veiled attack
argh. I wrote a great post and my dying computer lost it. the below isn’t quite up to snuff, but it’s the best i could re-create.
i am tired of the anti-muslim prejudice which is not only condoned, but encouraged by the blair government as a placebo for dealing with the real problem of terrorism. they continue to blame cultural differences for the rash of extremism, rather than grappling with the much more complex roots which are harder to identify and address.
tony blair’s speech yesterday tried to pay lip service to the notion of multiculturalism and the challenges that extremism provides in that setting. but as usual, he misses the boat when he mistakenly *attributes* extremism to being a product of a multicultural society. and once again he picks on an easily identifiable symbol of fundamental cultural differences: the veil.
In Tunisia and Malaysia, the veil is barred in certain public places. I know it is not sensible to conduct this debate as if the only issue is the very hot and sensitive one of the veil. For one thing, the extremism we face is usually from men not women. But it is interesting to note that when Jack Straw made his comments, no less a person than the Mufti of the Arab Republic of Egypt made a strong approving statement; and it really is a matter of plain common sense that when it is an essential part of someone’s work to communicate directly with people, being able to see their face is important.
blair consistently uses the veil as an example of a culture clash, but the notion that it’s not acceptable etiquette in the u.k. is a farcical double standard. people in the uk cover their heads and faces all the time (giant sunglasses, hoodies, scarves) and no one perceives it as an affront to british culture or an impediment to communication. it’s also not about women being seen as lesser valued beings – britain pays women 20% less than men and no one bats an eyelash at that.
what it’s about is the fact that this is an identifiable mark of difference as a devout, non-westernised muslim. and the government continues to equate non-westernised islam with potential terrorism.
the problem has always been, and continues to be, that in reality terrorism has nothing to do with clashes of culture, but rather clashes of ideology. the problem is it’s a clash which cannot be fixed no matter how much “integration and conformity” are promoted, because the terrorist ideology absolutely *rejects anything which does not explicitly support its own beliefs*. Full stop. the terrorist ideology has nothing to do with islam. blair acknowledges this when he says, “Of course the extremists that threaten violence are not true Muslims in the sense of being true to the proper teaching of Islam ” but undoes his own affirmation in the next sentence, “But it’s daft to deny the fact that they justify their extremism by reference to religious belief.”
in essence, we know terrorism has nothing to do with islam. But terrorists identify as muslim, therefore islam must be responsible.
blair is unable to solve his own self-created conundrum, and so sidesteps his own circular logic by falling back on the easy excuse of cultural plurality and the symbollic distinctions. it’s all smoke and mirrors – a diversion to convince the public that they’re somehow *doing something positive* for the social fabric of britain’s future, when in fact they’ve completely missed the forest for the trees. the fallout of that is that it has become acceptable to discriminate in the name of “shared values”.
blair claims britain protects “the right to be different”. his repeated attack on the veil proves nothing could be further from the truth.
Like this post
