Over the past decade, countries such as France, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Latvia, and Bulgaria have banned face-coverings from public spaces. These bans are popularly known as ‘burqa bans’ as they seem to have been drafted with the aim of preventing people from wearing burqas and niqabs specifically. The scholarly response to these bans has been overwhelmingly negative, with several lawyers and philosophers arguing that they violate the human right to freedom of religion. While this article shares some of the concerns that have been raised, it argues that banning face-coverings in public is morally justified under certain conditions with the exception of facemasks that are necessary for the containment of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. The reason for this is that those who publicly cover their face make it very difficult for other members of society to socially interact with them, especially for those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, which is problematic in an age where many people are chronically lonely or at risk of becoming chronically lonely. As such, this article can be understood as a more elaborate, and arguably more sophisticated, defence of the justification that France offered for its face-covering ban before the European Court of Human Rights, namely that covering one’s face undermines the conditions for ‘living together’.

在过去的十年中，法国、比利时、丹麦、奥地利、拉脱维亚和保加利亚等国家已禁止在公共场所蒙面。这些禁令通常被称为“罩袍禁令”，因为它们的起草目的似乎是专门防止人们穿着罩袍和面纱。学术界对这些禁令的反应绝大多数是负面的，一些律师和哲学家认为它们侵犯了宗教自由的人权。虽然本文分享了人们提出的一些担忧，但它认为，在某些情况下，禁止在公共场合遮盖面部在道义上是合理的，但控制传染病（如 COVID-19）所必需的口罩除外。其原因是，那些在公共场合遮住脸的人使社会其他成员很难与他们进行社交互动，特别是对于那些聋哑人或有听力障碍的人来说，这在一个很多人都蒙着脸的时代是有问题的。长期孤独或有变得长期孤独的风险。因此，本文可以被理解为对法国在欧洲人权法院提出的蒙面禁令理由的更详尽、可以说更复杂的辩护，即蒙面破坏了“生活条件”。一起'。