Tapu Misa: Compromise is the blessing and burden of free society

Doubtless, Graham Lowe would see the Auckland District Court's decision on the wearing of burqas by two Muslim women witnesses as just another example of our being too soft-centred.

The former Kiwis rugby league coach is off to Australia where the sun shines more brightly, the men are uncompromising, and the average Aussie is guaranteed not to know the Aboriginal equivalent of "kia ora", let alone be caught dead saying it. Not like here, in politically correct Aotearoa.

In the spirit of political incorrectness much admired by Lowe, I'm tempted to reprise the late Rob Muldoon's quip about IQ levels rising on both sides of the Tasman, but that would be mean-minded and hurt the feelings of my few Australian friends.

It's a good thing that Lowe is not going to Britain, where the condemnation of silly Prince Harry's un-PC wearing of the swastika has been near unanimous, apart from those who note that, after all, he's just a boy (of 20) and should be excused such lapses because of his dysfunctional family.

It just goes to show that the best education that money can buy is no barrier to ignorance and monumental lapses of judgment. But then, I guess George W. already proved that.

Lowe should probably stay away from England and Wales, as their governments have just outlawed the smacking of children, which some people might find unbearably PC, unlike here where we can't quite bring ourselves to protect children. Cunningly, the new law leaves room for parents who resort to light, disciplinary smacking as opposed to the kind that causes injury or leave marks.

But back to that burqa decision, and Judge Lindsay Moore's equally sensible compromise, which is sure to grate with those who see any concession to cultural accommodation as political correctness.

Auckland lawyer Colin Amery had argued that his defence of Abdul Razamjoo on fraud charges would be severely hampered if he could not see the faces of the two Muslim women witnesses for the prosecution, who insisted on their part that it would be deeply shaming to have to do so.

One of them, Fousya Salim, said she would kill herself if forced to testify, sans burqa, in front of the defendant.

The case was heard last October amid heated public debate about the balancing of the rights to religious and cultural freedoms and the rights of a defendant to a fair trial.

Frankly, my sympathies were with Amery, but then I've never much liked the burqa. I dislike the way it denies femininity and modernity and embraces female submission and inferiority, and the idea that men can't be held responsible for their baser instincts.

It acts as a barrier not only to men but to everyone who might want to get close. I dislike it as I dislike talking to people wearing dark sunglasses, or telephone conferences without a video link. If I can't see someone, I can't read their emotions, make a connection.

The ruling takes account of conservative Muslim sensibilities but preserves the defendant's right to a fair trial. The women must testify without their burqas but will be shielded from the public and the defendant.

As Judge Moore noted in his ruling, "authorising the giving of evidence from beneath what is effectively a hood or mask would be such a major departure from accepted process and the values of a free democratic society as to seriously risk bringing the court into disrepute".

We could, I suppose, harden up, like the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled last July that banning Muslim headscarves in state schools didn't violate religious freedom, and was a valid way of countering Islamic fundamentalism. The court was rejecting an appeal by a Turkish student who was barred from attending Istanbul University because her headscarf violated the official dress code.

Or the French Government, which had already passed a law making it illegal to wear Islamic headscarves (and other ostentatious religious insignia, including Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses) in state schools and universities.

The French defended their stance on the grounds of separation of state and church, and what they saw as the increasingly staunch assertion of religious identity by more radical students.

France is home to around 5 million Muslims, most living in immigrant ghettos where fundamentalist attitudes about women flourish. Violence and gang rapes have given birth to the women's rights group Ni Putes Ni Soumises ("Neither Whores Nor Submissive").

Here, of course, we're a little more accommodating. We don't have much of a problem with headscarves, and rightly so. Around my neighbourhood, it's not unusual to see Muslim girls wearing headscarves and trousers under their school uniforms. As far as I know, no one's complained that it's a violation of their rights or an offence to their sensibilities.

As for burqas, they must come off for drivers' licence photos and Customs, but there's some bending to sensitivities so that women only are allowed to look upon the unveiled faces and images.

This kind of accommodation wouldn't be forthcoming to Western women living in places such as Afghanistan, from where these women come. There, despite the overthrow of the Taleban, women still struggle for the kinds of basic freedoms New Zealand women take for granted.

But that's not the point. We don't live in such societies, so we're blessed and burdened with having to grapple with issues of competing rights and freedoms.

Good sense ought to rule, and compromises made by both sides, which couldn't be said of the Florida woman who took a case to court requesting that she remain veiled for her driver's licence photo.

She was turned down but was allowed to remain veiled while testifying, doubtless because it made no difference to the court's ability to assess her arguments.