HPRgument Blog — May 5, 2010 11:34 am

Good and Bad Arguments for “Discrimination” against Muslims

By Sam Barr

HPR staff writer Eli Martin has a piece in today’s Crimson criticizing European “Islamophobia.” I don’t want to baldly disagree with Eli that “outright discrimination toward Muslims in Europe is becoming a reality.” But I do want to complicate things a bit.

Dutch anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders

Eli implies that burqa bans and the like could only be products of Geert Wilders-esque prejudice, neglecting a serious left-wing (and, by my lights, unprejudiced) argument for them. In her famous essay, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” , Susan Moller Okin argues that a good liberal has to care not only about inter-group inequalities, but also intra-group inequalities. In other words, before we get too excited about multiculturalism and “group rights” designed to protect traditional cultures, we have to look at whether all of those groups’ practices are really worth preserving.

This seems presumptuous on first glance, but think about it: for almost any liberal there will be certain practices so abhorrent that they could not be tolerated in the name of multiculturalism (e.g. genital mutilation… I think we can agree on that one). So the question becomes where you draw the line between acceptable group practices and unacceptable ones. Reasonable liberals, I think, can draw that line in different places, which is why I’m not going to come down hard on one side of the debate about Europe’s “Islamophobia.”

But it is surely plausible to argue that many Muslim women are not donning the burqa voluntarily, as Eli assumes, or even that they are under the sway of some sort of false consciousness. Feminists made the some sorts of arguments and assumptions way back when, and they were thought presumptuous for suggesting that many women actually didn’t want to stay at home their whole lives. But you know what? The feminists were probably right about that one. And I’m not so sure that liberals like Okin are wrong about certain Muslim customs.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Related posts:

Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Social Studies Walkout: Video
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
Tags:
Author: Sam Barr '11, a government concentrator, was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Political Review in 2010.
  • Eli Martin

    Sam,
    Of course I am not assuming that all Muslim women voluntarily wear the burqa. In a case in Italy -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1271848/Woman-Italy-fined-430-wearing-burqa.html – a woman was fined for wearing a burqa in the street under already-existing local legislature. Her husband reacted by saying “I have to keep her indoors now”. Clearly, there are serious issues within Islamic communities which need to be addressed. However, I don’t think these problems will be solved by denying certain people what seem to be pretty basic human rights. Just as one woman may be forced to wear a burqa, another will choose to do so willingly. Domestic violence and coercive relationships exist in all communities; just because the problem appears to be worse in one doesn’t mean we should respond by discriminating against that community. And I really do think it’s a bit patronizing to argue that Islamic women may collectively be “under the sway of some sort of false consciousness”. My argument is not about multiculturalism, but freedom of expression. Europe shouldn’t start to erode away the latter, either by banning headgear or stopping cartoons from being published.

  • Sam Barr

    Eli,
    You can come down for freedom of expression if you want, but this very much is about multiculturalism and “group rights” as Okin (and the rest of political philosophy) uses those terms.

    You say that freedom of expression is a basic human right, and I agree. I also think that freedom of movement, freedom of thought, and freedom from oppression are basic human rights. Okin’s point and mine is that rights come into conflict with one another when you look at both in-group and between-group inequalities.

    Ultimately all I’m saying is that this isn’t simple. This isn’t just a case of “discrimination bad,” because sometimes, if you’re discriminating against bad things, discrimination can be good.

  • Max Novendstern

    Another way to frame Sam’s point is to say that there’s a conflict within the liberal framework itself.

    Liberalism says that individuals should be free to make choices about how they live their lives. Ok. I should be free to practice my religion. And I should be free to opt out of some given religious context.

    But what if my life choice involves denying others’ theirs? What if my “free expression” restricts yours?

    This isn’t an idle question. A lot of substantive cultural expression involves some form of coercion towards others — because that, after all, is what culture is, rules and coercion. Most religions involve rules; a great deal of institutionalized religious expression involves deny some people some level of their liberal freedom.

    The question for liberalism, always, is: how tolerant are you of intolerance?

    That’s key in the France question. I agree that Sarkozy is really thuggish on this issue, and wrong. But we can’t pretend there’s not a balancing test.

  • ’11

    despite the myriad issues with this discussion, i’d like to point out one part of your response:

    “for almost any liberal there will be certain practices so abhorrent….e.g. genital mutilation”

    first of all, americans practice genital mutilation: it’s called circumcision. and guess what: Jesus’ circumcision was recorded as having been performed in accordance with Torah requirements in Luke 2:21. and, according to Jewish law, ritual circumcision of male children is a commandment from God that Jews are obligated to follow.

    what an abhorrent practice?! maybe this article should be retitled the Good and Bad Arguments for Discrimination against Jews? <= sounds pretty racist and anti-semitic, no? (and don't try to squirm your way out by saying you had discrimination in quotes – thats a bitch move)

    anyways, i took the aforementioned liberty of satirizing your argument about "abhorrent" genital mutilation because you didn't qualify it as male or female.

    anyways, female mutilation has no basis in Islam, the Quran, or authentic hadith: it's a cultural practice that neoconservatives and Huntington-Clash-of-Civilizationists like to bring up in discussions about Islam (in your case not directly attributed to Islam but juxtaposed close enough in the paragraph for people who don't know to make the mistake of connecting them).

    and if you actually thought it was a "Muslim custom" you really should try to know a bit more about Islam before you make such crude connections, otherwise someone may have a "plausible" argument that you're an Islamophobe.

    and Eli was being nice, stereotyping women who wear the burqa as harboring false consciousness isn't patronizing or just paternalistic, its toolish presumptuousness. the fundamental assumption to this "debate" is that women are forced to cover. How true is that statement? rarely are any niqab-wearing women spoken to in statistically significant numbers (i mean more than the one or two clearly oppressed ones) in media or political debates.

    and sam, if you're a republican – i understand: hating muslims is part of your day job, but you're not even a politician yet! so, if you feel any compunction for saying that women who wear a burqa are under the "sway of some sort of false consciousness" maybe you can find women in Cambridge or Boston – because yes, there are women who cover up like that here- and ask them what they think.

    in case none of this reached your harvard-bubble-brain, if i told the hasty pudding they couldn't cross-dress starting tomorrow because i felt like glee was destroying the fabric of america, they'd tell me to shove that idea up my ass. because they'd say that this america, and that they can wear whatever the fuck they want: be it dresses or burqas. That's what freedom is after all. by banning burqa's your actually taking away that exact freedom – however "abhorent" or coerced you THINK it is, irrespective of what it REALLY is…

  • Sam Barr

    This anonymous comment just goes to show, no matter how explicit you are about what you’re saying and what you’re not, you can always be misunderstood.

    No, I’m not a Republican. As I said in the post, I think there are both reactionary/racist and serious/liberal reasons to at least think about the issue of intra-group inequalities. Not just for Muslims, but for all groups.

    And I realize that female genital mutilation (sorry for not being more specific) is practiced by non-Muslims. I was trying to produce a cultural practice that we could agree was abominable and ought to be outlawed, to show that we are faced with the very difficult task of making such judgments. We cannot simply say that we should be tolerant and respectful. Tolerance and respect are very important values, but there are other values that, when affronted drastically enough, might override them. Male circumcision might be kind of silly and outdated, but it is not medically dangerous enough (some studies actually show medical benefits) for me to argue seriously that it should override the need to respect other cultural traditions.

    Where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable cultural traditions is an incredibly thorny and fraught issue. The point of my post was that it’s sadly inescapable, because sometimes in-group practices just aren’t worth tolerating. That’s why the Mormons aren’t allowed to marry their tween-age daughters to older men, but the Amish are allowed to make their children stop schooling at the same age: one practice is more harmful than the other and we cannot avoid making that moral judgment unless we’re willing to rubber-stamp some very awful and oppressive in-group practices.

    One last thing: much as you seem to think yourself a defender of freedom of expression, your post is antithetical to a respectful dialogue. Just as I try to distinguish between respectable cultural practices and abhorrent ones, you should try to distinguish between respectable opponents and racist/Islamophobic ones. Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, I think I am clearly one of the former. I’m not Sam Huntington or Geert Wilders. I’m just concerned, that’s all, concerned, about stories I read about oppression of women in Muslim communities.

  • ’11

    OK, you’re right, I largely missed your point and I wasn’t being that nice either. And I even agree with you that the oppression of women is a terrible thing – in Muslim communities, in American ones, in any community.

    But I’m still not sure you understand what I found problematic with your post. From my perspective, the problem with this debate is the assumption that the burqa is inherently oppressive. Wearing the burqa is not the same as being a teen bride nor is it comparable to being forced to leave school. Some of the burqa cases in Europe have come about when a woman was trying to attend class. Even in a liberal country like Canada, people can now be disallowed access to government services, schools and colleges and health care to those who don’t remove the face veil. Do you actually think banning a person from the hospital based on what they wear will help them in any way? It’s more likely they’ll become even more reclusive, which – having been denied education and healthcare – is clearly more oppressive than the situation in the first place.

    Anyways, what bothered me about your post and about liberalism in general is the idea that what you think is best is best and that he person you’re trying to help may be “under the sway of some sort of false consciousness.” This phrase explicitly belittles the women who wear burqa – which is what I thought you were wholly against?

  • Sam Barr

    Hey ’11,

    You’re right, it’s a difficult issue that my post didn’t begin to address. My only defense is that I was calling for a debate along these exact lines (i.e. what do customs like the burqa actually mean for women and do to them?). That’s the debate we need to have, rather than just screaming “tolerance” and “Islamophobia” and calling it a day.

    I apologize for appearing to “make the assumption” that the burqa is oppressive. I don’t make that assumption and I tried to convey my actual feelings: “But it is surely plausible to argue that many Muslim women are not donning the burqa voluntarily, as Eli assumes, or even that they are under the sway of some sort of false consciousness.”

    The word “plausible” was italicized in order to make sure you noticed that I wasn’t saying “certain” or “to be assumed.” Again, I was just trying to identify the point of view that Eli has to grapple with, which I think his original article failed to do (understandably, under the space constraints). I was trying to show that he was making a controversial assumption, and that there’s another controversial assumption that would lead one in the opposite direction.

    As for your general problem with liberalism, I have to say I don’t agree. Well, I agree that liberals think that what they think is best is best, but everyone else does too. I guess you could say I don’t really believe in cultural relativism. I think it’s better for women to be free, for speech to be uninhibited, for religion and the state to be separated, etc etc. And so I won’t just assume that all Muslim customs are a-okay. I want to see arguments about why they are. Which you have provided! These are exactly the sort of claims and arguments that I think we need more of. Thanks for your reply.

    Sam

  • ’11

    i do appreciate that you’re more reasonable than average when it comes to engaging cultural heterogeneity.

    and, as much as i wish the issue was as simple as “better for women to be free” or “for speech to be uninhibited,” i’m sure you recognize that those arguments may sound nice, but can fall apart in different contexts. basically, my concern is the lack of nuance.

    for example, if a women considers it freedom to walk around topless – awesome – that’s a perspective on freedom- but most municipal decency laws make that illegal. or how about miss beauty pageants – is that really feminine freedom on display or modern mass consumption and objectification. and how do you interpret the pageant when the winner self-identifies as a muslim? some commentators and pundits who discuss Islam and America are simply trying to do their best with the information they have – which can be often twisted by those who have ulterior motives (and the origins and evolution of this antipathy is written about nicely by this Professor from Baylor: http://hnn.us/articles/64538.html)

    Voices of the oppressed are almost always excluded, that’s a given. But the discussion of Islam in American will not be conducive to understanding or growth unless organically American and traditionally Islamic scholars take part. This needs to happen before demagogues monopolize the dialogue. The trend in Europe is emblematic of how serious this threat can be to immigrant Muslim populations – such as French girls barred from public schools because they can’t put a scarf on their head or lesser known media cases such as the Egyptian women in Germany who was stabbed to death in court, in front of her child and husband by an egomaniacal Islamophobe who hated her headscarf, only to have security guards restrain the husband who was also stabbed as the potential assailant. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/german-trial-hijab-murder-egypt)

    Such a tragedy and farce of justice reminds me of the show trials of the the Jim Crow, post-Reconstruction era. Or the extraordinary racism that led to cash prizes in California for Native Indian man, women, or child scalps (http://nacc.stanford.edu/timeline.html). Discrimination is part and parcel of American history- and it wasn’t just reserved for blacks or Native Americans, immigrant whites were also opposed for uncouth or “unmanly” characteristics, as it were.

    But America has changed too much after the Civil Rights Era, for the rights of the minority to be stripped so easily by know-nothings and petty racism, from fear fanned by the pettiest and nastiest of politicians. Juxtaposing Wilders with a discussion about Islam is like a Muslim saying that hey, Osama bin Laden may have something here: it’s absolute and categorical anathema – irrespective of the latent nuanced, scholarly discussion. Seriously, this man has said such ditties as: “I hate Islam,” “there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” that the Koran is a “fascist book” that should be outlawed, and that Muhammad is “the devil.” Dude is fuckin batshit crazy.

    And Wilders screening his film in the Capitol building by the invitation of Repub John Kyl is totally reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson enjoying the Birth of a Nation. The parallels of discrimination are too eerie to ignore.

  • http://beiberlove.com yarisbel lopez

    i love trhis website its the beasts of beast ha yea ok if you sayb so eli

custom writing