I came across this post in Freethought Blogs, “For those who are in love with the veil and keep going on about how it’s a ‘right’ and ‘choice’, here’s a video just for you.”
[When I commented it was an earlier version that included what the author thought was a young scared girl being led by morality police for being unveiled in Iran, but changed the post when she found out it was not. The author’s edit did change the nature of the post to whether or not parents should be allowed to veil their children.]
Nobody disputes that in many countries and communities, not being veiled or covered in a particular way is punishable. The prohibition against showing a girl’s head or face in public is so strong in some areas that it led to the deaths of children who were attempting to flee a burning building in Saudi Arabia.
This is NOT a non-issue.
However, many people (including myself) are incensed by France’s continued campaign of forced “secularization” that has included a ban on the veil. When I read Namazie’s blog post, it seemed squarely aimed at people who shared my views on the topic, and frankly it really made me mad.
Here is one of my comments on that post:
“Apparently we have a failure to communicate.
When someone from the U.S. starts ranting about “rights” and “liberty” we are actually talking about “rights” and “liberty” we are not endorsing choices, making value judgments about choices, or even saying that the “choice” one makes is free of coercion. When we rant about “rights” and “liberty” we might be talking about something we absolutely loath, that we wish would be wiped off the face of the earth, that we understand is oppressive and terrible and that no thinking feeling human being would endorse.
We just mean that the police shouldn’t fine you, jail you, beat you, or kill you if you do such a thing.
That’s it.
To say that a veil or a different covering or any other religiously motivated clothing (such as Mormon undergarments, Jewish Orthodox hats, monk’s robes, or whatever else) is a “right” and a “choice” is not saying that wearing such coverings are free choices, devoid of social or psychological coercion, or the coolest thing since Swiss Cheese.
It is saying that the police shouldn’t pull you out of your home and rip your clothes off.
Again – the fact that wearing the veil to many girls and women is absolutely the product of social or psychological coercion does not negate the fascist nature of government essentially disrobing people because the daddy-state doesn’t like it.
More moderate Muslims who do not cover their faces were unhappy with the law in France – not because they think covering your face is awesome – but because they are smart enough to know that such laws are counter-productive in helping alleviate the isolation those women experience.
To outlaw hijab or even just the veil is like using women in a tug-of-war – each side holding onto an arm so that she cannot freely move. Instead, I think a better tactic is to do what we can to get the other person to let go.”
SINMANTYX 
I agree with your general premise here that minds need to be changed rather than trapping these women in the middle of a culture war. However, this still goes right back to our previous discussions. Who are we to judge France’s society, or even the Muslim society? Why should we care unless there is some true universal moral law to appeal to that *ought* to apply to all people? Why should our opinion that these women be free to choose what to wear be any better than France’s telling them they can’t wear it, or Muslim society telling them they have to wear it?
In the end, I find the hipocrisy of France’s telling people how to live, in the supposed name of not telling people how to live (secularization), laughable!
Simple empathy is enough to claim a superior position on whether or not to impose a face veil on women who do not desire it. Pragmatic arguments can be made as well. There is no need to invoke moral superiority or create a set of universal laws that all should follow.
If someone were to believe that morals are culturally defined, it does not compel them to agree with the oppression of groups within a culture. Those in power do not define a culture. Political borders are not even necessarily cultural borders.
For the French government to arrest and imprison women for wearing niqab – is an imposition of culture by force of law. To support this imposition is antithetical to cultural relativism not required by it.
I am not a relativist – however you want to paint me as one – if for no other reason than pragmatism. There are certainly governmental structures that work better than other ones; there are certain outcomes that are near universally despised. There are certain things that are *wrong* and can be argued as being *wrong* for no other reason than it is in everyone’s best interest that they be considered *wrong*.
Empathy? Why should I believe empathy tells me anything true about reality rather than just being an evolved altrusitc mechanism valuable for my own personal survival? What if two people have competing empathetic feelings?
I’m not trying to paint you (personally) as a relativist, per se. My claim is that if we have nothing transcendent on which to base our claims about right and wrong, we are by default STUCK with relativism. You’re just begging the question when you say things are “wrong” because they’re not in everyone’s “best” interest (they’re wrong because they’re wrong). You need something against which to justify what “wrong” and “best” are before they can be real things. Why is having anybody else’s “best” interest in mind “right”? There’s philisophically no foundation for such a claim that can apply to all people unless it comes from outside the people it is applying to. Also, appeals to popularity only serve to establish relativism as the basis for morality, not defeat it. Surely, the French think they’re doing what is right in trying to liberate Muslim women from the tyranny of their culture. You seem to think they’re wrong in the way they’re going about it (and I agree with you). Fundamentally though, without grounding, both are just opinions about what is right. Opinions can easily vary from person to person, culture to culture, or government to governement. In other words…relativism.
I think this is one of the best reasons for believing in a transcendent Creator. In the reality I observe there seem to be some moral absolutes. If there is even a single REAL moral law, a Moral Law Giver of some sort must necessarily exist. If there is no Moral Law Giver, then anything is permissible, and only preventable by popular opinion (power). In that case France is “right” to do whatever they want. The only thing that can make it “wrong” in an accidental universe, is a power/policy/opinion shift that says differently. However, might *making* right seems to me to be universally and unchangably wrong (and dangerous) as far as humanity is concerned. If this is true, the truth has to come from somewhere other than humanity itself, otherwise we’ve just invented it ourselves and it isn’t true.
Perhaps to see how empathy matters in this case, do the following:
1) Go around with your head and face covered for a while – this will work best if it is humid and really hot outside.
2) Tell a female relative that you will not allow her to wear a shirt when going out on hot days anymore, because men are able to be in public topless, So, when she wears a shirt, she is supporting the patriarchy.
And yes, sometimes empathy competes. Whether or not I’m a moral relativist depends on your definition. If your definition of moral relativism is simply an acknowledgement that there is such a thing as a “gray area” or valid areas of disagreement or ambiguity, then sure, that’s me. However, if you are using the term to describe someone who believes that there is NO basis for morality besides social construction – then I am not, at all.
“If there is even a single REAL moral law, a Moral Law Giver of some sort must necessarily exist. ”
…and if thunder exists, also must Thor.
But all you’re doing there is appealing to emotion. How happy or unhappy something makes me or anybody else does not tell me if statements about its goodness or badness are true or not. Can’t those women with their head and faces covered in the hot and humid conditions empathize with those men who want them to keep covered so the men don’t feel like they’re violating their consciences?
Your barb about thunder and Thor is irrelevent to the discussion. Thunder is a physical thing which can legitimately be explained by referring to physical laws. Morality is a metaphysical thing that must have some metaphysical grounding if it has any chance of being a real thing.
Don’t you see how if people are an accidental byproduct of an accidental universe, that real morality can’t actually exist? All that *can* exist are the social constructs we have created for ourselves, which you say you don’t base your morality on. But if morality is only an evolutionary by-product of human brains, I see no reason why the preferences of one brain (or collection of brains) ought to be any more valid than the preferences of another.
Pingback: Why doesn’t Islam get equal time and Christianity gets all the attention? « SINMANTYX