We shouldn’t have been so surprised. It was always going to happen. Less than a month after booting himself out of the cabinet, Boris Johnson has re-entered the news headlines. In a recent Telegraph column, while opposing an outright ban on the burka, he described women who wear the item as ‘bank robbers’ and ‘letter boxes.’ This has generated much anger, with accusations of Islamophobia and demands for an immediate apology. Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less about the consequences for Mr Johnson himself, personally wishing for the endless attention seeker not to receive so much publicity.
What has interested me however is the wider debate that has been thrown open (mostly online) about the burka, specifically over whether it can ever bring freedom and choice to women. I imagine a large number of people supporting banning the burka outright in all public places, perhaps for security reasons, the harm to integration or the belief it is an illiberal, outdated practice that wholeheartedly reveals coercive, conservative Islam. Of course, there will be pathetic, vulgar racists opposing the practice because they are racists. But, though it wouldn’t surprise me if people against this socially conservative practice support the Western socially conservative position of women in the household and society, I do not believe them all to be racists. They believe, in our liberal society, to wear such a garment is illiberal. Generally, I am against banning things and this includes the burka. I do differ from this position in some areas; for example, I believe any attempt to legalize cannabis for recreational purposes is wrong, I believe in the Nordic model on prostitution and would happily further restrict Sunday trading hours. On the question of the burka, I believe it is illiberal not to allow women to have the choice over what they wear in public. Of course, some women will be coerced into wearing one, just as some women in Western culture would be coerced into wearing very little. If you oppose the burka, that logically results in opposition to ‘Page 3’ of the Sun. But if we believe that the individual choices of women triumph our own personal opposition, hatred even, of the clothing, women must be allowed, should they wish, to wear one. Even with my more libertarian view, there must be some restrictions. Where a crash helmet wasn’t allowed to be worn, I don’t think a burka should be either. Importantly, in a court of law, the knowledge of who each witness is and when they are speaking is vital and absolute. Therefore, both for the benefit of any trial and to ensure jury members have clarity in what they are hearing, a burka cannot and shouldn’t be worn. The question absolute opposers must answer is where government enforcement stops and choice over clothing begins. Would the niqab, covering the mouth and nose with slightly more space for eyes than the burka, be banned? What about the hijab, which hides the head, ears and neck? In their proposals is nothing but ambiguity. Another point of debate is whether countries that have banned the burka, such as France and Denmark, are Islamophobic. According to Google (not the best dictionary I know), Islamophobia is ‘dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.’ This is both a sensible and worrying definition. To suggest it is a phobia – and therefore irrational and wrong- to dislike the socially conservative elements of Islam conflates rightful criticism and opposition to elements of Islam with the deliberate demonization of specific Muslims often performed by individuals who oppose them not because of their religion, but because of their race. So, are these countries that have decided to take action I disagree with, Islamophobic? Certainly, the policy is critical of Islam, wishing to promote secular values and remove a conservative part of a religion from society. But prejudiced against Muslims? Definitely not. A report in the Guardian suggests only 0.1% of Muslim women in Denmark – between 150 and 200 – wear face veils daily. To wear a veil as part of a political process is exempt from the new ban. Again, to conflate a burka banning policy, whatever our views on it, with actions of Donald Trump, deliberately banning people from Muslim majority countries, forgets the liberal idea that blasphemy laws of any sort are wrong and that criticism and arguments are vital in a free society. The energy of burka banners should instead go into promoting integration between different communities, so that people really feel a part of the country and engaged in what is going on. The bedrock for this, as I have argued for a while on this blog, is compulsory English lessons for migrants, as it is simply impossible to engage in a society if you cannot speak its language. Events that bring people together of all ages, classes, religions, sexualities and races must be promoted; yes, money is needed but also determination and a willingness of people to play their part and help. Discussions over the freedom and choice that women have, as well as the amount of control men play, will rage on. There will be those, like myself, who only see prostitution as exploitative and cannot imagine how anyone would see such a ‘job’ as liberating. Similarly, I hope people naturally choose to free themselves from the burka, because they see how it is not necessary and that to show one’s face, to be involved in discussion, to be exposed to different people, views, topics and ideas is truly freeing. That needs no government authoritarianism but a gradual trend against religious conservatism, which, in Britain, one of the most secular countries on the planet, appears to already be taking place. This makes me no supporter of ‘Page 3’ (though I wouldn’t ban it due to my eternal support for press freedom) or the Barbie-doll image way of life either, but with discussion and an attempt to see one another’s point of view, a sensible, rational Third Way may be reached.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|