10 February 2006

FREEDLAND’S DHIMMITUDE

For a prime example of cleverness mixed with crass stupidity overlaid with cultural cringe and willing dhimmitude look no further than Jonathan Freedland’s article in last night’s London Evening Standard (9 February 2006) – sorry no link.

Under the headline of “Shabina’s Right to Choose” he reasons – if that’s the word – why he supports her “human right” to demand wearing the jilbab rather than the kameez: this despite the “involvement . . . of Hizb ut-Tahrir” and the 85% other Muslim pupils in her school who are perfectly satisfied with the kameez. He doesn’t think it fit to mention that her brother – who is apparently her guardian although this is not clear from the case – is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (rather closer to the case than “an involvement”) and that there might be suspicions that she is being used as a pawn in this whole affair as well as being under some pressure to conform to her brother’s beliefs.

He also uses an analogy from his schooldays when Jewish boys at University College School in Hampstead, North London were refused permission to wear a skullcap which, according to Freedland, is “worn at all times by orthodox Jewish males”. I declare an interest here. I sent my sons to UCS. One of many reasons I did was the school’s strict non-denominational character. UCS was founded by Jeremy Bentham precisely to avoid the kind of denominational bullying of which Freedland apparently approves. If orthodox Jews (or orthodox Muslims) wish to adopt denominational garb in an institution specifically devoted to preserving freedom from such practices, they are free to go elsewhere. After all, UCS is a private school: there is no obligation to send your children there. Freedland is also offended by the singing of hymns at the school. He should know – I’m sure he does – that there is a legal obligation on all schools to conduct a daily act of worship. And anyway, what offends him about hymns from the Christian tradition of a free country? I suggest Freedland takes up his evident unhappiness with the circumstances of his education with whoever paid for him to go there.

The situation of Shabina Begum is different and therefore Freedland’s argument falls down anyway. Denbigh is a state school. There is no realistic alternative school for the children to attend. However, the school uniform was approved by the parents after rigorous consultation. The uniform provides a modest form of dress apparently acceptable to all the other school attendees and their parents. The sole reason for Shabina to object was that the kameez is used by unbelievers, not that it is immodest which is the Islamic stricture. The wearing of the kameez by non-Muslems does not, however, prevent her fellow believers in the land of her ancestors from wearing it.

It’s certain – although this does not occur to Freedland – that Shabina’s and other Muslim women’s human rights would be enhanced by a finding against her in the House of Lords. A finding for her will be another step in confirming Muslim women’s subordinate status in Islam and the closing of another window of escape to freedom under Western law. This case is not about freedom to wear the jilbab or similar garb, it’s about effectively confirming an obligation – approved by the English secular courts - on all other Muslim women to wear it.