Burkini

When I was younger, a very common form of female headwear was the kerchief. They were ugly things, sometimes filled with grossly lumpy curlers, but most often not.

As horrid as they were, nobody tried to pass any laws banning the wearing of the kerchief in public. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to wear the horrid things.

Several European countries have started banning the wearing of garments called birqus (birkas) and hijabs. They also cover a woman's head, although there are no plans institute laws restricting other forms of head wear.

What's with that? Let's put several women side-by-side in one of these female-headwear-restricting countries. Let's put one in a kerchief, one wearing a hijab, and the third is an old-school nun in full regalia. Only one is breaking a law. What if our evil lawbreaking woman is standing there wearing her hijab, and a man were to wear the exact same thing and stand beside her? Again, only one is breaking the law.

I have nothing against stupid laws as long as they make sense in all contexts. What is it about muslim headwear that drives people ballistic? It cannot be the simple act of covering one's head. There is plenty of that throughout western culture.

Some of the legislation refers to the garments not promoting a secular society. What the hell does that mean? If I wear a baseball cap am I promoting a secular society? If it just means religious headgear, shouldn't it also be applied to orthodox Jews, or Sikhs? And why headgear? What about other religious clothing? Nobody is going after fully-rigged Catholic priests, or monks, or Popes.

There are also laws being enforced against women swimming on some French beaches wearing head-to-toe swimwear. These garments were designed for Muslim women who want to swim, but not in a fashion that they consider being almost naked. The outfits look quite similar to what a modest woman might wear to do yoga, with the addition of a hijab.

A number of women have already been fined for wearing one of these burkinis (a cute nickname). I think they should just wear baggy yoga clothing, or jeans, and a hoody rather than a hijab. Perfectly legal. Again, I wonder what would happen to a man wearing a burkini.

I suppose some people confuse the issue of female Muslim clothing with that of people going around masked in public. If that is the problem, all the anti-hijab and burkini-banning stuff should stop. Only a very tiny minority of Muslim women in Europe go veiled in any form. Most estimates put the number at a few hundred in France, and a few hundred in Germany; the most ban-focused countries.

If that is the problem, then a simple solution would be to ban any form of face covering for everybody, or to regulate it in a uniform fashion. I think that if a few Muslim women are harming western society by wearing veils in public, one should consider the horrors perpetrated by clowns, and dare I say, mimes. What about costumes? What about ski masks? A lot more crime has been perpetrated by people wearing ski masks than veils. Ban ski masks, I say.

The entire idea is totally counterproductive.

The complaint against the conservative clothing is that it is somehow divisive. This is a very strange argument to make, as nothing is more liable to piss somebody off than telling them what they can and cannot wear.

Conversely, several other western nations are trying to be more inclusive regarding dress. In Britain, police officers can now wear official hijab headgear. Canada has also followed suit. The reasoning follows that of the earlier 1990 decision to allow members of the RCMP to wear turbans instead of the traditional stetson.

At that time, Canada's national police force was overwhelmingly white in membership; so much so that it hindered policing in ethnic communities. Not allowing turbans for Sikh Canadians effectively banned them from participation.

There is currently a need for better policing in Muslim communities, and allowing the uniform changes only make sense if they encourage more of the community members to become involved.

Perhaps I have drifted a bit from the original topic of bans on the hijab and the burkini, and should get back to it.

Let's assume the anti-hijab and anti-burkini folk are right, and that there is an epic battle brewing between the west and radical-Islam. Who would be our most valuable citizens, person-for-person, in such a struggle?

Let's look back at a time when the West squandered the most valuable human resource they had available during a time of total war.

During the Second World War, both Canada and the United States gathered up their citizens of Japanese ancestry and locked them away in concentration camps. The West was at war with Japan, and feared this segment of their own population. As a result, we locked away between one and two hundred thousand of people, 62% of whom were citizens. When the United States finally allowed Japanese-Americans to help the war effort, it was by using them exclusively to fight on the European front.

This was an incredible waste of expertise in the Japanese culture, language, history, and mindset, not to mention a huge injustice.

It would not be wise to alienate members of the Muslim community, especially over something as trivial as interfering with what they want to wear. There is no upside. If a burkini ban is successful, all it will do is to effectively ban the women involved from going to the beach. What does that achieve? The downside is that many Muslims will feel persecuted, and excluded from society.

Don't ban the hijab, I say. Ban the kerchief instead.

Or better yet, ban nothing at all.