Förbudsliberalernas inställning till burkan håller inte

‘Can Europe be the same with different people in it?' asks the writer Christopher Caldwell in his controversial new book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. It is a question that has been asked with increasing urgency in recent years as the question of immigration, and in particular of Islamic immigration, has taken centre stage. And it is a question that liberals have found increasingly difficult to answer.

At the heart of this question lies the dilemma of how Western societies should respond to the influx of peoples with different traditions, backgrounds and beliefs. What should be the boundaries of tolerance in such societies? Should immigrants be made to assimilate to Western customs and norms or is integration a two-way street? Such questions have bedeviled politicians and policy-makers for the past half century. They have also tied liberals in knots.

There have developed two broad responses to the quandries of pluralism. Multiculturalists argue that diverse societies can only function fairly if respect is shown towards all peoples, cultures, and viewpoints. ‘The liberal is in theory committed to equal respect for persons', the political philosopher Bhikhu Parekh argues. ‘Since human beings are culturally embedded, respect for them entails respect for their cultures and ways of life.'

The second response suggests that what Europe is facing is a ‘clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West. Muslim immigration, according to Christopher Caldwell, ‘is not enhancing or validating European culture; it is supplanting it. Europe is not welcoming its newest residents but making way for them.' The West would need vigorously to defend its values and beliefs against Islamic assault.

Both responses are wrong. At the heart of a liberal, secular society lie four fundamental beliefs. First, there is one law for all; there should be no special treatment for any, nor any discrimination. Second, there is a separation between state and faith and no faith should possess any form of special privilege. Third, there should be no state interference in matters of private conscience. And fourth, people should be free to pursue any beliefs or lifestyles, so long as such beliefs or lifestyles do not harm others. The claims of both multiculturalists and many of their critics run counter to these basic tenets of liberal, secular society.

The starting point for the multiculturalist argument is the understanding that we live in a world in which there are deep-seated conflicts between cultures embodying different values, many of which are incommensurate but all of which are valid in their own context. For such diverse societies to function and to be fair, multiculturalists argue, we need to show respect for other peoples, cultures, and viewpoints. Social justice requires not just that individuals are treated as political equals, but also that their cultural beliefs are given equal recognition and respect.

It is an approach that has forced many traditional liberals and radicals to abandon classical notions of freedom and liberty in the name of defending diversity. From the Rushdie affair to the Mohammed cartoons and beyond, liberals have betrayed liberal principles of free speech, claiming that the avoidance of cultural pain is more important than an abstract right to freedom of expression. As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it, ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism.' In the two decades following the Rushdie affair, liberals have effectively internalised the fatwa.

The very meaning of equality has also become transformed. Equality used to mean the right for everyone to be treated the same despite differences of faith, culture, race, ethnicity or gender. Under the weight of multicultural arguments it has come to mean the right of people to be treated differently because of those of differences. Different communities now demand the right to express their own identities, explore their own histories, speak their own language, formulate their own values, pursue their own lifestyles.

Rather than appealing to minorities as citizens, multiculturalists prefer to see them as members of ethnic blocks. Muslims have come to be seen not as British or Swedish citizens who happen to believe in a particular God, but as people of a particular faith who happen to reside in Britain or Sweden. And elected politicians, rather than engaging directly with minority communities, have over the past two decades subcontracted out that responsibility to self-appointed so-called community leaders. In the process they have allowed the most conservative elements to promote themselves as the true representatives of their communities. This has particularly true of Muslim communities. Radical Islamists, who possess little authority within most Muslim communities, have come to acquire considerable political power because liberals have come to view them as the ‘authentic' voice of Islam.

If one strand of liberal opinion has come to believe over the past two decades that Islamist sentiments have to be appeased in the name of pluralism, another strand has come to believe that the West is facing a fundamental confrontation with Islam. ‘The clash of civilizations' was a phrase coined by the historian Bernard Lewis in a 1990 essay on ‘The roots of Muslim rage'. It was subsequently popularized by the American political scientist Samuel Huntington who suggested that whereas previous conflicts that had convulsed Europe were all ‘conflicts within Western civilization', the ‘battle lines of the future', would be between civilizations and in particular between the Christian West and the Islamic East, a conflict that would be ‘far more fundamental' than any war unleashed by ‘differences among political ideologies and political regimes'.

