Belgium bans the burqua

The new law is to come into force on July 23. Belgium will be the second EU member state to pass this legislation, the first one being France. As it happens the estimate is that only about 270 people were the niquab or full covering in the country. (Though, their own communities do not consider them as people but as women who do not have the same rights as men and who have to be separated from society.)

Incidentally, Belgium still has no government but seems to be managing as well as ever.

It is all a matter of freedom of choice

Except when it is not. I am now talking once again about the debate on whether the burqua should or should not be banned and the soi-disant liberals and libertarians who swell up with indignation and demand that we do not impose our views on what people should or should not wear. The niquab is just a piece of clothing and women should be able to wear it if they so desire.

Ah, but do they so desire? And does anyone even bother to find out whether they so desire? What are we to make of this little item in the Daily Telegraph:

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that not covering the face is a "shortcoming" and suggested that any Muslims who advocate being uncovered could be guilty of rejecting Islam.

In a statement published on its website the MCB, warns: "We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution on this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief.

"Not practising something enjoined by Allah and his Messenger… is a shortcoming. Denying it is much more serious."

The statement quotes from the Koran: "It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and his Messenger have decreed a matter."

What they don't say is that there is that the Koran does not, in fact, require full veiling of women. And before anybody points out to me the date of that statement let me add that it is, as far as anybody knows, still the accepted policy of the MCB.

More from Phyllis Chesler

This piece is well worth reading though as it describes the non-sensational struggle of somebody who tries to speak the truth about the position of women in Islam. Of course, she also has to fight genuinely misguided and unimaginative "liberals" and "libertarians".

True, as I suspected, I had to share the time with a burqa-wearing woman (who remained unnamed) and with a pro-hijab ex-parliamentarian from Turkey. She kept insisting on the right to wear hijab (the headscarf) and I kept repeating that the French ban on the burqa (the face-veil) in public concerns only the face veil not the headscarf and that I do not oppose the headscarf. Nevertheless, the Turk turned out to be something of a closet Islamist and a believer in the false concept of “Orientalism,” which concept she wielded as a club meant to shame me into silence. It did not work. I referred her to the work of Ibn Warraq which has utterly demolished Said’s claims, and I talked about Islam’s long history of racism, imperialism, colonialism, white slavery, black slavery, and apartheid. Reasonably, I pointed out that the West is not the only culture which has engaged in extremely bad behavior and that Muslim-majority countries may have actually surpassed us.

“Why don’t you busy yourself in criticizing how badly the West treats women before you start criticizing a culture you know nothing about.”

Ah, dear lady: For more than 40 years, I have specialized in criticizing discrimination against women worldwide and have challenged much else under the sun. What I refuse to do is to limit myself to Western culture only. In fact, I said, “the new colonialism consists of westerners abandoning the concept of universal human rights. It’s a way of saying: ‘Let them (Muslim women, Muslim homosexuals, Muslim free thinkers and Muslim truth-tellers) eat their barbarian cake.’ They are not worthy of any universal human rights.”

She then proceeded to lecture me about how women are treated as sex objects in the West. I pointed out that face-veiling women in Muslim-majority countries does not prevent those very same women from being routinely battered, raped, force-married, and honor murdered; that sexual slavery and prostitution are very much alive and flourishing in Muslim-majority countries; and that the “good girl bad girl” dichotomy that veiling creates justifies an even more open aggression against naked-faced women. I conceded:

“Half-naked Western women, unwed teenage pregnancies in the West (a point she raised) are far from ideal—but is the solution to throw a garbage bag over a woman’s head or to keep her entirely hidden at home?”

As I said, read the whole piece.

Phyllis Chesler on the irony of those protests

Women are fighting in the streets of Paris. Alas, they are not fighting against Islamic gender apartheid—they are not protesting arranged marriage or honor killings. Instead, they are fighting for the right to veil their faces. On April 11th, two veiled women were arrested for participating in an illegal demonstration about this issue. Sixty-one people were arrested for the same reason this past weekend. It is the 21st century, and people are protesting the French government’s ban against the niqab and burqa (full-face veil) which just went into effect.
Vive La France!

It is important to note that France has not banned the headscarf (hijab) and that the French ban is not specific to Islam. The French law is ethnicity- and religion-neutral and refers only to a generic “face-covering.” In 2004, France became the first European country to legally restrict all religious clothing in public schools: veils, visible Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps, and hijab were forbidden in public schools.

What does this ban mean for the West?

The burqa is not a friendly garment. Surely, wearing a headscarf and dressing modestly would constitute a far friendlier face of Islam in the West. And, a more egalitarian face as well. Muslim men, both religious and secular, wear modern, Western clothing. Why do Muslim women alone have to bear the burden of representing 7th century Islam? Why is Paris, of all places, looking more and more like Mecca, Teheran, or Kabul? Hasn’t just such “multi-culturalism” been pronounced a failure by many European leaders?

