Banning Burqas: Well-Intentioned Racism
In case you hadn’t heard, France is well on their way to banning the Burqa from all public places, and Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands may not be far behind. A nice idea, if it wasn’t so unjust.
The plan in these countries is to keep their female citizens from having to wear a full veil Burqa anywhere outdoors. Because, as the Justice Minister of Spain says, it’s “hardly compatible with human dignity.” And what happens if you’re caught wearing one? The woman is fined 150 Euros (almost $200) – which makes a ton of sense if this law is designed to protect women. That would be like fining a slave 200 bucks for being seen in public with whip marks on his back. How can you give someone a ticket for being oppressed? Now, if a man is found guilty of forcing his wife to wear a Burqa, he can spend up to a year in jail, which would be great if it wasn’t almost impossible to prove. Unless you get an eyewitness to a Burqa argument between husband and wife, you’re basically talking about a “he said-she said” where the she is already dominated and perhaps physically threatened by the “he”, and has little incentive to speak out against him. Good luck with that.
An Al-Amira Hijad. (I think)
And all of this assumes that a Burqa is in fact an artifact of personal oppression. Look, it sounds bad to me. It sounds, honestly, somewhat inhuman. But it’s not my culture. I was on the subway a week ago in the middle of New York’s most recent heatwave, known more commonly as “July”, and two women walked on wearing a more liberal, party version of the Burqa known as the Al-Amira. It was so hot that day that I instantly felt terribly sorry for them, and hated the man that followed them in. He walked aboard, wearing his own stifling headdress and they all took a seat. Then something strange happened – the women took off their veils. They apparently wanted to get the full benefit of the MTA air conditioning, so they pulled it off and each popped open a cold drink. Their male companion left his covering on, but also enjoyed, I think, a diet 7-UP. Why were these women allowed to do this? I have no idea. And neither do you. And neither does any legislative body in France or Belgium of the Netherlands. THIS ISN’T OUR CULTURE. We don’t get it. We Westerners don’t understand the rules, we don’t understand the tradition, and we don’t understand how it feels to be a part of that tradition. So why are we trying to dictate what it should and shouldn’t do? Burqas seem entirely inappropriate to Western society, but it’s not our decision to make.
Does this look comfortable to you?
To me, there’s a line. And that line is physical pain or damage. If a societal practice causes serious physical pain, then it’s our duty to stop it. Until then, I believe it’s hands off. I see Orthodox Jewish women on the train every day in wool skirt and jacket suits, thick stockings, and heavy synthetic wigs as dictated by their culture. I’m sure that’s extremely uncomfortable and good bit dehumanizing to put on every morning, should that be illegal? What about their male counterparts, who are expected to grow their hair and beards as long as possible, add long peyas sideburns, hats and thick suits? I’m quite certain by the B.O. meter that these guys are usually setting off that this tradition results in oppressive body heat. And, during sabbath when they’re forced to only walk and not use electric comforts like fans and air conditioning, that this heat can likely become physically dangerous. But no one would ever think to make the Jewish traditions illegal, so why Burqas? The argument, I imagine, is that women are forced by their husbands to wear Burqas, and that’s not right. Hey, I completely agree – but I’m pretty sure many Orthodox men and women feel forced by their culture – parents, siblings, spouses – to follow similar rules. And plenty of other people in plenty of other strict as well. Why is that OK? Plenty of women across the world, and indeed here in the US, are still openly told by their husbands that they can’t get a job and must remain a housewife. That’s sexist, unfair, and humiliating, where are the laws against that? But Islam is different. Islam has a connotation of evil nowadays, of backward fundamentalism, so we feel like it needs to be reformed. Which is certainly a nice intention, but when you’re declaring the customs of one particular group illegal while ignoring similar ones from other cultures – that sounds like racism to me.
The tricky thing about having a democratic society is that it occasionally forces you to allow things that you instinctively despise. Would it be easier to make the Klu Klux Klan illegal? Yep, but they’re a protest group and we practice freedom of speech. Same with skinheads, neo-Nazis, and people who still find Two and a Half Men funny. They’re idiots, but in America – and France, Belgium, and Spain – you’re allowed to be an idiot. To legislate against just one culture, especially a culture that’s been associated with so much fear and difficulty, well that’s not what progressive nations are supposed to be about. And frankly, it’s exactly the sort of thing that would happen in the very cultures we’re so desperately trying to change. Just because it seems ugly does not mean it should also be illegal.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Banning burquas is bigotry (by American standards). All Western European countries are fundamentally different from the USA in one big overreaching way. In the US, our national culture is, by design, a continually evolving cacophony of inputs from other cultures. America is thus, proudly, multicultural. Where else can you buy jalapeno pierogies? Not so in Western Europe. WThe French and other ancient Western European cultures are afraid of islamo-facism overrunning their nation’s culture. For instance, the French make virtually no effort to accommodate foreign languages spoken if France. In the US, we have to now sort through a long lost of languages to make an ATM transaction. It is encouraging that old nations at least say “whoa” when an invading culture (especially one that can be quick to use violence to achieve their goals and can be intolerant as hell towards other cultures) threatens their own. What islamic nation allow foreigners to dress and drink, and have sex however they wish when visiting? Does anybody really believe that the French intent to ban burquas is out of concern for women’s rights?
Haha. So you oppose the ban, but mostly because you dislike the French more than you dislike Muslims. Funny stuff.
For the record, as someone who spends a lot of time in “the France” with “the French,” a lot of their leaders do consider it a women’s rights issue. A lot of them don’t. A lot of French people, political leaders and not, support the ban out of xenophobia. A lot of them support it for other reasons. A lot of them oppose it outright, for any number of reasons, including that much of western Europe is extremely ethnically diverse, and they consider the ban racist, self-defeating, and everything else Brian says it is.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Oh, and in case you ever make it to Europe, don’t worry: most of the ATMs there will accommodate English speakers. And a lot of other languages, too. Oh wait, I forgot: that’s a bad thing.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are probably no cases of people in burqas committing crimes and using culture to remain in disguise. Yes?
This would be the best argument in favor of outlawing perpetual public incognito.
Also, to play a cheap devil’s advocate, who are we (Americans) to tell Euro countries how to practice their culture?
Well, Zachary, we are allowed to have opinions on what people around the world are doing. Should we force these opinions upon France legally? No of course not, we just discuss them in blogs.
Burqa heist film though, that’s a good idea. The Bank Job 2: Burqas Bust Out.
In response to another comment. See in context »Zachary and Brian: On many occasions, male islamo-terrorists have: A.Strapped on bombs. B. Dressed as women including burquas. & C.) Blown fellow human beings to bits. This is not theory. It has already happened numerous times. But, as stated earlier: I believe the real concern in national culture. French people love their culture more than their country. If the French want to remain french, they are going to have to find a way for French people to want to do all of the in-country work available. That ain’t gonna be easy.
I believe what is not being considered here is that the West has a cultural aversion to covered faces. Only bandits and ne’r-do-wells cover their faces, except for skiers during very cold weather.
Don’t you think that countries have a right to expect newcomers and visitors to respect that nation’s norms?
Oh, and when you finally make your argument for why this policy is racist, be sure to let us know.
I did, but I guess I can repeat it for you in the comments section, Fenton. When you pick one race and make its practices illegal – even when other races are permitted to do similar things without criticism – that is racism. Especially, as I said, when you’ve already kept a trained eye on that race for a while because you’ve deemed them suspect and potentially trouble-causing. Remember the long paragraph about how Jewish Orthodoxy requires limiting, possibly degrading/dangerous clothing too, and no one questions the legality of that? Maybe read that one again.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your missing the point of the burka. It’s significance is to protect PROPERTY in dangerous environments. Women are property and if they are caught with a man, even for conversation, they can be beaten or killed according to local custom by their husbands, fathers etc. who own the women. It is EXPECTED. This is called an honor killing. Burkas are used to keep males property (women) safe.
Take your mother, wife, sister, etc somewhere burkas are mandated and let her walk around on the streets without one. If she isn’t harassed or worse I bet you would have one on her shortly to comply with the local custom. For her own safety.
If women are forced in other places to conform with the burka custom, why shouldn’t women in the USA be forced out of them in the sake of emancipation?
Read the Bookseller of Kabul sometime. The norwegian author put on a burka and lived like a woman in Kabul, under one of the more educated and liberal men’s roofs, and found how stifled life can be under the burka. It’s just a way for men to protect their slaves from other men.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello kingsleyzissou,
The point of this law is protect the cultural (and political) hegemony of the native-born non-Muslim majority. The protection of “women’s rights” is just a cover (no pun intended). You are quite correct that the burka is a means of male domination over women, and I might add, is not a “Muslim” practice but predates Islam my centuries. That said, the political forces pushing the ban on burka’s are not people interested in the protection of women’s rights but political conservatives seeking to protect the dominant European culture. It is like political conservatives here who talk about protecting the rights of minorities here by demanding the deportation immigrants. It is just political cover.
In response to another comment. See in context »Women’s rights cannot be separated out in this comparison and labeled “cover”. Women’s rights are a legitimate distinction between cultures in this cultural war.
In response to another comment. See in context »“When you pick one race and make its practices illegal – even when other races are permitted to do similar things without criticism – that is racism”
Wrong, that is bigotry, subtle difference (not saying racists don’t love this law).
