| | The niqab and burqa debate sparked off by Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on Monday continues apace in today’s papers.
The Daily Express informs us that both Muslims and non – Muslims want Britain to ban the burqa. Their sources of authoritative commentary? Among others, the rabid neo-con Douglas Murray and Ghaffar Hussain of the Quilliam Foundation. What a surprise.
|
Murray tells the Express that a religious defence of the burkha is “completely bogus”, and that “there are parts [of the Qur’an] which speak of modesty but not this complete covering up. This idea that it is a religious requisite is only put forward by the extremists.” But you see, those defending the rights of women to wear the burqa aren’t doing so on the basis of a religious edict, but a liberal one. How a woman interprets verses on modest dress is her business, and whether she opts for a headscarf, a niqab, a burqa, or none of the above, is her business and her business alone. In proscribing her ability to exercise such a right Murray is no different to the extremists who compel Muslim women to observe dress codes not of their choosing.
Ghaffar Hussain of the QF argues that “wearing a burkha does limit a woman, restricting her in the jobs she can do” although a later 'correction' on the Express website sought to clarify that QF were opposed to an outright ban.
And the Express helpfully reminds readers that ‘Turkey, a secular Muslim country, has banned headscarves in schools, universities and public offices.
‘Burkhas are outlawed in three Belgian towns, while seven out of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves.’
Of course, nothing mentioned here of the restrictions that these bans place on the employment opportunities of Muslim women who won’t stand to have their dress sense dictated to them by transient governments.
Hussein Al-Alak, of Iraq Solidarity UK, states:
“They are certainly divisive. I know many women who have been forced to wear them under hardline regimes and they despise them. They symbolise the suppression of womanhood.
“But I would not be in favour of a law banning them. That would be reducing the Government to the same level as an extremist who orders his wife to wear one.”
And Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, says: “I fully support President Sarkozy. The burkha isolates women.”
And telling them what they can and cannot wear doesn’t, presumably?
Meanwhile, Agnès Poirier in The Times, writes on how ‘Britain could never debate the burka like France’.
She writes:
‘Republican principles of equality and secularism are so deeply grounded in the French mind that they belong as much to the Left as to the Right.’
And the Republic principle of liberty?!
‘For someone like me, firmly on the Left, the defence of secularism is the only way to guarantee cultural diversity and national cohesion.’
Which is by far a very bizarre claim. If secularism denotes the separation of church and state, of public and private spheres, where do we draw the line on what constitutes ‘private’ when the state is in a position to dictate dress codes? The only thing that would be guaranteed by Poirier’s ardent secularism would be the erosion of liberty and a homogeneous culture. So much for cultural diversity!
Poirier continues:
‘That such a debate is taking place again reveals the sturdy health of secularism in France, a tradition that doesn't shy away from being confrontational even in a country with the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Europe.'
Shame the same cannot be said of the ‘sturdy health’ of liberty in France.
Poirier concludes, ‘critics of the French approach don't seem to understand that secularism is neutral - the State doesn't recognise any religion in particular but protects them all, guaranteeing cultural and religious diversity by ensuring that one faith does not get the upper hand.’
Which will certainly be news to the Reussite school, which is on the brink of closure because the Inspection Academique has refused to grant the school the same sort of financial aid currently enjoyed by Christian and Jewish faith schools in France.
And the Telegraph quotes the new Communities and Local Government Minister, Shahid Malik:
"It is not the job of government to dictate what people should or should not wear in our society – that is a matter of personal choice.
"There are no laws stating what clothes or attire are acceptable and so whether one chooses to wear a veil or burqa, a miniskirt or goth outfit is entirely at the individual's discretion.
"It is true that many Muslims feel the veil and its rationale are misunderstood and so sensible discussion provides an opportunity to create a better understanding and ultimately ensures we are more at ease with the diverse society within which we live."
If comments in some of today’s papers are anything to go by, a ‘sensible discussion’ is far from likely. Update: In the Daily Express today (25 June 2009) a 'spokesman' for the Quilliam Foundation is quoted as saying: "...the burkha is not an Islamic requirement [but] more of an identity statement..." This is patently false. Those women who choose to wear the burqa or niqab do so overwhelmingly for religious reasons, not as some idiotic 'identity statement'.
|
