in purdah at the demands of men in their lives.

Many women choose to engage in purdah for reasons other than fear; I know that I often wish I were wearing some sort of body covering to avoid street harassment. And there’s something to be said for rejecting the Western idea that women should take pains to look good when they’re out in public.

I’m not saying that I like the practice. But bans will not magically rid Islam of patriarchy, and “liberation” in this case (of Muslim women) is highly subjective.

I agree with many people here. People should be able to wear what they want. It’s acceptable for public and private buildings to ban face coverings because of security and communication reasons. It’s not just about freedom, I don’t think a ban will actually result in anything productive, and from what I hear it’s a very small problem in Western countries anyway.

Nothing should be treated as “religious”, if an atheist wants to wear a veil over their face they should be allowed to as well. Practice of religion should not be a human right, it’s a privilege at the expense of others. If it’s not already covered in freedom of expression and movement, it should not be protected.

Yeah, this one has me torn. I believe in the freedom to express WHATEVER it may be that you want to express, but I DO think that it’s oppressive towards women.

I see it both ways.

I’m definitely no supporter of what head scarves represent, but the fact that some woman want to wear them should make the issue outside of the power of the state to regulate. Religion can deliver terrible messages; still, the religious must have their freedoms. For this problem to be truly resolved requires a shift in the conscience, culture, and popular interpretation of Islam. The lack of progressive ideals in parts of the world cannot be substituted by restrictive legislation (assuming, of course, that the problem does not pose a physical threat to others, which is an admittedly thin line).

I completely support banning of burkas and niqabs in any secure situation- I’m not allowed to enter my local bank in a Halloween costume that covers my face, either. If a person refuses to let themselves be visually identified, they have no business being anywhere that would require that ID. But as long as they’re willing to forgo writing checks, using credit cards, flying, banking or what-have-you then it’s their business and I don’t have to like it.
Hijabs I have no more problem with than any other hat and on a bad hair day I could totally even understand wearing one…

Apologies if someone has already made a similiar comment. I did not have time to read through all the posted comments.

Women should have the right to wear what they want. At the same time, the fact is that women who wear the burqa are certainly under pressure from their husbands, religious leaders, and families to wear it. Perhaps we should consider passing laws that say no person should be forced to wear something against their will. It could be classified as a type of domestic abuse. This way women who want a way out will have the law behind them. I am not sure how this would work practically speaking, but there should be a way to help women stand up to their oppressors without making victims into criminals.

This is a tough issue — arguing that people should be able to choose what they wear assumes that they have a real choice in the first place, and practically speaking, many of these women do not.

On the other hand focusing on the veil as a tool to subjugate women ultimately just draws attention away from human rights abuses that are far worse than being told to cover up. To really engage with this issue in anything other than a purely symbolic way, we’d have to address all kinds of ugly problems like sexism in schools/workplaces, lack of access to reproductive choice, and domestic abuse — things that we haven’t done such a great job of doing away with in our societies, either.

One of the things that I don’t understand about this debate is the assumption that Western female body-policing fashion is automatically less oppressive than moderate Muslim standards of fashion. Frankly, I’d take headscarves and long sleeves over most of the Western options any day — I feel far more oppressed by the message that I’m obligated to be starved down, plucked, and painted for display and judgment by others all the time than by the concept of “modesty.” If all women are really offered is two manifestations of sexism that just have different surface veneers, is there really any choice being offered at all?

Sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are wrong. This is why we have laws against many forms of them in the USA and other nations. They are not only immoral, but also illegal.

Question: How is making a woman to cover her face and body not sexist?

Otherwise, one may think that if a woman in any given culture is so shy she can not show her face in public like her equivalent male counterpart confidently can, perhaps she may be a neurotic/insecure human who could use some therapy to help overcome her insecure fear of having any parts of her person (however innocent) being seen in public.
Perhaps she is afraid of what ppl will think she looks like (e.g., ugly) (?)

OR, perhaps her society is so sexist it forces her, unlike the men, to wear tent-like concealing clothing, or else suffer adverse social–or even punitive legal–consequences.

Think: How would males like it if women enforced oppressive clothing rules upon them?

O my gosh! That sounds ridiculous-doesn’t it???? Wow.
of course it does. If that sounds very odd, it proves you are (at least somewhat) accustomed to a double standard.

If you think it is ridiculous, then for the sake of fairness, equality, and all that is right, you must now ask yourself, “Why is it any more ridiculous when women are subjected to these restrictive clothing rules than when men are?”

“Why?”

OR, why must females traditionally be subjects of repressive treatment when it comes to the two genders?
…because men control them, perhaps?

Regardless, yet very saliently, ASK YOURSELF what OTHER freedoms have women who are pressured to cover their faces, their hair and their bodies lost, overall, together, in their respective societies?

***Unfortunately, women in social or religious groups, or nations, which expect or require said women to wear such grossly concealing clothes do NOT possess ANYTHING close to equal legal rights to men.***

And if, on national papers they do, their courts daily prove otherwise. To wit:

Burqas are prevalent in places where men do not allow women to drive, even to ride bicycles (!), nor even to speak out loud in public to any male person who is not a close family relative.

IN such countries, women may not venture out of their homes alone, unaccompanied by men. They need permission for almost anything. They are hamstrung. The man can divorce for many reasons, the woman may not. Beating one’s wife is accepted.

Men have all the powers,while women have little to nothing that constitutes power.

In such nations, men drive, ride bicycles of course, and go out of their homes and travel alone. they may speak way, way more freely in public.

Such ‘rules’ are based on genitalia? How unfair!

Freedom and equality is NOT well demonstrated any society where men (q.v. ‘religious police’) force or require women to wear tents or caftans w/ head covers or hoods that hide or disguise their faces, hair, and the entire shape of their bodies, right down to their feet.

regardless of what ANY westerner thinks, still one must examine the muslim rationale for the burqa, the niqab, the hijab.
First, ***why must only women, not men, wear these????***

Second, *** what gives men the right to enforce them on women, and punish women if they don’t wear them???***

A woman in Iraq was recently gang raped and beaten for going to work while not wearing “modest”-enough clothing. she was dressed in western-style clothing, nothing particularly scandalous.
(and even if she was, would it give men the right to beat and rape her?)

Answer: these cover-up clothings are expressly “to enforce women’s ‘Modesty'”.
This is necessary because as unpopular as it is to admit this in public, men in Islamic societies are often NOT held responsible to control their own sexual urges, therefore “provocative” women are unfairly BLAMED for men’s assaults/rapes/irresponsible, primitive failure to control their own violent behavior.
IT is a horrible paradigm, in which the women must live with rules that men must not.

these societies (yes, I’m talking about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, AND OTHERS) who blame and WORSE, punish women for violent acts that have been committed against them – even when it is as very severe as BEATING, RAPE, and MURDER – these societies are the most vocal advocates of the burqa, the hijab, the niqab. Go figure.

Time to make the connection, people.

Why does this so called “Modesty” requirement not apply to men?

Do not women also have perfectly valid sexual desires, like men? (or do sexist perpetrators of female oppression think women have no right to these?)
Why should men not have to cover up their faces, their hair , their bodies?

RIDICULOUS!!!

should your ability to think critically matter whether you are a westerner or from somewhere else?
yeah-…the very idea is ridiculous on either side.
(sexist much?)

what is the definition of discrimination? the modesty argument is based on naught but gender.

sexist double standards don’t get any worse than this – wrong is wrong by any measure. Double standards and gender based discrimination is (just like race, age, ethnicity, religion, etc., based discrimination) is morally, ethically, and totally WRONG.

men need to be accountable for their actions. Whether a woman is wearing an overcoat or a bathing suit, no form of clothing EVER gives ANYBODY permission to assault her.

Apologies to the people who have already said this – I didn’t have time to read through all the comments. I think it would make sense to take the gender out of the equation and then decide if that form of presentation is appropriate in institutions, businesses, banks, airports, etc. I don’t think a person should be allowed to completely mask their face, strictly for security reasons, with no regard for whether it’s a religious thing or a gender thing. If I run a business and a guy walks in with a mask that completely covers his face, I would refuse service to him. How could I check his identification? How could I describe him to police, if necessary? We put people’s faces on their ID cards so we can make sure they are who they are purporting to be. We shouldn’t make exceptions for religious people.

Should Muslim women be allowed to wear burkas, niqabs, and hijabs?

Stop making me sandwiches and get out of the kitchen now, woman!

I think that this should be no different than any other dress code. It does not matter if my eyes hurt or I have a cold head, when I walk into a bank I am not allowed to wear sunglasses or a hat (I am also not allowed to be naked in most public places) so why should this be treated any differently? I have heard a lot of people argue that religion should not get any sort of special preference. I think that specifically banning something for its religious connotation would be giving religion special status just as much as allowing something that would otherwise be banned because of its status in some religion.

I agree with phira.

I absolutely do not support the ban. Security reasons and whatnot aside, I do not feel that the best way to free muslim women from their oppressive religion is by dictating that they cannot wear certain clothing in public. Might it be possible that if they can’t wear a burqa in public, then they just will stay at home even more, alienating them even more from society? I think other measures would be more appropriate, like education and services available to help women leave islam or abandon some islamic practices if they wish without the danger of being murdered by an angry family member.

If we are so concerned about security, then we need to remove the gendered and religious language from the ban. If face coverings are banned, then that would include the burqa and other forms of facial coverings without singling out a certain demographic. Last I heard, doing that was called discrimination.

As far as I know, this ban would affect 2,000 or so women. I saw that in a comment on a feminist website, so it may or may not be totally accurate.

@Stephen P

So we are up to 77 comments, in a community of people who for the most part pride themselves on their rationality, and no-one has mentioned data or evidence?

No, but now we do have one non sequitur.

Before jumping to conclusions on what measures should or should not be taken, shouldn’t we have some data on how many woman are wearing these because they want to and how many are doing it because they are being bullied into it by men?

No. There is no possible answer to this question which would address the actual topic – whether or not the government should ban certain types of clothing.

@Rooker: OK, so you don’t wish to make any effort to actually understand the topic. [shrug]

I would ban the first two in public but allow the Hijab. I think showing your face is a pre-requisite to participating in society. If you can’t show your face, don’t come out of your house.
Currently DMV doesn’t allow people to wear visors when they drive because it prevents the police from identifying you. Our ability to identify people on the street is important. If people are allowed to completely cover themselves in public, how will you know if the person in a burqa walking towards you is just another Muslim woman or your ex-husband whom you took out a restraining order against?

I don’t buy the “a ban infringes on civil rights” argument. There are lots and lots of things which we are all banned from doing, and we don’t complain about it. You can’t make telephone solicitations to people who have opted out. I can’t park my car next to fire hydrant. You can’t relieve your sexual tensions with children. I can’t take a shotgun and shoot you in the face. (Unless I’m Dick Cheney, of course — and I think I would have noticed a thing like that by now.) There are, in short, many things which we simply cannot do if we want to have a civil society.

We already accept that, in law, it is illegal to appear in public with your face covered to the point of obscuring your identity. So why is it that — on an atheist site, no less — we’re suddenly concerned about whether or not we ought to make an exception to the rules because there’s a religion that wants all women to be interchangeable? I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and this boggles me.

The obvious counterargument is “the majority of women wearing a burka are not terrorists and are not security risks, so we should not ban burkas” but you could also say “the majority of buildings are not on fire, so we should not ban parking in front of hydrants” with the same validity. It’s a dumb argument; the disadvantages to individuals of banning the behavior are dramatically outweighed by the disadvantages to society of allowing it.

Should Muslim women be allowed to wear burkas, niqabs, and hijabs?

Why does it have to framed in terms of religion. The reason this has come up recently is that there were crimes committed by men wearing burkas. They may not have even been Muslim. Many years ago there were countries that had mob violence problems where assassins were wearing full face motorcycle helmets, shooting people and getting away on motorcycles, so they decided to ban full face covering helmets. It was simply a public safety issue. Someone would not have been able to make the claim that they needed to wear such a helmet for religious reasons any more then I could claim I need to wear a ski mask for religious reasons when I go into a bank.

What if that was phrased…

Should anyone(male or female) by allowed to wear clothing, masks, make-up, helmet with facemask, etc, that obscures the face from identification?

Instead of picking on a specific item like the burka, it’s directed at the behavior (concealing your identity). It’s vague, and law enforcement might need to establish standards to follow. Would toupees be allowed? I would think so (not that I’m worried about that myself). What about a fake beard. It has problems, but I think that approach would be more justified and have a better chance of sticking in the long run.

I’ve read and re-read most of the comments here, and it seems they fall into 3 categories:

1. No, to infringe on someone else’s rights to wear what they want is wrong.
2. Yes, security is paramount over the “write to wear.”
3. I see both sides, but don’t want to make a decision.

I wonder why it hasn’t been brought up that this is only associated with Islam, and is not a tenet of Islam, therefore it’s a cultural symbol rather than a religious one. That removes some sticky issues in itself, for some. If we take away the sacred cow (pun intended) of having it be a religious debate, I think the light can shine on this more clearly. We already limit what cultural practices are acceptable when you immigrate to a country. If you need examples just look to honor killings. Though reprehensible, this act (honor killings) is perfectly acceptable and even expected in some countries, but we do not allow it in any Western States (that I know of). When looked at from the perspective of a cultural trapping, it is, I think, easier to accept when a limitation is placed on said trapping. When you emigrate to another country, you are expected to conform somewhat to that country’s culture. This just further delineates the line of “culturally acceptable here”, wherever “here” may be.

So, having read all the comments…

Security. Yes, everyone agrees that there are special cases involving driving, airport checkpoints, etc. I see no arguments regarding this, so we should be able to lay it to rest.

Oppression. Veils may very well be forced on women by their families. This is very likely not universally true, and if it were, it’s been mentioned that banning clothing attire is not the proper way to fix oppression of Muslim women.

There have been a lot of straw mans,comparing the wearing of a face veil to a lot of crazy things that are (understandably) illegal. This *IS* a civil liberties issue, albeit a complex one. These women are hurting no one by making this personal choice (please note I already addressed security and oppression). This is in the same vein as a Christian wearing an anti-abortion t-shirt to school.

Based on what I know of Europe and the info in these news articles, I’d say it’s likely the main motivation for these bans stems from a desire to discourage traditional Islamic culture. I’m not saying that I agree with their culture, but I don’t believe it is the governments place to do that.

You presume that most women want to wear burka. Most of them have to do that. Freedom for them doesn’t mean that they can choose to not wear burka.

i’m with christopher hitchens on this one, who very clearly explains which ban is which:

http://www.slate.com/id/2253493

snip
The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa—whether the garment covers “only” the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a “ban.” To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another.
snip

Perhaps in an effort to save energy and green-house emissions, the French can mandate that air conditioners not be used in government or commercial buildings during the summer and encourage the populace to dress with minimal clothing to remain comfortable.

Then the Muslim women can decide just how important their full body coverings are to them. For practical reasons, many of them may opt to “show a little skin” to keep cool. On the other hand, women have been wearing burkas long before air-conditioning was ever invented. They might just sweat it out.

Yeesh. It’s incredibly patronizing to suggest that the poor womenz are so pathetic and weak that they need the government to come in and save them from an article of clothing. It reminds me of those who want to ban pornography because clearly all those poor, silly naked ladies are only forced into the profession by the patriarchy.

We don’t get to pick and choose what freedom of expression is acceptable, or which personal beleifs are acceptable. That misses the point. Pretty much the only limits are “don’t run around naked” and “don’t libel” and “don’t violate the rights of others”.

Is sexism horrible? Obviously. Should women be threatened into wearing these covers? No, and such threats are already illegal. Are religious orders and families that promote sexism horrible? Yes. But does a family have the right to pass their horrible religious beliefs onto their children, including their beliefs on the role of women? Absolutely. And do those individuals have a right to practice their religious beleifs as long as it does not violate the rights of others? Yes.

The French government should work to protect women who are being threatened by Muslim men to remain covered, or otherwise comply with a ridiculous standard of modesty. Instead, they’ve gone and made things even harder for Muslim women.

Ok let’s ban headscarfs. Now muslim women MUST wear headscarfs because otherwise their husbands will murder them or throw acid to their faces–But they CAN’T wear headscarfs because otherwise they’ll have to pay a fine or go to jail.

What a great situation to be into!

Will this law protect women from their husbands?

If you can’t see their face, then they got to go for security reasons.

The problem with the idea that banning the veil would serve as a wake-up call for Muslim women is that Muslim women are Muslim. Very very few of them are closeted Atheists just waiting for the government to rescue them from their bad evil husbands, fathers, brothers, religion.

These are true believers. In many cases, women will regulate each other and themselves far more than men will, at least in their day-to-day lives.

They may well do it out of fear, but they also do it because they’re Muslim and they believe that serving their husbands submissively and wearing giant shapeless bags is what God wants.

It’s like being in a cult. Passing a law telling people that they can’t be in a cult won’t wake them up. In most cases, even forcibly removing them from the cult won’t do it. There’s a whole lot of de-programming that has to go on before a person can escape from that kind of indoctrination.

Nick Wright

If it’s against the law to let people walk around naked, the flipside of the coin is that people also may not be allowed to cover everything but the eyes.

I’m not sure about America but in England nudity in public is definitely not illegal. There are other offences where nudity can be taken into account but the lack of clothing itself is not an offence.

Wow. So now some people are even suggesting that Muslim women should just stay home. Very sad. 🙁 I am all for helping oppressed women in any way possible, but this legislation just is not going to work that way. So now they can’t wear a burqa, so they might just have to stay inside? How is that any better?

Justin,

“jacking up penalties based on motivation seems discriminatory as well”

Criminality has been always “jacked up” based on motivation. That’s the whole point of first degree murder vs. manslaughter. The law has had the concept of Mens Rea for quite some time.

Stephen P,

“So we are up to 77 comments, in a community of people who for the most part pride themselves on their rationality, and no-one has mentioned data or evidence?”

78 including yours.

Regarding data, we don’t need to make numerical arguments to understand whether a policy is hypothetically justifiable. I think some people rely to much on “studies” and give them too much weight. It’s not like we can do controlled studies. We all know of evidence where masks are used to commit crimes. How about you do a internet search on “burka bandits” to see some evidence.

@ Rooker

Yeah, maybe that example wasn’t the best, but the reasoning stands. When you come to a new country, you are expected to conform somewhat. Making laws such as this are certainly a harsh way of enforcing that, but not out of line.

I do not support the complete bannination of any style of clothing. If what someone is wearing offends me I will tell them so and explain my reasoning. I may potentially refuse to associate with such a person if the problem is too severe for me to enjoy their company.

@hoverfrog

You appear to be the only person that doesn’t acknowledge security as a valid concern. Is there any situation in which you would ban clothing which obscures the face and prevents identification? Surely a line must be drawn somewhere.

Many feminists in the west find the bra offensive and an oppressive garment that women are forced to wear by the patriarchy. Should brassieres also be banned in the name of “liberation”?
Security is one issue and I think there is a legitimate concern about wearing the niqab or burka in banks, schools, etc. But if you support banning the hijab, then you are a hypocrite unless you feel bras should be banned as well. By telling women women they cannot wear the hijab (or bra for that matter) you will only anger the women who choose to wear these garments.
These sounds less like “feminism” and “liberation” to me and more like ethnocentrism to me!

We already accept that, in law, it is illegal to appear in public with your face covered to the point of obscuring your identity. So why is it that — on an atheist site, no less — we’re suddenly concerned about whether or not we ought to make an exception to the rules because there’s a religion that wants all women to be interchangeable? I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and this boggles me.

Because bans on facial-concealing items like masks and sunglasses are *situational*, and what’s being questioned here is a *categorical* ban. It’s *not* categorically illegal to conceal your face in public, just in specific situations.

Wow, there is a lot of nasty in this thread. Trans/gay bashing (@alex, because us freaks in drag don’t deserve civil rights either?), assumption that muslim women are automatically criminals (have you ever SEEN the way a woman in a veil is treated in public in the west? Veiling in the west makes you about as inconspicous as being dressed in a bearsuit), asserting that women who don’t dress the way you prefer should be banned from public places…

Also, maybe you people should look into how muslim women who veil in the west actually deal with security, which can be done in a way that respects her right and maintains security? Most western women who veil have a photo ID without a veil (picture taken by a woman). Upon entering a situation where she must show her face (airport? court appearance?), she goes into a private area with a female security officer and shows them her face. They compare it to the ID. Simple as that. You do understand that muslim women who veil are allowed to show their bare faces to other women, right?

Also, I do know women who wear veils that cover their hair and bulky, obscuring clothing on a daily basis for religious purposes, including modesty. There’s a whole organization of them here…but wait, these are white Catholic nuns, so why would the racist, imperialist fashion police care about them? What about a skirt ban? Skirts are a gendered article of clothing traditionally used to oppress women as a symbol of modesty (particularly long skirts), let’s ban those too. There’s a huge double standard here that has nothing to do with security or with women’s rights and everything to do with anti-immigrant (particularly anti-nonwhite immigrant) sentiment. Like the posters above who felt that immigrants are automatically disloyal to the state and should be subjected to forced cultural assimilation.

Two things:

1) any country that bans burkas, etc, is implicitly allowing a later administration to require burkas, since it has already established that the government gets to dictate to people what they can and can’t wear. I much prefer it when the government does not have this power.

2) whether you look at governments banning or requiring burkas, it’s always men (or mostly men) controlling women.

To add my two cents, I can’t speak in favour of the forms of Muslim dress that hide the face as it comes down to a matter of practicality, on the issues of communication and identification. We as humans rely on more than just the eyes and the sound of our voices when we speak to one another; we make a huge variety of judgements based on the contortions of the face as we speak, but any object that covers the face works only as an impediment to communication. In terms of identification such a large need is placed on being able to visually identify the individual for a variety of reasons, especially when it comes to issuing a license or passport, that covering the face becomes detrimental, and let’s not forget the need for security, but I think that has almost become a codeword for Islamophobia.

That being said, I oppose any attempt to ban the coverings for two reasons. The first is a matter of basic human rights; it doesn’t serve to protect the individual’s rights when the government is forcing them to do something that is of no harm to anyone. The second is more historical in nature and goes back to European colonialism when the colonial powers tried to ban the veils. The only thing those previous attempts to ban the veil achieved was to turn the garment into a political symbol, particularly one of resistance. I fear the same thing or something similar would happen with the current bans, which would only give the fundamentalists. Aside from that, I also think that banning the veils might be aiding the fundamentalists in that it would be giving them something to rally around; it would only legitimise their opposition.

I will also say that in the past year while studying at university I have seen a fair number of female students who can be clearly identified as Muslim by the headscarves or burqas they are wearing, but not one of them had their face covered. And from what I can tell even if they don’t choose that clothing they must still have some say in the matter, because the colour of these garments is extremely diverse, and a fair number of them have patterns as well. Even if the clothing it self is not a choice, it still appears as though these Muslim women have some latitude to make their own choices in fashion.

The civil liberties view uses the potent refrain of “a woman’s freedom to choose” and is profoundly seductive yet it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Vulnerable people often do not know that they deserve to be treated as equals: often women have chosen to return to abusive relationships; women may be brought up to accept polygamous relationships; to be meek, humble and subservient – there were women who did not support the suffragette movement. All these behaviours can be honoured as being the woman’s freedom to choose when actually she is a victim (often in denial – Stockholm Syndrome?) and would benefit from being rescued.

Society (you and I) have a duty to set laws that lead us to behave and think in more enlightened ways.

@MaryD

How happy would you be with someone wearing a T-shirt with I hate [insert your own country]? How happy would you be if you saw these T-shirts every few minutes as you walked down your street?

I hate the Netherlands. I also love the Netherlands. Big deal, who cares. I’d be more worried about a t-shirt that said “I love Al-Queda.”
@keddaw

The best way to stop men telling women what they can wear is for men to pass a law telling women what they can wear. ??? Sorry, that doesnt work for me.

I don’t know where you’re from, but around here women are the most vocal supporters of such a thing. So it’s many women telling the couple of hundred women who like to wear burqas and niqabs what to wear with male sympathizers more than anything else, or alternatively simply men and women.

When a person walks down the street I, and by extension the state, have no right to force that person to show me any part of their body, without good reason. (unfortunately)

Same for the reverse, yet we’ve got anti-nudity laws on the books all over the place. Unless we get rid of those as well and go for complete freedom to dress, there’s no hypocrisy in telling someone that you can cover yourself too much. Note that I oppose laws against public nudity, though I don’t wish to be nude in public.

But anyway, Muslim men don’t fully cover themselves. That’s just a little something to think about.

Brian Westley,

“any country that bans burkas, etc, is implicitly allowing a later administration to require burkas, since it has already established that the government gets to dictate to people what they can and can’t wear. I much prefer it when the government does not have this power.”

Ridiculous. The government already requires you to wear clothes. The reasons for requiring clothes and for banning face coverings are completely different. Nor is the power to ban/require as arbitrary and easily shifted as you claim.

I feel that niqabs and burkas should obviously be banned in places where security is an issue and where everyone’s face needs to be visible for the CCTV cameras. (Banks, airports, etc.)

I think adult women over 18 should be allowed to wear whatever they want in public or at home. However, I do think that it should be illegal to force a minor to wear a niqab, burka, or even hijab. Therefore I suppose that they should just ban all three items from schools in general because of the disruption to the learning environment (as they should ban any ostentatious religious expression ie crucifixes from public schools.)

what does that have to do with Islam

Tell the faithful women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarf to cover their bosom  – Koran, 24:31

Where does it say to cover your hair or to dress in a full body covering?  If this is not a teaching of your faith then where did you pick it up from?  I don’t understand so I comment and ask questions.  Feel free to enlighten me.  I won’t object.