Ban It There, But Not Here?
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Jul 17, 2010 at 2:15pm
Scroll down, and you'll find the conversation of the day -- chewing over the difficult problem of whether the burqa should be banned. There, Richard Epstein raises a question that might well touch off a conversation of its own: is it possible that the burqa question all comes down to where it's being worn? "A market in Jerusalem is perhaps one thing," he writes, "but one in Detroit is perhaps another." Could one just as readily say "Europe is one thing, but America is another?" Practical circumstances matter, after all. His conclusion so far:
the question boils down to tough assessments of competing risks of over and underenforcement of anti violence norms. No wonder the question is hard.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Ban It There, But Not Here?
I agree that practical circumstances should be considered when determining what goals to pursue through legislation and how we pursue them.
An example:
Duane Oyen:
Let them wear what they want, as long as they will take a modest ID photo for security purposes, and are willing to be privately exposed in airport security lines, etc. · Jul 17 at 1:47pm
Guaranteeing burqa wearers that they can reveal their faces "privately" means every aiport must pay for an extra security employee who is available to turn away from the security line, and also for some location (if only an outhouse-sized box) where the burqa wearer may be "privately" viewed.
A better example is aid for the handicapped and impaired. Look at special education programs in schools. Many schools are cutting back on such programs because they are simply too expensive. The teachers want to provide for every "special needs" student, but there are too many maladies and too many students who require unbroken attention to adequately serve every child. Providing education for every child is a noble goal, but it is logistically impossible in many locations.
May '10
Re: Ban It There, But Not Here?
The "where" isn't as important as the "why". Rather, the "where" is often determined by the "why". A woman is more likely to wear a burkha in a market in Jerusalem because she will be killed if she does not. In Dearborn, that is not as much a concern (though, that concern is growing greater the more we Americans remain mostly silent on honor killings).
I can easily accept a woman wearing a burkha in the same way I can accept a woman wearing a long black dress and bonnet in Amish country. It is the custom of the area, enforced by a strong social code, but the penalties for not doing so are not as dire as being stabbed to death. In France, the reality is quite different.
I have no idea how you specifically legislate the idea "You can not force someone under penalty of death to wear an item of clothing" fairly. On the other hand, we do have murder statutes and I think we'd be wise to make it well known that we'll use them energetically.
Jul '10
Re: Ban It There, But Not Here?
I think it would be much more difficult trying to get support for a similar ban here in the States, though I'd still support one here. In France, the 'Eurabia' problem is much more in-your-face, while it's mostly quiet on the American front...for now.
Two intellectual titans; Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer both have expressed their approval of such bans. Knowing the hell that Hirsi Ali went through growing up in a Muslim country (see Infidel, Caged Virgin) I can only imagine the prison-like state that so many of these veiled women live in who aren't as fortunate as her. It really makes one despise their husbands who almost always demand it from them, lest they face ostracism or in extreme cases death.
I'm a huge believer in liberty, BUT (and I hate to use that word after proclaiming my love for liberty), I simply don't see how walking around in a black bed sheet in public is compatible with a liberal, democratic society. I still maintain that there is a reasonable expectation to see peoples' faces in public, if not for security reasons, at least to thwart creeping Sharia.