Para ver mi punto de vista (que acabó siendo muy muy parecido al de Garton Ash) ver aquí, o hacer click en la etiqueta velo islámico (abajo).
Believe in liberty, equality, fraternity? This time, don't follow the French
There are deep failures of civic liberal integration across Europe, but a burqa ban is the wrong way to address them
Timothy Garton Ash
The Guardian, Thursday 7 April 2011
I believe people should be free to publish cartoons of Muhammad. I believe people should be free to wear the burqa. In a free society, men and women should be able to do, say, write, depict or wear what they like, so long as it does no significant harm to others. Those who support a burqa ban, like the one that comes into force in France next Monday, must therefore show us the harm that comes from women walking around with their faces covered. So far, the supporters of a ban have advanced three main arguments.
First, they say the full-face veil is a threat to public safety. Jean-François Copé – the leader of Nicolas Sarkozy's party, the Union for a Popular Movement – has cited an armed robbery conducted "in the Paris suburbs by criminals dressed in burqas". Others point to would-be suicide bombers hiding under burqas. But how many such incidents have there been? For the London and Madrid bombers, a backpack was an easier hiding-place for a bomb.
Meanwhile, violent street demonstrators have for decades hidden their faces behind balaclavas, while a stocking (or modern equivalent) over the head has long been the native dress of the armed robber. It is ridiculous to suggest that the fewer than 2,000 women who are thought to wear the burqa in France, or the fewer than 500 in the Netherlands, suddenly constitute a security threat worse than those muffled and hooded men of violence who have been at work for decades.
This takes us to the second argument: an open society is one in which we can see each other's faces. I have much sympathy with this view. Most free societies have some rules about how we appear in public: no full frontal nudity, for example, except in designated locations. If for the last 50 years the uncovering of the face in public had been the settled legal norm of European societies, as is the covering of the pudenda, it would be reasonable to insist that those who choose to live here should abide by it. But while the French law is now presented in an egalitarian, universalist way, this is so obviously not what it really is.
In 2009 Sarkozy took up with a vengeance the demand specifically to ban burqas. It is being implemented in the context of his party's fierce defence of French-style secularism (laïcité) against the encroachments specifically of "Islam", reaffirmed at a controversial meeting this week. And that is now very much about attracting voters back from Marine Le Pen and the xenophobic far right. This is a highly politicised burqa ban hiding behind a thin universalist veil.
Finally, it is argued that the unacceptable harm is to the veiled women themselves. Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a vice-president of the European parliament, says the burqa is "a mobile prison". And the claim is often made that women only walk around in these mobile prisons because they are compelled to do so by fathers or husbands.
Again, I start with sympathy for this view. When, on a hot day in London, I see a woman wrapped in a black sack tagging along beside a guy in light T-shirt, jeans and sneakers, my first reaction is: "How bloody unfair!" John Stuart Mill, who enunciated the liberal's classic harm principle, was himself passionate against "the almost despotic power of husbands over wives". But before we leap to this conclusion, shouldn't we ask the women themselves? Or do we paternalistically (or maternalistically) assume they don't know what is good for them, and must be forced to be free?
A study by the At Home in Europe project of the Open Society Foundations, to be released on Monday, reports in-depth interviews with 32 women who wear the full-face veil in France. All but two say they are the first members of their family to do so, and almost all insist this was a matter of free personal choice. Several chose to wear it against the initial resistance of husbands, fathers and mothers. (The families often feared hostility on the streets, with some reason. In a tragicomic parody of French reactions, one of these women – Omera, 31, from the south of France – was threatened by an old Frenchman wielding pétanque balls.)
They often describe donning the niqab or burqa as part of a spiritual journey, very much in the terms in which devout Christian and Jewish women of old might have explained their decision to "take the veil". Some also explain it as a protest and defence against a highly sexualised, voyeuristic public space: "For us it's a way of saying that we are not a piece of meat in a stall, we are not a commodity" (Vivi, 39, south of France). Nearer my God to thee – and further from Joe Leering Public.
We may not like their choice. We may find it disturbing and offensive. But it is, in its way, as much a form of free expression as cartoons of Muhammad – which these women, in turn, will find disturbing and offensive. And that's the deal in a free society: the burqa-wearer has to put up with the cartoons; the cartoonist has to put up with the burqas.
How will these women feel on Monday? Listen to Camile from Paris: "Why should I remove my niqab? … I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a criminal. I'm not a thief. I, who today respect all the laws, the laws of God and the laws of the republic, will become an outlaw."
Yes, there surely are also cases of women – much less easy to reach – who wear the niqab or burqa out of fear of their menfolk. Every possible resource must be put at their disposal: anonymous helplines, community support, safe houses, relocation and fresh start chances. They, too, must be free to choose. But how will a burqa ban help them? Will not the reaction of such tyrannical men be to keep them even more tightly locked up at home?
Because one is so liable to be maliciously misinterpreted on this subject, I want to be very clear about where I stand. I think there are huge problems with the integration of people of migrant background and Muslim faith into most west European societies. I think we have made bad mistakes of omission and commission in this regard over the last 40 years, some of them in the name of a misconceived, morally relativist "multiculturalism". I think we need a muscular liberalism fit for what are in reality already multicultural societies.
But let us, in the name of reason and common sense, concentrate on what is really vital. Let us defend free speech against violent Islamist intimidation. Let us ensure that children of migrant background get a good education in the language, history and politics of the European country in which they live, and are then equipped to do useful work and contribute fully as citizens. Let us not be distracted by a facile gesture politics, which legitimises far-right xenophobic parties even as it attempts to claw back votes.
The burqa ban is illiberal and unnecessary, and will most likely be counterproductive. No one else should follow the French example, and France itself should reverse it.
Believe in liberty, equality, fraternity? This time, don't follow the French
There are deep failures of civic liberal integration across Europe, but a burqa ban is the wrong way to address them
Timothy Garton Ash
The Guardian, Thursday 7 April 2011
I believe people should be free to publish cartoons of Muhammad. I believe people should be free to wear the burqa. In a free society, men and women should be able to do, say, write, depict or wear what they like, so long as it does no significant harm to others. Those who support a burqa ban, like the one that comes into force in France next Monday, must therefore show us the harm that comes from women walking around with their faces covered. So far, the supporters of a ban have advanced three main arguments.
First, they say the full-face veil is a threat to public safety. Jean-François Copé – the leader of Nicolas Sarkozy's party, the Union for a Popular Movement – has cited an armed robbery conducted "in the Paris suburbs by criminals dressed in burqas". Others point to would-be suicide bombers hiding under burqas. But how many such incidents have there been? For the London and Madrid bombers, a backpack was an easier hiding-place for a bomb.
Meanwhile, violent street demonstrators have for decades hidden their faces behind balaclavas, while a stocking (or modern equivalent) over the head has long been the native dress of the armed robber. It is ridiculous to suggest that the fewer than 2,000 women who are thought to wear the burqa in France, or the fewer than 500 in the Netherlands, suddenly constitute a security threat worse than those muffled and hooded men of violence who have been at work for decades.
This takes us to the second argument: an open society is one in which we can see each other's faces. I have much sympathy with this view. Most free societies have some rules about how we appear in public: no full frontal nudity, for example, except in designated locations. If for the last 50 years the uncovering of the face in public had been the settled legal norm of European societies, as is the covering of the pudenda, it would be reasonable to insist that those who choose to live here should abide by it. But while the French law is now presented in an egalitarian, universalist way, this is so obviously not what it really is.
In 2009 Sarkozy took up with a vengeance the demand specifically to ban burqas. It is being implemented in the context of his party's fierce defence of French-style secularism (laïcité) against the encroachments specifically of "Islam", reaffirmed at a controversial meeting this week. And that is now very much about attracting voters back from Marine Le Pen and the xenophobic far right. This is a highly politicised burqa ban hiding behind a thin universalist veil.
Finally, it is argued that the unacceptable harm is to the veiled women themselves. Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a vice-president of the European parliament, says the burqa is "a mobile prison". And the claim is often made that women only walk around in these mobile prisons because they are compelled to do so by fathers or husbands.
Again, I start with sympathy for this view. When, on a hot day in London, I see a woman wrapped in a black sack tagging along beside a guy in light T-shirt, jeans and sneakers, my first reaction is: "How bloody unfair!" John Stuart Mill, who enunciated the liberal's classic harm principle, was himself passionate against "the almost despotic power of husbands over wives". But before we leap to this conclusion, shouldn't we ask the women themselves? Or do we paternalistically (or maternalistically) assume they don't know what is good for them, and must be forced to be free?
A study by the At Home in Europe project of the Open Society Foundations, to be released on Monday, reports in-depth interviews with 32 women who wear the full-face veil in France. All but two say they are the first members of their family to do so, and almost all insist this was a matter of free personal choice. Several chose to wear it against the initial resistance of husbands, fathers and mothers. (The families often feared hostility on the streets, with some reason. In a tragicomic parody of French reactions, one of these women – Omera, 31, from the south of France – was threatened by an old Frenchman wielding pétanque balls.)
They often describe donning the niqab or burqa as part of a spiritual journey, very much in the terms in which devout Christian and Jewish women of old might have explained their decision to "take the veil". Some also explain it as a protest and defence against a highly sexualised, voyeuristic public space: "For us it's a way of saying that we are not a piece of meat in a stall, we are not a commodity" (Vivi, 39, south of France). Nearer my God to thee – and further from Joe Leering Public.
We may not like their choice. We may find it disturbing and offensive. But it is, in its way, as much a form of free expression as cartoons of Muhammad – which these women, in turn, will find disturbing and offensive. And that's the deal in a free society: the burqa-wearer has to put up with the cartoons; the cartoonist has to put up with the burqas.
How will these women feel on Monday? Listen to Camile from Paris: "Why should I remove my niqab? … I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a criminal. I'm not a thief. I, who today respect all the laws, the laws of God and the laws of the republic, will become an outlaw."
Yes, there surely are also cases of women – much less easy to reach – who wear the niqab or burqa out of fear of their menfolk. Every possible resource must be put at their disposal: anonymous helplines, community support, safe houses, relocation and fresh start chances. They, too, must be free to choose. But how will a burqa ban help them? Will not the reaction of such tyrannical men be to keep them even more tightly locked up at home?
Because one is so liable to be maliciously misinterpreted on this subject, I want to be very clear about where I stand. I think there are huge problems with the integration of people of migrant background and Muslim faith into most west European societies. I think we have made bad mistakes of omission and commission in this regard over the last 40 years, some of them in the name of a misconceived, morally relativist "multiculturalism". I think we need a muscular liberalism fit for what are in reality already multicultural societies.
But let us, in the name of reason and common sense, concentrate on what is really vital. Let us defend free speech against violent Islamist intimidation. Let us ensure that children of migrant background get a good education in the language, history and politics of the European country in which they live, and are then equipped to do useful work and contribute fully as citizens. Let us not be distracted by a facile gesture politics, which legitimises far-right xenophobic parties even as it attempts to claw back votes.
The burqa ban is illiberal and unnecessary, and will most likely be counterproductive. No one else should follow the French example, and France itself should reverse it.
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario