A poster encouraging a Yes vote in the coming referendum. Photo:Getty Images
Show Hide image

It's apathy, not shy No voters, that may sink the Republic of Ireland's equal marriage referendum

The Republic of Ireland is on the brink of making history this week. But a low turnout could still sink the Yes side.

On Friday, Ireland will become the first country to hold a referendum on whether to legalise same sex marriage. Polling shows the Yes campaign to be garnering massive support. Not only is Ireland likely to introduce same sex marriage but it will do so with the mass backing of its people. All the major political parties are backing same sex marriage. Now they just need to get over the last hurdles to make it a reality and insert same sex marriage into the Irish constitution.

Numerous commentators have raised the possibility of inaccurate polling, comparing the polling on the referendum to the polling on the recent UK general election. While it is doubtless that there are shy no voters, just as there were shy Tories, it is likely that there is not enough of them to sway the vote significantly. The polls surrounding the UK election where somewhat different. Rather than showing a significant lead for one side, as the Irish marriage referendum polls do, they showed both sides at around the same levels of support. Support for same sex marriage in Ireland on the other hand is polling at 70 per cent compared to 30 per cent against, once the undecided have been removed. Only 13 per cent are claiming to be undecided, an insignificant number that is not going to cause a massive upset although may cause the gap between yes and no to narrow. Another major poll shows support at 69 per cent when the undecided are included and 73 per cent when they’re excluded.  

The so called ‘shy no voter’ is inevitable in a referendum on something like this. It’s a topic that is highly charged and passionately argued about, it’s inevitable that some no voters would rather keep their vote to themselves. Some of the major parties have been lobbying their members who may be against or undecided on Friday. Those affiliated to Fianna Fáil are most likely to vote no, polling figures range from 42 per cent to 47 per cent voting against. However Fianna Fáil has attempted to garner support among its members. Yesterday evening they sent out an email to members explaining clearly and simply what the referendum was about, why it was important and addressing common concerns about the same sex marriage such as the issue of surrogacy and adoption. Fianna Fáil’s leader Micheál Martin has also advocated the Yes vote relentlessly during the campaign. During a recent interview with Vincent Browne he dismissed the issues surrounding the referendum, arguing that ‘The question is simple: who may marry and who may not marry – nothing more’. The shy no voter is not likely to be the Yes campaigns biggest challenge, the undecided aren’t a significant number and parties are attempting to address fears as well as they can. 

The biggest challenges for the Yes campaign will be getting out the Yes vote on the day. If they are to realise anywhere near their polling figures, it is vital that people are not apathetic about the referendum and don’t assume that polling figures means that the referendum will pass with ease and they don’t need to vote. This has previously been a problem in Irish referendums. The initial Nice Treaty referendum suffered from an extremely low turnout, only 34 per cent, and the no vote triumphed. However a referendum on the same Treaty, with some further assurances from Europe on issues such as military neutrality, saw turnout at almost 50 per cent and passed, the no vote stagnating but the yes vote grew substantially with almost twice the number of people voting for the Nice Treaty. This suggests that turnout was a major factor in the Nice Treaty referendum rather than a serious objection to the content.  Polling data suggests that getting out the vote will be particularly important as voter turnout is usually higher among older age groups and those in the 65 and older category are most likely to vote against same sex marriage. 18 to 24 year olds are the most likely to vote Yes however they are also less likely to vote. In the last push before voting opens, these are the voters that must be inspired and convinced that their vote matters.

The possibility of Ireland being the first country to legalise same sex marriage by popular vote is something for Ireland to be very proud of. Once same sex marriage is a part of the constitution it is protected from easy changes and can only be altered by another referendum. The biggest hurdle now will be to get out the vote, particularly those who may not normally vote but feel strongly about same sex marriage. This is far more important than worrying about shy no voters or the possible inaccuracies of opinion polls. History has shown that low turnout can sway referendums in ways that the majority of the population didn’t necessarily want such as with the Nice Treaty. If people vote and don’t take the Yes vote support for granted, then Friday will be a historic moment for Irish politics. 

Getty.
Show Hide image

Angela Merkel's call for a burqa ban sets a disturbing precedent

The German chancellor's plan for a partial ban of the full-face veil is a clearly political move, which will do more to harm those women who wear it than protect them.

 

In these febrile times, women’s freedom and autonomy has become a bargaining chip in the poker game of public propaganda — and that goes double for brown, Muslim and migrant women. Angela Merkel should know as well as any other female politician how demeaning it is to be treated as if what you wear is more important than what you say and what you do. With the far-right on the rise across Europe, however, the German chancellor has become the latest lawmaker to call for a partial ban on the burqa and niqab.

We are told that this perennial political football is being kicked about in the name of liberating women. It can have nothing to do, of course, with the fact that popular opinion is lurching wildly to the right in western democracies, there’s an election in Germany next year, and Merkel is seen as being too soft on migration after her decision to allow a million Syrian refugees to enter the country last year. She is also somehow blamed for the mob attacks on women in Cologne, which have become a symbol of the threat that immigration poses to white women and, by extension, to white masculinity in Europe. Rape and abuse perpetrated by white Europeans, of course, is not considered a matter for urgent political intervention — nor could it be counted on to win back voters who have turned from Merkel's party to the far-right AFD, which wants to see a national debate on abortion rights and women restricted to their rightful role as mothers and homemakers.

If you’ll allow me to be cynical for a moment, imposing state restrictions on what women may and may not wear in public has not, historically, been a great foundation for feminist liberation. The move is symbolic, not practical. In Britain, where the ban is also being proposed by Ukip the services that actually protect women from domestic violence have been slashed over the past six years — the charity Refuge, the largest provider of domestic violence services in the UK, has seen a reduction in funding across 80% of its service contracts since 2011.

It’s worth noting that even in western countries with sizeable Muslim minorities, the number of women who wear full burqa is vanishingly small. If those women are victims of coercion or domestic violence, banning the burqa in public will not do a thing to make them safer — if anything, it will reduce their ability to leave their homes, isolating them further.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, racist and Islamophobic attacks spiked in the UK. Hate crimes nationally shot up by 42% in the two weeks following the vote on 23 June. Hate crimes against Muslim women increased by over 300%, with visibly Muslim women experiencing 46% of all hate incidents. Instances of headscarves being ripped off have become so common that self-defense videos are being shared online, showing women how to deflect the “hijab grab”. In this context, it is absurd to claim that politicians proposing a burqa ban care about protecting women: the move is transparently designed to placate the very people who are making Muslim women feel unsafe in their own communities.

When politicians talk about banning the burqa, the public hears an attack on all Islamic headscarves — not everyone knows the difference between the hijab, the niqab and the burqa, and not everyone cares. The important thing is that seeing women dressed that way makes some people feel uncomfortable, and desperate politicians are casting about for ways to validate that discomfort.

Women who actually wear the burqa are not invited to speak about their experiences or state their preferences in this debate. On this point, Islamic fundamentalists and panicked western conservatives are in absolute agreement: Muslim women are provocative and deserve to be treated as a threat to masculine pride. They should shut up and let other people decide what’s best for them.

I know Muslim women who regard even the simple hijab as an object of oppression and have sworn never to wear one again. I also know Muslim women who wear headscarves every day as a statement both of faith and of political defiance. There is no neutral fashion option for a woman of Islamic faith — either way, men in positions of power will feel entitled to judge, shame and threaten. Either choice risks provoking anger and violence from someone with an opinion about what your outfit means for them. The important thing is the autonomy that comes with still having a choice.

A law which treats women like children who cannot be trusted to make basic decisions about their bodies and clothing is a sexist law; a law that singles out religious minorities and women of colour as especially unworthy of autonomy is a racist, sexist law. Instituting racist, sexist laws is a good way to win back the votes of racist, sexist people, but, again, a dreadful way of protecting women. In practice, a burqa ban, even the partial version proposed by Merkel which will most likely be hard to enforce under German constitutional law, will directly impact only a few thousand people in the west. Those people are women of colour, many of them immigrants or foreigners, people whose actual lives are already of minimal importance to the state except on an abstract, symbolic level, as the embodiment of a notional threat to white Christian patriarchy. Many believe that France's longstanding burqa ban has increased racial tensions — encapsulated by the image earlier this year of French police surrounding a woman who was just trying to relax with her family on the beach in a burkini. There's definitely male violence at play here, but a different kind — a kind that cannot be mined for political capital, because it comes from the heart of the state.

This has been the case for centuries: long before the US government used the term“Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe the war in Afghanistan, western politicians used the symbolism of the veil to recast the repeated invasion of Middle Eastern nations as a project of feminist liberation. The same colonists who justified the British takeover of Islamic countries abroad were active in the fight to suppress women’s suffrage at home. This is not about freeing women, but about soothing and coddling men’s feelings about women.

The security argument is even more farcical: border guards are already able to strip people of their clothes, underwear and dignity if they get the urge. If a state truly believes that facial coverings are some sort of security threat, it should start by banning beards, but let's be serious, masculinity is fragile enough as it is. If it were less so, we wouldn't have politicians panicking over how to placate the millions of people who view the clothing choices of minority and migrant women as an active identity threat.

Many decent, tolerant people, including feminists, are torn on the issue of the burqa: of course we don't want the state to start policing what women can and can't wear, but isn't the burqa oppressive? Maybe so, but I was not aware of feminism as a movement that demands that all oppressive clothing be subject to police confiscation, unless the Met’s evidence lockers are full of stilettos, girdles and push-up bras. In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel uncomfortable on the rare occasions when I have seen people wearing the full face veil in public. I've spent enough time living with goths and hippies that I've a high tolerance for ersatz fashion choices — but do wonder what their home lives are like and whether they are happy and safe, and that makes me feel anxious. Banning the burqa might make me feel less anxious. It would not, however, improve the lives of the women who actually wear it. That is what matters. My personal feelings as a white woman about how Muslim women choose to dress are, in fact, staggeringly unimportant.

If you think the Burqa is oppressive and offensive, you are perfectly entitled never to wear one. You are not, however, entitled to make that decision for anyone else. Exactly the same principle applies in the interminable battle over women's basic reproductive choices: many people believe that abortion is wrong, sinful and damaging to women. That's okay. I suggest they never have an abortion. What's not okay is taking away that autonomy from others as a cheap ploy for good press coverage in the runup to an election.

This debate has been dragging on for decades, but there's a new urgency to it now, a new danger: we are now in a political climate where the elected leaders of major nations are talking about registries for Muslims and other minorities. Instituting a symbolic ban on religious dress, however extreme, sets a precedent. What comes next? Are we going to ban every form of Islamic headdress? What about the yarmulke, the tichel, the Sikh turban, the rainbow flag? If this is about community cohesion, what will it take to make white conservatives feel “comfortable”? Where does it stop? Whose freedoms are politicians prepared to sacrifice as a sop to a populace made bitter and unpredictable by 30 years of neoliberal incompetence? Where do we draw the line?

We draw it right here, between the state and the autonomy of women, particularly minority and migrant women who are already facing harassment in unprecedented numbers. Whatever you feel about the burqa, it is not the role of government to police what women wear, and doing it has nothing to do with protection. It is chauvinist, it is repressive, it is a deeply disturbing precedent, and it has no place in our public conversation.

 
 
 
 

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.