The burka ban comes to Denmark

The opening of the Danish Parliament in the first week of October is traditional occasion to take stock of the political situation: the balance of power, the administration’s intentions and its chances of fulfilling them. This year a leading theme is a rift in the Liberal Party, the largest party in the government coalition. The week before, the party’s immigration spokesperson, Marcus Knuth, commented favorably on Facebook on the success of the xenophobic AfD (Alternative for Germany) party in the German election.

Knuth’s colleague, Jan Jørgensen, responded “WTF” (in English – maybe it’s becoming a global trope in political commentary at this historical juncture). Knuth walked back his remark: By a “better balance” in the German Parliament, he meant that he hoped that the conservative parties would get tougher on immigration in order to pre-empt the rise of far right.

Those cartoons again

Around the same time, Inger Støjberg, the outspoken immigration minister, also took to Facebook to comment on an exhibition on blasphemy at the Skovgaard Museum in Viborg. She noted that the show omitted the most famous example of blasphemy in Denmark in recent times, the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten in 2005 that led to riots in the Arab world. It wasn’t enough for her to reiterate her dedication to the principle of freedom of expression. She also shared a screenshot of her iPad background – the most famous of the cartoons, the one by Kurt Westergaard with a bomb in Mohammed’s turban.

The reaction from the media and opposition figures was to criticize Støjberg for gratuitous provocation – even egotistical and childish grandstanding – or to make fun of her for not having a more personal photo on her iPad. Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen made a suitably politic response (DK): He wasn’t “proud of any cartoons” himself, but he was proud to live in a country with freedom of expression.

Rounding up a majority

This was only a warm-up for one of the main items on the parliamentary agenda: a ban on burkas and niqabs. The far-right Danish People’s Party has been pushing for this for a while, but the Liberal Party had resisted. Similar laws in France and Belgium were recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. That was perhaps the factor that tipped the Liberal Party in favor of the proposal despite opposition from some of its leading figures.

The bill is formulated as a ban on masks, not specifically religious attire. It would thus apply as well to the ski masks sometimes worn by anti-fascist demonstrators who sometimes commit vandalism. The Liberal Party explains that it must balance the considerations of freedom to dress as one wants with the principle that in an open society, people need to be able to see one another. The Liberal Alliance, Denmark’s most libertarian party, also changed its position to support the proposal, citing the oppression of women that the burka represents.

Along with the long-time support of the Conservative Party, that was enough to give the proposal a majority. Since the government’s decision was announced, the Social Democrats, who had said they were waiting to see the actual proposal, also decided to support the measure (DK). 

Combating sexism with a dress code

Both the flaunting of the cartoon and the burka ban are seen as hardline moves by the government against the spread of the “parallel” Muslim society. But isn’t anyone bothered by a contradiction between the ban and the celebration of freedom of expression? Yes. Of the three leading daily newspapers, only the conservative Berlingske Tidende (DK) favors the ban. Both the further-right Jyllands-Posten (DK) (where the Mohammed cartoons appeared) and the left-leaning Politiken (DK) oppose it.

There are only an estimated 100 to 200 women in the country who wear a burka or niqab. No one suggests they are a security threat, and the police are pretty busy with gang wars at the moment. These are consenting adults after all. Some may be victims of coercion, others have been indoctrinated to accept their “oppression,” and others yet are educated ethnic Danish converts.

A ban on masks at demonstrations could be enforced without its being extended to religious clothing. The ban is thus largely a symbolic gesture of disapproval of fundamentalist Islam. Whether you favor it depends on whether you consider the threat of Islam to be so urgent that it justifies compromising the freedom of expression that is “fundamental” to a liberal democracy or whether you want to score political points with a certain constituency. In a recent poll (conducted just after a Danish modeling agency had announced its first hijab-wearing model), some 62% of Danes favored the ban.