Raising the Veil
We’re now into the last week of teaching term here in Cardiff, and I’m feeling like I’m running the final stages of a marathon. I like the idea of fitting all the second semester’s teaching in before the Easter break but I have to admit I’m struggling to make the distance, especially because so many things have to be done this week before we finish. Next week I’m off to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno too. For all these reasons (and a few others) I won’t have much blogging time for a bit, so my posts may be a bit thin on the ground (or whatever it is that the blogosphere rests on).
However, I couldn’t resist using this blog to express my opinion about one of the big news items of the day, the introduction, today, in France, of a ban on women wearing of the veil in public. I think it’s particularly interesting timing after the discussion of religion and science that arose after I reblogged a post by Andy Lawrence about the Templeton Prize.
Frankly, I think the new French law is monstrous. I’m not a Muslim, but it is abhorrent to me that the state should seek to prevent individuals expressing their religious beliefs. I obviously don’t think anyone should be forced to wear the veil against their will, but in an open society those who choose to wear it should be allowed to do so. And I don’t buy the argument that it’s some sort of identification issue, either. What’s next, a ban on sunglasses and balaclavas? No. In any case there are only about 2,000 women in France who regularly wear the veil. Let’s make no bones about it, this law is specifically intended to pander to anti-Muslim sentiments. It stinks. I like to think we’d never allow such a thing in this country.
But here’s the flip side. I read at the weekend of the case of a candidate for the forthcoming Welsh Assembly Elections. Sion Owens is on the South Wales West Regional List for the British National Party (BNP). At the weekend he was arrested under the Public Order Act after a video emerged in which he was seen to be burning a copy of the Qur’an. Apparently the original charge was dropped today when Mr Owens appeared before the Magistrates Court in Swansea, but investigations are still continuing.
I haven’t seen the video so can’t comment further on what precisely Mr Owens is alleged to have done. I’m not an expert on the Public Order Act(s) either- or at least not the parts that deal with religiously motivated offences – but some sections are open to extremely broad interpretations, and that’s really what the problem is.
I would say though that I’m the last person to want to support the BNP, which as far as I’m concerned is an extremist organisation run by right-wing thugs for the benefit of other right-wing thugs. It seems possible, therefore, and perhaps even likely, that this person did set alight to the Qur’an with the specific intention of provoking religious tension. If that were the case then it would clearly fall within the law as defined by the Public Order Act.
However, even if that were the case I have to say I do not think that what he did should be a criminal offence. It might be abusive, uncivilised, and reprehensible – words not infrequently applied to the BNP, I might add – but I don’t think it should be illegal. If we’re going to have a truly free society we have to get used to the idea that people have the right to do and say things we wouldn’t do or say ourselves. And if people even want to vote for creatures like Mr Owens, they should be allowed to do so….
..although I’ll be hoping he loses his deposit.
In the Dark 
April 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Completely agree. Monstrous indeed. Although, your “2000 women in France who regularly wear the veil” seams a bit on the low side?
April 11, 2011 at 5:53 pm
That figure is given in the BBC story I linked to. I don’t know how accurate it is.
April 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm
In the cases of both women wearing the (full) veil in France and the qur’an-burning in England I go with the statement attributed to Voltaire: I do not agree with what you do but I support your freedom to do it.
April 11, 2011 at 8:07 pm
There is actually a further issue in the Owens case. The BBC report does not state that the video porporting to show Mr Owens burning the qur’an was in the public domain, and apparently the recording reached the police via The Guardian. If you can be charged under the Public Order Act with doing something in private rather than in public then the Act needs amending immediately. Perhaps this is why the police dropped the case this afternoon.
April 12, 2011 at 9:48 am
Agreed. However, he may have done it in public and the video was merely evidence of him having done it. In any case I think it’s bad law, as it is open to such wide interpretation.
April 12, 2011 at 10:53 am
Agreed in turn. I followed quite closely the debates in parliament that preceded the passing of some of these laws, and frequently people said “Do you realise that people could be arrested for XXXX under this legislation” and were met with the bland reply “That is not what this law is for; don’t worry.” To which the correct reply was: “Phrase it more specifically then.” But a parliamentary majority and a whipping system saw those laws through. I don’t want to sound too conspiratorial but enough warnings were given for me to believe that the vagueness of these laws was a deliberate ploy by the politically correct, to enact exactly the abuses of freedom that are now being enacted.
If I support the legality of qur’an-burning then I must also support the freedom to burn my own sacred text, the Bible. But if Richard Dawkins or an Imam were to do that, who believes he would be arrested like Owen? Do we really have a level playing field today?
April 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I am in mixed minds about this. Suppose it were my religion to strut around naked. Our society deems this inappropriate hence laws exist outlawing it. Many people find the full veil offensive, intimidating and see it as fuel added to the fire of social segregation. I agree that freedom of speech is a good thing, and an outright ban is in some sense a violation of this, but the full veil was always a symbol of the subjugation of women, something that no longer exists (in such a form) in this country.
April 12, 2011 at 1:06 am
I think people should be allowed to walk around naked if they want to, i.e. it should not be a criminal offence to be naked. I think it’s specious to say that the veil represents the subjugation of women in light of your above comment. The peer pressure that makes many women walk around half-naked on their nights out is at least as insidious.
April 12, 2011 at 10:59 am
And I had thought that women only began walking around half-naked on Saturday nights since they were ‘liberated’ from cultural pressure…
April 12, 2011 at 11:59 am
I’ve got nothing against people dressing however they like, actually. As long as they feel comfortable about it. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that that’s always the case. Sometimes one form of pressure is simply replaced by another…
April 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm
To my knowledge it’s not illegal to appear naked, both under the laws of England and Wales, and Scottish law.
It’s illegal to appear naked in order to cause distress (I believe this is classified as a form of sexual assault), and appearing indecently can constitute disturbing the peace. But nudity itself is not illegal, hence why nudist beaches can exist.
If people really did find Muslim traditional dress as threatening, intimidating, or any of these other terms that might warrant police consideration, our laws are already equipped to deal with them. That’s why the idea that ‘I can claim -anything- is under my religion and get away with it!’ line is false.
Freedom of speech shouldn’t (and doesn’t) allow the yelling of ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, but the French law is far beyond that – it’s a disgustingly racist move that I’m ashamed and horrified to see happen.
April 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Brendan: It’s not racist. It’s aimed at a religion, not a race. I don’t approve of the French law but this distinction remains important, becaues you can’t choose your race but you can choose your religion.
April 12, 2011 at 10:40 pm
“To my knowledge it’s not illegal to appear naked, both under the laws of England and Wales, and Scottish law.”
“…there might be differences between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other.”
Yes. it’s a lot colder in Scotland.
October 28, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Interesting story on this point…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29800016
April 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm
It isn’t though, is it Chris? I must say, I don’t find the niqab intimidating. I don’t find a Sikh wearing a turban intimidating (especially not Monty Panesar) nor a rasta with dreadlocks. I don’t go around wearing a cross, but I hope than nobody would be intimidated if I did. However someone walking around naked, that would be intimidating because they would not be doing so out of any deeply held religious belief, but because they wanted to inflict views of their unpleasant bits on me. So it would be aimed at me rather than a manifestation of what they believe.
April 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm
You don’t have to look! And anyway not everyone’s bits are unpleasant 🙂
April 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I think it’s dangerous territory to suupose that you can infer *why* somebody is wearing what they are (or aren’t), regardless of whether they are religous or secular.
April 12, 2011 at 10:17 pm
On a lighter note, I saw Monty Panesar on Saturday. He was bowling for Sussex vs Lancashire at Liverpool, where Lancs are playing their home games while rebuilding goes on at Old Trafford. (Lancs subsequently won the match by an innings, to my delight.) I doubt that I shall see cricket in weather so fine for another 2 months.
April 13, 2011 at 10:19 am
Anton,
If Sikh cricketers can wear helmets when batting, why can’t Sikhs wear crash helmets when on motorbikes?
