THE LAST DITCH

I saw a woman in full hijab on the platform at my local Underground station. It's a common sight in my neighbourhood. As a libertarian, I respected her right to dress as she likes. It does no demonstrable or significant harm to others, so it's entirely her business. It's certainly none of mine. If she is under family pressure to do so then, unless and until that involves violence, that's none of my business either.

That's all very simple, politically, but we libertarians often leave the impression that there's nothing more to be said. Or, worse, that we simply don't care. This post of mine was a good example – and a friend rightly reprimanded me for saying that I didn't "care" about group marriages, when I would be horrified if a family member or friend entered into one. He said libertarians give themselves a bad name by appearing to be uncaring and amoral, when actually we have as wide a range of ethical scruples as anyone else. All that we really agree upon is that the state should not interfere in matters of individual choice.

He's right and I think our perceived aloofness from morality does our cause great harm. Most people have richly-textured emotional and ethical responses and think odd those who seem not to. So, let me tell the full truth. I respected that woman's right to dress as she did, but I also felt a mixture of pity and contempt. My emotional response was much the same as if I had seen this man walking her on a leash. Nor would my response have differed if convinced that she freely consented. People are entitled to degrade themselves if they wish, so it should certainly be legal. That doesn't make it right.

2 responses to “To permit is not to condone”

  1. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Well maybe you could tell me the real difference between that girl wearing a physical leash to unconventionaly show her relationship and some other girl wearing a wedding ring to show her relationship?
    Don’t forget the “obey” in the traditional marriage ceremony that some still include.
    I would surely defend their right to be free from being singled out by a bus driver who’s real problem seems to be that he does not like how they dress, or express their relationship. He would be happy enough if a conventionally dressed pair wanted to get on his bus arm in arm I expect. Should he be free to use what amounts to low grade physical force to prevent them travelling on a bus?
    Does his stance reflect that of the owner of the bus, the company? I doubt it.. How would he react to a gay couple of either sex?
    Sure I defend your right not to approve of how they expressed themselves, just as I would the bus drivers.
    Me? I think the Bus driver stepped over the line and is using force unjustifiably.
    I do also believe he, and you, might not be “morally” correct, or even just plain correct, to see it how you seem to, for the Goths, but differently from a more conventional pair that you may be more simpatico with.
    I suppose it would be possible to argue that the hijab and the lead (and possibly even the wedding ring) are symbols of subjugation a sign of applied force. Me, I see the ring as fine and dandy and I can see how she might see the lead like that, as symbol of love.
    I really would argue the hijab is maybe different and the most likely to be out of those things, when you consider, even in the uk, there are instances of women being threatened by misogynous religious fanatics not dressing in a way they fanatic approves of, say having their face uncovered, or their hair. Even if a woman claims she wears it out of choice plenty claim they bumped into a door to explain a black eye, in some cases it might even be true.
    It is real difficult to tell forced compliance for sure. I do think there can be no doubt there are many instances of forced compliance and real abusive subjugation. I guess for me the statistical chance is some percentage of the women I see covered are covered because they are forced and subjugated, I just can’t figure how big a percentage it is, or what ones.
    I want, in my heart, to make a special case out of the hijab as morally wrong, as an instrument, a weapon of oppression in the same way as we would react to a person being beaten with a stick or club, but I am wary of interfering with others freedom.
    I guess it comes down to that percentage, if it was high enough maybe, but how to measure it? I see the hijab as an example of the potential threat of force, compulsion behind it… and that force and the mindset that goes with as a real threat to me and my children.
    Is this just self justifying hypocrisy?
    So feeling about the hijab? Anger, contempt, loathing, frustration, and menace of the threat behind it.

    Like

  2. Tom Avatar

    The bus driver was out of line. I certainly did not intend to express any support for him. And the Goth on a chain is free to be just that. All I was (unusually) doing was expressing not a political, but an emotional, view.

    Like

Leave a comment

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar