Many nations and territories are contemplating, drafting and passing legislation to deal with the issue of women’s Islamic clothing. This is indeed a very serious issue. But one which, in my opinion, is not being dealt with at all well by any of the nations I have read about so far such as Canada, (Quebec and other provinces) France, Belgium etc.
It would appear that most nations just wish to ban the garments by name or, ban them in some configurations, and still other people are arguing that Islam does not really mandate these clothes at all, so why submit to demands to allow them to be worn?
Both approaches are counter productive.
For one thing, you cannot protect the rights of women by removing women’s rights and that includes the right to wear whatever stupid burlap sack she may wish to wear on her head for religious reasons, and I say this even though I believe this has much more to do with the establishment of the primacy of Islam in ‘Dar Al Harb’ more than it has to do with any actual religious requirement. So yes, it is a political garb, and yes, we have to let them wear it or else being a free country means nothing.
So how do we fight the incursion of Islam and its draconian and misogynist rules?
Easy. We just enforce the rules we always had.
The fact is, for all of liberal democracy until the birth of political correctness as a political force within free nations it was always understood that making one choice logically precluded certain other choices. It was also understood what freedom of religion actually meant.
It meant that a person was free to practice their religion without fear of the state pounding on their doors and burning them at the stake for calling their gods by other names or denominations.
It never meant that they could break the secular laws of the state under the flimsy excuse that their religion mandates it. In fact, it should be considered a fantastic thing by most people merely that they have the choice to make the choice.
Under Mulroney, Canada made a catastrophic mistake. I said so then, and maintain it now.
We allowed a man who chose to be a Sikh, to wear his turban with the official uniform of the RCMP.
Clearly Mulroney, as much as I liked him then as now, did not get the big picture.
That Sikh had the choice in Canada of being a Sikh without fear from the state or the Muslims next door. He had the choice of joining the RCMP and not being refused because he was a Sikh. But in no way should he have not had to make the choice between the uniform and the Turban.
Religion in Canada is NOT compulsory.
As no one has to be a certain religion, then there is no need for the state to accommodate any religious practices a person may have. That Sikh could have chosen to wear the turban in off hours, to quit that aspect of his religion, (I will not accept any argument that he cannot pick and choose what aspects of his religion to follow, all religious people do this and I mean all of them and Sikh’s routinely go to war with each other in Canada over degree of observance) He could also have chosen to accept his religion over being in the police since it would not fit the uniform.
The very notion of one choice precluding another seems to have vanished from the public mind. If a persons religion requires him to stink like a skunk then I reserve the right not to hire him at my restaurant. The same goes for now several Muslim women who sued because they were denied jobs at hairdressers when they refused to remove the veil.
Once again for clarity before I move on to the next point:
Since religion is not compulsory in Canada, then no accommodation needs to be made for people’s religious choices whatsoever.
This being the case, then here is how to handle any religious clothing etc. Whether it is Muslims Sikh’s Jews or whoever.
There is already all kinds of laws governing safety. Simply do not make an exception for religious people, as if their irrational beliefs somehow gives them the right to drive with their eyes covered. Make it absolutely clear that when driving you have to have nothing on your head that might obstruct your vision and make it dangerous to drive. Easy as pie.
Next, in factories, do not make exceptions for people who claim the need for modesty when safety is the factor, as we saw in Toronto last year with the UPS depot and the Muslims who sued because they refused to wear pants even though regulations demand it on ladders. They won a settlement by the way. Clearly this kind of garb cannot be allowed in Banks or jewellery stores. We do not have to ban the head coverings, but we are under no obligation to not make it inconvenient in the interests of public health, safety and security.
“I have seen the enemy, and it is us”
One could easily make the case that Muslims are not the problem but we are. All we have to do is say no.
We do not need one more law. Not one more regulation. We just have to stop making exceptions for Muslims to break all the laws we already have. Yes, clearly the fight about the hijab and all its various incarnations is about Islamic primacy. But look what happened in some European schools when they tried to ban it outright. All kinds of well meaning non-Muslim girls started wearing it to school to support their friends. In a way, I support them. I get it even though these girls are wrong, naive, and aiding a dangerous enemy, banning it in that way is not the answer. A school uniform might be, or a dress code that makes these things impractical most of the time. Certainly no hijab etc in:
Gym
Shop, metal, wood or any class that requires the use of dangerous tools
Home economics where cooking Etc. is involved. Religious people can have a choice. Not go to class and fail the year, or take off the damn thing when safety etc. demands it.
Somehow, Western peoples have been massaged into accepting the notion that we have to make exceptions for peoples voluntary choices of behaviour in the interests of non-racism etc. This is absurd. It is one thing to make public or government buildings handicap accessible. It is quite another when people handicap themselves by choice. We have no obligation to them whatsoever, and in fact an obligation to ourselves not to lower safety or health standards to do so.
Eeyore for Vladtepesblog after numerous conversations with Grace
you make some very good points. Just enforce current laws and that would take care of the hijab especially those of strong faith. I never had a problem with normal head scarves that doesn’t cover the face.
But remember the Hijab is used by Islam to enforce Islamic practices in the community and most women of Islam would rather not wear it.
The not wearing the Hijab is the reasons given by Islamic rape gangs and thus effects non-Muslims.
You are of course right regarding safety considerations. But if safety is not an issue should people be allowed to walk around with their faces covered? How far should “freedom” go”. No, it should not be allowed generally with exceptions for occasions like carnival and the like. Why not have clothing laws? We already have them to some extent. Try walking around nude in a shopping mall. Some countries have laws against masking the face but they are not enforced with religious garb. We already except restrictions (air travel) because of Muslims. Why should we not accept clothing restrictions because of Muslims? And we should not forget that the Islamic covering is a sign of Islamic supremacy.
I’ve been trying to come up with the phrasing of something very much like you wrote (below) for a long time, but the wording never seemed to come out quite right. Thank-you so much for writing this piece. It has helped to add clarity to my thinking.
You wrote:
Since religion is not compulsory in Canada, then no accommodation needs to be made for people’s religious choices whatsoever.
What I’ve been say for long has been …
Since religion is a personal choice in Canada, then there is no right to compel others to support the consequences of one’s religious choices, just as there is no right to compel others to support the consequences of my personal choices.
You Vlad are 1000% bang on. If I had an employee driven business in the West, with employees I would never post an ad in the newspaper. Only hire by word of mouth for the fear that a muslim would respond. I have a rental property and I will never rent to anyone named mohamad. Don’t want the hassle. The day you hire a muslim employee you are risking your life savings, loss of business because of time devoted to talking with lawyers and the press AND the government will not support you. You become the racist.
ENOCH POWELL: ” what a country must do to protect its well being is always possible” ( or close to that)
No one is begging them to stay in the USA or Canada if they are not happy here and cannot handle western ways and culture,I suggest they move to one of those 7th century throwback nations ,devoid of opportunities ,complete with a religious police state. It is impossible to discuss or debate them it’s either their way or no way.
I haven’t read your article through, but in your introductory remarks you advocate the right of women to wear what they want. You’re missing the point. This point being that it can’t be tolerated, for the obvious reasons pertaining to the basics of (human) animal nature, that someone, who is unidentifiable at first sight, mixes in the public space.
Dirk yes, Read it all the way through. Your point however is well noted. Thank you.
One more remark: the headscarf, which is generally perceived as being a religious symbol (then again, what to say about the schizophrenic, opportunistic ambiguity that the headgear of predilection of young muslim females is the oriental and religious headscarf, while that of their male counterparts is the secular western capitalist baseball cap) and accessorily a symbol of the oppression of the female gender, in my eyes is foremost the banner of a genetic warfare. As such, I abhor to be confronted with it, as every westerner should be. Also, our societies should prohibit such blatant displays of belligerent sectarism.
Eeyore’s points are valid, yet I cannot help thinking that this sort of dialogue is what Muslims want, to create a system where women’s clothing is legislated in advance of coming sharia law. Once you tell one group of people what they can and cannot wear, then the snowball starts to rapidly roll downhill, collecting more laws and restrictions as it goes.
I am all for banning the total head and face coverings that Muslim women are forced to wear. Public safety is at risk from a known group that wants to impose its own set of laws and beliefs on the rest of society and have amply demonstrated that its members are ready, willing and able to kill themselves and others for those beliefs.
Who would be under those clothes and what else would they be carrying other than visible handbags?
I don’t know, since men could easily wear those clothes for criminal purposes, as several banks and jewellry stores in France and Belgium have experienced.
Even though I seem to be advocating a ban on Muslim garb, I feel strongly that the total concealment of any person makes them suspect with regard to public safety and well-being.
Having said all that, whenever I see Muslim girls and women in their prescribed clothes, I am instantly reminded of the yellow stars that Jews had to wear during the Nazi occupation of Europe. The clothes have a similar function to separate a group of people, in this case women, from the rest of society to create of them a lower class.
May the free world prevail.