Good Should Britain Ban Burka? Essay Example

Introduction

“Freedom that is utilized to deny freedom must be denied.” - Simone de Beauvoir
Religious freedom is a sacred right that must not be restricted and prohibited in any degree without enough proof that it compromises the interest of the majority. The right to freedom of thought and conscience is a gift that every single human being must enjoy. Unfortunately, not everyone has the privilege to do so. Apparently, cultural, political, and social walls still exist that prevent it from becoming a reality. On the issue of religious diversity, it is an unfortunate fact that the debate on religious dresses still has not reached a conclusion. And worse, it has sparked a much bigger debate on racism and dereliction of human rights.
Veiling has been a particularly fragile topic in Europe. Ever since the French Law decreed the banning of religious headgear and wearing of niqab and burka in public, the neighboring European countries have become conscious on the issue. Now, Britain is also on the move to pursue the same law on burqa banning. This, I believe, is illiberal and unnecessary. France should up and move to retract this law. No other country should follow its lead. Britain should not ban wearing burka and niqab in public.

Brief History on Campaign against wearing burka

On March 17, 2004, France administered law 2004-228, which prohibits the use of symbols that ostensibly represent a particular religious belief in educational establishments (Melmore 2012). In 2010, a ban on wearing veils that cover the face, in public places, was released. A counteract was done by the French Constitutional court on the grounds that the ban on wearing veils in public did not impinge upon civil liberties. The ban came into force, notwithstanding counteract, on April 11, 2011.
In the UK, the debate on veiling did not materialize until 2006 when the then leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, expressed uneasiness after talking to a woman wearing a veil. According to him, the garment was undeniably a sign of separation and of difference (Melmore 2012). This report received international coverage and inspired the discussion on banning burkas and niqab. Just recently, the European Court of Human Rights at Stratsbourg showed support for the French government's ban on wearing burqa or niqab. This created disquietude to the British Muslim community, fearing it would inspire the government to uphold the ban.

Why Britain Moves to Ban the Burka

The Burka imposes security risk.
For a British man with a strong sense of self-preservation, he can only see the burka as a huge threat in security. Dr Taj Hargey, head of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, expressed his concern regarding report on robberies being committed by men who are wearing burka to conceal their faces (Flanagan). Dr. Hargey is a strong advocate of the campaign to ban wearing full face coverings, including the niqab, in public.

It is not required by Islam.

Contrary to what the public believes, wearing of niqab and burkas was not decreed by the Qur'an. This tradition lies upon a precarious foundation that is based on varied intepretation of the scriptures. Modesty, among men and women alike, is a necessary practice. But there are no instructions in Islam's holy book that specifies the burka as obligatory clothing for women. Yes, it is considered as a religious tradition and, noting the specifics of the right to religious freedom, included in the scope of practices that must be protected. However, if it poses a threat to the majority of the population, especially the host country, shouldn't it be considered as an exemption?

The Burka contests women empowerment.

Forcing women to wear religious dresses as a part of religious practice is, in itself, a form of opression. This is a modern generation and we are supposed to be supporting the empowerment of women. The Burka is a symbol of male domination as well as the objectification of women (Nussbaum 2010). Therefore, allowing this practice to exist in this modern society is unacceptable.

Why Britain should NOT Ban Burka

Banning the burka will fuel Islamophobia.
Behind the campaign to ban burkas in Europe is not only the desire to promote cultural homogeneity, but the attempt to suppress the fear that the Islamic stereotyping has instill on people. This is a manifestation of Islamophobia that a proclaimed successful multicultural society such as Britain ironically possesses. Instead of pushing this ban through, we should expand our understanding of the extremely heterogeneous nature of Islam in Europe, and detour from the issues that contributed to the stereotyping rather to an understanding of Muslims (Swedenburg n.d.). These issues include halal diets, female genital mutilations, and the wearing of veils. Amnesty International urged French lawmakers to reject the ban as it violates the rights to freedom of religious expression (Lam 2011).

This campaign demotes multicultural dialogue.

Multiculturalism is designed to deepen differences, resulting to an exaggerated sense of identity that will bridge different cultures and bring them together (Tietelbaum 2011). Prohibiting women to wear burka in public can lead to a number of social impacts. It will result to unnecessary vilification of Muslim communities, creating gaps between them and the community they live in. Instead of protecting and liberating women, it will force them to choose between defying their beliefs by leaving their homes unveiled, and staying at home to avoid doing so.
Banning the face veil does not encourage liberty. Instead, it will result to further alienation of Muslim women from the society. The more likely result of the burka ban is the further oppression of Muslim women as their husbands force them to remain at home.

It promotes double standards.

Imposing such a ban would lead to issues regarding double standards. Why it is that other religious official such as Buddhist monks, priests, nuns, and rabbis, are not prohibited from wearing their respective clothing, which, by the way, ostensibly represent their faith?

Women should be free to wear whatever they want

If people claim that forcing Muslim women to wear burkas as a religious practice is oppressive, doesn’t it imply that forcing them NOT to wear it is equally oppressive? Wearing burka is the personal choice of women who wants to become closer to God. It should be respected as such. The burka is a well-established religious practice and fuelling the debate on whether or not to ban it in public is an act of discrimination. This society claims to be more encouraging and supportive towards the equality of gender and women empowerment. Doesn’t it sound ironic that, in this modern age, the freedom to choose what to wear is being taken away from Muslim women in many modern societies?

Settling the Debate

According to John Stuart Mill's Principle of Utility, if a person has to choose between two things, he should go after the option that makes the majority happy (Nowaczyk). Relating to the issue on whether or not to ban the veil in the UK, the previous will definitely be pushed through considering the minor population of Muslim communities in Britain.
Interestingly, Mill's principle of utilitarianism appeals to utility in the largest sense. Another key point to his principle is that an action must cause harm before society can interfere and prohibit it. How do we define 'harm' in this context? Can we define 'harmful' as whatever violates other people’s rights and whatever is immoral? Now, let me ask this question: which side has the correct conception of rights and immorality? Do we even have a uniform perception of what is immoral?
In modern day Europe, the emergence of Islam is a symptom of a new relationship between faith communities, state, and societies ('Secularism and Islam: The Theological Predicament'). Does this encourage the gradual dereliction of a particular faith or traditional practices? I do not think so. The social commixture of Muslims inspires a modern form of religiosity, which will hopefully lead to its own theological updating. However, we must not hasten this "updating" by imposing laws that can complicate an already sensitive relationship between followers of Islam and those outside their religion. The banning of religious headgear, specifically the burka, may have equally advantageous and disadvantageous consequences; but are we willing to risk an intercultural kerfuffle over this?
Tolerance does not only mean accepting people and practices that appear normal to you; but accepting the diversity that is existent, even if you do not completely understand them. We should eliminate the issue of segregation not by requiring everyone to wear the same clothing but by teaching citizens that we should not discriminate according to what people wear, what they believe, and what they practice. Our ultimate goal should be to eliminate any form of discrimination altogether. Banning the burka is an act of discrimination. Britain should not support it.

References

Flanagan, Ben. 'Muslim Groups Slam New Call For UK Burka Ban'. English.alarabiya.net. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
Lam, Jonathan. 'Burqa In The Balance: The Principles Of French Universalism Revisited Through The Legislation To Ban The Burqa In France'. Creating Knowledge The LA&S S t uden t Re s e ar ch Jou r n a 4.1 (2011): 18. Print.
Mill's Harm Principle. 1st ed. MIchael Lacewing, 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
Natalie Melmore. 2012. NEW TRENDS IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: THE BATTLE OF THE HEADSCARF. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/plr/vol4/Melmore,%20Natalie%20-%20New% 20Trends%20in%20Religious%20Freedom%20(FINAL%20DRAFT).pdf. [Accessed 20 March 15].
Nowaczyk, Jason. 'John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle: Definition, Examples & Quiz'. Lecture.
Nussbaum, Martha. 'Veiled Threats?'. Opinionator 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
'Secularism And Islam: The Theological Predicament'. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs 48.1 (2013): n. pag. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
Teitelbaum, V, 2011. The European Veil Debate. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, [Online]. 5, 92. Available at: http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/5-1/5-1-5-VivianeTeitelbaum.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2015].