Peter
April 13, 2011 at 10:22 am
Gpood
April 13, 2011 at 10:32 am
Good question Peter; I suggest you ask them that.
Bishen Bedi used to bowl in full turban, but Monty (short for Mudhsuden not Montague!) appears to wear a skullcap a bit larger than a Jewish one, although presumably kept on in the same way by hairgrips. It’s hard to tell because it’s the same colour as his hair. I don’t know if some Sikhs regard these skullcaps as compromised, but they are obviously compatible with crash helmets and batting helmets.
“Batsmen wearing ‘elmets? Whatever next? In my day…” – G. Boycott
April 13, 2011 at 11:04 am
Geoffrey would be in no position to say such a thing:
April 13, 2011 at 11:18 am
Magnificent bowling. I can’t wait to see the feature-length documentary “Fire in Babylon” about the great West Indian team of 1975-95 next month.
April 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I doubt if anyone would have been able to lay a bat on Michael Holding’s deliveries in that first over…
April 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Philip,
We don’t make the laws in Saudi Arabia, nor in France, but the laws in the UK we do have a small part in making. I would be very much against banning the niqab, as it would be a restriction on freedom of expression of religion. I would also be against making Sikhs wearing turbans also wear motorcycle helmets (at the moment they don’t have to). But mostly I simply don’t understand your equating the right to wear a niqab (note that I think it is the niqab, or veil which is the issue here, not the burqa which is usually the body clothing) with the right to public nudity. The niqab is part of the tradition of many people in certain parts of the world, public nudity is not our tradition unless you go back millenia, and then it was because we didn’t know how to make clothes.
Also, I do not agree that covering the face as an expression of shame. I have lived in our culture for over half a century now, and I have never regarded it as such. If you cover your face its because you want to cover your face, no other reason. Sometimes its because its cold. If its because you want to rob a bank thats not good, but it is the robbing which is wrong, not the covering of your face while you are doing it.
So I can see your point about wanting to choose your own culture, I just don’t think that exposing your face is any part of it.
April 12, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Anybody, Sikhs included, should be permitted not to wear motorbike crash helmets if (and only if) they sign a statement that they will accept the bill for all head surgery necessary in the case of an accident.
It’s worth remembering that most women who worked in factories wore headscarves no different from the milder Islamic ones within living memory…
April 12, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Philip,
Are you serious?
There’s a very big difference between a democracy and a dictatorship by majority. Democracies have laws that protect minorities, rather than oppressing them.
I maintain my view that the new French law is incompatible with the tenets of a free democracy. That’s why I think it’s abhorrent that it should have been introduced in a country that purports to be a democracy.
Saudia Arabia is not a democracy, and many lamentable things happen there, but its relevance to this argument is nil.
If a burka is a threat because it’s a means of disguise, why shouldn’t we ban sunglasses or balaclavas? Why should anyone be forced the identify themselves in a public place? It’s a different matter when one enters a private building, of course, but that argument simply doesn’t wash.
Peter
April 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm
At risk of touching the elephant in the room, it is worth noting that the
belief system in question is explicitly politico-religious, in that its scriptures unequivocally command takeover – by force if necessary – of all lands; and its followers are unique in that a considerable proportion of those who migrate to the West deliberately avoid integrating. Furthermore the present spate of mosque-building is mainly funded by Saudi Arabia, not by the local mosque-desiring community.
I don’t wish to do more here than raise this question: What is the appropriate response?
April 12, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Sorry Philip, there is a world of difference between permanent mutilation and dress codes, and more to the point I doubt that anyone who undergoes genital mutilation does so voluntarily, really, whereas I really suspect that most women who wear a niqab do so because they want to, not because they are coerced. Coercion would be another matter of course, but the law in France is not against coercion it is against choice.
And Saudi Arabia gets plenty of criticism.
April 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Philip,
I honestly thought your comment was meant ironically. But anyway I think you’re missing my point(s) Sure, some forms of dress or behaviour are socially unacceptable in certain circumstances. We’re all bound by social conventions. But I don’t think these are matters for the law.
