By Michael Kennedy
Controversy regarding Muslim dress standards has again arisen in Europe. With Europe’s significant and growing Muslim population, we could probably expect this issue to become more and more prevalent.
In a similar vein to the proposal to ban head-scarves in France, Gianluca Buonanno, the mayor of Varallo Sesia has banned the burkini, a ‘cover-all’ swimsuit which allows strict Muslims to bathe while keeping the rather strict standards of modesty, that their interpretation of this religion requires.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25955595-5014090,00.html
As predictable as always, such an issue has caught the attention of both the Politically Correct liberal left, ever keen to display their tolerance to the world, and others who see this as minorities encroaching on their freedoms. Gianluca Buonanno states
“We don’t have to be tolerant all the time, imagine a Western woman bathing in a bikini in a Muslim country. The consequences could be decapitation, prison or deportation. We are merely prohibiting the use of the burkini.”
For many commenters on the news.com.au site, their comments reflect this sentiment. A double standard? Are we in the West overly tolerant? The PC brigade has little to say on the issue. They largely state that a woman should be free to wear what they like. They are actually right, in a superficial sense. In the Western world, we have come a long way since ‘cover-all’ swimwear was required, though strict remnants remain, such as the Amish; a historical curiosity to the Western world, rather than an emerging phenomenon.
Theocracy is not part of the governmental process, with the modern Western world slowly following the example of the USA, a new nation created specifically keeping the oppressive Christian churches separate from the state and keeping their power under control and one that does not define the nation.
Now women are free to choose their clothing, as to what suits them best, and what is most comfortable. Perhaps the women walking around Friday nights in stilettos and short skirts during blustery winter weather have not made the most intelligent choice, but the choice nevertheless is there. Much in the same way political activists may want to freely adopt the ‘black block’ look because they desire to remain anonymous. There is no religious or cultural requirement to cover up excessively, to wear clothing which has no room to breath or ventilation in hot days or to hides one visage. One is free to choose appropriate attire in public, free from having to bend to irrational superstitions, religion and the wishes of theocrats. Granted one cannot choose to wear nothing, or clothing functionally close to nothing, nevertheless, the freedom is there.
The superficial similarities of the burkini to those worn by divers and the Australian Olympic swimming team are also pointed out, often as a rather desperate means of normalising the burkini and make one believe that it is really no different. However one would then have to ignore the vast difference in being able to choose cover-all swimwear for practicality, and one being used because no other is permitted. The issue is further complicated by Muslims who do not believe the religion forces such clothing requirements and that a ban on the burkini is a direct attack on Islam in general.
The dress requirements are debatable as the Koran does not specifically prescribe any particular garments, though does command:
“They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary.” (verse 31 of sura 24).
It’s interpretation is open to abuse, something common to all religions. The interpretation however reflects the morality of the people, perhaps even more than morality is a reflection of the teachings of the Koran, with people taking from holy texts that which supports their moral world-view, and ignoring that which doesn’t. A corollary can be seen with various Christian denominations, with various denominations using a pre-existing moral compass to determine which scriptures to accept, which to reject, and how to interpret that which is open to subjective interpretation. The stricter Islamic denominations would be influenced more by an existing cultural view, than the Koran itself. As with all three of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, the religious teachings and cultural adaptation of them are intertwined and inseperable.
Our western values respects individual choice on what clothes they wear, a choice which is made by and large, free from theocracy, from cultural coercion and from potential retribution. This is in stark contrast to some of the more extreme Muslim nations, where such expressions of freedom would involve corporal punishment, or even worse.
However, the multiculturalists preaching tolerance are missing one vital point. Do many of the women who wear the burkini, or the burqa really HAVE A CHOICE?? While they might mention correctly, that women are free to choose appropriate clothing, the statement completely overlooks the important point, that these women aren’t necessarily free to exercise such choice! There are some Muslim women, who through respect for their religion, culture and relatives, might choose to wear such clothing, such as the hijab though they could prefer not to. But this wouldn’t represent all Muslim women. It certainly wouldn’t be representative of women living under strict Muslim theocracies, who must wear body covering clothing revealing only the eyes, under threat of corporal punishment for disobeying this edict. Does a woman who walks the streets of Melbourne or Sydney in a ‘black ninja outfit’ also have this choice? Is she free to wake up on a warm balmy morning and think “Sod it, it’s a warm day today, I think I will wear shorts and a T-Shirt”. Is she free to decide to walk around in public, and allow people to see her face, to see her facial expressions, her distress, joy or troubles? Is she really free to make a decision to enjoy the cool breezes at the end of a warm day, and make true face to face contact with people outside of her house? Not only this, the clothing must impede movement and make certain physical activities more troublesome. There is much debate amongst Muslims as to whether such clothing is necessary, with a large number believing it unnecessary.
Our laws don’t prohibit this, but are we really supposed to believe that her husband or father or other male relatives would be perfectly OK with this? Are we supposed to believe that religious upbringing and inculcation of beliefs doesn’t result in coercion? Instead, it’s made out as if this is purely free choice, made without coercion, without indoctrination, made rationally and for the benefit of the individual making the decision. We are led to believe that we are oppressive, in taking freedom away by banning clothing which has become symbolic of oppression of women. Some liberals will even try to argue there are no “Australian” or “Western” values. A position of such stupendous ignorance, that it is almost impossible to conceive how one could entertain such beliefs without being completely oblivious of British and European history.
For those who seek to fight any perceived ‘racism’ to fuel their own moral righteousness, in order to promote their belaboured viewpoint, twist this issue into one of a woman’s ‘right’ to wear the burkini, thereby distorting the issue at hand, from one of allowing foreign and oppressive cultures in which to practice ideals contrary to western ideals within our nation. They, by sleight of hand, turn it into the WEST imposing dress standards on others. This trickery makes those who oppose misogynistic practices appear to be the ‘bigots’! The real issue is far from this. However many have not recognised this, and even Mr Buonanno uses the simplistic double standard argument, though perhaps he framed his argument in a manner which might be more acceptable to liberalism.
The Politically Correct Heirarchy
The fact that the Burqa which is a visible representation of Islamic control of women is neglected, is quite telling. In the religious doctrine of leftist Political Correctness, there is a distinct hierarchy. As they often have values which contradict each other, there is need of a hierarchy where some leftist causes take precedence over others. This way when two leftist causes contradict, they just support the one higher up on the hierarchy. For instance, the “ethnic discrimination” cause trumps both “sexism” and “environmentalism”. So where a conflict of interest arises, such as the environmental damage done to Australia due to rapid population growth, the “left wing” simply consult their hierarchy and determine that their environmental causes must be ignored if the solution involves something they would jump on as ‘racist’, (such as a sensible immigration policy). In this simplistic view ‘ethnicity’ and ‘religion’ are one and the same.
In this instance, ‘religious tolerance’ overrides ‘feminism’, as it’s higher on the hierarchy, therefore ‘tolerating’ the importation of misogynistic practices trumps women’s rights. The rights of the women to enjoy the freedom that Western culture brings and liberation from irrational beliefs and theocracy don’t rate highly enough. The ‘tolerance’ card trumps them, so quite ironically, we are asked to tolerate and condone behaviour which is contrary to our values. Worse still, we are supposed to accept this as part of our culture and nation. Should Australia decide to implement anti-blasphemy laws such as those the UN is proposing, it would make it law to tolerate practices.[1] This non-binding resolution titled “Combating the Defamation of Religion” was designed to address speech which criticises religion. However religious groups wish to make this a binding resolution. It seeks to combat defamation of religion and incitement to hatred, however defamation laws are often misused and can be used as a form of protection. It further undermines free speech by making legitimate concerns and observations punishable.
Tolerance isn’t always a virtue.
Appeasing to Political Correctness breeds failure
Mr Buonanno’s comments didn’t address these issues, but rather seemed more like a low rent justification appearing to make a point against the Burkini, and therefore Islam, without addressing the real issue head on. Mr Buonanno says
“The sight of a ‘masked woman’ could disturb small children, not to mention problems of hygiene”.
Perhaps this is true, but it doesn’t address the inevitable cultural regression that would occur in ‘tolerating’ cultural practices which contradict ours. The fact children could be scared sounds like some kind of weak mask for a different underlying motivation. It would be more honest to simply state there is a conflict between Islamic and Western values, and that being a European nation, by default the Western values should triumph. Perhaps to take such a position is to be too politically incorrect, as it would be too exclusive, too Eurocentric. But this watered down position is logically untenable. Perhaps this is what Mr Buonanno really believes, but it is clear that attempts to avoid being politically incorrect can make ones position logically weak, by not stating the real, underlying issues.
The Nationalist Alternative Position
It is not necessarily minorities who ‘impose’ their beliefs on we westerners which causes this division, but the tolerance of many of the vocal liberal minority who allow this assault on our culture and silence those who object. While many, including the media, will frame the argument as one of whether a women should be ‘allowed’ to wear these clothes, this is completely beside the point. The danger here comes from endorsing the establishment and propagation of cultural and religious practices which are clearly contrary to those which make Australia, the rest of the Anglo-sphere and Europe enviable societies. Countries which ironically, many followers of Islam want to move to!
Women are not necessarily free to wear the Burqa/Burkini or not, they have little choice and it’s a requirement based on ungrounded centuries old beliefs. It certainty wouldn’t be true that every case of a women wearing a Burqa in a western nation is purely of free will with no coercion or indoctrination involved. To frame the argument as one of ‘choice’ is dishonest and misleading. The real issue is not the dress, but the acceptance of a greater diversity of unenlightened religious practices into our society. To accept this as part of our nation is to accept this as part of a modern western country, something that Australians, as well as the rest of Europe and European built nations must consider carefully. Such double standards, where one culture within our nation is somehow exempt from the cultural norms of the rest of the nation can only lead to division and conflict and a degradation of our cultural conventions.
There is also the double standard of people being allowed to wear in certain places concealing clothing because of their religion, which other people from a different religion or ethnic group, would not be allowed to wear in such places. It also completely goes against one of the main tenets of western thought and western society, the idea that one law, and one law only, applies to all citizens.
[1] http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5
