The Face Veil and Modern Morality

In October 2001 allied forces initiated their invasion of Afghanistan, a state which was then controlled by the extreme Muslim political party, “Taliban”. The Taliban enforced a radical interpretation of Islam which was an insult to human rights. It included the requirement that all women wear the burqa and the full body veil, in the belief that "the face of a woman is a source of corruption". Women under the regime were denied the equal rights to men and were treated as second class “citizens.” While the west struggles to install a more egalitarian regime in Afghanistan, it would be outrageous to think the practices condemned of the Taliban should be allowed in a free democracy.

Belgium may shortly become the first EU country to ban the burqa in public spaces (the burqa is specifically the type of Islamic headdress that covers the entirety of the face with the exception of the eyes). This includes schools, hospitals, government buildings and public transportation. However, the debate has been going on in other countries for some time, notably in France, which has had a strong tradition of state secularism since the Revolution. At the time, this was largely targeting the privileged status enjoyed by the Christian clergy but more recently it has been with the growing presence of the Islamic faith in Europe that the policy has come into collision.

The majority of Muslims to do not endorse the full-face veil. Indeed, many of the Islamic immigrants to Western Europe from Africa and the Middle East have come to escape the tyranny of imams and mullahs in their countries of origins (can Europe hope to offer an alternative?). Radical Islamic practices, including the burqa and the discrimination of women that goes with it is often a product of second-generation immigrants trying to assert and identity through their religion.

Critics accuse a ban on the burqa as pushing state secularism too far. Where is the boundary to be drawn between secular governance and religious freedom? Under a secular state any individual has a right to hold their own beliefs, political, ethical, religious or otherwise. However, it is of the utmost importance that their faith accords them no privilege or allowance that would not be accorded under the normal enforcement of the law. In this article, I hope to outline for the reader why the burqa is the enforcement of an extreme religious belief that is incompatible with the values of any free nation, and why a ban on it is therefore more than justified under any government.

The quickest way to demonstrate the burqa’s incompatibility with modern day society and morality is to run through the first several articles of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first article states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The burqa, in contrast, upholds the idea that the individual wearing it is neither free nor equal in neither dignity nor rights. The second article states that no distinction of sex can be given in the application of rights and yet this distinction is made by the burqa. The right to liberty, such as the liberty to show one’s face in public, is also disregarded by the enforcement of the burqa, as are the decrees that no one be held in slavery or servitude (before a God or a gender class) or be subjected to degrading treatment, the right to the recognition as a person before the law (religious or otherwise) without discrimination and (in a society where the burqa is permitted) the right to an effective remedy by the state (articles 3-8). So it can be said to be beyond reasonable doubt that the wearing of the burqa and the adjoining belief system contravenes the first 8 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So are we to allow unashamedly sexist religious values laid down by male theologians in the seventh century enforce such oppression on the sovereign soil of a free, modern state that recognises such values as those enshrined by the UN, if not by the nation itself in its own constitution? Some would say yes, appealing to the right of religious freedom also upheld in some documents. I have already stated how the right to religious belief should indeed by universal. However, the practice of any religion must remain within the confines of the law. Let us not forget that religions in the past have sanctioned animal and human sacrifice. Above I discussed how the enforcement of the burqa infringes on the rights of an individual. But is the burqa necessarily “enforced”? Suppose (say critics of the ban) women decide to wear it as an independent choice?

Sadly, while those outside the religious communities can defend the burqa on these grounds as much as they like, talk of the female’s choice and liberty will not pass the Islamist’s lips. Indeed, what the very significance of the burqa negates the premise of this argument! The women who wear it are certainly under no illusions as to what it represents (and its effects) which is why it is not solely the act of covering the face that is banned, but specifically the Islamic expression of it through a defined garment. The woman who wears the burqa does not do so from reflection on the nature of society and what is right (or she would arrive at a different conclusion) but rather through unquestioning observance to a dictatorial religious doctrine whose values go plainly against those of the 21^st century.

Banning the burqa does not discriminate against those of the Islamic faith (or a particular version of it, the burqa is far from mainstream and is not found in the Qur’an, the central doctrine of Islam) as is sometimes claimed. If (say) the Catholic Church were to institutionalise as harmful a garment as the burqa it would doubtless meet the same opposition from modern society. Equally, the extreme fringes of Islam should not be granted the extra-constitutional right of enforcing such a garment as a result of a belief system that disagrees with modern democracy and female rights. The attachment of religious faith to so harmful a garment should, in short, not impede its banning.

Critics of the ban will say that since it is so saturated in the culture of some communities that surely by removing the burqa, women who have grown accustomed to it will feel insecure in public without it. The potential is then that this uneasiness will increase their seclusion. If this is the case, then there can be no clearer symptom of the burqa’s harm. Perhaps there may be some conflict within the culture during the period of transition following a ban (probably less than is suggested) but is it right to live in a society where woman systematically do not feel secure in public when expressing their face? It is morally objectionable to allow it and to suggest that women would choose to wear it by free, independent choice is abhorrent.

The final and perhaps weakest argument against the ban on the face veil in public is the fear of reprisals (a counter made to this is that the burqa poses a security threat, but in as much as a weapon can be concealed under a burqa, so it can under a suit, jacket or fleece.) Salmon Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses and cartoons published in Danish newspapers have both managed to cause uproar in the Islamic world, and not solely the extremist fringes. More potent attacks have been perpetrated, notably by Al Qaeda, against Western society in response to “degenerate” attitudes. Do we want to invoke similar religiously fuelled violence in France and Belgium? The response to this shows exactly how allowing the burqa and undermines a safe, liberal society.

If there is the possibility of extremist action, then this is an already existing problem which must be confronted, not catered for. International Islamist organisations such as Al Qaeda are not motivated by the desire to find reasons to inflict damage, but by the desire to promote a radical version of Islam. Osama bin Laden would much rather not going to the trouble of flying planes into buildings to encourage the entirety of the West to adopt Islam (and has said as such). The purpose of such groups is to force us to conform to their perception of the world out of fear and terror. If we allow extremist Islam to enforce its policies, such as the burqa on our citizens, then militant Islam has won without firing a shot. Their policies of terror will have achieved their desired effect. Anyone who is opposed to a burqa ban out of fear of reprisal is collaborating with the policies of extremists and terror organisations. It is radical, violent Islam with a western face. Those who enforce the burqa in the community are often those with a religious faith strong enough to justify in their minds physical aggression. It is the crackpot version of religion represented by the burqa which must be inoculated against in society and which Nicholas Sarkozy has described as “not welcome” in France.

The burqa is a weapon of repression which has the aim of systematically sidelining women in society. The claims made regarding the individual who wears it therefore contradict what are recognised as fundamental human rights. That it be allowed in private residences is dubious enough, but that it be banned in public places is the unquestionable duty of anyone who wishes to maintain these localities’ reputations as somewhere that freedom and dignity are upheld. Belgium may be the first to implement this policy, but we should hope that the civil emancipation of women of Islamic faith soon become universal practice.