My point about Saudi Arabia not being a democracy is that if we honestly think democracy is better then we shouldn’t be enacting laws that are incompatible with its deepest principles. Of course French laws are for the French to decide. But I live in a democracy and I’m entitled to say that I believe they have done something very wrong.
And finally you mention – correctly – that the new law doesn’t specifically mention the burka or the hijab. In fact it technically covers ski masks, balaclavas and even fancy dress. I don’t believe the law will ever be applied to these other forms of face covering, and that it’s deliberately pandering to anti-Muslim prejudice. In my eyes that makes it cowardly as well as wrong.
Peter
P.S. Until relatively recently there also used to be a tradition of widows wearing veils at funerals. That wasn’t motivated by shame either, but by modesty and/or to hide tears.
April 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Perhaps the evidence that women are prepared to demonstrate outside Notre Dame, risking arrest in protest against this infringement of their liberty.
April 12, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Yes! That’s exactly my point. Trivial matters such as how one chooses to dress are not matters for the law. De minimis non curat lex .
One obviously should not dress or act in such a way as is likely to cause offence, but should every transgression of this sort be a criminal offence? I don’t think so. The law only needs to intervene if it goes beyond mere discomfort and enters the domain of harassment or intimidation. Likewise freedom of speech should only be restricted when specifically intended to threaten or cause distress, such as in the examples you give above.
I’m not condoning other forms of abusive unpleasant or boorish conduct, but I really don’t think the law has to be involved in such cases.
April 13, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Well, OK, except that there is no legal ban on public nudity (even in France), which is the reason people aren’t protesting about it.
April 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I’m not going to campaign or even complain about non-existent laws. This is the only law that I’m aware of about a particular form of clothing. It’s abhorrent to me because it’s pure religious intolerance. That’s my motivation for commenting. Question it if you want to, but that’s what it is.
April 13, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Peter: To be against ‘religious intolerance’ is a lot better than the converse, but I think it may be a bit too ‘blanket’. Let me suggest why. In general, laws should prohibit only *behaviour* of kinds that impinge unacceptably on other people (something which one’s garb scarcely does); and should not prohibit beliefs. Nevertheless the behaviour of people is correlated, albeit imperfectly, with their belief system; and I do believe, for example, that it was right to make the thuggee cult in India, whose adherents strangled millions, a proscribed organisation.
I am not saying that the same should be done here; I am trying to establish principles for a proper discussion of the issue. Clothing is not the real issue; the rise of qur’anic Islam in the West is. I have views on how to respond but I don’t think that your blog is the place for them, except to assure you that I do not approve of maltreatment of Muslims.
Anton
April 13, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Anton,
I certainly agree that one’s religious beliefs are not an excuse for actions that involve breaking the law. But behind all this is my belief that we have far too many laws. I believe the law should be a secular instrument which intrudes as little as possible into religious matters. Since religions are all different, it seems to me impossible for laws to treat them all equally. The result of meddling is often to leave one religious community feeling discriminated against.
For example, take the laws on blasphemy. I think these should be scrapped entirely, thus treating Christians Muslims and everyone else on the same footing. The best way to deal with freedom of choice of clothing is to have no laws about that either. It should be a criminal offence to threaten another with violence in any case, whether this is religiously motivated or not, so the addition of extra laws recently for this seems to me to be unnecessary…
..which brings me to the problem(s). The proliferation of new laws about minor matters is making it more difficult for the important things to be policed and the law is increasingly being seen by many as being used to change social attitudes. Attempts to protect minorities often cause resentment amongs those who feel a privileged status has been granted. I think changes in law of this nature have achieved some good things but there’s a limit to what can be done this way and sometimes it has been done so badly it has been entirely counterproductive.
Peter
April 14, 2011 at 12:54 am
Peter: Regarding your own main point about excessive lawmaking I agree wtih you totally, including the examples you give.
