Remember various primary school reading matter that was aimed at embracing difference? I recall a book called But Martin! in which a green alien comes to school for the day. No questions asked. He just enrolled and hung out. The children didn't discuss how they didn't 'see colour' even though they were somehow aware their new class mate was green. Nor did they gang up on Martin or fear him because he was different. Instead in the book I believe Martin is really good at maths and helps them out and then the book notes the children, Lee, Lloyd, Billy and Angela's various different physical features and the activities they like to take part in and are good at. They all enjoy each others company and learn from each other. Low level celebration of differences. No biggie. Meanwhile in the adult world...
Meanwhile in the adult world there are discussions going on over the niqab. No not, 'hey look that woman is wearing something that demonstrates she is probably a Muslim who adheres to the idea she should cover up!' but a hearing in the European Court of Human Rights on France's 2010 ban on wearing a burka or niqab in public and whether this was in breach of Muslim women's human rights.
The ECHR decided that the blanket ban should be upheld. This was on the understanding that the ban is necessary to help boost the concept of "living together" and was justified under the French law based on "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society". As though France is actually some shared house in which Genevieve needs to stop using all the hot water, Dominique needs to stop leaving Post-it notes everywhere and Cecile should wear pants in the communal areas in order to continue "living together".
I'm not sure that the concept of living together should involve alienating a large number of people. It's not surprising that two judges argued that "the concept seems far-fetched and vague."
The ECHR decided that the blanket ban should be upheld. This was on the understanding that the ban is necessary to help boost the concept of "living together" and was justified under the French law based on "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society". As though France is actually some shared house in which Genevieve needs to stop using all the hot water, Dominique needs to stop leaving Post-it notes everywhere and Cecile should wear pants in the communal areas in order to continue "living together".
I'm not sure that the concept of living together should involve alienating a large number of people. It's not surprising that two judges argued that "the concept seems far-fetched and vague."
| But no! Dear reader you shouldn't feel confused or a mite suspicious of the justification for this ruling. And anyway, now's not the time to ask questions about other cultures and religion. You know when you can't live with something and when your minimum requirements of life in society are not being met. DAMMIT. | A pair of inverted cross leggings are kind of unattractive and I doubt the wearers are just big fans of St Peter |
Alison Pearson thinks the ban and upholding of it is a "sensible decision" and interprets the vague concept as meaning: "In other words, many of us are offended and perturbed by the sight of a woman wandering around in a bin bag, condemned to be cut off from normal human interaction in a modern democracy."
Now...there are a lot of things I can see people finding offensive when it comes to religion and clothing. A pair of inverted cross leggings are kind of unattractive and I doubt the wearers (condemned to be cut off from normal human interaction) are just big fans of St Peter (the Pope has an inverted cross on his throne. So doom.), rather they have made the mistake of thinking it's offensive to Christians. Or they were on sale at Urban Outfitters - we can never know.
Recently Sufi Muslims have expressed anger at seeing one of their holy symbols used in a perfume campaign. Appropriating religious imagery can be offensive.
Am I offended by the use of questionable interpretation of holy texts to control women? Yes, of course. And I see it done in all kinds of faiths and cults. However I'm also offended by thinly veiled (thank-you!) islamophobia. So, what to do?
Pearson writes that the niqab as an accessory to some women's failure to integrate with society, before getting completely baffling: "The French and Belgian bans on the burka are the opposite of racism: they insist that all citizens are treated the same and have an equal chance of belonging. The burka is a cause of racism, not a symptom."
Non-niqab wearing Shelina Janmohamed says more soberly: "I have some sympathy for the view that what is different makes us nervous, and that talking to someone who looks very different is hard, especially if the non-verbal cues we are used to connecting with are absent. But the building of community relations cannot be forced by the law. A social change must by its very nature be made through social means".
Come on everybody, don't make me read But Martin! aloud again.
Squeamish Kate
Now...there are a lot of things I can see people finding offensive when it comes to religion and clothing. A pair of inverted cross leggings are kind of unattractive and I doubt the wearers (condemned to be cut off from normal human interaction) are just big fans of St Peter (the Pope has an inverted cross on his throne. So doom.), rather they have made the mistake of thinking it's offensive to Christians. Or they were on sale at Urban Outfitters - we can never know.
Recently Sufi Muslims have expressed anger at seeing one of their holy symbols used in a perfume campaign. Appropriating religious imagery can be offensive.
Am I offended by the use of questionable interpretation of holy texts to control women? Yes, of course. And I see it done in all kinds of faiths and cults. However I'm also offended by thinly veiled (thank-you!) islamophobia. So, what to do?
Pearson writes that the niqab as an accessory to some women's failure to integrate with society, before getting completely baffling: "The French and Belgian bans on the burka are the opposite of racism: they insist that all citizens are treated the same and have an equal chance of belonging. The burka is a cause of racism, not a symptom."
Non-niqab wearing Shelina Janmohamed says more soberly: "I have some sympathy for the view that what is different makes us nervous, and that talking to someone who looks very different is hard, especially if the non-verbal cues we are used to connecting with are absent. But the building of community relations cannot be forced by the law. A social change must by its very nature be made through social means".
Come on everybody, don't make me read But Martin! aloud again.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed