The most peculiar aspect of the burqa and nightcap ban debate, the last major national controversy we saw in our debating class, is that the removal of the veil can also be understood in a figurative sense: it is one of those limited cases that can affect some of the inconsistencies of our political systems, which remain shrouded in the normalcy of administrative routine.
Sometimes the meanderings of the endless reasoning of parliamentarism overlap with the emergence of a radical conflict that has long since ended, and a veil was lifted that obscured the reality we faced. If the comforting illusion that has led us to forget that inside politicians always requires a decision about our collective character of society that cannot be solved by formulaic legalisms disappears.
Against the background of the Islamic other, these are the primordial realities that non-confessional liberal democracies seem to have neutralized.
Because, according to the arguments presented in the circulation of politics and analytics, it seems that ultimately the political community is tainted by minimal adherence to dense and inviolable moral principles.
This freedom is not a thaumaturgical fetish that blesses any decision if freedom can be conditioned by circumstances.
This mere consent is not enough to legitimize ethically credible elections.
What actually exists and choque de civilizations insoluble.
This civil friendship based on seed parameters is necessary for the cohesion of society.
Or that the integrity of a recognizable public space is a good thing to socially preserve.
PP representative Ester Muñoz exhibits a photograph of various women in Spain wearing full veils.
A false argument to get to the point of these objections is the apostilization that the burqa is not really a religious symbol.
If it involved the imposition of black genealogy and was limited to fundamentalist squares in the Islamic world, so removing it from the public space would not lead to a violation of freedom of religion. It would be equivalent to banning genital ablation: something achievable according to strict public and legal criteria.
However, it is futile to resort to nominalist truths: since the canon of clothing established by one of the regulations of the theological basis, the burqa compares de facto in political debate as an expression of Islamic faith.
The good news is that both proponents of prohibition and those opposed to pursuing it are addressing the issue of religious considerations. And they compare the burqa to other Islamic practices because a Vox spokesperson has to put it in the same genre as a halal diet or a cordero festival, or a PP spokesperson to assimilate the oppression associated with the full veil to the Islamic veil. this court.
This means you are really confident in the comfort of writing the logic your way religious freedom can be limited by civil power Do you think it affects a woman’s dignity?
The PP, which defended the drug from a feminist perspective, postulates that “any symbol that represents the subordination of women in public space” must be banned. But by the same rationality I can decide I also respected the equality of women while excluding female priesthoodas it is in the Catholic Church.
It is not a plantar eye conjecture, in a country described as ours and a i hate fidei as anti-clerical as whoever attributed the question, that the same secular creed of egalitarianism could be used to extend the burqa ban to other public expressions of religion, including Christianity.
At the end of the day, there have been inclusive revisions of the cabalgata de los Reyes Magos in the past. Some suggest the privatization of Holy Week processions. And the government tried to appeal to the Church in the Constitutional Court to deny communion to people living in a homosexual relationship.
If what has been said about the burqa problem is an opening to the antinomies of multiculturalism, the solution does not have to force immigrants who subscribe to contemporary fundamentalist Islam to give up certain insights, leading to an amputation of their cultural identity far more traumatic than the liberal conception of religion allows us to imagine.
Root solution in any case assume the need to select immigration by originpreventing access to our territory to those foreigners whose customs are incompatible with ours.
In fact, all of this suggests that wearing the full veil amounts to a mere publicity exercise aimed at taking a cosmetic approach to this growing segment of the electorate that calls for a toughening of foreign policy.
The animation which Islam inspires in Europe warrants a more serious theatrical fear than those devoted to the rest of foreign communities. But now it seems clearer that the rhetorical inflammation against him intruder Mahometan hides a para handle divert the public conversation from a problem that is really hard to solve.
And it is precisely this type of immigrant that is truly problematic in Spain due to its volume and social impact, not the one that is embossed, not even the one that is seen in the West.
Leave a Reply