Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- List of Cases
- List of Abbreviations
- List of Contributors
- An Introduction to the Interdisciplinary Considerations of the “Burqa Ban” Trend: Criminalizing the Trivial or Separating National and International Law?
- PART I Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Strategy of Prohibition
- PART II Legal Perspectives: Religious Clothing, Law, and a Veil-Wearer’s Experiential Account
- Part II Legal Perspectives: Human Rights Perspectives
- Part II Legal Perspectives: National Perspectives
- PART III Responses To Otherness: Gender, Race, And The Veil Factor
- Epilogue
- Index
- About the Editors
A Taxonomy and Criticism of Rationales for Banning Face Veils
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 December 2021
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- List of Cases
- List of Abbreviations
- List of Contributors
- An Introduction to the Interdisciplinary Considerations of the “Burqa Ban” Trend: Criminalizing the Trivial or Separating National and International Law?
- PART I Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Strategy of Prohibition
- PART II Legal Perspectives: Religious Clothing, Law, and a Veil-Wearer’s Experiential Account
- Part II Legal Perspectives: Human Rights Perspectives
- Part II Legal Perspectives: National Perspectives
- PART III Responses To Otherness: Gender, Race, And The Veil Factor
- Epilogue
- Index
- About the Editors
Summary
Abstract
Rationales for face veil bans fall into four categories: autonomy, physical, symbolic, and psychological. Autonomy rationales claim that veils should be banned because family, religious, or ideological pressures coerce some women to cover their faces. Physical rationales argue that certain democratic activities or attitudes are physically incompatible with veiling. These arguments deal with identification, communication, seeing all citizens as equal, and testifying in court. Symbolic rationales argue that the full-face veil expresses something anti-democratic or expresses a resistance of immigrants to assimilate to local norms and values. Psychological rationales are based on sexual desire, racism, and xenophobia. This chapter analyzes all four categories and concludes that none suffice to justify bans. I also argue that, despite popular sentiment to the contrary, the widespread wearing of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic does not change the debate over face veil bans.
INTRODUCTION
Baden-Württemberg in Germany recently banned burqas and niqābs in its schools. The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Denmark have banned the burqa and niqāb in public spaces. The number of Western democracies banning the burqa is increasing. How are these prohibitions justified by their proponents? I argue that rationales for full-face veil bans fall into four categories. However, none of these rationales suffice to justify bans. I also argue that, despite popular sentiment to the contrary, the widespread wearing of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic does not change the debate over face veil bans.
The four types of rationales for banning full face veils are: autonomy, physical, symbolic, and psychological. Autonomy rationales claim that veils should be banned because family, religious, or ideological pressures coerce some women to cover their faces. Physical rationales argue that certain democratic activities or attitudes are physically incompatible with veiling. These arguments deal with identification, communication, seeing all citizens as equal, and testifying in court. Symbolic rationales argue that the full-face veil expresses something anti-democratic or expresses a resistance of immigrants to assimilate to local norms and values. Psychological rationales are based on sexual desire, racism, and xenophobia. This final category is unlike the others in that it aims to provide a psychological explanation for why some people support bans rather than an explicit rationale given by proponents of bans.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law, Cultural Studies and the 'Burqa Ban' TrendAn Interdisciplinary Handbook, pp. 81 - 92Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2021