Read the whole piece. Well worth it.

To ban or not to ban

The French ban on burqua in public places and the protests against it by women who may or may not be North African, Arab or, indeed, Muslim have caused a huge rash of liberal and libertarian agonizing. It is a long time since I have seen such an incredible amount of piffle written on any subject by people who like to define themselves in certain terms but do not like to find out what the truth is.

Let's start at the beginning. Full veiling is not a religious requirement. This has been made clear by a number of knowledgeable Muslims and non-Muslims (too numerous to link to). Veiling is not even a social requirement in many Muslim countries. Because most Muslims in France are from North Africa, particularly Algeria and Tunisia, very few women are veiled and the problems is not as big as it is in Britain.

Is it a problem in Britain? In many ways, yes, and because it affects more women, a ban would not be a practical solution. I have no idea what would be a practical solution though I see no reason why work places or educational establishments should not make it a rule that people cannot cover their faces. After all, lads are not allowed (or should not be allowed) to sit around with hoods or baseball caps pulled down over their eyes to hide their faces. Motorcyclists are required to raise their visors when they go inside shops or pubs. It is simply not true that everybody is allowed to wear whatever they like wherever they like.

Let us not forget that there is still a ban on demonstrators wearing paramilitary uniforms. The reason is partly one of security but largely political. It so happens that the wearing of the burqua is political. The growth of that habit in Britain and, to a lesser extent, in France is a defiant statement: we do not want to integrate into the society we live in (and often claim benefits from) and we do not want to accept that society's view of women's equality.

In one of the discussions I have had recently on the subject I noted a comment that Muslims are slowly integrating into British society. Considering that most of them have lived here for two or three generations that is not particularly reassuring and I fully accept that the imposed multiculturalism by successive governments, local councils, civil service and well-paid quangos is very largely at fault in this as it is at fault in the sad state of the educational levels of Afro-Caribbean youngsters.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that far from integrating, far too many younger Muslims are, for whatever reason, moving away from that into some kind of fantasy world of Islam. Part of that is the growth of the veil-wearing habit. The creation of cultural ghettoes is not a good idea for any society.

Ah yes, but if the women want to wear veils, who are we to interfere with that, I am told by various liberals and libertarians, many of whom undermine their arguments by making it clear that they don't know that the veil is not religious or the difference between hijjab (headscarf) and niquab (full veil).

Here is an interesting debate on the subject between Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who is unconditionally in favour of the ban and Kenan Malik who thinks there is no place for the burqua in our society but it ought not to be banned as that, in itself, is an illiberal attitude.

Ms Brown's view is

The burqa is not a battle between anti-racists and racists, or liberty and oppression. It is between open and egalitarian Islam and obscurantism; human rights values and inhumane exceptionalism; integration and apartheid. Wahabis are spreading a singular, joyless version of Islam, wiping out diversity and our various histories. They use choice and freedom as weapons to destroy both. Muslim defenders of the burqa never support a woman’s right not to cover up. Instead women like me are branded “Western whores” who will burn in hell. Is the veil a declaration of girl power? No. Ardent veilers are proxy Taliban agents and have no conscience about their sisters in Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere – women who long to show their faces and wear whatever they want. We have them here too, those forcibly shrouded females, negated further in the narrative of choice. Some – victims of domestic violence whose scars can never be seen – turn up at my door. Even children too are cast as sexual temptresses, dressed in headscarves and long gowns, unable to play. What appalling freedom is this?

Mr Malik, on the other hand, would like to see a slower development that would eventually integrate the groups in question and bring women out from behind the veil into our society:

But is a ban not necessary to protect women from being forced to wear the burqa? In countries such as Saudi Arabia or Yemen women have little choice but to cover up their face. That in itself is a good reason for liberal societies not to impose coercive dress codes. In democratic countries, the law already protects citizens from being harmed or coerced by others. It should go no further, especially as evidence suggests that in Europe most women wear the burqa of their own volition. As a recent French government report observed, the majority of women who veil themselves in France do so largely as an “expression of identity”, a “badge of militancy” or to “provoke society”.

The burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, not its cause. If legislators truly want to help Muslim women, they could begin, not by banning the burqa, but by challenging the policies and processes that marginalise minority communities: on the one hand, the racism that all too often disfigures migrant lives, and, on the other, the multicultural policies that bolster conservative “community leaders” hostile to women’s rights.

He is right to say that the burqua is a very visible symbol of the refusal to integrate and of the oppression of women and not the cause but symbols matter. If that were not so, why would the wearing of the burqua have grown instead of diminishing in Western societies. Incidentally, I disagree with Mr Malik when he asserts that the Catholic Church refusing to have women priests is the same as women not having the right to divorce their husbands or to see their children when their husbands divorce them or women's evidence being worth fifty per cent that of a man in a sharia court. There are many other aspects of oppression of women in Muslim communities that cannot be compared with the odd problem here and there.

