Councillor’s call unveils need for careful debate

IT is not clear why Cork city councillor Joe O’Callaghan has chosen to lob a political grenade into the public domain at this point.

In calling for a ban on burkas — or full face veils — the Fine Gael councillor has opened up a pandora’s box.

He has two objections to burkas. First, they are an “affront to women” and are incompatible with modern society and, second, on security grounds.

Mr O’Callaghan has put a motion calling for the ban before next month’s meeting at Cork City Hall. He is also calling for gardaí to be given the power to order youths to remove hoodies.

Given developments across the EU, perhaps it was only a matter of time before some politician here called for a burka ban.

France banned burkas last April. Belgium followed suit last month and already two women have been prosecuted for defying the law.

Local bans have also been imposed in Spain. Earlier this month, a parliamentary commission in Italy approved a draft law outlawing them. The government in the Netherlands has also backed the idea.

These developments have been sharply criticised by Muslim organisations.

Already, councillor O’Callaghan has drawn criticism from the biggest Islamic centre in Ireland.

“The councillor is establishing a false link between hoodies and burkas,” said Ali Selim, theologian and senior staff member of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, in Clonskeagh, Dublin. “Hoodies have been associated with crimes, but to put burkas in the same context has very serious indications.”

He told the Irish Examiner that some Muslim women see the burka as an Islamic obligation.

“I don’t think it is an Islamic obligation, but people are entitled to different interpretations.”

He took issue with the councillor’s statement that the burka was not compatible with modern society.

“Is compatibility decided according to how you dress or is it decided on how you behave and your contribution to society? Personal freedom is part of a modern society and what you dress in is within the scope of personal freedoms. If it is not dangerous or cause harm to anyone, what’s the problem?”

He said there was no security issues arising: “If a woman fully covered goes the bank or the courts or is stopped by the garda, there is an Islamic duty to prove their identity and uncover their face. That is there already, so there is no security debate to be had.”

Although sharing some of these views, British Muslim cleric and academic, Usama Hasan, doesn’t fully agree.

“I would encourage more dialogue on it. I am all for a comprehensive debate,” said the Middlesex University lecturer. “For a 21st century western society with gender equality it makes no sense. I think there has been a failure on the part of women who wear it and Muslim women’s groups to explain their rationale. It’s not understood by westerners, where importance is attached to eye contact and facial expressions.”

But he said there were cultural reasons why some women wear the burka: “In some parts of the world, in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and north west Pakistan, they are common, almost mandatory.”

He said there was a “legitimate concern” over burkas, but said this should be on security grounds — and include the likes of hoodies — rather than on religious or political grounds.

“You can’t wear motorcycle helmets into banks,” said Mr Hasan.

“There is a legitimate security concern and Islamic law takes that into account.”

He said it was possible to discuss the matter without fuelling Islamaphobia, but said it needed to be “managed carefully”.

He said the difficulty was trying the get the media to debate it calmly.

Mr Hasan said the councillor’s objection based on women’s rights could be used against him: “He says it is an affront to women. I understand why he said that, but it is also a little bit patronising. Clearly there are women in Ireland who wear them, and it is an affront to them to think they don’t have voices themselves.”