On October 6, Jacques Hakim wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal why he believed in the Burqua ban that has just been approved in France.
Let's demolish his arguments shall we?
Before we begin, let's remember this law is intended to protect French state secularity - not prevent crime or protect public safety. People who believe this to be the intention of the law are people who believe Muslims are a dangerous race. So let's begin:
Not once are the words Muslim or Islam used in the text of the law: OK, but I don't see non-Muslims wearing Burqas. This is a law aimed only at Muslims - as we'll see.
The real concern [..] is shared by everyone in the civilized world, namely that individuals should not be allowed to mingle in public with their faces covered so that their identities are undetectable. First, please don't use "civilised" to describe Europe and America. Crusades - civilised? Slavery - civilised? Wars in Vietnam and Iraq - civilised? Please don't associate me with your definition of civilised.
Second - concealing your face does not conceal your identity. Concealing your face only means.. concealing your face! These people carry driving licences, credit cards etc., - all IDs that are produced when challenged. I walk around London and see people whose faces and hair I can see clearly. Do I know their identities? No - I don't! Not without asking for a credit card or driving licence.
A matter of public safety: 10 years ago, I was mugged by someone whose face I saw clearly. He took my wallet. I could see him clearly and I could certainly see the silver glint of his knife. He was not wearing a burqa or any covering of any kind. It didn't protect my safety! I did recognise him - as a man who was going to rob me!
Only criminals are known to cover their faces so nobody can recognize them. True. They use balaclavas. Or stockings. Especially in Northern Ireland. Are we banning balaclavas or stockings? Er.. no. Why not? Because burqas are worn by Muslims. And that's who this law targets. Also, we know that a blanket ban of balaclavas and stockings will have no effect on preventing crime - and that is what we are trying to do, isn't it? No! It's designed to protect "secularity". Secularity must be a weak concept if you have to ban religious symbols to protect it.
One of the threats these days in Muslim countries is that suicide bombers may use burqas as disguise to move around undetected and unsuspected. OK: So banning the burqa will prevent crime, will it? I can't imagine French Muslims, who may intend to rob a house or a bank, thinking: "Oh no! I was going to start a career in crime! But since the government has banned the Burqa, I have nothing to disguise myself! They have deprived me of my livelihood! I'll just have to get a proper job! Knitting balaclavas, perhaps...".
Mr. Hakim sounds like a conservative. If so, he should support small government. A government who decides what its citizens wear is a government that does not know the boundary between political power and civil libertarianism. Like many conservative governments, it seems to be pressured into making social policy based on the moralities of its core support rather than prudence in financially straitened times.
Mr. Hakim's cheap shot motive is given away by his final line. Europe is finally awakening at [sic] the enormous threat to their culture. Enough said.
Now that's what I think - but what do you think?
Let's demolish his arguments shall we?
Before we begin, let's remember this law is intended to protect French state secularity - not prevent crime or protect public safety. People who believe this to be the intention of the law are people who believe Muslims are a dangerous race. So let's begin:
Not once are the words Muslim or Islam used in the text of the law: OK, but I don't see non-Muslims wearing Burqas. This is a law aimed only at Muslims - as we'll see.
The real concern [..] is shared by everyone in the civilized world, namely that individuals should not be allowed to mingle in public with their faces covered so that their identities are undetectable. First, please don't use "civilised" to describe Europe and America. Crusades - civilised? Slavery - civilised? Wars in Vietnam and Iraq - civilised? Please don't associate me with your definition of civilised.
Second - concealing your face does not conceal your identity. Concealing your face only means.. concealing your face! These people carry driving licences, credit cards etc., - all IDs that are produced when challenged. I walk around London and see people whose faces and hair I can see clearly. Do I know their identities? No - I don't! Not without asking for a credit card or driving licence.
A matter of public safety: 10 years ago, I was mugged by someone whose face I saw clearly. He took my wallet. I could see him clearly and I could certainly see the silver glint of his knife. He was not wearing a burqa or any covering of any kind. It didn't protect my safety! I did recognise him - as a man who was going to rob me!
Only criminals are known to cover their faces so nobody can recognize them. True. They use balaclavas. Or stockings. Especially in Northern Ireland. Are we banning balaclavas or stockings? Er.. no. Why not? Because burqas are worn by Muslims. And that's who this law targets. Also, we know that a blanket ban of balaclavas and stockings will have no effect on preventing crime - and that is what we are trying to do, isn't it? No! It's designed to protect "secularity". Secularity must be a weak concept if you have to ban religious symbols to protect it.
One of the threats these days in Muslim countries is that suicide bombers may use burqas as disguise to move around undetected and unsuspected. OK: So banning the burqa will prevent crime, will it? I can't imagine French Muslims, who may intend to rob a house or a bank, thinking: "Oh no! I was going to start a career in crime! But since the government has banned the Burqa, I have nothing to disguise myself! They have deprived me of my livelihood! I'll just have to get a proper job! Knitting balaclavas, perhaps...".
Mr. Hakim sounds like a conservative. If so, he should support small government. A government who decides what its citizens wear is a government that does not know the boundary between political power and civil libertarianism. Like many conservative governments, it seems to be pressured into making social policy based on the moralities of its core support rather than prudence in financially straitened times.
Mr. Hakim's cheap shot motive is given away by his final line. Europe is finally awakening at [sic] the enormous threat to their culture. Enough said.
Now that's what I think - but what do you think?
I agree with you that Mr. Hakim completely missed the point here. I honestly cannot say how I feel. Shall we say its unacceptable for government to interfere with religion and culture? Or shall we say its unacceptable for religion and culture to support values that are in stark conflict with those of the country they immigrate to. I'm still trying to find my feelings in all of this but I am glad that I came here because now I can agree with someone about something and I feel that this is a start. This is about misogyny and religious freedom, not crime or public safety.
ReplyDelete