#127147 CEBRASPE (CESPE) - 2007 - Diplomata (Terceiro Secretário)

Text for question

No burqa bans

Why is it nearly always wrong to outlaw
the wearing of the Muslim veil?

What you wear is a statement of who you are. From the old man’s cardigan and frayed tie to the youngster’s torn jeans plus lip-stud, dress  stands for identity. For that reason laws on clothing should be avoided unless there is a compelling case for them. There is no such case for the Dutch government’s plan to outlaw the wearing in all public places of the face-covering burqa and niqab by Muslim women.

As it happens, the plan’s announcement by Rita Verdonk, the hardline Dutch immigration minister, was a political stunt aimed at reviving her party’s flagging fortunes before this week’s election. But a new Dutch government, when one is eventually formed, may still adopt it. And the proposed ban follows a big debate about the Muslim veil in many other European countries.

In 2004 France passed a law to stop the wearing of the Muslim hijab (headscarf) by girls in state schools. Several German states have banned teachers from wearing the headscarf. One Belgian town has outlawed the burqa and niqab from its streets. Recently a former British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, caused a row by inviting his Muslim constituents to remove their veils when they met him; and a lawsuit confirmed that British schools could sack teachers who wore face-covering garments. Turkey, a mostly Muslim country, has banned the wearing of the veil in public buildings ever since Ataturk established the modern republic in the 1920s.

Those who favour such bans put forward four main arguments. First, the veil (especially the burqa and niqab) shows a refusal by Muslims to integrate into broader society; Britain’s Tony Blair called it a “mark of separation”. Second, such clothing is testimony to the oppression of Muslim women; they are said to don veils largely at the behest (or command) of their domineering menfolk. Third, the display of religious symbols is an affront to secular societies (this line resonates especially in France and Turkey). And fourth, there are settings — the schoolroom, the courthouse — in which the wearing of Muslim veils can be intimidating or off-putting to pupils or juries.

Some of these arguments are stronger than others. But none supports a blanket Dutch-style ban. Muslim dress can indeed appear as a mark of separation, but racial and sectarian discrimination surely counts far more — and bans on religious clothing are likely to aggravate it. Oppression of female Muslims is regrettably common, and should be resisted; but many women choose to wear the veil for cultural reasons, and others do so (as they do in Arab countries) as a sign of emancipation, or even as a fashion statement. France and Turkey have fiercely secular traditions that can be interpreted to justify restrictions on religious symbols; but such restrictions are best applied sparingly, and only in state offices, not in the streets. Similarly, decisions to bar the wearing of Muslim dress _____ courts or by teachers and pupils are surely better left  _____ local discretion than imposed nationally.

Adapted from No burqa bans. In: The Economist, Nov. 25th 2006, p. 15.

In accordance with the previous text, judge — right (C) or wrong (E) — the statement below.

The wearing of the veil is an unequivocal and universal symbol of female oppression.