Following the example of France, UKIP now propose to ban women from wearing the burqa and niqab in public in the UK. Their excuse? According to Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP as quoted in "The Times", "this is incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.”
This excuse is, of course, dangerous nonsense. I have always understood "freedom" to include the right to wear what you wish - whether it is a bikini or a burqa, it is a British woman's right to choose what they wear in public. This right should not be eroded.
Why the antipathy to the burqa and niqab? lets look at some of the arguments put forward :
"The burqa and the niqab....
a)......have no basis in Islam" So what? As an atheist, I do not accept the need to follow the rules of any religion. I do accept that a large number of people do follow religious rules, and it is their right to do so, as long as they do not seek to impose them on others. There are infinite varieties of religious and philosophical belief and it is no business of a democratic government to impose a "national standard interpretation" on any of them.
b) ......are a threat to gender equality and marginalise women" So how does a ban solve this one? It's not the garment that is the problem here, it's men's attitudes. If a man forces his wife or daughter to wear a burqa in public, a ban would give him an excuse to keep her entirely at home. If a woman wears one of her own free will, out of personal religious conviction or cultural habit or as a fashion statement, a ban denies her the freedom to express herself.
c) ......endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity" Where identity verification is necessary, a woman may be asked to remove her veil e.g. when passports or driving licenses are checked. This is no excuse for an outright ban.
Banning the burqa, niqab or any other outward symbol of a religion is counter-productive and will be used as evidence of repression by extremists who reject western values. It will not persuade the wearer to change the way they interact with society for the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree that telling women what they can and can't do is completely the opposite of giving them freedom. France has always been proud of being a secular society, but in the past they've always given as much individual freedom as the UK. Now, they're edging closer to the Saudi Arabia model- again, quite the opposite of what they claim to be doing.
ReplyDeleteAnd I put my usual disclaimer here- I have lived quite happily under strict Islamic law (in the Sudan) I'm not using Saudi Arabia as a bogeyman.
I think you have summed up what I was trying to say very succinctly.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of a secular society, as I see it, isn't to "ban" religious practice, but to create an impartial state framework in which all religions can be practised, without having any one impose on any other. In that way, it protects the rights of the individual. The idea that th state can dictate to individuals to make them "conform" to a culture is utterly abhorrent to me. It's the type of thinking that allowed Hitler and Stalin to come to power. The state should operate to serve and protect individuals, not to oppress them.
Thanks for responding so promtly!
ReplyDeleteYou've given me the chance to add a proviso I forgot before- that the public should retain the right to vote with their feet if IN A SITUATION WHERE FACE TO FACE CONTACT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT a woman choses not to let her face be seen. In other words, I find the idea of walking past a newsagent because the assistant is wearing a burqa repulsive, but have some sympathy with people who want to be able to see the face of(say)their doctor or who are otherwise already in a nerve wracking situation.
You've commented on your own blog- that's freaky!
ReplyDeleteThat's a tricky one - it's difficult to know where to draw a line, or indeed if any line is acceptable. Mostly, I would say people who don't like a burqa must learn to deal with it, but I agree that there are exceptions when face-to-face communications are important. My next blog may deal with that :-)But I'll have to think hard about it!
ReplyDelete