Banning The Symbols Of Political Islam: The Burqa

Margaret Wente wrote precisely the kind of column I would have liked to write, making to the same kind of arguments, and ultimately the same conclusion. We shouldn’t impose a ban on the burqa. It goes against my natural instinct, perhaps even against my cognitive rationalizing, but there it is. A year ago, or even farther back, I think there is no question that I would oppose the wearing of the burqa in Canada. But that doesn’t mean that I accept the fundamental problems associated with the symbol of political Islam.

The history of the burqa, also transliterated from Arabic as burkha, burka, or burqua [which is why you see so many variations on the spelling of other Arabic words in the media], is somewhat varied based upon which source you read. A completely enveloping outer garment, the covering is worn over normal clothing and removed inside the household. The burqa is a combination of the hijab, or head-scarf, with the niqab, or face-veil. The hijab, for instance, is frequently worn by many Muslims in Canada, and is a scarcely noticeable part of their attire, most probably because of the European, and particularly Eastern European tradition that also involves head-scarves. The face-veil portion of the burqa is called the purdah, a Persian word that rather appropriately means “curtain”.

Many westerners are puzzled as to why Muslim women would want to wear symbols of Islamic oppression in western society. There are, perhaps, arguments to be made based upon the religion itself. Those raised in Islamic societies believe in the hadith, a collection of edicts by the Prophet Muhammad, one of which is to teach men and women to dress modestly in public. While most Islamic societies have interpreted this as the reason for wearing the burqa, there is no specific mention of the garment in the Holy Qu’ran whatsoever.

For an explanation of the origins of the burqa in modern Islam, muslim writer Tarek Fatah explains:

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world.

[...]

Most of Canada’s growth in niqabi women can be traced to 2004, when a radical Pakistani female scholar by the name of Farhat Hashmi came to this country on a visitor’s visa. After arrival, she was twice denied a work permit. But that didn’t stop her from establishing a Muslim school in Mississauga, Ont. that prosletyzed Wahhabist norms — including the wearing of the niqab, leaving the workforce and embracing polygamy.

In Irshad Manji’s film “Faith without Fear”, there is a somewhat humourous scene when she is in Yemen, trying on burqa’s to see what it feels like to wear one. She asks for the most popular, most liberal style from the shopkeeper. The man nods and shows her a full array of garments, every single one a deep navy blue or a midnight black. There is something a little dehumanizing in not only the “modesty” inflicted upon women in the muslim world, but the lack of colour as well.

The fact is that Nicholas Sarkozy had quite a different reason for speaking about the burqa than might a Canadian. France is host to an estimated 5.5 million Muslims, although admittedly such numbers are difficult to confirm owing to the clandestine nature of North African refugees. Their presence in that country, therefore, is far more pronounced, and entrenched. In Canada few such neighbourhoods exists, and it is safe to say that many Canadians are far more likely to see your average “goth” girl in full black and white makeup, or a British-style “punk” rocker replete with 1983 mohawk, than they are to see a woman shopping in her burqa. Full disclosure here: I’ve never seen a woman in a burqa in Canada, and only quite recently saw a woman in a niqab walking out of the Vancouver convention centre.

But the truth is that we can’t ban the burqa. Not in a nation where we proclaim the fundamental value of our society is the freedom of the individual and the choice that comes with it. Just as we tolerate all other sorts of choices which we consider less than appealing, we have to accept the personal choices that comes with the freedom of a liberal society. The moment we start dictating what women can wear, or in this case can’t wear, we aren’t much different than the countries we criticize. I believe there is also a certain appeal, a natural rebellious instinct among many people, to do something simply because it is forbidden. It would be the ultimate irony to have women “rebel” by wearing a symbol of conformity because it is banned here.

As Margaret Wente says, we have to allow it. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.

Not Safe For [Lunch] At Work

At first I wasn’t sure whether I should even post the graphic, or just link to it. But then I thought, hey, we’re all adults here. It isn’t as if I personally called up Burger King and pitched them the idea. No, this is the brainchild of the burger franchise, and yes, it’s heavily steeped in double entendre.

