Image via Wikipedia
France imposed its “burqa ban” today. This law does not, of course, specifically ban burqas. Rather, it bans people from covering their faces (presumably mimes get a special exemption). However, it is understood that the law is, in fact, specifically targeting Muslim women. Interestingly enough, Muslim women in France generally do not wear burqas. Rather, they tend to wear the niqab. There are also relative few Muslim women in France who engage in the practice at all.
The main motivation for the law seems to be Sarkozy’s desire to do something to improve his dismal approval ratings. By appearing tough on Muslims he, perhaps, can counter the growing appeal of the right. His military adventures in Libya also seem calculated to that end. Obviously enough, this reason hardly justifies the law.
The main stated justification for the law is that it is intended to protect Muslim women from oppression. The idea seems to be that Muslim men in France force women to wear the veil. As such, it is a sign of male oppression. This line of reasoning has been used to win over support on the left in France.
This does have some appeal. After all, Islam does not have the best track record when it comes to the treatment of women. It is also the case that some Muslim women are forced to cover themselves against their wills.
However, the law does not merely forbid forcing women to cover up. Rather, it also outlaws appearing in public while covered. While the fine and jail sentences for forcing someone to cover up are greater than those to be imposed on those who are caught covered up, it seems reasonable to question the claim that this law is aimed at protecting women from oppression. A law aimed at protecting women would, it seem, only punish those who forced women to cover up. Women who freely chose to cover themselves should, one would imagine, be exempt from such punishment. After all, a person who chooses to dress in a certain way would not seem to be the victim of oppression-even if others might not approve of her choice.
While many Westerners probably assume that Muslim women must all be forced to cover up, this is not the case. Somewomen apparently do this by choice and regard the right to do so as protected by the Western notion of freedom. While some might be skeptical about whether the choice is actually free, it does not seem unreasonable that some women would, in fact, freely decide to cover up in this way. After all, if some women are willing to freely expose lots of flesh in public, then it seems no less unusual that some woman would want to cover up much more.
Some people might argue that women who cover up too much and those that cover up too little are all victims of male oppression and are not really making free choices. While it is reasonable to believe that social and cultural factors impact dressing behavior, it seems unreasonably to claim that all these women are incapable of choice and are mere victims of the patriarchy. In any case, to force someone to dress or not dress a certain way because of some ideology about the patriarchy would also seem to be oppressive as well.
It might also be argued that just as there are laws against being completely naked in public, there should also be laws against being completely covered. After all, a woman cannot walk the streets of France with only her eyes covered, so why should a woman be allowed to do so with only her eyes exposed? Both, it could be argued, create public distractions and violate the general sense of proper dress.
While this might have some appeal, this justification would require having laws against anything that created a distraction and anything that went against the general sense of proper dress. This, one might suspect, would justify a far too broad range of laws.
As a final point, there is also the religious aspect. While many scholars of Islam contend that covering up is not actually required by the faith, this mode of dress does seem to be an expression of faith. To ban it would thus seem on par with banning Orthodox Jews and Catholic nuns from wearing their distinctive clothing in public. Such bans would clearly be attacks on religious freedom and hence the ban in France should also be regarded as such.
While I am not religious, I do recognize the importance of the freedom of faith and its expression. While there can be legitimate grounds for limiting such expressions (like banning human sacrifices), when a practice does not create harm, then there seems to be no real ground for banning it. As such, the ban in France seems to be completely unjustified and also an infringement of both the freedom of choice and the freedom of religion.
While some might point out that some Muslim countries do not allow such freedoms, my easy and obvious reply is that these countries are in the wrong and we should certainly not want to be like them.
(Shameless self promotion: 42 Fallacies)
Mike:
For the first time, after several years of reading your posts, I agree with you.
S. Wallerstein,
Does that mean I was wrong this one time?
Mike:
Think it over.
Mike,
Having found so little cmoon ground with you of late, I too am pleased to be able to agree with you on this.
Those who are forced – or feel obliged – to wear the burqa will now be unable to leave the house. And a state that prides itself on Liberté is now telling women that they cannot wear what they choose.
Yep, banning burqas does seem ridiculous. But then, any notion of propriety when it comes to dress seems a little ridiculous. Put on as much or as little clothing (or none) as you wish. Seems like that should be fine. Is there any justification for these ideas of propriety that aren’t a direct result of cultures being overly influenced by religious ideologies? Has the free choice to wear too little or too many clothes ever really hurt the societies that allowed it?
Those questions might sound rhetorical, but they’re not. I’ve done no research, and am wondering if any of you gentlemen could provide me with good philosophical reasons for thinking that there could be such a thing as the right way to dress (or not) besides not “rocking the boat.”
Burkha ban is simple answer .. for security reason any terrorist can hide himself behind it and do his dirty job .
Like yourself, I am somewhat bemused about exemptions to this ban.
Take illnesses like Polymorphous Light Eruption (PMLE) and other sun or light allergies. If they are not accommodated by exemptions doctors who treat patients with conditions that require facial cover would be guilty of an offence, clearly creating a nonsense situation.
And yet, if the regulations accommodate generally socially accepted medical conditions requiring a facial covering of some sort, denying a specific focus of the ban becomes nothing short of pure comedy.
Recently on TV in UK some young women were interviewed as to why they chose to wear this type of clothing. It was even more spooky when from these shrouded and hooded figures the replies issued forth in a broad London accent. As the interview proceeded it became obvious that these young ladies were doing what most young girls like to do that is draw attention to themselves. They gave reasonable arguments for their attire mostly concerning how it made them feel safe and special. They were Muslim by way of religion but did not seem especially devout. They sounded very nice people and it seemed such a pity to hide themselves as they were so doing. I do not like stopping people from doing things but to my mind this kind of attire is not suitable for public places, or occasions where close social contact is necessary, as in Teaching Nursing, Interviewing, Jury service and so on. That said were I to move to a country where this attire was the expected thing I would have no hesitation for its being adopted by the female members of my family and I would urge them so to do. When in Rome do as The Romans do. Not a bad rule I think for everybody to abide by. If one just cannot, then one must go and live elsewhere. One must respect the law and rules and customs of the country where one or one’s forebears have chosen to live.
Re: Posted by Don Bird | April 12, 2011, 6:51 pm
“If one just cannot, then one must go and live elsewhere. One must respect the law and rules and customs of the country where one or one’s forebears have chosen to live.”
This is a very challenging statement. In many places, the ancestors settled there because there was no law, and the customs were not binding. The Burqa law is a new law that did not exist before. First, where will your new stateless people go? Second, define “respect”.
Michael F,
“Is there any justification for these ideas of propriety that aren’t a direct result of cultures being overly influenced by religious ideologies? Has the free choice to wear too little or too many clothes ever really hurt the societies that allowed it?”
Your question about whether there are “good philosophical reasons for thinking that there could be such a thing as the right way to dress” is intriguing (though I would suggest you invite the opinions of ladies as well as gentlemen on the matter
.
As is noted in SARTOR RESARTUS: “little or nothing of a fundamental character, whether in the way of Philosophy or History, has been written on the subject of Clothes.” Perhaps “proof of the stunted condition in which pure Science, specially pure moral Science, languishes” is given by “our total want of a Philosophy of Clothes.” I wouldn’t suggest Thomas Carlyle’s odd writings about the fictional Diogenes Teufelsdröckh are where you should begin your research really. But I don’t know that philosophy has said that much on the ethics of dress which has not been tied into religious prudery (or indeed much on the aesthetics of fashion).
The Ancient Greeks seemed fine with male nudity – they certainly seemed happy to slip off their gowns to engage in athletics, or wrestling at the gymnasium – indeed the word ‘gymnasium’ is etymologically rooted in nakedness. In Book V of the Republic Plato contends that women should also be ‘guardians’ in the republic, this would mean they would need to learn the arts of music, war and indeed gymnastic. Those conversing note this would appear ‘ridiculous’. And the Socratic dialogue goes as follows; “the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially when they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty… But … as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women’s attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing armour and riding upon horseback! … Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the Hellenes were of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians, that the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and improper; and when first the Cretans and then the Lacedaemonians introduced the custom… But … experience showed that to let all things be uncovered was far better than to cover them up.”
Obviously, and rather sadly, the monotheistic religions didn’t go in for this rather enlightened way of thinking at all.
Looking at it from a French perspective we must accept that it reflects their values. The law was passed in their parliament by a majority of 336 to 1. Nobody would argue that Islam has a great regard for the position and dignity of the woman given that polygamy is accepted as normal even though it is an abomination to Muslim women when it is sprung on them. ‘By the way I’ll be bringing another wife home with me this evening’, that’s the procedure. It is a major cause of divorce in those countries that permit the practice. The French can do nothing about that but the flaunting of the values that give rise to it can be symbolically rejected. I saw on the news an Imam of a Paris mosque saying it was a good thing. There was a similar outcry about the banning of the head scarf in schools. That’s forgotten about and so will this be.
This is what I commented on rationalape.com regarding this essay:
The problem, however, is that one would never know whether a certain woman clad in a burka is wearing it because she freely chose it, or because it has been foisted upon her and she has been silenced under threat of ….you know..well many colorful acts of violence that many Muslims are fond of. That’s the only reason why the burka needs to be completely outlawed. It would be pretty easy for a parent of a husband to obligate their girls/wives to wear burqas and threaten to harm them in some way if they don’t. Then we would have an apparently “willing” woman wearing a burqa, but who’s actually being oppressed.
With this law, women (most of whom have migrated from their places of origin in search of freedom) can happily use this nation-wide prohibition as THE excuse to not wear a burqa, thus eluding punishment from their oppressors.
Re Dennis Sceviour April 12th
I wrote what I wrote with some trepidation expecting the wrath of political correctness and all that accompanies it to flood in, hopefully philosophers are more stable minded. In this connection I append a cutting from today’s news headlines. In case you do not Know Vince Cable is a political opponent of Mr Cameron:-
“Vince Cable has attacked David Cameron for comments he is due to make about the impact of mass immigration on society, labelling them “very unwise”.
In a speech later, Mr Cameron will vow to cut immigration into the UK to “tens of thousands”.”
The questions you have asked are of course reasonable.
Settlement in places where there was no law and no binding customs does not seem to be a problem. Whoever settles in such places can presumably create all the rules and customs they wish.
The problem of stateless people and where will they go is a difficult one. Talk is cheap, it is easy for me to sit here and suggest people go elsewhere when there is no elsewhere for them. My point is perhaps clarified by an analogy. If I flee from my oppressive and obnoxious wife whom I feel may murder me ( I hasten to say the real one is bears no resemblance to that description) I might end up on your doorstep and your being a sympathetic person you may agree to give me refuge in your house. After a while I do not seem to be making much effort to become self sufficient and some of my habits and ways are certainly not yours. Additionally I complain that I am not happy especially when you are reluctant to agree to certain demands I make. I do make friends but only with those who have similar beliefs and habits to my self. I constantly criticise you and say I am not happy and that you refuse to understand me. I am sure eventually you will suggest perhaps in rather stern terms that I go elsewhere. My reply is I cannot, I have nowhere to go. What the reply to this is I cannot presently say as generalisation may well not apply to all cases. I hasten to add that this is an extreme example and the vast majority all immigrants and political refugees settle down and some become influential and highly respected members of the society they have adopted.
My definition of ‘respect’ in this connection is demonstrated in adherence to to the law and customs of the country and if there is a conflict in this connection Then the Law of the land should prevail.
Having considered this matter further it occurs to me that facial recognition is an important part of the animal kingdom and finds its highest example in the human being. You will no doubt remember Darwin’s “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” in this connection, together with similar work by other authorities. The neurology of facial recognition is complex and as yet has not been completely determined. The Fusiform Gyrus located in the temporal lobe seems to be an important structure in this connection and is an important part of the visual system leading to the phenomenology of sight. Trauma to the neurological system of facial recognition can result in the condition of Prosopagnosia an inability to recognise faces. Those afflicted have to ensure that their friends and acquaintances are aware that there will be occasions where they are apparently snubbed, but, only for the simple fact that they are not recognised.
