The last posting on this issue, probably. It's a bit difficult of a difficult one to crowbar gags in for a start. (And I might end up getting the hang of putting everything in one post and not spreading stuff over three posts one day. Don't hold your breath though).Next for the weekend papers is an actual interview of Shabina Begum with Jasper Gerard in the Times, in which we actually get to hear what the girl in question actually has to say for herself. Gasp! It's still not very good though. It's a bit long, includes quite a lot of stuff and it would take too long to dismantle everything in it, so I'll stick to the main bits that struck me.Gerard opens his piece with the 'poor victim' version of Shabina Begum. She's being used, apparently - but by 'her white guards' rather than 'the “regressive” forces of Islam'. This is a really important distinction, so here's the full quote."As the mineral water flows I begin to wonder if it is less the “regressive” forces of Islam leading Shabina astray than the progressive forces of legal aid. Actually, her brother, 23, comes across as her meekest minder and certainly the most charming. It is her white guards who are the real frights."
This quote reveals quite a lot about the underlying assumptions that have been made in the commentary about this case. The first and most obvious point is that it simply cannot be Begum's own decision to wear the jilbab. She must be a victim of manipulation. Next, because there were no shadowy evil bad guys around, and because her brother is clearly not behaving as the hothead he's been portrayed as, Gerard has to choose someone else to be the manipulators. In this case, it's the only other people around - her 'white guards'. This formation slots in quite nicely with the right's idea that there is a liberal elite who field do-gooders to interfere on behalf of ethnic minorities, bothering the actual minorities in the process. But the most important thing to note here is the opposition created by '"regressive" forces of Islam' and 'white guards'. We're told all over the place, by the right and the decent left that to attack Islam is not racism, because Islam is not a race. If that's true, why are the non-Muslims in this situation described by their race? Why assume that the 'white guards'are not regressive Muslims in the first place? Is it impossible for them to be because they're white? If not, why contrast the two groups in this way?Later in the article (past the bit where I could have done the 'any colour you like' schtick again):"Curiously, the jilbab is worn mainly by Arab Muslims. Muslims of Asian origin — like this family from Bangladesh — tend to wear the shalwar kameez which satisfies Koranic demands of modest dress. So what is this dispute really about?"
Curiously, Catholics tend to come from the Latin countries and Ireland. English people tend to be Protestants, so why are there English people claiming to be Catholic? What's their dispute really about?Then, we finally get to the bit where we hear what Begum actually has to say. Interestingly, she talks about her brother. We've already seen that he doesn't act in the way he's been depicted as acting previously. Now we find this:"People say my brother forced me, but my sister is not orthodox: how come she has not been ‘forced’?"
She has a point. She could say she hadn't been coerced, and we could doubt that. Indeed, if she had been coerced, she'd hardly admit it. But her non-orthodox sister is evidence that she's telling the truth. It's funny that this non-orthodox sister doesn't get a mention anywhere else. Couldn't be because she makes the idea that Begum's been coerced look unlikey, could it? Surely not!The other great point about her brother is that he 'denies being part of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the extremist group'. So it's possible he's not even part of the group he's been accused of being a part of, and the group isn't responsible for forcing Begum to do anything. Note also that the way this is worded makes him look like he's lying. If you read a headline that said 'Celebrity X Denies Accusations of Paedophilia', what would you think about Celebrity X?What about if you read that a person was a 'silky debater'? Would you think they were entirely honest and straightforward, or would you suspect something a little too clever and slippery? This leads to the next bit I love, which comes when Gerard tries to catch out Begum by asking whether Rastafarians should be able to smoke skunk at school. Begum shoots down this crap slippery slope fallacy agrument by pointing out that smoking drugs is illegal, and Gerard's response is this (written down in the article, mind - not out loud) "Hmm: a silky debater." So when Begum herself shoots down a really crap, fallacious argument, she's described as a 'silky debater', rather than just 'right'. Gerard goes on to make the point he was going to make anyway, even though it's just been exposed as being a bit shit. Nowhere has Begum argued that 'anything