Sarkozy takes on Islamic repression
Dear Nicolas Sarkozy,
Today you will make a speech that could spark another ferocious debate over religious symbols and Islam in France. Having caused uproar over your decision to ban any religious symbols in French schools, you are now considering banning the burka and other Islamic clothing which French MPs claim is degrading to women. It is a debate that many other European countries will be watching with some interest, I daresay.
A group of parliamentarians have called for an inquiry into the wearing of the head-to-toe Islamic veil in France and whether Muslim women who cover themselves completely in public constitute an assault on French secularism and women’s rights. In a call that won support from senior figures in Mr Sarkozy’s government, they demanded that a parliamentary commission consider the fate in France of the burka, where the eyes are covered by a fabric mesh, and the niqab, which has an eye slit. While France’s Muslim Council said the proposal “stigmatised” Islam, a commission is now expected to be established on the urging of the group of 65 politicians led by André Gerin, a Communist MP. Many of the 65 MPs are members of Mr Sarkozy’s Right-wing UMP party. Mr Gerin is also mayor of the southern city of Venissieux, which has a high immigrant population and where he complains women cover themselves in “mobile prisons”. “Our politicians need to stop acting so blind,” he said, describing the burka as the mark of Islamic fundamentalism not is tune with secular France. Luc Chatel, a government spokesman, said that all the options were open, including a ban. “If it were determined that wearing the burka is a submissive act, and that it is contrary to republican principles, well naturally parliament would have to drawn the necessary conclusions,” he said. If that meant introducing new legislation, he said, “why not”.
The proposal has already won the support of Fadela Amara, the urban affairs minister and a women’s rights campaigner whose parents were Muslims. “We must do everything to stop burkas from spreading, in the name of democracy, of the republic, of respect for women,” she said, describing the garment as “a kind of tomb for women”. However, Eric Besson, the immigration minister, said that France – home to five million Muslims – had already managed to “strike a balance” between secularism and religious freedoms that it would be “dangerous” to call into question. Mr Besson said that people must feel free to wear what they like in France without fear. Martine Aubry, the head of the Socialist party, warned against “simplistic” responses. “If a law bans the burka, these women will still have [it] but will remain at home; they will no longer be seen,” she said. Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Paris Mosque, said he approved of a commission “on condition that they listen to what the experts on Islam have to say”. Although he linked the burka to fundamentalists, he said many women chose to wear it to assert their Muslim identity in a society they feel is hostile to any type of Islamic headscarf.
First and foremost, you deserve congratulations for even considering this issue. Unfortunately in the UK, no-one can mention the word ‘Islam’ without being accused of racism or lacking cultural awareness or some other complete rubbish. On the issue of Muslim attire, I don’t think there are any laws in Islam which state the women have to wear a burka or niqab. In fact, there seems to be some debate within the Islamic world as to whether they are needed at all – some think they are, some don’t, hence the number of variations in the style of headdresses and outfits. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can complain about headscarves because there are no grounds to claim that women are being victimised in any way, and I’m sure many Muslim women are proud to assert their identity in this way. However, telling women to cover almost their entire bodies in front of men they don’t know is really pushing the boundary. How can this be anything other than an attempt to repress women and their individuality? Obviously the burka is more common in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and I don’t think many people would question the submissive role that women play in such societies. Personally, I have no wish to see such attitudes in any Western country and there is a strong argument to ban the burka and similar attire on these grounds.
You lit the touch paper of anti-Islamic sentiment when you banned religious symbols from schools and banned veils from public offices in France, making this an even braver move. That said, it brings a warm fuzzy feeling to my heart knowing that at least one country in Europe is determined to defend its own values – secularism in particular - in the face of Islamic practices that are clearly not compatible with Western culture. I wish you all the best and I can only hope that a future Conservative government takes a similar stance if and when they come to office next year.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
“Mr Besson said that people must feel free to wear what they like in France without fear. “
It’s a tricky one. I fully support the right of the French government to impose a ‘no burqas in public schools’ policy, and wish it would be imposed here too.
But Mr Besson is right; banning its use in the street is going far too far, and imposing on freedom. Even if these women are being coerced into it by their menfolk…
This is why mass immigration is so dangerous. A great many of us think that the Burqa is a tool to promote the power of men over women, and it certainly has the effect of rendering women possesions of ther families as they will find it almost impossible to meet anyone from any other culture but their own. But we are restricted from saying so. Why?
If immigrants are allowed to settle into the UK, surely the object must be to assimilate their culture. The burqa is in direct opposition to that ideal. I find the idea that any culture should chose to come to the UK in large numbers and then isolate members of its population an abhorrence.
I have to agree LFAT, that having read the Koran, I found very little to suggest that the Burqa is central to religion. (I found a lot of passages which allude to expansionism and smiting infidels, but that’s another discussion perhaps). We should certainly be banning this mode of dress from airports, public offices, educational establishments and other places where it may create a barrier or security risk.
But this goes to the heart of the larger issue, as to why we have allowed the parts of the muslim community to seperate itself from mainstream society in many places, and concerns not just dress but the running of Mosques and ‘Islaminc Schools’ and how far the state should regulate the spread of teachings which are ‘anti British’.
The French have shown amazing courage in their dealings with such ideas, for once we should follow their lead and openly discuss these things here without fear of rebuke or censorship.
The burkha and nijab should be banned completely in the West. I have known of a couple of cases where women have been forced into wearing them (and still are)..
They are demeaning to women and not part of our traditions and customs. Living here in Spain, I am only too painfully aware of the need to integrate and fit in with the indigenous population and not to do things that cause offence if I want to live amongst them.
I am of the belief that if you move to a country and intend to stay permanently, that you integrate, after all, if a Briton decided to reside in an Islamic country, aren’t the women expected to cover up as a mark of respect?
The West needs to be a place of libery, freedom and sanctuary for all that want to escape dictatorial and totalitarian regimes. It should not adopt practises which encourage that sort of behaviour!
“The burkha and nijab should be banned completely in the West. I have known of a couple of cases where women have been forced into wearing them…”
Do you accept that that may be only a small proportion of women, or that there may be others for whom it’s their choice?
“I am of the belief that if you move to a country and intend to stay permanently, that you integrate…”
Difficult to do, if you try to ‘integrate’ with the UK belief that no one may tell you how you should dress (outside of work requirements and public nudity laws) and then they tell you that your choice isn’t valid, because some may not have chosen it themselves…
I agree with Sue. I think that the Burkha and Niqab should be primarily banned in the west – at least in such places as schools and places of work. Too many allowances and exceptions are made for these people, who refuse, at all levels, to respect our values and customs.
Julia, I understand personal freedom but allowing a religion to encourage women to be subservient is surely illegal?
Tony E, no part of society should EVER be allowed to separate itself out from the mainstream – no religion, no ethnic group, no immigrants, no-one.
Sue, your point about freedom and liberty is interesting because, as Julia points out, an individual should in theory be allowed to wear whatever they want. That said, if someone is wearing something because someone (or a religion) infringed their liberty, the situation is different.
Tory Poppins, that’s what you get with Labour – appeasement rather than any hint of standing up for this country.
“Julia, I understand personal freedom but allowing a religion to encourage women to be subservient is surely illegal?”
Under what law? Even Harperson wouldn’t dare touch that one!