It is an argument that has gained an increasing hearing in liberal circles, particularly in the wake of 9/11. ‘All over again', as the novelist Martin Amis has put it, ‘the West confronts an irrationalist, agonistic, theocratic/ ideocratic system which is essentially and unappeasably opposed to its existence.' The Swiss ban on the building of minarets, the growing clamour on both sides of the Atlantic for the outlawing of the burqa, the call in Holland for the Qur'an to proscribed - all stem from this desire to defend ‘Western values' against the assault of Islam. The consequence of such policies has not, however, been the entrenchment of liberal democratic values, but rather their erosion. The anti-Islam rhetoric of the clash of civilization warriors is as inimical to liberal secularism as is multiculturalism.

Take, for instance, the ban on the burqa. Aside from the claim that the burqa is a threat to security (a flimsy assertion at best) three main arguments have been put forward as to why it should be outlawed: it is demeaning to women and contrary to Western ideas of gender equality; it is a symbol of Islamism, a ferociusly anti-Western ideology; and it is bad for social cohesion.

The burqa is certainly demeaning to women. The idea that in the 21st century women should be hidden from view for reasons of modesty or religious belief rightly seems astonishing. But many other practices and rituals that Western societies tolerate are also demeaning of women. The Catholic Church, for instance, forbids women priests. Many Protestant evangelical churches insist that wives must ‘obey' their husbands and that the role of women is to breed new evangelicals. Nobody, however, seriously suggests that the Catholic church should be forced to accept gender equality or that evangelical wives should forcibly be saved from being baby factories. A liberal society accepts that individuals should be free to make choices that may not be in their interest and that, liberal eyes, demeans them. And a secular society accepts that the state does not interfere in matters of private conscience. This applies even to particularly distasteful expressions of the degradation of women, such as the wearing of the burqa.

Whether the burqa is a symbol of Islamism is a moot point. But even if it were, that should be no reason for the state to ban it. Liberals may find other forms of Islam more conducive. But the whole point of the separation of state and faith is that the state does not interfere or take sides in religious or sectarian debates. In any case, if the burqa or minarets should be banned as symbols of Islamism, should not Islamism itself be banned? And is that really the kind of society in which we want to live? How absurd is it that societies that are willing tolerate the existence of fascist parties, even in government, feel so threatened by the burqa?

The argument that wearing a burqa undermines social cohesion is perhaps the weakest argument of all. The burqa has been rightly described as ‘ghetto walls that a person wears'. It often inhibits normal social interaction - that, after all, is its very purpose - and may preclude those who wear it from integrating into society. But the fact is, the chances of seeing a burqa in Paris, London, Brussels or Stockholm is barely greater than that of spotting a pub in Riyadh. France has a Mulsim population of 5 million. Its government estimates that fewer than 2000 women wear a niqab or burqa. In Holland some 500 women in a Muslim population of one million do so, in Denmark fewer than 200 out of 170,000 Muslims. Whatever may be the significance of the burqa, it can hardly be held responsible for a sense of social separation.

On the other hand the promotion of anti-Muslim prejudice does help create a sense of difference and separation, and undermines the idea that all citizens should be treated equally. This week the French National Assembly described the wearing of burqa as contrary to ‘values of the nation'. In fact it is the ban on the burqa that runs counter to the values of the liberal, republican tradition.

Despite all the talk of a ‘clash of civilizations', there is, in fact, no single set of European values that transcends history in opposition to Islamic values. Christopher Caldwell himself, even as he goes along with the clash of civilizations thesis, reveals its inadequacies. ‘What secular Europeans call "Islam"', he points out, ‘is a set of values that Dante and Erasmus would recognize as theirs'. On the other hand, the modern, secular rights that now constitute ‘core European values' would ‘leave Dante and Erasmus bewildered.'

In other words, what we now regard as ‘Western values' - individual rights, secularism, freedom of speech - are modern values, distinct from those that animated European societies in the past. And it's not just medieval Europeans who would reject contemporary European values. Many contemporary Europeans do too. The British writer Melanie Phillips is militantly hostile to what she sees as the ‘Islamic takeover of the West' and what she calls ‘the drift towards social suicide' that comes with accepting Muslim immigration. Yet she is deeply sympathetic to the Islamist rejection of secular humanism, which she thinks has created ‘a debauched and disorderly culture of instant gratification, with disintegrating families, feral children and violence, squalor and vulgarity on the streets.' Muslims ‘have concluded that the society that expects them to identify with it is a moral cesspit', Phillips argues. ‘Is it any wonder, therefore, that they reject it?' The very values against which radical Islamists rail - the values of secular humanism - are also the very values that so disgust some of Islam's greatest critics.

There is little love lost between multiculturalists and proponents of the clash of civilization thesis. The former accuse the latter of pandering to racism and Islamophobia, while the latter talk of the former as appeasing Islamism. Beneath the hostility, however, the two sides share basic assumptions about the nature of culture, identity and difference. Both start with the question: ‘Can Europe be the same with different people in it?'. They give different answers. But the question itself is the problem. It assumes that minority communities are homogenous wholes whose members will forever be attached to the cultures, faiths, beliefs and values of their forebears. Being born to European parents is not a passport to Enlightenment beliefs. So why should we imagine that having Bangladeshi or Moroccan ancestry makes one automatically believe in sharia? In confusing peoples and values both sides betray a lack of faith in their own abilities to win peoples of different backgrounds to a common set of Enlightened values.

And that is the real problem: not immigration, nor Muslim immigration, nor yet the ‘Islamization' of Europe, but the lack of conviction, on the part both of multiculturalists and clash of civilization warriors, in a progressive, secular, humanist project. It is this that has led both sides to betray basic liberal principles.

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/22272

18 kommentarer Logga in för att kommentera
I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

Bra artikel som påvisar liberalismens oförmåga att hantera den pågående utvecklingen.

Liberalismen är en fantastisk ideologi som skapar tilllväxt och framsteg men den fungerar inte i tider av global resursbrist, alltså måste andra ideologier användas för att organisera och stabilisera världen.

Nationalismen är en enkel och beprövad ideologi som skapar ordning i det liberala kaoset. Nationalismen ger människor en identitet, en etnicitet och en naturlig sammanhållning.

Nationalismen innebär en naturlig och historiebaserad uppdelning av människorna och ett entydigt svar på ansvarsfördelningen för dem.

Nationalismen är svaret och ingen censur i världen kan förhindra en nationalistisk utveckling. Frågan är bara hur nationalismen ska realiseras, inte om.

Permalänk | Anmäl #1 Bo T, 2010-05-12, 12:03

Det borde ändå falla under maskeringsförbudet i Sverige.

Permalänk | Anmäl #2 Kalle bulle, 2010-05-12, 12:13

Personligen ser jag inte riktigt varför han kallar multikulturalismen och förbudsivrandet för liberala. Multikulturalismen är djupt ingrodd i det "moderna" socialistiska tankegodset, tillsammans med sådana strömningar som postmodernismen, kulturrelativism och så vidare. Förbudsivrarna är i allmänhet rejält konservativa, precis som våra egna Sverigedemokrater längtar de tillbaka till en monokultur. De brukar anspela på folkhemstanken runt anno 1950, precis som andra konservativa partier som ex.v. Socialdemokraterna.

En liberal hållning handlar precis som han skrev ovan om att respektera varje INDIVID, inte som del i en grupp, inte som varandes av en viss etnicitet, utan som person. Lagarna skall självklart behandla alla lika, som individer. Vare sig socialister eller konservativa är särskilt intresserade av detta.

Svaret på frågan är naturligtvis att Europa aldrig kommer att bli detsamma, oavsett vilka människor som finns i det. Illusionen att vi kan leva i ett tänkt status quo är inte bara barnslig, utan också ganska farlig.

Permalänk | Anmäl #3 Sven P Andersson, 2010-05-12, 13:32

Nä men nu tycker jag vi ska vara rättvisa. Om någon ska gå omkring i burka och nikab, så tycker jag att vi alla kan göra det i solidaritetens tecken. Tänk så praktiskt. Ingen kommer längre att få hudcancer för detta heltäckande plagg skyddar både mot sol och vintersnö.

Både män och kvinnor ska förstås få sina burkor och sina nikaber av staten. Och utanpå dem ska det tryckas upp ett ID, som kan scannas på alla banker, arbetsplatser, affärer och av alla poliser, så är problemet löst en gång för alla.

Låt oss återvända till medeltiden! Det var så härliga århundraden!

Och så tycker jag att vi alla ska tilldelas varsin man/hustru som våra föräldrar bestämmer. Kan endast överklagas till den opartiska staten, som då får bli skiljedomare. Tänk så mycket jobb det skulle ge! Arbetslösheten skulle försvinna i ett nafs.

Alla som ens viskar om skilsmässa skickas till gruvorna i Sibirien, där staten har hyrt in sig på de gamla väl inbodda Gulaglägrens platser. Vilket fantastiskt fint samhälle vi kommer att få! Brottsligheten kommer att bli lika låg som den var i Sovjet en gång. Åh härliga tider!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO0mwlcMqyQ

Permalänk | Anmäl #4 Ann Helena Rudberg, 2010-05-12, 14:06

Handlar artikeln inte framför allt om våra svårigheter att hålla den ideologiska tungan rätt i mun i ett samhälle som både vill ha individuell frihet och religionsfrihet och samtidigt ha sekulär grundkonstruktion?

Många i debatten ut-tolkar sin rätt till frihet från religionen islam och frihet från individuellt kulturellt uttryck som det övergripande ideologiska kravet. Men glömmer att sekularitet samtidigt ska kunna garantera frihet till religion och det individuella uttrycket. Att bära heltäckande kläder är en form av "yttrande", en visuell illustration av åsikten att könen måste hållas strängt åtskilda för att förebygga osedlighet.

Vad är skillnaden mot Vilks rondellhund?

Gäller "yttrandefriheten" i visuell form inte dem som dagligen utövar den genom att klä sig som en svart, fladdrande kråka?

Permalänk | Anmäl #5 Gunnel Gomér, 2010-05-12, 16:04

@Sven P Andersson

"En liberal hållning handlar precis som han skrev ovan om att respektera varje INDIVID, inte som del i en grupp, inte som varandes av en viss etnicitet, utan som person."

Det är dock svårt att respektera en person som har en så avskyvärt moraliskt rättesnöre som Islam.

Permalänk | Anmäl #6 Init, 2010-05-12, 17:40

A very good and informative article, thanks Kenan!

#4 Ann Helena Rudberg

Vad är det egentligen med dig? Du tycker att man ska förbjuda burka p.g.a. du inte gillar den bild du har av de som bär den? Tror du att ett förbud skulle ändra någonting till det bättre? Vad i så fall?

Och bara för att du inte tycker om hur vissa människor lever kan du väl inte tycka att man ska förbjuda sättet de klär sig på??
Det är som att vi skulle förbjuda punkarstilen bara för att vi inte gillar punkare. Jag och du och alla andra i vårat vackra fria land ska väl ha rätt att klä oss hur fan vi vill? (och skriv inte "jaa men då kan jag ju gå klädd med svastika på jackan då" den jämförelsen håller inte, om du inte förstår varför kan jag ta det i nästa inlägg)

Att du kan störa dig så mycket på någon annans sätt att leva förstår jag verkligen inte. Det är ju ingen som kommer att tvinga dig att sätta på dig en burka? Låt folk leva sitt liv bäst de vill så länge de inte skadar någon.

Ser nu att mitt inlägg är lite flummigt och inte har speciellt många argument i sig, men det gör ju inte ditt heller. Jag är bara nyfiken på vad du har för tankar som gör att du tycker att man ska förbjuda burka. Jag tänker att du verkar ha mycket hat i dig, det är nog ett stort hinder i ditt liv, allt blir så mycket jobbigare och svårare då.

med hopp om svar
Gabriel

Permalänk | Anmäl #7 Gabriel Cole, 2010-05-12, 20:01

Blir det sminkförbud också? Många i huvudsak kvinnor döljer sitt ansikte under lager av kosmetika.

Permalänk | Anmäl #8 Ivar Johansson, 2010-05-12, 20:06

Skit i ideologin, burka är otrevligt.

Permalänk | Anmäl #9 Robert Pettersson, 2010-05-12, 21:34

"Nobody, however, seriously suggests that the Catholic church should be forced to accept gender equality" writes Kenan. Well, in Sweden, many do! Rules about gender and equality has been forced upon churches regarding priesthood and marriage. That is a good thing. And a secular society is ...after all... secular!

Permalänk | Anmäl #10 Mats Forssblad, 2010-05-12, 21:50

Utmärkt av Frankrike att förbjuda burka. Förhoppningsvis gör EU samma sak.

Permalänk | Anmäl #11 Johnny Andersson, 2010-05-13, 01:57

Avdramatisera Burkaförbud genim att hävda att förbuudegt skall gälla förbud mot maskerande klädsel.
Alltså klädesplagg som helt eller delvis täcker ANSIKTET.

Det gäller då rånarluvor, och Burka /Niqab

Anledning. Trafiksäkerhet, möjlighet att identifiera andra människor mm

Permalänk | Anmäl #12 Carl Svensson, 2010-05-13, 05:48

Excellent text, Kenan! I believe you said practically everything that needs to be said in this debate.

