The burqa and cultural assimilation and what-have-you

[thefinalmarch]

"Those who live in Australia should be prepared to adhere to Australian customs. The wearing of the burqa is an oppressive measure that is contrary to Australian values. Those coming to live in Australia should be prepared to abide by the values that are part of Australian life."
Specifically, this is in the context of a speech I have to prepare for class tomorrow on banning the Burqa. The above quoted text was one of the arguments suggested for the pro-ban side. Of course, fuck the ban. But how exactly do I counter this bullshit?

The next two points go hand-in-hand:
"Burqas are not a required religious observance for Muslim women - it has been argued that burqas are not a religious observance but a means of social control."
and
"Burqas are a restriction placed on women to limit their freedom - it has been claimed that wearing the burqa is a major restriction imposed on women."
These points way well be valid, but how do I maintain my position against the ban from a Marxist (though not overtly, i.e. so I don't have to ramble on about the bourgeoisie or whatever) perspective?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, the essential reason for opposition of the movement for banning the burqa is that it takes place in a context of xenophobia and opposition to one facet of the working class, and is very much a part of this. This side of matters is touched upon by the first argument, whereas the next two points essentially abstract from this. Of course, it's always worth remembering that, generally speaking, rational debate is never rational, or it wouldn't be debate.

These sorts of speeches and such tend to mean that one has to abstain from detailed discussion, since one is trying to make points against people inculcated into nationalism and such, whereas to make one's point one would have to essentially overturn their world-view, which doesn't happen that much unless it's essentially self-directed, whereas in argumentative speeches, debates, and so on, things are constituted more or less the opposite. If one were to try arguing against a Tory's conception of the riots or 'underclass', it becomes clear quite soon that it's not worth the effort, although one can always take comfort in the fact that what their opinion is is irrelevant in the tides of time.

One could argue, for example, that these 'Australian customs' were established by abolishing the customs of Australia's previous inhabitants, and that being thus constituted they have no claim to including this 'national respect' as a part of Australian values (or, in fact, that oppressive measures against Australian values are a part of Australian values), but that's probably not going to convince anyone. Even if it were pointed out that, despite this previous undermining being in the past, it is implicit in the first argument that modern Australian customs are in fact invalid, being based after all on coming to live in Australia and acting contrary to Australian customs, and we should rather revert to the customs of the aboriginals (and the US to that of the various Native American tribes), it would be doubtful to have any effect. Of course, the wearing of the burqa is a part of 'Australian customs' at present, given that there are after all Australian Muslims, so that ultimately it's all the same thing, really, and what is being called for is a return to previous 'Australian values', in which case there's not much reason to keep on going. If one is to accept modern Australian values simply because they conquered the island, then in actual fact the problem of burqas may also be solved by Islam taking over Australia somehow. Cultural conservatism is arbitrary.

Of course, following on from that last bit, implicit in the argument is also the opposition of Muslims and Australians, the positing of Muslims as an 'other', etc. The other side of this process is the constitution of Australia as a monolithic entity, a general tenet of nationalism. Back at home, this is also quite common with the Indian BJP, where India is associated with Hinduism and so on. Of course, it's arbitrary, just like borders in general. One nation includes multiple 'cultures', 'customs', languages, values, etc. Just imagine somebody saying that in order to live in India, one must speak the 'Indian language' (which one) and follow 'Indian customs and values' (?!?). Of course, it doesn't help to say that it means the values of the majority of Australians, because of course the argument is supposed to be that the values of these Australians ought to be against the burqa, and otherwise one is simply arguing that the majority of Australians ought to take the view which the majority of Australians take, which of course means that nobody can take a view because they would have to wait for the majority of Australians to take one before they can make their own mind up.

Further, of course, these 'Australian customs', as practiced by proper, white Australians, are elevated into something liberating and good, as opposed to oppressive Islam. Now, demonstrating that these 'ordinary Australians' can be far more willingly oppressive than the burqa shouldn't be difficult to do on some level, and really one can choose whether to demonstrate it through more ordinary instances or more systematic ones (is the oppression of aboriginals an Australian custom? History would suggest it. One could even mention Christian religious conflicts, etc.) The point here is that 'Australian values' can be just as oppressive, even within 'mainstream' Australian culture, and hence one can hardly oppose 'Australian values' to 'oppressive measures', unless one is to posit 'Australian values' as essentially an abstraction from what people actually value, in which case one is essentially just using it as a codeword for one's own values, which are yet to be justified. Certainly, one can hardly argue against Australians that oppose the burqa ban (and hence see it as in harmony with their values as Australians) that Australians are for the burqa ban.

Of course, if one were to speak of Indian customs, then the caste system would certainly seem quite close to one if anything is, but I hardly think that one would argue that lower-caste people coming to live in India should simply be prepared to 'abide by' these Indian values .


"Burqas are not a required religious observance for Muslim women - it has been argued that burqas are not a religious observance but a means of social control."
and
"Burqas are a restriction placed on women to limit their freedom - it has been claimed that wearing the burqa is a major restriction imposed on women."

Well, it's probably not wholly invalid to say that burqas may be more related to social control than simple religious piety, and derive their origins from this. However, this simply constitutes a manifestation of a wider context, just as the Adam and Eve story. However, this does not make it a cause of this context of which it is a manifestation, and in which it gains any oppressive content which it may have (clothing by itself is not oppressive, at least not in this sense.) Skimpy clothing can be just as much a manifestation of underlying, oppressive social conditions, although on the other hand people may have other reasons to wear it (just as they may with the burqa, all things considered). What's of significance here is the context capable of giving the burqa its meaning, and that is not done away with by banning the burqa. Concretely, all that it does is to feed animosity towards and the marginalization of a particular minority, as well as to lift one form of oppression over another and hence sanction it.

If this context were absent, then one would have no real problems with making burqa-wearing voluntary; however, the claimed issue is that this 'voluntary' act is mediated by the threat of cultural marginalization, disapproval and/or exile. However, it is, then, this which is the issue, and one hardly aids the assimilation of such a culture into the supposedly liberated Australian culture by marginalizing it, posing it as an 'other' and attacking it in the name of the Australian nation and state, hence further encouraging its formation as a fortified niche which, far from being integrated into 'Australian values', faces them in exile. The issue, after all, is supposed to be not the clothing, but the actual relations underlying it, and these cannot be done away with by placing them on one side and letting them ferment untouched in cultural ghettos. And, of course, let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

In fact, it's almost like undertaking a foreign policy of hostility, sanctions and war against the Middle East in order to tackle antagonism against the West there. And who would argue for that?

[Luc]

nvm bad joke, thanks for the info thefinalmarch and zeronowhere