No burqa bans
Why is it nearly always wrong to outlaw
the wearing of the Muslim veil?
What you wear is a statement of who you are. From the1
old man’s cardigan and frayed tie to the youngster’s torn jeans
plus lip-stud, dress stands for identity. For that reason laws on
clothing should be avoided unless there is a compelling case for4
them. There is no such case for the Dutch government’s plan to
outlaw the wearing in all public places of the face-covering
burqa and niqab by Muslim women.7
As it happens, the plan’s announcement by Rita
Verdonk, the hardline Dutch immigration minister, was a
political stunt aimed at reviving her party’s flagging fortunes10
before this week’s election. But a new Dutch government, when
one is eventually formed, may still adopt it. And the proposed
ban follows a big debate about the Muslim veil in many other13
European countries.
In 2004 France passed a law to stop the wearing of the
Muslim hijab (headscarf) by girls in state schools. Several16
German states have banned teachers from wearing the
headscarf. One Belgian town has outlawed the burqa and niqab
from its streets. Recently a former British foreign secretary,19
Jack Straw, caused a row by inviting his Muslim constituents to
remove their veils when they met him; and a lawsuit confirmed
that British schools could sack teachers who wore22
face-covering garments. Turkey, a mostly Muslim country, has
banned the wearing of the veil in public buildings ever since
Ataturk established the modern republic in the 1920s.25
Those who favour such bans put forward four main
arguments. First, the veil (especially the burqa and niqab)
shows a refusal by Muslims to integrate into broader society;28
Britain’s Tony Blair called it a “mark of separation”. Second,
such clothing is testimony to the oppression of Muslim women;
they are said to don veils largely at the behest (or command) of31
their domineering menfolk. Third, the display of religious
symbols is an affront to secular societies (this line resonates
especially in France and Turkey). And fourth, there are settings34
— the schoolroom, the courthouse — in which the wearing of
Muslim veils can be intimidating or off-putting to pupils or
juries.37
Some of these arguments are stronger than others. But
none supports a blanket Dutch-style ban. Muslim dress can
indeed appear as a mark of separation, but racial and sectarian40
discrimination surely counts far more — and bans on religious
clothing are likely to aggravate it. Oppression of female
Muslims is regrettably common, and should be resisted; but43
many women choose to wear the veil for cultural reasons, and
others do so (as they do in Arab countries) as a sign of
emancipation, or even as a fashion statement. France and46
Turkey have fiercely secular traditions that can be interpreted
to justify restrictions on religious symbols; but such restrictions
are best applied sparingly, and only in state offices, not in the49
streets. Similarly, decisions to bar the wearing of Muslim dress
_____ courts or by teachers and pupils are surely better left
_____ local discretion than imposed nationally.52
Adapted from No burqa bans. In: The Economist, Nov. 25th 2006, p. 15.