The problem with so many soi-disant liberals and libertarians is lack of imagination. They seem unable to grasp that there are societies and communities where their own ideas are not even known let alone prevail. Families that put their womenfolk behind the veil do not consider it necessary to consult said womenfolk. It simply does not occur to anybody in such a family or such a community that the women can have a say in the matter. Therefore, to talk about free choice is meaningless. Sadly, such soi-disant liberals and libertarians have fallen for the same myth that the multiculturalists have accepted without any nay-saying. As a result they have abandoned the notion of genuine individual freedom for Muslim women.

So to ban or not to ban? And will a ban work? For once I am inclined to agree with Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP for London who says a ban is a good idea but the French have gone about it the wrong way:

Good for the French in banning the burka but they have made a mistake in making it illegal in the street and imposing fines. This will prove unenforceable and even the French police have said they will be reluctant to prosecute people.

Well, OK, I wouldn't phrase it like that but I am not a politician. (I am also not sure the link will work but readers will get the general idea from that paragraph.) There are practical problems about banning burquas in the street, particularly in Britain where it would affect far more women. Would these women be even allowed out of the house if there were such a ban? Would the police, given recent stories of reluctance to interfere with "community politics", bother to enforce such a ban? I suspect the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.

Nevertheless, the oppression of women in Muslim communities is not only a real problem, it is a growing one and the increased wearing of the burqua is a symbol of that. Therefore, something must be done if we do not want to live in a country where some people, namely Muslim women, are less equal in every respect than everybody else and cultural ghettoes grow and multiply.

As it happens, the French have shown the way in one respect. A few years ago they banned head scarves in educational establishments. Apparently, it caused no trouble and Muslim girls go to school and college bare-headed without any trouble. I would be reluctant to see something like that brought in, as girls and women can wear scarves for all sorts of reasons, not least medical. But a gradual ban on veils in work places and educational establishments could be a starting point. After all, we have to assume that Muslim women who work or study are, at least, thinking of integrating into Western societies.

I am sorry if this seems to be an irresolute posting. I am unconditionally against the burqua. It is not simply an article of clothing but a symbol of women's oppression, cultural and gender apartheid and, not unimportantly, a possible security threat. But whether an outright ban is the answer is a more difficult problem.

To be discussed.

The burka argument goes on

Damian Green, Immigration Minister thinks that banning the burqua is somehow un-British, as if the niquab were simply a fashion choice. Caroline Spelman, Environment Secretary is deluded enough to think that somehow or other the burqua empowers women. I presume that somewhere in her fluffy brain there is the thought that the women who are forced make the feminist choice to wear the burqua would not, otherwise, be allowed out of the house by their tyrannical enlightened families.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown comes roaring into the battle.

These British apologists for the burka make me see red, whatever side of the political spectrum they come from.

They can be Left-wingers who'll countenance no criticism, however valid, of hardline Muslims. They can be Right-wing libertarians who insist any woman has the right to wear whatever she chooses.

And, as we discovered this week, they can be members of the British Cabinet who ludicrously claim the burka actually empowers women.

Having had to put up with moronic soi-disant libertarians waffling on about the right to wear whatever people want to wear (and then they wonder why there are so few women in the so-called libertarian movement in Britain) I cannot but agree with that comment of "whatever side of the political spectrum they come from".

Furthermore, I cannot help agreeing with this:

Immigrant Muslims who came to Britain to get away from Stalinist ayatollahs, mullahs and women-hating fanatic regimes in their home countries must be spitting their teeth out after hearing Spelman's astounding endorsement of this dreadful garment.

We Muslims who came here wanted the freedom that Britain's proud history of democracy was renowned for. We wanted better education for our children and to live and pray in peace in a country which, for all its faults, gives us civil rights and equality between the sexes.

Yet Spelman's support for the burka suddenly puts all of our expectations under threat; for the most obvious manifestation of the oppressive Islam we left behind is welcomed here with the blessing of the ruling elite.

We should be helping Muslim women to get away from the oppression they suffer not work with the oppressors. But then, what do I expect from this Government and these Ministers? Read the whole article. The arguments are convincing and the barely controlled rage behind them is very understandable.

In his Daily Telegraph blog Toby Young demonstrates that men are as capable of understanding this point as women and, indeed, most do. Politicians and people who think they are political creatures on the other hand ....

Meanwhile, Syria has banned the wearing of the niquab in universities for reasons of security.

A useful sort of garment

News comes from Pakistan that two suicide/homicide bombers disguised themselves in burquas to detonate bombs that killed 41 people and injured 62. As these were people in a refugee camp who had fled from the military offensive in north-western Pakistan, it seems that the murderers must have concluded that they were agents of Western imperialism. What other explanation could there be for such an action?