Where does one begin to even criticize this ad? You don’t need to have a sexually charged mind to get the inference. A 7 inch sandwich, a woman in the picture with an open mouth, and the all important word in letters as large as her head. It’s practically subliminal pornography.

Why on earth would a fast-food chain want to sexualize food in order to peddle their grease? It isn’t as though it hasn’t been tried before [NSFW], as Hardee’s ran an advertisement involving a scantily clad vixen veritably making love to a bacon-burger. But there’s something a little deranged about trying to get men worked up about the cognitive association of meat and women. I suppose in our more primal moments, those two subjects are appealing, but the pleasure of both are generally kept independent from one another [unless you try George Constanza's attempt to "marry" the two].

Sexual advertising is generally accepted in beer ads, since the combination of beer and women is a fairly simple association. But still, I don’t know of any ads involving a coors light bottle and the suggestive pose of oral sex being included. According to the website Advertising Age, the advertisement was only running a limited promotion in Singapore, so there’s little chance of seeing the fellatio ad in North America any time soon. Although it does make one wonder why sex ads would work in Singapore, and why the model in the ad is decidedly western.

It isn’t that I object to the ad based upon the same reasons that a feminist might; the objectification of women, the implication that they exist to satisfy sexual urges, or the disturbing word association, although those are all good reasons. No, I just think it’s crass and, no pun intended, tasteless. As Ken Wheaton writes in Advertising Age, a sandwich is just a sandwich. Stop trying to turn it into the male anatomy.

The Iranian “Thugocracy” Continues Crackdown

I think that the recent demonstrations in Iran over the belief that the election was “fixed” by the Ayatollahs, is a perfect example of why judging a country by it’s leadership is a dangerous thing. Often in the past several years we’ve heard the urge to attack Iran with targeted bombardments; Michael Coren even suggested we “nuke” it. But the election and the demonstrations have put a face to the name, and the face is that of slain Neda Agha-Soltan, the 27-year-old female protester shot at point blank range by one of the regime’s thugs.

The reports coming out of Iran are based upon a violent and oppressive regime that murders it’s own citizens in broad daylight and under the watchful eyes of the entire world. A regime that appears to have manufactured the election results for it’s own benefit, and then defied any and all objections from the citizenry they claim voted for it. There are reports of undercover thugs dressed in black, going about and shooting those who engage in protests, or beating them violently, and throwing them from bridges. There is even the egregious reports that parents are being ordered to pay the costs of their own children’s murder, and then denied permission to bury the dead in Tehran.

Relatives said that when Yousef found his son, he was ordered to pay $US3000 ($3770) before he could retrieve the body – to cover the cost of the security forces operation.

Yousef convinced morgue officials that he could not afford the fee, saying he should not have to pay because he had served in the Iran-Iraq war. They dropped the fee but told Yousef he could not bury his son in Tehran.

The Iranian government response, meanwhile, has been to claim that the protests are nothing more than the political opportunism of dissidents and terrorists, foreigners, and spies. In the below photograph, supporters of Ahmadinejad burned foreign flags of governments they accuse of trying to “meddle” in Iranian affairs. The irony is that the vast majority of people from those countries feel their country hasn’t done enough to condemn the brutality.

But reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi is defiant, and will continue to demand an annulment of the results even as the regime arrests anyone who associates with him publicly. The government is adamant, as is the Supreme Leader, that the results are final. But Mr.Mousavi says that Iranians have a right to express their opposition to the aftermath of recent events. They have even forbidden a rally to mourn the dead murdered by the police during crackdowns. People like Neda.

The government is trying to suppress this grassroots revolution, intimidating and murdering dissidents before it gets out of control. But the more the government kills it’s people in plain sight of the eyes of the world, their power is diminished by a people who are becoming increasing uncooperative in the abuse.