Out of all this it seems that facial recognition developed over a massive period of time by the evolutionary process and now at quite possibly at the epitome of perfection, is very important factor in our further survival and dealings with others. To deliberately shield the face from view does seem to be running against the course of nature. In some cases not only the face is obscured but the whole body too which conspires against Body Language, I will not develop this further. Were I a religious person I would suggest that God did not give us faces to hide, no more than ears that we should block, hands that we should not use, and so on.
That said I am still not comfortable with stopping people doing things and on the face of it perhaps one could argue what harm is done. I am sure that the vast majority of people who adopt these manners of dress are wholesome and worthy people and also they do not, so far as I am aware, in France predominate by far. Somehow there is a feeling of unease in the presence of those who will not show their faces or other non offensive parts of their bodies for whatever reason. Possibly it is due partly to its connection with those whom history has shown have been about no good. Michael Reidy makes a good point when he says “There was a similar outcry about the banning of the head scarf in schools. That’s forgotten about and so will this be.” He is probably right.
Don:
There is a difference between obeying the laws of a country and following the customs.
I don’t see why immigrants are obliged to follow the customs of a society any more than are the citizens of a country. For example, the first hippies in the 60′s did not follow the customs of the societies that they lived in and there was no harm done.
Since I’m sure we all agree that immigrants (and citizens) should obey the laws (except in the case of civil disobedience), we return to the question of whether the law banning the burqa is a good law, and I say “no”.
If you ask me whether having women wear the burqa is a custom that I feel comfortable with, I would definitely say “no”, by the way.
Heber Gurrola, Michael Reidy and Don Bird all raise some good points. Certainly, I think all three are correct to invite us to look at the world as it is, not just John Stuart Mill’s account of liberty.
I would suggest there have been some costs to the ‘headscarf ban’ – increased numbers of Muslim girls being schooled in private schools or outside France. And I think we must grant that there will be some costs to the burgua ban (women not being allowed to leave the house). Personally I object to the indoctrination of children into religious systems so I take less issue with a law that says a child cannot simultaneously wear a turban or a yarmulke or a visible crucifix and be attending a state or state-funded school than others might. Still even as a rather strident atheist I would urge caution to those who would wish to see the French method of separating state education from religion adopted in other societies. Is it not perhaps better that children wear the symbols of their parents’ belief systems and attend a secular state school rather than suffer a faith-based education in a private school or at home?
In any case, I would urge caution about drawing lessons from the ‘headscarf ban.’ Just because a change is soon ‘forgotten’ does not mean that change was just. That liberties lost are soon forgotten is not an argument that convinces me that we should not worry about the loss of liberty. And I believe it is important to acknowledge that whilst it might be right to stop a child from doing a certain thing demanded of them by the religious or cultural traditions of their family, it is not necessarily the case that we have the right to stop an adult acting within that tradition. More generally with regard to the burqua ban, I would say that just because the majority supports some change and that it only affects a small minority does not make that change right. I must also say that I am somewhat wary of claims that a form of behaviour seems “to be running against the course of nature”. I do think this argument gives some broad support to the claim that children should not be forced to cover their faces (a claim that is not lacking in support), but I am uncertain how much claims about what is ‘against the course of nature’ tell us about how adults may or may not conduct themselves
Still, perhaps the infringement upon the liberty of those adults who freely wish to cover their face is outweighed by the liberty granted to those who would otherwise be forced to obey, or indoctrinated into adopting, an unhealthy cultural habit with no clear mandate even in the religious book subscribed to by the community in question. And looking again at the world as it is, perhaps I have been rather too quick to defend an abstract liberty that, in practice, grants for most, only the freedom to be enslaved.
S. Wallerstein,
Thank you for the interesting points.
Not everyone agrees with “I’m sure we all agree that immigrants (and citizens) should obey the laws.” This is sometimes associated with Platonic rather then Sophist philosophy. Sophists were teachers of ethics, and developing arguments against law. Plato believed that ethics could not be taught; therefore, written law was necessary for people to follow. This, of course, is a very short synopsis of the history.
Customs and laws are different things, and it was important to mention this. However, in Don’s favour, he has already said the “the Law of the land should prevail,” which I think means customs should be subordinated.
Don, Do you mean customs should be subordinated to law?
Dennis:
Thanks for the pointers on ancient ethics.
By “we all”, I was referring to those who participate in this blog, not all human beings.
So let’s begin with you to see if we can get a consensus (in this blog) behind the affirmation that “immigrants (and citizens) should obey the laws (except in the case of civil disobedience)”.
Do you agree with the above phrase and if not, why?
S. Wallerstein,
I apologize for shortening your quotation. As you include the caveat of civil disobedience, then I am in agreement with the statement “immigrants (and citizens) should obey the laws (except in the case of civil disobedience).”
S. Wallerstein,
May I also add that the statement leaves one on the horns of the dilemma between law and civil disobedience. The phrase might be technically correct, but it leaves more questions than it answers. For me, the interest is in understanding the meaning of law and ethics.
I have to agree with Dennis, Swally. I feel somewhat impaled by the question of civil disobedience. Where does my authority to disobey come from? I don’t doubt that I have it. But it is something of a riddle yet to be solved (my conjecture is rational consideration of the Basic Imperative).
Regarding immigrant versus citizen: let me note that I’m a “naturalized” immigrant myself. I never questioned that I should be subject to the same laws. What I did question (as a legal resident) and now (as a citizen) continue to question is that there are “legal residents” versus “citizens” at all. The former, by legislative design, are not treated as equals before the law. This to me is a far bigger question. After all, there are plenty of “citizens” who are criminals and plenty of immigrants who are “law abiding citizens”.
