Yeah so they are doing that thing
in the title.
Elsewhere, you have lefties beard-stroking
and claiming it's a 'progressive' step, and equatable to banning nudity:
... they are simply saying that all things have limits and extremism must be addressed. The complete covering of the body and face, they rightly say, is extremist.
It might be extreme
, but to me that's a very different word to extremist
. I mean what if I really hate the extremity of mohicans? Anyway, here are my thoughts (C+P job I'm afraid), if you care for them:
I was discussing this last night. I think it's a bad law.
I'd like to just say here, I hate the burqa. I hate what it stands for; I find its justifications flimsy, sexist in both directions and contemptuous. I hate its cultural significations and its promotion of (as I see it) ingrained oppression.
But I still don't support banning it.
One argument you hear a lot of is that it is a 'progressive' step towards women's equality. How is curtailing what women may wear liberating? If a women does not wish to wear the burqa in Belgium or France, then she is under no legal requirement to do so. You cannot 'free' her any more than she has already been freed. Where the concern here REALLY lies is in the policing of minorities and subcultures: more precisely, that the protection for women who choose to wear what they please is guaranteed; that she will not suffer a local backlash from her cultural community. If a woman is being beaten because she does not wish to wear the burqa, the solution is not to ban the burqa.
This brings me to my second point, which is that banning the burqa will cause massive personal pain and distress to those who voluntarily wear it. It would be analagous to banning Nun's habits. Criminalizing free religious expression based on a subjective view of what is appropriate is the kind of thing, when framed in those terms, that should have progressives up in arms. They cannot then nod thoughtfully and support it just because they dislike the object in question. Once again: can you imagine what this is going to do to households? What if they are forced to move back to a more repressive state without the freedoms they currently enjoy (yes, whilst wearing a burqa)? Have you liberated them then?
Another less credible idea is that it would somehow encourage extremism. This is pretty much just islamo- or xenophobia, lightly disguised. If a criminal is going to commit a crime, they will find a means by which to obscure their identity. Whether that means is a burqa is irrelevent. You are prosecuting the criminal, not his disguise. It makes as much sense to ban hockey masks, or sacks (because you could wear them with cut-out eyeholes). To equate burqas with potential violence is a deplorable kind of prejudice.
Lastly, I find the point about nudists intellectually dishonest. The absence of clothes is different to a subset of clothes. I find the point about it being two ends of an extremist spectrum problematic. A person wishing to cover themselves fully is not harming or harrassing anyone, unlike nudity (and seriously, if you're going to equate it to nudity, you might want a reality check on how permissive the European states - esp. Fr, Bel, Ger, and Aus - actually are about that). The one grain of legitimacy in this view that I can find is the security-related objection that it is hard to ascertain identity for official purposes. But I am pretty sure we can find a means around that which stops short of banning the whole thing.
This is a typically conservative, xenophobic, anti-immigrant law which should - and, would ordinarily - have leftists of all creeds up in arms. But because we agree with the notion that it's degrading to women (or whatever variation on that theme), we stand idly by whilst other people's civic rights are unnecessarily attacked. Like I said at the start of this, the laws already afford a woman in the country all the protection she needs if she chooses not to wear the burqa. Don't trick yourselves into thinking you are making her any more free.