Obama: What Would Michelle, Sasha and Malia Say?

I too was offended by Obama's remarks. It seems that we in the West act quite hypocritically when we are unwilling to advocate for gender equality for Muslim women -- both in our dealings with Muslim nations and now in our dealings with non-Muslim nations.

How incredibly misguided to place a higher value on so-called “public religious expression” and so-called “multiculturalism” than the on a woman’s right not to be subjugated by men.

Cheers to Sarkozy for his strength and clarity on the issue. I hope he doesn’t back down under the pressure from the Islamists.

We abhor burqas because in many Islamic societies, women are forced to wear them regardless of what they really want. The key word here is ‘forced’. I think almost all westerners hate the burqa for this reason. I’m all for banning the burqa in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or anyplace else that it is required attire.

But if a woman lives in a supposedly free society, such as France, does she have the right to wear a burqa if that’s what she wants? …maybe she wants to wear it to express her cultural heritage. …maybe it really is comfortable under all those layers of cloth. …maybe she has a wart on her nose and her HMO won’t pay to remove it. I don’t know!

The point is, are the French any freer than women living in the Afghan outback if the Sarkozy passes his mandatory dress code concerning the burqa? Non!

Some bloggers have pointed out that the burqa is a 'mask' that can be used to hide a person's identity. So what. A motorcycle helmet does the same thing and it's required by law in most states. Anonymity may not be the best reason to put on a helmet but just because someone does doesn’t make that person sinister. It doesn't mean that he’s going to suddenly start weaving in traffic or start doing wheelies. These people probably want to outlaw Halloween too.

In Iran women are entombed alive.

Psychopathic old men feed off of the blood of the young. Iran does not have a "theocracy;" it has "vampire-ocracy."

In the West, there are no real restrictions on how a person may dress. If a person takes their street dress to an extreme and wears what amounts to a costume, people may stare or laugh at them behind their backs. So what? Even in France which bans religious attire in government faciliites, what is the punishmet for breaking the rule? Nothing I am sure, except perhaps a trivial or symbolic reprimand.

In this light, isn't this discussion a little abusrd?

WithoutHavingSeen hits the nail on the head: "...we do regulate clothing in as much as we require it, because public nudity offends general sensibilities and public morality."

Burkas and the niqab are forms of INDECENT EXPOSURE, plain and simple. Civil public interaction requires a peculiar balance of public and private - we are not so intimate with our fellow citizens that total exposure is appropriate, yet we are by necessity thrust together into the public square, which demands a show of solidarity and good faith that total concealment betrays. Both extremes indicate a situation that is out of balance and boundaries that are disrespected.

Sarkozy is right to ban total concealment of women, or anyone, in public, though his line of reasoning isn't quite on target. Concealment is indecent. It is a violation of the social contract. It puts honest, trustworthy citizens on the defensive. Save it for Halloween.

Just another public display that Islam founded in the Dark Ages remains in the Dark Ages!!!

Onofrio wrote:

"I've seen children in the park hide in fear at the approach of these faceless, shapeless, sinister, ghostlike swathes of cloth. It's extremely difficult for the average *Westerner* to interpret such a figure positively."

So what? As long as it is not against the law, we can't ban it. The Constitution does not enforce civility. People have the right to creep-out children in the park. Except not in Atlanta, GA, as I mentioned. You cannot wear odd hats and masks because the KKK used to that, and not only did they creep-out children, they firebombed them in their houses and churches.

"Suspicion and mistrust are triggered, even in those who are normally of a tolerant disposition."

If Muslim people want to trigger suspicion and mistrust that's their business.

"Hijab yes, niqab no. Surely that's reasonable..."

Reasonable has nothing to do with it. We should never compel people to be reasonable. We should only ban Burqas in circumstances in which any mask or concealment would be banned, such as in a bank or taking a final exam (as I mentioned). Actually, there are a wide range of situations in which you must reveal your face and show a photo ID in the U.S., such as when you cast a ballot. As I mentioned, women in Saudi Arabia cannot vote or get a driver's license, so these issues do not come up. I wouldn't know but I expect that in every Muslim nation where women are allowed to vote or drive, they are also compelled to show their faces.

It is against the law to conceal your face in many places in the U.S. such as in a bank. In the south, anti-KKK laws make it illegal to wear a mask or head covering that disguises your identity.

These laws were enacted for good reasons. We should not allow exceptions for Muslim women. We do not allow people of other religions to violate laws because their religion tells them to -- for example, by beating their children.

People in the Middle East know perfectly well that criminals sometimes disguise themselves with Burqas, such as when the terrorist men tried to escape from the siege in Pakistan last year.

The most fatuous demand for a Burqua was a few years ago in Florida (I think) where a woman wanted to wear one for her driver's license picture. I suppose if that were allowed, we could save money by using the same photo for thousands of different women since they all look the same. Why not let them all use the same name and fingerprint while we are at it? I wouldn't know but I hope that it is against the law to drive a car wearing a full Burqua, since it interferes with vision and eliminates peripheral vision altogether.

Perhaps some Muslim women feel the same way about exposing their faces that American women would feel in a (hypothetical) country that demands they expose their breasts. If so, that is regrettable. But we have good reasons for making this demand. We cannot allow masked people in our banks or on our license photos, or in many other circumstances such as taking a final examination at a university for professional qualifications, or passing through airport security. We must positively identify people in such situations, to prevent cheating and substitute test-takers and so on. Women in some Middle Eastern countries are not allowed to do these things, so this is not an issue for them, but in our society, women are allowed to do all of these things, so they must follow the rules.

Burqas are not popular in the U.S. Wearing religious clothing is a cultural choice. Cultural choices are varied even in the U.S. For instance, what provocative women wear in Las Vegas is considered acceptable, but not in Omaha.

What is more troubling, than cultural identity is that intolerance leads to fear, hate speech, and violence. Many of the comments in this mostly Christian blog space show a fear of Muslims.

My anthropologist friend says "multiculturalism is about groups talking to each other without killing each other."

We (Americans & French) could do more to talk to Muslims without trying to kill them. Tolerating the human rights of Muslims to express a religious choice is a start.

In *Western* countries, covering the face with cloth is associated with bandits, robbers, thieves, outlaws, executioners ... concealment of identity FOR NO GOOD PURPOSE.

While the French attempt to ban Islamic head coverings is extreme, inflammatory, and undemocratic, the insistence of some Muslim women - living in Western countries - on masking their faces regularly in public is a sign of gross cultural insensitivity. I've seen children in the park hide in fear at the approach of these faceless, shapeless, sinister, ghostlike swathes of cloth. It's extremely difficult for the average *Westerner* to interpret such a figure positively. Suspicion and mistrust are triggered, even in those who are normally of a tolerant disposition.

What message does it send about God? That God wants women to have no faces?

A compromise:
Muslim ladies - by all means, cover up, if you believe that's what Allah requires. But let us see your faces. Otherwise - to *Westerners* - you look like something out of a nightmare.

Everyone else - respect the right of Muslim women to wear hijab.

Hijab yes, niqab no.

Surely that's reasonable...

On whether there should be a law against the burqa in America...it seems everyone believes that we have two choices: either allow it according to law or prohibit it. Furthermore it seems everyone is positing reasons for and against as if the conversation concerning such proceeds in this fashion in America and there is no other way to think about the problem--and especially as if no other route exists other than allow the burqa by law or prohibit it.

But I sense something different in America. Certainly it would be more difficult to prohibit the burqa in America than to allow it. But no one reflects in this situation it seems on the fact of just how much America celebrates individuality and that if the burqa were not prohibited still there would be a problem--in fact perhaps more of a problem than if we Americans were to prohibit it according to law.

What I mean is just look around you in America, just notice what the women wear and the open ways they have with members of both sexes. The women wearing burqas in America are in an environment virtually contrary to the burqa whether it is prohibited by law or not--and precisely for this situation existing we can expect much tension and who knows what harm will befall Islamic women in America in such a situation. What I mean is we have an Islamic woman coming home one day or trying to leave the house a little less than "perfectly dressed" (according to Islam of course) and one hell of a battle ensuing between husband and wife and predictably we can expect the woman to be carrying the black eye which...will be all but hidden under the burqa...and we should not be staring at an Islamic woman anyway...

What I mean is are we sure allowing the burqa in the U.S. is better than prohibiting it? If allowing it are we sure that is the safest solution? Do we at all care if an Islamic woman in the U.S. wanting to be a bit more free and like the typical U.S. woman finds herself beaten down at home? Will we say "that is certainly between husband and wife in this regard, for that is their religion"?

