THE WASHINGTON POST: After the British army conquered the Sindh region of what is now modern-day Pakistan in the 1840s, Gen. Charles Napier enforced a ban on the practice of Sati -- the burning of widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands. A delegation of Hindu leaders approached Napier to complain that their ancient traditions were being violated. The general is said to have replied: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. . . . You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
The incident can hardly be commended as a model of cross-cultural relations, but it clarifies a tension. Conflict can arise between respect for other cultures and respect for universal human rights.
This is particularly true when it comes to the rights of women. Traditional societies can be deeply admirable -- conservative, family-oriented, stable, wise about human nature and human society. But they can also be highly patriarchal, evidenced by such practices as Sati, foot-binding, widow inheritance and female circumcision. This is not to say that modern, rights-based societies are without their own faults and failures; it is only to recognize that multiculturalism and human rights can sometimes clash.
For the most part, these tensions no longer emerge through colonialism but through migration, which can transplant a traditional culture smack in the middle of an aggressively liberal one. The most visible areas of difference -- say in dress -- can spark controversy, just as the wearing of the burqa is now doing in Europe. >>> Michael Gerson, Op-Ed Columnist | Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Mr Gerson misses the point totally here. The French had a revolution in 1789. It established three main principles: liberté, egalité, fraternité. That means to say, liberty, equality, and brotherhood. It appears to me that the wearing of the burqah violates all three principles: it takes away a woman’s liberty; it renders women unequal to men; and it certainly makes brotherhood impossible, because a burqah cuts a woman off from the rest of society.
In addition to this, it should be added that the French take laïcité very seriously indeed. Laïcité can best be translated as secularim. But it is a poor translation. It means far more: it is the strict and official separation of church and state.
It would appear that Mr Gerson does not fully appreciate the significance of la Révolution française which took place in 1789.
The French must go ahead with the ban so as to be true to the principles of the revolution and la République. – © Mark
