|
July 26, 2010
A burka ban would suck more than the burka
I've been following the arguments about burka bans, and much as I hate these coverings and what they represent (and think countries like Syria are smart to ban them), I think any ban on an article of clothing is not only impossible in the United States, but runs afoul of the First Amendment. I want to explain why I think the religious arguments -- discussed by Martha Nussbaum and refuted here by Massimo Pigliucci -- are a bit of a red herring. Any apparel worn for religious reasons is as protected under the First Amendment as any apparel would be if worn for any other reason. It is legally impermissible to ban Nazi uniforms or Klan garb, and it is irrelevant whether a religious nut might claim that his Klan robe (which like the burka, is a covering) reflects his relationship with God. (A related issue is that deliberately offensive anti-religious attire, like gay drag queens wearing nun's habits to protest the Catholic Church, would also be similarly constitutionally protected.) A burka might be worn for religious reasons, but any ban would have to be religion-neutral, or else it would be religious discrimination. Take, for example, the analogy between the burka and human sacrifice: Nussbaum is a sharp thinker, and arguably one of the most incisive public intellectuals active today. In her essay she introduced the issue in terms of two philosophical traditions concerning the rights of minorities, in particular religious ones. According to John Locke, the law should not penalize religious belief, and should not be discriminatory, that is it should be applied equally to all practitioners of specific religions. Nussbaum's example is a Supreme Court decision that allows ritual animal sacrifice for religious purposes (yup, you read correctly!) because not allowing it would represent an instance of religious persecution against a specific group (in that case, the Santeria worshippers). I do wonder what the Supreme Court would say if a religious group petitioned to carry out human sacrifices...The problem with that argument is that no legislature in the United States would limit a ban on human sacrifice to, say, the Aztec religion. Human sacrifice is murder and it is illegal regardless of whether the murderer believes in a particular religion, or no religion. So, any ban on the burka would not band burkas only for Muslims; it would ban burkas period. No head and face coverings. Which would mean one of the numerous American cranks (there are libertarians like me who don't like the government telling me what I can't wear) would immediately take umbrage, put on a burka, and run out into the street to get arrested, contest the law, and ultimately win. Now, the state has a right to compel an individual to bare his or her head for a drivers license, and I don't think they have any business telling businesses they have to hire burka wearers (I would refuse to hire one), but banning the burka? Forget it. I don't think it would survive a legal challenge. Whether that's a good thing I don't know. Freedom is not without its costs, and allowing deluded women (or other nutcases) to cover themselves is one of them. posted by Eric on 07.26.10 at 10:54 PM
Comments
Another one of my famous typos: harry legs But apt. M. Simon · July 27, 2010 03:42 AM I think it is entirely reasonable to prohibit driving by people with face coverings, as it can interfere with their vision and is thus a safety issue. And obviously, the police have every right to demand that burkas be removed on demand to ID people. If they won't remove it, they can be arrested for interference with an officer in the performance of his duties. Another mistake that is being made is portraying these women as "victims." Many of them are aggressively anti-American and covering themselves to flaunt it. Eric Scheie · July 27, 2010 09:15 AM Hmmmm. All good points except for one: The burka is cultural garb, not religious. memomachine · July 27, 2010 10:21 AM Yes, and I think it's very political too. Eric Scheie · July 27, 2010 10:29 AM The use of face masks may need to be banned in public places as a matter of crime control. Also, anything that interferes with vision should be forbidden while driving as a matter of public safety and accident prevention. Old curmudgeon · July 27, 2010 07:14 PM My bank has a small sign on the door indicating that anyone entering is required to remove sunglasses, hats, and hoods before entering. While I don't consider it a First Amendment issue (clothing as speech?), it would be hard to hang it on other precedents or laws. I suppose that's close enough for government work. Excuse the pun. Casey · July 28, 2010 10:34 PM A number of American jurisdictions have anti-mask laws, mainly as a response to the KKK. A number of such laws have survived court challenge, though they remain controversial. Some anti-mask laws have been struck down. LarryD · July 29, 2010 01:06 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Fake "Tea Party" Democratic operatives fail my smell test!
The Only Virgin In Holywood The Shirley Charade My finger on the Gingrich lever? (A hypothetical doomsday scenario which gives me nightmares...) Time to throw Afghanistan under the bus? A typical dim witted semi-on-topic post about nothing A burka ban would suck more than the burka Fusion - A New Hope? How To Get Rid Of Racism Swapping
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I like the thought of police lifting the burka in public to look for harry legs. Assuming they were looking for a man in disguise.
Defile the woman in Muslim eyes while performing a legal search. Now the question is: since the police are looking for a man should all the searches be done by women? With men watching as backup.
If a woman in a burka is driving and gets pulled over remove the face mask to check against the picture.
I can definitely see a clash of cultures coming even if burkas are legal.
And if we get car-B-ques (a la France) - I can see trouble coming.