Western societies have always prided themselves on their egalitarian religious freedom laws. Still, there are some cultural and religious customs so foreign to the Western psyche that they seem all but barbaric. The niqab, or full face veil, is one such custom that has been a point of contention ever since France placed an outright ban on the wearing of the veil in 2011. Similar bans have been called for in other Western countries; earlier this year in Canada, now former Canadian President Stephen Harper supported a ban on the wearing of veils during citizenship ceremonies until it was struck down by a federal appeals court. The Netherlands has also banned the full veil from certain public spheres like hospitals and schools.
The issue of banning veils is a complicated problem that forces Westerners to evaluate the importance of religious freedom laws compared with the value of providing individual rights, especially the rights of women. Many liberals have argued that since the majority of women who wear the veil do so on religious grounds and out of their own accord, banning the veil would violate religious freedom laws and dictate to women what is and isn't permissible to wear. Conservatives have pointed out how veils hurt public trust, and argue staying neutral on the topic of the veil implies women’s rights need not extend to Muslim women. Western nations should not choose to ban the veil in all public places, as this implies a defined set of legally enforced “national morals” that go against the fundamental Western ideas of judicial impartiality and constitutional liberalism. Rather, we should discourage its wearing, without making the veil illegal.
Before any meaningful discussion on the veil can occur, it is important to understand the status of the niqab in Islam. Technically wearing the niqab, unlike the hijab, is not a religious obligation for Muslim women. Most scholars of Islamic jurisprudence have disputed the oft-cited Hadith (sayings and tradition of the Prophet Muhammad) that accounts for women covering their faces, noting this hadith does “not include evidence on the obligation of wearing niqab [for all Muslims].” Today, even leading Islamic institutions like Egypt’s Al-Azhar University have banned the niqab from their schools. Currently, the niqab is worn mainly in Saudi Arabia, where the government's extreme Wahhabi interpretation of Islam maintains that women should wear the veil. For the majority of Muslims around the world, the niqab is viewed as an extra step; perhaps an admirable step toward modesty, but by no means a requirement.
So while the argument that the veil is not a religious requirement may be valid for the vast majority of Muslims, let’s assume we have cases of Westerners who, under a Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, regard the veil a necessary religious obligation. Should Western countries be allowed to ban such religious garb? If we are to examine the fundamental principles of liberal Western government, the answer is no. In “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,“ Fareed Zakaria writes impartiality of the state, not democracy, is the most defining aspect of Western governments. He asserts modern Western governments are characterized “not [by] democracy, but constitutional liberalism” and that “the ‘Western model’ is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.” Individual rights are held above all other principles. Regardless of how bizarre a custom may seem, Western governments must, from a legal standpoint, stay neutral on an individual citizen’s right to practice religious and cultural traditions so long as their practices don't actively hurt the public.
The main argument against the veil runs counter to Zakaria’s points and posit that the Western governments are not completely impartial. Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker argues “liberal societies are not neutral arrangements of civic services supplied to all” but do in fact “have values” and that it's not wrong to imply a Western way of doing things. While the liberal Western countries may certainly have their own customs and culture, the core value of an individual’s autonomy and free choice overshadow lesser values. In a slightly different counterargument, Barbara Kay claims that we shouldn't hold double standards for women's rights by promoting “equality for our women, inferior status for theirs.” Yet Kay's argument is fallacious because “equality for our women” also encapsulates giving them the free choice to wear the veil, which a ban would take away. In fact, to some Muslims, the veil is seen as a form of liberation from what they view as an implicit propensity of Western culture to objectify women.
The veil may be uncomfortable to look at, offensive in its implied message about male-female interaction and a hindrance in day to day interaction. But the niqab does not pose any actual harm to other people and is barely a security issue. We don't have to celebrate the niqab or agree with the justifications of the women who wear it. But if our governments are to remain unbiased in their legal rulings and promote free choice, they cannot be justified in banning religious garments.
Hasan Khan is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.khan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