I apologize if I am in the minority, but I have to go with the position of just abolishing the burqa, cause the pain all in one stroke, and if there are any Islamic people in the U.S. who dislike the law they can move to France. Sorry! How could I resist that Joke?! So much for me being serious and caring about the matter. But in such situations we should avoid jackasses such as myself. Just use your own damn conscience and apply some brainpower. Even a jackass can sense the right position on this problem.

No burqa in the U.S.

Your arguments are too precious and not related to the real world where we have millions of laws to regulate us! Even driving is a privilege not a right! Please!

If men were compelled to wear this degrading, inhuman thing, it would be banned as cruel and inhuman. You should start wearing one today in solidarity! Go ahead...We're waiting...

This is a difficult one for me. I also am an absolutionist when it comes to free speech. But the burqa and such are not about religion. It's about he debasement and dehumanization of women. That women are to be hidden away from the world is utterly appalling.

However, it is not my place to mandate what is right for an individual. If they choose to wear a burqa, that is their perogative. I do not agree with face covering, though as that is a security issue.

Badwisky - why? It is a completely valid point. As is where she continues by asking Obama why he thinks it is more important to defend a woman's right to choose such a constricitng garment than her right to choose other things - such as when and to whom to get married, when and how many children to have, whether or not to have her body mutilated, whether or not to work, and if she so chooses, to be compensated at the same rate as a man, o=and for a woman to be protected in making those choices by criminalizing things like honor killings and increasing consequences in order to actually deter rape and domestic violence against women.

While making a law to ban the wearing of a burqa may be wrong, he is not prioritizing properly - there is so much worse repression of women going on within the same countries as where women wear burqas

Ms. Jacoby,

You're points are mostly well-made, I think. I especially appreciate your criticism of feminists who find themselves in the odd position of defending a woman's right to exist in what can only be described as subjugation.

Interestingly enough, we do regulate clothing in as much as we require it, because public nudity offends general sensibilities and public morality. That is fair enough.

I wonder if the French might not make the same argument against the burqa, or more particularly, the niqab. The niqab promotes a degrading view of women, specifically, that they are inferior, as much as nudity promotes a similar view (that they are cheaper). There is a reason why women who want to be taken seriously for intellectual reasons tend to dress modestly, though not to say puritanically. Women's bodies aren't dirty (to be hidden away), but nor are they cheap (to be put on full display).

Of course, I don't advocate banning burqas, etc., because they only present an (awful) opinion but without actually shocking public morals, and that is the realm of public discourse, not government intervention.

You also do a good job distinguishing the legal issues, which I appreciate, especially as a number of commentators gave those issues so little thought.

Lastly, I am glad that you have voiced concern about our president's chumminess with the Muslim world, even to the point of spurning long-time allies.

Thanks for a good piece.

Why should anyone respect religion? There is no god and the foolishness that is religion causes more problems than the god thing. Mohammed did not subjugate women -- he had several wives and lovers that he both loved and respected. But this covering up of women was instituted so that men would not get horny!!! But they do. In arab countries they fool around with men and yet refuse to admit to homosexual practices. I applaud France's secularism. "people of faith" should get no more respect than children with invisible friends. If I see a woman covered from head to toe, I certainly suspect that she might be a terrorist. The stereotypical robber wears a black mask with small holes for the eyes. We show no respect for his "religion". What would be far healthier is to take these covered women and bring them to therapy for self-esteem issues. Or maybe we should force all American women to cover up and see how long that lasts!!!

I respect the fact that Ms. Jacoby is looking at this issue from a narrow legal-political point of view, but I think the subject at hand is intended to be discussed more hypothetically. E.g.: "In a generic liberal, egalitarian society, should women be allowed to wear Burqas?"

There is something ghastly about them, but is the Burqa any more or less a garment of subservience than those equally ghastly costumes worn by the Jeffords Complex ladies?

Ms. Jacoby talks about the First Amendment being about "separation of church and state." As is well known to those who study the issue, all the First Amendment does in respect to religion is limit what the government can do. Jefferson coined the term "seperation of church and state," and Jefferson was a child of the Enlightenment, which was and is hostile to religious thought.

I thnk that Ms.Jacoby should leave the Presidnts family out of the discussion.