What is banning burqas supposed to achieve, really?
Random dude at Der Spiegel says: It Makes No Sense to Ban the Burqa. And I agree with him:
One of the fundamental tenets of Western modernity is that the world would be a better place if countries were more like Belgium and less like Afghanistan. Men and women should be equal, no one should be excluded or feel excluded, religion should be a largely private affair. And Belgian parliamentarians obviously feel that the burqa and niqab violate these fundamental principles.
That is understandable. By these standards, the practice of making women -- but never men -- unrecognizable in public is a provocation. And there is often the suspicion that some of these women are forced to wear such coverings. It can also be assumed that children in these families are not being raised with particularly emancipatory ideas. There is certainly little doubt that these veils hinder integration.
Nevertheless, it makes no sense to ban the burqa and niqab. Such a ban would simply be attacking a symptom while ignoring the real problem. At issue is not the veil that covers the head, but the one that is inside the head.
For any woman who is forced to wear the burqa, a ban will just ensure that she will no longer be able to leave the house. No one is seriously suggesting that it will have an instructional or enlightening affect upon her husband. And it is risky to speculate that she will feel supported by this legislative statement.
Furthermore, isn't it inherently illiberal to tell people that they can't wear something that's wrapped up in their religious identity? If a bunch of burqa'd women were robbing banks, Belgium could make a public safety case that the burqa needed to go because of the anonymity it provides. And still they'd have to overcome the burden of infringing on people's religious practices. But they don't even have that much. They're essentially banning the burqa because they don't like how Islamic fundamentalists treat women, and the burqa is something that's easy to ban that relates to that problem. As the article points out, banning the burqa isn't going to change how Islamic fundamentalists treat their women, it's just going to push them to get more creative about it.
Once again we see the benefit of a Constitution with a serious Bill of Rights. If Belgium had our constitution, this kind of thing would be much harder to enact.
One of the fundamental tenets of Western modernity is that the world would be a better place if countries were more like Belgium and less like Afghanistan. Men and women should be equal, no one should be excluded or feel excluded, religion should be a largely private affair. And Belgian parliamentarians obviously feel that the burqa and niqab violate these fundamental principles.
That is understandable. By these standards, the practice of making women -- but never men -- unrecognizable in public is a provocation. And there is often the suspicion that some of these women are forced to wear such coverings. It can also be assumed that children in these families are not being raised with particularly emancipatory ideas. There is certainly little doubt that these veils hinder integration.
Nevertheless, it makes no sense to ban the burqa and niqab. Such a ban would simply be attacking a symptom while ignoring the real problem. At issue is not the veil that covers the head, but the one that is inside the head.
For any woman who is forced to wear the burqa, a ban will just ensure that she will no longer be able to leave the house. No one is seriously suggesting that it will have an instructional or enlightening affect upon her husband. And it is risky to speculate that she will feel supported by this legislative statement.
Furthermore, isn't it inherently illiberal to tell people that they can't wear something that's wrapped up in their religious identity? If a bunch of burqa'd women were robbing banks, Belgium could make a public safety case that the burqa needed to go because of the anonymity it provides. And still they'd have to overcome the burden of infringing on people's religious practices. But they don't even have that much. They're essentially banning the burqa because they don't like how Islamic fundamentalists treat women, and the burqa is something that's easy to ban that relates to that problem. As the article points out, banning the burqa isn't going to change how Islamic fundamentalists treat their women, it's just going to push them to get more creative about it.
Once again we see the benefit of a Constitution with a serious Bill of Rights. If Belgium had our constitution, this kind of thing would be much harder to enact.