The Burkha Debate

A few years ago it was reported that Jack Straw MP (a government minister) had objected when a woman presented herself at one of his regular surgeries in his Blackburn constituency. Not because he dislikes Muslims or that he is unfriendly. It was what the lady was wearing, a Burkha (a gown covering the body from head to toe). Reuters quoted Straw as saying the clothing was a “visible statement of separation and difference.”

French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was similarly ill at ease on the issue of the religious camouflage: “In our country, we cannot accept women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life deprived of all identity.” Indeed Sarkozy has the support of many in France since it is now illegal to wear Islamic symbols in public schools. However there is also strong opposition to his policy on what is a woman’s dress. The largest number of Muslims in Europe resides in France (5 million) and one can see there is plenty of potential for debate.

But despite the criticisms of Messrs Straw and Sarkozy, Muslim women will continue to don the garment. The Burkha originated back in the time of the Prophet Mohammed. To stop men leering at his wives, he would request they cover themselves top to toe. This soon led to many other women following suit. Sadi Mehmood (Director, Noble Khan) says: “Why would we cover a precious stone? To keep it safe, dust free, so it doesn’t get hurt or damaged by others. A similar metaphor can be seen to have been used in this case.”

However, Suzanne Evans, on her blog, says: “Jack Straw is right when he says it is a visible statement of separation and difference that makes positive relations between communities more difficult.” She goes on to say that talking when someone’s features are obscured by a veil of some sort becomes more problematic.

Despite Evans’ objections she makes an important point: “There is tremendous pressure on women to be slim, attractive, young-looking and always well-dressed. The success of Trinny and Susannah, a million women’s magazines and a handful of lad-mags depends upon it. I don’t like it and welcome anything that aims to stop objectifying women in this way.” Maybe Katie and Peter would still be together if the large chested lady was forced to wear a Burkha and didn’t flaunt her sexuality so publicly.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has this to say on the matter of dress: “The MCB echoes US president Barack Obama’s caution that it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

In The Observer, last August, Jason Burke says of the Islamic dress: “The Qur’an enjoins women to dress modestly and to hide their beauty.” Further into his piece, he tells readers that “the debate over women’s dress is as cultural and political as it is theological. The Taliban’s attempt to make women in Kabul wear the Burkha (worn throughout most of Afghanistan’s rural areas) was part of a bid to roll back westernisation and control urban populations.”

It certainly seems women in some countries are treated unfairly, badly even. Human rights are clearly an issue and it is essential that women are not deprived of these rights. After all without the female gender we wouldn’t exist. The choice of what a woman wears should be an individual decision. Moving out of less enlightened times needs to be a priority for everyone in nations such as Afghanistan.

Moving closer to home, The Irish Post (www.irishpost.ie) says: “It may eventually become a subject for debate in Ireland and burying heads in the sand is not a solution. There may be more pressing problems for Brian Cowen right now, such as the country fast disappearing down the pan, but he could do worse than keep an eye on the French regarding developments on this issue.” Or perhaps Mr Cowen should wear a Burkha himself. It would hide the flab – better than buying a ‘slim-fit’ T-shirt in Primark, Brian!