goes' for religion. This is an argument he's put in her mouth. She's even given a reason why some alleged religious behaviour should be disallowed."Tony Blair realised a Shabina victory would mean the end of uniforms." No it wouldn't. Turbans didn't. The shalwar-kameez didn't. I already mentioned the slippery-slope fallacy, didn't I? Here it is again if you missed it. "If Muslims are granted exemptions then the Vicky Pollards could argue for nose studs:" and they'd be told to fuck off. And Muslims already are granted exceptions. Did he forget his argument that Begum was allowed to express her religion because the shalwar-kameez were allowed? "At what point could a school say “enough”?" at the point where what's being asked for isn't a genuine form of religious expression. And in those cases where it is - where there's a sensible reason why what's being asked for would cause problems in themselves at that point in time - not at some indefinable point in the future when someone asks for something else.Then we have arguments we've seen before - lunch counters and jobs up the road and so on. We should pressure girls to wear what they might not want so they're not pressured to wear what they might not want. That kind of funky stuff.That's the first page. The second involves dumb questions like 'do you have non-Muslim friends?' Er, yes. 'How does she feel about arranged marriages?' What is this, an episode of Eastenders from 1986? Here again, we see the facade of non-racism slipping. Lots of religions have arranged marriages, why is it important here, if not to draw some sort of parallel between a common practice in Asian (and other) cultures and 'extremism'?The closing paragraphs reveal quite a lot. Firstly:"One realises the gulf in understanding when her brother quietly, patiently, lists all the compromises that he suggested to the school. One, it transpires, was that Shabina be taught in solitary confinement."
Why only disclose that one option out of a list? It couldn't possibly be because it was the most extreme, could it?"So here is the authentic voice of the extremist: prepared for his bright, giggly sister who loves medicine and handbags to be shut away from life, just so she remains theologically pure."
No. She wears the jilbab to be 'theologically pure'. She'd be shutting herself away to get an education that would be denied to her otherwise.The last paragraph is possibly the most revealing. It goes:"There you have the dilemma for British Asian youth: the veil of Islam versus the exposure of BBC1. Some radical young Muslims may consider the West the devil in disguise — but at heart even they, it seems, accept that it has the better clothes."
Remember - attacking Islam is not racism because Islam is not a race. Why then is this the dilemma for British Asian youth rather than British Muslim youth?
Gerard doesn't argue that the choice is between "regressive" Muslim or non-Muslim, or even "regressive" Muslim or "non-regressive" Muslim - it's "regressive" Muslim or white. He argues that whether or not to wear Islamic dress is a dilemma for British Asians, not British Muslims. In doing this, he unwittingly reveals the true face of his argument.
More about the Begum case. Woo hoo!Over the weekend, the papers weighed in with their columnists' comments. Guess what? They were dirty pants!Firstly, Fiona Phillips in the Mirror. She finds Begum threatening - but she doesn't tell us why until the end. But the column from the top:"Although I would argue that if my son wanted to wear his Chelsea kit to class because football's his religion, I'm sure there'd be repercussions."
"Clearly, though, her brother does. Shabina dug her heels in over her uniform after being counselled by a radical Muslim group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, to which her brother belongs."
One does not necessarily lead to the other. That's confusing correlation with causation. Shabina Begum may have been told what to do by her brother, or she may not. That her brother belongs to the radical organisation that helped with the case does not mean he tells her what to do. It may well be the case, but it is not 'clear'."And when Shabina was pushed on a question, she didn't seem to know her own mind - looking to her barrister to answer. That's what I found threatening."
You found it threatening that before going into court, someone would consult their barrister before answering a question from a journalist relating to the case? Then you're an eejit.Now Carol Malone in the Sunday Mirror. She uses the same arguments we've heard before, but starts by couching them as an attack against a stroppy schoolgirl rather than a shadowy organisation of baddies. Until the end, when she couches it as an attack against a shadowy organisation of baddies."Not only is this a vindication for the headmistress of Luton's Denbigh High school, Yasmin Bevan - who is herself a Muslim, yet who refused to bow to politicallycorrect pressure to let this attention-seeking little madam have her way."