“immigrants (and citizens) should obey the laws (except in the case of civil disobedience)”
Amos,
Immigrants and citizens are not mutually exclusive categories and I am uncomfortable with framing things in such as way as to suggest otherwise. I in no way wish to misrepresent what you mean, but hope you can appreciate why I would take issue with this. It also occurs to me that being born in a country to two citizen parents is more than enough to stop you being an ‘immigrant’ but not everybody seems to agree and I am intrigued to know if anybody here feels that way and why. There are immigrant non-citizens of course: asylum seekers who hope to gain refugee status and refugees who have been granted (time) limited or unlimited ‘leave to remain’. Morally speaking, I fail to see that immigrant non-citizens or immigrant citizens, or citizens of recent immigrant descent have any special dispensation to disobey the law or any special duty to obey it. Deporting refugees or asylum seekers for breaking the law whilst grave risk remains at home is not merely legally prohibited but morally wrong.
I agree that in some limited circumstances it can be morally right to peacefully refuse to comply with laws that you deem seriously unjust. I am intrigued to know if anybody thinks the burqua law is a serious candidate for righteous civil disobedience (I don’t know that it would be silly to claim it is). But I would also suggest that in some very limited circumstances it is morally right to violently disobey the law – to use a tired intuition pump, it would not appear to have been wrong for a resident to violently rebel against the laws of Nazi Germany whether he was an immigrant or a citizen or neither (Jews of course were robbed of their citizenship by Hitler).
So I have some reservations about giving my affirmation to the assertion above, even if I trust the spirit in which it is intended and take it to be a good rule of thumb in that light.
Civil disobedience is justified when rights, as outlined in international human rights legislation or in national laws, are being violated.
Before resorting to civil disobedience, normal legal approaches, the courts, the legislature, should be tried.
As for armed rebellion, which Curious mentions, that is not normally considered to be civil disobedience. In civil disobedience, one disobeys the law in non-violent terms, but accepts being arrested and tried.
Armed struggle against tyranny is also justified, in my opinion, but that is another issue.
Curious:
You are right that the differences between immigrants and citizens are legally complex.
Andreas:
Each country has its own categories: citizen, legal resident, legal resident with temporary status, etc.
S. Wallerstein,
I think you have watched “Gandhi” too many times. Your words are political rhetoric that replace one misunderstanding with another. For example, I cannot understand whether you mean rights are laws, or rights are protections against law. A thousand more words will not make the issue any clearer.
I would rather back up a step and try to understand the meaning of Law when it first began, say with the Sophists. The Sophists taught that Law could and should be understood, challenged, and debated. Plato taught that the gods and the goddesses created Law, and that it should be obeyed without question, or war is inevitable. Until I am convinced otherwise, I hold the Sophist point of view. Your legal theory appears Platonic to me. This may be of concern to you, as somewhere before you mentioned the importance of “The Republic”.
Dennis:
If a thousand words will not make the issue any clearer, there’s not any point in replying.
Re: Don Bird April 14th,
It is so easy to misquote someone that sometimes I feel like I am walking on broken glass when responding to a rapid-fire blog post.
“Settlement in places where there was no law and no binding customs does not seem to be a problem.” That is very much a problem. Law fills in the vacuum of no law. Repression fills in the space of peace. Liberties are curtailed and violence becomes inevitable. It is as easy as predicting the course of a known fatal disease.
I cannot follow the relevance of the paragraph about your friend on the doorstep. It was not up to your usual philosophical rigour. “I hasten to add that this is an extreme example and the vast majority all immigrants and political refugees settle down and some become influential and highly respected members of the society they have adopted.” The statement is unsupported by observation; it is usually associated with official explanation and propaganda. Let us agree to disagree.
Thank you for the explanations with reference to Darwin’s emotions. However, I was not questioning whether your opinion (of April 12) was right or wrong, so I, at least, require no further explanation. The question was, assuming you are correct in your initial statement and that the Burqa law is a fait accompli, what happens to the inevitable refugees? As an interest, the United Nations current official position on this matter is expressed as “Resettlement” which involves the assisted movement of refugees who are unable to return home to safe third countries. The list of third countries is extremely short, mostly translating “Send them to America”.
I agree that you are correct in assuming, like Michael Reidy, that the specific Burqa law will be forgotten; only a few laws are popular at any one time. However, if the French government can enforce one law that targets a specific group, then further similar laws can be passed.
Re S Wallerstein and Dennis SceviourApril 14th:-
I agree immigrants are not obliged to follow customs of the country in which they find themselves.
However in my opinion they should endeavour generally to “fit in”and this to some extent does involve some assimilation of customs. For instance an ability to use the language of the country is surely recommended. Knowledge of what counts as polite or acceptable behaviour. This includes Phatic speech for social reasons. Associate with members of one’s own culture but avoid living in enclaves. No assumption should be made that one’s religion trumps everything. This latter advice also goes for all inhabitants of the country in question. I am sure that the above advice will not overwhelm the ethnicity or culture of any immigrant. English Customs like fox-hunting, tea with the vicar, cricket on the village green, and Morris Dancing may be completely ignored if it is wished, and so may Christmas despisal of them should preferably, not be publicly shown.
Dennis I do not think customs should be subordinated to law. However where custom and Law is in conflict than surely Law must prevail. This however does not entail that those who abide by some custom may not seek to have the Law changed.
S Wallerstein I am not acquainted with the full details of this French Law, and hopefully it does not only refer to the Burka. For instance I would hope if I walk around Paris wearing a gas-mask unnecessarily I shall be asked to remove it. Additionally people with facial injuries needing cover are surely exempt. As I have said before I am reluctant to stop people doing things. However in this case I think my vote goes in favour of the Law. This is not because I find the sight of it disturbing, which I do. It occurs to me that lost in Paris and In need of directions from someone; approaching a person shrouded from head to foot for assistance would be be something of a formidable task.
Dennis just noticed you further mail on this I will try to reply later
Amos,
I can appreciate why you would say that ‘armed struggle against tyranny’ is ’another issue’. I am, admittedly, insisting upon a proviso that is not, I think, central to the present topic. Still, if we wish to make a general statement about the duty of citizens or residents of a state to obey the laws of that state I think we can, and should, make explicit mention of this exception, at least in the small-print – just as we make explicit reference to the case of civil disobedience, although this too is a rare (if less rare) exception to the general rule that one should obey the law of the land whether you were born there or not.
