UKIP and the burka
Nigel Farage seems to have lost it a bit, and jumped on to the banning the burka bandwagon. I happened to catch some of his performance on TV yesterday, and it pretty much ended any notions I have that the man has Libertarian leanings.
Let's see what Nigel had to say:
"I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can't wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line."
As far as I am aware, Farage is right: you can't do either of those things. But he completely misses the point in his argument. No-one has a religious obligation to wear a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava. The same isn't true of the burka. And why would anyone want to wear a balaclava on the District and Circle line, for fuck's sake?
Has the burka been used to oppress women? I'd imagine so. Does that mean that when it is women wear it they are automatically being oppressed? Of course it doesn't. Some women may be wearing it because they want to, or feel it is their religious duty. That's not oppression - however, if you force them to take it off, that is oppression. Oppressing people to save them from oppression. Idiotic.
And of course the burka isn't a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain. The symbol of that is mobs of EDL members bashing the shit out of UAF members, and vice versa. And that symbol is created by this sort of dog whistle politics being employed by political leaders in this country.
"What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It's a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain."Yes, it's a symbol of religious devotion. Now, as someone who finds religion - from Christianity and Islam through to fucking Jedis - absolute nonsense, I can't understand why anyone would wear a burka. But I also accept that their religious beliefs - which I think they are totally entitled to - means they feel they should wear a burka. If you want to cover your face because of the prattlings of long dead preachers, then knock yourself out. That's what the burka represents - devotion to a particular interpretation of Islam.
Has the burka been used to oppress women? I'd imagine so. Does that mean that when it is women wear it they are automatically being oppressed? Of course it doesn't. Some women may be wearing it because they want to, or feel it is their religious duty. That's not oppression - however, if you force them to take it off, that is oppression. Oppressing people to save them from oppression. Idiotic.
And of course the burka isn't a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain. The symbol of that is mobs of EDL members bashing the shit out of UAF members, and vice versa. And that symbol is created by this sort of dog whistle politics being employed by political leaders in this country.
"And the real worry - and it isn't just about what people wear - the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture."Well, strikes me that this isn't about the burka at all, but about ghettoisation. In which case, the talk about the burka is a diversion, and Farage would do far better to address the real issue - how shitty some cities are becoming. And as for Sharia law becoming part of British culture, well, I've seen no real evidence of that. Besides, I'd only worry about it if it became actual law, rather than part of the culture of some parts of some cities. And there isn't a hope in hell of Sharia law becoming law in this country in Farage's life time or mine.
"There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous about this, but we can't go on living in a divided society."There is nothing extreme or radical about this if you are a middle class, white MEP vying for a Parliamentary seat in Buckingham. However, if you are someone who feels a religious duty to wear a burka - or even a moderate Muslim feeling increasingly ostracised by a nation determined to dismiss Islam - this will be extreme and radical. And that is one of the things increasing tensions across the UK - this ongoing attempt by the media and certain politicians (of all political parties) to paint Islam as something odd and sinister. There is no quicker way to increase radicalisation of moderate Muslims in this country than by attacking their religious beliefs, and banning the burka is an attack on Islam, pure and simple.
Over the years many people have said I should vote, and even actively support, UKIP. I've been suspicious of them, and the party that lies behind the Farage facade. This policy confirms my fears about UKIP, and explicitly links Farage to those fears. And they certainly won't get my vote whilst they pursue this sort of moronic policy.
Labels: Civil Liberties (the Death of), Farage, Islam, Racism, UKIP
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 11:20 am
13 Comments
13 Comments:
Farage has always lied about his "libertarian" leanings, when he is really anything but Libertarian. If you look at UKIP's party manifesto, they advocate some of the most illiberal and anti-Libertarian measures, such as the reintroduction (Or, reactivating) of treason laws, as well as wanting the police to take over court proceedings, instead of the CPS.
Actaully, I'm going to have to call you out on this one.
"And as for Sharia law becoming part of British culture, well, I've seen no real evidence of that. Besides, I'd only worry about it if it became actual law, rather than part of the culture of some parts of some cities. And there isn't a hope in hell of Sharia law becoming law in this country in Farage's life time or mine."
I'm afraid you've missed the boat.
Sharia law IS law in Britain.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
There are, according to Pat Condell's youtube, (Reliable, decent chap) 85 Sharia courts operating in the UK. Their rulings on "on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence" ARE upheld by British law.
Yes, in 21st Century Britian, the backwards and disgusting prejudices of a warlord barbarian and his bearded, rapist followers are upheld using the long arm of the law. Muslims (Well, the male ones at least) do have more rights than everyone else.
Remember, a paranoid is just somebody in possession of all the facts, when it comes to serious political blogging (important disclaimer, that).
No, Sharia law is not law in this country. Even if Sharia courts do operate in this country, their verdicts can only be upheld by British law if they adhere to that law. Which is probably why the cases you cite aren't producing the sort of sentences that have made Sharia Law notorious. No-one is going to be stoned for adultery in this country in this day and age without the perpetrators being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And Muslims do not have more rights than other people in this country. In fact, there is a large volume of work, particularly in counter-terrorism circles, about how Islam has become stigmatised since 9/11 and 7/7, and how that is increasing the radicalisation of a Muslim minority. The government, the media and UKIP are turning a largely passive body of religious followers into extremists based on an ignorant, reactionary reading of a particular religion in a country that should be a liberal democracy.
Farage and UKIP are not Libertarian; they are the sort of reactionaries who are begging to jump into bed with The Daily Mail.
Hmm. I stand corrected. Still don't like the idea they exist at all, mind, as I'm counting on them to produce massively warped and gender-bias settlements that, by virtue of not demanding their deaths by stoning, are within the law.
And, as far as I'm concerned, access to an alternative court based on religious beliefs is "more rights." I'm hedging my bets on the idea that the policemens Pagan association and hindu community have to use conventional courts like everyone else.
Although it may not make any difference in practice, the principle stands that a Sharia court is a Sharia court. The difference in my eyes being that a conventional court being based on the whole notion of English common and statute law, a Sharia court exists to fulfill as much Sharia as it can get away with, and will test those limits - Such is the nature of a court built for another culture in one that contradicts it, whether or not that is the intended goal of the participants.
Why Sharia courts, and no Jedi courts? Although Sharia law might not be British law yet, it's more Sharia if it's Okay With Us, it's still baby steps towards that aim.
I think that divorce settlements produced in a Sharia court would have a much greater gender bias than would otherwise be present, and so in this way, yes, I'm throwing down my cards and saying British law is used to uphold Sharia-biased, if not the entire crazy fruitcake of Sharia law. It's definitely not a clear cut thing anymore.
But I ramble. Couldn't agree more about Farage, though, bandwagon jumper
Well, we can agree on Farage being a shameless bandwagon jumper.
My point is that a Sharia court isn't anything more than a disciplinary board for a hobby club. A Sharia law can only be legally binding if it is backed up by actual law. Consider a protestant priest sacked by a disciplinary committee within the Church - they have recourse to what I would call the real law. Ditto someone who has dealt with a Sharia court and doesn't agree with the verdict.
It may well be worth doing some research into whether the recommendations/rulings (not sentences, they can't pass sentences as they aren't real courts) of Sharia courts are harsher than those of actual British courts. I suspect, though, that it doesn't actually make any difference - since Sharia law isn't law.
It is easy, very easy, to fall into the trap of believing that there is a Muslim conspiracy eating away at the heart of British society. There isn't - anymore than there is a Christian, or even Jedi, conspiracy. And we don't need any religious conspiracy against freedom in this country. The government is doing a pretty good job of that - ironically by attacking the Islamic community as one of their first targets.
Well, there's the Saudi money swilling into the Muslim Council of Britian. But that's off topic.
To be honest, it's pretty hard to make sense of anything the governments done or is doing. Every action in one direction is followed by a contradiction, constantly to-and-fro-ing between multicultural, quangrocratic appeasement, targeting the muslim community for terror sweeps, then banning dear old Antjam; The sheer incoherence of it all is enough to make anyone weep and reach for the tinfoil origami headwear. It's like watching not frogs jumping out of a bucket, but one frog trying to jump in three different directions at once.
The muslim community seem to be some kind of love/hate figure who can be relied on for votes using the Bogeymen tories, but at the same time conjured up into invisible demons.
Still, nobody likes the burqa, it's just whether that dislike outweighs ones principles. The irony is that if discrimation law hadn't gone so far in the first place by making it difficult for banks to refuse service, or airports to perform security checks, etc, pretty much any place where faces are being shown as a matter of course for good reason, the extreme of banning the damn thing wouldn't have come up, because, well, we're just not French.
Pav's Cat, over and out.
The bourka isn't compulsory in islam. The fact that it's a choice of a woman wether or not to wear it creates the issue. There is no other reason recognised by law (in practice anyway - I'm no lawyer) for hiding your features in such a way. It's another example of the strange way we deal with religion, even in a largely secular society. Religion should not be an exception to the rule of law.
I agree that religion shouldn't be an exception in society, but I also think that we have to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. Some have interpreted the wearing of the burka as a requirement of Islam, so by forcing people not to wear that particular garment, we would be going against their religion. And just because the law doesn't recognise a right to cover one's face doesn't mean we have to create a law to stop people covering their face. We have enough laws in this country as it is.
I do agree that we've got a glut of laws and I'm not advocating adding to it further. However, let's take the recent spat of cold weather - if I were to wear a 3-hole balaclava to keep me warm in a public, urban area I would, I have no doubt, been questioned, detained or possibly arrested. I see no difference between this and the bourka. I understand the argument for religious freedom, but then again there are countless religious practices past and present that would be illegal in this country. I don't really see how this is different.
The difference is that you wouldn't be wearing your balaclava for religious reasons; the burka is worn for religious reasons. I understand where you are coming from, and think this is one of those issues on the cusp of making religious freedom into the privileging of religion. However, the wearing of the burka is not that much of a problem, and the potential problems created by the further stigmatisation of Islam if it were to be banned far outweigh any benefits we'd get by following Farage's command.
As I said before - I'm not advocating specific burka banning law making. Your argument seems to be based on the fear of reaction from the perceived marginalisation of some muslims (correct me if I'm wrong).
Surely the fact that here we've got a situation where they are laws in place but ignored due to religiouos reasons means that what you've actually got is an increased "us & them" scenario due to the true perception that burka wearers are treated differently from the rest of us? The way I see it; the fact that everyone's scared to be seen as islamophobic leads to muslims being treated differently. This breeds increased resentment towards one section of the population and therefore increased social division.
What gets to me is the basic inequality. If I could so blatantly hide my features (for whatever reason) I don't think it would bother me quite as much. The fact that we're catering to the lowest common denominator in letting people get away with things that the majority of society are subject to because someone thinks that their imaginary freind told them x is absurd. Fine if x is within the law. If x isn't then maybe it's time to find a new imaginary freind ;)
My argument is partially based on the damage the increasing stigmatisation of Islam is doing to the Muslim community, and the knock-on effect of the radicalisation of moderate Muslims. I understand that there is the danger of creating one rule for Muslims, and one for the rest of the world. However, if you demand that people stop wearing religious symbols and conform to a secular, Western vision of how people should live, you're going to create the perception that their religion is inferior, and that the state is not allowing them to hold their particular beliefs. That radicalises and causes massive divisions in society; far more so, I (and others) would argue, than letting those who wish to wear the burka keep it on.
Personally, I'd rather people just got over the whole religious thing. But since there doesn't seem be any chance of that happening anytime soon, we all have to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. And Farage's comments shows anything other than tolerance.
While I do think religion is absurd, the way it's treated throughout society is even more so. Having said that, I beleive it's up to the individual what and what not to beleive.
The unease with which I view this issue is more due to the fact that it's the thin end of the wedge that allows seperate laws for seperate social groups which, needless to say, is completely unjust.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home