Doesn't matter if the Headmistress is a Muslim or not. She clearly doesn't interpret Islam in the same way as Begum, which is the issue. Malone would probably be sensitive to sectarian divisions between Catholics and Protestants, but not Muslims. To deviate from one interpretation of Islam means you're evil."I'm sorry. but if Shabina Begum wanted to wear a jilbab she should have shoved off to the school down the road which would have allowed her to do exactly that."
You should be sorry. And - if black people in the Deep South of the 50s and 60s wanted to eat at a lunch counter, they should have shoved off to eat at a black establishment. Sounds nasty when you put it that way, doesn't it?"But no, backed by her brother and an extremist Muslim organisation, Hizbut- Tahrir, she preferred to spend £100,000 - none of it hers obviously - just so she could get her own way."
Like I said before - you can make this either side's fault if you want."When Yasmin Bevan banned Shabina from wearing a jilbab she did it only after full consultation with the local Muslim community, which was pretty damned responsible of her and more than she actually needed to do."
And if you consulted the local Christian community in a Catholic area of Northern Ireland about what is acceptable for Christians to do, it won't exactly be friendly to Protestants. And of course, they're marvellously integrated in their schools over there. A beacon of how things should happen across Britain."And as her school already allowed Muslim girls to wear head scarf, tunic and trousers she was right to believe that was enough."
And you can have any colour you like. As long as it's black.The next two paragraphs are startlingly self-contradictory. I love them to pieces. "she needs to learn that in Britain rules and respect are a damn sight more important than what you wear. [. . .] If she doesn't like her school's uniform, it's simple - go to another school."
The rules here are about what you wear. If what you wear isn't important - why are there rules about - what you wear? Jesus! The contorted logic of this argument is amazing."Similarly if she doesn't like the rules here in Britain - one of the most liberal, tolerant countries in the world - and if she doesn't think we adequately allow her to express her religious beliefs she's perfectly at liberty to go and live in a country that does."
One of the reasons Britain is one of the most liberal countries in the world is because its citizens are at liberty to express ourselves as we want, you bonehead. Saying, 'if you don't like it, fuck off,' is harldy indicative of a liberal attitude. That we usually don't is why you think of us as one of the most liberal countries in the world in the first place.The next paragraph just slags off Afghanistan, which is irrelevant. Like I said before - tu quoque fallacy, that is. Just because people have it worse somehwere else doesn't mean it's right to restrict people's freedom here. Next!"She's also too selfish to see that had she won her right to wear the jilbab it would have put enormous pressure on other young Muslim girls to wear it - even if they didn't want to."
[Bangs head on desk repeatedly] - you're arguing that young Muslim girls shouldn't be pressured into wearing something they don't want to wear by saying they should be made to wear something they don't want to wear! The argument wouldn't fall over any easier if its legs were made of jelly. Jelly that hasn't set properly and has gone all sloppy."Her militant supporters, however, are much more sinister. They've used this silly, impressionable young woman as a battering ram to show they're powerful enough to rattle the walls of British institutions."
Make your mind up! Is she an attention seeking little madam, or is she a silly, impressionable young woman. On what basis do you suggest that Begum is being used? Or silly and impressionable? Where's your evidence? There isn't any. You just think she must be because her views differ from yours. How arrogant is that? Perhaps her supporters are extremist. Perhaps we should disagree with a lot of what they have to say, but in attacking them and calling Begum names you're doing nothing more than chucking out pathetic ad-hominems."But the real tragedy here is that because of this case - which should never have been taken to the Appeal Court in the first place - this young woman, who wanted to be a doctor, has now missed two vital years of education, and now can't be. Which of course will suit her militant backers whose greatest fear must be smart, feisty, educated women."
Clearly not, as they've been fighting for two years to get her allowed back into school to study to become a doctor. And she can still study to be a doctor if she wants. They're called 're-takes'.
