The Fraught Politics of Integration
Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab. This simple affirmation of western freedom of expression must be made before any discussion about the merits of Jack Straw’s latest pronouncement begins. What is important, however, is that we apply this principle of free expression without fear of causing ‘offence’ and not capitulate to insidious demands for ‘respect’. Causing offence is not a crime. People living in a free society should be prepared to be lampooned, ridiculed, criticised and mocked; it is not the States place to give a damn whether a citizen has been offended or not.
We are capable, therefore, of having a free and open debate about the cultural and religious practices of the communities who live in this country. Jack Straw was right to raise the particular issue of Muslim women and veils. He makes the entirely reasonable point that a veil, which creates a barrier between two people, stymies discourse and social interaction. Much of our communication is non-verbal; and facial expression is a vital tool in our conversational repertoire. A smile or smirk or grimace can say as much as any monologue or hasty utterance. If you remove the ability of one person to see another persons face, you take away one of our best (and most immediate) ways of forging empathy with another human being; and we could all do with a lot more empathy when it comes to community dialogue in this country.
At this point (rather ironically considering my last sentence), I must declare that I find the niqab discomforting. A woman veiled from head to toe in cloth, with only the eyes showing, is a statement of difference which I cannot comprehend in any positive fashion. It seems to me that the veil is a symbol of the patriarchal nature of many Muslim communities. This assertion is borne out by the simple observation that, in the vast majority of conservative Muslim societies, women have to wear the vale and men do not. The veiling of women is a suppression of individual identity and it turns the wearer into a blank space. The point must also be made that, undoubtedly in many cases, women have no choice in the matter.
My discomfort (or anyone else’s) with the niqab is, for the over-arching reason given above, no reason for a ban. Instead of using the sledgehammer of the law to address this issue, we would be better off, as is nearly always the case, using the scalpel of dialogue and debate.
The niqab controversy is just the tip of the iceberg. How government can use policy to effect a successful integration of immigrant groups into British (or any Western European) society is an extremely important question. On the one side are the proponents of multiculturalism who have shaped public policy for the better part of three decades in this country; and on the other the absolute secularists who find their most powerful advocates in (for example) the French establishment. Both approaches are flawed.
Social pressures, which are defended under the tenets of the doctrine of ‘multiculturalism’, mean that women are often dismissed or shunned by their communities if they refuse to don the chador.
Multiculturalism, the policy by which all cultures are to be afforded equal ‘respect’ (there’s that word again), is implicitly implicated in this tyranny over women. Fashioned with the best of intentions, it has now become a counter-productive way of welcoming people to our country. It promotes not a melting-pot where we all mix together but a segregated society of sealed off cultures, each sticking to its own. This results in such horrors as state funded faith schools and ethnic community centres, which are the wellsprings of sectarian strife. A good illustration of this is the segregated townscapes of places like Burnley and Bradford; places which erupted in inter-communal violence not 5 years ago. Multiculturalism affords too much respect to reactionary immigrant traditions and, what is worse, results in the often elderly and gaunt proselytizers of these traditions being backed by tax payer funds.
The approach of some other countries, most notably the fanatically secular France, is to ban, by force of law, all religious statements from the public sphere. So, for example, women are not allowed to wear headscarves in public schools. All religion is equally powerless. This approach, perhaps best expressed in the first amendment of the US constitution, is the only guarantee of religious freedom. The French, however, needlessly extend things too far when insisting on a de facto dress code for French citizenship. This extreme application of the principle of Laïcité does absolutely nothing to help immigrant groups integrate into society. Because the government takes no position on religion (an extremely admirable principle in theory) it can have no policy on religious groups. The sad fact is that, for many communities, religion is a symbol of identity and a pie-in-the-sky approach, whereby it is completely ignored, does little to help with integration and the creation of harmonious neighborhood relations.What is the solution? The government, instead of its current pusillanimous approach to questions of this kind, should be more assertive in articulating, with a view to encouraging (I almost wrote engineering, but that would be a touch totalitarian), the kind of mixed up society we want to see exist here. No more faith schools and no more respect for reactionary elements in immigrant communities. No more pretending that the Muslim Council of Britain, a deeply conservative body, comes anywhere near to reflecting the views of Muslim Britains. But equally, no resorting to State power and the law courts to try to force communities to mix.
A pragmatic approach to religion within the framework of a secular constitution would be the ideal. Whilst religion (which is often expressed in culture) continues to wield such power over people’s lives, the government should address it and the problems it creates. Jack Straw’s remarks will hopefully create a debate which can generate some light, as well as the usual furious heat.
-posted by Adam
