The Netherlands appear to be close to banning the burqa.

This is not the first time a ‘free’ European nation has had the gall to try and dictate what others may wear, and it’s not the first time we’ve had an attempted ban on the burqa. (I seem to remember blogging some time ago about the French proposing a similar ban, though I can’t locate the relevant post.)

I understand their concerns. The burqa is largely considered by those of us in the West an element of religious oppression. Muslim women (who wear the burqa) have traditionally been subjugated and the neighbourhood boys have called them sluts for removing it. But nevertheless the burqa is a part of their tradition, a conventional dress which those women sincerely believe necessary to the honouring of their religion. As reported by Reuters, “[A 22-year old Dutch Muslim woman they encountered] says she’ll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs.”

Let me be clear. I think such beliefs are bizarre, I believe that the historical treatment of women in the Muslim religion is deplorable and I see the burqa as a symbol of oppression rather than of freedom.

But such concerns are irrelevant to this question. The point is that we have no basis upon which to infringe on their rights when they expressly desire to wear a burqa. And it is here that, once more, a better understanding of rights will help us. There is a right to be free to wear a burqa. There is also a right to be free from threatened or actual violence from your fellow Muslims should you choose not to wear one. Uphold both these rights, vigourously, in law, and once more we have done the right thing.

Please observe that human rights are the important component of a sensible conclusion; not cultural sensitivity, religious history, civil privilege, nor any of the other complicated contributing factors to a controversial issue. There are two reasons for this: a) by upholding rights, we set a powerful precedent which diminishes the inclination of any ethnic, racial, religious or economic groups to claim that they have been treated unfairly, and b) it is morally virtuous to uphold legitimate human rights. In short, it is both the only morally valid and the best social philosophy.

So, on the issue of the burqa ban, let’s look at the opinions of those who think otherwise.

“The burqa is hostile to women, and medieval,” said Geert Wilders, the populist member of the Dutch parliament who first proposed the burqa ban. “For a woman to walk around on the streets completely covered is an insult to everyone who believes in equal rights.”

But, if I believe in equal rights, then I believe that a woman in the Netherlands has the right to wear whatever she likes. And if that is a burqa, worn because it is her religious tradition, then what Geert proposes is not about upholding rights at all, but about quashing them. Such a law will be freedom-crushing, not freedom-preserving.

But aren’t these women being intimidated into wearing the burqa? Aren’t they indoctrinated? Aren’t they brainwashed? Can they really be said to be making such decisions of their own free will, from having inherited such an oppressive religion?

There are a few responses to this. Firstly, it is far from clear that intimidation is usually the case. It seems, at least to some extent, that the burqa is to Western Muslim women simply what a suit and tie is to a Presbyterian man, what a shaved head is to a Buddhist woman, what a yarmulke is to a Jewish man, or what an apron was to a 1940’s housewife. Yet nobody ever advocated the banning of the apron on the basis that it represented the repression of the role of women in society (even though many now would agree that that was the case). Banning the garment wasn’t seen as the answer!

Second, indoctrination is not at all unusual or uncommon. I happen to believe that the vast majority of religious people are, to a significant degree, ‘indoctrinated’. I have extensive personal experience of seeing the scale to which religious people are controlled through guilt, through fear of ostracism, through positive and negative reinforcement, through liturgical routine; the list goes on and on. And it isn’t really that big a deal, to be honest. Most are delighted to be indoctrinated! It makes them feel comfortable and secure, most choose to reject any bid to ‘liberate’ them from it, and its effects are normally fairly benign - whatever floats your boat, I guess. I’d be willing to bet that a completely anonymous survey of Dutch burqa-wearing women would reveal a strong desire to keep the burqa.

We have no ability and no right to forceably free people’s MINDS from indoctrination or even brainwashing - we can only morally ensure that they are free from infringement of their social rights. Our minds are only our own to free. But our approach to social freedom will give everyone the best chance possible to truly pursue truth and happiness.

And third, if it is the case, as has been alleged, that there are Muslim men or others who would rape or otherwise harm these women for choosing to abandon the burqa, then we have another important right to uphold IN ADDITION to the right to wear whatever you like. By adequately, vigourously and consistently prosecuting those who will threaten or cause violence to those who are exercising their rights, we will be ensuring the maximum level of freedom for everyone. I am amazed at some who have suggested that the Muslim is so violent in this way, we don’t know what to do with them. WHAT TO DO WITH THEM? Last I checked, everyone’s rights were equal. We treat them the same as every other criminal.

As for Geert Wilders, the politician who brought this to the table in Holland: maybe his constituents will now observe the threat to the simplest of freedoms that this man is posing in that country. They should react strongly against the proposal.

Perhaps Austin Powers said it best in the film Goldmember: “How ‘bout NO, you crazy Dutch bastard!”

———————-
John Wright

johnwright@libertarianreason.com