Britain and the Burqa
Posted on July 7, 2010I am uncomfortable about the burqa.
I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have a twinge of unease about someone excluding themselves almost totally from social interaction. I’m not going to peddle the obvious untruth that every woman who veils herself from head to toe does so out of personal choice. Nor can I turn a blind eye to the fact that one rarely sees the husbands of burqa-clad women wearing restrictive, uncomfortable and old-fashioned clothes themselves.
In truth, it is a totally inappropriate institution – a form of clothing totally out of place for our society and our enlightened times that establishes a barrier between different individuals and groups. But I will not be supporting Philip Hollobone’s proposed ban.
Yesterday, I was at a picnic in Hyde Park. Ten of us, friends from university, lounged in the sun, grazing on an increasingly warm selection of the kind of food you only ever seem to eat at picnics.
About thirty yards down the hill, another group did the same. The only incongruity was that, despite adopting the same sunbathing poses, they all did so in burqas.
And so did hundreds of other women. I hadn’t realised, but it seems that Sundays in Hyde Park are a real society event when it comes to displaying quite how much of yourself you can bear to keep covered up in black cloth in blazing sunshine.
And not only that – it seems that accessorising one’s burqa is de rigueur. I have never seen so many Gucci handbags and Dior sunglasses in one place in all my life.
It was a pretty odd scene, seeing woman who have obviously gone to great trouble to hide themselves then going to almost as much trouble to draw attention to themselves with a massive pair of leopard-print-and-gold shades.
Fairly obviously, it was quite an alien scene, too. The burqa is utterly divorced from the history and tradition that created Hyde Park, just as its wearers are divorced from the wider society in which the rest of us live today. It is often said that it is simply an un-British thing to do, to totally veil oneself – and that argument has some merit.
But, lazing in the sun and testing my own gut reactions to the burqa, it struck me that the banning of it would be even more un-British than the wearing of it.
Do we really want a Britain where the police turn up at Hyde Park on Sunday afternoon to pursue and arrest all those who have turned up in a particular type of clothing?
Would it ever be a source of pride that Britain was the kind of place where officials can drag you before a court because you failed to display enough of your body?
By all means we should be free to argue against a religion that encourages a woman to feel she must hide herself away. The forces of law and order should do their best to ensure that no-one is forced to wear a burqa or pursue any other practice that they do not want.
But if you find it is un-British to see someone in a burqa lounging in the park, consider for a moment quite how un-British it would be to see that person cuffed, and bundled into a police van – just for attending a picnic.
Tags: ban, Britain, British, burqa, Hyde Park, Islam, multiculturalism, Philip Hollobone, picnic, un-British
Categories: Culture, Opinion, Politics
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Wallace, Christian May. Christian May said: RT @wallaceme: Crash Bang Wallace: Picnics in Burqas http://bit.ly/aZlfof [...]
19.07.2010 10:52
I agree in principle, so long as similar tolerance is shown to me if I choose to go around in a balaclava, and so long as the burqa-clad show corresponding tolerance of others’ freedoms. I am far from convinced, however, that either of these conditions is met.
19.07.2010 11:06
There is something very un-British about banning articles of clothing. You are right and how anyone could support a ban is beyond me. I don’t like the thought of women covering themselves up and excluding themselves from society, but we cannot legislate against it. It would be the thin end of the wedge and a victory for state authoritarianism.
19.07.2010 11:08
Hello,
Pretty much agree a ban would be unjust and at odds with notions of personal freedom I consider important (sorry, I don’t subscribe to notions of “Britishness” in the way you do… or consider “being British” to be something to be proud of or ashamed of for that matter)…
However, I do find the stances taken in some predominantly Muslim countries to be interesting…
e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10684359
Is the Burkha intended to make a political statement when worn in the West maybe?
Seems bizarre to say but veils could become more prevalent in secular Western countries than in theocratic Middle Eastern ones.
19.07.2010 11:49
Oh come now, banning things has become the British way of life – we ban smoking, we are trying hard to ban fatty foods, we ban some dogs, we ban offensive language, and so on. To be British is to be a bansturbator…. get a grip!
19.07.2010 17:10
The the burka, and the more common niqab, are alien to our way of life, our history and our culture is not open to debate. The issue isn’t around banning the burka, and it certainly shouldn’t result in a ban. I feel the real issue is that of the cultural cringe which affects so many organisations in this country. Businesses and organisations should have the freedom to demand that covering the face is not acceptable, but such an action would no doubt have the Guardian readsership, and their Twitter accolytes, shouting Islamophobia.
And that’s a good point by Tarka; banning has indeed become the British way of life.
19.07.2010 20:11
Liberal stand up comedian Pat Condell has a very clear and no nonsense take on the burka ban situation here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
It is worth watching all the way through.
19.07.2010 21:20
I have an allergic reaction to banning things unless there is measurable harm to the greater good. That cannot apply in this case and so I don’t support a ban. I agree with Andrew Allison that a ban would be the thin end of a wedge.
However, the increasing number of women wearing burqas on the UK’s streets is probably the thin end of an all together nastier wedge all together. Would Mark Wallace have been surrounded by burqa-clad women in Hyde Park 20 years ago? What will it be like in another 20 years?
So, a legal ban, no; but making the burqa socially unacceptable – bloody spot on. They are un-British and unacceptable and, just like I had to adhere to social and legal norms surrounding dress when I lived in the MIddle East for 5 years…….well, you get the point.
19.07.2010 21:37
You have put into words far better than I could ever have done exactly what I think. I am most uncomfortable wandering around the West Yorkshire town I have lived in for the past 20 odd years seeing women (I assume they are women) covered up like this. Why do I have to remove my crash helmet when I enter a bank, building society or petrol station when these women don’t have to show their faces? But I could not support a ban it goes against every British freedom I can think of. As others have pointed out lets just make it socially unaceptable for them to be worn.
Daedalus
20.07.2010 07:40
After reading about the head-covering of Islamic women for years, it amazes me that no one ever asks why the burka (and the hijab/niqab) exist in their society. The plain fact – in anthropological terms – is that it stems from the very harsh economics of desert life in Arabia where for centuries, it has been essential that the women must remain out of sight of men in order to preserve the existence of the tribe. For women to ‘expose’ themselves and risk trying therefore to leave the tribe would have been impossible. So it is entirely to do with the dominance of the male over the female. When Islam was invented in the 620s, the ‘rules’ for the society had to include long-established practices in that milieu and it remains thus to this day. So if women are happy to follow a very primitive custom, then let that be their choice and no point in banning what would then be a tiresome waste of police time enforcing it. It should be noted that in the most populous Ismalic country in the world – Indonesia – there is no sign of head-covering at all – the women are far too beautiful to hide themselves though, sadly, Islamic fundamentalism is beginning to enforce coverings in some areas. However, what is at stake for this country is that anyone must have the right to refuse entry to a burka-clad person to their premises without fear of arrest for a ‘hate-crime’. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the coverings are not a religious rite and it is worrying that so many officials – especially in local government – are ignorant of this and constantly talk about giving ‘offence’ to Muslims without knowing whether they feel that way or not. We need a lot of education to rather ignorant people ! Islamic practices must not be allowed to over-rule the norms of this country.
20.07.2010 10:53
It occurs to me that when it comes to dress and appropriate apparel and offence being taken, we are missing something blindingly obvious.
The French are banning burkas but have a more relaxed attitude about naturism/topless bathing. We on the other hand are more tolerant (fearful of offence being given?) towards the burka but especially intolerent towards nude hikers (especially North of the Border!)
Odd I call it…
p.s. White on black is VERY difficult to read in long, un-broken paragraphs…
20.07.2010 15:05
I agree with the comment about the unreadability of white on black.
20.07.2010 15:11
I saw Hollobone on the box last night, and thought that a burqa might suit him. The young women interviewed were rather more articulate than he was, IMO, and since they seemed to be wearing them voluntarily, it was hard to see the problem.
At the risk of lowering the tone, I couldn’t help wondering if the accessorisation you saw in Hyde Park extended behind the covering. Agent Provocateur perhaps?
I’ll get my coat…
20.07.2010 16:07
I support G’s comments. Freedom to wear the Burqua, is the same as the freedom of a shopkeeper, bank, immigration organisation etc to refuse to serve someone whose identity is covered up by a burqua.
Maybe we could put this on commercial terms. Such establishments should then set up a room, with only female officials, to serve ladies who then remove their burquas, but are charged a commercial rate, the real cost, for the choice of using that room instead of the usual facilities. It is a choice after all.
21.07.2010 06:38
@NYExile:
“Would Mark Wallace have been surrounded by burqa-clad women in Hyde Park 20 years ago?” -
Yes. Hyde Park is adjacent to Marble Arch and Bayswater (the “Londonstan” of Monica Ali’s novel (not to be confused with Melanie Phillips’s hysterical “Londonistan”)), and Knightsbridge and Mayfair – those areas that have been the centre for London’s expatriate Arab population since the late 60s/early 70s. When people (particularly banners) talk about “the burka” they are not usually thinking of that most extreme garment, but the Gulf Arab combination of a long gown, such as a jilbab, with a full-face veil, or niqab.
This is not a big trend among native british muslims, but the niqab *is* common – though not even then a majority choice, to judge from my own experience of living in Marble Arch – of the Gulf Arabs who live here in our high summer, which they enjoy as spring-like conditions.
One does see many more hijabs (i.e. fancy hair-coverings) in the rest of London than one used to 20 years ago, but there was very a noticeable change in 2001 with many young women adopting it almost overnight – which I read as a signal to say “I’m a Muslim and I’m OK,” rather than as part of any significant Islamist movement.
Burka-banners are being wound up by their emotional reaction to various eastern costumes into seeing it everywhere. And seein in it more significance than it necessarily bears. They remind me strongly of the sort of white people who would go to Brixton and announce they now knew what it was like to be the only white person in a “sea” of black faces. Go to Brixton 20 years ago and actually *observe*, and yes, more black people than Cheltenham, but still nowhere near even a majority.
23.07.2010 05:02
The rich-kids from the Gulf living off the Edgeware road and Marble Arch have always played double standards. They cover the “modest” arab women up, while their sons go whoring every night in the hotel/nightclubs of the West End. Its a culture of total hipocrisy. Why cover their women up? Surely arab men wearing blinkers would acheive the same result?
Easy to claim its a free choice, but If a woman doesn’t comply but gets beaten up and disowned by brothers, husband and father – any “stress-testing” of the substance of that choice? No, just spin like we have had for the last twelve years. UnBritish to ban… err…24 hour drinking?
Its a disgrace to see this “coalition” pandering to Muslim fanatics. Couldn’t be frightened of offending anyone, err, like their voters?
23.07.2010 22:08
I do not follow the argument that if the burqa had been banned then we would regularly see police hauling women off to the nearest nick. Surely, in a democratic society once the ban was introduced, women would stop wearing the burqa. Too nieve? Well it certainly would test whether the women and their families really came to Britain to integrate into our way of life and would probably only last a short time.
I do not agree that banning an item of clothing is more un-British than the wearing of it in the first place. There are many well practised arguments about balaclavas, hoodies, motorcycle helmets etc.
29.07.2010 08:41
[...] thus becoming a state so draconian as to dictate what people can and cannot wear – it seems appropriate to repost one my earliest pieces on this site, weighing up whether a ban in Britain would be [...]
11.04.2011 13:32
[...] view of women being far to attractive for their own good. But as Mark Wallace pointed out in an excellent blog post from last July, just because something is bad doesn’t make banning it an [...]
12.04.2011 17:39