Why Australia needs a ‘burqa ban’

Senator Cory Bernardi really seemed to open a can of worms with his recent calls for an Aussie ban on the burqa. I had thought that this would never be a discussion had in Australia because we don’t share the strong secular values of the French who led the debate in Europe and are on the cusp of formalising their own legislative ban. That said, I’m thrilled that this discussion is at Australian dinner tables because it is another crucial step towards achieving social, political and perhaps legal modernity.

In this debate over the relevance of the ban of Islamic face veils, two issues seem to persist. First, whether such a ban is in the Australian tradition and, second, the potential conflict between religious practice in the public sphere.

It is vital to establish in very clear terms which garments are being discussed in the “burqa ban”. While this seems tedious, the unfortunate situation is that there is tremendous public confusion arising from poor media differentiation between the burqa, niqab and hijab. As with similar European discussions, the Australian “burqa ban” seeks to make the wearing in public of full face covering garments like the burqa and niqab illegal. Such a ban would not include the hijab which is the much more common Islamic garment in Australia and the rest of the world.

So why must the burqa and niqab be banned?

Quite simply, in the public sphere there is a fundamental need for identification. This is not a new concept and has always been essential to the social contract. Our faces are the primary means of identification and covering them for any purpose in public dealings is considered a breach in the social contract. The reasons for this go beyond the obvious security and terrorism concerns and extend into basic issues of personal accountability. In the public sphere, people must be accountable for who they are. At the different layers of the public sphere, different levels of disclosure are necessary. Consider a person who wished to apply for a driver’s license without registering a name or address. Would this be acceptable? Would there be any cultural or religious tradition that would make the lack of disclosure reasonable? On both counts, it’s obvious that such a proposal is unreasonable and no justification would allow for an exception.

As one wishes to progress deeper into the public sphere, more and more disclosure is required to ensure accountability. Opening a bank account, receiving social welfare, posting an overseas package - all of these require different levels of disclosure. Evidence of the conflict between veils and established norms of accountability is already in Australia. Earlier this year, a Northern Territory woman filed a complaint against a hospital for requests to see her face in a job interview, while recently a woman refused to unveil when giving testimony in a WA court case. Common to all levels of public life is the most fundamental disclosure, which is required at all levels of the public sphere (yes, even walking a public street) - the identification of the face.

Recognition of this can be seen in long standing laws banning face coverings in the public domain. These were not introduced as a crusade for women’s rights or as a statement of the incompatibility between Islam and the west. The first woman fined in Italy for wearing a niqab was charged under a law passed nearly 40 years ago in the ‘70s, aimed at ensuring public security.

In a similar vein, enshrining “public facial disclosure” law in Australia does not target Islamic women. Such legislation would ban any form of facial covering in the public sphere for both men and women. Under this, all facial coverings including the burqa and niqab would be banned in addition to motorcycle helmets and balaclavas - with obvious exceptions for necessary health and safety practices.

Hiding the face in public is incompatible with accountable adult participation in society. Accordingly, the justification for a “burqa ban” is obvious, practical and necessary and the argument need not go any further.

Why you should feel good about the burqa ban

The current debate has been hijacked by cultural relativists and religious apologists who insist on making this a discussion about xenophobia and the rights of religious freedom. And, while this presents a tedious and annoying obstacle in the necessary progress toward formalised “public facial disclosure laws”, it also present an opportunity to explain why we should be rejoice in the notion of a “burqa ban”.

Of course it’s important to reassure people that they still have a right to religious practice, but religious practice must reside within current civilised social values and never be in breach of universal human rights and the law. If sections of Islam or any other religion deem female sexuality to be so insidious as to justify the mutilations of female circumcision, clearly this is a situation where religious practice operates outside of universal human rights as agreed upon by the United Nations. The “burqa ban” is merely a more subtle version of this.

Ultimately, if we can establish that the wearing of a burqa or niqab is not a choice - that is, if there is any form of coercion impressed upon the wearer - then it is conclusively an oppressive practice of subjugation and is in breach of basic human rights. If sections of Islam insist on teaching women that their body is so incredibly shameful that the only way to redeem their modesty when in the presence of me, a strange man, is to cover themselves head to toe - this also serves as coercion.

What you have to understand, and what many moderate and liberal thinkers fail to comprehend, is that the women who “choose” to wear the burqa and niqab do so under the greatest threats of violence. These need not be physical violence from a husband, father, brother, or neighbour (although these do occur), they need not come from the cultural scorn and social rejection they may be subject to. The coercion I’m talking about is the threat of unimaginable violence, retribution and hellfire in the afterlife.

Current commentary which calls the wearing of the burqa a “choice” comes primarily from many liberal thinkers and academics who are unable to appreciate what it means to be a believer. While a sceptic like myself can maintain that the burqa wearers’ fear of Allah is as delusional as fear of coal from Santa on Christmas, their fear is very real to them and a formally and culturally enforced form of coercion. And it is this that moves the burqa and niqab outside the boundaries that let it be defined as a choice, and illustrate clearly and indisputably the tyrannical subjugation that it is.

An attempt to broaden this discussion was recently made in “The West veils plenty when it condemns the burqa” (The Age, May 16, 2010) by Liz Conor from the University of Melbourne, who asked questions like - What if Muslim women look at Western women’s made-up faces and see gender oppression? And what if Western women are deeply attached to traditions that in their origin were patently oppressive?

Both of these questions appear to have value. Of course there are numerous forms of western gender oppression that Australian women are subject to. However, the decision over the oppressiveness of western displays of female expression - like make-up, plastic surgery, high heels and so on - is ultimately left at the discretion of the individual woman. Wearing skirts over pants, stilettos or sneakers, lipstick verses chapstick, is ultimately an expression of the individual, and her femininity. If she finds any of the former to be in the category of oppressive gender control, she is free and proud to refuse to comply - and importantly, women who disagree remain free to explore more traditional and stereotypical expressions of womanhood. Moreover, none of these choices invoke the threat of physical, psychic or cosmic violence and coercion of the burqa. The context is the key: individual freedoms must conform with the law and with civil and political rights.

Conor raises the issue of women in Australia taking men’s names when they marry. But this too is misleading. Many don’t get married at all. And those that do have a variety of options. Many do go the traditional way, opting to take on their partner’s name, some hyphenate and some, like my mother, keep their own surname as an expression of feminist principles and maintenance of their personal identity. Underlying all of this is commitment to the ongoing discussion of female identity.

Lastly, it’s important to consider the implications of the reverse argument. If we are to accept the burqa and niqab, what will it do to Australia if such notions are normalised and legitimised? Are we to teach Australian girls they should always be proud to show their face and have a voice in society … unless they’re Muslim? That women’s rights are inalienable and worth fighting for, except where gender oppression is religiously or culturally endorsed?

Australian men and women have fought bravely over many generations for the right of all people, men and women, Aboriginal and white, local and migrant, to participate fully in public life. No one is forced to participate but we have firmly established the principle that no one can be excluded by virtue of their gender, race, sexuality, age, culture or religious dogma. Acceptance that any one section can be denied public participation by their own religion and community is an affront that diminishes us all. This is the Australian tradition.

The justification for a burqa ban is clear and the reasons backing such legislation overwhelmingly stack up on the side of social justice and individual freedom. We should relish exploring such a venture.