I did not mean only to say that ‘differences between immigrants and citizens are legally complex’. In fact I would deny that they are. An immigrant, may be a citizen and he may not, an immigrant, to my mind, is so if, and only, if he has personally emigrated (or come as a stateless person) from somewhere else to live in a given state. This may well be all the word means to you Amos. But the word ‘immigrant’ carries some ugly baggage in the UK, and is often thought to apply to persons who were born in this country, whose parents were born in this country and whose grandparents were citizens of the UK and were indeed born in what was then part of the British empire. And the reason the word ‘immigrant’ is used in that context is because those persons are seen to be (a) not white and (b) Muslim or, slightly less worryingly, Hindu or Sikh and (c) not welcome here. So, I am reluctant to frame things in terms of talk of ‘immigrants’.
And regarding those persons who actually are immigrants in a dictionary sense, whether they are citizens, asylum seekers or refugees, I see absolutely no reason to think that their duties to obey the law (or ‘fit in’ with custom) are any more or less stringent than that of anybody else. To be frank, I am unclear why we are talking of immigrants at all, when burquas are not only worn by immigrants and concerns about ‘cultural’ integration or assimilation are not exclusively or even primarily raised with regard to those who have themselves immigrated into a given Western state.
Curious:
I began to speak of “immigrants” in response to Don’s post of April 14.
I was not aware that the term “immigrant” had so many connotations attached to it in the U.K.
I seem to have stumbled clumsily into the middle of a debate about U.K. domestic issues.
One of the problems that arise when political issues, such as the ban on burqas in France are presented for philosophical debate, is that sometimes we talk about abstract issues (such would be the case if we were discussing Rawl’s original position) and at other times using the same terminology that we use to discuss abstract issues, we talk about
very concrete and specific issues from your or my neighborhood.
However, it is probably impossible to discuss political issues, either in completely abstract terms (in spite of Rawls’ efforts to do so) or in wholly specific terms, without an implicit or explicit philosophical background.
Amos
I’ve never seen you stumbling clumsily – that sounds rather more like me!
‘Immigrant’ is a word that can be used or misused – it has been misused by some rather ugly characters in the UK. I did not for a minute imagine you or Don were misusing the term in that way, or that either of you were speaking from an ugly perspective. And there is no suggestion that the word itself is somehow out-of-bounds. I was just concerned by talk that seemed to contrast immigrants with citizens, this is not a contrast that works, and it sounds (unwittingly) a bit too much like the type of contrast made by some rather unsavoury characters
Having cautioned against contrasting citizens and immigrants, and against too readily taking issues about ‘cultural’ integration or assimilation to be primarily concerned with foreign-born citizens or residents, I would not wish to ‘shut down’ debate. There are real concerns felt by ordinary citizens in places such as the UK.
Some in the UK are, reasonably enough, concerned by the humanitarian political refuge granted to radical Islamist clerics who are fundamentally opposed to Western values of liberty and democracy. And some are concerned by the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths – an increasing number of British Muslim women are choosing to adopt the veil or hijab that their mothers rejected, and an increasing number of young British Muslim men are being drawn to Islamist ‘anti-Western’ ideology. There are some causal connections between the two phenomena – radical refugee clerics have, of course, influenced young British Muslims. But British and ‘Western’ foreign policy as it has affected Muslims abroad is, I think, the key issue. ‘Western’ support for repressive regimes that have targeted Islamists (some of whom have then fled to the UK for refuge) and clumsy intervention in Muslim countries should, I think, be seen as the key causal factor. It is I think these things that have radicalized young Muslim citizens in terms of their politics and, indeed, in terms of the cultural norms and ways of dress.
Don has said that “approaching a person shrouded from head to foot for assistance would be be something of a formidable task”. I imagine the Muslim women dressed in that fashion does not wish to be approached by an unknown Western male – this may be part of the point. I would also say that (unless I were near an international English sporting event) I would be more concerned if I were approached by a white man man wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the Union Jack than a non-caucasian man dressed in Middle Eastern garb. But then I shouldn’t be biased…
To me it seems like a strange law to introduce at quite a sensitive time for ‘political correctness’. Some of the arguments which have been stated regarding the fact that people don’t know whose face is actually behind the burqa and could therefore be terrorists or a danger to society could create larger issues as a result of the ban. To some degree I can understand these arguments but by focussing primarily on a particular ethnic group the consequences could become rather worrying.
Can it be said that Muslim women, through an unaffected freedom of choice, willingly partake in the wearing of burqas? Or is the mechanism of their choosing one of indoctrination by a barbarian regime? Does religions warrant respect and acknowledgement any more than any other unfounded belief? I don’t believe so.
Can it be said that Luke Chilton, through an unaffected freedom of choice, willingly partakes in the posting of comments at Talking Philosophy? Or is the mechanism of his choosing one of inevitability by a first regime? Does his philosophy of victimization warrant respect and acknowledgement any more than any other unfounded belief? I don’t believe so.
Luke, the burqa is supposedly an attempt at modesty. Before you continue a life of being derisive about religion, viewing it as pure power politics and indoctrination, consider the following thought experiment: Faith & The Iron Box.
Anti-paternalist paternalism: the French admin doesn’t contradict itself at all–oh, no!
Here’s a more elaborate statement of my views.
Luke:
Why would you think that? Burqas are not even necessary yet some women wear it by choice. It’s not “Indoctrination” by a “barbaric regime”. Such hatred is unwarranted. Live and let live.
A very well-argued write-up. I only want to bring up one point that you missed in your analysis. It’s not just the male members of a female that force her to cover herself up but also the society and the culture in which she lives. In the Eastern traditional societies the patriarchal culture positively forces the women to cover themselves in public. But the Western liberal society provokes a reaction in it’s more traditional members. It’s not a rejection of liberal values per se but a case of lack of integration from one extreme to another. By voluntarily covering themselves up, such females actually make an appeal to the society that it’s cultural values are a little too extreme for their taste, and that they should not be harassed. Dressing modestly can also suffice for this objective but I guess that they overdo it a bit too much by wearing niqab or hijab.
Some contributors to this web site prefer to write under a nom de plume/pseudonym whereas others presumably use their birth name. There seems to be some similarity here with wearing, or not wearing the burka. This gives me some food for thought, but I imagine others may find it irrelevant.
