The State and Clothing

[August1991]

This is an ongoing debate in Quebec. Many feel that Charest did not go far enough in forbidding the niqab.

Contrary to the majority in Quebec, I have mixed feelings about all of this. To retread an old phrase (from Gerald Ford), it seems to me that a State powerful enough to make people remove a niqab is also powerful enough to make every woman wear one. IOW, our values are larger than the State - while our society is subject to the State's power.

In Quebec, too many people have replaced the Catholic Church with the State. In their mind, the State (the Quebec government) has become a democratic, good force to replace the autocratic misogynistic Catholic Church. And yet, in either case, an institution, a force, will organize society.

----

While I favour language legislation, it seems to me that the State has no business in our private affairs, and we should be free to choose.

Moreover, the State should be smaller so private affairs are larger, making this question academic. (When the State takes half our efforts in taxes and either passes them off to others or hires people/buys stuff on our behalf, then the State must make clothing decisions for many people.)

The State amounts to a collective decision. Private decisions are varied; they are truly diversified.

----

I wonder about a key last point: Which society is more likely to survive long into the future? A society with a State/Catholic Church forbidding/enforcing a niqab, or a society with a State that allows individual choice?

The answer in not obvious.

Edited March 29, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

I wonder about a key last point: Which society is more likely to survive long into the future? A society with a State/Catholic Church forbidding/enforcing a niqab, or a society with a State that allows individual choice?

The answer in not obvious.

Sure it is, the former would. The less obvious question is why so many people seem to be okay with that.

[August1991]

Sure it is, the former would. The less obvious question is why so many people seem to be okay with that.

Eyeball, your answer is so naive.

But as they say in Brooklyn, fugeddaboutit. You'll be dead before your opinion matters. Instead, I'm asking what your children will say to their children - as if that matters to you.

But then again, why have kids at all?

Edited March 29, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

The less power the state has the better. That being said, requiring that a person's face be visible when interacting with someone that needs to see their face for security/identity/verification/other legitimate purposes is not unreasonable.

[charter.rights]

The less power the state has the better. That being said, requiring that a person's face be visible when interacting with someone that needs to see their face for security/identity/verification/other legitimate purposes is not unreasonable.

You contradict yourself.

In one breath you say the state should not hold power over "us" but it is okay to have power of "them". What a ridiculous stance.

[ToadBrother]

You contradict yourself.

In one breath you say the state should not hold power over "us" but it is okay to have power of "them". What a ridiculous stance.

So you think it is unreasonable for someone who wears a face covering to be asked to remove it for, say, getting a government photo ID?

[eyeball]

Instead, I'm asking what your children will say to their children - as if that matters to you.

It matters a lot actually - I trust my kids will be telling their's to be very very skeptical of authority.

But then again, why have kids at all?

Mostly hope.

[August1991]

So you think it is unreasonable for someone who wears a face covering to be asked to remove it for, say, getting a government photo ID?

Banks in Saudi Arabia make special arrangements for female customers so that bank staff can identify them. Medical doctors of course ask women to remove their clothing.

IOW, it is often possible to organize private affairs as individuals desire and accommodate any special circumstance. Governments (and bureaucracy) typically require standardization and in this, the State often imposes the tyranny of the majority.

[August1991]

Note to Forum managers: I realize that we have another thread on female Muslim headgarb. Mesh these threads unless you prefer to keep them separate.

----

What about Chinese face masks?

See Photo.

I was recently in an airport and I saw passengers with mouth coverings, similar to Muslim women face coverings.

IMV, where do we draw the line? Who has the authority to say that someone has crossed the line?

I happen to think that individuals, privately, should draw the line, and individuals should decide when the line is crossed. The State should not be involved.

----

The debate about Muslim headwear (and cartoons) in western countries astonishes me. It is naive. Why? Like France today, Peter the Great passed an edict forcing peasants to shave their beard.

Edited April 2, 2010 by August1991