Kemi Badenoch’s Potential Burqa Ban

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, has emerged from the challenging 2024 elections and is perhaps the most astute political figure remaining in British conservatism. She’s currently contemplating a ban on the burqa as part of a wider examination of Islamic extremism.

It might be time for her to take action rather than just think about it.

Freedom that grants a group enduring public anonymity—something no one else is allowed—doesn’t truly represent the best kind of freedom.

This discussion starts much earlier than Badenoch and reaches beyond Westminster. Across six European democracies (Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland), total or partial bans are already in effect.

These nations still uphold their constitutions, their Muslim populations remain, and, contrary to predictions, significant social turmoil never materialized. Instead, they enacted policies that are yielding measurable positive results.

It’s Time to Face the Facts

A more pressing question is why other Western nations have hesitated to examine the implications of the burqa in public settings.

When a face is covered entirely—not just with a hijab or scarf—it effectively removes a person from essential human interactions. Our faces convey trust, intent, fear, and agreement. This nonverbal language has been part of human communication for millennia, and no amount of progressive thought has changed that.

If we can’t see a person’s face, we can’t fully engage with them in civic life. They become abstract forms moving through public spaces.

In free societies, mutual visibility is essential among individuals. It’s not about total transparency—no one’s insinuating we should ban sunglasses or wide-brimmed hats—but we do need basic visibility for public interactions.

Facial recognition is vital in places like courts, banks, polling stations, airports, and schools. Nobody advocates for these systems while yelling about tyranny.

In shared environments, anonymity carries consequences, and open societies have made that clear.

The burqa asks for a permanent exception from rules that the broader community adheres to without contention.

Implications of Forced Hiding

This situation plays out dramatically in places like Afghanistan. The Taliban made the burqa mandatory in 2022, effectively treating women’s visibility as a political matter requiring legislative intervention. In this context, the garment symbolizes enforced invisibility, dictated by men who impose such norms.

This makes Western support for the burqa as an expression of individual freedom not just ironic but somewhat absurd. A garment symbolizing enforced invisibility can’t flip to become a symbol of liberation simply by crossing borders.

Supporters of the First Amendment often argue that forcing women to remove facial coverings is the same as forcing them to wear something specific. Yet, such arguments falter under scrutiny.

Removing the Mask

It’s already prohibited to wear masks at protests in several areas. Religious exemptions from applicable laws have their limits, even under robust free exercise arguments. Historical rulings have affirmed that the freedom to practice religion does not allow bypassing civic norms meant for everyone.

Employment Department v. Smith established that neutral laws can coexist with religious liberties, a principle upheld for decades.

A ban on covering one’s face in public spaces seems reasonable.

Freedom, in this context, that grants anonymity in public spaces not extended to others can’t represent true freedom.

Women’s agency in this debate is intriguing. They might choose to wear it, but perhaps it’s under a cloud of doctrinal pressure and community expectations. That doesn’t quite feel like fully free choice.

The Feminist Exception

For years, Western feminism has stressed that individual choices don’t end the conversation, especially when those choices are shaped by oppressive systems. This argument effectively challenged beauty standards, which are often less enforceable than religious mandates.

Yet, when it comes to government-mandated clothing, the same movement sometimes seems hesitant to engage.

This stance doesn’t imply animosity toward Islam or individual religious practices.

A scarf isn’t a burqa. Personal faith shouldn’t necessitate hiding from public view.

Individuals have the right to hold their beliefs, dress as they wish within their homes, and worship according to their conscience.

Public communal spaces come with shared responsibilities, and withdrawing from those expectations behind a veil can resemble civil withdrawal more than religious freedom.

The burqa represents a significant shift from religious expression to civil disengagement.

An Open Society? A Closed Case

In a British poll, support for a ban reached 56%. For the first time, democratic instincts align with reasoned debate, though policymakers may not have the luxury to act accordingly.

In the U.S., federal laws would face significant First Amendment challenges. The constitutional and political landscapes differ greatly here.

However, “legally complex” does not equal “morally unclear.”

Many Americans who oppose government overreach can recognize that face coverings in courts, classrooms, and government offices warrant regulation.

While legal processes differ globally, the underlying societal logic tends to be consistent.

The burqa doesn’t fit within the framework of an open society. The only lingering question is how much longer these societies will pretend otherwise.