Interesting thought, Don. I wonder, though, if an online nom de plume is not usually associated with the opposite of modesty. Both a pseudonym and a burqa do hide something. Does one hide ugliness and the other beauty perhaps?
Or is a pen name used for fear of personal attack, just like a burqa protects you from coveting glances? Many writers of oppressive regimes have traditionally used a nom de plume to protect themselves against repression. Perhaps the burqa is less about repression and more about liberation from lust? As long, of course, as the burqa is worn willingly and out of pure personal choice.
Assuming there is a similarity in something being protectively hidden, in my own case there is anecdotally a correspondence. I use neither a nom de plume, nor do I wear a burqa.
Don,
Certainly, the use of pseudonyms is an interesting phenomenon on internet boards.
The pseudonym can be thought of as a mask (or veil). We may tend to view with suspicion protestors in liberal Western democracies who cover their faces. And the ability to hide behind a mask of sorts online can encourage people to say things in a virtual public forum they wouldn’t say in a ‘real’ one. This can lead to people saying rather stupid and ugly things, and perhaps people would be more thoughtful in their responses if they were attaching their real name.
Certainly, there does seem something more ‘honest’ about attaching your real name to what you write – it suggests to me that you are willing to take greater responsibility for, your words. It wouldn’t normally be acceptable in the letters page of a newspaper to ‘sign’ a letter ‘Curious’ (except those to an Agony Aunt perhaps) although of course, in limited circumstances the editors will agree to publish and withhold your name.
That said, of course there is a history of using pseudonyms in philosophical, political or religious pamphlets when people were expressing ‘dangerous’ ideas that could cause them unfair persecution or indeed prosecution. If you are, say, a homosexual atheist in, or from, Tehran (or indeed a teacher who happens to be of those dispositions in Texas) you may feel it prudent to remain anonymous whilst you reveal your sympathies and beliefs online.
And the fact is that people are very traceable online. You often don’t need to gain access to IP addresses or break any laws to track down the author of a post. The real name and a few clues can get you a phone number and home address (this is especially easy if they are, or have ever been, involved with an academic institution – whether they state the fact or not). The history of a frequent ‘widespread’ blogger who uses a consistent pseudonym – or even just repeats key or ‘troll’ phrases – is easy to track too and can lead you to the personal history and indeed the identity of the man behind the mask (this is especially easy if they have ever used social networking sites).
So I do see your point, but I would also be reluctant to agree to us adopting the analogous French ‘visible face’ model for the TPM site even if it were practicable.
James
James:-
You have covered many of the points which occurred to me. When I discuss certain matters face to face with people I know well, I find I can be perhaps less formal more relaxed and perhaps speak my mind more forthrightly. I realise some comments would not be wise to broadcast in writing to the world. Not that they are especially homophobic, racist, ageist, sexist or any other -ist but at the greatest stretch of the imagination they could be, to some one who was specifically looking for someone else upon whom, for the slightest reason, they could wreck their pent up, and inhuman desire for some sort of revenge. I tend to go on the rule that whilst words can never hurt me sticks and stones certainly can. My general feeling is if I write something be it wisdom or rubbish (more likely to be the latter) then I should sign it and stand by it with my true name. If I have not the courage to say it then I will not utter it anonymously. That said I do understand that some prefer to protect their privacy as far as possible, which is no bad thing. We have had one or two obnoxious characters on this site since I started writing one comes to mind. Writing under a pseudonym he/she was after several warnings, eventually banned. I do not think he/she would have dared to write under anything other than a pseudonym.
I am not against pseudonyms and would recommend that if anybody prefers to write that way, it is their own business.
Have you noticed that these days there seems to be a vast body of people out there apparently waiting to be offended. Thus we are often dropped on most severely, by those who take up the cudgel on behalf of these people. I don’t think it used to be like that; free and easy we could have a good natured joke and get back as good as we gave and in the same spirit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
Don
“My general feeling is if I write something be it wisdom or rubbish … then I should sign it and stand by it with my true name. If I have not the courage to say it then I will not utter it anonymously.”
I applaud your position. And as I do not put myself at any risk when I express my political or religious opinions, I feel I have to grant you the moral high-ground. I am simply one of those individuals who prefers to protect his privacy (in so far as anyone can). I can not pretend to have a more noble reason than that.
I share your concerns about ‘political correctness’ but imagine I will have erred in both directions – sometimes I believe I have erred in most directions but I do keep finding new ways to be wrong and, on occasion, not even that.
regards
James
This is obviously(to me anyway) an attempt by the french to make muslims cross the channel and live in Britain. This little man that has found himself in charge of France is a dick. The rest of the world think of him as ridiculous, second only to Berlusconi.
The number of philosophical angels I could attack this from are so numerous Spankabuttux. Surface evidence does indeed indicate that Nicolas Sarkozy has a dick. He has had three spouses, all women, and 3 (as far as I know biological) children. At least the latter indicates that he has functioning testicles. I would presume it comes with a functioning penis. However, he is not a dick. He has a dick. This is a very different relationship. One is an equality and the other a possessive relationship. I’m sure Sarkozy thinks of his penis as being part of himself and not like, say, a fancy car you buy. So perhaps it would be better to think of his dick as being a descriptive attribute of what in part defines Sarkozy. Still, it doesn’t make him a dick.
Now, of course, we should probably presume that you are not using dick in the anatomical sense. Dick probably here means a deplorable person. Why you would use the word dick to mean this is a bit strange to me. I find penises to be in no way per se deplorable. They can certainly be used in deplorable ways. But their mere existence as a constitutive part of a being does not render that being in any way deplorable. Some other beings rather tend to enjoy that some other beings possess a dick, especially but not exclusively if the two beings are of opposite sex. The same goes for any other reference to human genitals, male or female.
Lastly, you have not substantiate why Nicolas Sarkozy is a deplorable person except by stating that the Burqa ban is obvious evidence. I would think that you aught to, in a philosophical forum, substantiate the claim that such a ban is deplorable, and hence how it makes a person associated with it deplorable. Also, it would seem that the pure wants of Sarkozy are not sufficient to pass French laws. Hence, you would have to demonstrate how Sarkozy is ultimately to be singled out for dickdom, a word I use despite my reservations expressed in paragraph 2.
