prohibit the veil " Islamic? Why?
By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega
published on May 3 in the Power of Ideas Central Axis
For René.
The headscarf issue again covered much of the news in Europe this week. On Thursday, Belgium able to pass through the lower house of the law banning the use of the burqa and niqab. Even that this law does not explicitly refer to the comprehensive veils but who "are presented in public spaces with their faces covered or concealed, in whole or in part, so that can not be identified" will be fined between 15 and 25 euros and / or a prison term of one to seven days (El País 30/04/2010). just law legislation wends its way, need to pass the Senate and the political tumult of Belgium seems difficult. But, as we said last week.
In France, talk of the existence of a bill that sanctions the use of the burqa and the niqab with fines much higher than the Belgians, amounting to 150 euros and could be supplemented with citizenship course. The novelty of the French project is to establish the crime of "incitement to hide his face" on the basis of gender, for those who imposed the wearing of headscarves by "violence, threats, abuse power or authority. "This offense is punishable by one year in jail and 15,000 euros fine and entered in the criminal code in the chapter that includes attacks on human dignity." (El País 30/04/2010).
As I write this note I read that the German MEP Silvana Koch-Mehrin liberal party (FDP) calls for a European ban on Islamic headscarves comprehensive, ie, those who cover their faces. Says "are prisons mobile use is a massive violation of the rights of women, their use should be banned in Germany and Europe in general."
Personally I think an issue that can not be seen as a dilemma between allowing and banning. The use of the burqa and the niqab I think it is a matter falling limit where ideological and religious beliefs strongly rooted in all the actors. On the one hand, we see in Western women use an insult to the struggle for equality and empowerment of women, an objectification of the body and and sexuality, as well as a submission should not be in a country that upholds values as freedom and equality, we understand that the use of the burka is not necessary and that these women may stop using it because there is nothing no one can impose; not realize that anyone can freely choose rational cover behind a sheet.
On the other hand, Muslim women who see the headscarf a symbol of dignity and discretion, that there are women who use it out of conviction and because they feel free and respected by covering your body to the opposite sex. Who consider it a way to exercise your faith and beliefs, not only religious, ideological too.
hard for me to lean towards the argument of freedom of use of the burka, that is, when used as a free choice, because my paradigm liberal prevents me understand that there is freedom in choosing a woman to cover her body with a full veil. But to think that my view is the only correct and makes me a liberal fundamentalist, little is different from the Taliban. We talked in this journal illiberal argument about Rousseau as a " if I know I'm fine, and I know that I seek the true good, then those who oppose me are wrong."
is true that many women wearing the burqa or niqab are not free, that is imposed by the parent, brother or husband and that use often serves to conceal the brutality committed against these women. It is no secret that there are many cases of mistreatment of women from Muslim communities, as there is among other communities, but they are not the subject that we deal. We have seen in newspapers like the New York Times and El Pais reports on the use of acid in the faces of women who did not obey the social and religious norms of behavior. Probably some of the women fully cover their bodies with a veil falling victim to these crimes, do not know. But do we know who do use the burqa or niqab out of conviction, in exercise of their right to autonomy and free exercise identity and religious beliefs.
Therefore, I think the issue of Islamic headscarves, not only the burka and niqab, should be analyzed taking into account the context and purpose of the ban.
is said to have intended to prohibit the use of the burqa and the niqab in public places, this includes from buildings to open spaces like parks and streets, ie, the use of the burka would be allowed only in very few private places and public spaces, the ban will cause a woman can not go to the supermarket with the burka, or go to collect their children to school or take them to play. Why? What is the purpose of the ban? Officially, it says it is for safety reasons, it is not known whether under the veil is a woman or someone who wants to endanger the safety of persons. The security argument seems beaten me to the extent that women who wear the burka have accepted that before a request to have no trouble removing the veil and show their identity. If you fear a terrorist attack or an assault banking is not necessary to prohibit the use of burkas, the offender does not take into account the prohibition minor to commit the crime. When was a constraint to rob a bank parking in a prohibited place?
Sin embargo, la razón que subyace a la prohibición surge de los comentarios y debates. De ellos se desprende que en realidad se razona como yo lo he hecho arriba y como lo hace hoy la diputada Koch-Mehrin, y se quiere liberar a esas mujeres del uso del velo intregal. Se habla en Francia de la “no bienvenida de la burka porque contradice los valores de la República” y en Bélgica de “una práctica medieval que pone a la mujer en condición de esclava”, sin duda estamos muchos de acuerdo con ello, pero me pregunto ¿para qué prohibirlo? ¿Cuál es el fin? ¿Para curar nuestras conciencias al no ver mujeres cubiertas de cabeza a pies behind a veil of yards and yards that do not allow even an ice cream a hot summer afternoon?
The reality is that the ban on the burka have two perverse effects: first, limit the freedom of those who wear the veil out of conviction and in exercise of their freedom, and this is a transgression unacceptable in a democratic state. The reasons why a woman chooses to cover her body fully of no interest to the democratic community. The definition of what is good ", or how to earn respect, responsibility of each individual and a majority can not impose. On the other hand, confined to the enclosure to Women who are forced to wear the veil for safekeeping. If husbands or fathers of these women believe that not wearing the burqa question its respectability and dignity, the solution will not allow them ever leaving home. With this we will have violated two freedoms, we will have ruined two lives. And the submission of and discrimination against women remains intact, if not strengthened, because that woman wearing the burqa by imposition, perhaps to get out into the street, to be able to interact with others and with other values \u200b\u200band ways of seeing life, could have reported their abuse or could have chosen another life.
is said that the use the Islamic headscarf, in all its variations, implying that the woman looks not cause sexually to men, turns them into sex objects. This is, among other things, making the veil reprehensible. But I wonder to this argument, and what happens to prostitutes, with the porn stars, with showgirls, with cabaret and women who dress to do just sexual provocation in others? Do not you have them also as sex objects? Should we ban the veil alike and negligees in public?
I think if we as a democratic community that all women are respected the dignity and autonomy, that if we all can be free to decide how to live, how to achieve it is not prohibiting forms of dress or to introduce, but through education, promoting integration and punishing men and women impose dress and behavior that discriminate and humiliate.
Last time I put on the table the issue of paternalism and the justification of a given not basic incompetence (Ernesto Garzón Valdés). I do not think it applies in the case of women wearing the burka freely, no harm. To be able to speak of paternalism, it is necessary that the person voluntarily causing injury and as I said before, say it is irrational to use the burqa amounts to the thesis of the general will Rousseau "you will believe you're free, you will believe you're happy, You can love this or that, but I know better than you what you want, what makes you free "(Isaiah Berlin). That is, justifying the measure amounts to a basic incompetence extreme liberalism, which is unmasked as fundamentalist as the Taliban or Catholic.
For women who wear the burka for taxation the ban does not meet the desired end, yes, women will stop using the burka in public spaces, but most likely this is because they do not leave their home. To protect these women, it is appropriate to the offense for which the French proposed. The question to the Belgians would be: at the end of the day "the streets will be safer without women in burqas?
0 comments:
Post a Comment