By STEVE ZARA
Added: Sun, 16 May 2010 18:39:06 UTC

Doesn't seeing women in clothing that hides their faces make you feel uneasy?  It makes me feel uneasy.  It makes very many people feel uneasy, so uneasy that in several places in Europe there are laws against the wearing of such clothing either on the books or being planned.  Such laws are dangerous, and unnecessary.

What is the problem with such clothing?

It is said that such clothing goes against secularism, which is a problem in countries such as France that enforce secularism in some situations.  But this argument doesn't work because one of the arguments used against those who justify burqa wearing on religious grounds is that it isn't mandated by holy books. (ADDED:  I make no claims about whether or not the burqa is mandated by holy texts, just that this argument is used by some).  So, the anti-secularism argument is inconsistent, and can be dismissed.

It is said that there is a right to see someone's face when you interact with them in public.  Is there?  What about dealing with someone on a motorbike delivering a pizza?  Should be be a legal requirement that they take their helmet off before you accept the pizza?  What about scarves on cold days?  No.  There is no general demand for a right to see someone's face.  That is a good example of a poor attempt to come up with a post-hoc justification for burqa banning.

It is said that women are bullied into hiding from society by family.  That could well happen.  But many people are bullied into hiding all kinds of things.  Atheists can be concerned about revealing their beliefs.  Gay people are told to keep their sexuality to themselves.  Should there be laws insisting that such people express their beliefs in public?  Even in the awful situation of women who are subject to violence in the home, it is considered unreasonable to make laws to insist that such women leave their husbands.  Instead the law deals with the violence, not the victim.  The matter of forced burqa wearing is very difficult, because law treats adults as being able to give and receive consent about most matters short of violence.  If an adult woman gives in to her husband about clothing, it may be reasonable, even important to try and persuade her to reconsider, but to pass laws forbidding her to give in?  Is that the sign of a civilized society that respects its citizens?

It is said that the burqa prevents women from expressing themselves.  But some women who wear the burqa say that they are expressing themselves, and they are expressing their desire to be free of what they consider to be the highly sexualised nature of women in Western societies. But should law be used to change people's attitudes in this way?

It is said that the burqa is an offense to the secular state.  That is an odd argument, as it assumes that the state is something that can be subject to offense, and it assumes that this actually matters.  This argument sometimes comes from people who are prepared to cause offense to the religious based on their ideas, because "there is no right not to be offended".  Even if the bizarre category mistake is to going to be made of making the abstraction of the state into some kind of person that can be offended, this argument makes no sense, and can actually be hypocritical.

It is said that we need to draw a line to show where religion is not allowed to influence society.  And where is the line drawn, as in the recent anti-burqa laws in France?  The line is drawn regarding fashion.  How very French!

What is the real problem with the burqa?  It is because of the effect it has on integration of people into society, and it is also a matter of how we interact with each other in public spaces.  It is not unreasonable to expect people to conform to certain patterns of dress and behaviour in public spaces, simply out of good manners and mutual respect.  Wearing a burqa is ill-mannered and disrespectful to others in society.

But, disapproval of burqa-wearing in public should be a matter of negotiation, of discussion.  But not law.  Not dangerous law.  Why is such a law dangerous?  Firstly, because it makes those who are considered victims - the wearers - even more victimised.  Secondly, because it attempts to send a message to culture rather than dealing with the actual issues.  The problem with trying to send a message to a culture about cultural differences is that the very problem you are dealing with, the cultural differences, means that the message that is received is often not the message that you are intending to send.  There is no doubt that the message "stop veiling women" will sometimes be interpreted as "we hate your religion".  Change isn't encouraged or enabled through messages of hate, even if sent unintentionally.

The problem is that the wearers of burqas and those who encourage it probably have a poor understanding of the message that they are, perhaps unintentionally sending to the rest of society.  It is a message of isolation, of arrogant non-conformity, of disrespect for others.  It is a message that women should be subject to a form of bondage.

So, we should face up to the real problem with the burqa:  it isn't about secularism, or religion, or oppression, or feminism, or freedom.  It's about people feeling comfortable together in society, and that is important for stability and peace.  But we need no absurd laws against clothes to deal with this problem, because the problem is about far more than clothes.  (If we passed specific laws about everything that was rude in public, there would be no end of unworkable laws). It is about attitudes, and we need education and negotiation to change them.  That is the real challenge, not the framing of laws.

TAGGED: LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION