French ban on Muslim burka brings out multi-culturalist prejudices as liberal-establishment descends into self-parody
Now, let’s be clear about a couple of things right from the beginning: First, all other things being equal a liberal-democratic society should have no problem accommodating a multiplicity of different cultures, and the traditions and customs that go with them; Second, in a free society, again with that proviso — all other things being equal — the way people dress in particular should be entirely their affair. As general propositions about Western society, few would disagree.
But with the French parliament’s decision to ban the burka this week in mind, it is a sign of the shallowness of much of Europe’s liberal establishment that no greater level of sophistication about such issues, and the profound implications they entail, is currently possible. The burka ban has been variously described across the continent by bien pensant opinion as “racism” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia”. So much is to be expected. But in some cases, they have truly outdone themselves.
First prize in the contest for the stupidest commentary imaginable goes to none other then Britain’s very own Guardian newspaper, whose editorial today is in parts laugh-out-loud hilarious. Consider the following, as our heroes summon up every ounce of conceivable insight to deliver what they presumably regard as the coup de grace on French and, by extension, Western, hypocrisy:
“Users of the metro or underground learn instinctively to avoid looking each other in the eye. It is regarded as an intrusion. And yet no state legislature would think about passing a law that bans the wearing of sunglasses indoors on the grounds that it poses a threat to national security”.
I promise readers that I did not just make that quotation up. A form of dress so extreme in its oppression of women that it forces them to hide their faces from society and that thus represents a form of subjugation unheard of in Europe since the witch burning days of the Inquisition is being compared to keeping yourself to yourself on the underground railway system, or the wearing of sunglasses.
As we have seen many times, the liberal-establishment’s anti-Western, third-worldist prejudices trump pro-Western, enlightenment notions of universal rights at every turn. And the commitment to such prejudices is so intense that it must be upheld even at the expense of inviting ridicule.
But that has all been said before, and is no longer controversial among those who are not themselves part of that liberal establishment. It is the sheer inability to access any form of profundity whatsoever in this discussion that really leaves one flabbergasted. For here is how the Guardian chose to introduce the above quoted thoughts a few sentences earlier:
“…what is it about the invisibility of a woman’s face that is so challenging to western European identity? What is so important about the niqab that gives the state the right to intervene?”
It is fascinating and revealing that such questions are deemed by that mindset to be rhetorical. But here is the answer that people less blinkered than the editorial team of the Guardian would immediately want to proffer.
Quite apart from the inherent oppression of women, the central point here is that cohesive Western societies operate under certain unwritten rules which make interaction between strangers manageable. First among these is a skill which we start to learn as babies and develop as adults: the range of human reactions to the body language of others, the language of facial expression in particular.
It’s an inexact science and some are more proficient at it than others. But the unspoken assumption that we all have the right to a fair crack at understanding the intentions of others is the only way our societies can exist without the kind of extreme levels of police control or the stifling social conventions that exist in alternative forms of society. This is how a free society can and must operate in the public domain.
That is why — if it started to happen — we would not allow sections of our youth to walk around our city centres wearing commando-style balaclavas, with three holes for the eyes and mouth. That is also why no supporter of liberal-democratic values is remotely concerned about Muslims wearing headscarves on the street — covering the hair challenges no-one’s ability to interact normally with others.
Probably the best counter-argument to what the French parliament has just done is that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: so few people actually wear the burka in France — possibly just a few thousand out of five million Muslims — that the proposed new law is actually vindictive.
In most cases, that would be a reasonable proposition. But in this case it is flawed, for two reasons.
First, the problem is not trivial and the fact that only a small number of people are part of it now does not mean that that number will stay small in the future. If it’s wrong and socially dangerous, a line has to be drawn.
Second, the notion of a challenge by some important sections of Europe’s Muslim community to western, liberal-democratic values is not fanciful. From the Salman Rushdie affair, through the gender segregation of swimming pools (in France) to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005-6 there are myriad examples of Europe partially or fully caving in to pressure from Muslim groups at the expense of Western values. It is important to make an emphatic statement that enough is enough, and that the tide will be reversed.
