A cross-culture problem
The state, and institutions of the state, should treat all citizens with equal respect and impartially. This is a basic requirement of state institutions. It is also a basic principle of governance where the consent of individuals, living under those governance arrangements, is a concern. State institutions and people who run them should have empathy too, but let us leave that aside for the time being.
The ban against the burqa in some European countries is considered to be odious by many people. And one of the reasons for this is exactly because the states in these countries decided that they are going to create an exception for a specific group of people and have thus violated the notion of treating all citizens with equal respect and of impartiality as well. If covering the face is a problem then it should be banned for all and in all circumstances. If covered faces are a security risk the same should apply to all face coverings. But these countries allow people to cover their faces to protect themselves against the cold, doctors wear masks, faces are covered when people drive motorbikes and so on, for a variety of other cases too. Why should the face-covering ban be for the Islamic covering only? Similarly, nuns and priests are allowed their habits, why ban the burqa?
If face coverings are considered to be anti-feminist or repressive, how should we treat high heels? And some of the other stuff women do and/or wear? Or even do to their bodies? Should we have legislation there too? And if we trust women to make their own decisions there, why choose the burqa alone? Finally, if this is a question of Muslim men forcing the burqa on the women, it is a case for domestic issues laws and not for constitutional amendments to ban the burqa.
The case of the minaret ban in Switzerland is not too different from this. The state is again not being impartial here. If church steeples are allowed and normal buildings can have towers, what is the problem with minarets? Again if building codes is an issue in some places, we do not need a general law banning minarets.
In some cases the state can have legitimate reasons for banning a particular act, even if it is identified with one group. For example, female circumcision or mutilation of genitalia for young girls can be banned even if it is customary in some populations by arguing that the state has an interest in ensuring rights of young people are not compromised. But unless there is a pressing reason for the state to step in, and real harm can be shown, not treating people with equal respect and not showing impartiality, on part of the state, is not acceptable.
The case of profiling is different from the above. Profiling has been in the news a lot lately, and rightly so. Where there is no case for profiling on basis of being Muslim or being named Muhammed or Ali, there is definitely a case for profiling on the basis of narrower and more precise information. But even in such cases people have to be treated respectfully when they are asked to step aside for airport searches or frisked.
People can be ill informed, misinformed, they can be subject to propaganda, and interest groups of various sorts can drum up fear and hysteria against a group. But state institutions have to be above that. We cannot allow our administrative and judicial systems to be party to these movements. The principles of and demands of equal respect for all and impartiality have to trump fear and hysteria.
Sine 9/11, Muslims have mostly been at the receiving end of laws and practices, across the board, especially in Europe and United States that have or appear to have discriminatory elements. It is heartening that a lot of people, and not just Muslims, are talking about these issues.
But there is another side to it. While Muslims have found it hard to take these laws and practices, and found them discriminatory, but at the same time we live, in most Muslim countries, with similar, if not much worse, laws for minorities in our countries. We seldom articulate opposition against this at the same level.
Take the case of Pakistan. We have laws that discriminate against religious minorities or practices that use the backing of the law to discriminate against them. We have laws that distinguish minorities and label them as such: when applying for identification cards or passports we ask people to let the state know if they are from one particular group or not. We have jobs that are closed to people from particular religions. Every so often groups of people try to scare people into believing that minorities are hatching conspiracies against Islam and/or Pakistan and demand that all public sector jobs be closed to them and/or they be removed from any jobs they might already have. The assumption is that minorities cannot be loyal and/or equal citizens. Sadly, our state and its institutions have obliged the hate mongers too often. Even our judiciary has held that certain minorities cannot practice their religion according to how they wish to.
It is not any defence of the above to argue that the Western countries claim to be secular states while we are an Islamic country. For the true believers of Islam the standards they should be asking their state to live up to should be much higher. There is the larger question of whether a state should have a religion at all, or whether a majority’s religion should be allowed to become the ‘state religion’ and if we can still hold the state to any standard of ‘equal respect for all citizens’ and ‘impartiality’ towards all citizens. But that is a larger discussion that we will return to another day. For the moment it is enough that the standards expected from a Muslim state cannot be any less than what are expected of secular people/institutions/states.
It is odious when a state does not treat its citizens with equal respect and does not treat all impartially. Since 9/11, Muslims have been on the receiving end of a lot in the West. But a lot of the same happens in lands where Muslims form a majority. Shouldn’t we be looking homewards using the same principles as well?
The writer is an Associate Professor of Economics at LUMS (currently on leave) and a Senior Advisor at Open Society Foundation (OSF). He can be reached at fbari@sorosny.org