The burqa - a bit deeper into the issue

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

The neighbouring post, albeit not directly related to what i'm going to discuss here, comes quite timely i think, as i was going to look a bit deeper into the burqa issue now. There was a good analysis of the situation here recently, and it made me thinking.

See, a couple of years ago the UK politician Jack Straw scandalised the liberals with his statement that he'd like to see Muslim women's faces while they're talking to him. "I feel uneasy when talking face to face with someone whose face I cannot actually see", was his explanation. (Of course that was 4 years before he turned 180' and spoke against the burqa ban, but thats no surprise, coming from a politician).

I dont know, maybe today his words would hardly meet so much outrage, especially in Europe. And thats kinda sad to me. See, during the last few months, a clear tendency took shape in Europe, a tendency towards limiting the Islamic religious symbols, and the clothing etiquette of the orthodox Muslim women became the main target. Several countries (France, Belgium, Spain) have already adopted or are about to adopt laws barring the Muslim women from covering their heads entirely in public places. Earlier this year, the German EMP, Silvana Koch-Mehrin called for a full ban of burqas throughout the whole EU, arguing that "they're an assault on the women's rights, representing a sort of mobile prison for them".

Last month Spain became the next European country to adopt a complete ban of burqas. After a heated discussion about the "fight against religious fundamantalism", their Senate stunned everybody by voting in favour of the ban (which was already in place in some Spanish towns). That, coming from a country which historically had promoted religious fundamentalism throughout the whole Western hemisphere through several centuries... Although the decision was taken through a painfully narrow majority, it was a huge blow to the Spanish PM Zapatero who had proposed a far more moderate approach: increasing the integration efforts, mainly through education.

A month earlier, the French government passed a draft law which would ban any clothes covering the face in public places. Its about to be voted in their Parliament by the end of this month, and later in the Senate. But before it becomes valid, there's a planned 6-month "trial" period in which the Muslim women who wear niqab or burqa will be required to "voluntarily" quit this habit. The law states that women who appear in public places with covered faces will be fined and then sent to "French values" lessons (!)  It also means those women won't be allowed to attend restaurants, schools, the public transport, although thats not explicitly stated in the law (but is implied). Additionally, men who have been proven to force their wives or daughters to wear a niqab or burqa will be fined Eu 15K, or serve 1 year in jail...

There are fines and/or jail also for those who dont comply with the burqa ban in Belgium, where a similar law is already in place. Italy also took measures of this sort. Further restrictions on Muslim clothing were being discussed in Holland and Denmark (allegedly two of the most "open-minded" societies), although there still isnt such a law adopted there. And as we all know already, last year Switzerland voted on a referendum in favour of banning all further construction of minarets.

Now. Removing the lid a bit and looking under the surface of all the barking and whining around the mass media, we could ask the question: why? Why is all that happening? Some part of the predominantly US audience here might think its (still) a non-issue across the Pond, but we all know that the two shores are actually interconnected, and this wave of intolerance could pass over at any time. So it wouldnt hurt to dig a bit deeper and see what the true reasons are, shall we?

The reason why the European politicians are so actively messing with fashion and style are multi-layered. Of course the official excuse for banning both types of clothing typical for the orthodox Muslim women (burqa and niqab), is "public security".

The other side of the issue is related to what are perceived to be the "traditional European values", where covering the face is considered alien (well, at least for the last couple of centuries). "The burqa is NOT a religious symbol, its a sign of submission of the woman. I'd like to make it clear that we won't tolerate such a thing in our country" - those are words of Sarkozy. And he likes to be seen as a man who sticks by his words and turns them into actions - hence the new law. "This was a difficult decision. My thoughts are with our Muslim compatriots who have their place in the Republic and who should be respected", he said on the government meeting where the draft law was voted.

However, when we look beyond the beautiful phrases of the French president, we'll see that his actions are not caused so much by a pressing need to improve national security or preserve the traditional values; it seems its rather his desire to appeal with the far-right segment of his electorate at a time when he's in a dire need of additional support, his government's authority beginning to feel some cracks and creaks while the leftist opposition is slowly consolidating its positions after recovering from the knock-down.

