Last week, writing on his Facebook page, Jason Azzopardi, the shadow minister for justice, citizen rights and democracy, asked for a rational, unprejudiced debate on whether the burka should be banned. It’s clear that Azzopardi meant any full facial veil, not just the actual burka, and that he thinks the wearing of such veils in public contradict our present laws.
What’s also clear is that his comment generated a great deal of interest but hardly any rational debate. The Islamologists of Facebook came out in force and the food for thought we got was porridge: sticky prejudice, clumpy reasoning and mashed facts.
In all intellectual honesty, should one expect rational debate on Facebook? Granted, some politicians expound their principles solely via Twitter but we know that that’s to disguise the fact that they don’t have any.
Before we get to how and when Azzopardi raised the issue, let’s look at the substance itself. Since we’re discussing a legal matter, we need to split the matter into two: the spirit and the letter of the law.
Azzopardi raised the issue in the context of a law, in our Criminal Code, that’s concerned primarily with security: no one may go about in public with face covered. He also raised, however, the issue of social cohesion and fear of the formation of cultural ghettos – that there are parts and areas of society which ignore the rules of normal interaction with others, if not actually live, in practice, under different rules.
There’s no doubt that security is a concern. And there is European human rights case law supporting the idea that a ban on full facial veils does not violate the freedom of religious expression and, indeed, that social cohesion arguments against full facial veils are valid concerns.
I broadly support these arguments. I don’t think all faiths and religions are necessarily equally deserving of respect. Some creeds (or, in some cases, certain interpretations of them) are abhorrent. Just because something is ‘religious’ to someone else shouldn’t be enough to give it legal protection (although I think we should err on the side of wide latitude).
Genuine pluralism – and that includes a workable multiculturalism – needs to be anchored in shared core values. And the bare human face is an emblematic icon that condenses several of our values, Maltese and European. To show your face, to lose face, to drop the mask, ‘to give’ or ‘not to give’ face (as the Maltese expression, tagħti wiċċ, goes) are just some of the images we have of straight dealing, dignity and showing respect.
All this apart from the unacceptable gender bias involved in the full facial veil.
So I have no doubt that such veils contradict our social values and the spirit of our laws, security concerns apart.
What about the letter of the law? Here, Azzopardi slipped into the colloquial (perhaps necessitated by Facebook interaction but itself a sign that he had picked the wrong forum for a proper discussion).
Genuine pluralism needs to be anchored in shared core values
The veiled woman who recently made the news – she was photographed driving a car – was not wearing a burka. She was wearing a niqab. There is more than one kind of full facial veil worn in the name of Islam (while some Muslims deny it is required by Islam).
It’s actually impossible to drive with a burka since it obstructs peripheral vision. A law literally prohibiting the burka would permit this woman to continue driving as she is: “It’s a niqab, M’lud.”
A niqab is actually easily removed on request – whether by a security officer at a bank or by a jeweller assessing whether to let this customer in or even a politician receiving a constituent. A burka is designed to be cumbersome to move in and difficult to remove.
That’s not a defence of the niqab. It’s just to point out that a lot of our public talk about what the facial veil means for the wearer is often divorced from actual practice and experience.
The other issue concerned with legal wording is what’s actually required. Simple clarification with the police that the current law should be enforced with full-veil wearers? An addendum to the current law including a ban on full facial veils?
Or something that is not phrased as a ban at all. Namely, anyone offering services can be reminded that they have a right (as they do) to withhold entry or service to anyone not dressed appropriately, whether it’s too little or too much.
I favour the latter approach. I’m not too worried about a niqab-wearing car driver. In fact, I suspect the woman I saw a few months ago driving a BMW on the Tal-Barrani road is the same woman a friend saw in Paola some time later and the same shopper denounced on Facebook as seen at a Żejtun supermarket.
For all the multitudes said to have been spotted at Tigné Point, no one has actually counted. Until proven otherwise, I’ll continue to suspect that we’re putting on centre stage an issue that is actually marginal in terms of numbers – even in terms of the number of Muslims in Malta.
The usual reasons given for why this is the right time to put the matter on centre stage are three. They were reiterated on Facebook. First, we need to defend our values. Second, we need to lock the stable door before the horses bolt. Third, we should demand reciprocity: if Europeans are expected to dress in a certain way in Muslim states, then Muslims should dress in the way we demand over here.
For all the talk of our values, such reasoning shows complete ignorance of them.
One modern European value is to base yourself on facts.
Where stable doors are concerned, the myth of Muslims in Europe raring to reject our laws and take over is just that: a myth. There are real problems caused by organised, vicious and (importantly) sectarian networks that hope to do just that. The majority of Muslims are as hostile to them as the rest of us are. To condemn all Muslims because of the extremists is like condemning all mainstream left-wing political groups because of the Red Brigades.
Another value is to believe that our treatment of citizens and residents is based on what we believe to be right, not as a trade-off with other states. To do the latter is actually to show you do believe your own values to be not sacrosanct but negotiable.
Was Azzopardi responsible for any of this gush? His own views are clearly different. But he should have known better.
Once he is the Opposition spokesman on justice and rights, he does not have the luxury of private views. Once he speaks, his views have more weight.
If, as a lawmaker, he’s concerned, then he should have spoken in Parliament, where he would have had the time for a rational exposition of his concerns.
It’s not a matter of niceties. If we’re going to cite European experience, then let’s cite all of it. There are plenty of instances where politicians speaking about extreme fringes of Islam led (however unintentionally) to a train of public expressions of Islamophobia, whose full brunt was felt by mainstream Muslims, many of whom would object to full facial veils themselves.
ranierfsadni@europe.com