n The editorial on United Kingdom / European political leaders and the niqab largely misunderstands the aim of the comments and engages in the worst sort of multiculturalism (“Blair faces off,” Oct. 20, p. 4).
Nothing about Tony Blair, Jack Straw or Romano Prodi’s comments had anything to do with security. Blair spoke of assimilation, Mr. Straw of communication and Mr. Prodi of appearance and presentation.
Perhaps the editors of The Daily Free Press are in the habit of assuming that every interaction between Muslims and Western political institutions needs to be defined by security threats, but I think a more reasonable reading of the circumstances is that the current kurfuffle is simply another front in the effort to define the limits of multiculturalism in Europe.
It is in this larger debate that the editorial was at its most simplistic. No right is absolute, no matter how appealing such simplicity might be. Just as there are some words that we, as a society, have decided cannot be said in certain times and places, so too might a school of the Church of England — and it was a church school firing Aishah Azmi for her inappropriate manner of dress that brought this story into the news — decide that garments that expose only an individual’s eyes to the world are not appropriate for a teaching aide whose job is communication with children from a variety of cultural backgrounds.
But leave aside for a moment, the specifics of that case and consider the principle the editorial seems to proclaim: In all cases where a firmly held religious belief comes into conflict with norms of British society, it is British society that should yield.
It is true that there is “a disconnect between the West’s secular perception of religion and the Islamic importance of tradition.” But only in the wacky world of multiculturalism is the solution to this conflict that the West give up Western traditions (apparently multiculturalism only protects your culture if it isn’t Western).
Perhaps Straw went too far when he refused to speak with a constituent wearing a niqab, but no one is saying Aishah Azmi or any other person desiring to wear such attire should be forbidden from doing so.
What is being said is that there is a price to being different and that just as religious individuals of all sorts have had to strike a balance between their faith and their participation in broader society, so too must Muslims in the West.
A hallmark of the Western political tradition is pragmatism and compromise. Neither Blair nor Prodi suggested that Aishah Azmi or anyone else lose the niqab to get a day in court or otherwise exercise the legal rights to which all citizens are entitled, they merely pointed out that people who insist on separating themselves from society should not be shocked when they find themselves socially excluded.
Is there a middle ground to be had? Should calls for religious tolerance be heeded? Of course. But tolerance is not a universal accommodation.
Bimal P Chaudhari
CAS’05 MED/SPH’09