ODD HOW an argument can resolve itself in your head while you are thinking about something else. I’ve been up a ladder in Sydney, window-cleaning for a friend — and as far in my thoughts from multiculturalism, security and Islam as it was possible to be. Things that lay heavy on my mind as I left England two weeks ago had been all but forgotten.
Then a week ago in the centre of the city I saw people queueing for a lift to the top of a telecommunications tower. From there you can see the whole city. I joined the queue. Once on top I spent 20 minutes strolling round the circular observation floor enjoying every vista, then joined another queue for the lift back down.
Just behind me was an Asian family. They looked pretty “Western”, if that is what you say in Australia. The two boys were in snazzy trainers, the father in smart-casual clothes: just an ordinary family on a day’s outing, clutching posters and souvenirs from their sightseeing. Except that the woman — presumably the wife and mother — was swathed in black from head to toe. The full veil covered her face so that only her eyes were visible.
Maybe this should not have struck me as remarkable. I see it often enough in Tower Hamlets. So I was surprised by my reaction to the full veil worn there. But my response was immediate, and reflexive. I thought: “This is completely unacceptable.”
I did not (and do not) mean “unacceptable” objectively — anywhere in the world or at any time in history. I meant here, now, in Sydney; or in any 21st-century Western country whose history, outlook and ways of life are rooted in European thought. It jarred. Something about it offended a norm: not so much a norm of apparel — exotic fashions come and go — as a norm of openness and women’s rights.
Now, for all I knew, the woman had chosen to go out like this and would not have wanted to uncover her face; but still I felt it was not right in Sydney: not right for her and not right for the open society of which she was part. Whether or not she felt oppressed, the condition oppressed her and it should not be seen in the streets of a modern, liberal country. I realise that this sounds imperious but I record what I felt, and the feeling was strong.
My sense of offence was not directed at the woman herself or her family, any more than a worshipper in a mosque should feel annoyed at European tourists who have not taken off their shoes. Maybe they haven’t seen the notice, understood the instructions, heard the word, taken the hint. Maybe somebody has failed to tell them that what they are doing just isn’t done.
From the trivial to the serious, there are things you don’t do. You don’t wear shoes in mosques. You don’t spit in the streets. You don’t walk on the grass in Cambridge colleges. I do not advocate laws to enforce these norms. Social pressure, the weight of fellow-citizens’ disapproval, should do so.
And that was what was wanting in this case. It had failed to get through to this family and perhaps to the community from which they came that in a Western country, for a person to be swathed in cloth so that only the eyes can be seen, simply won’t do; and that when, consciously or unconsciously, a woman may be under pressure to do this, then it doubly won’t do. There should be no pressure on a woman to hide her face. It is outrageous.
For us in Britain, and perhaps more widely, I sense that the scares and atrocities of 2005 have caused a firming-up of attitudes among non-Muslims towards questions like this. Of course it is wrong to make inferences about security risks from the way people dress, and there is no evidence that veiled women are involved in terrorism. But it is not unreasonable to link fundamentalist Islam with repressive attitudes to women, and patience with fundamentalism is running short. Our culture, which has always been unhappy about those attitudes to the role of women, is less inclined than before to brush this unhappiness aside.
I think that is a good thing. It clears the air. A good deal of nonsense has been spoken and written about multiculturalism in the past few years, but to be categorically “for” or “against” multiculturalism is absurd. Few would on reflection maintain that a society like ours should have no place for cultural variety, or be unprepared to tolerate any beliefs and practices that run against the mainstream. Most of us are not Roman Catholics but few object to a Catholic wanting to eat fish on a Friday; or to a Muslim wanting to fast at Ramadan; or to an Orthodox Jew wearing the yarmulke. And how people worship in their own places of worship strikes most of us as entirely a matter for them.
But when it comes to the translation of religion or culture into the way daily life is lived among others who do not share the faith, we must stop professing a multiculturalism which, after but a few seconds’ thought, we should admit that few would advocate. Who seriously suggests that British matrimonial law should have any place for those who want to take more than one wife? How often is the multicultural case for female circumcision heard? Does anyone think that cul tural tolerance requires us to suspend our judgment (or the law) where a minority culture objects to the equal education of girls?
The moment such questions are asked, the answer is obvious. Britain has a dominant culture which is permissive of other cultures only up to a point. What we call “multiculturalism” is better described as liberalism, and is itself a set of cultural norms. I subscribe to them. And I know they place unspoken limits on tolerance.
I suspect we are now being forced to confront that, and adjusting our attitudes. The adjustment is overdue. It has practical consequences. Among these are the thoughts with which this column began. A robustness of attitude against the subordination of women is growing among us, and the wearing of the full veil is seen (accurately, despite the protests of some Muslims) as an outward manifestation of that subordination. It is not acceptable; it has to stop; and we should say so, though saying so will offend some otherwise reasonable people.
We should stop short of trying to use the law in areas like this. It does not work, and may lead to the more complete incarceration of women whose husbands insist on the full veil. But we should confront and criticise such men. They should know that they are flouting important social conventions. Attitudes like that belong to the past, not the future.
To help to dislodge them we should re-examine the entrenched institution of forced marriages, and arranged marriages from abroad, where one or both of the betrothed are very young and the couple hardly know each other.This remains widespread and there is no sign of the practice diminishing among second and third genera- tions of immigrants, especially from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The privilege that the rules extend to British subjects who wish to marry foreign citizens was intended for couples who know, love and have freely chosen each other. Forced marriages, and arranged marriages to virtual strangers, abuse the privilege. Not only is the custom offensive and oppressive in itself, it holds back the integration of Muslim communities into wider society. “Marrying out” to immigrants unschooled in the English language or British culture gives each succeeding generation a booster-shot of regressive thought and behaviour.
Ghettos are not good. It is not in the interests of Muslim Asian British people that customs and attitudes that the rest of the country will always view with horror — albeit politely concealed — should be passed down from generation to generation. More honesty about that is needed, and there are signs that it is emerging.
