Illustrations by Abigail Lander
Following recent support of a ban on wearing the burqa in public places, put forward by Belgian politicians, we asked two of our writers to weigh up the pros and cons of this controversial decision.
DAVE HOLLAND does not support the ban, arguing that such a decision would affront basic human rights.
So, the Belgians are trying to pass legislation to ban the wearing of full face coverings, like the Islamic burqa, in public places. I’m sorry, what? I’ve just checked my calendar I’m pretty sure that it’s 2010 and not 1943; the idea of the government dictating what people can and cannot wear is preposterous. Moreover, it’s immoral and, frankly, a little bit scary. When the government dictates what people wear, it doesn’t say ‘modern, liberal and democratic Europe’, it says ‘evil and fascistic bigotry’. We don’t need to be historians to remember the last time this applied to the Belgian leaders. Now, I’m not saying that the politicians who want to ban the burqa are comparable to the Nazis; that would be a tad strong. But, they are comparable to Nick Griffin and, as we all know, it has been factually and empirically proven that he is a cunt.
The people this side of the Channel who encourage the ban will argue that covering the face restricts human contact shows the dominance and oppression of women by men, and clashes with the Western ideas of freedom. As an anthropology student, I feel the need to argue against these cultural misconceptions. Islamic women really do want to wear the burqa and, if forced to go out ‘on show’, they feel that their modesty has been violated and their bodies objectified. Some even claim that if a woman chooses to cover herself, she is not being oppressed by men; rather she is opposing them and restricting their ability to look at her. Veiling oneself is not oppressing to a Muslim, but allows them to take full control of their bodies.
On the other hand, there are women who are sadly forced into wearing the burqa, and are punished harshly for exposing even an inch of skin. In Saudi Arabia; suggesting that this happens in contemporary Europe does seem somewhat outlandish. The most publicly prolific supporter of the ban is French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who said the burqa ‘is not welcome in France,’ and that it ‘is not a religious issue but rather a question of freedom and of women’s dignity.’ This seems a little rich coming from a man who is supposed a serial womanizer and who tried to sue a newspaper from publishing his wife’s reports of infidelity.
Obviously there are certain circumstances when a burqa presents practical problems; it’s common sense that women should have to show their faces to police and security personnel for identification purposes. The case of a woman who drove through two sets of red lights and then did not notice the policeman knocking on her window is, admittedly, pretty absurd. But, in such cases, legislation needs to be circumstantial; the burqa itself is not to blame. The idiot who tried to wear it whilst driving a mini-van is.
Clearly, banning the burqa is an infringement on the most basic of human rights. I don’t give a toss if the Belgian government don’t like it, I don’t like ties or those people who wear football tops on holiday, and breathe through their mouths. But, I still respect their right wear whatever they choose.
Should the veil prevail?
CHLOE MASHITER disagrees, and argues in favour of the ban.
It was beautiful sunny afternoon and I was sitting outside The Maypole when I was asked, ‘Chloe, do you want to write a debate piece on burqas?’
‘Sure, Dave, what side of the debate are you arguing?’
‘The non-racist one.’
Ah, okay. Cue an attempt to argue that Muslim women should stop covering up whilst trying not to look like a BNP member (or, worse, a Tab Totty recruitment). So, I’m pitted against Dave, Amnesty International and the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I do, however, have the support of the entire Belgian Parliament, most of France, and the many other countries who’ve considered nixing the niqab. Pint-sized President Sarkozy is the latest to weigh in on the issue, proposing a complete ban in France on the basis that ‘burqas are a sign of subservience and debasement’.
Personally, I don’t have an issue with burqas as religious symbols – just as I’ve no problem with someone wearing a kippah or a crucifix. It’s more the fact that the burqa is an item of clothing that completely obscures a person, not even necessarily leaving their eyes exposed. Despite what Facebook would have you think, human contact and interaction are still necessary parts of life, and I’m not alone in seeing burqas as a block to this – France already acknowledges this to a point, with burqas currently banned in certain workplaces. Whilst I understand that burqas aren’t exclusively purposed towards anonymity, hiding expressions and hindering communication, these are unfortunate consequences of wearing them which, if not sufficient to justify a total ban, do justify a pretty extensive one.
Those who are pro-burqa on a basis of equality for all religious parties should remember that there are different ways to respect equality. Whilst Britain adopts a ‘one size fits all’ approach, having loose enough boundaries to encompass everyone, over the Channel there’s more of an ‘all fit one size’ style, where no-one is granted particular privileges. Even if you prefer the British ideal, you’ve got to give the French credit for actually carrying theirs out – banning the burqa just treats it the same as Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses. Back here however, authority on banning religious items is delegated to schools and judges, leading to ridiculous inequality on what different people can and can’t wear.
So what exactly are Amnesty’s thoughts on potential bans? Spokesman Claudio Cordone has said they would violate rights to freedom of expression and religion, but that ‘authorities must make sure that all women who wear the full veil do so without coercion, harassment or discrimination’. Hear that? It’s the sound of me clapping very, very slowly. Never was there a more obvious case of easier said than done.
I’ve avoided condemning burqas, as Sarkozy has, as a symbol of oppression since for every person arguing that position, there’s another ready to remind us that many wear theirs freely. So it boils down to either protecting those who are forced into wearing burqas or respecting those who do it freely: in this case, I’m on the side of the protectors. It’s clear that suggesting we ban burqas in Britain is about as sensible a suggestion as a National Napoleon Day, but to me that says more about Brits than burqas. As for the many countries eager to impose a ban, they all have my complete support.
I'm with you Chloe, but mainly because you can't make something lawful because its in your religion to do so. You can't wear a balaclava in the street and you shouldn't be able to by claiming its part of your religion.
Since when was it illegal to wear a balaclava?
This is a well written and considered article that deals with a sensitive issue very fairly. Why then do the members of the catholic church recieve such insensitive and offensive treatment as published in another tab article? Or even on a more alarming scale, cheap foreign office jokes?
This kind of inequality in liberal concerns for toleration and respect is, in my opinion, much more condemnable than a France's attempt to create a level playing field through questionable means. The attitude of the Enlgish to toleration and respect regarding religious matters is sickeningly hypocritical. Why is it that fear of causing offence is only stressed when there is a possibility of inferring a racist agenda? I agree that we should fight to maintain an enviroment where all members of our society feel comfortable in expressing their religious belief where reasonable, but this can only be legitimate and genuine if it is upheld in equal measure for all.
[...] which of course usually means the full veil. I don’t want to get bogged down in the burqa debate, but even if we ignore the dress codes, the treatment of women in Abu Dhabi is at best [...]
I admire Chloe's attempt to defend the banning of the burqa without using oppression as an argument but I think that any attempt is severely weakened by its absence. The main issue with the burqa is its representation of oppression. It is no response to this argument to say that some people "wear theirs freely" because this attitude has developed as a result of the oppression. In response to Dave – "Islamic women really do want to wear the burqa and, if forced to go out ‘on show’, they feel that their modesty has been violated and their bodies objectified" – this is exactly the problem. The sexist interpretation of the Koran which requires woman to wear burqas has developed this mindset in Islamic woman. These interpretations propagate that unveiled women alone are responsible for a lack of moral modesty, not to say sexual obsession of men. I agree with Chloe's stance but I think she has failed to tackle the most important and difficult issue in defending the ban.