Philip Hollobone and the (il)logic of the burka debate

I’m yet to be convinced that the burka is anything other than a symbol of deep rooted oppression, and even if worn by a free woman in a free country, is still an expression of a patriarchal notion that frankly ought to have stayed in the dark ages where it belongs.

However, a Tory MP has represented to me the reason why appeals to banning it is cowardice and reactionary in many cases.

As the BBC described it:

Philip Hollobone has put forward parliamentary legislation to regulate the use of “certain facial coverings” in public.

[…]

“We are never going to get along with having a fully integrated society if a substantial minority insist on concealing their identity from everyone else.”

Mr Hollobone has previously described the burka, which covers the entire head, as “offensive” and “against the British way of life”, saying that wearing one was the religious equivalent of “going round with a paper bag over your head”.

I find Mr Hollobone’s final comments more moronic than offensive, but to suggest that blame lies in the woman wearing the burka herself for a disintegrated society shows a level ignorance that makes me extremely cross.

A better example for the debate can be found in France.

Last year France denied a Moroccan woman citizenship for her incompatibility to French values, particularly equality of the sexes. Further details saw that the woman, known as Faiza M., had lived in France since 2000 with her husband and three children all of whom were born in France, though social services reported that she lived in “total submission” to her husband.

Reports of her incompatible radical politics were subsequently quashed. So what made her incompatible? At first it would seem too extraordinary that the reason she was incompatible to French values was because she was the human embodiment of inequality. But wouldn’t this show cowardice on the part of the French government for not vilifying the oppressor? Of course it would, and it is this precise reason that the French government has chosen to pick on the oppressed and not the oppressor, cowardice.

French philosopher Alain Badiou said of burqa banning in 2004.

Grandiose causes need new-style arguments. For example: hijab must be banned; it is a sign of male power (the father or eldest brother) over young girls or women. So, we’ll banish the women who obstinately wear it. Basically put: these girls or women are oppressed. Hence, they shall be punished. It’s a little like saying: “This woman has been raped: throw her in jail.”

Most would recognise that the burka is a symbol of oppression but if this is so, then why are coward governments attacking the symbol, and not the oppression itself. It is this logic that Mr Hollobone and others can’t get round, and it damages the whole debate.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Philip Hollobone and the (il)logic of the burka debate

  1. Robert says:

    I actually did have a doctor who wore the Burka while I was in hospital but wore a scarf when he came to your bed side, now we are hearing None Muslim nurses and doctors can wear long sleeved clothes while none Muslim nurses must wear a new uniform above the elbow.

    In my town the first town to stop people wearing hoods in town, I was taken to one side and told you cannot wear the hood up on your duffel coat while in the shopping area of town, I took it off and had a cap on, to be told you cannot wear that either.

    I remember going back a few years well a good few years when men wore the trilby hat, while this police officer was laying down the laws about hats caps and hood, three Muslim women pasted me, I said what about them and the officer said they are OK because it’s religious, they are Muslim women and I said how do you know they could be shop lifters, he smiled and said never mind them it’s you.

    But it’s not is it it’s about one law for me and one for them.

    • It would be easy to say this example points at a culture where even policemen and women are too mollycoddling to other people’s sentimentalities, but it seems that the policeman was a tad naive in your case. I have purposely avoided the security risk argument appealed to by many on the topic of the burka, but an institution that doesn’t respect the religious symbols of other cultures is more often than not hostile to them, worryingly so in many cases. Until we get the argument right about whether the burka is legitimate or illegitimate, we can pursue an attitude towards the burka where hostility to Islam doesn’t follow.

  2. Scott says:

    The Muslim Canadian Congress calls for a ban on the burka and the niqab, arguing that they have “no basis in Islam”.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/08/canada-muslim-burka-niqb-ban-government.html

    • ThNks I’ll look Into that further, but there is an important gulf to be taken into consideration between people who want to ban it because it has no basis in Islam, and those who have other motives, such as a dislike of Islam itself.

      Hollobone was cracking out all the classis stuff that it wasn’t British and so on, he probably has no idea what is and is not truly Islam, nor do I think he cares.

      Plus his banning of women wearing niqabs and burkas in his surgery show that he only seeks to blame the women themselves, that’s not progressive in my view.

  3. Pingback: Islamaphobia on the rise « Left Outside

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: