The public discourse in the west regarding Islam has a distinct needle-stuck-in-a-groove quality to it. First the niqab, then minarets, then shariah, then the niqab... and so on. More recently, the discourse has become even more repetitious with just one issue being reported over and over again - the niqab.
Like many other Muslims the world over, I wish we could just move on, just agree to disagree and leave it at that. They can go away from the debate thinking we are medieval prudes; we can think they are hypocritical Islamophobes but hey, this is the UK and we are all allowed to think these sorts of things and, just as long as we pass niceties about the inclement weather, the disappointing performance of the (insert any national sport) team, or perhaps a few disparaging comments about bankers whilst waiting in a queue somewhere, then it's OK. We are British, it's what we do. But somehow, when it comes to the niqab (or the burka as the right wing press loves to inaccurately and continuously call it) there is no respite from the barrage. It's as if those who set the parameters for public discourse in the west have decided that the niqab-wearing woman pushing her kids on the swing in the park is a one woman Luftwaffe squadron ready to unleash an Islamic Blitzkrieg in an urban setting near you.
To add a further element of frustration, it seems that even when we defend our sister's right to wear it in an eloquent and forthright manner (as this young woman did when she demolished UKIP leader Lord Pearson's arguments in a television discussion), it doesn't move the debate forward and, just like a scratched LP disc, the mood music against the niqab disjointedly flicks back to the start yet again.
But just as any student of history will tell you, those who attempt to destroy Islam will almost always start with the modesty of Muslim women. Whether it was while the French jackboot was choking the life out of colonised North Africa, or the secular extremists of Turkey, or even the last Afghan king before he fled Kandahar in his Rolls Royce, the mechanics of their rule and power seemed always to be centred around uncovering women against their will. Despite Islamophobes like Hitchens and Sarkozy thinking that they were the first to stumble across this most clever and wonderful idea - to liberate women by controlling them - they would be disappointed to know that their "big idea" is merely a rehash of old prejudices and hatreds.
The concept of "hayaa", or modesty, runs right to the heart of this religion. As I have mentioned before, Muslims seem to be the last bastions of modesty in this world, with other religions falling by the wayside on this issue. The hurdles for Muslims are becoming even more pronounced with the introduction of full body scanners – the new type of airport security device which transmits completely naked images of the person inside the scanner for the perusal of an unseen operator. When UmmahPulse commented on this previously, we speculated that it would only be a matter of time before an airport security employee was caught leering rather than looking - and hey presto! A few short weeks later, we hear the report of an airport security guard suspended after ogling his female colleague after she mistakenly entered the scanner. The incident only came to light because this ridiculous pervert was foolish enough to compliment this colleague on the pleasing proportions of her anatomical attributes, whereupon she promptly reported the incident. One can only wonder how many times similar conversations have occurred but as the person being exposed was a mere passenger, she remained unaware of her hidden humiliation.
These scanners were introduced as the result of the Christmas Day bomber's failed attempt to explode an aircraft over Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear. Any Muslim complaints were usually met with a raised eyebrow and the unspoken accusation that we as Muslims had brought this all upon ourselves. However, it remains entirely unproven whether the scanners are at all effective detecting low density explosives; they are entirely ineffective with explosives that have been inserted into a body cavity, and such bombs can be just as effective, as one Saudi prince found out.
Yet despite this, the scanners have been introduced without any option of reversing the decision, or at least this is what I thought up until this week, when I chanced upon a consultation paper from the Department for Transport.
It calls upon "stakeholders", which in real terms means any UK resident, to write to the Department if they have an issue with the body scanners to convey their opinions as well as any suggestions for change.
However, this public consultation has been very poorly advertised and, leaving aside any discussion of whether such a low profile was entirely deliberate, the fact remains that the consultation (which began on 29 March 2010) ends on 21 June 2010. That provides only 23 days in which to mount an effective information drive so that ordinary Muslims can register their disapproval of this technology. However, given the ability of the internet to cascade information quickly and widely, it can be done.
Silence on our part will be seen as tacit acceptance and one can almost imagine the condescending response from any government minister quizzed about this if we fail to mount a descent response: a shrug of the shoulders and a small smile playing around the lips, he/she would say: "Well, you claim that there is a great deal of feeling among British Muslims but the reality is that the only responses we received during our 3 month public consultation process were from outside the Muslim community."
That would be game, set and match to the government, unless we disseminate this information as widely as possible and urge everyone to respond.
The consultation specifically mentions that if people who have been selected to be scanned refuse, then they will not be allowed to fly. This draconian measure has been implemented so that ‘acceptable levels of security can be maintained’. This seems preposterous especially considering that in the US - the country at the epicentre of this "war on terror" and so most at risk of attack (indeed the only aeroplane related incidents have involved the US with flights within or terminating in the US being targeted) - anyone refusing a scan is ushered aside for a pat down. Why this disparity? If the US is content to pat-down anyone with a problem with scanning, I cannot see why this option is denied to UK travellers, especially as we slavishly follow the US in every other aspect of our terrorism response.
Make no mistake, despite weasel words in the press statements of the airport authorities about the images being so altered that distinguishing features cannot be made out, examples of the images produced by these scanners are freely available from news reports and they clearly leave nothing to the imagination. It beggars belief that we are sleep walking into a situation where images of the breasts and genitalia not only of ourselves but our parents, spouses and yes, even children, will be made and examined by a perfect stranger and, despite all of it, we will all still be at no lesser risk of terrorism than we were before.
The new government has vowed to withdraw plans for identity cards on the grounds, among others, of invasion of privacy. The government needs to realise that there are few things more private than images of your and your family's naked bodies and if an identity card infringes privacy, then a naked scanner most certainly does.
Writing emails can be arduous at the best of times and one may opt for the easier choice of internal outrage with no external action. However, in order to motivate us all we should reflect on the hadith of our blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallāhu 'alaihi wassallam) had said:
"Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith."
(Muslim)
Imposing naked scanning on the UK population is objectionable and we - each and every one of us - has a duty to attempt to change it.
What we want you to do is as follows:
- Email Mike Alcock of the Department for Transport in order to log your disapproval of the scanners and suggest that, at the very least, a pat-down should be offered in place of a scan. Ensure that you mention that you are emailing as a private individual and not as part of an organisation. There is a letter template below but please take the time to personalise your email as this carries greater impact.
The Department for Transport prefers email responses:
copconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk
...but has also provided an address to write to if snail mail is preferred:
Mike Alcock
Department for Transport
Zone 5/12
Southside
Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT - Sign the online petition at 10 Downing Street.
- Email this article to as many people on your mailing list as you can. We need to have as many responses to this consultation document as possible and to avoid giving the impression that our silence is tacit approval.
The Prophet Muhammad (sallallāhu 'alaihi wassallam) said: "If you lose your sense of shame, then you will do anything." How right he was.
Email Template
Dear Mr Alcock,
I am writing to you to express my concern over the nude body airport scanners. I disapprove of, and oppose, such scanners on the grounds of violation of privacy and human dignity. After considering the numerous reports which explain the functionality of these scanners, they are a clear demonstration of immorality and infringe upon the personal rights of passengers.
Britain has always been a country which has protected human rights, and I value my right not to be physically exposed to others, whether in front of a male security officer or a female one. How can the trivialization and legal enforcement of nudity, along with the infringement of people's rights, be justified by the unsubstantiated pretext that it will make us all be safer? It goes against any semblance of a civilised society to force nudity on citizens.
I fully support necessary measures which enhance the safety and protection of all passengers. I am, however, concerned about the use of the intrusive body scanners for this purpose. The citizens of this country, as educated and cultured people, should not be put in a position where we have to choose between our security and our dignity. It is totally unnecessary, especially given that other technologies exist which are proven to detect the presence of questionable materials without infringing upon the modesty of passengers and humiliating them.
I would appreciate the option of a pat-down search (when needed) for those passengers whose modesty and dignity prevents them from being subjected to a naked body scan. This alternative has already been implemented in the United States.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
0 comments:
Post a Comment