The deafening silence on veil bans

France and Belgium are racing to be the first to ban the burqa. Why wasn't that worth mentioning in

I thought that last night's debate, which supposedly concentrated on foreign affairs, was pathetically limited. As I predicted, our place in the world was discussed almost entirely through the prisms of our relationships with the US and with the European Union.

Given that, a little more examination of those relationships would have been welcome. Take the EU. Whatever you think about our membership, it is an institution that does matter -- not least because its laws supersede ours.

So why was there no mention of the unbelievable race that France and Belgium are engaged in -- the prize for winning which is to be the first country in Europe to ban the full face veil?

Belgium's parliament was due to vote on the legislation yesterday, until the government coalition collapsed after one party withdrew. This, despite the fact that according to the BBC's estimate, only 30 women in the country regularly wear the burqa or niqab. (The link above also provides a
handy guide to different kinds of face veils, incidentally.)

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has ordered his government to put a bill with similar effect to parliament next month. The dignity of all women, apparently, is threatened by the under 2000 who are recorded as wearing the full veil in France.

I am no fan of either the niqab or the burqa. (I expressed my approval in October when the Dean of Al Azhar University called full face veiling "a custom that had nothing to do with the Islamic faith".) Mehdi Hasan has also discussed the subject on this site before.

But were these extraordinary moves on the part of two of our closest European neighbours not worth a mention in last night's debate? After all, what does it say about the continent's great traditions of tolerance and liberty that two countries wish to legislate specifically to tell a tiny number of women how they should dress?

It's understandable that our attention is concentrated inwards during an election. But I still find the deafening silence on this astonishing. Or are we happy for some minorities to be less equal than others?

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496