COMMENTARY | IS THERE PLACE FOR THE BURKA IN BRITISH SOCIETY?
03 February 2010 16:50
Last week Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, insisted that banning women from wearing the Burka would not be "radical or ridiculous". He described the veil as a “symbol of something that is used to oppress women …a symbol of divided Britain”.
Putting aside the inherent imprudence of legislating against a tiny proportion of a minority group, there are clear and marked reasons why banning this item of clothing would be rash, undemocratic and against the sanctity of British values.
What is surprising is that Farage’s statement is not any longer a solitary outcry in the political wilderness. As recently as 2006, Justice Minister Jack Straw pre-empted these sentiments in saying face veils were a "visible statement of separation and of difference", going on to suggest they make creating community relations less easy.
Interestingly, however, this contradicts the view held by Shahid Malik, the Communities Minister, who said, “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”. Ergo, this debate raises an important point: Should Britain forego the burka?
The argument against Islamic face is largely based on several premises. It creates an ambience of disharmony and unrest in society in being the embodiment of division, it is a symbol of the suppression of women, forced to wear the garb by their family, and as part of a wider culture of staying at home without mixing with society, and, as Farage claims, it must be prohibited in order to stop the imposition of “foreign culture” on Britain.
Indeed, Britain isn’t the first country – and probably won’t be the last – to hear these arguments. Our cousins across the channel are propagating similar philosophies, with a law banning the wearing of face veils in public seemingly imminent, while the debate continues to rage in Turkey and Egypt. President Sarkozy is quoted as saying: “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity."
So the French President believes women wearing the burka are society’s subservient chattels, inferior and at the behest of their male superiors.
But what the he fails to recognise is that the burka is not a sign of “subservience”. The veil is borne out of personal faith, a dedication that should be paid tribute to as the laudable mark of devotion. And if it does illustrate subservience, it is not one of women to their husbands or their culture, but of Muslims to Islam. After all, Islam means submission.
It is evidence of the tolerance of the British culture to accept such a marked cultural disparity in the form of burkas with dignified acquiescence, just as is the acceptance of the turban and the kippah. To deny this privilege to a select few is tyrannical, grossly unfair and a betrayal of what it is to be British. And if indeed some women are forced to wear this garb it is a failure of the people, not the principle of the Burka.
Last Thursday on Question Time, the BBC’s flagship political show, historian Andrew Roberts said of the issue: “It’s not un-British at all to ban things like that… the burka is a statement of a failed multi-cultural society… one which has led to ghettoisation. It’s not a question of tolerance, this, it’s a question of apartheid…We are the majority, we mustn’t be intimidated by that.”
He strongly backs the legislative banning of the Burka. He points to the fact the government in 1936 passed the Political Uniform Act which prohibited the wearing of clothing associated with certain political groups. The main group to be so coerced was the British Union of Fascists, Sir Oswald Mosley’s hotchpotch of right-wing ‘activists’ who aligned themselves with Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. Other prominent groups to have been affected by such acts include the Klu Klux Klan, The Nazi Brownshirts, The Hitler Youth and the Komsomol of the Russian Communist Party.
Like ‘apartheid’, ‘ghettoisation’ and ‘majority’, democracy is another important word in all of this. The much-branded term ‘rights’ – the right to speech, the right to expression and the right to religion – exist for this very purpose: to ensure that the majority do not forego a minority’s freedom. To ensure that what Mr Roberts purports to do cannot happen. These rights are all-encompassing and universal, at least insofar as they do not encroach on another’s rights. And while he argues it has been done before, there is broad daylight between the two cases. On the one hand a violent and racist group out to preach hatred and hostility, on the other, an introspective, minority religious group who do not seek such enmity. In any case, if we’re going to ban any minority group who wear a distinguishable article of clothing, members of which have actually proven to be of some danger to the public, where are his calls for a ban on the hoodie?
And if it is the order of the day to deal in rash language such as ‘apartheid’ and ‘ghettoisation’ to advocate why the face veil is unnecessary, the case for the other side is just as easily made. For those who oppose the Burka hold up the quasi-suffragette modern liberal label for all to behold. Yet, British feminism in the 21st Century has evolved into something quite different, a defence of the promiscuous, silicone-driven and a ‘take on the lads’ binge drinking culture: a take on feminism that even Truffaut’s free-spirited Catherine of Jules et Jim would frown upon.
Doubtless, my point is heavily exaggerated. But what is interesting is how those who seek to protect liberty forsake it, how those who seek to uphold feminism debase it. In seeking to uphold the rights of women, they are in fact trampled upon.
The point is made by some that those who cover their face do so out of a criminal conviction: the balaclava being the stereotypical image. But the Burka means something else. A woman wearing a face veil idealises one who is brave and courageous, who, far from being intimidating or dangerous or even antisocial, I respect for standing up for her views and beliefs. Yes, there will of course be some who will be forced into observing such garb – but we do not deal brand the whole group based on a few ‘black sheep’.
The problem of women involuntarily wearing the clothing is a problem of culture and crass misogynistic dominance. But to deal with that issue by banning the general clothing is unwise and foolish and ultimately it will prove ineffective. After all, as was pointed out on Question Time, any attempt to reduce the antisocial barrier that results from the face veil will backfire – many will just further retreat into their homes, away from society’s critical eye.
It is the place of the state to ban only those things which go against our common morals, our common values. To declare the wearing of a face veil illegal, it would have to be something so pungent as to warrant being labelled as against the laws of the land. But it does not go against any such values. It is hardly required for me to descend into a historical and cultural synopsis of Britain: we all know of the empire and Britain’s reputation as a global centre for broad-mindedness and diversity that our neighbours across the Channel cannot boast as a quality.
Granted, there are a plethora of reasons why one wouldn’t wear the burka: but individual choices aren’t a pre-requisite to respect. One can hold in esteem the right to wear the face veil whilst also acknowledging they wouldn’t do so themselves.
It’s my continued hope that calls for the banning of the burka disappate, and those making such calls realise the absolute folly of such an appeal. But if the burka were to be outlawed it would lay serious question on the notion that Britain is a multi-cultural, diverse and tolerant society, one which cherishes civil liberties and safeguards the rights of its citizens. Perhaps anyone suggesting the burka is against the values of these islands should re-evaluate their take on the British identity.
Mohamedali Gokal