Lets look at things from this perspective, then. In France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe (well beyond 5 million), roughly just about 2,000 women regularly use the burqa or niqab and cover their heads completely. Granted, a recent research (fr) by anthropologist Dounia Bouzar which he presented to the French parliament some time ago, shows a tendency of increasing numbers of young women covering their faces, although their mothers had never followed such a tradition. 2/3 of these 2,000 women were born in France and are 2nd or 3rd generation; the remaining 1/3 are newcomers mainly from North Africa, where there isnt any such tradition of covering the face completely. The majority of the French apparently find all these facts to be rather disturbing, which is evident from the surveys that show the majority of the public indeed support some restriction on the burqa.

In Belgium, the arguments for the ban also sound very strangely: out of 600,000 Muslims in the country, there are not more than 300 women wearing a burqa on a daily basis. Moreover, putting this issue for discussion and stirring the waters with such controversial legislation right in the most inappropriate moment while the country is in a deep political crisis, practically being split into a French and a Flemish half, without a normally functioning government (for which it has been called a "non-country"), looks awkward, to put it mildly. Ironically, it seems the burqa has finally given the Belgians something to "unite" around... The Muslims are just 3% of the Belgian population, and yet the burqa question is suddenly a much more urgent issue than the soaring unemployment and the swelling internal debt, huh?

Apart from reeking of populism, such restrictions, directed at a particular religious group, could actually have the reversed effect. If anything, at least for the reason that it sends a negative message to the Muslims in Europe, whose integration has been far from effective. Its no secret that right now Europe (and not only) has a serious problem with accepting the presence of orthodox Islam in public places. Most Europeans are increasingly secular and therefore they feel uncomfortable in the presence of individuals who are demonstrating their religiousness (although, like Sarkozy pointed out, the burqa is less a religious thing and more a cultural one). This often leads to increasing xenophobic sentiments, which could bring more problems instead of solving the present ones. I wouldnt be surprised if these tendencies jump over to other corners of the world, because the main problem - integration - is present in many regions and affects many minorities (be they religious, ethnic, racial, gender, etc). Many of the Muslims i've spoken with on the question here in SA (who, ironically, appear to be enjoying much more tolerance than those in the "civilised" West), think that the whole hubbub around the burqa ban is just a diversion of the public attention from the really serious problems that those minorities are facing: integration, access to education and jobs, etc. Those are problems whose solution turns out to be much more complicated than some people in their ivory towers had been hoping for, and thats disturbing, and obviously requires some temporary venting. Because these measures are anything but a permanent solution.

Personally, i'd like to see Europe focusing more on the real problems of the minorities, including Muslims, instead of marginalising one group and putting it against the other for the purposes of the "divide and rule" principle. And this means a stricter application of the anti-discrimination laws, rather than creating ones which contradict and invalidate them. The Europeans should finally acknowledge that Muslims are part of the European cultural reality. And in their turn, Muslims should recognise that they're living in Europe and they should also do some compromises and bring themselves closer to a certain set of standards and values. As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle between the two "sides", and the solution is in reaching a compromise that would suit all sides to a satisfactory extent. But that requires efforts on both sides.

I expect that the burqa ban will certainly fail to achieve its goal - stopping discrimination against women and helping them become an integral part of modern "Western" society. A good male friend of mine who's of the large Malay community here in Cape Town (i.e. a Muslim) told me: "If you're wearing a burqa, you've already sent a clear message that you dont want to integrate, because the burqa separates you from the world. The burqa is not just a prison for the person, its a form of rejecting the outer world".

And, even if we assume most women who wear burqas are really doing that against their will rather than by their own choice, which i dont think i have the capacity to argue about, such a restriction wouldnt bring them anything positive. My friend says that "Banning the burqa is useless. The problem is not in the veil covering the head, its inside the head". Because for every woman who wears one at the moment, not being able to wear it in public would only mean she won't be able to leave home any more, which is much worse of a prison. And we could hardly expect that the ban would be an enlightening factor for her husband, either.

Unfortunately, the European politicians dont seem to have realised that they're only trying to deal with the symptoms instead of tackling the problem itself. And the biggest irony here is that they're trying to fight discrimination by means of more restriction, in which they're no better than those fundamentalist principles they're trying to defeat in the first place.