It’s a case of where you draw the line. Limits have to be placed on even a democratic society or there would be no rule of law.
The west is a democracy, if you want to live in a theocracy, you should move to somewhere where it is the way of life.
This is ridiculous. You can’t ban clothing! Sumptuary laws, in our supposedly modern, free societies?
It’s certainly the right of an employer, for instance, to specify the clothing their employees wear, and not just on elfinsafety grounds- an employer may wish their customer-facing employees to present a certain image, for instance a smart business suit in a profession or degrading multicoloured terylene in the fast food industry or a visible face for a teacher. Certainly the state should not require in these situations that employers must accept their employees’ preferred clothing.
But you cannot and should not make a law regarding what people may wear in their private lives, and it is shameful to even contemplate it. We all wear a “uniform” to indicate to the world what “social” groups we identify with, for instance the huge range of fashions associated with music and yoof culture such as goth.
These women shroud themselves in burlap because they consider themselves part of this particular religious grouping. If a society decides it wants millions of members of this religious grouping to live in it- which has been a conscious decision of European governments- it is then absurd to attempt to deny their expression of that. They believe in a different role for women to that preferred by most white westerners- though one can also see that it is only a stronger form of the attitude to women expressed by “moral majority” fundamentalist christians, or the likes of the Amish, who insist on women wearing “modest” clothing of antiquated design. We don’t have a tradition of female face covering in the west, but we certainly have a tradition of considering womens clothing to be a moral matter and only recently have we adopted a social policy of “clothing freedom”; a hundred years ago it would have been impossible for a woman to walk the streets with her legs on display, let alone wear a bikini.
So this law is ridiculous. If you want to clear the burqas from our streets, you must change the mind of their wearers (and the minds of their menfolk). However any consistent attempt to do so is condemned as “Islamophobia” by the same elites handwringing about the burlap shrouds. Inconsistency, much?
The reality is, if the controls on immigration that most of the ignored masses of Europe would have preferred had been in place, there would be no “issue” to discuss.
Banning the hijab is not the best way to combat the mentality which makes women put it on in the first place. I too think it is a vile instrument of oppression- I was mighty glad to see those Iranian girls not wearing them.
You can promote women’s rights by ruthlessly punishing those who commit crimes such as wife-beating & “honour” killings, by putting our feet down on the issue of “faith” schools of any kind, a fully secular state (which is why I agree with banning it in schools & possibly for communication with MPs & that), by promoting economic prosperity, & by generally getting the majority of Muslims to reject such impositions. Of course, the mood within the Muslim “community” is far less liberal than I would want it to be, but a blanket ban on certain articles of clothing won’t help anyone.
It probably was a mistake to import so many people from the most backward parts of the world, in the first place. We should restrict further immigration. But it is also to be noted that many recent immigrants are leaving theocracies & are happy that they are moving to a basically secular liberal state & glad of the freedoms we offer. (Just imagine if we offered asylum to a few thousand Iranian dissidents who could give the likes of Rowan Williams, George Galloway, Salman Rushdie etc a piece of their mind).
I understand Sarkozy’s sentiments but he is really going about things the wrong way. If these women sit at home, more oppressed than ever, no one will be the gainer. The best way is to have a civil war within Islam in which the liberal elements prevail & the reactionaries are left stranded, because encouraging a siege mentality will just make them turn in on themselves.
Encouraging a woman to be subserviant is illegal? I can imagine the sub/doms of this world will be horrified at that!
Battling religious authoritarianism with the secular kind? Wrongheaded and doomed to fail, it’s unworkable, unrealistic and totally fails to deal with the underlying issue of sexist abuse prevalent in many Islamic cultures.
Will this reduce the number of Muslim women seeking refuge from abusive husbands? Tackle forced marriage and honour killings? Attire isn’t a problem, and banning burqas and niquabs will do nothing but give people a warm feeling that “they’re doing something” or to those with the inability to live and live
Julia, you’re probably right, although Harriet doesn’t usually let common sense get in her way.
Sue and Ian, I think that banning things in the street would be impossible and unjustifiable, but I suspect that Sarkozy will ban things in public offices – as he did with veils not long ago. This would obviously give him more leeway in terms of personal freedoms while still driving home his agenda.
Julia, I understand personal freedom but allowing a religion to encourage women to be subservient is surely illegal?
Really LFAT? Because you seemed okay with allowing the religious to promulgate their homophobic bigotry…
I’m with Sarko on this one. The secular state must trump any and all religious sentiments. If it doesn’t then sooner or later one religion will gain the upper hand and put itself in control. Catholic Ireland and Franco’s Spain show how this has happened in Europe in the 20th C.
IN any event, as I understand it, Islam calls for women to be ‘modestly’ dressed and the niqab and burka are cultural artifacts from the Arabs and not a core part of the Koran. So a ban on a cultural artifact that we believe is oppressing women is fine – women who argue in favour of it presumably demonstrate what the Marxists call ‘false consciousness’ and are effectively brainwashed into believing that their imprisonment makes them free.
Typical authoritarianism from Sarkozy and you LFAT – let’s deal with the symptom rather than the cause. How very New Labour.
If women want to cover themselves who are you to tell them not to? Next you’ll be banning low-slung jeans on the grounds that seeing people’s pants isn’t very nice. It isn’t but who does it harm?
Here we go. When liberal secularism finally gets some backbone to stand up to the religious, it’s called ‘authoritarian’ and when it doesn’t, its a traitor to the west. That’s a perfect catch-22.
When behaviour threatens to undermine the basis of a society, that society is clearly entitled to curb that behaviour. Now with France’s secular society wanting to maintain that secularism, in the teeth of opposition from the crazy Muslims and usual Catholics plus assorted other Sky Fairy Worshippers, they are taking steps to curb a behaviour which they believe threatens both the secular underpinning of their state and the equality of women. Sometimes liberalism isn’t about saying ‘yes’ to everything. Sometimes its about saying ‘no’ in order to preserve greater freedoms.
“So a ban on a cultural artifact that we believe is oppressing women is fine…”
Banning it where? Schools, public service roles, agreed.
In the streets and in private company employment – not agreed!
BE, Shaun beat me to it. My point is that by allowing women to be paraded around in a subservient manner, it is their liberty that is being infringed. Protecting liberty is surely something that even the most libertarian government would support? Low-slung jeans is a poor comparison to make in the circumstances.
Obsidian, same point again. This isn’t about being seen to be doing something – it’s about doing something that’s bloody important. No Western society that cherishes the role of women and supports individual freedom would allow people to be told by their community (religious or otherwise) that they have to cover almost their entire bodies when even their holy book makes no such demands. It’s called repression and I don’t like it.
“Here we go. When liberal secularism finally gets some backbone to stand up to the religious, it’s called ‘authoritarian’…”
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
“…they are taking steps to curb a behaviour…”
But that’s the point. You aren’t. You are choosing to ban an item of clothing.
As asquith points out, there are far, far better ways to combat the underlying idealogy without invoking new, authoritarian laws to die in a ditch over an article of clothing…
I’d say that a ban in the streets is vital for the following reason. If some women from the Muslim community go out in public in their black bags then that creates social pressure on non-compliant Muslim women to conform to that standard and ‘be a better Muslim’. This is the insidious nature of self-aggrandising acts of conspicuous faith. Its not just about the woman wearing the bin liner but about other women who will come under far more pressure to conform to that standard. The wearing in public, I contend, constitutes a pretty severe form of bullying and peer-pressure designed to force more women into servility (whether they recognise it or not).
