Our open outlook
There are many
reasons as a Western European I love living here even as a minority of many
sorts. Despite the occasional negatives of racism, deprivation, inequality and
much else, we as a people are probably still the most tolerant, accommodating,
liberal and gregarious of all humanity.
That might be
disputed but on the whole, we live and let live; very rarely do we impose our
views on others and apart from populists and rabble-rousers for political gain,
we are a peaceable people.
Garb and barb
However, over the last decade or so, our liberal democratic values of separation of religion and state to varying degrees have been challenged by the ingress of cultures, traditions, beliefs and attitudes that are not fundamentally what we might call our historical Western Judeo-Christian heritage – some have balked, but most have acquiesced, we make allowances, many allowances at that.
Recently, it has
been about religious garb, the matter of coverings and modesty vary just as our
interpretations of what constitutes those might differ depending on our beliefs
and customs.
Germans for
instance are not afraid of nudity, in fact, it is called, Freikörperkultur (FKK) which
translates literally to Free Body Culture, it is a movement quite different
from nudist sun-bathing and any other forms of public nudity, but that is a
topic for another day. [Wikipedia]
To veil and to reveal
Yesterday, in the
UK, we pussy-footed
around the issue of the use of the full veil in relation to Islamic tradition
when a lady appearing in court for a completely different issue of witness
intimidation took us on a legal distraction as to whether she could appear in
court fully veiled and never have the requirement to take it off. [BBC News]
The wisdom of
judges must be commended when they give their opinions on these very sensitive
issues, because in this case, the judge was accommodating of the lady to allow
her wear her veil in court during the proceedings but that veil had to be
removed when giving evidence.
Indeed, anyone who takes the witness box should only be accorded privacy and the possible invisibility for their safety and privacy as we do with minors, however that cannot be extrapolated on religious grounds to prevent an essential instrument of recognition and expression critical to jury observation and assessment, court is beyond just the hearing of words in answer to questions and cross-examination.
The visage of safety
The primary mode of
identification for the elimination of doubt and the building of communal trust
is the face as far as Western Europe is concerned, if you must access the
public space for the convenience of the majority, which implicitly includes
safety and security, the face must be visible.
We are conditioned to believe that a covered face is indicative of an assumed criminality, and whilst a religiously modest and pious woman might well be the most law-abiding citizen around, having a veiled face introduces an unnecessary threat, redefining our conditioning whilst it also can be exploited to ulterior ends – it is an unnecessarily difficult accommodation that we have to tolerate.
Dressed to digress
Whilst, the burkini is almost too much dress short of a wetsuit with the attendant issues that do not need much exegesis, it is quite an accommodation redolent of our liberal and tolerant disposition to many cultures different from ours, we find it acceptable enough to not only condone it but accept it as wholesome and fashionable for those who choose to don that garb of presumed modesty.
Freedom and entitlement
However, judges found
this accommodation that first could not exempt the girl from co-educational swimming
classes which is the norm, by stating that, “the basic right of religious
freedom does not confer any entitlement to be spared from encountering, at
school, the behaviour of third parties... [behaviour] which is widely observed
in daily life, outside school, at certain seasons.”
This construct
should become both precedent and fundamental, because once again, the judges
have identified the community of daily life as an unavoidable space of
interaction available to the general public in which as human beings we are by
choice allowed to participate and we cannot exclusively curtail that
environment for the convenience of the few.
Freedom and allowance
The basic right of
religious freedom is sacrosanct, you can practice it as fervently and
fanatically as you will, but if you do not want to encounter the public in the
observance of your beliefs, then the best accommodation we can afford is for
you to absent yourself from that setting as a matter of right and privilege if
of the age to exercise such a prerogative.
However, as a minor
in Germany, where you must attend school and participate in activities that
make up part of the curriculum, no entitlement is reserved to create exemptions
to the point that each consideration if that situation arises creates disorder and chaos.
Adapt or depart
The broader point
without stating it is the cliché - when in Rome, do as Romans do, and if you so feel
that you cannot do as Romans do, the Romans should not have to change or adapt their Roman
ways to your requirements as an entitlement, else they will no more be identified by their Roman ways, nevertheless, you having arrived in Rome might well
find ways to adapt to what Romans do or extricate yourself from Roman influence
by being in a recluse or leaving Rome entirely.
Beyond this, we
must be concerned about the influx of ideas beyond the need for safety and security in the
public space that informs the regulation of the public space by granting
specific entitlements to certain persons, groups or beliefs which will curtail
the freedoms and liberties we as a majority have for the satisfaction and
accommodation of others.
The blunter point in terms of these conflicts of religious adherence that challenge the freedoms we all enjoy is that the law is finding better ways to say; adapt to your current environment and circumstances or depart to where those beliefs you so espouse have unquestioned currency.
