Backlog: this article was written August 12th 2018
Update: 29/10/2019 – As Boris Johnson is now our new Prime Minister, there is clearly more reason than in August 2018 to be talking about him. However, if Boris’ polemical style hadn’t been so effective in boosting his popularity over the years, then this article likely wouldn’t have needed to be written. It remains to be seen how Mr Johnson handles his position – complex and insecure as it is right now. But, if the first few months of his leadership have been anything to go by, it looks like there will be quite few substantive issues to call him out on in the coming years. Strap in my friends, it looks to be a bumpy road ahead.
A lot has been said in recent weeks about the controversial comments made by Boris Johnson in an article he penned for the Daily Telegraph, concerning the recent law banning the burka in Denmark. In the cacophony of noise, rage and moral panic surrounding his article, in which he compared Muslim women wearing burkas to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”, there has been shockingly little discussion on the actual substance of Mr Johnson’s article.
After searching through many sources, some vilifying the former Foreign Secretary as rampant bigot and others praising him as a hero of free speech, I realised I still didn’t know what Mr Johnson’s position on the Danish ban actual was. One would think the far more important question – “what does the potential future Prime Minister actually believe about a legal ban on the burka?” would be a far more useful metric in judging the man’s character than a couple of poor taste jokes. Especially since such risqué comedy was likely only thrown in as an attention grab, and to double-down on the “bad boy of Brexit” image that BoJo has been capitalizing on since the referendum.
So, in the interest of throwing some light on the discussion of whether Mr Johnson is a rampaging Trumpian racist, or a slightly buffoonish contrarian with basically liberal views, I’ve decided to review Mr Johnson’s original Telegraph article. (Pity me, my friends, a more gruelling public service I cannot possibly fathom.)
Johnson’s article starts with a lyrical account of his own experiences in Denmark, which he gushingly describes as a kind of proud liberal paradise – a country populated by towering Viking individualists, proudly defending their own currency, chewing on their “carcinogenic tobacco”, and diving through the bracing morning winds into the icy depths of the Copenhagen Harbour. Johnson claims that if ever a country embodied the ideas of classic liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, it would be Denmark.
This entertaining start is followed by some predictable remarks about Denmark’s role in resisting the early growth of the European Union (in the form of voting down the Maastricht Treaty of 1992). Not wanting to get bogged down in a debate about Brexit, I will leave this Eurosceptic posturing for another time.
This small point aside, Johnson then begins discussing the Danish burka ban, which passed on August 1st (2018), outlawing the niqab, burka and all other “attire and clothing masking the face in such a way that it impairs recognizability”. He talks about the passing of the law in Denmark with shock, which is strange considering how he chose to describe the country. That Eurosceptic, somewhat nationalistic Viking wonderland is not so far away conceptually from a nation which would support a burka ban in the interest of cultural integration, even if this also conflicts with a focus on individual rights. In fact, this slightly contradictory image is indicative of a tight-rope Johnson has been walking ever since his soiree further to the right: his enthusiastic liberalism and individualism (especially in relation to economic activities), conflicted with his belief in old-school conservative values such as national independence and social harmony (to be achieved through greater controls on immigration).
These are the lynchpins of the kind of right-wing which Johnson is now a part of, his balancing act between Eurosceptic champion and Cameron-like liberal Tory leading to contradictions on issues such as this. It will be interesting to see how this Janus-act that Boris and many of his colleagues are now following will play itself out. Will one head manage to fully eat the other in the Conservative Party of the future?
Anyway, back on track. In the case of the burka ban, Mr Johnson seems to have shown his more liberal face. This is perhaps the key thing that has been missed amongst all the recent conflict – as offensive as his comments may have been, Boris does not support the ban itself. Take note: one of the most controversial figures on the mainstream right in this country doesn’t in fact believe in a legal ban on the burka.
So, what are we to make of his incendiary comments? “If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you” he says, before firmly criticising the institution of the burka on the grounds of women’s rights. I find myself in the position of agreeing with Mr Johnson here. For my money, there is no more potent symbol of the religious oppression of women in the modern world than the burka, which has been denounced by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as being a regressive (and surprisingly modern) tradition which has taken root with little scriptural grounding. An example of such denunciation comes from leading imam Dr Taj Hargey of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, who stepped in to defend Johnson by saying “The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim.”
Of course, there are may other Muslims worldwide who would staunchly defend the burka, Muslim women included. Despite this, I see no issue in being able to criticise the institution as regressive, especially considering the vested interest all of us have in a liberal society, in tackling illiberal and regressive traditions. Mr Johnson goes on to discuss the restrictions he believes appropriate on the freedom to wear a burka – a nuanced and difficult debate that he does utterly no service to by pausing to say women in burkas resemble “bank robbers”.
My own view on the appropriate restrictions on the freedom to wear burkas differ from Mr Johnson. He argues that a female student in a University can be asked to remove a burka to aid in communication, and likewise in an MPs office, such as when Jack Straw MP asked a Muslim constituent to remove her veil while talking to him. His points here are weak and somewhat petty. While communication via facial expression is deeply important, this is not an excuse to demand a student or local constituent to remove a religious artefact – which they may very well feel more comfortable wearing in a public setting. In all but those cases where the burkas removal is absolutely necessary (for instance in the interests of security or identity verification), then to demand its removal here simply seems needlessly insensitive.
Johnson is stronger when discussing the issues with a total ban on the burka, as instituted in Denmark. He says rightly that to institute a total ban will be construed as making a general point about Islam and all Muslims, thus feeding into the unhelpful “clash of civilisations narrative” of the Christian West vs the Muslim World. Johnson is right to challenge this narrative, which has taken root in much political thinking in this area –the nationalism of the far right and the identity politics of the far left both being guilty in part for trumpeting such a tribal view of world politics.
Mr Johnson concludes that the Danish law is heavy-handed and “not the answer” to the questions of liberalism raised by the burka. His core message is sound, despite the bombastic wrapping in which it was presented to us. My main reaction on finishing the article was being oddly disappointed at the lack of anything truly controversial about it. Believe me, it would have been far easier to write yet another article slamming Mr Johnson for being a bigot and a buffoon.
As a matter of fact, despite his offensive locker-room jokes about the appearance of burka-wearers, Mr Johnson’s view tallies with what many people in mainstream politics think on the Danish burka ban: that it fights a minor social evil with an even greater one. I’m sure many people have taken genuine offense to the letter-box and bank robber comments. I’m also sure that Johnson threw out these “careless” terms entirely intentionally to drum up media attention and to appease his base.
Drawing from this, then, its probably wise that we conclude the whole discussion of what should be “done” to Mr Johnson. Nothing beyond baseless reprimands will be given, and the man really hasn’t said anything that could merit such a severe backlash anyway. The substance of Mr Johnson’s argument is mainstream social liberalism, made to sound radical with politically incorrect jokes, and then dusted with some light feminist critique of the burka on top. The real question to be asked is, aside from his imminent bid for Prime Minister (gulp) and his bombastic polemic style, is there really any good reason to be talking about Boris Johnson right now?