Most Western nations have laws forbidding people forcing other people to wear stuff already. I mean, if my spouse tries to get me to go outside in a man-thong (sorry), I can say "no" without fear. And the same would apply to a burka or veil as well.

Maybe I don't read it correctly, but how exactly would you think one can enforce that law? The women that are forced to wear such things won't ever go to the police i'm sure....

Agree with tsedek. Nice idea, but not a chance it would work.

I think Western governments should outlaw wearing any sort of clothing that covers the face when the person is driving, or when entering government buildings. Wearing a burka while driving is dangerous (the driver doesn't have very good peripheral vision), and wearing a burka in a government building is a security threat. In all other instances, the government should mind it's own business.

These "medieval-minded" men you speak of are fiercely protective of the private sphere (the Koran justifies the subjugation of women in the family; the men need not fear persecution because sharia dictates as such, and Muslim societies turn a blind eye to such suppression - which becomes a religious anachronism with regard to progressive societies like that of the Netherlands) and will not tolerate any form of state intervention that seeks to dictate whether they can or cannot force the women to wear certain items of clothing.

Basically, it's like domestic violence and rape. The victims have to be the ones to speak out.

Your heart is in the right place Michael, but sometimes as in this instance you display the nutty impracticality of the socialist I guess you used to be.

How crazy is it to get the state involved in deciding who within the family is responsible for the burka the wife is wearing? What sort of inquisition would be required to arrive at a determination?

'The implementation might be a bit tricky' - Yes, I would say so. As with socialism as a whole, the fact that it's hard even to imagine a plausible implementation ought to be suggesting to us that there is something screwy about this whole idea.

Ummm, Michael, since when has it been legal for a man to force a woman to do anything in a Western nation ?

Anybody can persuade and debate an issue, but he or she can't use force, violence, or the threat of violence against anybody.

I have never been a socialist of any kind, unless you think the Green Party is "socialist." (I don't.)

How about fundamentalist Muslim men go blindfolded and get led around on leashes by their unveiled wives? That way the men don't have to worry about getting seduced by a beautiful female face.

From what I have seen and read the muslim women who are into this stuff are not being forced to wear the head and clothing gear, at least in Western societies (although in Muslim societies that impose this practice, I would assume that are at least a few who wouldn't want to do it if it wasn't mandatory). They seem to be totally into it and fully part of their cultural program. So the suggestion of illegality if pushed by their men, would seem to be irrelevant as well as impractical to enforce.

The real issue here is the liberation of muslim women. A progressive feminist movement for muslim women would solve that particular problem as well as cause havoc in the old traditional islamic system. Without their women to serve as incubators on demand and domestic slaves, the boys wouldn't have nearly as much time to get into the mischief that they presently get into.

Banning the veil and that monstrous burkha are important steps. It goes beyond security, although security is an extremely important reason--it sends the right message to the muslims about the tolerable boundaries within Western societies.

I'm waiting to see how long it's going to take for Western societies to deal with, or even say anything about the rampant polygamy by Muslims within Western societies.

Just in case anyone was wondering about such things, it was interesting to note a recent quote that was uncovered from that Australian imam (who got everyone's shorts in a knot when he made his 'boys wil be boys when they see uncovered meat' statement regarding a gang rape trial for some local muslims. While on a visit to Lebanon, he was quoted as saying that he had four wives and many children. Apparently, deportation is not an issue as he is an Australian citizen.

It's going on everywhere but I'm sure it's just too not pc to raise the issue.

it is illegal for men to wear masks when entering banks, court housesand schools - why not women?

Sol Vason,

We agree, but I*m longer winded.

The law should ban the concealment of face and identity in public for very reasonable and logical purpose. Security.

Armed robbers, the KKK, Muqtada Blackshirts, and Hizbullah conceal their face with fabric to commit crimes with impunity.

Police, customs workers and social service agencies along with airport, rail and other security workers must be able to match picture ID to the holder*s face.

Thousands of public security video cameras , [ generally approved by the public], are thwarted by those who would hide behind a Burka.

The sooner the Netherlands style No Burka Law comes into effect in Canada and all of North America, the better. = TG

Does anyone else have any idea how Western societies can resist the importation of burkas, veils, and other tools of male dominance without being overly authoritarian?

States can restrict certain religious freedoms (or "freedoms," if you will), including, for example, the sacramental use of peyote in Native American religious ceremonies (EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)).

The reasoning in that case is that if another law "incidentally forbids" compliance with a religious practice - and is not solely targeting that particular practice (for example, a general ban on most narcotics) - then that religious practice can be restricted.

Piggybacking on sol's point - for burka purposes, if there's a "no costume" law - or a law stating that people's faces need to be partially or fully visible - for identification and security purposes - that would not specifically target the "religious" character of burka wearing.

That's how Florida successfully prevented a female Islamic convert from wearing a veil while taking her driver's license photo.

But an ID photo is a bit different from just walking around in public.

If Ataturk outlawed forms of dress considered Islamist, then perhaps, just perhaps he knew what he was doing.

It's not an issue if the kids have to go to middle or jr. high school. Nobody wants to show up for 8th grade as an outsider. That is,imho, the secret to American assimilation, no guy wants a beating and girls want to have friends. Show up with a funny culture-centric hat or a tarp on your head in jr. high and catch bad results in the lunch yard or gossip area.

My basic theory on immigration in America is that kids are mean and ruthless, lord of the flies type of thing, and it somehow creates a society where everyone gets along and hates each other at the same time.

Does anyone else have any idea how Western societies can resist the importation of burkas, veils, and other tools of male dominance without being overly authoritarian?

Semite1973's idea would probably work.

Re the greens- not the clean-air/water types who make up the bulk of the membership, but the party leadership, yes.

There was a quote I read a while back from a British General in Colonial India concerning a funeral rite. I do not remember the exact specifics but the jist was that after the husband died the living widow was put on top of the funeral pyre and burned alive with the dead husband. The argument of the Hindu sect practicing this was that it was the custom of their society to do this and should be respected. The British General responded that he respected their culture but they should be made award that it was British custom to hang anyone who practiced this. Your comments instantly brought this quote to my mind.

The key needs to be enforcement of anti-polygamy, anti-rape, anti-harrassment laws that are already on the books.
Laws not being enforced against Muslims, because of silly PC.

Dems are full of hypocritical double standards on sex and morals (Alcee Hastings). The French need to be more agressive about prosecuting car-burning crimes and wife/ women beating & raping crimes.

Mantis- that was Charles James Napier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier

The exact wording of his response varies somewhat in different reports, but the following version captures its essence:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

It would be nice if more westerners still had that kind of confidence in their own culture.

Rsoignol,

It would be nice if more westerners still had that kind of confidence in their own culture.

That's the million-dollar baby. Unless we reconnect with a confidence in our own culture, we are on a long slow slide to someplace else. Just where that will be is hard to foresee. I've heard it said that the American culture reinvents itself every 20-30 years. Maybe a Phoenix will rise, who knows?

Thankyou for providing the context. I read it awhile back from an article I wish I could give credit to. Confidence in culture is, in my belief, one of the biggest problems with the Western World. The continued doubting and self-implication. I am not arguing that the Western World is not at fault on certain key issues, but it is not unreasonable to take a position that there are definite reasons on why are society has progressed past much of the Islamic culture. Historically the Muslim world sets the benchmark for advancement in Mathmatics and Science. I still believe this can be rekindled, but it will only be hampered by incessant doubting of our own worth.

Historically the Muslim world sets the benchmark for advancement in Mathmatics and Science.

Not in the centuries where most of the advancement took place.

The ancient world was very different. It didn't take much to lead THAT world.

They have never been modern.

Michael, is a burkha a 'tools of male dominance' or is it a consequence of that? I think if the former then it could be banned, much as there is equal pay legislation. But if, as I think is probably more true, it is a consequence of male domination, then it will only be eradicated by education, both of women and men. Of course this is true of most religious clothing, if you think about it.

It's both.

It's a tool of male dominance in that it discourages 'outsiders' from interacting with anyone in one, and discourages anyone wearing one from interacting with them. People like to be able to see the face of the person they're talking to, it adds emphasis and context. When you can't see that, it's easy to misunderstand and get the wrong impression.

So the burka keeps female muslims in a little box and makes it difficult for someone in that box to get out.

It's a consequence of male dominance insofar as muslim men seem to want women to remain second-class citizens instead of being full members of the society (gasp, shock, horror)- basically, a burka helps to secure men's position of primacy in muslim society.

The surprising thing is that some of the less-sharp women have made the mistake of thinking wearing the tent means what's under it is pure, and are probably wearing the things voluntarily.

Generally speaking, I think a case can be made for banning the things when someone is driving on grounds of reduced visibility, etc, and obviously, photo id should be of a person, not a mask... but in the US, wearing a burka in other circumstances would probably be considered a form of speech, protected by the 1st Amendment.

