I was prompted to write this diary after reading sandbox's diary earlier today.
As many of you will know, President Sarkozy of France has recently spoken in favour of prohibiting women in France from wearing the burqa, as he feels that an 'oppressive' symbol of religiosity is not compatible with France's commitment to a secular Republic.
This comes amidst the growing threat of 'culture wars' in Europe, with massive immigration from Turkey, North Africa and the Indian sub-continent leading to what right-wing commentators claim is an 'Islamification' of the EU. They invoke the term 'dhimmitude' to express the reluctance of government to stand against (eg) moves to introduce Sharia Law into the law of EU member states. 'Dhimmis' are 'protected persons' (usually Christians or Jews) who are not Muslim living in a territory governed by Sharia - they are permitted to continue being non-muslims if they forfeit certain civil and political rights, and if they acknowledge their subjugation to Sharia.
This fear of 'dhimmitude' (the status of becoming 'dhimmis' on the right has led to the election of extreme parties across Europe - Geert Wilders' Freedom Party in Holland and the British National Party (neoNazi) in the UK.
So where does this leave the burqa debate?
Three views I just want to scan over:
a) I find the idea of banning individual behaviour (choice of clothes) for the sake of protecting the individual freedom of that person somewhat perverse. I tend towards an autonomy argument, and as much as I dislike the burqa and what it has come to represent, I don't think it poses sufficient 'threat' to justify government legislating for what citizens wear.
b) The ID question has some merit, but the idea of all masks, scarves, and veils being prohibited to help the CCTV state monitor us more closely is not something I think we should buy into, regardless of the fearmongering over terrorism and national security. A blanket ban on burqas and the niqab should not rest on such spurious grounds;
c) There is an argument about how the secular Western world is seen by the Islamic world. Tensions are already strained, and the mistrust of Muslims in Europe and America already cause for concern. This would (I think correctly) be seen as a bullying and hypocritical act of agression against Islam.
So my solution: TOLERANCE BUT NOT ACCOMMODATION
Tolerance is loosely defined as permitting (or refraining from acting against) something of which we do not approve. If we approve of something, I'd argue we do not tolerate it. I think Europe should learn to tolerate Islam rather than seeking to bully it into forced secularism.
That said, there should be no requirement for constitutionally secular states (like France or the United States) or countries with another established religion (like the UK is constitutionally Anglican) having to accommodate the religious decisions made by adherents of (other) faiths.
In the UK, we have a running debate as to whether immigrants (by which we mostly mean immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, who are by far the largest group here) should be forced to learn English before being granted residency. The reasons are not some chest-thumping "English as a National Language" (it always officially has been here), but practical - we have ghettos of immigrant populations who are unable to integrate into wider society. Women and children who are entirely dependent on the male Head of Family, because they are unable to speak English. If we want to discuss oppression of women, being practically unable to live and operate without the permission of the husband strikes me as a much bigger deal than the issue of being 'forced' to wear a burqa.
Again, I think the answer is Tolerance, but not Accommodation
We should not force people to learn English, but similarly we should not have each Council spend millions of pounds each year on translation services, so that people can get advice on Council Tax in Urdu, Bengali and 15 other languages (no exaggeration). We shouldn't have to provide every public service in 15 languages to accommodate those who have applied for citizenship but shown no desire to learn the language that would allow them to integrate into the country.
We should not force women to give up the burqa, but neither should we make allowances for ID (like driver's licenses) to be subverted for the sake of voluntary religious decision-making. We need photo ID to open bank accounts and to access secure facilities. I will defend someone's right to wear a face-covering niqab as a religious choice, but in making that choice, the person should understand that a secular state should not have to undermine its own practices to accommodate that decision.
I think we need to Tolerate the reasonable decisions made by adherents of faith (including Islam), but there is no reason that secular liberal democracies should have to accommodate every religious and cultural foible that its inhabitants deem to be important to them.
Liberal society means comprimise - Tolerance is important, but a line should be drawn at Accommodation of religious decision-making that affects others.