generalspeaking

Compromise Politics

"Many people do think we are being forced to wear our scarves. I think that's nonsense, to be honest. We're all just expressing our personalities in the way we dress."
Sadia Rahman, London art student

"I don't think the government should tell women what they should be wearing."
Theresa May, British interior minister

"We shouldn't end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from Parliament telling people what they should or should not wear."
British deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg

"People are frightened of standing up and speaking out…because of political correctness and the intolerant reaction from Muslim groups who jump up and down with fury whenever anyone says it makes sense to for people to go around with their faces perfectly visible to everyone else, which is the way human beings were created in the first place…If we all covered our faces, the world would be a very different place. Imagine Parliament where everyone had their faces covered."
Philip Hollobone, MP

Perhaps both Sadia Rahman, whose statement revealed her wearing of a headscarf to be a fashion statement, not a religious edict which women of the faith obey in honour of their religion in a display of Muslim female modesty, will take as much comfort as Shaheda Lorgat may, from the new ruling in Britain by Judge Peter Murphy that a Muslim defendant may wear a face-covering veil during trial, removing it when giving evidence. This is considered a wise juridical compromise to a vexing problem.

It will be of little comfort to the many Britons who do not appreciate confronting a fully-masked women in the public square. To them it is not emblematic of purity and chasteness, but of rank hostility, the obdurate refusal to become a part of the society that has taken them in when they fled oppression and misery in their countries of birth. Britain, according to the testimony given by some of its legislators, means to remain an 'open', 'welcoming', non-judgemental society.

And it will do this in the face of giving extraordinary rights to a close-minded, grudging, utterly judgemental faith. France, in the face of such a dilemma brewing within its proudly secular society became the first country to ban face-covering veils in Europe, anywhere in public. Turkey got there first, but that country represents an anomalous toss-up between the east and the west, and latterly the inward-looking east is winning there, hands down.

Belgium has enacted a similar ban to France's where niqabs or burkas are unwelcome in their society, and other European countries are considering passing similar legislation to preserve their very own cultural values. And then, of course, within Canada, a furore has arisen over the Province of Quebec's minority government planning to follow suit, by trying to bypass controversy that might arise over charges of Islamophobia through targeting all symbols of a conspicuous nature relating to any religion.
The new British ruling revolves around the court appearance of a 22-year-old Muslim woman who has been accused of intimidating a witness. She may wear her black, all-encompassing attire in court, but must show her face during testimony since "it is unfair to ask a juror to pass judgement on a person whom she cannot see."  There is an estimated 2.7-million Muslims living in the United Kingdom, a small minority of whom wear full-face covering.

But tell a woman what she may not do, and instantly anticipate a back-lash. Tell a Muslim woman what she must do and must avoid doing, and the entire religious clan seems to rise up as one in a mountain of belligerently entitled outrage. The London that some mullahs warn will soon become Londonistan is being infuriatingly loathe to accept its fate. That may be how it seems to them; much otherwise to those on the other side of the divide infuriated by the extent of capitulation.

Birmingham Metropolitan College had issued a ban on the wearing of Islamic veils in an effort to to ensure that all students adhered to an overall need to preserve comfort, safety and recognition of individuals. All manner of head coverings, not exclusive to Islamic scarfs or veils were included. The response was a mountainous heap of condemnation from all levels of Muslim society.

Local high school students visit the engineering department of Birmingham Metropolitan College.

An umbrella organization of student groups representing the interests of over 100,000 Muslim college students in Britain and Ireland issued a statement: "This senseless decision is massively divisive and will only lead to an environment in which the rights of many will be disproportionately suppressed. The fundamental rights to freedom of religious expression are at stake here and this sets out an extremely dangerous precedent not only for the Muslim community for for members of all faith backgrounds." The irony being that the statement of condemnation could be turned back in on itself.

A threatened campus demonstration set for September 14 with the stated aim to: "protest against this Islamophobic and illogical decision to ban the face veil ... to take a stand against such hysterical and discriminatory decisions" by 600 angry students, convinced the college administration to capitulate. "Islamophobic", "Illogical", "Hysterical and discriminatory", pretty well sums up the relationship between Muslims and all others in any society not entirely dominated and governed by Islam.

A Forum Poll on multiculturalism in Canada found that one-third of all Canadians felt Muslims have too much influence in their home provinces. A reflection based on interaction of any attempted variety, on observation of what obtains within Canada and elsewhere in the world. Muslim assertiveness and the desire to dominate by those who feel their faith and its tenets entitle them to special status divorces them from other cultures and religions; deliberately.

Labels: Britain, Canada, Conflict, Controversy, Europe, Human Relations, Immigration, Islamism

posted by Pieface @ Thursday, September 19, 2013