Sunday 8 October 2006

Piercing the veil

The great row has spread to Scotland:
The political storm over Jack Straw’s comments about Muslim women who choose to wear veils gathered pace last night, as SNP leader Alex Salmond stepped into the row to condemn the leader of the House of Commons and a second government minister wrote a comment piece supporting him.
Mr Salmond has written to the prime minister:
However, in his letter to Blair, Alex Salmond rejected the idea that the veil segregates communities. “In Scotland, we do not regard people’s distinctiveness as a threat to their Scottish identity, rather an enhancement of culture in today’s society,” he writes.
Other Scottish politicians are also speaking out:
Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow, said Straw is “the wrong person” to kick-start any debate about veils.

“Of course there are many different views among Muslim women about the veil and other forms of dress, but it is really a matter for them to decide, each on her own terms.

From the Tories:
“This issue is not the most pressing for Scotland, but should it arise here [Muslim constituents wearing veils at political surgeries] it is best dealt with quietly and calmly with community leaders.”
And from the Lib Dems:
there is “a civil liberties argument about freedom of choice – do you really want a politician telling you what you should wear?”
It seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion here. We libertarians are totally in favour of civil liberties, but I'm afraid that the Lib Dem spokesman quoted above needs to think a bit more deeply about this issue. In a fully libertarian society all property would be privately owned. That includes not only houses, shops and factories, but also schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports and parks. And just as you or I can decide whom we allow into our houses - that's to say we discriminate - that same right should be held by all property owners. Just as there's no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre if the terms of entry preclude that right so any owner should be free to decide the terms of entry by others onto his property for any reason whatsoever.

It follows from this that just as the Bluewater Shopping Centre has the right to ban what it considers threatening clothing, equally anyone else must be free to discriminate when deciding whom to let onto their property. No one has the "civil right" to enter someone else's property other than on the terms set by the owner.

Now we turn to the question of burqas. First of all this is not a matter of race. Those who claim that it is are either ignorant or malicious. Most westerners would not know whether someone from the sub-continent was a Hindu or a Muslim by physical appearance alone. This is not about race; it's about Islam, which is a religion, that's to say a belief system that, unlike race, one may accept or reject. And the problem is that many Muslims living here do not accept the values of the western enlightenment that has created the very civilisation in which they have chosen to live. Moreover, some of them are actively trying to destroy those values and that civilisation. In these circumstances it is perfectly rational to discriminate against those whose clothing suggests that they may well come from that particular part of the Muslim community in exactly the same way as we may cross the street when seeing an approaching "hoodie" even though many of them are perfectly harmless.

So when Alex Salmond says that "we do not regard people’s distinctiveness as a threat to their Scottish identity, rather an enhancement of culture", it rather depends on what comprises that distinctiveness. Curries yes, Jihads no.

And when Mr Harvie tells us that "there are many different views among Muslim women about the veil and other forms of dress, but it is really a matter for them to decide, each on her own terms", I agree. But it's also a matter of the rest of us to decide how we react to something that seems to indicate an utter rejection of our views.

It's no great surprise that the new touchy-feely Tories say that it's all "best dealt with quietly and calmly with community leaders". The Conservatives actually make a judgment! Goodness me, no. Far better to confer with the "community".

At least the Lib Dems use the language of civil liberties, even if they don't have much of a clue about what the concept actually means.

If the west is to survive we need to be extremely robust in the defence of our values. Those include respect of life, liberty and property. The politicians, police and judiciary need to start defending the lives and liberties of the people and if they won't they need to be replaced. We also need to recognise the full rights of property owners including the absolute right to discriminate. All questions of wearing burqas, hoodies or indeed Savile Row suits can be peacefully resolved once property rights are respected. In the meantime, officials should treat people on "public" property as they would treat them on their own property. That's to say they should discriminate in favour of those who employ them.

3 comments:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Harry Webb
"So when Alex Salmond says that "we do not regard people’s sistinctiveness as a threat to their Scottish identity, rather an enhancement of culture", it rather depends on what comprises that distinctiveness. Curries yes, Jihads no." 
 
And where did Alex Salmond say he approved or tolerated Jihads in his comments about veils? 
 
A rather twisted argument to score a cheap political point. Says more about your commitment, or lack of it, to libertarian values than him.

28 October 2006, 16:35:05 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Bernie Hughes
"There should be virtually no "public" property if by that one means property owned by the state." 
 
That may be an aspiration, but it bears no relation to things as they stand. 
 
"the right to be able to discriminate privately against those whom we fear may take away our rights." 
 
There is no such right. It is merely an attempt to dress-up prejudice.

19 October 2006, 20:54:46 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Steven Wood
oops , hit post too soon there. Yes, not much interest in politics in scotland these days, so good to see a political blog.

17 October 2006, 14:13:30 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Steven Wood
It's good to see some blogs about politics in Scotland, as an Edinburgher, the level of disinterest people show in the "pairlament" or whatever the ridiculous "scots" language version of the site calls it !

17 October 2006, 14:11:21 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





David Farrer
There's infintely more chance of getting a do-ing for wearing the wrong colour of football strip than there is by coming in to contact with a jihadi ! 
 
On Saturday lunchtime I was standing in my local enjoying a pint. On my left was a well-known libertarian blogger accompanied by a Tory activist. They were both on their way to Ibrox to support Rangers. On my right were two diehard Celtic fans. Admittedly no blue or green was in evidence and the respective identities were probably only known to me... 
 
Seriously though, I do think that the Jihadi threat is extremely dangerous but expect the West to prevail. (No pun intended)

16 October 2006, 19:46:51 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Steven Wood
David, the piece was going quite well until you say "if the west is to survive". The west controls the world, there is no question that "the west" will survive, you're bordering on the manic with such utterances. 
 
There's infintely more chance of getting a do-ing for wearing the wrong colour of football strip than there is by coming in to contact with a jihadi !

16 October 2006, 17:11:02 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





David Farrer
(1) There should be virtually no "public" property if by that one means property owned by the state.  
 
(2) I agree that the man on the Los Angeles omnibus pays little attention to Scottish affairs but among those interested in these matters political correctness had made us an international joke. 
 
(3) The preeminate 'western values' are having an independent judiciary/ legislatory, and allowing people to do whatever they like, as long as it harms nobody else. Even dressing in a way that looks odd to the majority. 
 
But at least as important is the right to be able to discriminate privately against those whom we fear may take away our rights.

15 October 2006, 17:56:17 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Bernie Hughes
"Yes, but the question is: "On whose property?"" 
 
Public property. 
 
"And why are the LibDems part of a Scottish government that is seen across the world as a leading exponent of nanny statism?" 
 
I doubt people across the world pay much attention, to be honest. But the (obvious) answer is that, in a mature democracy, it is better to be on the inside pushing things in a better direction where possible than on the outside whinging. 
 
"Government employees (tax consumers) should act in the interest the real owners, the taxpayers." 
 
Even people in burkas pay taxes. 
 
"By making private discrimination illegal the state makes impossible market correction to the problem of those who refuse to assimilate to western values." 
 
The preeminate 'western values' are having an independent judiciary/ legislatory, and allowing people to do whatever they like, as long as it harms nobody else. Even dressing in a way that looks odd to the majority.

13 October 2006, 23:23:19 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:


David Farrer
We (LibDems) know exactly what it means. It means employees and officials of the state can only have a very limited right to interfere in how people choose to dress. 
 
Yes, but the question is: "On whose property?" And why are the LibDems part of a Scottish government that is seen across the world as a leading exponent of nanny statism? 
 
On the question of "public" property, it is of course rightfully the property of those who have paid for it. Government employees (tax consumers) should act in the interest the real owners, the taxpayers. That's to say, very differently from how they now act. By making private discrimination illegal the state makes impossible market correction to the problem of those who refuse to assimilate to western values.

13 October 2006, 18:51:16 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Robert Speirs
There's also a public safety argument for government regulation of burqa-wearing, just as there is one about crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Public safety - especially where there is a clearly preventable risk of mass casualties - is the only legitimate concern of government. Someone wearing a burqa is signaling adherence to a death cult that has claimed thousands of lives. And how better to hide a bomb belt than under a burqa? Is there no legitimate concern for the security of an elected official?

12 October 2006, 17:28:06 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Bernie Hughes
"At least the Lib Dems use the language of civil liberties, even if they don't have much of a clue about what the concept actually means." 
 
We know exactly what it means. It means employees and officials of the state can only have a very limited right to interfere in how people choose to dress. 
 
"officials should treat people on "public" property as they would treat them on their own property. That's to say they should discriminate in favour of those who employ them." 
 
No, they should not. Public property is just that: public. The very definition makes clear that it is not 'their own property'.

11 October 2006, 12:39:59 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply





Westway
Absolutely right. Salmond is just a vote hoovering bandwagon jumper with little understanding of the Islamist threat to the West. 
Yasmin Alibhai Brown made some good points on Dateline London earlier, that the Hijab, Niqab,etc., should be seen as part of a project by Islamists to impose their extreme form of Islam on all Muslims, while provoking the state with a view to gaining more concessions. 
The Iranian writer Amir Taheri has suggested that women so attired are effectively using their bodies as advertising space for al Qaeda. 
We must not allow ourselves and those of our fellow citizens who are moderate or even secular muslims to be bullied by the extremists.

8 October 2006, 13:56:17 GMT+01:00