I do not think anybody posing under the pseudonym of “Spankabuttux” is likely to demonstrate profundity in argument. Just a passing troll I think.
I think your right, Don. Your point about Burqas and pseudonyms comes to mind. I just couldn’t resist spanking Spankabuttux a bit…
Many Muslim women put forward the argument that they find the burqa comfortable and wear it for that reason and no other. That they are not forced in any way to do so. Yet if there were something inherently attractive about the burqa to a woman it should have attracted at least a few non-muslim women to adopt it. As is the case with other modes of dress, the Indian Salwar Kameez being a case in point. This outfit has been adapted to high fashion on the cat walks of Paris. Not so the burqa. I can’t imagine a single non-Muslim woman ever taking to it.
So the only reason a Muslim woman would wear it would be fear of reprisals or brainwashing of the kind where the sense of ‘righteousness’ associated with it is so entrenched that they are not even aware of it. Something so suffocating and restrictive would hardly hold any appeal otherwise.
How can symbols of faith like the burka and niquab have such positive connotations in the Middle East, and such a negative reception in France?
The French View: Ban the burka. On the streets of France today there is a crisis of liberty vs liberalism. The French feel that they have already gone too far in accommodating Islamic ideology. To many French citizens the burka and niquab represent the most illiberal mode of dress conceivable. Being both offensive to women and men. To women, because it forces them to live their public lives under a black sack. To men, because it assumes them all to be potential rapists; unable to resist the temptation derived from so much as glimpsing a curvaceous hip or a bare ankle. They regard the attire as seventh century desert garments that have no place in twenty first century France. They are proud to have always been at the forefront of Western fashion. How you dress is an important mode of self-expression to the French, which they feel the Burka and niquab restrict. As passionate, exuberant communicators, the veil in particular, forms a barrier of communication to many French people, whose instinctive psychological reaction is one of distrust. Finally the French are very proud of their record on equality, many French feel any woman is relatively safe, free and equal there, and should assimilate to their culture not assert their own.
However, if women in France are free and equal, why can’t they dress how they want? After all, isn’t religious freedom also protected in France?
The Middle Eastern View: Every religion has a distinctive quality, and the distinctive quality of Islam is modesty. In most countries in the Middle East there is no strict separation of the church and state, as there is in France. The vast majority of citizens in those countries are practising Muslims. To Muslims, far from being a seventh century desert garment, the burka and niquab are the only garments that respect modesty in public. They don’t serve to conceal a woman’s identity. Being loose and thick they cover her shape and form. This removes any aspect of sexuality and in so doing allows that woman to be a person. To be judged on her ability and intelligence, rather than her appearance, which would be superficial and irrelevant. Citizens of the Middle East feel that this makes women more, rather than less free and equal. The Middle East does not have a tradition of painting portraits, strict interpretations of Islam forbid figurative artwork altogether. The face has a different currency in the Middle East, religious adherence naturally takes priority over self-expression. The spiritual focus, they feel safeguards them from the slippery moral slope represented by Western fashion. From an Islamic perspective, the padded bras and Playboy hot pants in the West are terrifying examples of that slippery slope, and how their religious choices protect them.
However, if women can never express themselves as directly and forcefully as men in public, isn’t their concealment a slippery slope to their marginalisation? Could the Ayatollah Khomeini have expressed himself so forcefully and successfully, if he were addressing his audience from behind a veil?
I would like to share with you this video of two Muslim women and their different opinions:
http://wordplayblog.co.uk/2011/04/niqab-ban-views/
There would certainly seem to be some merit in the argument of some Muslim women that the ‘burqa’ gives them a measure of freedom from being viewed in a sexual way and that they in fact find this empowering. However were this really true, then it should stand to reason that there ought to have been a greater empowerment of Muslim women in general when compared with their western counterparts, and this is clearly not known to be the case.
And in fact had there been any real merit in this argument, one could have trusted feminists the world over to have resorted to using the ‘burqa’ in their own fight against male chauvinism.
And for a mode of dress that supposedly affords a woman so much of freedom and empowerment isn’t it odd, that no non-Muslim woman ever chooses this method of protecting herself, when it is equally available to her to do so?
Such laws are, for me, plain denying of other’s dignity & autonomy as persons.
Such as “I know better what’s good for you.”
In India, for the longest time, sati was an accepted practice, according to which a woman was expected to join her husband’s corpse on the funeral pyre and burn to death, as it was considered auspicious all round. The woman in question was hence forth considered a saint and worshiped. Countless women died in this gruesome manner, till the British intervened and banned the custom in 1798. The ban was bitterly opposed, and arguments ranged from the fact that it was a religious custom, to the fact that the women did it of their own free will. Indian thinkers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy also joined hands with this movement, till eventually the practice though not completely wiped out is very rare.
It is now considered an offense under Indian Law and no sane modern Indian Hindu woman would ever willingly resort to this barbaric ritual in this day and age. And yet the very same was vociferously defended in the 1800s in the same way that the burqa is being defended in modern times.
It appears to me that the issue is the cultural meaning of the “burqa”. If it were just an indumentary, there would be no such debate or worry. Fashions come and go; we enjoy them; despise them;etc. But from the western perspective, the “burqa” is a symbol of women oppression in certain muslim cultures, which is implemented by more damaging customs than wearing a piece of cloth. If we understand the “burga” as a symbol, then the question appears to me as a basic freedom issue. Should society allow the free expression of any symbols that represent oppression and destruction? Should society allow any opinions that attack the rigths of other groups based on gender, religion, etc? And then, freedom to express yourself in any way you want is a basic human rigth that is only restricted in very limited and specific cases.
So when does society intervenes? In my opinion, the question is, is there any significant harm to himself or the community by the actions of the individual? Wearing a piece of cloth, no matter what type, can seldom constituyte significant harm. Burning yourself in a funeral fire is significant harm to yourself. Regarding the rigths of women in muslim religion, as in any other religion, country or custom, I believe our focus should be on working to assure them basic human rigths and equal opportunitties in education and work. In my opinion, that is where I would focus the legislative efforts.
There is a belief held by many societies, but especially among the Muslim community that a woman’s sexuality is responsible for unleashing the inherent bestiality in a man. And the only way of both, safe-guarding the woman and restraining the man is to enshroud a woman in a walking gunny sack depriving her permanently of expressing herself through a very essential human medium, her body and more so her face. The burqa is an overt expression of this belief.
On the other hand, free societies like the French, believe that the state has a duty to protect people from harm irrespective of their gender. The burqa is a daily slap in the face of this very important and basic human right.
they consider themselves democratic……is this a true democracy where people are not allowed to perform their religious duties…a man msrrying a man is ok in their eyes but a woman with burqa is a pain in their eyes.
I am quoting the writer here:
“After all, Islam does not have the best track record when it comes to the treatment of women”
I wonder on which ground did the writer build this statement; did he study the Islamic faith and found this fact? Did he read the Quran and deduced this theory? Did not the writer new that most converted Christians who became Muslims are women? The main reason for this is that Islam is treating women very much better than any other religion. I really would like people not to throw assumptions based on stereotype images built by ignorant media controlled by irrational people with black hearts. Please read and learn from the original source not from any place else. If you want really to know how Islam looks at women, get a translated copy of the Quran and read all verses that relate to women and you will surly reverse your ideas about women position in the Muslims faith. Thank you
An interesting exchange which only Francesca and Lata Tauro seem to have really seen under the most superficial layers of. In the first place, freedom of religious observance, or non-observance is not absolute but exists only by consensus. This applies whether or not the option is codified in the constitution or otherwise, and to the many obvious US commentators I would point out the condition that atheists find themselves in in many parts of the US.
That being the case, a difficult balance has to be achieved between the majority values of the community, which in France are very tolerant and liberal, and the values of incoming communities. France is a secular state where religion is tolerated, but French people accept the secularity of their state and recognise it as a great achievement of their culture. Muslims frequently directly attack these values, placing religious values above secular ones. I am referring to moderate Muslims here, not only those who would apply Shariaa. While there are many secular Muslims in France, there has very obviously been a rise in non-secular Islam over the last 20 years. Many of the newer immigrants show no interest in entering into French secularist, tolerant society, as Catholics, Protenstants and Jews do, but in laying claim to a cultural territory in which they are a community within the community of France, and not a part of the community of France.
That this ghetto-isation has been in part the fault of French social policy and racial (rather than religious) discrimination against North Africans by the French is undeniable, I accept.
Nevertheless, French culture is essentially inclusive and attempts by ethnic groups to deliberately set themselves apart from the broader French culture, where family values, individual liberties and the secular, meritocratic nature of the society are highly prized, are seen as divisive and deliberately hostile towards the host culture.
This understanding of secular society as being free, open and tolerant is openly attacked by many Muslim speakers, which compounds the issue. French people see themselves as being a world leader of secular human freedoms, and they see the appearance of people wearing very conservative, traditional religious dress as an attack on a national identity that they are very proud of.
At the same time, although French men remain thoroughly chauvinist in many cases, French women are proud of the equality of status that they undoubtedly do have, and they are against allowing any roll-back of the rights of women generally.
At the end of the day, the question here is this: should France give up its secular, open society and adopt a mosaic of secular and religiously-based culture, and to that end, permit a small number of individuals to wear religious badges which have very dubious provenance, and as one commentator pointed out, reflect very badly on Muslim women, Muslim men and Islam, or should French culture stick to its guns and say, effectively, that in coming to France you agree to adopt secularism and set aside assertive badges of faith, and that is that, even if that means the restriction of the rights of a very few people.
No-one in France is attempting to control what these women wear in private, but only in public. The fundamentals of French culture are challenged by a group of people who really do not understand the nature of secular society. In this case, there is certainly no doubt in my mind, and I have lived in France for many years, that this is not a racist or ethnicist position on the part of Sarkoszy, but is simply setting out the ‘not negotiables’ in French culture–one of which is its proud tradition of secularism.
Whilst I do not agree with the burqa, I agree with freedom of expression and your right to basic human rights.
I am sure many of you will not argue that smoking kills.
Did we ban it? Did we say you can’t buy it? Did we let children under 18 smoke it?
NO
What did we do?
We allowed those that want to smoke to basically kill themselves BUT not those around us. Not long ago, smokers could smoke in planes, buses, buildings and at the same time, help us to an early grave. Passive smoking was on the increase !
What we did was ban smoking in enclosed spaces and public transport. No one can stop one lighting up on a public road or in a park, even if we know that this harms one and one may die from it. From warnings on packets, to graphic images and to plain outer packaging and then to finally hiding them behind counters, one are still allowed to kill yourself as long as it does not harm those around you.
You use the example of a naked woman and then of a woman over dressed! If one uses obscene language can one be too nice too?
So, one has the right to kill oneself but a woman has no right to wear what she likes.
By making it difficult for smokers to smoke, it was easier for them to give up and this helped them or forced their minds to kick the habit. By gradually making smoking expensive and harder to smoke in public, it helped curb excessive smoking.
I believe that this is the approach we should have had with the burqua. Make life difficult but don’t take away their right to do what they want to do in an open space.
In shopping centres, public and government buildings, on the train or even on a bus, ban it as you did with smoking.
Now let’s look at Cannabis.. You can smoke as much as you like of it in the Netherlands. So, is it now a western value because one country applies it?
Surprisingly, you can smoke it but can’t wear a burqa.
Alcohol is only available at certain times, can only be consumed in certain places and is not allowed in others. One does not ban it because we have some major social issues because of over drinking.
It has been found that Catholic priests have been abusing young children. So, you can confess your sins to a priest without seeing his face and then be abused by him too.
There are more paedophile priests than there are burqqa wearers. Do we ban priests from preaching?
NO.
Awesome blog! Do you have any tips and hints for aspiring writers?
I’m planning to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I’m completely overwhelmed .. Any ideas? Cheers!