on January 18, 2010 by Reckless Rose in Justice, Religion, U.K., Comments (9)
Trailing France: Banning the Burqa?
France is much further when it gets to banning things that are associated with oppression than the U.K. is. Still, there are sounds and ideas that call for a similar policy on burqas on the isles. Surprisingly enough this is coming not from the British National Party (BNP), but from the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
As always, politicians are clear to underline their impartiality by stressing something along that runs along the lines of ‘this is not a move against Islam or Muslims per se’. Indeed, it isn’t. As I argued a couple of days ago, such moves should be seen for what they are: The protection of egalitarian and libertarian principles.
It was Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) that claimed this was the way to move forward, by stating that
“It makes sense to ban the burqa — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”
As a reply to that you could argue that, like for instance Neurope.eu has done, this is a very strange way to move about if it is to be seen as not anti-Muslim policy. Especially as the UKIP is regarded as a libertarian party, which makes government roles and interferences in people’s lives look counter-intuitive. Legislating what we can and what we cannot wear seems strange to adherents of libertarian legacies. It is not as strange as it might seem, however.
No doctrine of Islam, that goes to the heart of the religion, makes wearing a veil or burqa obligatory. You will be sure to find rules for wearing them further along the road, when particular, more diverse and radicalized interpretations find their way into people’s minds. This does not mean that our freedom of religion is at stake. On the contrary: Freedom of religion is not a right that goes beyond freedom of expression and opinion, it is one that builds upon these. The problem here is: Does freedom of religion create opportunities and situations in which particular groups based on gender or ethnicity are subjected to things they might not want?
The answer to that is a clear yes. Not in all cases, no. Probably not even in most of the cases. In some cases, however, the answer must be a definite nod. Now that brings us to a very hard issue. You cannot expect women to sue their husbands, which would be a problematic and unlikely event stemming from someone indebted to Islamic-based cultures. You cannot leave them without any sort of protection and rights either.
And this is the reason why forbidding burqas or veils are no signs of anti-Islamic tendencies, or at least not in the sense people think they are. Many people, and I include myself on that list, think that basic rights of freedom should exist for everyone. Freedom of religion should be a result of that wish. In the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S.A. you can choose and live up to your own ideals, only because there are laws providing a foundation in which freedoms can function. In a sense, and not completely correct, this is as much as saying that there are laws that hold you back, only so that you will not hold other people back. Those are egalitarian laws that do not discriminate between people on the basis of things that are thought to be irrelevant (i.e. gender, ‘race’, and ethnicity). And that is where and why the ways of some Islamists clash with those of libertarians.
If all was well, if all knew that veils and burqas are being worn as a sign of religious piety, rather than subduing the ‘other gender’, no problems would have arisen. As that is not clear, and as that is exactly what is at stake, even libertarians are willing to step in to protect their base that lies in equality and freedom.
Arguing along this line also solves two arguments brought forward by Neurope.eu. One speaks of the association with terrorism. As I don’t associate burqas with terrorism, any support from my side to the anti-burqa law would make me side with anti-Muslim laws, unless of course it turns out that all terrorists wear burqas. But, as I argued, the reason why we should oppose burqas at this stage is because they are in direct opposition towards the most essential aspect of our modern-day democracies. Coming up with a law against wearing ‘balaclavas’ then, would be of no use, as they are not a sign of discrimination or less freedom. If at any given moment in the near future, Christians will demand that all Christian women start wearing balaclavas, then I cannot stress enough that I would support a law that forbids balaclavas with all my might, right from the start.
That is not something that’ll happen, as our culture differs to an enormous extent on many issues. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they cannot be blended into something that works. When all sides are willing to cooperate, and have a common language to use, then most issues will resolve themselves as long as people keep using their heads. Too bad, many people are not willing or just unable to use their heads (and that happens on both sides of the coin!). And for as long as that is the case, and words cannot resolve (minor) cultural clashes, than we are in a position where we should make sure that we maintain our beliefs in equality and freedom, even if that means restricting others that might create obstacles for an individual to live his or her own life.
Rox
February 1, 2010 @ 9:35 am
In an interview, I remember hearing the Minister of External affairs (France) say that this is primarily to portray the secular nature of the country, towards all religious groups. I believe his point was that without the burqa, everyone would look alike. I for one think it is totally against freedom and is in fact more non-secular than anything else. It should be a choice left to the individual. When Christians can wear the symbol of the crucifix around their necks and France does not object to that, then why this? And as u mentioned- just because someone wears a burqa does not make her a terrorist.. My fear is that Sikhs will again be targeted and asked not to wear their turbans. Intolerance is getting crazier every second of every day..
PS: I don’t belong to any religions mentioned in this post. These are just my views as an outsider
Reckless Rose
February 1, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
I wouldn’t have assumed that you were a Muslim, or an oil-Sheik or anything else. It is not as if I, by some logical connection, hook-up burqa-wearing ’support’ with irrationality.
On the contrary, the argument that it limits people’s freedom if burqas are not be worn in public is a legitimate argument. Such a law is in a sense anti-secular: It both looks at religious ideals, gives an explanation what these are for and whether they are necessary and then condemns the practice.
But it is not burqas as a sign of Islam that I worry about. I don’t have problems with Christians who hang crosses around their necks (though I’d like them to dig a little deeper into their own religion). Likewise, I wouldn’t mind if Muslims started hanging jewellery around their necks (or other such expressions). It is the very peculiar association that burqas express with oppression that does it for me. I know there are only a small number of women wearing them in Europe, so it is not an argument that runs along the lines that this is such a major problem. It is an argument that runs along the lines of getting a major signal and sign of inequality out of the way.
