Malik has placed my feet much more firmly in the anti-ban camp. He doesn't tackle quite effectively enough why some women may 'choose' to wear the burqa, stating rather simplistically that evidence suggests that "in Europe most burqa-clad women do not act from a sense of compulsion" but instead "do so voluntarily, largely as an expression of identity and as an act of provocation". (I'm not denying that there is a possibility that a woman could make such a choice in a genuinely free way; but I would argue that many such apparently free choices are nothing of the sort.) However, otherwise his argument is very convincing. Amongst other insights, I like this (an obvious point but worth making):
What of the suggestion that women are forced to wear the burqa, and so need protection from the law? It is true that in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Yemen women have little choice but to cover up their face. That in itself is a good reason for liberal societies not to impose coercive dress codes.and this:
The burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, not its cause. If legislators really want to help Muslim women, they could begin not by banning the burqa, but by challenging the policies and processes that marginalize migrant communities: on the one hand, the racism, social discrimination and police harassment that all too often disfigure migrant lives, and, on the other, the multicultural policies that treat minorities as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens. Both help sideline migrant communities, aid the standing of conservative ‘community leaders’ and make life more difficult for women and other disadvantaged groups within those communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment