Editorial: Lift veil on burqa debate

Tolerance comes fairly naturally to the New Zealand character. Confronted with foreign cultural practices we are inclined to live and let live. So much so that when a down-to-earth character such as Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson suggests the Islamic full-body covering for women is out of place here, even his own party backs away from him. But is he wrong?

Most Western societies are having similar debates about how far they ought to accommodate the resurgent religious sensitivities of their Muslim immigrants. France has banned Muslim headscarves and other overt religious symbols from its state schools. Many European states are talking about filtering further immigration with some sort of test of religious tolerance and liberal values, such as gender equality.

Yet when the National Party leader made a similar suggestion here a few weeks ago he was roundly condemned. Don Brash had told a conference on migration and investment that New Zealand had to be cautious about immigrants that don't share "an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes". He did not say any particular immigrant group in this country lacked those values, but his implication was clear. The Federation of Ethnic Councils saw an "anti-Muslim tone" in his speech.

Mr Clarkson was more blunt. "I do have a bit of a problem with Islam religion-type people wearing scarves and burqas," he said. "I think people should fit into the country." That brought him a rebuke from the Prime Minister who said, "Some of the people here who are wearing burqas are people who have been traumatised fleeing from their countries, ending up in refugee camps, eventually getting refuge in New Zealand. I just think he needs to show a little more sensitivity."

Nobody in this debate has suggested the burqa should be banned or that any woman should be forced to show her face, unless it is to testify in court or be issued with a driver's licence. Both those instances have been tested in court here, resulting in rulings that reasonably accommodate Muslim sensitivity to the needs of law enforcement and justice. Women can be required to lift their veil but only to those who need to identify them. But those were easy issues compared to the question Mr Clarkson raises.

He is talking less about the law than social acceptance. He is saying quite frankly that he does not approve of women wearing the religious garb in this country and many will agree with him. Feminists should be the first to endorse him. We must tolerate different religious practices in this country but we are not obliged to respect them. There is a difference.

It is extremely hard to respect the Islamic code that requires women to cover themselves in public so that men will not succumb to carnal ideas. It is deeply offensive to modern Western values that a woman should cover herself for the moral protection of men. When the Islamic code goes so far as to urge women to efface themselves in public, it cannot demand our respect.

To say this is not to condone acts of disrespect. Personal abuse and the like should be punished. But nor should we need to pretend that we are content that any woman in this society should be encouraged not to show her face, or be unable to enjoy the sun, sea and lifestyle we value. Immigrants, even refugees, come here knowing the equality and freedoms we value. We have every right to remind them sometimes that, while their religious rights will be secure here, we reserve the right to criticise those religious practices.