Norman Geras refutes/dismantles Christopher Hitchens’ poorly argued support of the French burkha ban in seven bullet points. Here’s the first of them:
This, I’m sorry to say, is how it strikes me as being with Christopher Hitchens’s piece in Slate supporting the French move to outlaw the burqa. He has plenty of arguments, but not one of them is compelling. Christopher tries, first, to present the agents of the prospective legislation as not seeking to impose a ban.
To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority…
This is sophistical. For any woman wanting and choosing to wear the burqa or the veil, a law against doing so imposes a ban. Christopher is consequently obliged to suggest that there are no such women: ‘we have no assurance’, he says, ‘that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way’. He says, again, that ‘the right of women to show their faces… easily trumps the right of their male relatives or their male imams to decide otherwise’. Well, I don’t know what the proportions are as between Muslim women covering their faces out of choice and those doing so because they are compelled to, but I’ll give Christopher good odds that the number in the former category is not insignificant, and for all of them the law would constitute a ban. As for ‘the right of women to show their faces’, in democratic societies this is already protected by law, and if there are men breaching that law to force women to cover their faces against their will, then it can and should be activated accordingly.
Norm ends with a single inarguable, so-obvious-it’s-cliché take-home lesson for the French authorities and, sorry to say, Christopher Hitchens, who finds himself in an illiberal conceptual cul-de-sac of his own making:
“Anyway, from a liberal point of view, it might be said that the hard line here is that people should be able to wear what they like.”
Read the remaining six.
45 Comments
Even in France, there are nuances:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/france-ban-islamic-veil
Here is a very interesting article from the French press:
Burkha – a way to blind public opinion, Jonathan Roger, 25/1/10.
Inter alia, Roger argues:
English translation, here: http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1449
Original French-language article, here:
http://www.humanite.fr/2010-01-25_Politique-_-Social-Economie_Burqa-Comment-voiler-l-opinion-publique
So what would be the penalty for breaching such a ban? A fine? Prison? And remember the only people who would be prosecuted under this ban would be women.
Repellant as I find the burqa (the Western equivalent would be wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘I am a slave and you are rapist’ – and meaning it) trying to curb them by punishing their wearers is far worse.
The fine should obviously go to the “wife-owner”. Internally, i.e. within the islamic mind-set, he is the real responsible (the owned wife has at best a 50% opinion -when it comes to important matters).
What the liberal society needs to consider (and I’m not convinced that neither Faisal nor Norman Geras have) is: how do we arbite between opposing /clashing rights.
No doubt there exists female religious fools (just for the record: in my book anyone believing in a variety of the god-fairy in the sky is a deluded fool)
that REALLY, honsestly and voluntarily chooses to wear the mobile prison.
On the other hand, I would think there also exist quite a number of females “born into” this particular medeval variety of religious delusion, and some of these suffers from psychological and even physical coersion to wear said artefact.
It is obvious to me that these women’s rights also are abused when NOT putting an end to the idiocy.
Would there perhaps be a cetrain proportion of the latter where their rights should take precedent?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Cassanders
I think the law should protect individuals against coercion of any sort. Where the person may be shown to be in some way irresponsible for their acts, then the court should act in the best interests of those that come before it. So I think that the partial introduction of bans on niqab and burka in certain places are quite acceptable.
@ Outside
Sure, but meethinks you are platonic.
In the real world (TM) laws will rarely be able to fulfil such idealised requirements for all individuals simulatneously.
I would agree that in a western liberal society, truly dedicated voluntarily burka-wearing women definitely is a minority (and hence in position to claim minority-rights).
But within the muslim community, there is also a minority: those not wanting to adhere to the paralell society’s rules.
I suspect these clashes of these minority-rights cannot be reconciled by simply imposing partly bans of burkas.
As long as the rights cannot be reconciled, I would tend to favor the likely weakest group’s rights, i.d. to give a total ban of the mobile prison to protect those forced (by family & group) to wear it.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Cassanders,
Apologies for the belated reply.
See here, for starters:
http://ireandwrath.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/liberalism-and-the-ban/
Sorry outside, I don’t think your point is made on a correct reading of Norm’s piece.
You say:
“I am both against a full ban and against the alternative, non-legislative route that Geras and Ghazi seem to want.”
Norm didn’t write there are NO conditions when enforcing a ban are necessary, in his piece. These conditions naturally apply to banks, airports, hospitals, security checks in public spaces etc.
So given that your whole post relies on posing Hitchens’ and Geras’ positions as diametrical opposites, when they are clearly not, there is not much left to comment on.
So what exactly were your objections to Hitchen’s views?
Put another way – if you cannot find a distinction between the two writers, what exactly was the point of your post?
The clues are all in Norm’s post. I suggest you re-read it.
Christopher Hitchens has used some emotive arguments to defend France’s burkha ban. Some of his reasoning is solid but some can only be regarded as wilful misunderstanding of the facts to fit his reasoning.
The first of these, as Norm picks up, is to suggest that the French ban is not a ban of the burkha but a lifting of a ban imposed on women who are unwilling victims of enforced veiling. But there is nothing to suggest this to be the case. There are plenty of muslim women who wear the full niqab out of their own personal choice. To legislate against people who choose to wear a burkha completely of their own will is a ban, not the lifting of some other “enforced” law!
True secularism is not the enforcing bans on individual citizens to create a secularised society. French Laïcité in the 21st century is less about secularism and more to do with cultural authoritarianism. Very different things. You’ll often see critics of secularism use the non sequitur of criticising Laïcité to downplay secularism.
Norm’s beef with Hitchens’ pro-ban stance is his premise that the French ban is somehow good for Muslim women who wear the burkha because they do so completely against their will. Norm is right to point out Hitchens’ booboo. He is not suggesting that the burkha should not subject to laws against facial coverings, in certain circumstances. Nor is he saying that there are women who are forced to wear the burkha and the case remains that it is forced on women.
@Faisal
So are you supporting Norman Geras because Hitch’ apparently didn’t write explicitly that a society needs to consider the rights of the voluntary wearers of the mobile prison to the “minority in the minority” (the women NOT wanting to wear the mobile prison)?
We do of course not know the proportion of said minority (and I suspect that reliable censi are difficult to obtain), but I am curious on your opinion.
1) Do you consider that this minority has right claims as valid as the voluntary mobile prison-wearers, and how should the society uphold such rights?
2) If we for the sake of the argument assume that the proportion of the non-voluntary is increasing: Is there a particular proportion of the latter where their rights should be given precedent to the former?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Actually, Cassanders, I have come to the conclusion that Faisal does not actually know himself why he is supporting Geras. It’s just a species of mindless cheerleading, propped up by demands others re-read posts that he has clearly not fully understood himself.
Cassanders
No I’m supporting Geras’ argument (not a ’cause’ as ‘outside’ seems to think it is) because Hitch is using specious reasoning that a ban on the niqab is actually a lifting of an enforced law for that statistic of women who are being forced to wear the niqab. Whether that statistic is a majority or a minority, it is still a falsehood, whichever way you slice it.
The problem with Hitch’s position and that of the pro-French-Burkha-Ban, is that he/they want to have it both ways. He wants to support the full niqab ban for the cause of French cultural authoritarianism *and* remain seated on his high horse by asserting that it’s not a ban but a lifting of a ban. This is bollocks and, as Geras says, sophistry.
This ban isn’t about the welfare of women in burkhas, so let’s have less of that mock-preachery, shall we? This matter is an articulation of a specific national impulse that is peculiar to France. Sarcozy is merely carrying on a long history of French chauvinism and French cultural authoritarianism in the name of laïcité. But like similar instances in French history, it barely disguises the inherent bigotry that motivates it.
Here’s an article which traces this whole business back to the Dreyfus Affair.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/12/how_the_dreyfus_affair_explains_sarkozy_s_burqa_ban
That incident, when the rampant antisemitism of French conservatives and its clerical classes was fully exposed, has a cultural legacy and we are seeing it again playing itself out in France. History is repeating itself. Sarcozy is no secularist, he has shown himself to be a supporter of state obligations to religious institutions.
The state of France and its Liberal Academic Priesthood is wrong to ban the burkha. Or rather, it is no more right to ban the burkha than it is to ban male genital piercing. The state should stay out of the personal choice of adults and keep its hands where we can see them.
“It’s just a species of mindless cheerleading, propped up by demands others re-read posts that he has clearly not fully understood himself.”
You mean as opposed to the pointless wiffle you wrote on your blog which misread Geras’ points, added nothing to the argument and tried to create an adversarial binary between Geras on one side and Christopher Hitchens on the other, when no such boxing match exists? Then finally concluding that they are both wrong and only you are right. Nothing “mindless cheerleading” about that was there?
If so, I ask again, what was the point of your original post?
If no such dispute exists, then you must explain why you achieved the remarkable feat of producing a post that exactly argued that one did so exist.
Any answers?
Oh, how very silly of you. I notice that you have now resorted to Sunny’s use of scare marks around poster’s handles.
It is your lack of intellectual rigour which is at question, “Faisal”, together with the fact that you have well and truly hoist yourself on your own petard – and you are now getting all narky because it has been been pointed out to you.
How very, very sad.
Could it be that a “dispute” between Geras and Hitchens only exists in your mind, not theirs?
“Oh, how very silly of you. I notice that you have now resorted to Sunny’s use of scare marks around poster’s handles.”
The “scare marks” are to emphasise your choice of handle which is a common noun, and makes the sentence difficult to read otherwise. I mean, to write
“not a ’cause’ as outside seems to think it is”
is a bit confusing on a cursory reading, don’cha think?
And speaking of Sunny Hundal, I notice that like him, you’re very eager to make this thread all about you, you, you.
But it isn’t.
As you keep suggesting, Faisal. And I keep pointing out that it was YOU who fist drew a distinction between their views and it is NOW YOU who owe us some sort of explanation for your complete volte face.
D’oh.
Not as difficult as that sentence, which even lacks basic grammatical sense.
No. What has this to do with the content of my objection to your weird view?
No it’s about you inability to construct and sustain a defensible argument.
Well, if you think I posited some kind of fundamental “dispute” between two public intellectuals, that’s your imagination, not mine. It is you who thinks Geras is countering Hitch on every single point against a full public ban bar none – which as I’ve pointed out, is your first premise and which is completely wrong to begin with, so taking your argument any further would akin to arguing the pros and cons of a bust flush.
That along with personalising this discussion and pointing out grammatical errors has been your contribution to this debate. Top stuff.
Faisal
Here’s the thing:
Either learn to string an argument together in a sensible, coherent fashion – or stop embarrassing yourself (and your heroes) by bead-stringing together views that you clearly do not understand.
Oh, and further more (and this rhymes with you and your ex-chum Sunny, which this site was, after all, dedicated against) – can you do us all a favour and actually attempt something approaching standard English in your presentation of your piss-poor, cheerleading, leaden views?
Just a thought (I know you don’t have manyof the original order – but do try to entertain this one, there’s a dear).
Ok, I’ll be sure to take your textual criticism onboard! But I dearly hope this discussion can get past the tyranny of style over content and back on topic.
Here here! Well said Faisal.
I cannot agree with you more, Faisal – how about you explain how it is possible to write an article apparently drawing a contrast between Hitchen and Geras… and then repeatedly claim that no such distinction should be made? You refuse to deal with this rather large elephant in your room.
Equally, perhaps you might address the criticism I made of your position which is you confuse liberalism with libertarianism – or, rather, you don’t know what either really mean (as your comment about the French liberal elite would seem to indicate – shock, Faisal thinks France is run by liberals. Idiot.)
I think I’ve explained myself here. But I note that you haven’t really addressed a fundamental error of your own. One that has probably informed your utter confusion about some imaginary ‘Geras vs Hitchens’ “dispute”, you keep proferring. Perhaps you could revisit your own blog post where you wrote:
“I am both against a full ban and against the alternative, non-legislative route that Geras and Ghazi seem to want.”
Interesting because Geras never wrote that he preferred a “non-legislative route” in his piece!
Before you criticise someone’s argument, in this case Geras’, it might be good to read the material first. It would spare you the trouble of hogging a thread with diversionary nonsense, passive aggression and self-defeating personal abuse, all made to hide the fact that you’ve made, from the very outset, an error. You might be in danger of irredeemably making a complete fool of yourself.
Too late!
I tell you what, Faisal, you develop basic English comprehension skills and you might be able to fight your way out of a wet paper bag.
Deal?
Actually, could it be *your* comprehension skills, or even the ability to read to the end of a sentence once started, that is at question here?
No, Faisal, I have no problems with my home language. As little as I should imagine you do with yours.
However, let’s not let that distract us from the very obvious fact that you can neither understand others’ arguments – nor, more critically, that your judgements about the same will ever be tainted by a sort of juvenile prejudice against whole cultures, let alone other commentators, one would expect from dullards of your magnitude.
I can understand your arguments perfectly well, but they are worthless and plainly incorrect.
Your weird and nasty personal attacks, the seething rage and the witless interventions have been completely irrelevant to the discussion but like all trollery, great entertainment value. Thank you!
“Your weird and nasty personal attacks and pointless interventions”
What colour is the sky on your planet, Faisal? It would appear to be some sort of failing on your part that you believe that unless one is utterly convinced of your position that the person who holds such contrary views is some sort of personal enemy. I don’t agree with you, Faisal. Get over yourself.
You start off by making the charge Geras and Hitchens to be both incorrect and only you right, in spite of the fact that your only point was fundamentally flawed. When others point out the fault in your logic, you respond with long angry streams of personal insults and feeble point scoring.
Hugely entertaining but don’t be too surprised if they don’t take you very seriously after all that.
Admit it, Faisal – you simply have a visceral dislike of the French…
“You start off by making the charge Geras and Hitchens to be both incorrect and only you right, in spite of the fact that it was wrong.”
Oh, I see – NOW you do admit there is a difference between their views. Odd that, given your earlier protestations to the contrary (despite your original post)… Am I writing to the same Faisal each time? Let’s also ignore the fact that this is a complete travesty of my position; but it suits you, so there’s nice.
“When others point out the fault in your logic, you respond with long angry streams of personal insults and feeble point scoring.
No. The only person to do so has been you – no others. Cassander’s comments you have avoided, or at least thoroughly misunderstood. As for insults and feeble point scoring: now, now, Faisal – one would hardly acuse you of being a mild-mannered individual.
haha, this is truly hilarious!
“Faisal – one would hardly acuse you of being a mild-mannered individual.”
I’m not very good at suffering idiotic trolls, I have to say. But who can, I ask you.
Really, Faisal – lost all capacity to form a reasoned argument. Now, that’s not like you… but, wait.
I take it you will not be holidaying in that hell-hole of liberal elites (including hilariously to you staff writers of the French Communist Party – you are aware that L’Huma is a French communist newspaper? Clearly not)?
Tant pis – oh what you could teach them, eh?
Faisal
I have admired the patience and humour with which you’ve pwned this obnoxious wanker. Standard English and perfect grammar indeed.
Well done, more power to you.
Christ on a stick, now he’s writing to himself!
grats Abu Orifice.
Ok, that’s now enough.
Faisal – I have always admired what you are trying to do. It was and is incredibly brave to have gone against the grain as you have. You have my undying respect for that. Me, in my way – and you, in yours – have moved great distances and I would rather hope that the general integrity that you have shown might also be accorded me, despite our differences (which, perhaps, are considerable).
None of this means, however, that I should scruple agreement with you on every item. It strikes me that it is a shame that both you and I should have to introduce so much personal animus into disagreement: perhaps we understand such notions as solidarity remarkably differently from each other. I do not want “yes men”; I cannot help being disappointed that you seem to want the same – and please correct me if I am mistaken about the same.
It is not some personalised campaign I am waging against you, Faisal – nor is it “trolling” (a term that has become so broad in its accusatory sway as to have almost lost all meaning). Rather, I simply do not agree with you.
We are both people with (as one of my elderly relatives diplomatically puts it) rather quick tempers. It is a shame, that despite not seeing eye to eye, both of us have to resort to name-calling (or, perhaps, rather that we have such affect upon each other). I do think that is a shame, actually.
Sorry but I haven’t indulged in any name calling here. Every snide personal insult on this thread, and there has been plenty, has come from your side. And it has been a spectacle.
Fine, Faisal. Be like that. You have my email address.