Banning Muslim Veils Tends to Backfire--Why Do Countries Keep Doing It?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Denmark this week wrote the latest chapter in a global story that is becoming strangely familiar. The country’s new ban on any “garment that hides the face in public”—widely understood to be targeting Islamic veils like the burqa and niqab—entered into effect on Wednesday.

Limitations on wearing face veils in public have already been enacted in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Austria. They’ve been debated as far as Australia and the Canadian province of Quebec. Despite regional differences, a similar pattern of events has recurred in some of the countries. Although not every element of the pattern has appeared in every country, France, Quebec, and Austria, for instance, have followed a progression that goes roughly like this.

To read more:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/denmark-burqa-veil-ban/566630/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20180803&silverid-ref=MzEwMTkxMTU3MzA0S0


A very familiar tactic indeed, wherein Islam becomes the acceptable target for legalized intolerance, all in the name of promoting "western values".

[moondust]

1. I'll go with public safety.

Someone (male or female) whose face is concealed behind a veil may be difficult or impossible for the public and authorities to identify if they do something really, really bad. It could be enough to actually invite some criminal behavior.

[guillaumeb]

3. Ban Halloween?

Ban Carnival?

Ban costume parties?

Ban facemasks in Asian countries?

A weapon can be concealed in clothing. Ban clothing in public unless it is clear?

[moondust]

8. Europe is particularly vulnerable,

and hence touchy, due to its geographical accessibility from so many different cultures, large influx of migrants from various cultures in recent years, and numerous street attacks prompting authorities to do whatever they believe may help ensure the public's safety.

[guillaumeb]

9. Much the same is said in the US.

And at base, it is making a subgroup something to fear, and something to ban.

[Squinch]

2. I'm not aware of many countries banning veils. I know of some that ban face-coverings. But

that is a completely different thing.

[guillaumeb]

4. It is still intolerance.

No matter the claimed motivation, it is intolerance.

[Squinch]

5. Supporting the erasure of women's identities for a practice

that nothing to do with religion IS intolerant.

We've had this discussion before and I have no desire to have it again.

I just wanted to put it on the record that, no matter how much you like to pretend its a veil, it is nothing like a veil.

At least these discussions should have the integrity to call these things what they really are and not be dishonest. They are not veils. They are nothing like veils.

[guillaumeb]

6. They are articles of clothing.

And the motivation for banning them, as the article points out, is generalized intolerance.

[Squinch]

7. Spoken like someone who doesn't know any women who have to wear them.

[eissa]

10. Misogynistic religious tenants should not trump secular laws

For those wishing to live by religious mandates, there are plenty of theocracies to choose from.

[guillaumeb]

11. So theists should be confined to theocracies?

An interesting position.