It's a short hop to here from the old racist arguments of yesteryear. If they don't like it, they can fuck off. We have rules here. Don't get uppity. You got a chip on your shoulder, son? Begum is portrayed as either an upstart or a victim - which dovetails nicely with the stereotypical images we have of Muslims in this country. Simultaneously arrogant and nasty, and cowed and oppressed. It's pathetic.
I watched Question Time last night (that happens sometimes - it's not all Norman Wisdom films and mucky programmes with bosoms in for me). The arguments against Shabina Begum being allowed to wear the jilbab to school struck me as a bit, well, lame (if you didn't see Question Time, and can't see the Question Time video on the BBC site, they were nicely summed up in everyone's favourite reactionary rag a couple of weeks ago).There seem to be five main arguments against Begum, and they go like this:
1. The school has a uniform, and anyone who doesn't want to wear it can bugger off.
2. "[...] many Muslim girls may find themselves under pressure to adhere to a dress code they might not want" if the jilbab is allowed.
3. Other forms of Islamic dress are permitted in the school, so her right to freely express her religion were respected.
4. There are other schools in the area where she could have worn the jilbab and she could have gone there, so right to an education wasn't restricted.
5. The court case cost a lot of money. All five are dirty pants. And here's why:1. Uniforms and laws get changed to accommodate religious dress all the time. Sikh policemen who want to wear a turban are allowed, and Sikh bikers can wear a turban in lieu of a crash helmet if they like. It's no big deal. The school itself allows different kinds of Muslim dress but just not this one, which kind of destroys the idea that it has a uniform that must at all costs be stuck to.2. This is the lamest argument of the lot. To stop Muslim girls from being pressured to adhere to a dress code they may not want, they should be pressured to adhere to a dress code they may not want? That's logical. 3. No they weren't. She was only free to express her religion if she did so in a way that didn't express her religion in the way she wanted to. And you can have any colour you like as long as it's black.
4. If someone gets turned down for a job because they're black, it's not an acceptable defence to say that they weren't discriminated against because they could have gone for a similar job in another company that was hiring up the road. Why is this any different?
5. This doesn't necessarily have to be Begum's fault. The whole court case would have been unnecessary had the school just allowed her to wear the thing.
There is a sixth argument, seen in the Question Time comments on the BBC site. Here it is:
"The issue of tolerance MUST be international - when Christianity is tolerated, with free expression in Arab countries, then we should wholeheartedly agree to accepting Muslim school uniforms (and others) within the United Kingdom education system. - David Mulvagh, Worthing"
No it mustn't, you plonker. To get all fancy and use Latin words and that - that's a tu quoque fallacy, that is. Either it's right to respect free expression of religion or it's not. Doesn't matter what anyone anywhere else is doing.
There's a horrible smell about some of these arguments - especially the last one. They all assume certain things about the case and about Muslims that are a bit unsettling. Digby Jones, in an aside, said the issue was more "insidious" than wearing a crucifix. David Laws said that the school, "did their best to respect the legitimate religious concerns of Muslim pupils at the school". So Begum's concerns are "insidious" and presumably "illegitimate". Boris Johnson's colummn in the Telgraph says all sort of nasty stuff, but in among his lame ad hominem attacks and baiting and switching with the definitions of words, the main argument seems to be that Shabina Begum is not behind this, but bullying evil Muslim types who might lynch him.
So it all comes back to the lame old Islamophobic arguments we've heard before: Islam is monolithic, so any concession to any Muslim is a concession to all Muslims. These brown types will get all worked up if you let them express their religion how they want and they'll only end up in competitions to see who's more devout, so they need protecting from themsleves. And they might lynch people.
Does anyone making these arguments realise that they're playing into the hands of the very people they're arguing against? The extremists now have a lovely martyr as proof that we in the West are afraid of their ideas. We're exposed again for preaching tolerance and respect while displaying nothing of the sort. I wish I'd watched the mucky programme with bosoms in now.
