Burqas – Who’s right in this argument? And who is leading the debate?

The recent scandal that arose when a Saudi student was left crying on the street after a bus driver refused to let her on-board because she wouldn’t remove her Muslim veil, has created quite the stir in the media.
(The driver apparently has “maskaphobia” according to the bus company’s PR team – but phobia-ising words is another issue altogether!)

John Key has weighed in, asking Kiwis to respect the beliefs of others, and for women not to be discriminated against because they choose to wear a burqa. Which is more than reasonable – we should be tolerant and accepting of different cultures, religions and ethnicities.

However, there is the broader debate as to what the burqa, hijab (head scarf) and niqab (face mask) actually mean in the Kiwi society. And whether the media is portraying this in a fair, balanced, unbiased way, or inciting racial and cultural animosity by not accurately reporting both sides of the story.

There is the “When in Rome” argument, whereby people should adhere to the rules and expectations of the society they are dwelling in. France very much jumped on this side of the fence when President Sarkozy’s ban on burqas came into effect in April this year. It is also the mainstay of opinion pieces in the media.

As a prolific and avid traveller, I feel it is my duty to understand the cultural differences and be respectful in the way I act and dress (and learn the basics of the language – mas vino por favor!). Despite the insane heat in places like Dubai and Egypt, I always wear clothes that cover my legs, shoulders and arms, and headscarves in appropriate places. There is a (mostly) unspoken feeling amongst Kiwis that those who want to live here and benefit from everything the country has to offer should make the effort to fit into this society and follow the “unspoken” expectations of what it means to live here. Wearing a face mask omits a sense that you are trying to hide something, or you don’t want to participate in our society.

Paul Holmes wrote an opinion piece in the NZ Herald the day following the incident along these lines, claiming Western societies are not the place for burqas. “It really is an offensive piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism and religious extremism… It's nothing to do with Allah, either. It predates the Koran. It just suited the men who adopted the teachings of the Prophet to keep the woman subjugated.”

I personally agree with his argument that many Kiwis (particularly the female variety) see the burqa as a form of imprisonment of women – those being told they should hide themselves from society. It seems overtly sexist to me, and this is not an opinion that is calmed when some Islamic movements (i.e. the Muslim "Obedient Wives Club") claim women and men are not equals, and that if a husband tells his wife to wear a hijab or burqa she should obey him. This kind of talk is creates dissention and anger in Western society on behalf of these women who are being controlled by their menfolk and treated as second-class citizens. This is also the reason behind Sarkozy’s ban in France, where he says the head-to-toe Islamic garment for women is not a symbol of religion but a sign of subservience for women.

Just to clarify, the Muslim Obedient Wives Club only has around 1,000 members, so really how much credence and voice should they be given in the media? Does this just increase the negativity towards the Muslim culture by insinuating the majority feel this same way?

According to head of Islamic studies at the University of Auckland, the burqa is a cultural not religious requirement – and there is nothing stated in the Koran about wearing one. “The burqa is almost dehumanising and it robs the personality and the ability of someone to express themselves." So clearly not everyone in Muslim society believes women should “have” to wear head-to-toe coverings.

If it only came down to the issue of morality… and does this mean Muslims think every other person in New Zealand who doesn’t wear a head covering has low morals?

In concurrence with the University of Auckland spokesperson, The Sisters in Islam say Islam has no laws that make wearing the full veil compulsory, and it is "an affront to human dignity" for women to be forced to wear it. They are concerned about the symbolism of the burqa, claiming there is a lot of literature to show the face veil is not a requirement in Islam. "In a conservative, patriarchal Muslim context, face veiling really symbolises women's invisibility and inferior status. That a woman should not be seen and heard, and should she venture into the public space she must be as invisible as possible, is an affront to human dignity." Very hard hitting thoughts from Muslim women who don’t believe they should be forced to wear such a garment, or hide who they really are. And why should they if they don’t want to? (Please note, the Sisters in Islam is an non-Government organisation of Muslim women that has existed for 21 years and aims to articulate women's rights in Islam, highlighting the need to interpret the Koran in its own historical and cultural context. It has many more members than the Muslim Obedient Wives Club, and conducts large-scale research projects in Malaysia.)

It is all about perceptions and interpretation of what the media portrays to us. Yes the bus driver shouldn’t have been rude to the student, because that is not the Kiwi way… but perhaps neither is hiding your face in public. But, like most Westerners, I am subject to the media’s perceptions on the issue and use this as the basis for forming my own opinions. Perhaps you have a completely different one – something I would be very open to hearing. 

Please note: The author is a firm believer in “each to their own” and “do what makes you happy” – but is also very strongly opposed to any form of sexism which sees men treating women as anything less than equals.