The BBC website is carrying a link to a topical Radio 4 programme broadcast on 12 August. On the Radio 4 page the heading is "why wear the burka?" But the link on the homepage which caught my attention was titled "Should Muslim women wear a hijab, niqab or nothing?" Er, nothing?! Interesting choice, if a bit extreme....
Talking of extreme, of course it's Boris Johnson who has got people's attention back on this subject. And, as he presumably intended, back on him of course.
As most people haven't actually read his Daily Telegraph article (their website has a paywall) it seems to have escaped many people that Johnson wrote that he thought the wearing of face veils should not be banned in Britain though he also said in graphic, comical and some say inflammatory terms on his opinion of what women wearing burkas and niqabs look like.
I have written before that I am conflicted on this since, as a libertarian at heart, I fundamentally don't believe it's right to tell people what they can and can't wear. But equally I don't see the problem in explaining to people why wearing certain things at certain times in certain places might be inappropriate or cause offence, whether it's skimpy clothing or beachwear in a church or a T shirt and jeans on a golf course.
But equally I really don't like women wearing burkas and niqabs. This is partly on the basis of security and the cultural issue that it is difficult to form any kind of rapport with a person whose face is almost entirely covered. But it is mainly because, as well as impractical, it is a symbol of subjugation. I am quoting a Muslim woman here, Iram Ramzan, who wrote in the Sunday Times* that "The veil enslaves and it isn't racist to say so". She says that many of her relatives hate the niqab and what it stands for and use much worse language than Boris in referring to it. She also says that in Kashmir, where her grandparents came from in the 1950s, the veiling of the face is an alien concept. Trecking in north Pakistan last year a native of the region, seeing a woman in a black niqab, said "What is this monstrosity? Why do they dress like that?"
Roy Harper put is succinctly for me when he sang:
And women in veils walking paces behind
Doesn't sit easy in my kind of mind
It speaks of oppression and no other choice
Than rigid compliance with the loudest voice
Underneath the black cloud of Islam
I accept that some women may be wearing the veil as a free choice of their own. But I'd bet that isn't the majority. Like Johnson, on balance I'm not sure we should follow Denmark and France in banning Muslim female face coverings, even though there are many examples of where we already insist that faces aren't covered. A friend noted yesterday that the petrol pump wouldn't be switched on for him wearing a motor cycle helmet and visor, but it is for a woman in a burka. There would be difficulties in framing a law but that must be possible. For example, care would be needed in drafting to make sure some bridal gowns didn't become illegal. But this ought not to be too difficult. While a bridal veil is partly transparent, I wouldn't suggest trying to define degrees of transparency. Much simpler to allow face coverings in places of worship as I'm not too bothered if Muslim women cover their faces in a mosque.
However, I would much rather Muslim women chose not to wear face veils and I would first go for a strong campaign led by Muslims to try to change culture and behaviour. But in the limit I could be persuaded that legislation is necessary.
Of course, the bit of Boris's article that got the attention was his comparison with letter boxes and bank robbers. Personally, I didn't find these comments particularly remarkable. After all, my personal comment would be "why do you want to look like Darth Vader?" though I've never actually been rude enough to say that to a veiled woman. I know we have to be careful about bullying minorities but it's no bad thing for people to realise they look ridiculous to the majority of us. (I know, glass houses and stones given some of my golf outfits. But I can take the stick!)
Predictably all sorts of people got in a tizzy about Boris's remarks. Most remarkably the Conservative Party, instead of ignoring the fuss, which would soon have calmed down, announced there would be a party disciplinary inquiry. A remarkable decision, allowing some of the heat to be deflected from Jeremy Corbyn on the running anti-semitism sore. Paul Mason writing in the right on New Statesman, compared BoJo to Enoch Powell, calling his article provocative, Islamophobic and peddling offensive stereotypes. This would be the same New Statesman in which a female Muslim comedian, Shazia Mirza wrote "A Muslim woman knocked on my door last night. I didn't open it - I just talked through the letter box to see how she likes it." Mirza also cheerily compared the burka to a bin liner. To be fair, this was in 2006.
While Johnson's remarks were deemed offensive by some, Rowan Atkinson made the point that we must hold firm that it is permitted to poke fun at religions and cultures. However, Johnson is not a comedian, at least for a profession. And there is something to be said for a politician speaking moderately even if the content is controversial. While at his best Johnson can get people's attention and understanding with memorable soundbites, e.g. "take back control", I find a worrying element of the rabble rousing demagogue about him, highly intelligent though he undoubtedly is. Though his avowed hero is Churchill, he seems to be going more for Trump style populism.
