Friday, October 29, 2004
There's a warning in the burqa
The court case in which two Muslim women witnesses want to remain behind their veils is a warning regarding the cultural future of New Zealand.
One of the two woman, Fouzya Salim, who is from Afghanistan, told the Auckland District Court this week she would rather kill herself than reveal her face while giving evidence in a fraud case due to be heard next year. She said to remove her burqa, which she has worn since she was 15, would be embarrassing and against her religion. Another prosecution witness, Feraiba Razamjoo, also wants to remain veiled.
Putting aside the question of whether it is important for the defence lawyer to be able to see their faces, there is the far more important question about whose cultural standards should prevail.
The answer is simple. When people immigrate to New Zealand, they should expect to assimilate as far as possible. The Human Rights Act permits people to practice their religion, and so it should. However, there is a point at which religious and cultural practices stand against New Zealand legal and cultural norms which have to be defended. The price we will pay for failing to require newcomers to assimilate will be a country divided, descending into ghettos and a loss of a sense of identity. The law will become a morass of competing idealogies undermined by a loss of confidence in any certain standard.
It is time for the government to make clear exactly what it means by wanting New Zealand to become a multicultural society, and where the boundary lines should be drawn.
The court case in which two Muslim women witnesses want to remain behind their veils is a warning regarding the cultural future of New Zealand.
One of the two woman, Fouzya Salim, who is from Afghanistan, told the Auckland District Court this week she would rather kill herself than reveal her face while giving evidence in a fraud case due to be heard next year. She said to remove her burqa, which she has worn since she was 15, would be embarrassing and against her religion. Another prosecution witness, Feraiba Razamjoo, also wants to remain veiled.
Putting aside the question of whether it is important for the defence lawyer to be able to see their faces, there is the far more important question about whose cultural standards should prevail.
The answer is simple. When people immigrate to New Zealand, they should expect to assimilate as far as possible. The Human Rights Act permits people to practice their religion, and so it should. However, there is a point at which religious and cultural practices stand against New Zealand legal and cultural norms which have to be defended. The price we will pay for failing to require newcomers to assimilate will be a country divided, descending into ghettos and a loss of a sense of identity. The law will become a morass of competing idealogies undermined by a loss of confidence in any certain standard.
It is time for the government to make clear exactly what it means by wanting New Zealand to become a multicultural society, and where the boundary lines should be drawn.