Permalänk | Anmäl #13 Carl Idermark, 2010-05-13, 16:38

Men herregud...
Klart att sådana kläder som maskerar bäraren skall förbjudas....eller skall det vara okej att maskera sig...? jag tycker faktiskt att detta är löjligt, klart att spökplump dressen skall vara förbjudet..!! ..herregud...människornas "frihet" börjar ta löjliga uttryck...alla skall visa sina ansikten...thats that!

Permalänk | Anmäl #14 Jesper Jespersson, 2010-05-13, 20:13

Det är inget specifikt burkaförbud i Belgien utan ett maskeringsförbud. Ett sådant finns sedan tidigare i Italien. Vi har ju dessutom redan ett förbud mot exempelvis Naziuniformer. Är det fel? Detta förbud saknar ju också de rent praktiska säkerhetsaspekterna som motiverar ett maskeringsförbud.
Sedan är burkan inget religiöst föremål. Koranen föreskriver inte att kvinnan ska dölja sitt ansikte. Nog är det väl rimligt att man ska kunna identifera människor man möter i samhället? För det här handlar inte om klädsel, det handlar om maskering vilket tyvärr många av skribenterna här inte fått in i skallen.

Permalänk | Anmäl #15 Johnny Lilja, 2010-05-13, 22:05

Mycket troll här, märker jag. Som bara är intresserade av att pressa för att förbjuda maskerande klädsel. Samma typ av alias hela tiden också. Jaja, antar att Säpo ägnar sig åt PR som alla andra. Avlönad astroturfing är rätt tröttsamt,dock...

Att inte staten skall bestämma vad vi får klä oss i är en självklarhet. Att vi har rätt att inte vara fullt identifierbara likaså... utom för hemliga byrån, kanske de har ett intresse i frågan? Notera också att polismetodutredningen låter dem använda din mobil som spårsändare, bilar spåras genom ANPR-kameror, osv. Sammantaget har man byggt upp en metod att spåra varje människa i samhället i detalj, dygnet runt.

Det är redan alldeles orimligt långt gånget. Det skall inte tas ett steg längre i övervakningshetsen nu. Det är dags att granska, rensa upp, och rulla tillbaka.

Permalänk | Anmäl #16 Sven P Andersson, 2010-05-13, 23:16

OK you have a point in your argumentation but I think you miss the core of it. Morals!

Yes, I believe that integration is a two way street but with certain restrictions. First of all the law of the integrating society must be applied without discrimination. This does not rule out that any other culture or way of life be met with respect. I certainly do not believe in a clash of civilizations. Islamists wish to fight the USA does not origin in a fight against christianity, but in a fight against USA:s attempts to dominate certain islamic countries, and USA:s support of Israels politics. But I can understand fundamental american christians to involve religion in this battle. This is of course an attempt to widen the conflict in the purpose to gain sympathies and to strengthen the fundamental christian roll in american society.

According to the liberal beliefs, Kenan Malik refers to, I am convinced that a prohibition of the burqa and ev. niqab can be in accordance with the law under presumption that such a law is established on the moral basis of prohibiting the demeaning of women. This law could even apply to the catholic church and the mentioned evangelic churches to strengthen womens position in the secular society. That the secular society has not succeeded, so far, to set the rules in every aspect for all religions does not mean that no attempts have been made. That should even satisfy the second liberal belief that there has to be a separation between state and faith. Which for example is the fact in the swedish society. The third belief that there should not be any interference of the state in private conscience brings up the question of what weighs more, an individuals conscience or the outlawing of demeaning women. In this case I think that the outlawing of demeaning women overrules the individual conscience in any society. Even the fourth belief that people should be free to pursue any belief or lifestyle comes into conflict with the prohibition of society to demean women and these individuals choice to pursue a certain lifestyle. For example so does society not tolerate the cultural act of murdering women for the sake of familyhonor. If legislation is based on moral conceptions and not on religious or cultural ones there should be a clear answer to these questions. All of the worlds large religions are rather in concordance with western morals and they even might need a helping hand to restrain cultural exaggerations. We now need to proceed with our liberal societies and not falling back into medieval religious habits. We need to take any opportunity to confirm our moral achievements in modern society.

Permalänk | Anmäl #17 Jörgen Trauner, 2010-05-14, 11:30

Det är originellt att många politiskt korrekta i EU känner för burka på sina fruar samtidigt som åtskilliga muslimska länder av självklara anledningar förbjuder dom. Och - visst är många muslimska tjejer våldsamt sexiga! Se http://israelisverige.info/2010/03/28/slojforbud/

Permalänk | Anmäl #18 Ralph Haglund, fil.lic., 2010-05-15, 00:29