The Minister got it all wrong. It should not be about burqas; or niqabs; or your grandmother’s flowery hat. It should not be about Muslims, or Sinhalese, or Veddas, or Eskimos. It’s not even about national security. It’s about law and order. More specifically, it’s about the need for the Police, witnesses, and victims to identify perpetrators of crimes.
A prominent Cabinet Minister caused a storm when he announced that he had submitted a cabinet paper to ban one particular type of garb – the burqa. He later clarified that it would include the niqab as well. After a few growls from various people, notably the Pakistanis, it was announced that the matter had not been taken up for discussion at Cabinet.
That does not mean it will not be taken up in the future. It was clearly said that this matter is still up in the air.
It’s a matter of law and order
The Minister is right; and he is wrong. Firstly, he is wrong because he targeted the ban on particular types of garb of a particular ethnoreligious community. There was no public discussion of the issue prior to that. That’s just bad governance; bad administration; and bad for the country. Secondly, the two garbs he referred to are worn only by women. That is an extraordinarily gender insensitive thing to do.
But he is also right, although he doesn’t seem to himself understand why. So let us simplify the matter. This is a law and order issue. The Police need to be able to identify people, or they will never be able to arrest criminals.
Victims and witnesses need to be able to identify perpetrators of crimes.
The courts require a witness or victim to identify a person by his or her face, including identification parades and pointing the person out in court.
This is why thieves, burglars, and bank robbers cover their faces. Even if they are arrested, the judicial process requires that victims and witnesses identify them by their faces; not by their hands or feet or their type of clothing or jewellery; not even by their hair. By their faces.
This is why many countries have banned all types of face coverings. In the US, the state of New York banned face coverings as far back as 1845 in order to curb crime. If the Lone Ranger were to walk down a street in New York City, he would be arrested.
The more racially and gender insensitive countries have banned only the burqa or niqab. But a lot of them don’t have significantly large Muslim communities, such as Switzerland which just voted to ban the burqa although hardly anyone in Switzerland wears it.
Thus the law and order issue is about all types of face coverings. This means banning anything that covers the face – facemasks, eye masks, full-face helmets, ski masks, scarves worn over faces, burqas, and niqabs.
It’s not about women, or men, or transgender people.
[caption id="attachment_125770" align="alignright" width="588"]
A Rider wearing a full face helmet[/caption]
Exceptions to the rule
There are exceptions of course on the grounds of personal safety or public safety. During times such as the present pandemic, public safety requires the wearing of face coverings to curb the spread of germs. There is also the issue of personal safety for individuals who are in unsafe circumstances, such as industrial workplaces including welding workshops; and of course motorcycle riders and passengers who must be protected by full-face helmets.
JVP insurrection of 1989/90
During the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) insurrection, the Police banned the use of full-face helmets, because it was, at the time, an issue of public safety, as terrorists were using motorcycles as a preferred method of transport in assassinations and other types of violence. Later, after the insurrection was quelled, the decision was reversed and full-face helmets became legal. Again, a few years ago, the Police, in battling rising crime levels, tried to ban full-face helmets. This decision was again reversed when it was shown that full-face helmets save lives and prevent injuries far more than half helmets. The simple solution is that full-face helmets should be allowed, but that riders should remove their helmets as soon as they get off their bikes.
This doesn't mean that there is any rationale for banning head coverings. Such a ban would prevent people from wearing headscarves, hats, and caps. Even wigs would be questionable!
Should not be a cultural issue
Quite simply, this should not be a cultural or religious issue at all. The Minister simply made it into one when there was no need to, goodness knows why. Face coverings became part of the traditional garb in the Middle East due to desert conditions such as the harsh sunlight, lack of shade, and sandstorms. In such countries, they are often worn by both men and women. However, the vast majority of Islamic nations do not use traditional face coverings. They include countries that have the largest Islamic populations – Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Turkey.
The weird history of cultural garb
Veddas – in Sri Lanka, male members of the Vedda community carry axes on their shoulders in public. It’s part of their traditional garb. The fact that it’s a deadly weapon has never been an issue for the Police or anyone else. Neither have there been any incidents of a Vedda using his axe to settle an argument with anyone of another community in recent times. Perhaps the presence of the axe deters people from picking fights with Veddas!
Sikhs – the dagger in the turban is legendary. With large Sikh communities in many countries, this has been the subject of much head-scratching in courts around the globe outside of their native India. Generally, now the turban is allowed, but the dagger is often not.
Burqa in Sri Lanka – there haven’t been any significant crimes by people wearing burqas or niqabs. They don’t allow much freedom of movement to run away or get into a fight. However, a few days after the Easter attacks, a man was apprehended in Wattala wearing a burqa. Investigators found that he was surreptitiously visiting his girlfriend! After a couple of days in a police cell, he was released without charges.
Apparel law history
There have been various laws passed over people’s garb throughout history, some of them understandable; others quite hilarious.
A statute concerning diet and apparel was passed in England in the 14th Century. What people ate and wore was governed by the law. Poor households, for instance, were not allowed to wear silk and fur, while lords could only wear jackets revealing their knees. The law also governed the use of the colour purple, which was reserved for royals. This law recalled an ancient Roman rule that prohibited the public's use of purple. The death penalty was imposed on Romans who breached this decree.
The niqab did not come from Islam alone. It was worn in the Byzantine Empire and pre-Islamic Persia by Christian and Jewish women.
Ban of the pheran – Kashmiris of all ages wear the traditional pheran for warming in the harsh winters. It's not unusual. The thick wool cloak belongs to the culture of Kashmir and was even accepted by many outside Kashmir. However, it was banned after a Kashmiri militant wearing one killed several policemen. The clothing had historically been worn by both Muslims and Pandits (Kashmiri Hindus) in Kashmir. A ban on the pheran is therefore not only regarded as parochial but also somewhat scandalous, given the Indian right's obsession with cultural appropriation and minority dietary habits across the country.
Ban of t-shirt “Bersih” – in Malaysia, a ban was imposed on yellow clothing which includes the words “Bersih 4” or “Bersih 2.0” in a seal on the printed material, which promoted a rally in Bersih (Mean Clean). The Government made the prohibition in the name of national security under the controversial Printing Press and Publications Act. Those who hold such items can be fined up to RM 5,000 and jailed for up to three years.
Women's pants in North Korea are prohibited – perhaps the most draconian nation on Earth, North Korea regulates everything, including what women wear. Women have to wear skirts and dresses rather than pants.
Traditional clothing in Bhutan – men and women have had to adhere to stringent dress codes since 1989. The gho, the knee-long kimono-like dress of men, is to be worn by men; and the tego can't be put out by women unless dressed up in a kira, a long accompanying dress. Heavy fines apply to violators, but it is not expected that tourists wear traditional garments when they visit.
Miniskirts illegal in Uganda – Uganda maintains a conservative dress code which in particular does not allow women to show much. The “miniskirt prohibition” was introduced in 2014 as part of the country's law on pornography to prohibit indecent dressing and has resulted in the arrest of women wearing skirts above their knees.
Swimwear prohibited - in Spain, Barcelona and Mallorca have prohibited bikinis anywhere else than on the beach and nearby streets.
China prohibits black cloths – China prohibited exports of black clothing to Hong Kong in the midst of protests. From the initial stage, the protestors adopted black as their uniforms – black t-shirts, black jeans, and black sneakers, which are often coupled with a black facemask.
Ban on unofficial clothes in Formula 1 Racing – after Lewis Hamilton protested the killing of Breonna Taylor, which is an American political issue, by wearing a message saying “Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor”, after the race and on the podium in the Russian GP, Formula 1 drivers were banned from wearing unofficial clothes.
Global context of face covering bans
An extraordinary number of nations have banned face coverings. In Europe, these include Germany (partial bans), Austria, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Bulgaria (in public areas), Italy (partial bans), Spain (partial bans), Russia (partial bans), Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway (partial bans), Latvia (partial bans), and Sweden (partial bans). Among African nations, face coverings have been banned in Gabon, Chad, Senegal, the Republic of Congo, Cameroon (partial bans), and Niger (partial bans).
In Asia, they include Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan (partial bans), Turkey (partial bans), Kosovo (partial bans), Bosnia (partial bans), Morocco (partial bans), Tunisia (partial bans), Algeria (partial bans), and China (partial bans). There are also partial bans on face coverings in the US and Canada.
In Switzerland, almost no one is wearing burqa and only about 30 women have a niqab, according to research at the University of Lucerne in Germany. Around 5% of the population of 8.6 million in Switzerland is Muslim, mostly from Turkey, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In other European countries, wearing Islamic veils in public was controversial. In 2011, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, and Bulgaria prohibited the wearing of a full-face veil, while it prohibited the wearing of a face cover in full or partially in public.
Morocco banned the manufacture, marketing, and selling of burqas. The ruling is remarkable in a country with a 99% Muslim population. However, only a very small minority of women wear the burqa, as it is a country where modernity and tradition co-exist and whose king promotes moderate Islam. The djellaba, a hooded robe, is the Moroccan women's historical, national attire. It is usually worn with a veil called a litham and they cover the face and body of the woman together, apart from her eyes. The djellaba was a symbol of nationalism and a shield of identity, particularly during the fight for independence in the 1940s. The ban on the burqa and the debate on it have drawn attention to the tension in Morocco between official moderate Islam and the growing minority of conservative Islam. This is Morocco's new paradox, and the consequences for women's rights are significant. Recent reforms, both legal and institutional, in Moroccan society have played a major role in the process of democracy and modernisation. So, what is the prohibition? Security issues were cited as the reason for the ban by the Moroccan Minister of the Interior. In fact, several criminals reportedly have used a burqa or niqab there.
Discrimination
In Indonesia, many schools require the wearing of the hijab by girls and female teachers, which too often leads to bullying, social stress, and, in some cases, forced resignation. Indonesia decreed that every student or teacher is to select what they wear in school. The decree orders local administrations and school directors to abandon regulations which require a jilbab in thousands of state schools in Indonesia, commonly known as head, neck, and chest cover.
In Turkey, students and parents in Urfa city must follow a rule that if women did not have head coverings, they would receive a deficient grade.
In some countries, governments have specific rules for how women should wear religious clothes. In Iran, for instance, the Government demands that all women follow “Islamic clothing” standards in public, including covering their hair and bodies with loose clothing.
Way forward
- The Minister should act in a more democratic and transparent manner and present evidence and research with regard to the reasons why he proposes a ban (research should not include evidence from draconian regimes such as North Korea). This is the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, not some medieval caliphate ruled by royal decrees of ministers
- The ban should be for parts of the body, and not for a particular cultural garb
- The ban should not be gender insensitive
- In particular, police statistics should be made available on the use of different types of face coverings with regard to crime