Written by Anish Patel | 30 November 2010
Posted in Comment - Britain

"I did it to become invisible - Sa'adia. Photograph: Jon Winters/Flickr

A reply to Ali Gokal

Let me start by giving some context to this reply. I am not a Muslim. I am not qualified to comment on the social origins of this garment, whether it oppresses women or whether it is, as Mr. Gokal puts it, ‘a laudable mark of devotion’.  I can’t even comment on the idea that women wearing a full veil is an illustration of the submission of all Muslims to Islam, fallacious though it may seem.  Thankfully comment on these issues is secondary to more important considerations.

As any debater will tell you, a policy debate not only involves a consideration of the theoretical issues, but also requires the resolution of problems regarding and arising from its implementation. Implementation in its strictest sense is not really a problem: if France can do it then so can we. The ‘real considerations’ come in the form of the possible, and as I will argue, probable, reactions to the introduction of legislation to ban the wearing of the niqab.

I’m not going to lie: this is a single-point article. I’m rather lazy. But in my defence, it’s a pretty big point. It’s the reason why we simply cannot ban the niqab. Mr. Gokal wrote of how we need to respect Islam. To a point, I agree. However I don’t think that just because something is in the Quran, or because it is ingrained within Islamic culture, that it is untouchable. Britain places high value on the liberty of its citizens -it is true - but it places value on other things too. Mr. Gokal states that the forcing of women to wear this garment, if it exists, is the fault of the people, not the garment. But it doesn’t really matter who we blame: the fact remains, if it is done, then it is suppression. British values mean that we restrict liberty if what is at stake is important enough to do so.

Point is, the liberty argument is far from a knockout blow. In fact we probably aren’t going to settle this debate at all if we restrict ourselves to talking about why Islam ought to be respected. Let’s talk about why it ought to be feared. In fact I think anyone reading this in the UK already knows. And for those who don’t, I will gladly link you in to images of the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London. Before the moderate Muslim majority cry out that this isn’t the true image of Islam let me say: I know. But these images still exist and they are images linked to Islam, however extreme the Muslims are who are responsible for creating them.  When we consider policy that will have an effect on Muslims we must consider these extremists too.

These people weren’t born with a miniature bomb in their hand. Their beliefs started off moderate and became extreme. Look at the terrorists who committed the 7/7 attacks. Born in Britain, educated in Britain. But Britain was their target. Their reason: wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the avenging of their Muslim brothers and sisters.  But these wars weren’t attacking Islamic faith or Islamic culture. Whatever you think Iraq was about (WMDs, oil, President Bush closing his eyes and pointing at a map), most rational people wouldn’t put it down as an attack on Islam. If we pass specific legislation banning a garment almost exclusively associated with the Islamic faith it is bound to create uproar among the entire Muslim community, and the extremists hidden amongst them.

If Iraq gave cause for attacks on our home soil then banning the niqab would as well. This is a fact we cannot escape.  We would be arming radical Imams up and down the country with fresh ammunition to recruit more home-grown terrorists. They want to convince young Muslims that Britain and Islam are at war with each other. We would be making their job easier.  The potential benefits of banning the Niqab are not enough to justify the potential cost in terms of British lives.

There are some who would question shying away from a ban simply on the basis that we are afraid of reaction from terrorists. They think that, on principle, we should refuse to modify our actions because of their activities. Personally, I don’t have much time for principles when people’s lives are at stake. I’m not saying the powers that be should flag this up as the reason they are not going to impose a ban - this would only encourage terrorist activity - but it should be something they are considering behind closed doors.

British Liberty isn’t a knockout blow. British lives are.

Comments: