Jul 23, 2010

Law of the seven veils

I was going to blog about this French stupidity about banning Islamic veils on women, but it turns out I don't have to, because Martha Nussbaum already did for the NY Times.

That should cover the basics. In general, I find it hard to articulate how distasteful I find it that governments in the 21st century west are passing laws on what their citizens are allowed to wear. This time, we really are going back to the middle ages, because the last time these kinds of laws were passed was the sumptuary laws of the late middle ages.

Look how far we've come.
Posted by Michael Halila at 09:00
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

Krabak said...

It might be a surprise to you, but *all* societies codify what their citizens are allowed to wear (or not to wear) in laws, that's why you don't see people running around naked in public for example.

As for the recent law banning veils
in public, it's more complex issue than you make it out to be, since veils *are* used to significantly restrict the freedom of female population in certain muslim communities. So, imho, in this case it's a choice between bad and a worse option, since whatever you do, you will infringe personal freedom of someone. All you can do is to try to minimize the harm and maximize the gain and at least the veil ban can actually improve the lot of certain muslim females in France in the long run, whereas nothing good will
come out of condoning the oppressive traditions such as forcing women to wear burkha in public places.

July 24, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Michael Halila said...

What you think you're achieving by being a condescending smartass I don't know. I could point out that general legislation on public order, which usually prohibits nudity, is very different from specifically outlawing one type of garment, but I'd have to add some kind of snide rejoinder, and I can't be bothered. "It might be a surprise to you" that all of us don't appreciate being talked down to.

You also demonstrate the flawed logic behind this kind of law. You blithely assume that no-one could possibly want to do X voluntarily; therefore banning X makes people more free. So by restricting freedom we increase freedom. Therefore black is white. This is real 1984 thinking.

July 24, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Krabak said...

"I could point out that general legislation on public order, which usually prohibits nudity, is very different from specifically outlawing one type of garment."

You could but you would be wrong. Society regulates clothing based on what it deems acceptable. Therefore clothing deemed too indecent or otherwise offensive (such as veils) are not allowed. You might disagree with the majority about the offensiveness of veils, but this *does not* change the basic principle.

In addition, banning veils is not about just banning a certain type of clothing, it's about society trying to protect people who cannot protect themselves by sending a message that certain oppressive attitudes will not be tolerated. A similar case would be for example schools banning gang insignias and clothing. It's not like wearing funny tags on your clothing would directly hurt anyone, but
gang activity going with them would. Similarly, although wearing veil might be voluntary in some cases, the oppressive traditions going with these garments do hurt a lot of people, every day.

"You blithely assume that no-one could possibly want to do X voluntarily"'

No I do not. Hopefully the stuff above makes that finally clear.

"therefore banning X makes people more free. Therefore black is white. This is real 1984 thinking."

Apparently you missed my point completely, so let's try again.

As I already said in previous post, whatever you do in this situation *will* infringe the personal freedom of some people. It's only matter of how many and how badly.

In case of veil ban it's the people who would like to voluntarily wear the veil. In case of not banning the veil you infringe, be it indirectly, the freedom of much larger group of people in significantly worse way as
garments such as burkha are a powerful tool for oppressing women in Islamic culture.

Therefore, although veil ban will infringe the freedom of some people, I do see it doing more good than bad in the long run, since it will send a clear message that certain oppressive traditions simply are not acceptable in Europe.

July 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Michael Halila said...

In case of not banning the veil you infringe, be it indirectly, the freedom of much larger group of people in significantly worse way as
garments such as burkha are a powerful tool for oppressing women in Islamic culture.

I'm not missing anything. You're arguing that if we don't ban something, people will be less free. So you're arguing that restricting freedom increases freedom. I rest my case.

July 28, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Krabak said...

"I'm not missing anything. You're arguing that if we don't ban something, people will be less free. So you're arguing that restricting freedom increases freedom. I rest my case."

So in case you need to choose between a small and very large infringement of personal freedom you choose the very large one just because it's indirect?

I have to admit I really cannot understand your reasoning unless you're afraid that choosing the smaller (and direct) infringement would make you responsible for the consequences, whereas allowing the status quo (very large infringement) to remain unchanged lets you conveniently wash your hands of the whole issue. However if you have some other explanation for this, I'd be happy to hear it.

July 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)