My how things have changed in ten years. It's good news for all those guys who hooked up with Asian women over the last twenty years or so, because according to my reading of the Winnie-O-Meter its 'dissing da Muslims' that's 'so hot right now'. So unhook the missus from the stove and get her out in the sunshine, you could probably both do with the fresh air.
Before this post turns into a little diatribe all too easily passed off as having a rant, let me say that I actually agree with Winnie. Let me say that again just so you heard it right. I agree. But, I don't hate Muslims.
In this case of the two women refusing to remove their burka there's little justification for them to given recourse to political correctness, and I’m sure I can justify this in a long-winded manner. Aren’t you lucky?
Let’s start by saying that while the two women in question may claim that removing their burka will result in a loss of face (boom boom), the issue at stake here is really the limits of tolerance in the liberal society New Zealand professes to be. Asking migrant women to remove their veils in particular circumstances is not illiberal.
It’s pretty common among liberal thinkers to argue that there are two types of minority, which can be conveniently boiled down to ‘voluntary’ and ‘non-voluntary’. Voluntary minorities should be obvious, migrants being the example. The argument usually goes that if you choose to enter a host society you should abide by their rules, unless those rules are unreasonable. Which begs the question, what in the hell did you move to an intolerant country for?
So in the case of these women, being Afghans there’s a chance they’re refugees and therefore involuntary migrants, but that still kind of means that they should abide by the host community’s rules. After all, New Zealand is effectively extending its generosity in protecting them, again implying that they should abide.
Real involuntary minorities are groups that didn’t choose to belong to a someone else’s country, and usually you can indicate groups like indigenous people or some European minorities like the Basques or Catalan in Spain. Because they’re involuntary minorities liberals will recognise that they can claim specific exemptions from majority rules. I won’t bore you with the details.
The one thing that links these two types of minorities though is the boundaries of majority tolerance. To make this system work you need a clear delineation of what is and isn’t tolerable to the majority. And this toleration needs to be negotiated between the majority and the minority together.
Members of a majority might find the burka offensive, but that isn’t enough of a reason to prohibit it being worn in public. Personal style and dress is after all a matter of private choice. Veils are barely more offensive than wearing kilts (you damn weirdos). And this is especially the case if the woman in question chooses to wear the thing.
I hear you say of course that the burka is a symbol of patriarchy and oppression of the women in question. Well, ‘right on’, but that isn’t the issue in question. The issue is whether she chooses to wear it. Maybe in Kraplakistan where the women have no choice this is a problem, but in New Zealand if she doesn’t want to wear the thing, but is made to wear it by a bloke, then she has protection under the law from him trying to make her do it.
Hopefully.
Anyhow, one of the things that defines tolerance in New Zealand is decency. If you women out there choose to demonstrate your promiscuity by exposing your lascivious and erotic cheekbones, then more power to you. But the raison d’tre of the burka is decency, so how can it be offensive?
Again the issue is tolerance. A liberal society has to tolerate things like veils because they’re a cultural expression, and liberals argue that cultural expression is a good thing for everyone, host and guest.
The important thing is where we draw the line. Prohibiting Japanese girls from putting those cute toys all over their dashboards is plainly ridiculous, it is after all hardly less alien than ‘Steinlager Green’ T-shirts on the Gold Coast, but something like FGM or slapping round the missus just doesn’t pass muster.
To take us back to the beginning then, in particular circumstances it’s not intolerant to ask these women to remove their burka. I lost the link that says maybe they can be partially screened in court, but that sounds like a good compromise they could make.
In arguing that hosts have to be tolerant, and that guests have to be prepared to give up some types of cultural expression, liberals also state that the boundaries of tolerance itself has to be determined as a compromise between the parties in question. It’s not enough to say ‘my way or the highway’. But ‘steady on mate, that’s a bit on the nose, don’t you think?’ is legitimate, because it gives the guest enough room to say ‘Nah. We’re bailin’.