Madam, – I have not heard anything more absurd than the claim by Cormac McMahon (July 13th) that “the banning of the niqab and the burka in France and Belgium is a triumph for the most deplorable forces of coercive majoritarianism . . . [and is an] attempt to dictate modes of dress to followers of a particular religion [that] bears an eerie resemblance to the Nazi use of the Star of David”.
Not wearing the niqab or burka, unlike the Nazi use of the Star of David, will not identify a woman for ill-treatment, and to imply otherwise is a perversion of language.
The essential motivation for this move is that such dress makes the wearer unidentifiable and can be used as a means to evade justice, as was done by one of the bus bombers in London a few years ago. According to most Muslim scholars, such dress is not mandatory and the simple hijab, or headscarf, is sufficient.
To paraphrase Mr McMahon “Freedom to evade justice in the commission of crimes is hardly worthy of the name”. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Why shouldn’t the French introduce anti-burka legislation, or the Belgians or Spanish do similarly, or indeed the Swiss ban the construction of Islamic minarets if they wish? I found the Editorial on this matter (July 12th) to be quite patronising in this regard, as if it is manifestly true that the entire globe has to cater for the brutally condescending attitudes of liberal finger-waggers.
Islam, in this barbaric and oppressive manifestation is an anti-liberal and misogynistic system of thought and social order and if perceived as such then it ought not be tolerated, for the sake of decency, psychological well-being, equality and social order wherever relevant. Why shouldn’t a sovereign state be entitled to prevent such an invasive and malignant influence if this is what it perceives as being present?
Not that Christianity, for that matter, is any type of panacea. Developments in the past several decades in this country alone show the need for disproportionate religious influence to be excised root and branch from politics and the major systems of social governance, but why should we put up with such compromising external (and Islam is external to Europe, in origin, perspective and teleology) influences as Islam while we are still collectively languishing in the degrading political and social fallout of Christianity’s own adverse influence on our systems of thought?
More power to the French and Swiss people.
These craven ideas of meekness and aversion to making forthright and straightforward social demands are what characterise the endemic weakness of Irish politics and intellectual pursuit, and on an international level, what characterise what many fear to be Western politics’ conciliatory fear of self-affirmation in the face of a bugbear of accusations of “discrimination”. It is lazy politics, short-sighted and ultimately infirm, and not representative of the demands of large sectors of the population.
It suits our loudest voices in the media to demand recognition of the public voice in matters such as economics, criminal behaviour and the behaviour of government officials, but I fear that the view of the wider public on their preferred mode of social cohesion and their outlook on the world at large is consistently ignored in various sections of the media as being either unfashionable or out of step with whatever agenda is being pursued in the offices of the same journalists.
On this point, need it be reiterated? Just because something is published in a newspaper neither makes it manifestly true nor the voice of the people. – Yours, etc,