What not to wear

French plans to outlaw the wearing of Islamic face-veils will not achieve anything of importance, and are, for the most part, a crude interference with private choice. I suspect that, after a few  weeks during which Muslim militants will create deliberate confrontations, the law will be as rigorously enforced as (say) Britain's rather more important law against using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.

The real problem for France and for most other European countries is that they have permitted large-scale immigration from Muslim countries, and under the rules of multiculturalism they have from the start permitted and even encouraged Muslims to live differently from other citizens. the choice has  been made. It's gone too far to stop with gestures of this kind. A ban on Islamic dress, by failing, will only serve to emphasise that these countries are well on the way to an accommodation with Islam. All that remains in doubt is how generous that accommodation will be. I have long said that it is quite possible that much of Europe will become formally Islamic in the years to come. The only real question is how long this will take.

                

The eradication of Christianity from laws, customs, ceremonies, education and culture in general will make this process much easier than it would have been when these countries were actively Christian. I only hope Professor Dawkins is pleased as amplified calls of 'Allahu Akhbar' waver and echo from the Islamicised towers of redundant Victorian churches in the damp and misty air of North Oxford.              

Islam is in general becoming more militant about the veiling of women.  Only 30 years ago in the Middle East, most urban women went uncovered in cities such as Cairo or Beirut. Now the hijab, or headscarf, while not a legal obligation, is fast becoming universal. Not wearing it has become a statement, just as wearing it was a statement 30 years ago.

Conformity makes life simpler, so most women conform, and it is virtually impossible to find out what they really think about it any more.                           

Something similar is happening in Central Asia, where Islam was once driven back by the combined force of Kemal Ataturk and Josef Stalin. Veiling is common in the formerly Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tadzhikistan. On a recent visit to Turkey, I noted the growing popularity of Islamic dress among urban women. Or is popularity the wrong word? Prevalence, certainly. The popularity is (I suspect) largely among increasingly Islamist menfolk, though I spoke to some young women who had enthusiastically adopted the hijab at some cost to their careers - wearing it is still, I think, forbidden on the campuses of state universities.         

By the way, can we try to get the terminology right in any discussion? There's a tendency for people to assume that all Islamic female headgear is described by the word 'burka' (spelled in several different ways). It is not. The hijab - by far the most common -  is a headscarf, usually worn to cover all or most of the hair. The Niqab, almost invariably black, is a mask which covers the whole face apart from a narrow slit for the eyes, worn with a scarf which totally covers the hair. The burka is a garment which shrouds the entire body,. Rather than having a slit for the eyes, it has a cloth grid, through which the eyes cannot be seen. There is also a garment, whose name I do not know, worn by the women of Kashgar, in which the face is entirely covered (not even the fine grid of the burka) so that the women look alarmingly as if they have risen from their graves and are walking the streets in shrouds.         

For myself, I don't mind all that much. The first time I saw a woman in full niqab scurrying through the security barriers at the BBC TV Centre in London, I thought it ridiculous and muttered something along the lines of 'Oh, for heaven's sake!'. Though the place was busy and noisy, and I had spoken softly, she (with the amazing sensitivity which people sometimes have to scrutiny when they are themselves a bit nervous) turned and gave me a long, surprisingly expressive look, of mingled annoyance, resentment and scorn. It is amazing how much expression can be conveyed by the muscles around the eyes.                 

Since then, I've come to think that - providing they lift their veils for full facial inspection on the rare occasions where facial identification is desirable and necessary - they're welcome to wear what they want. In fact, I suspect that Islamic militants would be most displeased if we just ignored this aggressive separatism, and behaved as if it wasn't going on.               

But if you don't want an Islamised society, rather than messing around with clothing laws, here's another thought. May I suggest that you work out what your answer to that fierce, simple and easily-understood religion's consoling precepts is. Yes, we currently have bigger guns and better bombing planes, but so what? We are richer. But will we always be? We can get drunk (and we do). Is this a big advantage, either morally or materially? Likewise, the use of our women's freedom to dress as they like. Faced with the choice of beholding a tattooed ladette displaying  a muffin top glowing with fake tan, or a Muslim woman in full niqab, most of us would at least hesitate. I put this mildly.     

I have more than a suspicion that our existing society continues to survive without revolt or collapse only because it gets a little richer each year. Once that prospect is gone, and the succeeding decades instead bring shrinking pay packets, higher prices and fewer jobs, where will minds hungry for solace and comfort and hope turn to? Thanks to half a century of active secularism, most people in this country are quite clueless about Christianity and wouldn't know where to begin with it. If a religious revival comes (and we're about due for one) who is best placed to take advantage of it?