August 2009 Archive

The New York Times reported last week that a French Muslim woman was denied access to a community swimming pool because she intended to wear a “Burquini” suite which covers the body from head to toe. The reason given for the interdiction was that it was not hygienic.

It is a hot issue in France whether to allow women to wear the Burqua. President Sarkozy made a public statement saying the Burqua was not welcomed in France. He said: “The problem of the Burqua is not a religious problem. This is an issue of woman’s freedom and dignity. It is a sign of subservience.” A parliamentary commission has been created to decide if a law banning the Burqua should be passed by the Assemblée Nationale (the French equivalent of the U.S. Congress.) Fadela Amara, the French minister of Urban Regeneration and a Muslim herself declared in an interview with the Financial Times that: “the Burqua represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic.” She added that the vast majority of Muslims are against the Burqua and that it was necessary to fight the “gangrene of radical Islam which completely distorts the message of Islam.”

It is difficult to imagine the U.S government getting involved in what Americans (citizens or not) are allowed to wear. The laws in this country dealing with apparel only imposes a minimum (not the maximum) of what one is allowed to wear, i.e. nudity is not allowed in public places. Woody Allen imagined in the movie Bananas? a dictator issuing a decree imposing that its citizens wear their underwear on the outside. 

The issue of the Burqua is very complex because it involves religion, culture, identity, integration, tolerance and most importantly, in my view, freedom.

There are many different cultures within the Moslem world. Some cultures impose the Burqua, others do not.

In some Islamic societies such as the Taliban, women who refuse to wear it can be and have been publicly executed. In such a society the Burqua is not only a symbol but the reality of the suppression of women’s freedom by a male - dominated society.  

I have discussed this issue with a colleague, here at Ruder Finn which wears the headscarf. She told me that she decided on her own, at one point in her life that she wanted to wear it. She was not expected, much less demanded to do so it by neither her husband nor by her father before she was married.

The fundamental issue is one of freedom. If a woman freely wants to wear a Burqua, for whatever reasons, she should be allowed to do so. The same applies for any religious clothing should it be the habit for Catholic nuns and priests or the Kippa for Jewish men.

However we should oppose oppression in all its forms whether imposed by the military, political or religious authorities that abuse fundamental human rights.

As Thomas Carlyle once said:

“Everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness on the confines of two everlasting hostile empires, - Necessity and Free Will.”

Last week’s pardon and release of the two Korean-American journalists from North Korea moved (some to tears) all the country. It was an answer to the prayers of many and a relief and cause for joy for all.  Who will forget Laura Ling, one of the former detainees, when she said?

 Thirty hours ago, Euna Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment, we could be sent to a hard-labor camp. And then suddenly we were told that we were going to a meeting. We were taken to a location. And when we walked in through the doors, we saw, standing before us, President Bill Clinton. We were shocked. But we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end. And now we stand here, home and free.

 President’s Clinton’s trip was, in my opinion a diplomatic coup to his credit but also to the credit of the Obama Administration.

 However some have argued that President Clinton’s trip to North Korea to obtain the freedom of the two women was “rewarding bad behavior.” Among them former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton who said: “The symbolism of a former president going to meet with Kim Jong II. I think is something that benefits Kim Jong II a lot more than the United States, and it only encourages others to do the same thing.”

 The argument poses the question of whether one should make a deal with evil. Should we, for instance, pay ransom for kidnappings? If we do, we know that more kidnappings will occur. Should we agree to sacrifice the lives of a few to save many others?

These are complex ethical dilemmas. It is quasi impossible to do a risk-benefit analysis when the lives of human beings are at stake.

Maybe a better way to phrase the question would be to ask instead “How do you deal with evil?” We all at one point in our lives have faced or will face such a question. There are, of course no generic answers and each situation has to be addressed specifically.

However some guidelines might be helpful. I suggest the following:

We should, 

1) Remember that the ultimate goal is to stop evil and since it is rarely possible to do so, we have to do all we can to reduce its impact.

2) Identify the specific values involved in the situation such as life and compassion.

3) Try the best we can to put ourselves in the shoes of the person that will be most impacted by our decision. In other words, “do to others what we would like them do to us.”

4) Consider the long-term real (not hypothetical) consequences of our decisions.

5) Know that whatever decision we make, it will not be perfect but rather a lesser of two evils.

Max Lerner, the American educator and author was correct when he said:

“When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil.”

Much has been said and written about the recent arrest for disorderly conduct of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. two weeks ago in his home by Cambridge police officer Sgt. Crowley.

The questions are whether Prof. Henry Louis Gates’s conduct was disorderly enough to warrant an arrest and suffer the indignity of handcuffs and why did the Boston Police Department later dropped the charges? Was it because they concluded that his conduct did not warrant an arrest or did they give Prof. Gates a preferential treatment because of his stature, position and race?

Preferential treatment is most often also wrong because by definition it is unfair. Fairness is an important value in ethics.

Yet in some cases preferential treatment is justified.

Persons in authority should receive special honor and respect, not because of who they are as individuals but because of the function they hold. When a judge walks in the courtroom the people do rise.

The elderly or the weak in health deserve it because of their condition. We still see today in public transport someone giving up his seat for an older person or a pregnant woman. 

We sometimes think we are entitled to preferential treatment when we are not. A little dose of humility will clear the matter very quickly. I am still impressed when I see the chairman of our company wash his coffee cup himself and wait in line with all the other employees to get his yearly flu shot. (I would not be surprised if it never even occurred to him to ask the doctor to come to his office.)

The incident in Cambridge would most likely not have happened if both parties, once the burglary misunderstanding had been cleared, had shown some respect to each other. They had the opportunity to do so at the White House last week during the so-called “Beer Summit.” Professor Gates said of Sgt. Crowley after they met privately, “We hit it off right from the beginning (actually not from the very beginning!) When he is not arresting you, Sgt. Crawley, is really a likable guy.”

As Henri Frederic Amiel once said:

“There is no respect for others without humility in one’s self.”