Opinion

viewpoint. brett hetherington

Democracy and other duds

At a time when the Eu­ro­pean Union ap­pears to be slowly falling apart, its high­est court was fix­ated on whether a woman at one work­place in Bel­gium should be al­lowed to wear ma­te­r­ial cov­er­ing her head.

As a staunch non-be­liever in re­li­gion, I find the con­tin­u­ing Eu­ro­pean fas­ci­na­tion with burkas, hi­jabs and the like very, very odd. Yes, when I was 16 in Aus­tralia and deeply afraid of the un­known (in the form of Malaysian and In­done­sian Mus­lim stu­dents at my school) it was chal­leng­ing to my child­ish at­ti­tudes but I as­so­ci­ate that kind of fear with cul­tural ig­no­rance. I don't see why this style of dress should force some­one out of their job, as it did in the case of Samira Achbita.

In essence, the Eu­ro­pean Court of Jus­tice sup­ported the right of a pri­vate com­pany to have an “in­ter­nal pol­icy or rule” on staff cloth­ing. If this means the wear­ing of a uni­form, I see no prob­lem. But to out­law other items is to tram­ple on human rights. Iron­i­cally, this is the very thing that mod­ern and sec­u­lar so­ci­ety is sup­pos­edly bet­ter at than any­where else, be­cause fun­da­men­tal Islam tries to im­pose re­stric­tions on women's dress. Mod­er­ate, pro­gres­sive Islam does not.

Logic now dic­tates that if a Mus­lim-run com­pany based in Eu­rope tells its fe­male work­ers to wear a cloth head cov­er­ing, then they would have to if the com­pany de­cided it was part of their uni­form and not an in­di­vid­ual choice. As human rights or­gan­i­sa­tion Amnesty In­ter­na­tional stated after the court's re­cent de­ci­sion: “by rul­ing that com­pany poli­cies can pro­hibit re­li­gious sym­bols on the grounds of neu­tral­ity, they have opened a back door to pre­cisely such prej­u­dice.”

Man­fred Weber, head of the cen­tre-right Eu­ro­pean Peo­ple's Party, the largest in the Eu­ro­pean Par­lia­ment, said that he be­lieved it was: “[an] im­por­tant rul­ing by the Eu­ro­pean Court of Jus­tice: em­ploy­ers have the right to ban the Is­lamic veil at work. Eu­ro­pean val­ues must apply in pub­lic life.”

If we sub­sti­tute the words “Eu­ro­pean val­ues” for “Ger­man val­ues” we have the same flavour of state­ment that was re­peated con­tin­u­ally in the 1930's about an­other re­li­gious mi­nor­ity: “Jews have to ac­cept that Ger­man val­ues must apply.”

Lesser hu­mans?

In this way, by es­tab­lish­ing the idea that a Mus­lim can­not be a true Eu­ro­pean, it is al­ready going part way to also es­tab­lish­ing the idea that a Mus­lim is a lesser human. This makes the as­so­ci­a­tion of a Mus­lim as a ter­ror­ist much eas­ier to cre­ate in the mind of the av­er­age per­son. (It is then only a small step to re­strict their travel, as Trump is cur­rently in the process of doing.) We are led to be­lieve that the Eu­ro­pean court de­ci­sion is a first strike for great Eu­ro­pean democ­racy, a brave at­tack on the ter­ri­ble dan­gers of those fright­en­ing women who wear a bit more than other peo­ple do.

So, what we call democ­racy has now taken away the lib­erty of a small num­ber of fe­males with­out a sin­gle good rea­son for it. Re­cently, dif­fer­ent arms of our im­per­fect democ­ra­cies, have also thrown up a far-reach­ing ref­er­en­dum re­sult in the UK that only 25% of the pop­u­la­tion voted for. In the USA, a dem­a­gogue pres­i­dent strut­ted into of­fice, de­spite his op­po­nent get­ting al­most three mil­lion votes more than he did.

In other news, mean­while, it has come to light that in that same 'land of the free' (the USA) it seems that al­most one in five Amer­i­can adults are in fact free from the bur­den of being able to read.

Hur­ray for democ­racy!

Sign in. Sign in if you are already a verified reader. I want to become verified reader. To leave comments on the website you must be a verified reader.
Note: To leave comments on the website you must be a verified reader and accept the conditions of use.