Anton
April 18, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Today an Englishman was jailed for 70 days for burning some paper, upon which was printed the verses of the qur’an. He did no harm to any human being nor called for anybody to perpetrate violence on anybody else. I call for him to be freed and I am ashamed of a ‘justice’ system that has imprisoned him. For me this act has tipped an increasingly fine balance and I now regard the police as enemies of legitimate freedom. Much as I disagree peacably with the qur’an I had never considered burning it. I still disapprove of the discourtesy to Muslims involved in doing so. But is it now worth doing in order to make a point about freedom? (And do you think that they would jail a Muslim who burned the Bible?)
Anton
April 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm
No Phillip, it’s not a blasphemy law but something iniquitous called the “Public Order Act” under which it is enough to cause offence. Theoretically there are one or two safeguards but they too are vaguely phrased. I am confident that this vague and wide phrasing was to give the authorities power to act against whoever they wished and turn a blind eye to whom they wished. Shame on its drafters. Shame on the MPs who voted for it knowing what it contained, acting as lobby fodder to maintain their careers. Shame on the police chiefs who, obviously unable to police every law on our vast statute book, prioritise laws of this sort. Shame on the police who arrested him, probably in the face of their consciences. And shame, in particular, on district judge Gerald Chalk who, with a wide discretion available to him under this Act, chose to gaol the man, thereby ensuring himself a minor place in English history as a stooge paralleling the judiciary during the rise of Hitler and Stalin.
Anton
April 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Sorry I missed this case on my travels. I don’t know the details of what was done, but based on what I’ve read I don’t think it should have been a criminal offence, let alone one with a custodial sentence. I believe the person, Andrew Ryan, had a criminal record already however which probably contributed to the sentence. I believe the Public Order Act should only have a role when what is being done is likely to cause an immediate outbreak of violence or is immediately threatening, which does not seem to have been the case.
Let me add that in saying this I am in no way supporting his action, which seems to me to have been disrespectful in the extreme.
April 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm
It is proving frustratingly difficult to find from the internet exactly under what law he was charged and gaoled. Carlisle’s “News and Star” newspaper reports it online as “racially aggravated harassment” but I suspect that this is a typo for “religiously aggravated harassment” under which the same article (and other internet commentary) reports that the case had previously been adjourned.
In that case I know enough law to be confident that it is not the Public Order Act. It must be yet another law which the State has passed and then enforces selectively (the man involved was a former soldier responding to a small fine being levied on a Muslim who burned poppies, the symbol of the Royal British Legion).
If “racially aggravated” then this is a disgrace because Islam is a religion that proselytises all races. If “religiously aggravated” then why? There is a dangerous failure to distinguish between hatred of people and hatred of belief systems in so-called “hate crime” (itself a phrase evoking Orwell’s “Thought Police”). Hatred of some belief systems is the appropriate response, eg Nazism – and a good case can be made that Nazism was actualy a religion with Hitler as its god (the Roman Emperors were hailed as ‘gods’…)
In fact I have reservations about other belief systems than my own precisely *because* I believe that they are bad for people who hold to them, and because I want the best for those people. But I do not believe in coercing others, for you might force or bribe people to behave but not to believe. Giving informed choice is the way. In contrast the qur’an states that Islam should be forced on people by the sword if proselytisation fails. I do not support burning the qur’an in response as a statement to Muslims, although it is time that parliament considered the appropriate response to its political aspects.
District Judge Chalk came out with the statement that Ryan set out to cause “maximum distress” to Muslims. What a woeful lack of perspective! Maximum distress would involve a terrorist atrocity against them, not burning a book. Burning it angers Muslims to no point (which is why I am against it), but I doubt that it distresses them.
Not everything that is wrong should be outlawed. Legislators, police, CPS and judiciary have made England less free. Shame on all.
April 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Meanwhile a woman is in court charged under the Public Order Act with saying “Bang, bang” to the policeman blinded by Raoul Moat (as the policeman arrived at court for the trial of men accused of being Moat’s accomplices). Anybody who carries around the amount of hate necessary to say that is, sadly, going to have a life more blighted than the courts could ever do to her. Comments like this are the downside of free speech – but they are worth it. If I may say so, Chief Constable…