It may well be that the French burka ban does not in the end become law in France due to the multi-culturalist assumptions inherent in the French constitution. If the country’s highest court rules along such lines (as many believe it will), Europe will have lost yet another battle in the struggle for Western values.
But that is for later. For now, one of Europe’s most important countries has taken a bold step in defence of its culture. The French should be applauded, and we should encourage others to do likewise.
Tags: Islam
July 15th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
“Quite apart from the inherent oppression of women, the central point here is that cohesive Western societies operate under certain unwritten rules which make interaction between strangers manageable. First among these is a skill which we start to learn as babies and develop as adults: the range of human reactions to the body language of others, the language of facial expression in particular…………”
Well said, that man! You certainly make a lot more sense, or at least express yourself far better, than most of my anthropology and sociology profs.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Robin – I may do a tongue in cheek piece for cifwatch about the BBC response to this, which I cannot do here because they pulled the picture in question. However, if you look at the new version of their piece on this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398 you will see a new picture showing where the “sunglasses” idea came from.
A little plagiarism on the Guardian’s part? Unless it was the other way around?
The original picture showed a heavily bearded man under a kaffia … :-)
July 15th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“Second, the notion of a challenge by some important sections of Europe’s Muslim community to western, liberal-democratic values is not fanciful. From the Salman Rushdie affair, through the gender segregation of swimming pools (in France) to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005-6 there are myriad examples of Europe partially or fully caving in to pressure from Muslim groups at the expense of Western values. It is important to make an emphatic statement that enough is enough, and that the tide will be reversed.”
Britain also now has the “squat toilet” invasion to deal with …
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/asian-squat-toilets-in-the-crapper.html
Quite funny really, but does emphasize the direction which the wind, so to speak, is blowing.
July 15th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
AKUS,
From your link to Atlasshrugs
…and all in the name of cultural sensitivity.
A feeling which means diddly-squat to a culture which is removed from any contact. :-)
July 15th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
THE COERCIVE COVERING OF THE FACE (TOTAL OR PARTIAL) DE-HUMANIZE WOMEN.THEY ARE TURNED INTO INANIMATE OBJECTS (ANIMALS AT BEST) WITH NO PERSONAL CHARACTERS/PERSONALITY.TOOLS OF PLEASURE OR MULTIPLICATION DEVICES FOR MALES,WHO ARE THE ONLY TRUE HUMANS ON EARTH.IT MAKES YOU WONDER ABOUT THE TRUE STANCE OF THE EUROPEANS WHO BACK ISLAM ON THAT.
P.S:I AM A HETEROSEXUAL MALE
July 15th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
OT: The best piece I’ve read in a long time about Israel and the Palestinians. A brilliant piece by a brilliant journalist:
Peace is for those who want it
By Daniel Finkelstein
[Extract]
“The only concessions worth making are those that will be accepted, and they will only be accepted when those being offered them have decided that they want peace. No concession made to Arafat would have been accepted, because he did not want to accept any concessions. Natan Sharansky makes this point often, and even goes so far as to argue that the real moment when peace will come is when you can leave the settlers in their houses and not fear that they would be killed.
In other words, the lesson of Camp David is that land for peace is wrong. Peace comes before land.”
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/35687/peace-those-who-want-it
“In other words, the lesson of Camp David is that land for peace is wrong. Peace comes before land.”
That needs to be repeated again and again and again.
July 15th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Robin,
What I never hear anybody say is that the wearing of the Burqa or Niqab is, in fact an aggressive act.
I believe that the justification for the wearing of veils is that women are too precious to be looked on by strange men and that men are so weak minded and evolutionary basic that we would not be able to resist uncovered women. So, as far as I can ascertain, every woman wearing a full veil is clearly saying to me ‘you are so far beneath me that you are not worthy of looking at my face and you also a potential rapist to boot’.
I object!
In this society the wearing of hoods is reserved for hangmen, highwaymen and terrorists. This is why these full veils provide feelings of unease amoung us Europeans. Since the argument from the liberal fools is always about respect, where is the respect for our cultural values and sensitivities?
July 15th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Steve – regarding the very pertinent comment you make:
“…that men are so weak minded and evolutionary basic that we would not be able to resist uncovered women…”
In the case of those men who claim that they may be unable to control themselves around uncovered women,I would suggest it is they who should wear the burqa:-)) Or admit that they have some serious sexual and behavioural difficulties that really should result in them being taken off the streets immediately – for the sake of us women who dare to show our noses in public.
July 15th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
My opinion in sum is that French society is – despite the close to 3 times more numerous Islamic community – is way ahead in general health than Britain. And somewhat, but altogether not by that much – BRAVER too.
July 15th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“That is also why no supporter of liberal-democratic values is remotely concerned about Muslims wearing headscarves on the street.” I am largely liberal-democrat and I am extremely concerned! Well, duh! But I am not the liberal democrat of the “Liberal Democrat” party whose current boss extolled the virtue of the similarity of their values ot that of the Arabic/Islamic communities generally! Fascinating stuff. Who is the real liberal democrat now, Robin???
July 15th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Steve:
While I agree in some respect I think it is really aggression on the political front more than a statement about a personal aggression directed at men.
I am convinced that in the US before 9/11 you rarely if ever saw a woman wearing Islamic dress, even of the simple headscarf variety. After 9/11 they suddenly became increasingly visible, and I think it is the way Moslem women are trying to get in the face of US society and basically make a political statement to the effect that they support Islamic terrorism. At the University of Maryland campus at College park I have seen women who are clearly African American dressed head to toe in burkas, admittedly not with their face covered, and I have no doubt that this is a political statement made to demonstrate something about being a black woman in American society.
July 16th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Burqa Museum of Paris..!
The world should follow France, in advancing the humanity to the current century.
The fanatics need to be pulled out of the dark ages.
A gender specific dress code has no place in this century.
France is home to phenomenal museums; how about one more for: Abaya, Babushka, Burqua, Chador, Wimple, and Sheitel.
Imagine how many poor people could be clothed with the fabrics saved from (not) making women’s veil?
July 16th, 2010 at 8:17 am
There was an opinion piece in a French newspaper when they were debating allowing religious apparel in schools which made an impression on me at the time and is also pertinent here. While some girls wanted to wear these things, there were many others who preferred to integrate into the general society, and many of these attested to being forced to comply with the dictates of the most fanatical male chauvinists in their community. Given the status of women in Muslim communities, they are not able to act freely, so one aspect of outlawing the burka is the protection it affords to women, not only defending their freedom of dress choice, but also protecting them from the danger of crossing the street in a modern city while encumbered by floor length robes and with no peripheral vision.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Robin’s “all things being equal” argument makes perfect sense and is truly spot on.
But not all things are equal in the current climate. An increasingly aggressive Islam keeps making demands that their “rights” be respected. But where will it stop?
We’re already having to tolerate – here in the UK, not only in France – segregated swimming pools and Muslim women who will not be seen by a male doctor. Where will it end?
The idea that there are women who freely choose to wear the full veil is beside the point: many do not; and the veil stems from an ideology that objectifies women and denies them equal rights; such ideology – among other things – removes responsability from males and shifts it onto females even as it claims to afford the latter protection form from unwanted attention from the former.
The full veil builds a wall of separation between “us” and “them”; a wall that aggressively affirms difference and causes isolation. It must be resisted.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Apart from other considerations, the burqa and niqab provide a charter for masked criminals/terrorists.
One of the robbers accused of murdering Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford in 2005 is said to have fled to Somalia dressed as a woman in a burqa. How many criminals/terrorists are moving around the world similarly disguised?
July 17th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Poll: Most Brits back face veil ban
“More than two-thirds of the British public want Muslim face veils banned in all public places, according to a YouGov and Five News poll.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3920871,00.html
July 19th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
A late response to this excellent article : Syria’s ruling party has quietly banned the niqab from all public places while our craven politicians are spouting the usual nonsense about ‘empowerment’ of women and tolerance.(Caroline Spelman and Damian Green,et al.)
This ‘in-your-face’ garb should be banned :it gives offence;undermines western values and leads to feelings of resentment and alienation.
February 15th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Hi would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m looking to start my own blog soon but I’m having a tough time deciding between BlogEngine/WordPress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique. P.S My apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!
Robin Shepherd says: It’s WordPress. Not sure though whether that’s the key point or what the designers did. Good luck!