creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mona Charen
Mona Charen
14 Feb 2012
The Free Lunch Is Back

Leaving aside the blatant assault on religious liberty that the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Do You Speak Conservative?

Newt Gingrich knows the lingo. He makes conservative audiences roar with approval when he compares the … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Removing Planned Parenthood's Fig Leaf

Planned Parenthood would appear to have won this latest skirmish in the abortion wars. The Susan G. Komen for … Read More.

Could the U.S. Ban the Burqa, Too?

Share Comment

The French Republic is not blessed or burdened with a First Amendment. So when President Nicolas Sarkozy recently suggested that France ban the wearing of the burqa in all public places, the Chamber of Deputies took it up.

Unlike the headscarf, which covers a woman's hair but leaves her face visible, the burqa is a head-to-toe covering that makes walking draperies of women. Some, like the chador worn in Afghanistan, feature a mesh covering for the face. The Saudi version usually sports a slit for the eyes. Here's an online catalogue's description of one: "Khimar and niqab set made of an all season, buttery soft georgette. Reaches to approximately knee level (depending upon your height) and provides full coverage. Arm openings about half-way down the khimar are a convenient feature with this style. Edges are embellished with matching satin trim. Imported from Saudi Arabia. Available in your choice of Navy Blue, Brown, or Saudi Black." Yes "Saudi black." In a country where summertime temperatures often reach 120 Fahrenheit, the geniuses designed a garment for women that is stifling and black.

In London, which has come to resemble Algiers more than New York, these walking shadows are everywhere. Even in summer, some women who wear the "Saudi black" burqa also wear black gloves and sunglasses over their facemasks. One would no more strike up a conversation with such a specter than with Darth Vader.

You needn't approve of the slatternly attire so often found on Western women to stoutly and angrily resist the encroachment of the burqa — and everything it represents — into Western life. Let's be clear. It took guts for Sarkozy to say what did. He called the burqa "a sign of subjugation ... of debasement." Al-Qaida, reliably enough, issued a fulminating statement: "We will not tolerate such provocations and injustices, and we will take our revenge from France ... by every means and wherever we can reach them."

Muslims agree that the faith requires "modest" dress on the part of women. Beyond that, things get disputatious.

Some argue that the face must be veiled. Others deny it. Both cite Quranic authority. But there is no doubt that the vast majority of the world's Muslim women do not wear these personality-obliterating shrouds. The burqa's revival in some parts of the Muslim world (Iran, Egypt, Morocco, even Lebanon) is more of a political than a religious expression. Some women insist that they freely choose to swaddle themselves. But in many Muslim nations women are subjected to a variety of coercions, both cultural and political, to erase themselves in public. Also, there must be thousands of Muslim women who, by moving to Western Europe, thought they could shed the oppression of their home countries. Instead, they have found cringing European "multiculturalists" eager to excuse every Third World depredation — from wife beating to polygamy to the burqa — as a sign of their broadmindedness.

Europeans are not the only ones cringing. In his Cairo address, President Obama engaged in his by now famous false equivalence: "Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith ... Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."

Since the president's speech predated Sarkozy's comments on the burqa, Obama must have been referring to France's 2004 decision to ban the headscarf (along with crucifixes and yarmulkes) in public offices and schools. Let's see, in Saudi Arabia it is illegal to build a church (to say nothing of a synagogue) or to carry a Christian Bible on your person. In most Muslim majority nations, alcohol is prohibited to everyone, not just to practicing Muslims. And little girls are subjected to genital mutilation and other forms of torture and abuse on a widespread basis. Well, President Obama explains, both sides need improvement.

The French approach would be constitutionally complicated in America. But as C.C. Colton observed, "The law allows what honor forbids." For all men and women who consider themselves enlightened, fighting off the burqa should be a matter of honor.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I can understand banning garments that conceal a person's identity for security reasons, but not for religious ones.

The Orthodox Jewish women that I saw in Jerusalem wear both wigs AND headscarves, and while they don't necessarily wear black, I've never been very impressed with their fashion sense. The ultra-Orthodox men, however, did wear all-black in the searing Israeli summer sun... and yet, no one says that they're "oppressed" or whatever. Nutty, perhaps. But it never bothered me to see these "frum"ies, even though I had not the slightest desire to join their ranks.

It's rather amusing to hear Western men and women speaking of Saudi women as oppressed, and then they step right in there and start telling these same women what to do - because they're obviously too dumb to know what's best for them.

The issues you mention with radical Islam are very real, and France has a different racial and ethnic legacy than the U.S. - but legislating religious observance and attire, I dunno.

And what if a secular person goes to a costume party dressed from head to toe in a Snoopy costume? What about masked balls? Carnivale? Will they be banned?

If we must ban all face-concealing attire in public, then by Gum let's ban them all!

- r
Comment: #1
Posted by: Red Ree
Tue Jul 7, 2009 6:50 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mona Charen
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 16 Feb 2012

24 Apr 2009 Mrs. Clinton Can't Defend Patron Saint of Planned Parenthood

8 Nov 2011 About That 2007 National Intelligence Estimate

3 Dec 2010 For the Boys' Sake, Don't Kill the SAT