Faith and freedom: The Burqa Ban | another sign of the Marco Polo syndrome?

“It says a great deal about Canadian pluralism and decency – and about the diversity that still exists in the corners, if not mainstream, of Islam – that a group of Muslim women can come forward and ask a Conservative government minister to extend, not limit, the burka ban."

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | UK Desk
Source/Credit: Troy Media | Articles
By Adam Walker | February 5, 2012

'Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit' - Ghandi

LONDON, UK, Feb. 5, 2012/ Troy Media/ – There has been a growing move within European and other Western Governments to ban women from wearing the face veil in its various forms. The niqab and burqa’, two styles of covering, have been particularly targeted.

In 2010, both France and Belgium moved to ban the wearing of the face veil in public, with the Netherlands eager to do the same soon. In December of 2011 the Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Canada announced that the face veil must be removed for the citizenship ceremony when a person declares their Oath of Allegiance. Germany, Denmark, and Spain also have certain restrictions placed upon the Muslim face covering, with numerous other countries debating whether or not to follow suit.


Depicting the “other”

The image of Muslim women wearing the full face veil and outer garment is nothing new to the Western imagination. The 16th century painting St. Mark Preaching in Alexandria by the Italian artist Gentile Bellini depicts a group of Ottoman women, dressed in the full Islamic garb, sitting in a courtyard listening to St. Mark preaching. Descriptions of Muslim women’s dress also reached the West through medieval Byzantine writings, the travel logs of famous explorers such as Marco Polo, and the many artistic depictions of the Arabian Nights.

Gerardo Mosquera, the renowned curator, coined the term ”Marco Polo Syndrome” in the early ’90s. The term describes what is seen by some as the modern Western and Eurocentric insistence on depicting the ”other,” whoever that ”other” might be, through the eyes of Western hegemony, reaffirming stereotypical depictions over reality. Mosquero explains: ”What is monstrous about this syndrome is that it perceives whatever is different as the carrier of life-threatening viruses rather than nutritional elements.”

In further constructing what Mosquera was alluding to, Professor Rachel Bailey Jones writes: ‘Within the confines of this syndrome, art created by those outside of the West (sometimes referred to as the Rest) is either disregarded as derivative of greater Western products, or is valued as exotic, “authentic,” creations of the Other. If the artist does not appropriately reference “traditional” visual codes and represent his/her culture the way that it is imagined in the West, then the artwork is deemed inauthentic and not valued in the establishment.”

Though Mosquera coined this term with art in mind, it seems apt to extend the spirit of its meaning to the Muslim face covering which many in the West consider a symbol of the non-Western Muslim ‘other.’ A representation, as it were, of the inequalities of the East. It might be fair, therefore, to suggest that the Muslim face veil invokes within the Western mind a type of Marco Polo Syndrome?

Perhaps it is for this reason that in the Toronto Sun article Burka Bravery: Women seeking extended ban that has nothing to do with religion, Michael Coren, when discussing the Burqa’, writes:

“It says a great deal about Canadian pluralism and decency – and about the diversity that still exists in the corners, if not mainstream, of Islam – that a group of Muslim women can come forward and ask a Conservative government minister to extend, not limit, the burka ban.

Those brave activists within the Muslim Canadian Congress do not speak for all Muslims of course, but then neither do the various extremist Islamic groups in the country.’

Notice the subtle contrast here drawn between the ”brave activists” arguing against the Burqa’ and those with the opposing opinion demoted to being the adherents of ”extremist Islamic groups.”

Such statements can surely only amount to a projection of Western ideals upon the other, in this case the Muslim, rather than representative of the pluralism that the author goes on to so forcefully argue the case for. Would a pluralistic system really apply the term brave to any group which sought to curtail the rights of women to dress how they wish to? Would pluralism not dictate that each group has the right to operate within society as it pleases so long as its activities remain within the confines of the law? Surely arguing the case for everyone’s rights to be upheld is what should be termed ”brave.”

Is it also legitimate for any group to dictate to another group, by way of proposed legislation, how they should interpret their own religion and scripture? The Arab uprisings, supported almost unanimously by the West, have seen much of the Arab world spill its blood and wealth to oppose this very form of autocracy.

Coren goes on to make the bold statement:

”To generally ban burkas because they diminish female dignity and portray men as uncontrollable beasts is, while intellectually and morally compelling, difficult to uphold.

But a state demanding that those who use or work in its services comply with certain dress codes is entirely moderate.

No Canadian should be intimidated or made uncomfortable because the bureaucrat to whom they are speaking is dressed in a tent, and nor should that bureaucrat have to talk to someone they cannot see.”

Beginnings of a slippery slope

A nation enters upon a slippery slope when the legislature begins to dictate what forms of dress should be deemed ”intimidating.” If it is the Burqa’ today then tomorrow it may be people’s piercings, hair colour, tattoos, facial hair, turbans, crosses, or skull caps – all being things which some people find ”intimidating.”

Any move to legislate what is ”intimidating,” or what is THE correct doctrinal approach, should not arise in a secular and pluralistic state. Meaningful questions should surround whether or not various modes of dress amount to illegality within the secular legal framework. In answering that question it would certainly be legitimate to argue that it is both in the public interest and safety for women to remove their face veils on the basis of security (i.e., at airports, on entering restricted buildings, upon arrest or interrogation, etc.).

Of what benefit, however, would it be to the rule of law for women to be banned from choosing to dress how they please under ordinary circumstances? The only benefit, if it can even be termed as such, would be for Western hegemony to once again stamp its foot and reinforce its disdain for what it holds as ”backward” Eastern practices.

Freedoms of thought, opinion and expression are each fundamental cornerstones of democracy and should always flourish in any society. The legislature, however, is there to create an environment wherein balances of rights, all conducive to the rule of law, are maintained. It must not become so autocratic that it removes the rights of minorities purely for the comfort of the majority. This would amount to an intolerance beyond the dignity of democracy and, as Ghandi famously stated: ‘Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.’

Progress, tolerance, and mutual respect cannot flourish unless the prevalent Marco Polo syndrome is relegated to a thing of the past; something the Canadian and British governments, amongst others, and to their credit, have invested much time and effort to successfully achieve and maintain.



Read original post here: The Burqa Ban: another sign of the Marco Polo syndrome?