Debates about whether the Wahhabist practice of face-veiling for women should be banned in modern liberal states tend to generate more heat than light. This book brings clarity to what can be a confusing subject by disentangling the different strands of the problem and breaking through the accusations of misogyny and Islamophobia.Explaining and expounding the ideas of giants of the liberal tradition including Locke, Mill, and Rawls as well as contemporary thinkers like Nussbaum, Kymlicka and Oshana, the book considers a variety of conceptions of liberalism and how they affect the response to the question. Directly addressing issues facing many of today's societies, it unpicks whether paternalism on grounds of welfare can be justified within liberalism, the value of personal autonomy and the problem of whether a socially influenced choice counts as a genuine preference.Covering the role of multiculturalism, gender issues and feminism, this comprehensive philosophical study of a major political question gets to the heart of whether a ban could be justified in principle, and also questions whether any such ban could prove efficacious in achieving its end.

Offers a discussion of liberal thought, drawing on the ideas of major philosophers including Locke, Mill and Nussbaum

1. Introduction2. Reflections on the French ban3. The liberal position on habitual public face-covering per se4. What kind of liberalism?5. Paternalism considered6. Personal autonomy and the burqa7. Adaptive preferences and the burqa8. The burqa and multicultural theory9. Gender and the burqa10. The effect of the burqa on others: Offence11. The effect of the burqa on others: Harm12. ConclusionBibliographyIndex