Religion and Freedom?

I had intended to write about Ada Lovelace, the daughter of Lord Byron and Anne Isabella Byron, but I think that it will have to wait for another post. Articles that have been appearing on the BBC News website have caught my attention, and I feel that they need exploring.

A series of events have occurred recently that all revolve around one issue: the niqab. 

(See this link for a useful explanation of the different types of veil used by Muslim women.) 

On 16th September, Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a woman on trial at Blackfriars Crown Court in London could wear the niqab, unless she was giving evidence. Moreover, the judge offered that the woman could be screened whilst giving evidence so that only he, the jury and the lawyers would be able to see her face. A refusal to comply with this ruling would result in the woman being arrested for contempt of court. 

Why did the woman not wish to remove the niqab?

Why did the judge feel it necessary that she remove it whilst giving evidence?

(See article here for more information.)

On the same day, the BBC reported the view of Lib Dem Home Office MP, Jeremy Browne, who stated that he felt a debate needed to be had about the place of the veil in certain public places. He said that he was concerned with restricting freedom, but he was also worried about the veil being imposed on young girls. It was, he claimed, an attempt to protect freedom of choice for these girls. He believed we needed to be cautious of "imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression". 

(Read more here.)

Yet again on the same day, Brian Lightman, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (a headteachers' union), wrote in response to Jeremy Browne that full face veils (i.e. the niqab and the burka) were not appropriate in the school context because it is essential that teachers can see students' facial expressions. He admitted that individual schools could decide their own uniform policies, and the article noted that no headteacher has yet recorded a student being asked to remove a head covering worn for religious reasons. 

(Read the full article here.)

Three days later, the Department of Health announced that a review was to take place into whether NHS staff in England should be allowed to wear full-face head coverings. 

Now, this week we have been studying Hannah Arendt's theory of the banality of evil. She claims that evil is not necessarily the action of individuals, but the collective 'lack of moral imagination' that can result in a failure to prevent oppression or injustice. I have long been concerned with the rise of legislation across Europe that prevents the wearing of certain types of head covering or specific religious symbols. Although often fairly generic in wording, they are also often practically focused on the banning of Muslim clothing. In some cases, the introduction of such legislation makes sense in the context of the individual country's approach to the relationship between state and religion (thinking in particular of France). However, it seems to have been creeping from country to country, with a variety of justifications (security, educational progress, justice, infection control, and so on...). 

The crux of the matter is whether wearing the niqab is a freedom guaranteed by one's freedom to express one's belief.

If it is, and our society is starting to find reasons to reduce that freedom, what do we do? More importantly, what do I do? For, as Hannah Arendt notes, the collective lack of moral imagination that can lead to evil is a collection of 'I's who think someone else will say something.

A final thought on this topic:

Ought a tolerant society be able to tolerate intolerance towards its own ideals?