First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
The burqah ban debate: what’s really at stake
|
A fresh spate of public debate on whether the burqah should be banned, both nationally and internationally, has been sparked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. As a Muslim woman and just as a member of society it got me wondering — what’s really at stake here? Last month Sarkozy began a gallant bid to restore the feminist movement — a cause clearly close to his heart — and ban the wearing of the burqah, which he claims is “a problem of liberty and women’s dignity”. In his own words, the burqah is apparently not a religious symbol, but a sign of enslavement and subservience. Naturally, to restore a women’s dignity and give ‘er back her rights you must tell her what she can’t wear. Makes perfect sense. Perhaps if you’re the French first lady and prefer wearing nothing at all, banning the burqah would be a convenient way to dodge one more item of clothing. Let’s not fall for the whole “liberation of women” veil in which Sarkozy shrouds his attack. How many women in France actually wear a burqah for the issue to be so high on the President’s agenda? Not many at all — so few in fact, that as one journalist pointed out, none could be found to be interviewed by a BBC correspondent on the issue. Appearing sympathetic to the rights of the subjugated and liberating these women of their veil — which appear to pose an implicit threat to the President’s right-wing sensibilities — is obviously part of his political agenda, a cheap way to win some votes. God knows women have been held hostage for a few votes before — shortly after invading Afghanistan, Bush boldly declared in his 2002 State of the Union address “Today women are free”. The liberation of Afghan women was a huge justification for America’s invasion of the country. When calling for an outright ban of the burqah, the argument ceases to be about gender equality and shifts to an aggressive violation of human rights clouded by an air of xenophobia. Stripped down to its core, the act of imposing a ban on the burqah to liberate women is no more enlightened than the views held in the very patriarchal societies being condemned. Ironically, both approaches lead to the same end point — women subjugated to the will of others, regardless of whether the end result is a silhouette of a woman clad in a heavy burqah, or that of a woman stripped of her right to choose. Often we’re presented with the supposed flip side to the argument — we don’t see women in Saudi frolicking around in a bikini, so why should Muslim women in the West be allowed to cover? There are some fundamental differences between the two societies, the most obvious being that the West prides itself on being founded on a democratic basis — it’s issues like this that put this ideological concept to the test. Furthermore, forcing women to wear a burqah/niqab in countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is not Islamically correct — it is not a universally accepted true expression of Shariah, so we should hardly be looking to those regimes for guidance or to draw parallels. The argument continues to unfold domestically. Canberra based journalist Virginia Haussegger wrote a piece for the Canberra Times, crying out to “ban the unAustralian Burka”. This generated a huge response on talkback radio and in letters to the editor, manifesting into a public debate hosted by the ANU on Wednesday the 15th of July. Virginia, with her pro-ban stance, sat on a panel with Dr Shakira Hussein and Julie Posetti, both against the imposition of a ban on the burqah. Animated discussion took place in front of a capacity crowd of 380-plus journalists and members of the public, and was followed avidly on Twitter (#burkaban), with many more lined up outside the University lecture theater. The audience seemed to be split between those backing Virginia’s very emotive stance — strongly for not allowing the burqah to be seen in public in Australia, conveniently failing to address what steps would be taken to put this theory into practice — and those backing Shakira and Julie’s position, which highlighted the issues surrounding an individuals’ right to choose. Both Shakira and Julie made a point to highlight the complex social and political implications of enforcing a ban in Australia. When challenged by an audience member to explain the dichotomy that exists in enforcing liberation, Virginia was somewhat vague in supplying a substantive answer. By the end of the debate, there seemed to be only a recognition that more discussion was required to address the marginalising effects on the community triggered by calling for a ban, let alone imposing one. The debate has managed to stir copious amounts of public interest nationally, but it is important to note the added twist to the Australian debate. Whereas overseas calls for the ban have been coming from xenophobic right-wing Governments, which is not so surprising, this stance in Australia coming from Virginia, a so-called progressive feminist, adds another dimension to the argument. A dimension which makes for a more dire domestic situation where the mainstream grows increasingly xenophobic, using the opinions of a liberal feminist to justify their position. By advocating the imposition of a ban, Virginia is unwittingly furthering the notion of censoring women. If a ban on the “unAustralian” burqah were to be accepted, women who choose to wear one will be further alienated from society. I am quite certain that these women would not tear off their burqahs and declare their newly found “liberation” to the world. In fact, they would retreat even further, preferring not to leave their house, rather than to leave behind their burqah and their beliefs, as right or wrong as their beliefs may seem to us. Now is that really what a progressive, liberal feminist would want for her fellow sisters? We need to remove the nonsensical façade of empowering women by imposing a ban on burqahs and face the real pressing question at the heart of the debate: which of us would like to live in a police state where our fundamental right to choose is taken away? If you ask me, that’s pretty “unAustralian”. |
|
|
19 Comments
My mum sometimes says I should wear a burqa, though that’s only if I haven’t shaved for a few days.
Hear, hear - well expressed.
Isn’t the motto of France LIBERTY, equality, fraternity. Sarkozy apparently it only applies to the “real” French and not those migrants from Africa. Incidentally doesn’t the Sarkozy family originate from Hungary or other points east?
I’d have more sympathy with wearing burqas if I could be confident that it was the woman’s sole choice. Unfortunately, I know it’s not. Religions pick up cultural practices, which then become justified as being part of the religion. And it’s the dominant (ie male) members of the culture that pressure the rest into conforming- by citing religion. Women who might be only too glad to discard their burqas don’t really have a choice if they know they are going to get brutalised either physically or emotionally by their husbands or male relatives when they go home. Wearing a burqa becomes preferable to domestic violence, then the Stockholm Syndrome kicks in, and women start saying that they like wearing them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall the Q’ran specifically directing women to cover their faces in public- the issue is one of covering the hair. Covering the face is a cultural add-on originating when women were largely treated as another class of property.
Did David Menere read this in the above, or if he did doesn’e he believe it is correct?
“Let’s not fall for the whole “liberation of women” veil in which Sarkozy shrouds his attack. How many women in France actually wear a burqah for the issue to be so high on the President’s agenda? Not many at all — so few in fact, that as one journalist pointed out, none could be found to be interviewed by a BBC correspondent on the issue.”
I’ll be in Melbourne next week. Will a burka protect me from Swine Flu?
I purposely didn’t comment on Sarko’s statements on this issue because he’s dog-whistling for domestic political advantage, same way as John Howard did on border issues. France has some real cultural tensions developing, as its colonial past comes home to haunt it, and Sarko is cynically playing them.
They need only be regulated, like motorcycle helmets, for security reasons – not to be worn in banks or other clearly marked sensitive areas.
Banning them will only increase their popularity among those who feel that the regulation is a masked swipe against Islam. It would be an essentially undemocratic and intolerant move to restrict people’s right to choose their mode of dress.
Surely in our multicultural society a universally agreed “good” would be peace and harmony with everybody being able to get on with his or her business. I agree that a Muslim woman has a “right” to wear her burqua. I become uneasy and somewhat disturbed by women wearing them and I surely also have a right not to be disturbed in this way. What is to be done ? Surely the answer is through negotiation, or John Gray’s Modus Vivendi” and perhaps the hijab is the middle way to produce, not a “winner” but a harmonious society.
http://planetirf.blogspot.com/2009/07/video-kirsten-schaal-takes-on-burka.html
We live in a society which communicates by visual clues, it’s easier to understand someone when you are talking face to face rather than listening on a telephone. As a sign of respect I expect to see the whole face of the person I am talking to, I am uncomfortable talking to a veiled slit.
I was just as uncomfortable watching the penguins [black habitted,white wimpled nuns] walking the orphans to school.
I would not like my children to be taught by a woman wrapped in a shroud [oops burkah] and if I am involved in a car accident with a burkahed woman I will scream black and blue that she didn’t see me.
Maybe this generation cho9ses to cover up but will their daughters be allowed to run around in shorts and T-shirt if they want to. No, I have seen 3 year olds having their head covered and heard of 6 year old Australian girls having their head shaved to force them to cover their head
I agree with Irf’s mum!
David Christie, all you’ve come up is a nicer way of saying you want the burqua banned.
So do I actually. I have no problem with the hijab, but the burqua is a blotting out of the individual as anything but a cipher for one particular nasty interpretation of one particular religion. Quite apart from the practical problems of actually communicating meaningfully when all you can see is their eyes. It is putting up a wall against the rest of us.
Here in Canberra I’ve only seen a burqua once. It was a woman in a checkout queue at a supermarket, with hubby alongside. It made my blood run cold…
Yes we have an open democracy here, but it has its limits. We don’t allow polygamy or female genital mutilation, however much Islamic women mag allegedly want either, and we shouldn’t allow the burqua either.
You make some good points Durkhanai. The debate did fizzle out a bit, didn’t it? I think the most salient point made was by Julie - whether Virginia likes it or not, calling for a burqa ban, even if that call is couched in feminist principles, opens up the possibility that her stance will be appropriated by intolerant people and so-called nationalists.
Plus, as someone noted, you ca n’t call yourself a true libertarian and in the next breath try to ban something.
Your contribution to the debate was invaluable, Durkhanai!
Why, thanks James
I’ve blogged about the debate & posted a transcript of my contribution here: http://www.j-scribe.com/2009/07/banning-burka-unaustralian-idea.html for anyone who’s interested.
@malcolm et al I really have trouble logically joining the dots between banning female genital mutilation - a form of physical assault which would clearly be covered by existing Australian law - and banning an item of clothing. Assaulting another person has no parallel with an individual’s choice of dress.
I think there’s two issues here, not just one. In some countries, women who want to wear the burqa have the same rights as other women. In Afghanistan for instance, the attitude to women is pretty horrific. Girls can’t be educated past a certain age; women can’t work outside the home, and so widows either live in poverty or resort to begging or prostitution. They can be bashed, raped and otherwise treated appallingly. The so-called ‘democratic government’ is just US and it’s allies preferences in order to do as they please - in short, set things up for a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the West to get out the $16 trillion dollars worth of oil land gas. Why doesn’t Sarkozy attack those in power in Afghanistan for their appalling treatment of women, and allowing women to be brutalized even in the parliament.
In Australia and other western countries, at least there’s more rights etc than this. I can’t see the point in professing to be democratic and then buggering it up by insisting certain people dress a certain way. The aspect that really galls me is the hypocrisy. It’s OK for women to only be p aid at best 75% of men’s income; to use women’s bodies to sell just about anything, to allow young girls to be sexualized for capitalist causes, but our sensibilities are injured over a few women whose faces are almost hidden by material! Please! Give me a break! While this is going on, the real things that should be exposed or championed for are left alone.
Some even go as far as objecting to the Hijab, but don’t mind the clergy wearing dresses and funny head gear, or never objected to catholic nuns wearing the habit! I think it’s just another excuse to bash middle eastern people; and another form of control for men(Sarkozy)to dominate women’s lives. Finally, I think his attitude to women in his personal life could be scrutinized first!
“why should Muslim women in the West be allowed to cover? “
It’s a non question.
Shrouding is nothing to do with Islam - it’s been a feature of patriarchy since the bronze sword and wealth accumulation - women being emrely an additional sign of wealth. The mad meccans surging out of the Empty Quarter in the 7thC revelled in the remnants of decadent persian culture and the harem was merelt one aspect.
If only westerners would read the Koran (it’s less than 150 widely spaced pages) they’d find no mention nor suggestion of shrouding.
The pharisean/hadith justifications for shrouding and female sequestration are about protecting MEN from the evil sexuality of women. In other words, them wot got the problem impose the resolution (of their inadequacies) on someone else - not unknown in other political areas but the antiquity or ubiquity of idiocy is reason for its contiuation.
It’s all very well for independent young women to argue about an individual’s right to wear a burqa, but in doing so they are ignoring, even denying that burqa-wearing is a cultural activity, driven by the dominant male element. A ‘choice of dress’, made under the duress of physical violence, emotional pressure etc is no choice at all.
Do women sweltering under layers of black polyester in 40+ degrees while their male relatives get about in shorts and t-shirts console themselves that their suffering is for their spiritual betterment? Sounds like the basis for a scene from ‘Life of Brian’.
There would be major practical difficulties in banning burqa-wearing, but that doesn’t mean that we have to endorse it uncritically, as many of the ban opponents seem to do. It’s an unfortunate cultural practice whose time is long past.
As a western feminist, I thought one of the criteria was allowing women to make choices about their lives. I can be critical of thst framing but not in this case. There can be no justification for banning any form of identity clothing because WE are uncomfortable and have decided that the wearer has been forced into the style they display. Many groups push particular dress codes: very religious Jewish women wear wigs, Hassidic Jews look quite odd in many outfits, Exclusive Brethren have dress codes, and don’t allow children to see a non Brethren parent, Masons look bloody silly in aprons. A lot of visible signals, in dress, of deep beliefs make me feel rather uncomfortable because I don’t get it, but that is my problem, not theirs.
We have laws that protect people against being forced to do something they do not want to do. We can’t legislate against the many style examples of people choosing to be compliant that we do not agree with. So my question is why do some people feel so deeply threatened by a style of clothing that they want it banned. The assumption that all these women are just mindless puppets is deeply sexist and prejudiced and should not be claimed as feminist, please Virginia and others. As long term opponent of both viewpoints, I ask the proponents of banning burqas to shift their supposed feminism to doing something useful for the many serious issues women do face. Ask why George Bush used this type of issue to go to war in Afghanistant and what that did for the women there now! The allies sold them out to tribalism!
Eva Cox
David Menere, thank you for your thoughts - I’d like to elaborate on some of the points you raise in your last post.
I don’t condone the forceful imposition of any individual’s ideals onto another, whether it be a man forcing a woman into a wearing a burqah, or a feminist calling for a ban to force a woman out of a burqah - both take away an individual’s fundamental right to choose. Rationally, I think most people would come to this same conclusion.
However, the fact that you believe it is a “cultural practice” should not muddy the waters enough to justify a call to have it banned. Where do we draw the line? Do we start to ban everything deemed to be “unAustralian”? (a pejorative term fraught with racist connotations, I might add) And whose definition, if any, of “unAustralian” should we accept anyway?
In all honesty, to a certain extent I think the call for the ban, coming from Virginia and the like, has less to do with the fact that the burqah is an outdated cultral practice oppressive to the woman beneath it (let’s for a moment go with what most proponents of the ban would suggest and demean the woman even more by assuming she is chattel with absolutely no choice in the matter), and instead stems, to a notable degree, from the elevated level of confrontation and discomfort experienced by most people in the West at the sight of a burqah-clad woman.
I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I feel a certain degree of confrontation at the sight of a woman in a burqah, but I’ll also be quick to recognise that it is completely self-serving, arrogant and preposterous to enforce a ban on its wear so that our sensibilities are no longer challenged.
So, David, I use my platform as an “independent young woman” to suggest we deal with this inability to be accepting of others, rather than demanding they conform.