Visualize what it does. It wont harm anyone in a direct religious sense (not that I’m worrying about that, use your brains a little more would be my reply, but I am probably a little too impatient at times), as it is not an obligatory Islamic principle. It does send out a message, a Western and French message, about where their values can be found, and that being tolerant has its limits within the framework of these very values.
Our ‘ancestors’ have fought long and hard to get us our freedoms, is the common way to phrase it. While this shows a tendency to over-idealize and be too nostalgic, it does have some truth in it. Islamists, and anyone else for that matter in my opinion, are more than welcome, but they will share and live in accordance with the laws, norms and values that make our society a western society.
That is not an extravagant demand either. If we were to move to any Islamic country, we would need to do the same. And I do not mean being taught ethics in the sense we understand them. I mean first and foremost working your ass off to master the mother-tongue of the country you live in. That creates possibilities of public participation and discussion, which can lead to understand and mutual respect. They should not agree with us on every aspect, a little diversity is not a bad thing at all. Leaning to cope with and respect our nations’ foundations, to which are all equal, is a must.
And that bring us back, once again, to the burqa. It is something worn by women because of gender, and it is sometimes, though not exclusively, worn by force (either social pressure or more radical). My values tell me it is normal to be able to look someone in the face, especially on the streets. It feels safe as well. And as Islam stems from cultures where women are often both unrepresented in political affairs as well as socially low placed figures (within the family), we owe them and our tradition that this phenomenon does not persist in our borders.
I can’t stand the fact that women should wear a veil or burqa because they must not show their beauty. Why? Because men are weak little creates that won’t be able to control themselves? While that maybe true, it can never be a justification for wearing a sign that becomes precisely for that reason, according to me at least, a filthy sign.
Herein also lies the difference with a turban. It is not considered to be discriminatory and unequal. I’m not anti-hats and all of that, I’m anti-oppression. It is not intolerance that gets crazier with all people, its people that become crazier and more dogmatic on both sides of the coin.
Rox
February 2, 2010 @ 9:08 am
“I can’t stand the fact that women should wear a veil or burqa because they must not show their beauty.” — What if she chooses it for whatever reason? Is it not her choice at the end of the day?
If she wants to show what she looks like to the world, so be it. But if she does not, who are we to tell her what to do?
Come walk my streets where people like me get groped and raped everyday. Then tell me if that does nothing to you. It is easy to stand on the other side of an invisible fence and talk. Sense those horrible glares men give you everyday, go to a beach knowing that 2 days ago a woman was raped on that same beach.
Since polygamy is allowed in the religion we are referring to, burqua was a way for women to hide from men’s glares. But I tell you this, in today’s times, there is more to it. I am a non-Muslim and yet, I hide my face in some parts of the country. Things are not as comfortable and safe as they used to be.
I think the burqua should be her choice- Not mine, not yours and certainly not the states’!
Rox
February 2, 2010 @ 9:17 am
Oh and by the way- I don’t think men are weak creatures because of which this “filthy sign” must remain.
All I say is when you have not lived the life, it is easy to talk…. ‘Oh yeah! Why does she need to hide her face?’.. But your perspective changes when you have lived through a ‘not so nice life’, because some men didn’t treat you with the respect any human should get… Been there, experienced that and so I talk! (sorry abt that, stuck something in my heart I guess.. peace)
Reckless Rose
February 2, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Yes, but this was primarily an article on the French state, and other western states too. From my perspective, it is easy to think the burqa needs a ban everywhere, but like I said to an other Indian quite recently, I’m not familiar with your country or state, so making that judgment will be all the harder.
Your reply strikes a wrong note for me, though. It, once again, points towards a problem which the burqa must solve, albeit submission of women or hiding your face because of a lingering sense of unease and unsafety. Why the hell would I support, in any way, glaring men or rapists? I’d comdemn them as hard as you would. I’d show more understanding of why women where burqas there, but I still wouldn’t think that is a good thing. You’re not telling me you like to wear the burqa are you?
General unsafety is something the government as a nightwatchman must see its task in. In France things are a lot different. You can easily walk the streets without being glared at or raped, statistically at least. No one needs a burqa there, especially not thanks to the extreme diversity of French’s citizens.
PhoenixRox
February 3, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
I have lived in the “West”, so I do know what you are saying.I am aware of the “safety” factor you spoke about in a place like France.
Without losing focus here, my question is this: If a French national wants to wear it as she “believes” that it is a part of her religion, how does it harm the state? Should that right not be granted to her? She may not NEED it.. I totally agree with u there. But should it not be her choice, as to whether she wants to wear it or not? It really does depend a lot on her roots.. I think personal choice should be respected. She is not hurting anyone by wearing a burqa.. then why not let her do what she wants..
Reiterating..what she wants. If she does not want to wear it, so be it. But if she does, who are we or the state to say no?
Rox
February 5, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
And yet again.. u talk abt the need.. Im saying its a choice! A choice.. Im not debating abt whether its a NEED or not. Why is that choice not left to the person in question?!
Reckless Rose
February 5, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Yes, if it were a choice then it would not have been a problem. For many, though, it is not a choice but an obligatory principle of subordination. Many times, over and over again, minorities have suffered by the hands of the majority or of other forms of oppression. I will not allow or support anything that can be seen along these lines. I will support a law that forbids burqas solely to make sure those few who do not wear it voluntary do not have to.
It is not a matter of personal choice here for me, it is about values. And for many western people, a burqa is just incompatible with values of freedom, integrity and equality. You can’t even see who you are talking to; that is an essential aspect of social life. If everyone started wearing balaclavas during the day, just for fun of it, I’d happily ban them ;-).
Rox
February 6, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Your comment tickled me silly. I know ur heart is in the right place. ;-)