This is a guest post by Modernity.
I recently commented on this blog that I am against the State enforcing dress codes and Ben kindly asked me to elaborate.
I should say, from the outset, that I am a secularist, as well as being an atheist and a lover of French history (if I could ever finish that volume by Colin Jones!)
Having read clips from Nicolas Sarkozy’s speech, I am in agreement with many of the points he made. Women should not be compelled to wear the Burqa or other demeaning forms of dress. And I can see how Sarkozy’s points resonate with French secularism.
I think it is oppressive to coerce women to wear such outfits; personally, I am against the Burqa.
However, there is a wider political point to this debate: even supposing that we agree that the Burqa and the oppression that it represents are undesirable, how do we deal with it? And this is where the can of worms opens up.
Does the State draw up some law which excludes the wearing of Burqas?
It sounds a simple idea, a quick and easy solution, but there is a sting in the tail.
If it did enact such a law, then the State is effectively legislating a form of dress code which applies to all residents within its domain.
And if, hypothetically speaking, the State determines that the Burqa isn’t desirable, then what next? Will men have to wear white shirts and black trousers, to conform?
The precedent has been set that the State can decide and enforce a dress code on its citizens.
That, for me, is the problem: once you concede that the State can enforce a dress code (even with good intent) then how can you argue against, for example, the existence of the Saudi Arabian Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices?
That’s the religious police, and their job is to enforce a dress code - another one, different, but still a dress code dictated by the State.
So for me, once you head down this path you are conceding that the State has the right to tell people what to wear and how. That is a step towards totalitarianism and it is wrong in my view.
It then becomes an untenable argument to say, “people around the world should have as much freedom as possible, except when the State decides what they can and cannot wear.”
Again, if it is wrong for repressive regimes throughout the world to impose dress codes on their citizens, then it would be equally flawed for France to do it.
Honestly, I have no solution, but I know that the State telling people what to wear is not the right course of action.
Doesn’t France already have a law against headscarfs/and other religious symbols in public institutions?
But in any case, the burqa issue is simple: outlaw dresscodes enforced in countries where women do not have equal rights, because dresscodes enforced in countries that practice gender apartheid and have discriminatory laws and practices against women are clearly part of this discrimination. End of.
Fair enough: we probably shouldn’t legislate this issue. How do we then protect the rights of women who wear the burqa because they are forced to do so against their will?
Simple is not the word.
1. If you enforce dress codes in the public domain (the street, shops, etc) then how different is that from when say, a repressive regime does it?
Not much, because you have conceded the notion that the State has jurisdiction over what people can or can’t wear.
2. Suppose there is ONE woman that actually likes wearing the Burqa, but it is outlawed then what?
She decides to walk down the street in a Burqa, for whatever reason. Does the State detain her and prosecute her for wearing the wrong type of clothes?
Further, suppose this hypothetical woman repeatedly does it, breaking the law time and again, do you lock her up?
And if so, then you are jailing someone for wearing non-approved clothing.
Not a precedent that any half sensible country would want to make?
The problem is it gets very messy, either way.
3. Bear in mind that once such a law is made, it has to be enforced, no matter the wider consequences.
So, imagine that the law has been passed, public use of the Burqa drop by 95%. Now those women who wear the Burqa, for whatever reason, don’t leave their homes.
Moreover, suppose that a group of men decided to wear the Burqa for fun, or to make a statement.
Should they be arrested? If not, why not? And how would you frame the law to exclude them?
Messier and messier.
4. Finally, suppose that a Far Right party gains power and adds a list of other non-approved, approved clothes, what then?
“If it did enact such a law, then the State is effectively legislating a form of dress code which applies to all residents within its domain.
And if, hypothetically speaking, the State determines that the Burqa isn’t desirable, then what next? Will men have to wear white shirts and black trousers, to conform?”
I don’t agree, Modernity.
The law wouldn’t be telling people what to wear. It would be denying some women the right to wear a type of clothing which in most cases covers the woman’s face and renders her a non person in society.
In this case, and given that Muslim women are often bullied by Muslim men to wear “Muslim clothing” the State in banning the Burqa is protecting the rights of women. It isn’t a question of individual rights since individuals who choose to wear the burqa also subscribe to all other religious laws and force their daughters to do so.
You are arguing that the rights of religious social convention should be stronger than the rights of the State. I would argue that it is the duty of the liberal State to protect individuals from social coercion of any type.
Finally, women who choose to cover their facesin public are saying that they are not individuals, that they belong to their families and their husbands.
dyer you wrote:
“In this case, and given that Muslim women are often bullied by Muslim men to wear “Muslim clothing” the State in banning the Burqa is protecting the rights of women.”
I would not disagree. I think on many occasions that might well be the case.
My issue is that laws on dress codes are wrong. Period. Even if done with the best of intention.
I forget (I should know, but…) didn’t the Chinese Communist Party compel people to wear the same clothes?
I think most in the West were rightly against it.
And we all know about the Saudi religious police, plus many more throughout the world, they force people to conform to a dress code. Those states that do it, are not the sort that should be emulated.
Finally, no one has address my example, how to frame such a law, see my point 2-3, what do you do to people that wish to wear the Burqa, lock them up?
And what if a man wears the Burqa? Lock him up? Bearing in mind that such laws have to be gender neutral (that is you can’t say, one law applies to women, another to men)
‘Muslim women are often bullied by Muslim men to wear “Muslim clothing” the State in banning the Burqa is protecting the rights of women’
Fine post, Mod
The illiberal element here is the bullying, the burqa is merely the outward sign in this case. Banning the burqa is lazy and as mod notes, might unintentionally end up with more women hidden away in the home, de-socialised further. It attacks ephemeria rather than the compulsion itself.
I doubt there is a legal path to challenge the base hypocracy of Islamic dress-codes, it would have to be on cultural grounds. If Islam demands equality in the repression of ‘decadent’ thoughts, why are men allowed to walk around, bare armed and locks a-flowing like ’slags’? Surely such imbalance objectifies men (hahahahahaha).
The bullying aspect must be addressed, but if this policy is to be in accord with liberal respect for the individual then it might have to be ‘indirect’.
By aggressively confronting issues like honour crimes, forced marriage, discrimination in private institutions and public space, we might well make the burqa redundent anyway. The liberal state and the legal system must create a protected space and the promise of support to those women who wish to escape such religious norms. Yet such structures are rightly powerless to demand the absence of these norms for those who truely wish to embrace them.
Banning the burqa is playing the exact same game as those Islamists who demand it. It is reducing the person and their autonomy over their appearance to a social marker, a loyalty test.
“My issue is that laws on dress codes are wrong. Period. Even if done with the best of intention.
I forget (I should know, but…) didn’t the Chinese Communist Party compel people to wear the same clothes?”
The comparison is misplaced, Modernity.
Again, let me remind you that the French State isn’t telling people what to wear; they are merely telling people what not to wear. Laws couched in the negative, a kind of “thou shalt not,” are different from a State telling individuals that they should wear say burqas.
In any case, the better comparison is between the Maoists and the Islamicists since both insist on telling people what to wear.
On another note: suppose that groups of people in France, England or Germany decided to start wearing Nazi like swastikas would you then say that the State has no right to outlaw that kind of clothing?
dyer,
Social republican has put the point better.
You are not engaging with my arguments, how do you construct a law which outlaws the Burqa but only for women?
And if you could, where does it apply? The street? only public buildings? or everywhere?
What penalty if people disobey? should people be locked up for wearing non-approved clothes?
Then, if you agree with laws to outlaw the burqa how can you oppose dress codes in Saudi Arabia and other repressive regimes (they are essentially the same, I could elaborate but it seems obvious to me)?
socialrepublican “‘Muslim women are often bullied by Muslim men to wear “Muslim clothing” the State in banning the Burqa is protecting the rights of women’
Fine post, Mod”
I liked Modernity’s post also “socialrep.” However he didn’t write the above, I did.
No matter, you also said that,
“The illiberal element here is the bullying, the burqa is merely the outward sign in this case. Banning the burqa is lazy and as mod notes, might unintentionally end up with more women hidden away in the home, de-socialised further. It attacks ephemeria rather than the compulsion”
It is true that male bullying is a problem, but it isn’t true that wearing burqas which cover your face in public is merely “the outward sign” of the problem.
This would be like saying that banning dueling is useless unless one also worked to ban the macho instinct which is the cause of the male honor codes which led to dueling.
For reasons I stated above covering your face in public is a challenge to the liberal State. However, in as much as anything social act can be read as a sign of something else, it is also a sign as you say.
This doesn’t mean that the State should drop its fight against burqas and concentrate on the issues of male bullying in the private sphere alone. The State needs to enforce its laws.
The religious inspired family bullying of females can be dealt with by insisting that women attend public schools and get a secular education. If the family decides not to allow it then the law has ways of dealing with it.
There is no reason to suppress the religious beliefs of the family. All the law need do is make sure that families abide by the laws of the secular State.
Yes, there will be clashes of values, but the liberal State has to insist that its law takes precedence over religious law (just as federal law in the US has precedence over State law) and the State, as I am sure you know, has ways of compelling individuals to obey the law.
In many cases in the West Muslim women wear burqas as a deliberate challenge to secular law. The ai is to demarcate the superiority of Muslim over secular law. This is an intolerable situation and if secular values are to survive we cannot ignore this challenge.
Modernity:
Prison sentences are usually reserved for violent offenders.
Burqua-wearing in public could be sanctioned easily via a system of fines following police citations, the suspension of driver’s licenses and publicly-funded health insurance where picture ID is required to prevent fraud, etc., are a few ideas that come readily to mind.
More important though, is to punish the people who attempt to impose burqua-wearing on others.
Compelling young females to walk around in the blistering heat of a Toronto summer, covered from head to toe in heavy black swathing is a form of child abuse. Parents who force this on their female children should be subject to laws to protect minors.
‘ dyer, You are not engaging with my arguments,”
I believe I am, Modernity.
“how do you construct a law which outlaws the Burqa but only for women?
It’s not complicated and it’s not only “for women.”
I consulted with my sister in law how is an attorney and who had drafted laws for the State of Nebraska for many years.
What is objectionable is not the clothing per se; it’s the fact that many Muslim women are covering their faces in public. The law would address the wearing of face coverings (there would be exceptions as in the case of infectious illness which is attested by a medical team).
“And if you could, where does it apply? The street? only public buildings? or everywhere?”
The law would stipulate public spaces, “streets, public buildings, etc.”
“What penalty if people disobey? should people be locked up for wearing non-approved clothes?”
This is to be determined: like traffic fines, first offense a small fine, then repeated offenses the fines would go up. People who refuse to pay fines can be put in jail, yes.
“Then, if you agree with laws to outlaw the burqa how can you oppose dress codes in Saudi Arabia and other repressive regimes (they are essentially the same, I could elaborate but it seems obvious to me)?”
This is a false comparison. We are not talking about imposing a liberal universal value on a theocratic State. We are talking about a liberal democratic and sovereign State which ultimately will have to make its own decision. I am merely voicing support for the side that sees the State as the champion of individual rights.
The same with Saudi Arabia it is the people of that country who will decide on the values they wish to live with just as the people of Iran are doing.
J
I know it was you, I merely pasted it in the wrong place
Your analogy doesn’t make much sense. Dueling, in itself, is the recognised crime. It is murder or attempted murder or at the very least, disruption to the peace. The Burqa, in and of itself, is merely a piece of material.
If anyone ‘wants’ to wear clothing that I or anyone else considers demeaning or ridiculous, then that is their right, IF that choice is truely free. Without a method of determining weather that choice is free, one either assumes neutrality of the legal system or one prescibes a form of clothing on the basis it is inevitably ‘unfreely’ chosen. I would say that is a vast extention of legal reach and indeed a slippery slope.
Islamists say that not only is the burqa neccesary to ward off ‘vice’, but it is a marker of the pious against the impious. Do we want to play that game as well? One can only be truely French, British, American, ‘Loyal’ if you will, if we can see your face at all times?
The whole ‘Sky Pixie’ directed attire menu of norms is profoundly ridiculous and insulting anyway. But it is no concern of the law. Complusion, ‘bullying’, the actual forcing of women into that prison of fabric is. Much as I find both the wearing of Burqa absurb and the theological belief behind it personally insulting, I cannot insist on those women on dressing just to conform to my own opinion. I would like them not to believe it, but shit happens. Similarly those who DO bully their wives, sisters and daughters into the Burqa have no right either for their belief. That is the crime, not a large piece of fabric
Frankly, one could quite easily make a good case that my knotted curls and ’spotty’ personal hygiene is intrinsically a-social and tells of my socially conditioned lack of self-regard. Why not ban the scuffy from our public spaces with fines and use legal sanctions to get them some self-esteem and a bloody haircut? A facile comparision, I know, but it operates on a similar series of assumption as those arguments seeking a ban on burqas
Once you have made the manner in which people are clad the concern of the law, where are the limits?
Lets write a basic presciption
‘All in one clothing items’….nope, as one might create a breed of Burqa tops
‘Items of clothing that cover the face’….well, nope again, unless you want to prohibit most fancy dress costumes.
Okay, ‘Covering the face in public (presumable all of it, not just mouth and nose) for reasons of patriachal religious norms (because then crash helmets, scarfs etc wrapped around the mouth during winter would be covered)are prohibited’.
If you are happy with that, I have to say, you have a differing meaning over the tenets of freedom of expression, conscious and the autonomy of the individual than I. One has to prove that that autonomy has been violated by a third party. If not any law would be making the assumption and setting the precedent that those with differing ideas about an ill-defined nebulous set of norms are a-priori misguided and misled at best.
socialrepublican
“J I know it was you, I merely pasted it in the wrong place
Your analogy doesn’t make much sense. Dueling, in itself, is the recognised crime. It is murder or attempted murder or at the very least, disruption to the peace. The Burqa, in and of itself, is merely a piece of material.”
Dueling in the 18th and 19th centuries when States first started to ban the practice was not considered murder. My analogy wasn’t to directly to the burqa it was to your claim that the burqa was merely a symbol of something deeper, that it is merely a surface phenomenon. In my response I said that dueling was by some also regarded as a surface phenomenon that the real problem was machismo which engendered a code of honor that made dueling necessary.
Now, you say that the burqa “is merely a piece of material.” So, which is it? Is it symbolic of something deeper or is it merely a “piece of “cloth?
The burqa in as much as it covers a women’s face is more than a piece of material. It is an affront to the dignity and individuality of women. It also challenges the liberal State in as much as it renders people anonymous.
One can as I showed write a narrow law outlawing face coverings in public. It’s essential that one should be able to identify the person in public when doing the public’s business. Driving, voting, cashing checks, dealing with credit card identifications, etc. are all public transactions.
Costume balls are private affairs.
I have already answered the rest of your post above and I don’t want to repeat myself.
Finally, neither you nor Modernity has answered my question about what you would do if men decided to wear swastikas on their clothing. These too can be said to be “mere pieces of cloth.” After all if you outlaw the wearing of swastikas you may also outlaw the wearing of ….(insert your favorite piece of clothing here).
Lynne T,
So a prison sentence for repeat Burqa wearing offenses?
Doesn’t that seem a bit serious? 3 strikes and you are locked up for life?
Please, for the crime of wearing the wrong clothes and you’re locked up, that’s not very liberal is it?
So you can SAY, whatever you like, but wear a Burqa and there’s punishment for the woman concerned, that strikes me as highly illiberal.
And what if a man wears a Burqa?
dyer, you wrote:
“The same with Saudi Arabia it is the people of that country who will decide on the values they wish to live with just as the people of Iran are doing.”
Sorry but your last point suggests to me a cultural relativism, one rule in the West, another in repressive regimes. I think that is wrong, I am not sure if that’s what you meant?
If dress codes are wrong in repressive regimes then they are wrong and inappropriate in Western liberal democracies, for many of the same reasons.
“Sorry but your last point suggests to me a cultural relativism, one rule in the West, another in repressive regimes. I think that is wrong, I am not sure if that’s what you meant?”
Modernity, cultural relativism applies only to people within the same culture. It’s a national, not an international notion.
The Saudis and the French don’t share a common culture hence cultural relativism doesn’t apply.
Ironically, it seems to me that it is you who are arguing that cultural relativism is appropriate for France. In allowing Muslims men to suppress the rights of Muslim women you are insisting that human rights values are relative.
Still, there are certain values that I as a child of the enlightenment believe in. I do wish the notions of freedom and individual rights be adopted world wide.
However, you can’t impose the value of freedom on other cultures; they have to arrive at it on their own. Till then it is incumbent upon us to protect our own values and not allow the illiberal values of the Saudis take root in the West.
no dyer, again you miss read me, I am NOT saying:
“Ironically, it seems to me that it is you who are arguing that cultural relativism is appropriate for France.”
I hate to belabour the points, but let me be clear.
I do not wish a dress code in France, Britain, Ireland, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Canada or the USA, etc
I am against ALL forms of dress codes in ALL countries, I am a universalist.
I don’t think that the State should have jurisprudence concerning people’s clothes.
You will notice (I hope) that I did NOT mention religion at all.
Some might want to wear a Burqa because they are shy. Or have some disfigurement, or they like it (unlikely, granted) or any number of reasons, including that they were coerced into it.
I think people should be free to wear what they please, as individuals, without recourse to the State.
I am against the Burqa, but if you allow other freedoms of expression then you have to concede that one too.
Freedom not to wear, but freedom to wear as well. They go hand in hand.
This debate is just going around in circles, and jdyer’s example with the swastika indeed is a good illustration that nobody has addressed.
The burqa question is ultimately not about clothing, it’s about discrimination and oppression of women, as is of course the Saudi dress code. That’s why I said in my first post here, the law should say that the practice of women walking around as anonymous piles of textiles is rooted in a culture that is deeply discriminatory against women, and the complete erasing of any trace of individuality that is the result of covering the face will not be accepted in the West.
Your argument about white shirts for men doesn’t hold water, as I’m sure you must realise yourself. But you’re right to the extent that it’s going to be difficult to define exactly what is allowed and what isn’t. No masks to be worn in public, the face to be fully exposed at all times? Then what about motorcycle helmets? Or sunglasses? What about Moshe Dayan-style eyepatches? Or people who temporarily need to wear a bandage? And so on and so on …
As for state-enforced dress codes, they exist everywhere, not only in Saudi Arabia. Even where they are not state-enforced, society at large sets its own rules. In a seaside resort it’s all right for both men and women to go out and do their shopping in their beachwear, but in a city miles from the nearest beach those same men and women would naturally cover up more, and not just because of the weather. You must have noticed that.
Sorry, but I think as SocRep states above, legal means are a very poor method of doing away with the Burqa.
It is an illusion of a solution.
Legalistic means make people feel happy “ah, we’ve got a law for that”, etc
But as you suggest, we are going around in circles, I shall leave you with that fine old expression:
modernityblog
“Sorry, but I think as SocRep states above, legal means are a very poor method of doing away with the Burqa.”
I disagree, Modernity.
I think it’s going to be up to the courts to decide that issue, in this country at least.
In any case, I know of no case where people were allowed to participate in public affairs (voting, driving, cashing checks, etc.) with their faced covered.
btw: sun glasses and motor cycle helmets are not face coverings and are function specific. Eye patches become part of a persons identity and do not cover the whole face, Douglas.
Modernity:
Clearly, you didn’t read what I wrote.
There are legal sanctions that are well short of criminalization that can come into play, both to protect women and girls from being pressured into wearing the beastly things and to protect the public good and I suggested a few of them.
Wearing a burqa out in public or while operating a vehicle or equipment is a safety hazard to the wearer; they can’t see properly and the yardage can be easily caught in an escalator or other moving mechanisms.
Compelling a female child to wear one out in summer’s heat is plain cruel.
The burqa has certainly been used by criminals as a means of concealing identity.
The administation of justice has also been impacted by women refusing to testify unveiled who cry that their human rights are being abrogated when a judge insists on being able to see their faces while they give testimony in open court.
The fact that it isn’t easy to develop legal means of protecting individual and communal rights isn’t a reason for saying we should do nothing save than decrying the wearing of the burqa as medieval practice and hope this will suffice to bring about change in a community that aspires to drag every last one of us back to the 7th century.
Lynne T,
My facilities permitting I do try and read everything that people write, but maybe I don’t see it in the same way? :)
I don’t disagree with your comments.
If you want my solution, and I’ve had time to think a bit:
a new feminist movement, that and women’s outreach programs will be the only real way of combating repressive clothing etc.
Laws won’t do it, the women just won’t leave the house, and a false sense of achievement will be felt in the wider society.
Education and campaigning are the solutions. Not crude laws.
PS: Douglas, we’ll see eh?
So a burqa wearer (supposing that someone actually chooses to wear one, on their own), will be able in the US: to dress up like a Nazi, spout the speeches of Hitler, all of that and more, later, go get a gun, go hunting, kill little animals, but not wear a bit of clothing (the burqa)…
do you see the contradictions there?
modernityblog, you say
“Education and campaigning are the solutions. Not crude laws.”
But why do we have to choose and why do you say “crude laws?” Are you a lawyer?
We need both education and laws.
In Turkey, certain forms of Muslim headgear were forbidden when Ataturk tried to force the country to modernize. It worked, up to a point, but now the Muslimists are back in force.