And Other Assorted Head Gear and Garments
In some places people are compelled to wear certain things, while in others they are sometimes forced to remove them. The question in more "liberal", secular countries is whether the banning of, say the burqa can be reasonably justified. Such issues are usually avoided because they are controversial and perhaps, more so, because they are complex - and they are. It is easy to say that a hijab doesn't hurt anyone, but to admit that a kirpan could. Masks may not be menacing when worn by Zorro or the Lone Ranger, but they can be threatening when worn by a man entering a bank or an ICE man in the U.S. Keffiyehs don't cover faces, but they are now prohibited in some instances. The debate over such issues is real in both France and Quebec. The debate everywhere is generally more about politics and religion than the philosophical problems.
The question - "Should a Liberal State Ban the Burqa?" has been examined by Brandon Robshaw and he provides a fine example of how philosophy can be applied in such instances. I will simply introduce you to his work and provide some suggestions about how it can be found.
He has written a book and you can find it at Bloomsbury Publishing or on Amazon, where there is this description of: Should a Liberal State Ban the Burqa?Reconciling Liberalism, Multiculturalism and European Politics:
Debates about whether the Wahhabist practice of face-veiling for women should be banned in modern liberal states tend to generate more heat than light. This book brings clarity to what can be a confusing subject by disentangling the different strands of the problem and breaking through the accusations of misogyny and Islamophobia.
Explaining and expounding the ideas of giants of the liberal tradition including Locke, Mill, and Rawls as well as contemporary thinkers like Nussbaum, Kymlicka and Oshana, the book considers a variety of conceptions of liberalism and how they affect the response to the question. Directly addressing issues facing many of today's societies, it unpicks whether paternalism on grounds of welfare can be justified within liberalism, the value of personal autonomy and the problem of whether a socially influenced choice counts as a genuine preference.
Covering the role of multiculturalism, gender issues and feminism, this comprehensive philosophical study of a major political question gets to the heart of whether a ban could be justified in principle, and also questions whether any such ban could prove efficacious in achieving its end.
[as an editorial aside, close readers around London may recognize the name "Kymlicka", which in this case refers to a son of Kym, who was well-known on the Western campus.]
The TOC is helpful:
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Reflections on the French ban
3. The liberal position on habitual public face-covering per se
4. What kind of liberalism?
5. Paternalism considered
6. Personal autonomy and the burqa
7. Adaptive preferences and the burqa
8. The burqa and multicultural theory
9. Gender and the burqa
10. The effect of the burqa on others: Offence
11. The effect of the burqa on others: Harm
12. Conclusion
Bibliography
Unfortunately, the price is $272.57
Another Approach
If you are not that interested in this subject, go to this article by Robshaw which reveals why he became interested in the subject and his rudimentary thoughts about it. The entire article is available for free at: Philosophy Now: A Magazine of Ideas (Issue 135 - "Should a Liberal State Ban the Burqa?".)
Mr. Robshaw was so interested in the issue he decided to use it as a proposal for a PhD dissertation and that ultimately became the book and a review of it is found here: "Should a Liberal State Ban the Burqa?: Book Review," Andreas Matthias, Daily Philosophy: Making Sense of the World (nd)
"A very clear, instructive and carefully argued book that shows off applied philosophy at its best."
The Bonus:
If you don't have $272, I will hint that the entire dissertation (296pp) is available for free. Here is the abstract:
"This thesis concerns the problem of whether a liberal state should – for liberal reasons – ban the wearing of the burqa in public. The core of the problem is that liberalism appears to pull in two opposed directions on this question. On the one hand, liberals strongly support religious tolerance and the burqa is seen by many, including most of those who wear it, as a religious commitment; and even if it is not a religious commitment it may still be a personal choice, and liberals strongly support enabling personal choice. On the other hand, liberals are committed to supporting equal rights and freedoms for both sexes, and the gender asymmetry of the burqa (women wear it, men don’t) combined with the fact that habitually covering one’s face in public is liable to cause disadvantages in personal, social and professional life, look like good reasons for opposing it; moreover liberals value personal autonomy, which may be compromised if the burqa is worn in response to cultural pressure. The issue thus exposes a tension within liberalism. A central element of my approach is the disentangling of a number of connected but separate strands of the problem. Thus I consider: different conceptions of liberalism and how they affect the response to the question; whether paternalism on grounds of welfare can be justified withinliberalism and if so whether it would justify intervention in the specific case of the burqa; the value of personal autonomy within liberalism and whether a concern to safeguard or promote it couldjustify a burqa ban; the problem of adaptive preference and whether a socially influenced choice counts as a genuine preference; the role of multiculturalism in liberalism and to what extent it could justify exemptions; gender issues and feminism; the problem of coerced wearing of the burqa; and the problem of how likely it would be that a ban, even if justified in principle, would prove efficacious in achieving its end.
[the additional bonus]
The conclusion to the thesis is that banning the burqa in a liberal state is unlikely to be justified. It could not be justified in terms of the welfare or autonomy of the individual who voluntarily wears it. It could only be justified on the grounds of harm to others. It might, for example, theoretically be justified if coerced wearing of the burqa were widespread. This would be regrettable, however, as it would override the free choice of those who wore it voluntarily. Empirical evidence that such coercion was occurring would be necessary; and such a ban could only be justified if there were no other, equally efficacious and better targeted means of preventing coercion. My aim is to bring some clarity to this often heated and confused debate, and to supply clear principles on which to base any decision."
[How unique and refreshing.]
