An evil slur
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has some sharp (in both senses) things to say about the burqa and laws relating to it and the hijab.
As always, the British power elite casts itself – unconsciously perhaps – as more tolerant and enlightened than its European counterparts…
We have a history of self-righteousness in these intra-continental culture wars. The veil once more gives us a chance to show off our liberal credentials and show up our more bigoted neighbours, whose anti-Muslim attitudes are indeed uglier…
But defending the right to wear the burqa isn’t really the ideal way to show off one’s liberal credentials.
What of the fact that millions of us are against the black covering? And that many supported the French school-uniform proscription? We know there is no Koranic injunction to cover the face, and we watch helplessly as organised brainwashing is leading to the blanking out of female Muslim presence and individuality from the public space. The Oxford theologian and imam Dr Taj Hargey can give you chapter and verse to prove both these points. We say that dress codes can be imposed in public-service interactions for a greater good. That whether opted for by the woman or pushed on her by others, the inherent message of the veiled woman is that femininity is treacherous – which is an evil slur.
Too many defenders of the right to wear the burqa – not all, but too many – fail to deal with the evil slur aspect. Too many defenders treat the matter as unambiguous, easy, a slam dunk. They need to keep the evil slur firmly in mind.
From the Koran, Surah 24:31 –
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.”
This is open to quite wide interpretation, granted (for example, what does ‘their adornment’ actually mean? What does ‘only that which is apparent’ mean?), but the modesty meme contained in this verse is damaging to women regardless. The previous verse says believing men should ‘lower their gaze and be modest’, but there is nothing mentioned about men’s ‘adornment’, nor does it say they should cover their bodies with veils and only reveal themselves to certain women, nor does it mention their nakedness or tell them not to ‘stamp their feet’. The rules for women are quite clearly more stringent, and it’s an insulting verse to women even interpreted very liberally. Women ought to be able to reveal their ‘adornment’ to whoever they damn well please!
The question that feminist progressives need to ask themselves is this: is a burqa ban the best way to reduce female subjugation? I would argue that it is not, as in drug policy what we need is a harm minimisation strategy not a criminalisation strategy. The best way to empower the women beneath the burqas is not to turn them into a criminal, but rather to make sure they get a degree and a paycheck – that will change the household dynamics more than any regressive ban!
http://dailybludge.com.au/2010/05/ban-the-burqa/
“It’s about the right to choose, say the apologists. Oh yes? Then why are these campaigners not champ-ioning the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim women in the West and East not to cover up?”
This. This is an argument I need to remember.
Adrian,
But how can a home country or host country help to ensure that a woman will receive “a degree and a paycheck” if she can’t go out of the house without a husband-approved male chaperone or without being covered in a burka or niqab?
“It’s about the right to choose, say the apologists. Oh yes? Then why are these campaigners not champ-ioning the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim women in the West and East not to cover up?”
I don’t see what’s appealing about it. I would happily advocate for the right of all people everywhere to walk around wearing or not wearing whatever they like. It’s just the fact that most people seem to prefer to wear clothes that makes me refrain from saying anything.
It’s the husbands and fathers of Muslim women who are oppressing them, not the pieces of cloth. I feel like the effort spent arguing for a burqa ban would be better spent trying to provide assistance to oppressed and abused women rather than trying to outlaw an article of clothing.
Also, that it’s a slur against femininity is subjective, certainly. I can imagine people thinking that covering one’s own face is either an expression of personal modesty or an acknowledgment of the power of femininity. These would probably not be the prevailing attitudes, but my point is simply that for a veil to be a “slur” against femininity requires some amount of interpretation on the part of the offended.
I guess I’m just saying that the burqa is a symptom, not a cause, of the misogynistic, obsolete philosophy of fundamentalist Islam. Banning the clothes doesn’t make the women more free. But making the women more free gives them the choice not to wear the clothes.
The burqa fills me with disgust and pity in equal measure but I don’t see this as something the State can tackle by fining or imprisoning the poor wretches who wear them.
The burkha fills me with so much fear that my heart jumps all over – whenever I come into contact with women wearing them on buses. My immediate reaction is to want to jump off at the nearest bus-stop. I have to escape the scene that very minute. I am instantaneously reminded of nuns in Goldenbridge who were clothed from head to toe in black robes. If I felt like this as a child, and it followed me into adulthood – surely to goodness, children who are having to witness their mothers (only) in black robes must also be scared stiff. I wonder has there ever been a study done in relation to children’s opinions – afterall they are mini adults and should have a say in how they feel about the eerie black robes? How come the men don’t wear black burkha’s – just like the women? What’s good for the goose should be even better for the gander.
I suspect that any effort to forbid any dress will prove counter-productive, but the “right to choose” argument is nevertheless deserving of challenge. That so many educated Muslim women living in enlightened nations, free to dress as they please, choose to submit (and there’s an extensive fashion industry serving them), knowing full well how many of their sisters have no choice whatsoever, is troubling. It’s like some kind of slave chic.
That’s an interesting point, Mo – I hadn’t thought of that.
Mind you, the children don’t see their mothers in burqas all the time. It’s outdoor wear – outside the house wear – so that probably makes it a little less creepy than nun-clothing. Still – it can’t be healthy to think that all women look like that.
Or think that women need to look like that in order to go to heaven and avoid hell. And, when they get older, and meet women who aren’t veiled, think that these women are hell-bound.
This is a case of an awkward call, because the culture behind much of this is obviously quite evil. The key issue is whether there is coercion.
Coercion by the state to uncover is every bit as bad as coercion by culture to cover. But even among the ‘liberated’ west, there is a strong cultural concept of female modesty. How many women even here would say that they would ‘never wear’ a string bikini, or micro mini, or go about topless? Would they feel uncomfortable if they felt they were being stared at? What if they were forced to by local law? It has, to some degree, with the sense of self identity, and to some extent what you’ve grown up with.
Agreed many of these women may be under coercion (though how many western women dress ‘modestly’ because of societal coercion–not wanting to be viewed as loose?), but I’m not at all comfortable with the state making that decision.
It’s also an evil slur against men, perhaps more so. The message it sends is that men cannot look at women (even their hair or faces or any approximation of their body shape), without feeling lust, and that we then can’t control our lust – so much so that if we are allowed to see women who are not wearing tents over their bodies and letter-boxes over their heads it will lead to a breakdown of the social order.
That’s a pretty strong message about men, and we have every right to be deeply offended by it. I don’t take offence all that easily, but, as a man, I am definitely offended by the wearing of burkas (though I mainly feel sorry for the women who are bullied or deluded enough to wear the damn things).
I don’t think that’s a reason to ban them, but it’s an important point that shouldn’t be forgotten in all of this.
I detest the burqa – but what would a ban entail? A fine? Prison? And those prosecuted would be exclusively women – not the husband or father who forced them to wear it.
And it’s just as likely a ban stopping women appearing in public in a burqa would effectively be a ban on them appearing at all.
The french school ban is different because it applies to all religions and it applies to children.
I think we need to be specific here about what aspect of the dress we are talking about – it is specifically the face covering (everything else about it is similar to other items of common clothing (long parkas, flowing skirts, shawls, anorak hoods). The question then is whether you can ban face covering in public (without affecting, say, motorbike riders or skiers). The security aspect of this is the only one that makes legal sense to me – in other words equalize the law regarding all facial coverings – not so that a burka wearer who walks into a bank can be arrested (as happened the other day in Italy) but so that the employees make it plain that they will not serve them (the same way you wouldn’t if they don’t provide valid identity documents.)
“The french school ban is different because it applies to all religions and it applies to children.”
Sad how in the “enlightened west”, children seem to have fewer and fewer rights, far beyond any restriction which might be necessary for safety. Not just France, here in the US, schools have been given authority over children (speech, behavior etc) even outside school hours, and even in contradiction to their parent’s wishes.
Sigmund, I think there are all sorts of circumstances where either:
1. The law should require showing of faces; and/or
2. The law should support private parties who require it (employers, educational institutions, shopping plazas that want to enforce a dress code, and so on).
The former are largely matters of security, but not just that. E.g., a witness in court should not be allowed to wear a burka as she gives evidence, and its not really a matter of security – just efficiency in the operation of the justice system. Nor should special arrangements be made for her so that only women can see her, or whatever. It’s in the public interest that everyone be able to see the deameanor of witnesses in court.
Wearing a burka should be treated as a freedom of expression issue. There’s a negative right, not lightly overridden, to express yourself without interference from the state. I think it muddies the waters to see it as a freedom of religion issue, which then raises issues about accommodation, positive rights to exercise your religion, etc. If we see it as essentially a freedom of expression issue, well … there are plenty of limits on freedom of expression, relating to time, place, manner, etc. If I own a cakeshop, do I really want my employees, as they sell cakes, expressing vile ideas to the customers? It’s reasonable for me to require that: “If you want to serve my customers, you don’t wear a Nazi uniform or a burka when you’re on the job.” If I say that to prospective employees, it’s not the state interfering with their freedom of expression. They can still express their views on their own time.
I don’t think there’s any good basis for a total ban on wearing it in public – whether we look at the issue from an expression pov or a harm minimisation point of view, or whatever. We certainly shouldn’t ban it just because it sends offensive or incorrect messages (any more than we should ban people wandering around the street wearing Nazi uniforms). OTOH, we don’t have to like it. Nor do have to refrain from expressing our offence or anger at its messages. We’re quite entitled to say that the messages it sends about both femininity and masculinity are vile.
Damn, I obviously can’t spell demeanour, or whatever that word was supposed to be.
I find the burqa repellent. But I find the proposal to ban on it even more repellent. Grown up women should be left alone. You can’t tell whether a woman is wearing a burqa by her own choice or by coercion by her husband but you have to assume that a grown up woman is in fact grown up.
The proposed ban in France seems to have led to one religious assault.
The law would create a new offence of “incitement to cover the face for reasons of gender”.
Cripes – I have lots of problems paragraphing quotations in this fancy new comments thread format.
I quite agree with those who say that the only problem with the burqa is the wearer’s choice – or not – in the matter, and I also find alarming those (like Cristopher Hitchens) who think there exists some sort of right to be able to see peoples’ faces. Seeing is never just “seeing” for humans.
Let’s give some brownie points to the Open University of the UK, who, faced with the necessity of ascertaining the identity of exam candidates, make provision for female candidates to remove their coverings, if worn, in a room apart, in the presence of a female invigilator – now that’s helping women towards “a degree and a paycheck”.
Well, granted in some ways a right to see people’s faces seems dubious, but on the other hand the presence of totally concealed faces in public does have some sinister overtones, for several reasons. I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk either way.
And I don’t feel much like giving the Open University brownie points for treating the segregation of women as normal and ordinary and worth spending significant money (separate room, separate invigilator) on.
I was out walking in the park near my home a couple of weeks ago and saw a young woman rambling about with her little boy, who was running and chattering. She was replying cheerfully in a light, pleasant voice, but her face was entirely covered by a black cloth. Does one smile and say “good morning”, as people so often do as they pass each other by? That covering seems to suggest that here is a person who has cut herself off from any ordinary communication: this person is not to be spoken to, smiled at, even looked at. One looks away, as though something not quite right, perhaps even shameful, is present. I was struck by the ordinariness of the little boy’s cheerful chatter, and the impression that they were both enjoying the sensations of being out in the open air on a fine day… And I couldn’t help wondering what was going on in his mind, in what way he maintained his relationship with his mother when he could not see her face and judge her feelings and responses by her expressions; what he learns about a woman’s face, that it must be concealed from strange men; what he is learning about women in general, and the relations between women and men, and where women belong in the world, in society; what sort of man he will become and how his mother will feel about him and all that she has done, or tried to do, for him. It does seem to me that in such an ordinary way a great crime is being perpetrated, a simple act that has incalculable ramifications and every day does incalculable harm.
We are finding that it is younger women that are wearing the face veil and the trend is growing. Why have we got 2nd and 3rd generation kids wearing them.
Why do we have faith schools at all? Do they not segregate our young according to religion. How will they mix and at what age with other faiths? That’s where you should start first. All children should be banned from wearing them until age of 18 & not in public buildings etc. How did we manage smoking, by making them aware of the hazards and benefits and then introduce a partial ban, with no smoking for under age kids. The reason that you have a new generation of wearers is because you failed to educate them at school and let then attend faith schools. Ban faith schools if you want social cohesion & integration.
So, why do you have faith schools, which do nothing to break down barriers? Critics said that faith would be used by religious groups to proselytise and further segregate members of faith communities. Faith schools are discriminatory, both in their entry requirements and in their choice of staff. They select children on the grounds of their parents’ religion and have a quota system for children of other backgrounds and prefer teachers who share the school’s religious identity. If we live in a country with a such a diversity of ethnicities and a diversity of views, then our schools should surely reflect that. Some faith schools allow girls to wear the Burka or Hijab at a very young age. WHY?
Last year, representatives of the Anglican and Catholic churches and Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faiths signed a letter stating that banning selection of pupils by faith in religious schools would be “perverse and unjust”. But, if we had every religious group having their own schools, what do you think will be the social consequences later on in the years to come.
For example, The Muntada al-Islami Trust, which owns al-Muntada Islamic primary school in Parsons Green, west London, was exposed as seeing ‘its mission as propagating a Wahhabist version of Islam.’
Similarly, the King Fahd Academy in Acton, west London, is Saudi-funded and influenced by the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam and it’s 600 primary and secondary school children follow a SAUDI CURRICULUM.
You have allowed a Saudia Curriculum into the UK, but are banning the burka, surely, you should be tackling this from the opposite direction so youngsters are taught at an early age.
You started sex education early in schools to prevent pregnancies and banned under age sex. You didn’t ask adults to take sex education lessons.You expect them to make an informed decision.
Riz – all good points. I totally agree about “faith” schools; I think they’re a horrible idea. In the US they’re ruled out in the public sector; that would be a good place for the UK to start.
Maybe we should be tackling this from both directions. Ban faith schools and ban the burka (how does one spell this bloody word, anyway?)