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well if they're not going to wear burqas, at least make them wear a patch or something.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes.....perhaps a yellow triangle with a crescent on it? Or a crescent with the word "Muhammadan" on it? After all, that kind of thing is tradition across a huge swathe of Europe.....

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I think most religious rules are silly and I will happily make the point. If someone asked me if they should wear a burqa, not work on Sundays, or leave an offering at the foot of the Buddha I would tell them no on all accounts.

But I don't think people should be legally compelled to do such things. They should not be unreasonably protected from the consequences of their choices, but they should be free to make them. However when public safety does come into play they need to abide. You want to get on an airplane or get a drivers license, well you need to show your face. You don't get special treatment simply because your desires stem form religious belief and not something else.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

This has been happening here too. I mean Muslim women suddenly out of nowhere getting the brilliant idea that they want to appear on their IDs with their faces covered. WTF.

Curiously, this is happening in two municipalities, where, surprise-surprise, a couple of Islamist organizations are very active, one coming from Syria and the other from Saudi Arabia. They have nothing to do with our Muslims here. Our Muslims are not even of Arabian origin, they're of Turkish origin. They don't even understand what those missionaries are talking to them on their prayers, they need an interpreter into Turkish or Bulgarian. Go figure.

What I'm saying is that someone is making those people suddenly become more fundamentalist than they ever were. As fro public security, I'm aware how sensitive people are about the issue of governments taking civil rights away for the sake of security, but ID cards having veiled faces on them is a bit much even for me, come on.

On the other hand, assholes like Sarkozy are not helping improve the dialogue at all. It's an entirely viable version that he's doing all that to please one part of his people at the expense of another, for short-term political gains (ie keeping his ass on the presidential chair for one more term).

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I like it how you first appeared to agree with me, while in the course of your comment it turns out you didnt - very diplomatic :)

That said, i'm sure the issue is multi-faceted and there are more than two interpretations. One thing i'd like to add here before i go to Soccer City (*nasty grin*) is this: curiously, women veiling their faces, although an ancient tradition, only started to become massively practiced in the Muslim countries with the arrival of the Europeans. Interesting, dont you think?

Also, lets not forget the cruel fate of many modern Western women, who've been mercilessly forced to cover their faces by the fashion dictators of today:

http://pausenreflect.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/sunglasses.jpg
http://th01.deviantart.com/fs11/300W/i/2006/184/0/a/Big_sunglasses__Big_hair__by_Unionhoney.jpg

:D

Oh well. I better run to the stadium i guess. Later!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

AH. KEEP TEASING!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually it is an ancient cultural tradition: Muslim customs as regarded women come from the Roman Empire's customs, or at least custom of wealthy Romans. The Romans of the 7th Century believed very strongly in veiling their women and kept the old Hellenistic view that a woman's place was in the home. As the earliest Muslim armies were a bunch of nomadic sheep herders who never had heard of baths before encountering Rome.....

Though I could note as well that some European countries didn't even give women the vote until the 1970s (*coughSwitzerlandcough*). And that 60 years ago the same idea of Children, Church, Kitchen had a *lot* of force behind it. And of course I could note that there was a genocide of Muslims in the Balkans not resolved until the USA stepped in and that Europeans are content to support Armenia as it engages in a genocide of Azeris and Russia as it repeatedly attempts to kill all Chechens....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that someone is Uncle Sam. Given that the USA invaded Iraq again and devastated Afghanistan further, plus how the "War On Terror" is purely a war on Islamism and the existence of other forms of terrorism is all but forgotten....and given that the European powers also not too long ago were ruling the entire Muslim world with an iron fist......

But I forget, this is also the Europe where 30 women are an all-powerful force about to overwhelm 10 million Belgians with their pagan ways.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And I should note as well that when countries like Armenia get away with genocide of Muslims without so much as tickety-boo from the Great Powers, or when Muslims are killed in carload lots in Bosnia without even perfunctory crocodile tears that's fertile ground for the extremists to claim that nobody gives a damn about Muslims unless Muslims do themselves....

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

LOL @ the 'iron fist' :)

[dwer.livejournal.com]

at some point, people will realize that real freedom means allowing someone to do something that they, themselves, do not understand. An it harm none, do what you will.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

iawtc.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You make it sound so easy.

[hannahsarah.livejournal.com]

WIN.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your inconsistency is highly amusing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nice to how the white people still think they can tell brown-skinned non-Christians how to behave for their own damned good. But this is the EU where the Far Right is gaining legitimacy through hatin' on the Muslims same as the one in the USA is gaining legitimacy through hatin' on the President.

And as to Muslims being accepted in Europe-hah. Hah. Hah.

That won't happen. European answers to Muslim Europeans is to kill them all. It has always been that way. There's never *been* any compromise from the European states, and they always ask the Muslims to do things first. But then it took Nazism for Europeans to progress beyond killing Jews whenever their leaders fucked up so maybe if the European Far Right gets its wish and drives out the less than 5% of the population of Western Europe that is Muslim people might wake up at long last.

But I doubt it.

Bah bah bah Europe bad.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Your 100%, one-layered, black-n-white, predictable, automatic disdain for anything remotely European is well-known. But thanks for sharing.

On the other hand, you've already said on more than one occasion that what you speak here is actually not necessarily the 'real you', so allow me some doubt.

Comedy effect FTW, yo?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That said, if we're going to ban headcoverings from superstitious eastern barbarian religions, let's do away with these, too:



Instead I vote we bring back the style of dress worn by the first Hellenes as a showing of how the West connects to its true roots:

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

If we push ID cards in the UK I'll take up Islam in order to have an excuse to fuck with the system.

Oh, and.....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Re: Oh, and.....

[hannahsarah.livejournal.com]

I wasn't expecting that!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

If it ever becomes a crime to cover one's face in public in the US, I will go out in a Guy Fawkes mask as often as possible.

Although, for ID purposes, it does seem insane to allow people to have their faces covered in their ID picture; I mean, could be anyone under there and that defeats the purpose of ID. Should this part of the comment be directed at htpcl?

And....xenophobia rears its ugly head again, this shouldn't be too surprising.

Distasteful, yes; shocking, no.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

One consequence might be fewer Muslims immigrating to those countries. That could definitely be part of the motivation.

Personally, I think if you move to another country, you should be prepared to learn the language and follow the cultural norms.

[hannahsarah.livejournal.com]

First, allow me a short rant. There is a difference between a burqa, a niqab and a hijab. It's like sleeve, collar, bodice. Similar, but not interchangable! /rant

I don't mind the hijab at all, it's just the headscarf. If women WANT to wear the niqab or the burqa, then they need to understand that they will probably be banned from places like courthouses and airports where security is tight, and they will not be able to get driver's licenses. You can have one or the other, but not both. Everything has a trade off.

In biblical times, all Jewish women covered their hair, but they didn't cover their faces on a daily basis. They did, however, pull the edge of their headscarves over their faces when they were in the company of men that they hadn't been introduced to yet. The Rambam held that girls should cover their hair at the age of 3, but the majority of rabbonim ruled that it was not necessary.

Now, all Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair after marriage. Hats, scarves and wigs are all acceptable. In order to get a drivers license (at least in the state of Washington) you have to show at least two inches of your own hair in the front when you get your picture taken. If you are Ultra-Orthodox and find that unacceptable, then guess what? No license for you. That's the choice you make.

When I get married (G-d willing, soon) I will be covering my hair completely. I don't feel the least bit oppressed by that, any more than I would feel oppressed by a diamond ring. To me it's just another piece of clothing, and part of my religion.

I think that many 2nd and 3rd generation women are becoming increasingly Islamicized BECAUSE they are living in lands where people have freedom, and they are also surrounded by a very liberal and sexualized culture. The desire to cover your face is directly in proportion to how "in your face" sexual interaction are in society. There's an innate desire for modesty and privacy, where you want to "keep to yourself". It often has nothing to do with the husband or the family's desire to keep the woman covered at all.

My friend Shamar told me that when she goes back home to the Middle East, she finds herself relieved to be wearing a veil again, even though she is very modern and not religious in the least. She's often conflicted between wanting to wear tank tops and shorts, and wanting to be left the hell alone. As a person who wears "modest dress", I can totally understand where she's coming from.

In short, I've got a billion bones to pick with Muslim society, but this isn't one of them.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

*takes notes about the types of garment*

And thanks, this was an interesting perspective.