I wouldn't accost a burka-wearing woman and her husband in public, simply because for all I know that particular woman chooses to wear it. And of course on the flip side, I wouldn't have been one of the people taking my muslim neighbors out to dinner post-9/11 to reassure them they wouldn't be targetted, because for all I know, those particular muslims ARE terrorists.

As far as preventing the advance of illiberal cultures in western nations, I think the only thing we can reasonably do is ensure that the specific illiberal practices don't gain any kind of organic legal status. In other words, while we may not pass a law like "muslims can't wear veils", we can make sure there are no subsidies for madrassas or hate-crime laws banning criticism of things like veils, honor-killings etc.

It's pretty simple. you can just have a law about covering your face. Just like you're not allowed to wear a motorbike helmet when you go inside a bank.

I have never liked seeing women in burkas and I think they need to be banned. To me this is a security issue, just like someone wearing a ski mask in the city makes me nervous. Just in today's paper (Toronto Star) there was a report of jewelly store robberies where one person was in full burka and the shop owner buzzed them into his shop thinking it was a couple and he was then tied up and his shop cleaned out. His security camera will not solve the crime. This is why I object to facial covering of all sorts.

while we may not pass a law like "muslims can't wear veils", we can make sure there are no subsidies for madrassas or hate-crime laws banning criticism of things like veils, honor-killings etc.

I concur!

There should never be a need to pass laws about cultural issues. A society forms the culture, the society should enforce the culture through social acts. In fact, I think that the best solution to the whole mess is to protest... protest in every Muslim neighborhood where women wear burkas. Have huge gatherings that burn burkas in public. Chant, throw tomatos at men who have women following them at 5 paces, covered in yards of cloth.

Freedom of Religion is a requirement of the State. Religious discrimination is a problem for businesses. Telling members of society to quit acting like asses, can (and should) be the job of the society in question. As a society WE can define whats acceptable and not acceptable with actions, rather than laws.

Does anyone else have any idea how Western societies can resist the importation of burkas, veils, and other tools of male dominance without being overly authoritarian?

reduce immigration.

"Arabs don't wear burkas"

HELLO? HELLO? Have you ever heard of a country called Saudi Arabia?

Mike

"In all other instances, the government should mind it's own business."

Fine by me - but I should also have the freedom to refuse to serve someone whose face is hidden from view. Sauce for the goose = sauce for the gander.

"Historically the Muslim world sets the benchmark for advancement in Mathmatics and Science."

I suggest some reading is in order. Much of what passes for Muslim science and mathematics was transmitted from India or else the work of Assyrian Christians and/or other dhimmis in Dar al Islam. One thing i will give Muslims credit for though, no one takes credit for another's work like they do.

I think to summarise here, it isn't really a question of what governments can do or should do. On principle, governments have to respect freedom of religion, and other liberties and allow people to dress however they choose.

The only role government agencies have relating to the burka is perhaps a security role. At airports, police stations and when checking photo ID, a woman must uncover her face.

But when it comes to private places, they have every right to discriminate. Private schools, banks, jewellery stores, colleges can ban the burka if they want to. They are the ones best placed to make the informed decision.

Although banks do not wish to lose their female muslim customers, they have very strong security policies to weigh up in the balance, and the burka would have to be banned.

I would combine an all-purpose public awareness campaign in the US with literacy and microfinance programs in the Muslim world. The public awareness program should not target Muslim families specifically, but have a heavy emphasis on bringing to light abusive situations not usually talked about. It should be done not only in print, but in all media. Broadcast it on satellite into the Muslim world as well. Let anyone who is thinking of coming here know that "their women" will not only be exposed to this kind of thought, and options to pursue abuse charges, but that they will be oversaturated with it. Turn up the volume on general Western culture as well.

I'm usually against these sorts of restrictions in the west. However, we've done anti-freedom stuff like affirmative action as somewhat temporary measures in the past to help correct societal inequalities. Anti-burka laws could be brought in using the same reasoning.

no link, sorry, but i read an article a few months ago about how women in burkhas may be wearing victoria's secret lingerie underneath, in order to keep the interest of the husband, or as wife#1 not fall to wife#3.

as i recall, this was in syria.

Even in the US, freedom of religion is not absolute. In fact, Christian religion has been under direct assault using the governmental system (ACLU, etc via the courts and friendly local governments).

Islam, in its pure form, is a seditious ideology as much as a religion. It explicitly defines laws and governmental structures under control of the religious authorities (who themselves are not well defined), and calls for the suppression of other religion (including the killing of Jews). As such, it may very well prove possible and necessary to treat radical (=fundamentalist) Islam as a hate ideology, not a religion, and its adherents as members of anti-governmental conspiracies.

In this century, Islam will have to either moderate (and it was designed to be very hard to moderate), it will win, or it will have to be extirpated by political, social, psy-war and military means. Of course, with all the fools in our society who engage in various multiculturalist self-hatred exercises (targeted at all of us unfortunately, when they ought to just hang themselves and get it over with), we probably don't have the collective cojones to do anything.

Likewise, truly moderate Muslims dare not speak out without a reasonable fear of deadly retribution against themselves and their families. Beheading is regaining its popularity in the world.

One hope is a revolt by Muslim women, but the trend is in the opposite direction. I think many Islamic societies are so hostile to the west because the males fear the loss of control over their women.

John B writes;

"I suggest some reading is in order. Much of what passes for Muslim science and mathematics was transmitted from India or else the work of Assyrian Christians and/or other dhimmis in Dar al Islam. One thing i will give Muslims credit for though, no one takes credit for another's work like they do."

This is exactly right. Let's leave behind the romantic fantasies of the Arabists and recognize the Islam was constructed to resist all change and progress, and to freeze in place the culture of the 7th century desert brigands.

If it wasn't for the oil, the willingness to convert by terror, and the birth rate, the only problem the Islamic world would exhibit would be famine.

It's an interesting quandary that you discuss. In the UK, too, there have been many calls recently for Muslim women to stop, or be actively prevented from, wearing the full veil or the burka. Many people have said such calls are discriminatory, and they have been compared to a religious discrimination case involving a Christian employee who was banned from openly displaying a cross pendant while wearing her work uniform. You might be interested to read my blog entry of today on that case.

It is, most likely, unconstitutional for the U.S. to ban burkas, and I shudder at the thought of a government dress code.

I doubt it's unconstitutional. It reminds me of my experience trying to wear a hat in a courtroom. You can be thrown in jail for refusing to remove a hat in a courtroom. Although most judges will not press the issue (and nearly all will allow a yarmulke, turban, or similar obviously religious head covering), this is still in essence a dress code. The fact that it only applies to an indoor courtroom is irrelevant - the court is still a public space, and indeed one in which some people are compelled to appear.

Granted, the underlying reasoning is different. The reason for hat-banning is that wearing a hat in court is considered disrespectful. The reasons for burqa-wearing are more murky, but nobody claims the burqa-wearer is disrespecting the public. Still, this seems to me to be adequate precedent for banning a burqa in public.

Joe's right.
The government already regulates the way people dress.. not only what they can't wear, like the hats above.

It also regulates what they must wear like pants or other genital coverings for men and women.

In most jurisdictions of the US, I believe women are compelled to cover their breasts.

If someone dressed their child in a way calculated to be humiliating, like say forcing an adolescent boy to attend school in a French maid costume, I think we would have no problem in allowing the state to intervene in such a case on behalf of the child.

I guess the case can be made that adults don't get the same sort of state protection that children do. But I think that doctrine assumes that adults have the confidence and cultural familiarity to help the state protect their rights either through lawsuit or filing charges with the police.

Do recent immigrant muslim women, many of whom aren't citizens and have not in all likelihood taken "Civics" have the same wherewithall and familiarity with their rights in a liberal democracy to fully take advantage of those rights?

I submit that the existence of the burka indicates that they do not and are, perhaps, entitled to additional protection by the state.

Why couldn't the burka be banned? What about the anti mask law, enacted in 1965 to prevent anonymity for members of the Ku Klux Klan?

Part of living in a free and open society is dealing with things that offend you. It's not only dealing with the odd bare boob or a naughty word - it's dealing with other people's worldview that differs with your own. There are those that could argue that the bikini is just as degrading as the berka. I know you don't agree with that, and neither do I, but western society is about CHOICE.

If someone wants to scarve themselves from head to toe, that's their perogative. No one's forcing them - they have the right to leave their husband if they so desire.

We let Nazis march in the streets. I don't agree with Nazis but I'm DAMN proud that we live in a society where they're free to express themselves. Many women can't wear their western clothes in Islamic countries... let's not stoop to their level and forbid their dress here.

To clarify for Mike Nargizian, arabs don't wear burqas. They wear abayas and niqab.

Abayas are the caftan type robe worn over clothes in public. The niqab is the face/head covering which usually acompanies the abaya.

Burqas are afghani, not arab.