France apparently has significant problems with immigrants and integration. From the reaction of the French politicians and from what has been shown by my brief perusal of media coverage, I assume that a high proportion of these immigrants who are not integrating well are either followers of Islam or perceived to be such, and regardless, it is their following Islam that is seen to be a large part of the reason they fail to integrate well - which is possibly correct to some degree (I suspect other, far more important factors). In response to this problem, France has banned the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public, ostensibly for other reasons to do with freedom, from recollection. I thought about such a ban a few months ago when this happened, I believe:

On one hand, if specifically targeting Islamist facial coverings, there’s the argument against the inherent misogyny. On the other hand, there’re inevitably some women who want to wear it and regardless as to whether their desire is a product of historical misogyny, it’s still their desire - and even choice - and that is being taken away from them. It’s a tough call.

This is a blanket law, and I generally support blanket applications of law, but if its real purpose is to take that choice away from Muslim women, I can’t really agree with it. If the choice being taken away is a byproduct of some other purpose then I probably could.

The first instance would single out a group and remove a choice from them which really only impacts upon individuals within that group (most likely leading to resentment and further marginalisation of the individuals in the group who the “help” is for). In the second instance where there is a primary purpose which is not targeting Muslims for outward expression of beliefs others in society disagree with (e.g. the law gives a blanket ban to full face coverings in public as full face coverings have been contributing to high crime rates), however, the taking away of the choice would be acceptable to me, as to give exception to Muslims for their beliefs would be premising their beliefs over others simply because they are religious. At the end of the day, such a blanket ban would be acceptable (ignoring cost/benefit analysis of implementing and enforcing such legislation) and not be discriminatory because if they chose not to adhere to such a ban - the purpose of which in my hypothetical was to decrease crime - they would be self-selecting rather than being targeted for an inherent characteristic, and their religious beliefs would not be given more weight than non-religious beliefs.

(Not that they would be targeted for an inherent characteristic in the first situation, but targeting a personal choice really only affecting the individual is not good law.)

I still have the same beliefs on the issue. If it is a case of targeting only the religion because the religion and/or its adherents (or even just a subset of adherents) are disliked then it is bad law. If it has some wider explicit and primary purpose such as decreasing crime then it could be reasonable law if it meets cost/benefit tests. This appears to be bad law. It does not deal with the problems of immigration and integration, probably making integration much less likely, and for all the pretty rhetoric about freedom and free society, it decreases the freedoms of a minority and sets a dangerous precedent for continued marginalisation with no clear benefits to French society at large. To all French politicians who supported this, shame on you. You are scum who either lack the ability or the courage to actually take appropriate steps to deal with the problems confronting your country instead preferring to pander with populist, yet ineffective and probably counterproductive, measures.

Further reading
French MPs vote to ban full Islamic veil in public
Syria bans full Islamic veil at universities
Do laws against Muslim veils increase religiosity?
Spain rejects broad ban on burqa
Syria becomes first Muslim country to impose a burqa ban
Saudi clerics say Muslim women in France need not wear veil
Australian judge to rule on whether witness can wear niqab (The right to face one’s accusers, open justice, etc is important, but denying the right to wear the veil could act as a disincentive on coming forward as a witness. It could be bypassed if the majority of religious leaders in the Muslim community allowed and not only that, encouraged, women to remove their veil in circumstances such as this - some may say it’s allowed, I guess, but unless they actively try to change the culture and encourage it, it’s probably going to be an issue on the side of those who want open justice, etc.)
Teacher wins burqa battle at university (This actually gives support to the banning of the burqa in some ways as those who are pro-burqa possibly have more of a tendency to seek to impose their will on all who they feel should wear a burqa. If it’s illegal, they can’t impose their will - but that means the same thing is being done the other way to those who wish to wear the burqa.)
Choice of dress serves freedom better than burqa ban
Death threats in burqa court case (There’re further links at the left of this article.)
Australian judge says witness cannot wear niqab (From recollection, the judge did not set a precedent, however.)
Muslim Disney employee files EEOC complaint over wearing hijab
Abercrombie sued for second time over clash between its “look policy” and wearing hijab
9th circuit grants en banc review in court holding cell headscarf case

1. hiddlesbodiddly liked this
2. weatherbeatenhollowsofsnow posted this