You'd burka believe it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

So, blimey, I agree with something Sarkozy said. And I don't mean:

"How can one be fascinated by those fights of obese guys with brylcreemed buns? Sumo is not an intellectual's sport!".... As much as that's quite funny.

I am referring to his speech about burkas to the Senate and National Assembly recently, a line of which was:

"It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement"

For me, it brings such very strong feelings to the pit of my stomach and the tip of my tongue. I want to say things like 'Of course it fucking does, it’s about the most blatant tool of oppression since the chastity belt', but I realise that intelligent discussion rests on a little more than this.

The whole thing about France banning headscarves and burkas and the like has been going on for some time. An Iranian Muslim friend of mine and I discussed the banning of headscarves at French Universities whilst I was still studying. Our mutual passion for freedom of expression, and all civil liberties, meant that we felt it was rather totalitarian to just ban people from doing stuff. People should be free to cover their head in a way which reflects their religeo-cultural beliefs. However, we were really only talking about the hijabi, rather than the whole black sack and veil jobber. Or at least, I was. Plus, the whole debate has intensified with the rise of the burka and its place in contemporary society. Do the women who wear the burka REALLY do so as an expression of their free will?

So when Sarkozy spoke out against them recently, my initial rather visceral reaction was to agree with him wholeheartedly- "Too bloody right! Ban it! It's awful and tragic and oppressive and not even determined by the Qur'an". Incidently, the call to cover up comes from the hadith – interpretations of the Koran written many years after the death of the Prophet, and largely dictated by prevailing Middle Eastern custom.... so we're not talking complex religious considerations here. Modesty is all that is requested, just like for Jewish people.

I am so passionate about equality, and want so much for everyone to have it that my immediate reaction was to force it upon everyone. I don't subscribe to the anthropological perspective which dictates that we must accept the behaviour of other cultures on the basis that we should not judge societies we cannot understand, so in principle, why the hell not just ban the burka?

I know my view is not world changing or anything, but it is worth mentioning that we do not have to accept the burka just because a particular culture prescribes it.

I am also going to skim past the pro-burka arguments around it preventing female sexualisation/ encouraging rape/ all the other bullshit arguments made my many pro-burka men. The most coherent way I have heard this view presented was that wearing the Hijabi 'levelled the playing field' for women and allowed them to be judged for their intelligence rather than their looks. Initially, this sounds like it could hold some water. But under even the most minimal scrutiny, it collapses.

This assumes, for starters, that being identified as an attractive female is ALWAYS a bad thing. Secondly, that if you are identified as such, that you will automatically be sexually vulnerable and that it would be the woman's fault. Thirdly, it assumes that if you are attractive, people will think you are stupid. Fourthly and finally, it doesn't say much about the male species if we believe we must cover up our women to avoid sending the men into some kind of unavoidable lusty rage. This is akin to covering up table legs in Victorian times in case it incited sexy thoughts in the men of the era.

Which is kind of what got me thinking...

How did the UK get to where it is now with civil liberties and the like? On the whole, we're pretty cool. We don't have slaves, or allow racism, or gender inequality or homophobia (though of course they still exist...). We have legislation ensuring this. Perhaps we should legislate against the burka, in that case, in the name of gender equality. It certainly wouldn't be hard to do.

But when you think about it, this just isn't how it works... our legislation is built in response to the public view, not the other way round. Take fox hunting as an example, the majority agreed it was pretty horrible and so we got round to banning it. Many of the legislators would have been pro-fox hunting, so if our laws were dictated to us in order that the societal norms changed, fox hunting would never have been banned.

Another example is in the Sexual Offences Act 2003- it became manifestly obvious from the case law that it was unjust for offenders to escape the conviction of rape simply because they attacked their victim with a foreign object rather than a penis or finger. So the legislation responded and amended the definiton in response to public need.

Perhaps, when society begins to recognise that it is clearly unjust for women to have to cover up in order to fulfil some foggily defined sense of 'modesty', we could act upon it. The majority already agree this is the case, but we aren't the ones who would be affected by this change in the law. It's a bit like ID cards, in the sense that if it doesn't affect you, then its easy to think something's a great idea.

The need for the change in the law in the above examples was far more important than any civil liberties considerations- rape is never permissable- whereas the burka is rather more complicated.

Freedom of expression, of religion, the right to shape your own identity, must all be weighed against any legislative decisions. And freedom of expression is one of the big boys- it’s SO vital to maintaining a liberated country. That's why it’s so hard when there are radical Muslim preachers / anti-abortion protests going on, because their freedom of expression should not be impinged when they are only extolling a point of view, without inciting violence and so on.

So, as much as my gut reaction was to agree with Sarkozy and think that at least he was prepared to stand up for equality, I realised that true equality does not come from dictum but from social change.

Which made me think, how the hell do we bring about this social change? Looking at the right wing press (yes, I'm talking about you Mr Daily Mail), it can seem a bit hopeless....

"Apparently, 5 year old British girls are being forced to wear the burka in order that they don’t offend the local Muslim community, and aren't allowed to have boys round for tea after school any more in case they behave inappropriately".

Ok, so I made that up, but you get the point.

So I thought about other examples where extreme dress was the cultural norm, so see if there was a way we could go about getting rid of the burka which doesnt threaten our liberties / cause international outrage.

