By Lucretia Hughes
LISBON, Portugal — Portugal has enacted a nationwide ban on clothing intended to conceal a person’s face in public, joining several European countries that require people to remain identifiable when entering shared public spaces.
President António José Seguro signed the measure into law Aug. 19. Although the legislation does not name a particular religion, it is widely understood to apply to full-face Islamic coverings such as the burqa and niqab.
Let us make an important distinction.
A hijab covers a woman’s hair while leaving her face visible. A niqab covers the face but generally leaves the eyes exposed. A burqa covers the entire body and face, usually with a mesh panel over the eyes.
This law concerns coverings that prevent public identification. It is not a blanket ban on Muslim clothing, religious belief or ordinary headscarves.
And it should not be treated as one.
People have the right to worship. They have the right to practice their faith and wear religious clothing. But when someone enters a public building, school, business, transportation system or other shared public space, that person’s face should be visible.
They need to go in public with their faces uncovered.
That is not hatred. It is not Islamophobia. It is a reasonable standard for security, identification and communication.
Society routinely requires people to show their faces when they enter courthouses, pass through airport security, obtain government identification, enter secured facilities or complete financial transactions.
A person should not receive an exemption from basic identification requirements because the face covering is described as religious.
The Portuguese law prohibits garments designed to conceal the face or prevent identification in most public spaces. Violators can face fines ranging from 150 to 3,000 euros — approximately $175 to $3,500 — depending on whether the violation was negligent or intentional.
The law includes exceptions for medical needs, professional requirements, artistic performances, severe weather and other practical circumstances. Face coverings will also remain permitted in places of worship, diplomatic facilities and aboard aircraft.
The measure additionally prohibits forcing someone to cover her face because of religion, sex, age or ethnic origin. A person convicted of coercing a woman to wear a face covering could face up to three years in prison.
That provision should be welcomed by anyone who claims to support women’s rights.
A woman should not be forced by her husband, father, brother, community or religious authority to disappear behind fabric whenever she leaves her home.
Her face is not shameful. Her identity is not a threat to society. She is not property that must be concealed from public view.
Yet some feminist and civil-rights organizations oppose the ban, arguing that it limits a woman’s freedom to choose her clothing and disproportionately affects Muslim women.
There is a legitimate civil-liberties question whenever a government dictates what a person may wear. Government power must always be examined carefully.
But critics cannot claim to defend women’s freedom while ignoring the possibility that some women are being pressured or ordered to cover themselves.
Choice must mean a real choice.
The law was originally proposed by Portugal’s conservative Chega party and later received support from several center-right parties. Left-wing parties opposed it, arguing that it would discriminate against Muslims and further isolate a religious minority.
Supporters say the legislation promotes public safety, social trust, gender equality and the ability of citizens to identify one another.
Portugal now joins a growing number of European countries that have adopted full or partial restrictions on face coverings. France, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland have enacted comparable measures, while the Netherlands prohibits full-face coverings in certain locations, including schools, government buildings, hospitals and public transportation.
The European Court of Human Rights has previously upheld some restrictions, accepting that governments may have legitimate interests in identification and the conditions necessary for people to live together in a shared society.
That does not mean every restriction is automatically fair or that enforcement should be discriminatory. Police must apply the law equally.
A Muslim woman wearing a niqab should not be singled out while someone wearing a ski mask is ignored. The rule should be about concealing the face, not the person’s skin color, nationality or religion.
Exceptions should also remain available for medical masks, workplace protection, cold weather and legitimate cultural or artistic events.
Fair enforcement is essential.
But integration also matters.
When people immigrate to a Western nation, they bring their family history, traditions and faith with them. They should not be required to abandon everything they believe.
At the same time, the country receiving them has its own laws, customs and public expectations. Immigration cannot mean that the host country must surrender every standard because a newcomer objects to it.
Religious freedom does not mean religious rule over the public square.
The same law must apply to everyone.
A Christian cannot walk into a bank wearing a mask and refuse to uncover his face because of a personal conviction. A protester cannot conceal her identity wherever she goes and then claim accountability is oppression. A Muslim should not receive a different identification standard solely because the covering is religious.
In public, faces matter.
We use them to communicate, recognize one another and determine who is entering sensitive locations. Facial expressions are part of human interaction. They help establish trust and accountability.
Portugal has decided that those shared interests outweigh the demand to conceal one’s identity throughout public life.
People remain free to believe. They remain free to worship. Women remain free to cover their hair and dress modestly.
But when they enter shared public spaces, their faces must be visible.
That is not persecution.
That is one public standard for everyone.
Original article
Comments