"Non" à la burqa en Belgique?
March 31, 2010 8:19 AM Subscribe
Belgium looks set to become the first European country to ban Islamic veils covering the face in a public space. Compared to the months of debate in France which led to a climbdown by Sarkozy, and findings that a ban would be difficult to justify, Belgium appears to be moving this law through relatively quickly, with talk of women's liberation, public safety, and a "very clear sign to Islamists". Quebec is currently debating a similar law applicable in public institutions. Laws on the Muslim veil vary widely across the world.
This post was deleted for the following reason: there's a big post from yesterday on the Canadian part of this general topic, may want to post this there. -- jessamyn
I'm not sure how ordering a women to do something is considered to be liberating
That's easily fixed.
You order their husbands to remove the veils and the wives do what their husbands ask them.
See - liberation is easy.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:28 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
That's easily fixed.
You order their husbands to remove the veils and the wives do what their husbands ask them.
See - liberation is easy.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:28 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure how ordering a women to do something is considered to be liberating.
I'm not going to try to defend it, just to explain it.
It's the same as with mandatory work breaks. If work breaks weren't mandatory, then the worker could be coerced into "agreeing" to not take them. The coercion could take almost any form and the worker him/herself may even come to believe they have agreed of their own free will.
Similarly, with veils. If veils were optional, then women who chose not to wear them might suffer pressure (or worse) to don them. But if there is no choice then a woman who really doesn't want to wear them can point to the law and say "I'd really love to, but I'm not allowed. So sad."
posted by DU at 8:30 AM on March 31, 2010 [4 favorites]
I'm not going to try to defend it, just to explain it.
It's the same as with mandatory work breaks. If work breaks weren't mandatory, then the worker could be coerced into "agreeing" to not take them. The coercion could take almost any form and the worker him/herself may even come to believe they have agreed of their own free will.
Similarly, with veils. If veils were optional, then women who chose not to wear them might suffer pressure (or worse) to don them. But if there is no choice then a woman who really doesn't want to wear them can point to the law and say "I'd really love to, but I'm not allowed. So sad."
posted by DU at 8:30 AM on March 31, 2010 [4 favorites]
It is already illegal to wear these things in North Carolina.
Otherwise, I would have put together a team of women who wear the veils to start robbing banks a long time ago.
posted by flarbuse at 8:40 AM on March 31, 2010
Otherwise, I would have put together a team of women who wear the veils to start robbing banks a long time ago.
posted by flarbuse at 8:40 AM on March 31, 2010
Still the greatest bike racing, beer brewing country in the world. Ronde van Vlaanderen is Sunday. OK, carry on.
posted by fixedgear at 8:43 AM on March 31, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 8:43 AM on March 31, 2010
But if there is no choice then a woman who really doesn't want to wear them can point to the law and say "I'd really love to, but I'm not allowed. So sad."
posted by DU
And women who do want to wear them would point to the law and say the same thing.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by DU
And women who do want to wear them would point to the law and say the same thing.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
This suppresses women in order to relieve women's suppression--and it labels politicians (members of the larger culture) who deny women's choices "good" while labeling members of the religious community who deny women's choices "bad."
But it's much easier to ban wearing a veil than it is to ban the larger suppression of women.
Unfortunately it means making women choose between their religious beliefs and their country, and when their country bans something so important to their identity, it reinforces rather than eliminates the separation between their religious community and the larger community--as well as the suppression present.
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
But it's much easier to ban wearing a veil than it is to ban the larger suppression of women.
Unfortunately it means making women choose between their religious beliefs and their country, and when their country bans something so important to their identity, it reinforces rather than eliminates the separation between their religious community and the larger community--as well as the suppression present.
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I have no idea where to go on this; as it's infringing on freedoms to try and do what?
I don't like the burkas, veils or any other religious dress not comporting of an elevated status and for all the yelling I've seen no evidence of an elevated status of women in the veil and for the most part just the opposite, to my eyes the veil or full body covering is like a handbag that says look what I bought. (for the men, not the woman)
That said; if it is acceptable for middle eastern countries to demand their dress and behavior codes be applied to foreign visitors, why can't a middle European one do the same? Wouldn't it be nice to be handed a beer and a nice pancake when you get to Belgium?
posted by NiteMayr at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010
I don't like the burkas, veils or any other religious dress not comporting of an elevated status and for all the yelling I've seen no evidence of an elevated status of women in the veil and for the most part just the opposite, to my eyes the veil or full body covering is like a handbag that says look what I bought. (for the men, not the woman)
That said; if it is acceptable for middle eastern countries to demand their dress and behavior codes be applied to foreign visitors, why can't a middle European one do the same? Wouldn't it be nice to be handed a beer and a nice pancake when you get to Belgium?
posted by NiteMayr at 8:44 AM on March 31, 2010
So it's okay to wear a non-Islamic veil?
posted by buxtonbluecat at 8:45 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by buxtonbluecat at 8:45 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
My problem with outright bans or restrictions on clothing except in the case of health and safety in a "free" society (for example, safety: bare skin is not appropriate in a welding operation or in a smelter; bangle jewelry is not acceptable on a small parts assembly line; health, naked guy not allowed to sit on bus seats without a disposable seat-liner; no spitting on the floor of a train) is that this is placing a restriction on the free exercise of religion while staying inside the country's larger legal system. That is, clothing mandated by the tenets of faith or religion should not be restricted unless for reasons of health and safety.
I do think that a country/state can restrict privileges on the basis of that clothing choice, such as the Florida (U.S.) law that in exchange for the right to operate a motor vehicle, a photo ID showing the face w/o veil is legitimate. The person has the right to refuse, the state has the right to refuse the privilege.
I do not think this extends to allowing sharia to supersede the laws of the country on the grounds of religious freedom; those (as I've read, not experienced) would cause a country's laws protecting the health and safety, or in many cases the laws against cruel or unusual punishment/punishment fitting the crime to be abrogated.
That said, while Muslims are a significant population in the U.S., I don't think we have faced nearly the same pressures that Belgium, Netherlands, or France have.
posted by beelzbubba at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2010
I do think that a country/state can restrict privileges on the basis of that clothing choice, such as the Florida (U.S.) law that in exchange for the right to operate a motor vehicle, a photo ID showing the face w/o veil is legitimate. The person has the right to refuse, the state has the right to refuse the privilege.
I do not think this extends to allowing sharia to supersede the laws of the country on the grounds of religious freedom; those (as I've read, not experienced) would cause a country's laws protecting the health and safety, or in many cases the laws against cruel or unusual punishment/punishment fitting the crime to be abrogated.
That said, while Muslims are a significant population in the U.S., I don't think we have faced nearly the same pressures that Belgium, Netherlands, or France have.
posted by beelzbubba at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2010
I don't like the burkas, veils or any other religious dress not comporting of an elevated status and for all the yelling I've seen no evidence of an elevated status of women in the veil and for the most part just the opposite, to my eyes the veil or full body covering is like a handbag that says look what I bought. (for the men, not the woman)
I know anecdotes are not data, but one of the smartest, funniest, most outspoken women I've ever met wears a hijab (though not a face covering), and it hasn't stopped her from achieving more in 23 years than I can ever hope to do in my entire life. Her hijab is absolutely her choice, and is an expression of her devout religious belief.
posted by sallybrown at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2010
I know anecdotes are not data, but one of the smartest, funniest, most outspoken women I've ever met wears a hijab (though not a face covering), and it hasn't stopped her from achieving more in 23 years than I can ever hope to do in my entire life. Her hijab is absolutely her choice, and is an expression of her devout religious belief.
posted by sallybrown at 8:50 AM on March 31, 2010
"very clear sign to Islamists"
I'm not sure it's a good idea to ban a religious practice because some assholes self-identify as that religion.
posted by Pragmatica at 8:52 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure it's a good idea to ban a religious practice because some assholes self-identify as that religion.
posted by Pragmatica at 8:52 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
That said; if it is acceptable for middle eastern countries to demand their dress and behavior codes be applied to foreign visitors, why can't a middle European one do the same?
Theoretically, the rationale is that we (modern Western nations) are so much more tolerant than those countries that dictate dress. Therefore, we don't dictate what they wear, and we shouldn't demand they change it.
That being said, it's seen as perfectly acceptable for banks, businesses, and government buildings to ask people to remove hats, sunglasses, balaclavas, and other masks when they enter the building. I wouldn't be OK with telling people what they can't wear outdoors or in their home, but I see no reason why a veil should be exempt from requests to remove face coverings indoors.
posted by explosion at 8:53 AM on March 31, 2010
Theoretically, the rationale is that we (modern Western nations) are so much more tolerant than those countries that dictate dress. Therefore, we don't dictate what they wear, and we shouldn't demand they change it.
That being said, it's seen as perfectly acceptable for banks, businesses, and government buildings to ask people to remove hats, sunglasses, balaclavas, and other masks when they enter the building. I wouldn't be OK with telling people what they can't wear outdoors or in their home, but I see no reason why a veil should be exempt from requests to remove face coverings indoors.
posted by explosion at 8:53 AM on March 31, 2010
Unfortunately it means making women choose between their religious beliefs and their country, and when their country bans something so important to their identity, it reinforces rather than eliminates the separation between their religious community and the larger community--as well as the suppression present.
I also wonder whether the effect might be that those women who used to wear veils outside, will simply not go outside. Or will face pressure from fathers or husbands not to do so. Probably not in all cases, but perhaps in some.
Also, what weapons-grade pandemonium said.
posted by Infinite Jest at 8:54 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I also wonder whether the effect might be that those women who used to wear veils outside, will simply not go outside. Or will face pressure from fathers or husbands not to do so. Probably not in all cases, but perhaps in some.
Also, what weapons-grade pandemonium said.
posted by Infinite Jest at 8:54 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think there are a million women in burquas in Belgium out robbing banks and posing a threat to safety. And I don't think it's going to stop armed robbers from putting something over their arms and faces.
The BBC's Dominic Hughes reports from Brussels that there are about 500,000 Muslims in Belgium, and the Belgian Muslim Council says only a couple of dozen wear full-face veils.
No one seems to have a problem with Hasidic Jewish women being "oppressed" into covering their arms and shaving their heads upon marriage.
That said; if it is acceptable for middle eastern countries to demand their dress and behavior codes be applied to foreign visitors, why can't a middle European one do the same?
Because we aren't a theocracy.
posted by anniecat at 8:56 AM on March 31, 2010
The BBC's Dominic Hughes reports from Brussels that there are about 500,000 Muslims in Belgium, and the Belgian Muslim Council says only a couple of dozen wear full-face veils.
No one seems to have a problem with Hasidic Jewish women being "oppressed" into covering their arms and shaving their heads upon marriage.
That said; if it is acceptable for middle eastern countries to demand their dress and behavior codes be applied to foreign visitors, why can't a middle European one do the same?
Because we aren't a theocracy.
posted by anniecat at 8:56 AM on March 31, 2010
It's a piece of cloth.
So are flags, and KKK hoods, and Superman's cape. Pointing it out doesn't change what the argument is really about.
You order their husbands to remove the veils and the wives do what their husbands ask them.
Yeah, that witticism was already covered yesterday.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 8:57 AM on March 31, 2010
So are flags, and KKK hoods, and Superman's cape. Pointing it out doesn't change what the argument is really about.
You order their husbands to remove the veils and the wives do what their husbands ask them.
Yeah, that witticism was already covered yesterday.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 8:57 AM on March 31, 2010
NiteMayr: I've seen no evidence of an elevated status of women in the veil and for the most part just the opposite, to my eyes the veil or full body covering is like a handbag that says look what I bought. (for the men, not the woman)
The Gallup Muslim West Facts Project is a great source of data on the difference between how the Muslim veil is perceived by Westerners and by Muslim women.
posted by creeky at 9:00 AM on March 31, 2010
The Gallup Muslim West Facts Project is a great source of data on the difference between how the Muslim veil is perceived by Westerners and by Muslim women.
posted by creeky at 9:00 AM on March 31, 2010
Babelfish English translation of the "women's liberation, public safety, and a "very clear sign to Islamists" link, for those of us who don't read French. :)
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on March 31, 2010
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on March 31, 2010
« Older Heaven All Day | An artfully arranged single portion takeout of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by knapah at 8:22 AM on March 31, 2010 [10 favorites]