You may have noticed this week that the recurring debate about the full Islamic face veil (the niqab) has been prominent again, specifically (in this case) related to the wearing of the niqab by hospital workers. Now I am firmly of the view that practices attached to oppressive religious dogmas should always be secondary to the laws of the land. That is to say, I believe that no concession should be made in deference to religious beliefs; it is the religious person that must defer their practices where they conflict with the law (save for exceptional circumstances), and (ideally) where they cause infringements in the workplace.
If people wish to wear the
niqab in their everyday life, then that's up to them, and I fully defend their
right to do so (although, naturally, I do find it unfortunate). But when they are in a situation (like say in
the medical profession, in a court of law, or with security considerations) in
which an inability to see the face impedes the particular practice, I think
they should remove it.
But even with that
unequivocal stance firmly in place, there is still the issue of the niqab at a
societal level, whether it causes divisiveness, and whether women who wear it
are having their liberty circumscribed. I believe that Islam is one of the
worst things humanity has ever invented – and when I see a woman wearing the
niqab it demonstrates to me how absurd and stultifying a practice can be when
it is based on religious adherence, and not openly criticised enough because it
falls within the purlieus of ‘religious entitlement’.
Of course, people will
argue that many Muslims are good, decent, kind and intelligent people – but
that’s the wrong line of enquiry, because there is no reason why they couldn’t
be good, decent, kind and intelligent people without Islam. No, the right line
of enquiry would be to ask the following question; would a balanced woman
brought up in an environment in which she had open, critical enquiry, free from
the oppression of an archaic and patriarchal religion, wilfully choose to cover
herself from head to toe (leaving only her eyes) in adherence to the backward,
misogynist desire the Qur'an has to control women? I think the answer is clearly no.
The niqab stands as an
example of the horrible way in which manifestly man-made patriarchal and
half-witted religious dogma not only oppresses women, but causes them confusion
about their own liberty. Here's why. Some
Muslim women assert that their wearing the niqab is a free choice, and a symbol
of their autonomy in choosing to do so.
But in my view that’s to be guilty of failing to consider whether they
would ‘freely’ choose to wear such a hideous thing if they were not so heavily
culturally and/or familially conditioned by an implacably absolutist Islamic
influence that lurks deep in the religion's repressive ideology. I don't think
they would.
By claiming themselves to
be free, they are simply demonstrating that the shackles of Islam can give the
appearance of being free in the teeth of an apparent volition. It is not a
choice that I think many women would make if the well of their mind hadn't been
in some way poisoned by the religious dogmas of Islam, and its antipathy to
genuine free-thinking autonomy and a critical enquiry that can look beyond the
manacles of cultural conditioning.
This is a good general
rule of consideration for life; we should judge decisions, views and beliefs
not primarily on the specific conditioning from whence those decisions, views
and beliefs occurred, but on whether we think a man or woman brought up in an
environment with open, critical enquiry that remained free from oppression
would likely make those decisions, hold those views and have those beliefs. If the answer is ‘no’ then you are entitled
to feel pretty confident that they are under an unhelpful thrall.
To show the extent to
which this is the case, let me give you an analogous example of why this
proclaimed 'freedom' is really a case of being shackled. A few months ago I saw a documentary on
travellers, focusing on a family of irresponsible rogues who were setting up
fights between seven and eight year old boys in a disused pub, in order to
'toughen them up for bear-knuckle fighting in adulthood'. When questioned about whether this was
tantamount to child abuse, the chief of the irresponsible rogues insisted it
was “Foyne, because dose kids do'it willingly" - after which, two or three
seven and eight year olds were put in front of the camera to confirm "Aye,
it's foyne, we do'it willingly".
Once you ask the same kind
of question – whether seven and eight year olds bashing each other’s brains out
whilst being cheered on by adults in an organised fight scenario would occur in
families that had their children’s best interest at heart, and weren’t under
the thrall of moronic tribalism that places a premium on bashing rival
families’ brains out – you’d, of course, conclude that such behaviour is quite
anomalous, and the result of bad cultural conditioning. Roughly speaking, the niqab is to Islam as
child fighting is to traveller mentality - they are thin edges of a much bigger
wedge that retards human progression.
In addition, though, I'll
make a correlative point - while the subjugating ultra-modesty of the niqab is
(at best) an unhealthy compromise of psychological and emotional liberty, and
(at worst) a denial of psychological and emotional liberty, I do think at a
general level some degree of modesty and self-respect is required in being
free. I say this because I think many of
the so-called liberated folk in the present age are in their own way as
constricted as Islamic women wearing the niqab - it's just the case of their
being at different ends of the extremity spectrum.
Here's what I mean. At one
end we have the aforementioned dogmatic religious constriction that amounts to
loss of liberty. But at the other
extreme we have another kind of diminution of liberty - one that taps into this
idea of being modern, free, expressive, liberal and liberated. This is the putative faux-freedom in being
able to, and in many cases encouraged to dress scantily and provocatively, to
binge drink, to abuse the body, to sleep around, and similar supposed liberties
that are believed to be counter-cultural.
If an oppressed Islamic
woman wearing the niqab has an unhealthy compromise of psychological and
emotional liberty, then I think so does the modern person who has compromised
himself or herself by going too far the other way with binge, bodily abuse,
promiscuity and an ultra-relaxed attitude towards discipline and self-respect-
it's just that the two individuals are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The underlying rationale
here is important; if we are to will the continual progression of human beings,
it is imperative that the bad elements of human history that have survived
through cultural and familial propagation are not left unchallenged. The default
position by many is that if something is believed by a lot of people (like a
belief attached to a religion) then we ought to be circumspect in subjecting it
to rigorous scrutiny for fear of offending such a large number of people. I think that's the opposite of the truth; it
is when bad practices are ubiquitous that the people undertaking them most need
our help in speaking out for them, and challenging the thrall of the tyranny
that shackles their intellect, their emotions and their progression.