I’m with Sarko on this one. The secular state must trump any and all religious sentiments. If it doesn’t then sooner or later one religion will gain the upper hand and put itself in control.
A secular state is not an atheist or agnostic state. It is a state which does not interfere in citizen’s personal religious choices so long as those do not involve the breaking of the general law. In a secular state, religion is a private, not public matter. We abandon that principle at our peril.
IN any event, as I understand it, Islam calls for women to be ‘modestly’ dressed and the niqab and burka are cultural artifacts from the Arabs and not a core part of the Koran.
That may be true, but it’s not a matter for government or “society” to decide on the correct interpretation of religious tracts. One only has to look at Christian history to see the numerous different and conflicting interpretations of the Bible held by various christian groupings and sects. There is a common error here, when people look at the Koran (or any other such text) and declare that it means this, or means that, so any other interpretation is false. You cannot do this. It means to an individual whatever that individual interprets it to mean. Look at Christian differences over such crucial matters as predestination, for instance, or whether the Bible condemns homosexuality, or whehter that Old Testament lawbook was abolished by Christ’s new covenant.
women who argue in favour of it presumably demonstrate what the Marxists call ‘false consciousness’ and are effectively brainwashed into believing that their imprisonment makes them free.
Once one believes in false consciousness, no privately held opinion is safe. Our modern intrusive state is largely based on a belief in false consciousness by our elites and desires to remake us, free of false consciousness. Indeed, everyone who is conservative, libertarian or otherwise non-lefty is considered to be a victim of false consciousness. Which is bollocks.
“No Western society that cherishes the role of women and supports individual freedom would allow people to be told by their community (religious or otherwise) that they have to cover almost their entire bodies when even their holy book makes no such demands. It’s called repression and I don’t like it. “
I want no part of any ‘Western society that cherishes the role of women’ yet seeks to decide what they can and cannot wear in their own free time. How is that any different from what you criticise the mullahs for?
And ‘I don’t like something’ should never, ever be reason for public policy.
Julia, I’d be furious if dealing with attire is done in isolation from addressing other concerns with religious authoritarianism – forced marriages being a classic example. No doubt I’ll be writing a letter on that issue at some point!!
Julia,
I want no part of any ‘Western society that cherishes the role of women’ yet seeks to decide what they can and cannot wear in their own free time. How is that any different from what you criticise the mullahs for?
This is the rub. As with forced marriages, its about the clothing being not an entirely free choice, but one stemming from cultural pressure, religious pressure and, as people don their wee black bags, peer pressure. This makes a truly free choice impossible.
In the last respect, it is vaguely equivalent to what the mullahs want; they seek to subjugate women using cultural attire associated with Arabian Islam and quite rightly, liberal society wants that blocked. And remember, Julia, that they want ALL women to dress like that with no free choice at all in order to create a society where women are second class citizens, like in Saudi Arabia. Which is why this insidious assault on secular values has to be opposed.
Obsidian & Blue Eyes are right, this is a cack-handed attack on the symptom rather than the cause.
If these women never left the house at all, would the fact that burqas were no longer worn in the street be viewed as a “success”?
You will not free a single person in this way, you will deal with Islamist oppression in the ways I described above.
I’ve very rarely observed anyone in a burqa & even headscarves are quite rare. In fact, all the Muslims I know (allowing for the fact that these are slightly better educated & more liberal than the majority, but only slightly) are indistinguishable from non-Muslims apart from the fact that they don’t drink or have sex outside marriage, & while I think they’re missing out it hardly portends the end of the world.
I have long suspected that many self-styled Muslims are essentially atheists, something which I fully support, obviously. But they identify as Muslim in the same way that almost everyone in Ulster will claim to be either “Protestants” or “Catholic”, & there are so many “Jews” & “Church of England” members living here who are identifying culturally & ethnically rather than religiously.
My thinking is that, despite being secular, assimilated & liberal, they will still wince whenever they hear things like this because they think of themselves as Muslims, just as anti-Catholic discrimination would upset those who identify as Catholics despite having no religious beliefs.
We should leave it to the sharia supporters to make the claim that they’re all the same & don’t know any better & are barbarians to be written off by the west. Our own way is to treat them as individuals who are more than capable of throwing off religious & other oppression for themselves.
Do we still not realise that ham-fisted state “action” for its own sakes does not produce the results we want? I agree with the sentiments, & I’m not under any illusions as to what the hijab means, but more intelligent ways to address the problem can be found surely.
This is the rub. As with forced marriages, its about the clothing being not an entirely free choice, but one stemming from cultural pressure, religious pressure and, as people don their wee black bags, peer pressure. This makes a truly free choice impossible.
The problem is, you cannot and should not fix this with legislation. We all of us live in a sea of pressures from our peers. The point is, in a free western society (oh, if only they existed, let’s pretend!) you have the greatest freedom of all, which is to move away. If you’re the only gay in the village, you can get on a train and move to the city to be among people more suited to your lifestyle. A muslim girl can escape the enclave with a bus ticket.
It is thus right for the society to provide legal mechanisms to prevent persecution as best it can- that is, that it should not be legal to force anyone to do anything against their will. And in theory, it isn’t. One problem is that the current multi-culti elite kowtowing to prevent “offence” often leads to collaboration with the nasty people in these various “communities”. We can and should fix that. A muslim woman in the UK or France has the right to escape her enclave, just like the only gay in the village. And the children of muslims have the same right as any child to not be mutilated, nor forced into a marriage. It is the duty of the state- perhaps its only duty- to uphold the right of consent for every citizen.
But ultimately that is all we can do. We cannot force change by trying to impose values, especially by blunt instruments such as a sumptuary law.
The problem is, you cannot and should not fix this with legislation.
That depends how you look at it. I personally consider that we in the West are, and have been since at least 1993, in a conflict with expansionist, totalitarian parts of Islam. When you are fighting such a conflict, then pretty much all means are on the table – including legislating to stop the kind of self-aggrandising public statements of faith that are designed as much to intimidate Westerners as to oppress their own women and force a more ‘conservative’ consensus in their communities, thereby creating the right environment for the recruitment of more active Jihadis.
Oddly enough, how people dress is something legislation can really easily fix, on the whole. Sure, nutty american laws about how low your jeans hang are pointlessly unenforceable but its clear as day whether or not you are wearing a black bag. And if you don’t think that there’s a feedback between how people dress and social attitudes then I suggest you read a history of women’s hemlines from 1870 to present and chart that against how involved they could be in society – from having to ride side saddle due to skirts through to rising hemlines creating a spirit of sexual liberation at least as strong as that of the Pill in the 1960s. The mullahs know this – Iran knows this – its what they have religious police for in the ME!
It is, I’m afraid, a ‘war’ we’re in. The militant muslims think its a war and, unlike dancing, one party can tango just fine. That means that sometimes things like this, are much more multidimensional than they first appear and therefore must actually be treated seriously.
“As with forced marriages, its about the clothing being not an entirely free choice…”
That may, or may not be true. But even for the ones for whom is it true, you cannot fix this by denying them the clothing in the first place. You will merely cement their beliefs that the WEst is to be feared and hated.
You don’t fight repression with repression.
“And remember, Julia, that they want ALL women to dress like that with no free choice at all…”
They aren’t going to get their wish here. Ever. So why give them more ammunition by raising this as a serious concern?
Julia@but that’s the point. You aren’t. You are choosing to ban an item of clothing.
This government saw fit to ban “hoodies” though for the simple reason that the people wearing them were unidentifiable!
Crimes have been committed wearing hijabs! In particular one jewellery shop in Scotland was robbed!
If I had a shop and I banned hijabs and hoodies for that reason, would I be called racist?
These hijabs are derogatory to women and should be banned DEFINITELY!
“This government saw fit to ban “hoodies” though for the simple reason that the people wearing them were unidentifiable!”
They have…? Where? I can look out of the window right now and see several.
“Crimes have been committed wearing hijabs! “
Yup, and totally agree with private companies setting their own rules for service, if identification is an issue. No-one’s complaining about the ‘remove your crash helmet’ signs in banks, are they?
But regulating what women can wear in their own free time is just going too far. And will be counterproductive with the very audience that you want to reach.
Then you are condoning a form of separatism which will eventually cause trouble in western societies. I still maintain that if you move to a country, you integrate, not segregate.
As for freedom of speech and liberty, much of what Islam has brought with it, has curtailed OUR liberty and freedom of speech and is therefore counterproductive.
I suppose I feel that strongly because as I have said, I know a couple of girls who are forced to wear them and there is nothing they can do about it or they would have to face the anger of their husbands.
The full hijab should be banned. There is nothing in the Islamic religion that says they have to wear the full kit. All the muslim women here in the town where I live just wear a headscarf outside.
The Labour Government did attempt to ban hoodies in public when Tony Blair was in power.
Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life
Women in Afghanistan will tell you what a struggle it is to get equality with their men.
THE SAME IS HAPPENING IN THE UK! It’s extremist Islam that is the problem!
You are condoning a life of servitude and submission for women if you do not outlaw the hijab and burkha. They are symbols of men’s dominance over women.
I have just thought that of all the commentors here, none is a Muslim & none (least of all me) actually thinks wearing a hijab is a good idea, we just disagree over the best means of opposing the mentality that leads to it being put on.
I wonder if anyone will argue from the other side. Perhaps your pal Iftikhar will be joining us?
I suppose I feel that strongly because as I have said, I know a couple of girls who are forced to wear them and there is nothing they can do about it or they would have to face the anger of their husbands.
Then in a free society, they have to balance their preference for clothing choice with their preference for a marriage that denies them that choice. If they decide on balance to stay in the marriage, that is the decision they must live with.
It is similar to, say, a woman married to a fanatical vegetarian who would like to be able to eat meat, but her husband forbids her. She must either leave the marriage to regain her bacon sandwich rights, or attempt to renegotiate the terms of the marriage relationship, or put up with the marriage on the terms it offers. The state cannot intervene to impose conditions on their marriage. All marriages include such restrictions to some degree. The trick is to find somebody whose moral opinions are compatible with one’s own. Before getting married.
The truth is, women in the ummah enclaves in western countries who do not want to be part of that environment need to leave it. That may not be emotionally easy. But getting out of bad situations is something many, many people need to do at times. If you want to live a modern lifestyle and you’re married to a religious lunatic you have to decide between them.
I will admit, I would love to see tens of thousands of women turning their backs on this mediaeval piffle. It would be a far greater challenge to fundamentalism than all our “security” and military policies and far more than the state trying to appease it. But the women are going to have to do that. We can’t achieve anything by trying to step in and make living in a theocratic enclave slightly more tolerable, beyond proper enforcement of the laws we already have.
I had posted a long comment that didn’t appear possibly I used the word s*xism and fell foul of a contant filter but this is starting to annoy me as the oversensitivity of the filter is rubbing up against the nature of the topics we are discussing!
“I still maintain that if you move to a country, you integrate, not segregate. “
And one of the principles of this country is that women are free to wear (in public) what they wish.
“As for freedom of speech and liberty, much of what Islam has brought with it, has curtailed OUR liberty and freedom of speech…”
Actually, our own craven politicians and toadying progressives have done that! Not the religion itself.
“The Labour Government did attempt to ban hoodies in public when Tony Blair was in power. “
Another failed attempt. And for good reason.
“You are condoning a life of servitude and submission for women if you do not outlaw the hijab and burkha. “
No, I’m upholding the principle that (barring modesty and safety laws) anyone may wear what they wish in public.
As Ian B points out, the choice is up to them. Hijab or husband. We don’t help them by making ourselves less free.
Needless worrying for everyone. Once Sharia law is fully implemented in the UK, it will be a moot point.
Joking aside, France should be commended for ‘taking a stand’. The Islamic community have no interest in integrating with western societies (from their viewpoint, integrating with what – a society who’s values are often at odds with those of your faith?) and being honest about this fact (government – are you listening?) is the necessary starting point before looking at ways of dealing with the situations where the values of one are incompatible with the values of the other.
For anyone interested in how Islam spreads itself in non-Islamic countries, read up on Da’Wa (Islamic proselytation) and understand that the strategies of Da’Wa are well underfoot in the UK.
And one of the principles of this country is that women are free to wear (in public) what they wish.
My post basically pointed out that this is true, to a point. But when your wearing an article of clothing is an expressed stepping stone of Islamists to create an atmosphere where women feel obliged to wear it because of cultural and peer pressure, then bluntly it’s a warlike assault on the liberal and liberated values we allegedly base our society on. We could cave in to their
superstitioninterpretation of their religion but this will create an atmosphere of muslim conservatism conducive to further Jihadi recruitment (remember the botched attacks on London nightclubs and the radicals moaning about ’slags’?) and further attacks on our society. That is their expressed goal and they use the Burka and liberal guilt about using the word ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ to press their agenda home.These people are not idiots. They have looked at our societies in the ‘free’ world and explicitly set out to use our structures against us. This may look like its about women’s clothing but actually it is part of a multi-dimensional conflict and that is why if you truly love liberty and freedom, it must be resisted. The ‘normalisation’ of women in bin bags will, ultimately, lead to a larger conservative-Jihadi base.
And one of the principles of this country is that women are free to wear (in public) what they wish.
My post basically pointed out that this is true, to a point. But when your wearing an article of clothing is an expressed stepping stone of Islamists to create an atmosphere where women feel obliged to wear it because of cultural and peer pressure, then bluntly it’s a warlike assault on the liberal and liberated values we allegedly base our society on.
We could cave in to their
superstitioninterpretation of their religion but this will create an atmosphere of muslim conservatism conducive to further Jihadi recruitment (remember the botched attacks on London nightclubs and the radicals moaning about ’sl*gs’?) and further attacks on our society. That is their expressed goal and they use the Burka and liberal guilt about using the word ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ to press their agenda home.These people are not idiots. They have looked at our societies in the ‘free’ world and explicitly set out to use our structures against us. This may look like its about women’s clothing but actually it is part of a multi-dimensional conflict and that is why if you truly love liberty and freedom, it must be resisted. The ‘normalisation’ of women in bin bags will, ultimately, lead to a larger conservative-Jihadi base.
We could cave in to their
superstitioninterpretation of their religion but this will create an atmosphere of muslim conservatism conducive to further Jihadi recruitment (remember the botched attacks on London nightclubs and the radicals moaning about ’slags’?) and further attacks on our society. That is their expressed goal and they use the Burka and liberal guilt about using the word ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ to press their agenda home.This is such a stupid argument. The pro-ban people are doing the classic thing of “fight fire with fire” which is a total nonsense. You don’t beat oppression by oppressing back. You beat oppression by winning the argument. Of course the women should not be forced to wear clothing they don’t wish to. But nobody should be banned from wearing anything in public. You won’t persuade men to stop oppressing their wives by banning their wives from covering their faces.
It’s the same argument that the BNP uses: whites are being disadvantaged (so they say) so we want to disadvantage everyone else to regain the balance. It’s nasty and dangerous.
Obsidian, same point again. This isn’t about being seen to be doing something – it’s about doing something that’s bloody important. No Western society that cherishes the role of women and supports individual freedom would allow people to be told by their community (religious or otherwise) that they have to cover almost their entire bodies when even their holy book makes no such demands. It’s called repression and I don’t like it.
individual freedom also includes the freedom to subsume yourself, if people wish to do so what right have you to deny that? We have laws enough to stop people being forced, and when it comes to communal pressure laws have little to no effect.
I bet everyone on this thread has opinions and prejudices forged by their family and community, would you like the government to meddle in those?
Law and order originated from what communities felt were right and wrong, much of which was religiously mandated, or interpretated as gods word. If we struck off the laws based on such things, I wonder if many laws you agree with would remain?
“wwhen your wearing an article of clothing is an expressed stepping stone”
How is this different from the clothing expectations in Western society? Business suits, skirts, ties, hoodies. Every item of clothing carries a “message” that is the point of it. Is the answer for us all to wear Mao suits 24/7?
As an aside, I’d also point many things regarded as Islamic are actually cultural rather than ecumenical, so targetting the religion is doubly wrong – it’s not even the correct target.
This is such a stupid argument. The pro-ban people are doing the classic thing of “fight fire with fire” which is a total nonsense. You don’t beat oppression by oppressing back. You beat oppression by winning the argument.
Nonsense.
If as you advocate you permit the use of Burkas then I guarantee you that you will increase the death-grip of Wahibiist, Jihahi Islam through fostering such a conservative attitude the kids growing up in that community will honestly feel that our women are sl*gs, ‘meat’ and that we all are therefore dirty.
But nobody should be banned from wearing anything in public. You won’t persuade men to stop oppressing their wives by banning their wives from covering their faces.
To be honest I care less about the already oppressed than about easily and readily stopping the encroachment of that oppression into new families. Its always easier to stop an infection than to cure the infected.
The wearing of political uniforms is illegal in a large number of countries (including the UK) because of the allure and cachet that people like Hugo Boss managed to give the Nazis…
Dressing your militant expansionist political uniform in ‘women’s rights’ or ‘religion’ is no excuse, frankly.
As an aside, I’d also point many things regarded as Islamic are actually cultural rather than ecumenical, so targetting the religion is doubly wrong – it’s not even the correct target.
Depends how you look at it, Obsidian.
If any of my comments ever pass the filter/moderation then you’ll see that I argue that while this may well be cultural rather than religious, it is the thin end of the wedge that Islamists are using to condition their OWN communities in order to create an environment conducive to the recruitment of more Jihadis.
It is a fact that France has no more pressing problems that this burka business, which only affects a small number of people…
It is of nobody’s business what people wear for their religious beliefs. I find that retarded, but it is mostly their choice.
I also disagree with a lot of commenters who automatically assume that the wearers are automatically forced. My understanding is that the majority wears it by choice.
Finally, how stupid is it, as a ban would really mean: “you are forced to wear this, so we’re going to force you not to wear it”
Notwithstanding the supreme irony that it is presented by a communist!
Meanwhile, the budget deficit in France is edging towards 300Bn euros…
300bn euros? Wow, that’s a wee bit larger than Gordon has managed.
It is of nobody’s business what people wear for their religious beliefs. I find that retarded, but it is mostly their choice.
Hmm. Lets rephrase that for a moment and see how you feel:
It is of nobody’s business what people wear for their political beliefs. I find that retarded, but it is mostly their choice.
So would you repeal the Public Order Act 1936, since presumably you think that time has passed? And if not, what’s the difference between expressly politicised religion and a political party? And how do groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-islami fit into that?
You’re not thinking widely enough. You are taking claims of ‘religious dress’ as verbatim and yet it’s not supported. Its a cultural artifact of the arabs – their retarded view of ‘modesty’. Its designed to promote a family mindset conducive to producing people who will want to kill us, to kill our wives and daughters and sisters for clubbing or being ’sl*gs’. And yes, it needs to be fought.
If that fighting, in a secular state such as France, results in the diminishing of what some (but not all) adherents view as a ‘right’ then so be it.
And, while people are getting het up about their religions: Would you still support their rights if we were arguing about female circumcision (as some African muslims argue)? Or more fancifully about the sacrifice of a first born Son?
Additionally, for those who weren’t paying attention in the early 1990s when I (and others) were fighting the first wave of islamist incursion in the UK, you should be aware that what happens in France has thus far had a massive impact on this country.
The reason we got people like Abu Hamza and the rest is because in the early 1990s, France threw out its islamists. They came to the UK and rather than deal with them our Intel headshed decided on ‘the covenant’ in which we’d let them live and operate here provided that they didn’t attack the UK. We’d gain by watching them. You, and the rest of the world, can now benefit from how wonderfully well that worked out…
Shaun, your arguments regarding wahabbi/deobandi/whatevi Islam are entirely valid, but I would suggest not entirely pertinent to this discussion. While many (including myself) would agree that hijab and niqab and why the frot do we all know these damnable words now? are expressions of a political Islam and are being used deliberately to further it, the greater problem of how the west should respond to it are not addressed by something as simple as a clothing ban. THe problem, as pointed out by the ever-wise JuliaM, is the general behaviuor and policies promulgated by our political class. WIthout the progressivist hegemony, Islam would simply cease to be a problem. It is a problem created by progressivism.
Without collaboration by our governments and their enormous halo of “contracted out government”, fundie Islam would become again waht it is- a bunch of disorganised nutcases without a hope in heck of winning anything but derision, ridicule and, if they got a bit too uppity, some daisycutters.
Trying to fix them by banning one outward expression of a loony belief system isn’t going to achieve anything, and would likely just give them another sympathy lever. They would deliberately flout the ban in order to get demonstrably more “oppressed”. You may as well think you can defeat n*zi*sm by banning sw*st*k*s.[1]
The problem is, we in our supposedly liberal free democracies have developed a political class directly opposed to our interests and who are actively promoting a disastrously wrongheaded reinvention of our societies. That is the problem, and it is to that we need to find a solution. We cannot promote western values to muslim women when our own hegemonic class despise them. We cannot champion western values of individual freedom when our own hegemonic class seek to impose this strange collectivist serfdom.
Our own leaders are against us. We need to fix that, not start a war on clothing.
[1] Trying to avoid the overly sensitive filter thar.
“This is such a stupid argument. The pro-ban people are doing the classic thing of “fight fire with fire” which is a total nonsense. “
Well, actually, you DO ‘fight fire with fire’. By burning a controlled area ahead of the fire and thereby denying it fuel…
But I know what you mean! And yes, I take the point that Shaun and Sue are trying to make – the rise of political Islmam is something to be fought against, no question.
Just not like this…
Monoi, I’m sure France has other more pressing issues to deal with!!!
Ob and BE, you are of course absolutely right that society places pressure on us to behave / conform in certain ways all the time. This is part of human nature. However, no-one is being singled out for special treatment in such instances – we all feel it. Women being ever so politely requested to wear attire that – by Western standards – demonstrates their subservience (and, arguably their inferiority) is NOT the same as a general conforming to societal standards.
And might I add that Shaun’s example of genital mutilation is a fascinating one – a religion expecting their women to ‘conform’ in a way that flies in the face of Western values and standards. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the burka doesn’t even have anything to do with the Quran – it is purely a means of men maintaining control over Muslim women. In Western society, women should never be treated like this and that is why the burka has to go. What if a family harrasses or pressures their young children into a forced marriage to the point where the child agrees? Is that acceptable? Is that liberty? No, it is another example of why ‘we have to let people make their own choices’ is simply not adequate when you have people being repressed and coerced in a way that Western society does not recognise.
But I know what you mean! And yes, I take the point that Shaun and Sue are trying to make – the rise of political Islmam is something to be fought against, no question.
Just not like this…
I would demur from your conclusion because in a genuine ‘war of cultures’ and not a US-style ‘culture war’ (the latter being broadly external while the latter an internal debate about what you culture should be), you fight every way that makes sense. Striking at the encroachment of a vanguard that will promote a restrictive, subservient view of women and their role in society is as valid as shooting Jihadis attacking an airport. Both are designed to increase recruitment on the one hand and promote fear and a sense of their inevitable, inexorable victory on the other.
On a personal note, the reason why I was one of the first to fight Hizb’ut in the 1990s is the same one that motivates me to back Sarko in this: my family fought with the IRA in the war against Britain for liberation and in the civil war and I recognise a cell structure, encroachment and a ‘hearts and minds’ op in a way others don’t. I, like the ideal Jihadi, was born and raised in that culture tho being me, drew a different conclusion to most while carrying that knowledge with me. Trust me when I say that this is about creating a recruitment environment as much as if I said that were it up to me I’d insist that women under a size 12 could only wear bikinis in public between June and September.
Which is, of course, why I should never run anything!
@Shaun Pilkington –
Im not sure what you are trying to demonstrate. You amalgamate everything, all the while ignoring the big flaw in your argument: you have not demonstrated that women wearing those clothes are forced to do so. It might be the case in some instances, but it is certainly not the case in all of them. Some people who seem to know what they are talking about actually think that the majority do it by choice.
So to stop them from doing it, you want to force them to do against their will?!? Where exactly are the values you are defending then?
Your contradiction is glaring. Methinks I am not the one thinking widely enough.
By the way, this doesn’t mean that I do not think that fundamentalist islam should be stopped. Just that this type of action is counterproductive, because it is out of proportion, inappropriate and liberticide.
Mentioning circumcision or first born sacrifice is just neither here nor there.
The deficit might not reach 300bn euros, I think it is about 285bn announced (state 115Bn, local authorities 140Bn, and social security 30Bn) announced by woerth, and the same for 2010. It would be amazing if the reality was lower. Darling anoounced £175Bn, it seems that we are well on our way passed £200Bn…
Personally, those numbers worry me a great deal more than what 15000 women should wear or not.
Shaun you are making exactly the mistake I said you were. You say: if it’s OK to ban political uniforms, then it’s OK to ban religious uniforms. I didn’t even know that political uniforms were banned. They need not be. So what if people wander around in Nazi uniforms, more fool them.
You are saying that all wearers of the head dresses are forced to and that the law should be used to un-force them. You are saying it is perfectly acceptable to curtail people’s freedoms in order to protect people’s freedoms. It just doesn’t make sense. How on Earth can you fight oppression by oppressing people?
If people want to be Wahabiist or militantly Islamic then who cares? Why should people not have their own opinion/religion/politics that are different to yours? It goes to show how insecure people are about their own opinions that they seek to curtail the freedom of others to express and persuade people of theirs.
I have no problem with people wearing anything to express their opinion. I wouldn’t mind people wearing a pro-EU t-shirt or a pro-US t-shirt or a pro-Nazi t-shirt. But I would laugh at two out of three of those people for being morons. It is everyone’s freedom to be stupid and make mistakes.
“What if a family harrasses or pressures their young children into a forced marriage to the point where the child agrees?”
Two completely different situations. Until a child reaches maturity (16 in our law) then the parent cannot be allowed to force them to do anything like get married or have surgery in that way. Once a person is an adult then it is their responsibility to throw off the shackles of oppression. Don’t like the way your husband forces you to wear covering clothing? Leave him.
Okay BE, here we go:
Shaun you are making exactly the mistake I said you were. You say: if it’s OK to ban political uniforms, then it’s OK to ban religious uniforms. I didn’t even know that political uniforms were banned. They need not be. So what if people wander around in Nazi uniforms, more fool them.
As I have now repeatedly said, it’s about creating an ATMOSPHERE. the Nazis wore uniforms, orginally, out of office, to create an impression that they were a disciplined force. That they could be relied on. My argument is that Islamists, supporters, sympathises and fellow travellers plus unthinking Dupes are arguing that wearing a Burka is just about that woman’s clothing choice. I argue that it is about creating an atmostphere; in the broader society it is one that says we are here and we think you are dirty and should not see us, inside their communtities it is one that says ‘we are more pious, love and honor ‘God’ more and are morally and religiously better than you’.
If people want to be Wahabiist or militantly Islamic then who cares?
I care passionately that my freedoms and liberties should be preservered (minimally) and ideally maximised. I therefore oppose and have every right (and failing that, ability) to resist those who want to subjugate those freedoms to their Sky Fairy inspired views. I drink alcohol and do derive extra pleasure from knowing that simple act annoys the overly devout almost as much as having a shave in the morning.
Additionally I understand, as you do not appear to, that the Burka is fundamentally about imposing a conservative, and pro-Jihadi, viewpoint upon the Muslim community (and beyond). Their goal is to make their ghettos so restrictive that when their kids grow up and look at our wider society of pole dancing and bikinis and nightclubs and alcohol and be so alienated that violence is the answer and Jihad is the mode. Like the Catholic church, these lads are playing the long game. Shrouding women is a vital step towards promulgating their viewpoint and bolstering their numbers among the upcoming generations.
“I would demur from your conclusion because in a genuine ‘war of cultures’ and not a US-style ‘culture war’ (the latter being broadly external while the latter an internal debate about what you culture should be), you fight every way that makes sense.”
I agree with you. This way doesn’t make sense. It, in fact, makes a mockery of the freedoms we wish these women to desire for themselves.
“I care passionately that my freedoms and liberties should be preservered (minimally) and ideally maximised. I therefore oppose and have every right (and failing that, ability) to resist those who want to subjugate those freedoms to their Sky Fairy inspired views.”
You want to preserve your freedom and liberty by imposing restrictions on everyone else’s…?
“Their goal is to make their ghettos so restrictive that when their kids grow up and look at our wider society of pole dancing and bikinis and nightclubs and alcohol and be so alienated that violence is the answer and Jihad is the mode.”
That’s not going to work for them. In the long run, freedom finds a way. The only way they can keep control of their fractious wimminfolk is to keep them totally sequestered.
Which, if the burqua is banned, they’ll do instead!
Nicolas Sarkozy: burqa not welcome in France
“”The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience,”
Good sense has won out. Wearing the burqa IS degrading to women! We need to adopt the same policy.
It, in fact, makes a mockery of the freedoms we wish these women to desire for themselves.
Not really – maybe I’m a Marxist false-consciousness merchant but were you my daughter and I brough you up in a culture in which I expect you to wear a Burka and then you as a good daughter grow up wanting to please your father decide you want to wear a Burka and consider your mates and peers are less valid Muslims than she for not honouring their fathers as much as she the fair enough, right? And what will that do to your brothers and male peers beyond make them expect to see women dressed like that or be ’sl*gs’?
And if you started out, say, like a lot of girls, wanting to dress like Girls aloud or Britney Spears but then are bullied by and verbally abused by your peers wearing black bin bags for your ‘immodesty’ and then shamed into conforming, that will be what? Culturally okay? Most will submit, especially if their families are in on that game too.
And were you a boy, a brother, growing up in a society where all the women you knew wore all-covering
binbagsburkas, then would you not find the UK’s population of short-skirt wearing, ti*s-out, hard drinking ladette culture a provocation worthy of striking down as self-appointented religious leaders say? Because if you do, here’s your vest and there’s the club…This isn’t about clothes. Its about creating the river in which Mao’s fish can swim.
Ian@”Then in a free society, they have to balance their preference for clothing choice with their preference for a marriage that denies them that choice. If they decide on balance to stay in the marriage, that is the decision they must live with”.
You need to go and live in Luton for a few months where women are frequently threatened with their lives if they don’t do as their “menfolk” tell them.
Battered and abused women will put up with this treatment for years. The Burkha, hijab, (whatever) gives men the upper hand from the outset. The law is supporting their repression of women.
If they want the freedom to live like strict muslims, they are free to leave!
You want to preserve your freedom and liberty by imposing restrictions on everyone else’s…?
Where someone else is seeking to use their ‘freedom’ to restrict mine then…
“This isn’t about clothes. Its about creating the river in which Mao’s fish can swim. “
But in order to make this ‘conditioning’ work, you can’t allow the fish to be in the river. You have to keep them in an aquarium, or they’ll soon realise that all the other fish have something they lack!
I agree – they may not start out by wanting it. But I bet they end up wanting it in the end…
Letting them out in the burqua shows them what they are missing. Forcing them to seclude their women in the house, where their viewing and reading and socialising is controlled is what you’ll end up with instead.
“You need to go and live in Luton for a few months where women are frequently threatened with their lives if they don’t do as their “menfolk” tell them.”
And they live in a society where, if they disagree with this, they can seek to leave and the law of the land is with them.
We can’t do any more for them than that, without compromising our own freedoms. There has to be some input from their side too, or they are just passive accepters of a different kind of protector – the State.
One that, I suspect, won’t be any more benevolent….
“Where someone else is seeking to use their ‘freedom’ to restrict mine then…”
But they aren’t. No-one’s forcing you, or your daughter, or wife, or sister, to wear a burqua. No-one’s forcing the Muslim couple’s daughters across the steet from me either, by the looks of things.
Yes, I can go a short bus ride and see a few – a handful – but moving along the pavement with them are plenty of young girls and women who (jusging by the makeup of the area) are likely to be just as muslim, but show no signs of wanting to wear a bin liner.
There’s a danger in blowing this up out of all proportion. It’s still a tiny handful of radicals.
Forcing them to seclude their women in the house, where their viewing and reading and socialising is controlled is what you’ll end up with instead.
Thats still a less callous option as it will restrict the spread of the phenomena.
The peer pressure to join that ultra-pious clique will be diminished with a ban since people won’t see their peers wandering around in I-am-a-better-Muslim-than-You binbags. And so, in that regard, we stymie the spread of their 14th Century desert conservatism without the use of 9mm ammo.
And,as revolutionary Irish Catholics found, since religious beliefs are transmitted maternally, interfering with the transmission of ultra-restrictive (conservative – small C, f*kers!) faith will help us in the UK overall.
Has anyone else noted a supreme irony? Many political refugees from the ME were more than content to “burn their burkas” and their beards as a symbol of freedom from islamic tyranny. Their teenage children wear the burka (and sport beards you could hide a badger in), both as a fashion item(!) and as a symbol of rebellion against both their parents and society, as sort of Islamic Goths. BTW burkas are generally not worn in private. The danger to society comes when the perfectly natural rites of passage are suborned and manipulated by organisations imicable to the way we want to live.
“The peer pressure to join that ultra-pious clique will be diminished with a ban since people won’t see their peers wandering around in I-am-a-better-Muslim-than-You binbags.”
That doesn’t seem to be spreading the buqua-wearing habit – at least, not near me…
“Has anyone else noted a supreme irony? “
Yup!
Ban it, and see it multiply. Hell, even I might wear one, just to make a point to a government obsessed with controlling the little things at the expense of the bigger picture…
That doesn’t seem to be spreading the buqua-wearing habit – at least, not near me…
But I’m guessing you’re not a Muslim womans so you’re not really in the peer group i described….
[...] Letters from a Tory who comments at some length (as do the commenters on the thread), I see that Sarkozy is taking [...]
at the expense of the bigger pictur
I give up. You guys have no idea how wars are fought or won.
Look. It sounds easy. Ban the burqa. And the niqab. What about the hijab? The streetful of muslim families I walk down every day is full of women in hijabs, or robes and headscarves, whatever. Not burqas and not niqabs. They are part of the devout muslims community Shaun warns us about. Shall we ban headscarves too? How, precisely, do you define clothing?
Shall we make it illegal to cover one’s face in public? A scarf on a cold day? Headscarves? My sister is about to embark on a period of headscarfery thanks to the joys of chemotherapy. So how are these clothing bans to be defined? If we make it illegal to cover one’s face, what of bike helmets and balaclavas, and won’t the police love the excuse to nick Old Holborn next time he tries to stroll past parliament in a Guy Fawkes mask?
The extension of state power into sumptuary laws is enormous and I’m amazed people can’t see the danger of it.
And, what of other groups? We may feel that these clothes are forced on muslim women to oppress them. But what of othordox jewish communities, or christian sects? Do we ignore the social pressure to conform in those communities? Do we now make it illegal for a father to say “You are NOT going out dressed like THAT!” Shall we abolish the right to be a social conservative?!
This is not a job for the state. If threat and violence are being used against these women, any women, then yes, that is where police and courts can help, and that is what those things are for. But if you want to ban outward symbols of Islam, then you’ll also have to ban orthodox jewish costume like those funny licorice allsort hats, and turbans, and then what? Crosses?
The points made by Shaun and Sue are valid. But the idea that banning things and proscribing things will work is no more true than for the numerous other bans and proscriptions that our societies have attempted. Banning the burqa isn’t going to save one woman from abuse.
“I give up. You guys have no idea how wars are fought or won.”
I don’t think they’re won by making us into the thing we are fightng against..
But I do agree that pushing back against the rise of militant, political Islam is a good thing. We have to attract, not repel, those who are liable to be swayed. And, yes, if necessary, write off those who cannot.
Oof, Fisking needed.
Look. It sounds easy. Ban the burqa. And the niqab. What about the hijab? The streetful of muslim families I walk down every day is full of women in hijabs, or robes and headscarves, whatever. Not burqas and not niqabs. They are part of the devout muslims community Shaun warns us about. Shall we ban headscarves too? How, precisely, do you define clothing?
Clothing is a thing a human wears as a covering. That’s easily defined. Political clothing is easily defined in the 1936 act or should we allow the BNP to wear BUG style uniforms? Are you actually ignorant enoghh to not understand the feedback between what you see and what you thing and thus allow the indoctrination via unifrom well understood in 1936 in the Public Order Act?
Shall we make it illegal to cover one’s face in public? A scarf on a cold day? Headscarves? My sister is about to embark on a period of headscarfery thanks to the joys of chemotherapy. So how are these clothing bans to be defined? If we make it illegal to cover one’s face, what of bike helmets and balaclavas, and won’t the police love the excuse to nick Old Holborn next time he tries to stroll past parliament in a Guy Fawkes mask?
Chemo makes your hair fall out. My mum did it and wore a scarf over her head. Not over her *face. Not in black over her entire body. Not to make other women feel like insufficiently pious miuslims. You seeing a wee difference herem between a pious
binbag headscarf and a face obscuring Niqab>The extension of state power into sumptuary laws is enormous and I’m amazed people can’t see the danger of it.
And, what of other groups? We may feel that these clothes are forced on muslim women to oppress them. But what of othordox jewish communities, or christian sects? Do we ignore the social pressure to conform in those communities? Do we now make it illegal for a father to say “You are NOT going out dressed like THAT!” Shall we abolish the right to be a social conservative?!
This is not a job for the state. If threat and violence are being used against these women, any women, then yes, that is where police and courts can help, and that is what those things are for. But if you want to ban outward symbols of Islam, then you’ll also have to ban orthodox jewish costume like those funny licorice allsort hats, and turbans, and then what? Crosses?
Threats and violence need never be used. You’re not understanding how revolt works. Chat, conversation and ultimately scoialcoercion create an atmosphere where violence is acceptable enough to garner acritical mnass. The ‘long game’ is key. And its well underway.
The Burka thing isn’t about oppressing women per se, its about oppressing muslim women and therefore getting children born into that communiuty to grow up used to women in 2nd place. When they see women in *our* world in non-servile positions, or in porn, or outside their blacj bag, then those kids will get angry and, plan the islamists, violence will ensue…
The points made by Shaun and Sue are valid. But the idea that banning things and proscribing things will work is no more true than for the numerous other bans and proscriptions that our societies have attempted. Banning the burqa isn’t going to save one woman from abuse.
Shaun. I spent 20 years learning and practising how to fight a war. Amongst other things, I learnt to appreciate what Islam means to those who are born to it.
Hearts and Minds. Rule 1. Don’t upset those who are neutral or on your side by treating them as enemies. The Yanks are brilliant at doing just that, which is why their interventions are so disasterous. We got into tremendous difficulties in the Raj through banning Suttee, a practice that I believe is now no longer acceptable in India, but on their terms, not ours. Sarko could spend the Summer watching Paris burn unless he’s very careful.
The particular brand of multiculturalism that Labour introduced for political advantage will take a lot of rowing back from to restore the primacy of our culture while not alienating folks just like us “who dress a bit funny”.
[...] stalwart blog called Letters from a Tory. There’s an open letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, praising the French President for speaking out against the burka and other Islamic religious wear and making the first steps to banning them. Here’s the [...]
Good debate on freedom. Pity the women forced to wear the hijabs wouldn’t be allowed to participate!
the phoney war is still ongoing and though I agree with Shaun I will side with the appeasers.When the street fighting properly starts,and it will come,at least we will recognise half the enemy as they will be wearing burkas
Shaun. I spent 20 years learning and practising how to fight a war. Amongst other things, I learnt to appreciate what Islam means to those who are born to it.
Hearts and Minds. Rule 1. Don’t upset those who are neutral or on your side by treating them as enemies.
GOM, I understand what you’re saying but equally we were never going to live with the Thugee but we still, rightly, fought them. Equally the problem isn’t with what you as an individual believe but is instead with what believers feel obligated to impose upon others. The reason that we have a particular problem in the UK is because we have pushed the view that our liberalism is only equally valid with Sharia or any other legislative viewpoint, and thus can’t say that certain opinions or behaviours are ‘wrong’, much less that the forerunners of the culture anti-liberal islamo-fascists seek to impose on us through female dress codes are wrong.
GOM,at one time I would have agreed with hearts and minds but the rise of militant islam has put a stop to all that.I can remember living happily with muslims and enjoying each others company but no more,they have stopped mixing now.Not me,them.Yes,their religion means a lot to them and so they will fight,there will be no neutral middle ground.
I don’t have time to read the 80 comments already here. So my point may well have been covered. But I remember a few years ago when the government banned the wearing of balaclavas. And I always thought activists should just don the Burka and their identity will never be questioned as it would be racist to do so (according to the crazy PC government). So an activist of any kind could safely hide behind this shield. I’m amazed we haven’t heard of this happening yet.
So if a balaclava can be banned then surely clothing that not only hides identity but also leads to the oppression of women should be banned also! I was up in Preston a few days ago and saw the horrors of the full burka myself. Although I have to say when you see four women dressed in this way driving a car it does have an amusing image! And also when they wear glasses.
But I digress. My point is that the British government is quite happy to have different rules for different people. And that just annoys me.
“The reason that we have a particular problem in the UK is because we have pushed the view that our liberalism is only equally valid with Sharia or any other legislative viewpoint, and thus can’t say that certain opinions or behaviours are ‘wrong’..”
Then let’s start reversing that, instead of banning things.
“I remember a few years ago when the government banned the wearing of balaclavas. “
They have..?
Funny, I can find no evidence whatsoever of a ‘ban on balaclavas’.
I can find references to specific ASBOs, but no general ban.
“…equally we were never going to live with the Thugee but we still, rightly, fought them.”
Because of their actions, not their dress.
And by the usual policing methods. Not by banning people from wearing a rumal…
“…equally we were never going to live with the Thugee but we still, rightly, fought them.”
Because of their actions, not their dress.
The latter sprung from a culture enabled by the former and as Palmerston observed, if stung, you strike at the nest and not the wasp.
I think this has rather wandered into another area of discussion.
If you think the government should declare war on Islam, fine. The policies are easy, and the enemy weak and obvious. We can have this war over by teatime tuesday. Really, a few nukes in the Middle East, a quick pogrom at home, job done. Voila.
But this isn’t about that. It’s about whether to ban muslims, who are not a state-declared enemy, from wearing the drawing room curtains in public. State policy is that Islam is our friend, not our enemy, and so you have to consider this policy in those terms. And in those terms, it’s silly, pointless and dangerous.
To put aside the Burka in a community like Luton, is not an easy step. It means cutting oneself off from family,friends and setting off on a lonely journey. Islamic Christian converts are similarly ostracized. Tolerance only goes one way.
The way to end the burka wars is to use our weopons of culture. Show how unpopular the Islamic regieme is in Iran, all those young people wanting email, Internet and music soon puts the lamer aspects of Islam out in the cold. Corrupt their youth, it’s the way forward!
@JuliaM -
Saira Khan, at least, gets it and is saying, as I have done, that the Burka is a tool of the radicals to create the environment that they want…