Reactions to French “burka ban”
After France votes decisively against the permissibility of face veils, Britain’s new immigration minister responds by ruling out a similar move here.
Damian Green said such a move would be “rather un-British” and run contrary to the conventions of a “tolerant and mutually respectful society”.
He said it would be “undesirable” for Parliament to vote on a burka ban in Britain and that there was no prospect of the Coalition proposing it.
…
His firm decision to rule out a burka ban will disappoint some Right-of-centre Tory MPs, including Philip Hollobone, who has tabled a private member’s bill that would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public.
Mr Hollobone, the MP for Kettering, said this weekend that he would refuse to hold any constituency meetings with women wearing burkas.
Nesrine Malik, initially appalled at being forced to wear a full veil in Saudia Arabia, grew to find it comfortable and freeing. Women’s clothes, either way, should not be so symbolic of national feelings.
On landing in Saudi Arabia, women – all of whom were wearing the veil – were channelled into a separate line for processing. My eyes stung with tears of rage and shame. Most of all, I felt infantilised, stripped of the right to dress how I pleased due simply to the fact that I was a woman, and hence, purely a sexual object to be concealed lest it should inflame desire. For the first few days, it felt almost comical, like some absurd game of macabre fancy dress.
On a practical level, it was cumbersome, hot and uncomfortable. Eating or drinking in public became a chore, as food has to be manoeuvred gingerly under the veil or taken abruptly in small bites. In Saudi’s overwhelming heat, temperatures regularly reach 45C and any physical outdoor activity, even walking, is out of the question. I became anti-social, hardly able to wait until I got home before tearing off the ghastly garb.
The niqab and the burka are a particularly extreme interpretation of the Islamic requirement for modest dress, and were never part of my Muslim upbringing in London. Because of this, I did not feel particularly pious wearing them in Saudi. If anything, it seemed like a throwback to tribal, pre-Islamic times.
Over the next three years, however, my opposition gradually eroded. Initially an ugly burden, the abaya and niqab became a comfort and, eventually, a delight. It was a relief not to have to think about what to wear.
The burka can be the most versatile of capsule wardrobes. The uniform black costume has a charming egalitarianism about it, and is both a social and physical leveller. Once social status or physical beauty cannot be established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html
The Guardian asks “Should Britain ban the burka?” Anastasia de Waal for Civitas says ‘Yes’ in the public sphere, “burqas impede the necessary interaction for learning and working”. However…
where public and private collide, say walking down the street, a ban would be wrong. France is indeed an open society but with that openness comes the thorn of unwanted “freedoms”.
Mary Warnock says she doesn’t love the burqa and that it reflects badly “on both men and women”, but…
I wouldn’t for that reason criminalise its use, any more than I would criminalise beachwear on the streets of London, much as I deplore it when I see it.
Donald Macleod of Free Church college, Edinburgh, is similarly reluctant to “ban”.
Let’s distinguish between what we deplore and what we criminalise. So that while we may deplore the refusal of some Muslims to integrate, the only alternative to multiculturalism is mono-culturalism, where only English may be spoken and only the state may be worshipped. As for banning the burqa from private space, let’s remember that every British family’s home is its castle, and it should say to the state what the African-American said to the Mississippi, “River, stay ‘way from my door!” We will best serve Muslim women by ensuring that their matrimonial rights as British citizens are never undermined by judicial recognition of sharia law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/18/should-britain-ban-burqa-panel
Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan argues that banning the burqa because it is political or “undermines” Western values would be hypocritical unless we also want to ban Che Guevara t-shirts.
Doesn’t wearing the image of that squalid murderer glorify his violent and anti-democratic creed? Isn’t it an even more aggressive rejection of Western values?
Wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt is in the same moral category as wearing an Adolf Hitler or Raoul Moat or Osama bin Laden tee-shirt. When we see someone see some oaf doing it, we should feel free to bollock him. But it is not a matter for the law.
Nor is wearing the burqa.
Another Conservative, Philip Hollobone MP, takes a rather different approach.
A Conservative MP says he will refuse to hold meetings with Muslim women wearing full Islamic dress at his constituency surgery unless they lift their face veil.
Last night Muslim groups condemned Philip Hollobone and accused him of failing in his duty as an MP.
In an interview with The Independent, the Kettering MP said: “I would ask her to remove her veil. If she said: ‘No’, I would take the view that she could see my face, I could not see hers, I am not able to satisfy myself she is who she says she is. I would invite her to communicate with me in a different way, probably in the form of a letter.”
The Daily Mail emphasises public support in Britain for a ban.
Mr Green said a ban would be ‘rather un-British’ and run contrary to the conventions of a ‘tolerant and mutually respectful society’.
This is despite a YouGov survey which found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be outlawed. France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burka-style Islamic veils, and Spain and Belgium have similar votes in the pipeline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295665/Banning-burkas-UK-British-says-Green.html
Meanwhile, in Tehran…
Iran’s prosecutor called on Sunday for tighter checks on women who fail to observe Islamic dress code in public, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.
Under Iran’s Sharia law, imposed after the 1979 Islamic revolution, women are obliged to cover their hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothes. Violators can receive lashes, fines or imprisonment.
“Unfortunately the law … which considers violation of the Islamic dress code as a punishable crime, has not been implemented in the country in the past 15 years,” said general prosecutor Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei.
“Under the law, violators of public chastity should be punished by being sentenced to up to two months in jail or 74 lashes.”
Strict dress codes were enforced in the years after the revolution but in recent years clamp downs have tended to last just weeks or months in summer, when women wear lighter clothing such as calf-length trousers and colored scarves.
Young women in urban areas often defy the limitations by wearing tight clothing and colorful headscarves that barely cover their hair. The codes are less commonly flouted in rural regions.
Enforcement of codes governing women’s dress have become stricter since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, promising a return to the values of the revolution.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE66H12O20100718
Reactions to French “burka ban”,
Nesrine Malik write, amongst other things, “Once social status or physical beauty cannot be established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened”.
Well this s certainly not true in my experience in Abu Dhabi. It is quite easy to spot the well-off women as they cruise the shopping centres in immaculate abayas dripping with gold and smelling of expensive perfume. Designer sandals and jeans peep from beneath and their eyes are beatifully made-up. The nannies of the well-to-do ladies walk behind with the children. Poorer women with plain and worn garments, kids in tow, are quite distinguishable.
Nearly four years ago I wrote on the Guardian site “I feel a sense of revulsion at the sight of a woman covered head to toe. ” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/06/jackstrawsveil ). I explored those feelings and concluded “I think my feelings of discomfort are a sign of natural human empathy – empathy of the kind that led us to abolish slavery, to fight for women to have the vote, and to care about the unfairness and inequalities in our world.” I still feel that way. I think the French are right, and brave, to ban the burka and I wish we had the same determination and courage.
Clearly many other humanists disagree with me but I think we should aspire to a world in which everyone is visible as an individual human being in public places and full veils are considered unacceptable.
I believe that all full-face coverings in public places should be banned; this goes whether someone is wearing a burqa, niqab, motorcycle helmet, or balaclava. There is a point at which ‘tolerance and mutual respect’ of certain practices becomes counter-productive to the overall well-being of society. Particularly in societies which are supposed to be ‘open’ and ‘transparent’, covering one’s face in public brings with it all sorts of negative and threatening connotations. I wonder at what point “tolerance” becomes a substitute for “can’t be bothered to change it”?
I wish Amnesty International would stop wasting money arguing against banning this item of clothing, especially since so many of its members are divided on the issue. I joined them because I want to stop far more important human rights issues like torture, not get bogged down in debating whether opression = women who are told to/feel they must cover their faces or whether opression = not letting them do so.
I think there’s probably greater concensus amongst
humanists and non-believers than we realise and it
it would perhaps be in the interest of secular
organisations like the BHA, NSS and the Rationalist
Association to come up with some concrete policy on
the issue, however broadly termed. Certainly, it
should be an overwhelming majority in favour of the
ban before any written policy be declared.
Alternatively, someone could set up a “front”-
group that would allow for anti-veil lobbying without
having to append the names of the respective societies
to it (if that doesn’t seem too underhand).
I for one am certainly anti-veil and aplaud the French
Government and the French people for this show of
support for secular freedoms in the public sphere.
When I see these “articles” gliding around town I
immediately think DALEK! A black pepper-pot whose sole
purpose – in our society – is to alienate even as it is
alienated.
At the very least we should be banning veils in
public and government buildings. All motorcycle helmets
and facial coverings are required to be removed upon
entering a bank or building society for security reasons,
yet we still I still see veils popping in and out of our
local branch in a rank display of societal hypocrisy
which only fuels the hatred of racists and white
supremacists.
Yet I think a total ban needs serious consideration: I
recall the brave picketing campaigns of “Anonymous” (the
anti-scientology crusaders) who used V for Vendetta
masks to conceal their identity. Clearly, certain
situations can make facial covering a virtue. In this
case to avoid the reprisals of a dangerous religious
cult set up by a megalomaniacal science-fiction writer.
This condition seems acceptable, after all a witness may
conceal her identity from the suspects she testifies against.
That seems only reasonable
Could then a Muslim argue that they too are concealing
themselves for fear of reprisals? – From Whom?
Sadly a Muslim woman, so garbed, is just as likely – if not
more likely – to be attacked in the streets, by racists
and thugs. Dress presents no boundary. So the question
remains, Whose reprisals are they trying to avoid?
If the answer is from their own community then this is
no argument, a community in which women live in fear
of being attacked by her own men-folk for not wearing
particular clothing is a community that has no place in
a free and democratic society, however secular.
For the government to oppose a ban is to betray the
fundamental human rights of women who are daily
coerced – through culture and religion – into
believing themselves to be inferior to their fellow
human beings.
And so, though I support a ban on the veil in public
and government places, I would suggest that certain
exemptions me made for persons engaged in lawful public
protests against organisations who are considered to
seek vindictive reprisals against them.
Such a criteria would no doubt be difficult to establish
and I’m not at all clear on its limitations, but I think an all out
ban would be too restrictive to civil liberties, with regard
to the right of public protest. But perhaps I must ultimately
concede that a complete ban on facial covering is the only
real way to preserve the greatest number of rights for the
greatest number of citizens.
I don’t want to see the end of the burka: I would sorely miss the summer wet-burka competitions we have in our local park. With the soaking wet womanhood of the sisters proudly on display through clinging black chiffon.
Found this interesting site today after being lead out of a private shopping centre in Wigan by half a dozen “security guards”.
Walking in almost at the shop to do a transaction. I was approached and told to remove my motorcycle helmet. So I asked him is this a Government building?
He said No its not.
Then I said if this a private business tell me where is the clearly printed sign that CCTV operate in this area. Its illegal not to do so.
He came back with the statement that I am “breaking their law”.
My response was “I’m not contracting with you so not law applies.” (Statute laws are contract laws).
Took helmet off in shop. Made transaction and complained I doubt I’ll be here again with the attitude of those insecurity guards. Will you say anything? Chinless wonder refused. (Welcome to 21st. century Britain).
Put helmet back on. Exited shop to be met by these “guards” to show me out.
There was a woman wearing a full head veil in that place at the time. Motorcycling is my religion and I was being discriminated against by private individuals.
Next time I go in there (if ever) I promise to be wearing a full niqab.
An earlier respondent said:
“All motorcycle helmets and facial coverings are required to be removed upon
entering a bank or building society for security reasons,
yet we still I still see veils popping in and out of our
local branch in a rank display of societal hypocrisy
which only fuels the hatred of racists and white
supremacists.”
DON’T FORGET MOTORCYCLISTS!
p.s. I will not believe “white supremacists” exist.
“p.s. I will not believe “white supremacists” exist.”
I was with you (mostly) until this bit. Care to explain what you mean?