Few people have been more passionately opposed to radical Islamism on these pages than I have been. I have written a whole catalogue of posts over the years, quoting the likes of Melanie Phillips, Michael Nazir-Ali, Douglas Murray, Ed Husain and others. I have done so for one very simple reason: because I am passionate about freedom, and I regard radical Islamism as one of the greatest threats to liberal democracy of our time. The other, I might add, is militant secularism.
I work for a human rights organisation which specialises in religious freedom. Yes, we are a Christian organisation and much of the work we do is on behalf of persecuted Christians. But we campaign for religious freedom for all, and I have personally spent many hours working with and for Rohingya Muslims in Burma and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Some of my colleagues are very active on behalf of the Baha'is, Tibetans and Falun Gong. I think the fact that we are an explicitly Christian organisation championing, so proactively, religious freedom for all is something to be celebrated.
In my spare time, I serve as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party's Human Rights Commission. We have just completed an inquiry into international religious freedom, and will be launching a report soon.
In other words, freedom, liberal democracy, basic human rights, and particularly religious freedom, are the values which fill virtually every minute of every day for me. And those values are threatened by radical Islamism. Not, I repeat for those who still need the caveats even though they get repetitive, all Islam: simply a strand of Islam that is radical, militant and either preaches or practices hatred, violence and subjugation of women, gays, non-Muslims and other Muslims who disagree.
For those very reasons, I am strongly against banning the burka - or, for that matter, going in the Swiss direction of banning minarets. How can we possibly speak for persecuted Christians, Baha'is, Ahmadiyyas or, for that matter, atheists, in Muslim-majority countries, if we impose, through legislation, a blanket ban on the burka and impose strict controls on what people can and cannot wear? If we are to effectively champion the values that we hold dear and which radical Islamism opposes and seeks to defeat, we have to be consistent. Furthermore, if we are to empower voices of moderation within Islam, we do ourselves and them no good at all by imposing bans on dress and refusing to talk to veiled women. I was recently in Indonesia, where I developed partnerships with several amazing, courageous Muslim civil society groups who are at the forefront of counter-extremism and promoting religious pluralism and freedom in that country. How could they, who are risking their lives for our values from within Islam, trust us if we impose blanket bans on items of clothing?
Philip Hollobone makes some valid points about communication involving visual, as well as verbal, exchange. I agree with him. But I still do not believe that a blanket ban is the answer. Why do the radical Islamists' work for them and destroy our Judeo-Christian values of religious freedom, tolerance and liberal democracy? I assume Mr Hollobone has not read John Locke.
There is, of course, another, legitimate, side to the debate. The bizarre, unholy alliance between the militantly politically-correct secularists and the radical Islamists does liberal democracy no favours either. George Galloway in his leotard, Ken Livingstone with his newts, championing women's and gay rights on the same platform as people who would stone women for alleged adultery (not even proven adultery), hang gays and subject the rest of us, at best, to dhimmi status are, of course, a pantomime hiding a more sinister agenda. To ignore the impact of radical Islamism and even conservative Islam on our society is unwise (and that may be a contestant for understatement-of-the-year). Legitimate security and health and safety concerns of course factor into this debate. So too does the argument that actually, these items of clothing are cultural and not Quranic, and have little in reality to do with religion: but that is for the Islamic scholars and theologicans to debate.
Michael Nazir-ali makes these points extremely well. He opposes an outright ban, but argues for common sense: there are certain occasions where a person's face needs to be seen. Indeed, not just for national security. There are certain professions, such as teaching and medicine, where face-to-face communication is important, he argues. There is also the issue of consent: has the woman behind the burka chosen to wear it of her own free will (in which case her freedom should be defended), or been forced by her husband or parents or brothers (in which case, her freedom to choose should be defended)? Nazir-ali concludes:
In a free society we must make sure that no one is forced to wear a form of covering that surely limits freedom of movement and social interaction.
I am not, then, in favour of an outright ban. Women should be free to wear it in domestic contexts, while visiting friends and colleagues and elsewhere, but only if this is not compromising public or personal safety, endangering national security or impeding professional or social interaction.
I find myself, as I have often found before, standing with Michael Nazir-ali, and on the side of freedom, the Muslim woman's and mine. I am for freedom - for women, and for our society. Only when we robustly defend our values can we combat the ideological, as well as violent, assault of radical Islamism.