This law is supposed to make it illegal to cover your face in such a way as to disguise yourself. It is meant to protect society as a whole. Again, culturally, the West has prohibited this practice, or at least not condoned it, for hundreds of years. Sound bites about “liberating oppressed women” are beside the point.
I am not saying the law is a good thing, or even necessary, I am saying that there are legitimate arguments against full facial veils , and it is not as simple as calling it racist.
In response to another comment. See in context »I replied to this once, but I guess it dissappeared in cyberspace.
“When you pick one race and make its practices illegal – even when other races are permitted to do similar things without criticism – that is racism”
Wrong, that is bigotry, subtle difference(I’m not saying that some racists don’t love this law).
The point of this law is to ban full facial veils, any sound bites about “liberating oppressed women” are beside the point.
I am not saying that it is a good law, or even a necessary law, I am saying that the West has had a cultural norm of not keeping your face covered (except for protection from the weather or other event)for many generations. Calling it out as racism is really over-simplifying the argument.
In response to another comment. See in context »I have a queasy feeling when governments dictate clothing standards. I think the French probably went too far.
HOWEVER
(hit wrong key –argh) It would be reasonable to state that a burka should not be used to hide one’s identity where reasonably requested, such as at a police stop, or while driving a car.
In response to another comment. See in context »and I don’t think its well intentioned
In response to another comment. See in context »anymore than Palin is when she says they should refudate
Maybe I missed a fundamental point somewhere but I don’t think you can call this ban racist.
The law doesn’t seem to say that only Middle Eastern women are not allowed to wear burqas. It’s the burqa being banned; not the people. If anything it’s mere intolerance for a belief system. I live in Cincinnati and I’ve seen plenty of Islamic black women wearing burqas of varying styles.
The Middle East, its culture and people are the current world whipping boy. “Scary terrorists are killing everyone so ban anything Muslim!” That’s the mindset of the world and, to be honest, I can’t blame people for thinking that. In the US we had our own issues with the Red Scare of the 50s. Damn near anything red in color meant you were a godless Commie. Or the internment camps of WWII. Now Japanese culture has thoroughly permeated the US. In time, we got over all of that. It’s a fundamental part of human nature and I doubt it will be changing anytime soon.
Is it a terrible time for Muslim’s because of the radicals? Absolutely. Will it phase over to another race/culture in the coming years? I have no doubt.
Kelly made the excellent point above that Americans are used to, and driven by, a wild mix of world wide cultures. I don’t think we could function as a country without that. Most of the world is not like that. When I was stationed in Japan, it was a major culture shock. There were (and, I’m sure, still are) “Japanese Only” bars, restaurants and clubs. Americans would scream bloody murder and bury those kinds of places under lawsuits over here. In Japan, it’s the norm and I don’t blame them at all for it nor do I think it’s racist.
Americans love to cry racism at the drop of a hat especially when a race/culture wants to have only their “people” included. I couldn’t have a Whites Only European Heritage Festival in America. It just can’t be done (outside of the South, I suppose). America is all inclusive; the rest of the world isn’t quite so swirled together and Americans just can’t figure that out.
As Americans we tend to be a bit high and mighty when it comes to morals and freedoms. The rest of the world has seen the hypocrisy in that; it’s too bad we can’t.
Well, come on, you’re saying a Burqa ban isn’t racist because it doesn’t specifically single out one race? You see a lot of Canadians wearing Burqas? Obviously its policy aimed at Middle Eastern forms of behavior.
I agree that Americans are hyper-sensitive about permitting all sorts of cultures and traditions. Perhaps it isn’t fair to hold other nations to that standard, but I guess what I’m arguing is…other nations should be held to that standard.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s a subtle distinction but an important one. Like I said, we throw racism at anything that has to do with a particular race whether it’s their beliefs, culture, clothing or whatever. We’ve diluted the word so much in the US that we use it to cover more than it should.
I see racism as targeting a certain demographic simply because they are that demographic. If I was racist towards Middle Easterners it wouldn’t matter what they wore, said, did or how they lived their lives. I would hate them simply for existing.
But forcing Muslim women to not wear burqas doesn’t target the race; it targets a belief. It targets a core element of a religious belief. A religious belief that is not limited solely to Middle Easterners. The fact that a large portion of Muslims are Middle Eastern is irrelevant. I spent six months in Somalia, a Muslim country, and never saw a single burqa. Your example of the women on the train who removed their burqas points out that not every Muslim is on the extreme end. Not every Muslim woman wears a burqa.
I see this law as nothing more than a product of an irrational fear of a small extremist religious sect (in a worldwide context). Laws like this are pointless and serves only to further drive a wedge between cultures. It reeks of religious intolerance but not racism.
In response to another comment. See in context »yes, you are right
In response to another comment. See in context »someones delusional if you don’t think many hate muslims
on ‘Chasers war on everything ‘ they asked americans ’should muslims have to wear badges? be locked up? yes sorry they do
it is on you tube
I agree to a point. It may be indefensible in today’s politically correct environment, but my ancestors were all required to learn English. That worked fine then and should work fine now. Mutli-culturalism is great. Multi-lingualism is a prescription for chaos.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not so sure you’re right about this one, Brian. I don’t think the lens you’re viewing this through is accurate.
In the same way we all (or at least most of us) find flying the Confederate flag repulsive because symbolizes the pre-Civil War South and all that conjures up in our minds about human oppression, why should France–and the U.S. for that matter–not be offended by burqas as symbolic of female oppression? In my mind, this is a human rights issue that is being disguised as acceptable on the grounds of religious reasons. Sorry, but keeping women down is not acceptable no matter what your culture or religious background is.
There are plenty of examples of things we in this country do not find acceptable, regardless of your religious practice and they are against the law. Polygamy for one. Animal sacrifice, for another. You defend burqas under the freedom of speech umbrella. And I could just as easily make an argument that burqas are the equivalent of hate speech and are, therefore, not protected.
Yes you could say they’re hate speech, IMHO, and that’s a decent argument. I hadn’t thought of that one, and honestly, I really have no retort.
BUT, I will say that we don’t ban things here because they’re offensive, we just say they’re offensive. If we started banning things for that reason, where would we stop?
In response to another comment. See in context »I think that’s for a court of law to determine, but I see it very clearly. Anything that is oppressive to one class of people, in this case women, should be considered inexcusable. This is about equal rights, and those rights on the basis of religion do not trump those same rights on the basis of gender.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t think you ever got to explaining why banning the burqa is racist. And it’s not as if non-muslims are the only people opposed to the practice of covering women head to toe.
This is a lazy article with a silly headline. If you think westerners are incapable of understanding other cultures, fine. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Mr. Donovan,
The title of your piece is incorrect, there nothing “well intentioned” about the ban, it is all about political and cultural domination. In California the Republican candidate for Governor (Meg Whitmen) is running TV ads about how broken up she is about all of the unemployment in California and how she wants to help. She sounds like some bleeding-heart liberal! That is until you hear the specifics, tax cuts for the rich and laying off thousands of state employees. Yeah, that will help unemployment! Conservatives love to maneuver with “liberal” sounding non-sense cover when it is needed. In France it is racists crying crocodile tears for oppressed women in burkas or in California it is billionaires worried about the helpless unemployed.
Um, we are talking about legislating clothing. How can this possibly be a reasonable government activity? Whether this policy is driven by racism, xenophobia or cultural exclusion seems irrelevant. It is still a towering monument to stupidity and oppression.
Nicely put, Larry.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian when you call the law racist you’re mistaken. The law is aimed at an inhuman aspect of a culture, not a race.
I can’t say for sure what is motivating France’s anti-burqua law but there are several good reasons I can think of to ban head to toe face covers.
1) The burqua isolates the individual from the rest of society. If you’re going to live in a country you need to become a part of that society.
2) The burqua hides your identity. If I’m a shopkeeper I would hate to have to deal with a hidden client. I would find it very offensive if not a little frightening if someone came into my shop with stocking cap or a scarf over their face. How is a burqua any different. Daily transactions need to be conducted face to face.
3) As another commentor said, the burqua can be a type of hate speech aimed at women. It’s a sign of ownership. I refuse to believe any woman would want to spend their entire lives behind such a covering if it wasn’t forced upon them.
I love the rich mixture of cultures that make up the tapestry of America, but not all aspects of those cultures are acceptable in a free society. I would argue the burqua is as unacceptable as slavery and honor killings.
A few corrections for you. As a Muslim woman myself, maybe I can help you with a few things here. Most of us are not forced to wear these things! The only example of “burqa” you have on this article is the first photo. Everything else is just “hijab”! The second photo isn’t “al-amira”, it’s a “shayla”. “Al-amira” or “princess style” is just a style of hijab. It’s a two piece slip on scarf, no need to wrap anything! As a born and raised American we have a bit more leeway than those in countries such as Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan. But the practice of hijab itself isn’t based in culture, it’s based in our religion. And men really have no say in whether a woman wears it or not. If a woman “takes off her hijab in public” it’s not because a man does or doesn’t allow it! We cover for modesty purposes. So a man sees who we are as people instead of sex objects. Hijab doesn’t refer just to what is on our heads, it refers to the whole way of dressing. If a woman walks into a place of business wearing skin tight clothes, I guarantee you a man won’t be looking at her personality or soul, and he certainly won’t be taking her as seriously as a man. But a man has nothing but a person to look at if a woman is dressed modestly and covered! That’s why we do it!