And, I think it is possible to learn something about the burka wearing tradition from food binding.

The tradition started some time late in the T'ang Dynasty (618-906), according to my internet research, and lasted for almost a thousand years. Its origins are uncertain, and there are many different arguments as to why it became so popular. What is clear is that it prevented woman straying too far, it subjugated them and was a symbol of marriability. It also became fetishised by many men, because of the mystery surrounding what an unbound foot would look like, and stories about the way it made women walk making their vagina tighter. It was a symbol of virtue and chastity.

As with being 'honourable', foot binding was a precursor to being marriable, so no one was going to stop the practice until they were reassured that it wouldn’t render the woman a spinster, hence the 'natural foot societies'. Establishing the idea that showing your cheeks doesn’t mean that you're some kind of prostitute is essential for this to take hold...

I accept this is a more complex issue than 'face out = slag', because there is such sexual oppression involved with the burka. Only being able to show your face to your husband and male family members keeps the woman under wraps, it prevents her from being attractive to others. The equivalent of the rather delightful tattoos celebrities get with the name of their owner (sorry, I mean partner) emblazoned on them.

It also smacks of insecurity. The fear that another man might take a fancy to your wife, or possibly deem her to be a bit ugly, might be more than the rather large and delicate ego of this particular kind of Muslim man can take. Hide it away, and you can brag all you like about how hot your other half is, without the risk of having the piss taken out of you. In a society obsessed with honour, doesn't this make at least a little sense?

Foot binding began as a luxury of the rich, since bound footed women could do little around the house, but soon became essential for even the poorest people to bind the feet of their daughters. Just as this tradition started with the aristocracy, it was to end with them.

Looking into the origins of the burka, in particular the burka with the full face veil (referred to as a Chadri in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan), it seems that the origins were similar in nature. The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces. He came up with the chadri, which in time became a sign of an upper class citizen. When these were banned for being old fashioned, they were given to the working classes, escalating this tradition through all the social classes, just as with foot binding. I thought I would explore the idea of foot binding and the burka just to see where it leads me - this comparison is certainly flawed, but having considered that there will be limitations, I have decided there is still enough in it for me to continue.

How, then, did the destruction of foot binding tradition come about? Principally in three key ways...

1) EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. A modern education campaign was carried out, which explained that the rest of the world did not bind women's feet and that China was losing face in the world, making it subject to international ridicule. 'Losing face' is comparable to the whole 'honour' thing, and taking control of a social norm like this is an incredibly powerful tool.

2) HEALTH. The education campaign explained the advantages of natural feet and the disadvantages of bound feet. Ok, so this is a tougher one since I'm not sure what possible health impact wearing the burka might have? Other than a possible vitamin D deficiency... however, explaining the limitations on education, finances and ultimately social standing, could be the way to go. Not to be considered as successful as your neighbour would be a pretty good way to change the perception of a patriarchal community.

3) STANDING TOGETHER. Natural-foot societies were formed, whose members pledged not to bind their daughter's feet, nor to allow their sons to marry women with bound feet. There is power in numbers and once a few socially upstanding people were on board, the whole thing became more acceptable. A tough ask, I would certainly think, since these are the guys likely to be most radical, but if it worked once then I feel there must be some hope for it to work again.

Using this approach, the Chinese managed to pretty much get rid of foot binding in ONE GENERATION. I find that amazingly powerful.

What's interesting about this, and perhaps a little different to approach of many rights-based organisations campaigning to end female genital mutilation (to take another example of female subjugation), is that the focus is not predominately female. Let's be honest, if you're compelled to wear a black tent which covers your face virtually all the time, you probably aren’t the decision maker.

Convincing the men in positions of authority that it's a good idea to ditch the burka seems to be the way to go.

The thing which makes me feel that this is not entirely transferable is that foot binding wasn’t based in religious belief. As much as we know the burka has nothing to do with being a good Muslim, this argument is a bit of a show stopper for many who subscribe to it, as the burka is a logical extension of the modesty requirements in Islamic religious texts, for them.

Which raises the question: Are burka-believers ready to listen? Will they change?

I suppose that the Chinese aristocracy weren't ready for it either, until everyone spoke to them in a manner which wasn't threatening or bullying or bossy and which was meaningful to them- 'losing face' has immense cultural power and resonated with the right people in Chinese society.

Therefore, we will not get anywhere by telling burka-believers what to do.

In conclusion, Sarkozy is right when he says 'That is not our idea of freedom'. It is not our idea of freedom either and there is no place for it in a world where woman are equals. But there is no place for the restriction of civil liberties, whatever benefits we think we might reap.

Instead, we need to educate, discuss, even cajole, the right people in the right places to change their practices. When those with respected social standing realise the benefits of social change, we will see it amongst the majority. As can be seen with the example of foot binding, this change can happen quickly.

How fast these things can become history. I hope that the burka and all it stands for soon becomes an example of the female fight against oppression, alongside the right to vote, working rights, and foot binding and contraceptive freedom.


* A note: any facts and stats are gleaned from internet research, so if they're wrong, don’t shout at me. But if it’s an opinion then it’s certainly mine, and if you don't like it then don't read my blog.