Although he would be a popular choice as leader for many Tories, I can't see it happening. He is marmite and as many are repelled as attracted. When they come to pick a new leader the electoral calculation for the Tories is simple: would Johnson gain or lose votes for the party compared with other options? Johnson might help to keep voters with a UKIP tendency on board, but what about the middle ground? Many commentators have said that the only reason there hasn't been a Tory leadership election is because of fears in Tory circles that Johnson would win.
Well, he's got his name back into the public eye alright. But my eye is on someone who could mount broader appeal: Sajid Javid. Javid was apparantly considered a dead man walking by Theresa May a few months ago, in line to be culled at the next reshuffle. But I think he has started well at the Home Office. He agreed to assist the US authorities in taking two alleged British Isis fighters from the so-called "Beatles" cell of executioners across the pond for trial without seeking any assurances about the death penalty. The two men are understood to have been stripped of their British citizenship, so why would Javid seek such reassurances, even though that would be normal? But even so the Guardian got themselves into a predictable tizzy**. For me this was a pragmatic decision - why do anything to aggravate the Americans at the moment? But more importantly Javid acted promptly - these decisions are often left to fester, making them harder to take over time, not easier. He had to make a decision on that one but he immediately took another which he could easily have left in his in tray, ordering an investigation into why members of sexual grooming gangs are disproportionately from a Pakistani background. The Home Secretary announced this in a letter to the Rotherham MP Sarah Champion (Labour), who had been criticised last year for saying that "the UK has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls" following the cases in her constituency, Telford and Newcastle, a list to which it seems Huddersfield can now be added. For speaking the truth Champion had to have increased security after receiving death threats. Javid said: “MPs should be able to do their job without being threatened or intimidated in any way. Sarah Champion has my full support.” He went on: “My officials have been working with investigating officers in relevant cases, and with the National Crime Agency, to establish the particular characteristics and contexts associated with this type of offending.” About time, but if this politically correct country in which we're living makes you give in and cry*** this was a brave decision to be applauded.
Javid probably only got the Home Office job because it was a way of neutralising, to some extent, the toxic Windrush scandal, which broke on the current government's watch and had Theresa May's fingerprints all over it as Home Sec in 2012 when she spoke of her "aim to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants". OK, the word "illegal" actually makes that statement pretty unremarkable and I believe the phrase was in use in the Home Office during the Labour administration, but it was hard for the opposition to get really stuck into Javid, the first person of an Asian and Muslim background to hold one of the great offices of state.
And it does show, as was said at the time, that "dog whistle" political statements of the type Johnson made can cause problems, even if I wouldn't go as far as the James Moore writing in the Independent did**** in saying that "people who blow dog-whistles, and the politicians that pander to them" should be called out "for what they are: racists".
I don't believe for a moment that Boris Johnson or Theresa May are racists but there's no doubt Boris is good at blowing that whistle.
* https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-niqab-row-the-veil-enslaves-and-it-isnt-racist-to-say-so-0fzkkdfvw
** https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/sajid-javid-death-penalty-human-rights
*** rip off of lyric from Paul McCartney's Live and Let Die of course
**** https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/windrush-scandal-british-citizens-commonwealth-racism-home-office-immigration-a8310481.html
You won't be surprised that this old radical Liberal finds this subject very worrying.
ReplyDeleteMy first stance is to say it no one's business what I wear and I have no right to push what I believe are the 'correct' things to wear on anyone else. But of course I worry that some, maybe many, women who wear the Burka in its various forms are doing so because of male oppression rather than personal choice.
But what worries me more is the casual identification of Muslims as though it's OK to make out that they are all potential criminals and terrorists. That line is utterly appalling and its one that Johnson was clearly peddling. Remember he compared Burka wearers with bank robbers and in my view he was deliberately calling out to the kind of people who would want to hear that appalling message.
I agree that religion should be up for having the jokes told about it in a free society and maybe you would counter that by saying I would say that as an atheist. But seriously we should be able to take satirical knocks, just look at Dave Allen and Father Ted as examples of the Roman Catholic religion being ridiculed unmercifully.
Our problem is that we have some very unprincipled politicians and a section of the press who delight in feeding prejudices. The fact that they are creating situations where Muslims and others who look or speak differently to the white British 'norm' are being attacked in the streets more regularly due to the this propaganda is why we are becoming less tolerant, less inclusive and more hateful as a society. There's nothing at all be proud of by sailing in that direction as one day it will be the minority that we are a part of that will be singled out!