Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Veil, prohibition of the
Section E. Social, moral and religious

In 2011, France and Belgium banned the wearing of veils which cover the face, including the niqab. Some Muslim-majority countries also restrict the wearing of the veil and Turkey has banned it outright since 1997. These countries say that they are protecting secularism and/or promoting women’s rights, but opponents see it as a gross infringement of civil liberties and an attack on religious freedoms. A Proposition team should consider explaining what their punishment would be in the definition.

Pros

[1] The veil is a symbol of the repression of women and allowing it damages all women in society, whether or not they are wearing it themselves. It is particularly damaging to Muslim women as it creates a stereotype of ’the submissive Muslim woman’, which can lead to discrimination.

[2] While some women freely choose the veil, many do not and need protection from being forced to do so. Some of those who do choose to wear the veil do so only because of cultural indoctrination. A liberal society needs to provide freedom from this.

[3] Women wearing the veil cannot participate fully in society and so it harms assimilation. The veil can be an obstacle to education, work and communication. It has been described as a ’walking prison’.

[4] When France introduced a ban on the veil, it did so with a penalty of a fine. In Belgium, it can be punished with a seven- day jail sentence. Most people, however, do not wish to break the law and will comply with the legislation.

Cons

[1] A liberal society should be tolerant of religious and cultural practices where there is no clear harm to the individual involved. It is important to respect religious freedoms. Women who do not wear the veil are not affected by those who do. Women who show a lot of flesh can also create negative views of women, but nobody is proposing that we ban the mini-skirt.

[2] We should not restrict individual choice. Many women do choose to wear the veil and find it liberating rather than restricting. Displaying skin is not an objective good. This policy is particularly harmful as it limits only women’s freedoms and therefore is sexist. Many Muslim women have come to Western countries fleeing persecution — they should not face more persecution here.

[3] The veil in and of itself need be no barrier. Women in Arab countries participate at all civic levels, while wearing the veil. Maybe it is the Western societies that need to shed their prejudice. Besides, assimilation is not necessarily the goal. People should not have to ’blend in’, but should be allowed to retain their identity.

[4] If this proposal is enforced, the women who have not chosen the veil themselves will be forced to stay inside and therefore enjoy less freedom, so the policy is counterproductive. The enforcement of punishment for disobeying this law (e.g. forcible removal of the veil, imprisonment) is problematic in all its forms.

Possible motions

This House would ban the wearing of the veil.

This House believes that women should not be allowed to wear the burka in public.

Related topics

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

Immigration, limitation of