jump to navigation

Quinn: Hammer of Islam June 2, 2008

Posted by smiffy in Gender Issues, Irish Labour Party, Islam, Religion, Secularism.

Ruairí Quinn should know better.  According to today’s Irish Independent, he has stated that he opposes the wearing of the Islamic hijab by girls in Irish schools, stating that:

A manifestation of religious beliefs in such a way is unacceptable and draws attention to those involved. I believe in a public school situation they should not wear a headscarf.

Now, this is the kind of flat denunciation is the kind of thing one would expect from Fianna Fáil, or Fine Gael.  Indeed, the latter’s education spokesperson, Brian Hayes, supported Quinn’s position, while throwing in a little show of his knowledge of Islamic religious practice (“The wearing of the hijab is not about religiosity, it is more an example of modesty. It is not a fundamental requirement to be a Muslim”), pint-sized Tariq Ramadan that he is.  However, one would have hoped for a more nuanced response from the Labour Party to the question of how to accommodate different faiths in a multi-faith education system , and it would be interesting to know whether this is official Labour Party policy, or something Quinn blurted out in response to a query from the paper.

Now, if one advocated a real separation of Church and State, and the establishment of a genuinely secular education system, which would necessitate the absolute removal of any and all religious influence from every school in receipt of exchequer funding (my own view, incidentally) then, while it wouldn’t require a ban on the wearing of the hijab by students (any more than a secular state would prohibit the wearing of crosses by passengers on public transport), Quinn’s position might seen principled enough.  However, that’s not the Labour policy.  In fact, the issue of the management of schools (which is central to the question of secularising the system) is barely touched on in Labour’s own education policy, and even then only in the context of the building of new schools.  Not a word about religious control of already existing schools.

As Ruairí Quinn is well aware, or should be, the term ‘public school’ means very little in the Irish context.  He may be talking about community schools (at second level), but these are rather few and far between.  Alternatively, he may be speaking about all schools which are publicly funded.  However, surely the hypocrisy of calling for the prohibition of the hijab in a system which has nuns on the payroll is too much, even for Labour.

Assuming Quinn means community schools, he is de facto arguing for a system of multi-denominational schooling where those of the majority faith on the island have the choice of religious or secular education (wherever you find a community school, there will also be Catholic-controlled schools present), but where those of minority confessions don’t have the same privilege.  Suggesting, for example, that there should be no problem with the hijab in Islamic schools isn’t much use to Muslim students in areas where there are no such schools available (and where it’s unlikely there ever will be).  This is a point raised by Fintan O’Toole  (sub req’d) in a similar context – the question of the Sikh Garda Reservist who wanted to wear a turban.  O’Toole stated:

For my own part, I do not think Sikh officers should be allowed to wear turbans, or Muslim officers allowed to wear hijabs. I entirely agree with Garda spokesman Kevin Donohue when he says that “the person standing in front of you should be representative of the police force – not a Sikh police officer, not a Catholic police officer, not a Jewish police officer”.

Such a stance can be hard on Sikhs and members of other faiths, but it is the only way to avoid a Balkanisation of State services, not just in the Garda or Army, but in schools, hospitals, the Dáil and the courts. The preservation of a public realm that everyone enters equally as a citizen is a value of greater importance than any individual’s right to express a personal identity while performing a State service.

The problem is that this State has absolutely no right to take such a stance. So long as we refuse even to discuss a non-sectarian education system, so long as we evoke a specific religious belief system in every aspect of our system of governance, we have no right to tell anyone that they have to keep their religion separate from their public function. Unless we are to practise naked discrimination, the logic of our current system is that our police officers can wear turbans, hijabs or Jedi light sabres – anything that is required by their faith. We also have to provide a range of religious schools in every community, all paid for by the taxpayer. We have to start Dáil sessions not with one prayer, but with at least 25 – one for each of the main religious groupings in the State – and with an atheist evocation of humanist principles.

Or we could just cop on to ourselves and start creating a public realm in which all religions are respected because none is invoked.

However, aside from the question of the nature of education system in this country, there was another, rather worrying undercurrent to Quinn’s comments, one which suggests that they weren’t just ‘ill-thought’ as Phillip Watt rather generously stated, but point to a rather distasteful foundation to Quinn’s views.  He states, in opposition to the wearing of the hijab, that

If people want to come into a western society that is Christian and secular, they need to conform to the rules and regulations of that country

going on to add

Mr Quinn said immigrants should live by Irish laws and conform to Irish norms.

“Nobody is formally asking them to come here. In the interests of integration and assimilation, they should embrace our culture,” he said.

with the piéce de resistance:

Irish girls don’t wear headscarves

Glossing over the cheap laugh at the stupidity of the ‘Christian and secular’ comment, this is moving far beyond the question of the secular state and into the kind of position one would expect to find held by the BNP.  I don’t invoke that organisation lightly, and make no apology for doing so.  While we are all familiar with the argument that criticism of Islam is not necessarily racist.  However, the counterpoint to this is the fact that when groups like the BNP do attack Islam, they do so from an obviously racist standpoint, and precisely on the ground staked out by Quinn in the piece above. 

Quinn is, in fact, saying that Muslims are – by definition – foreign.  The girl at the centre of the current case, Shekina Egan, cannot be Irish (despite the fact that her father is a native of Gorey) because ‘Irish girls don’t wear headscarves’.  He’s pulling every racist trope from the book, suggesting that no one asked ‘them’ to come here and that they should embrace ‘our’ culture.  It would be interesting to see how Ruairí Quinn might go about defining ‘our’ culture, distinguishing it from all others, but I somehow doubt he’s thought that through.

Not only does Quinn’s position betray an, at best, phenomenally insular and ignorant mindset, it’s also incredibly short-sighted.  Even if one accepted the necessary premise of the argument – that the only Irish Muslims are first-generation immigrants and, therefore, not really ‘Irish’ at all – how does he propose to answer the inevitable demand for equality from future generations, those who are born in Ireland, of Irish parents, and who will rightly point out that they are both Irish and Muslim?  All the talk of ‘our culture’ will ring rather hollow then, unless one falls back on the old Gaelic and Catholic definition of what it is to be Irish.  Indeed, it’s this very attitude in other countries which has suceeded in alienating and radicalising many young Muslims, leading them into the arms of fundamentalism and, in some cases, violence.  When Muslims in this country are told by religious radicals of the future, that they will never be accepted as Irish, and that Islam is their true home, statements like Quinn’s could well stand in support of the claims.

Readers will notice that I haven’t touched on the issue of the hijab itself, i.e. whether it is a symbol of oppression and of the inferior status of women in Islam.  That was deliberate, although I acknowledge that it’s a valid and important question to raise.  However, it’s not the ground on which Quinn bases his opposition to this latter-day wearing of the green.  If he did, I might have some sympathy.  Rather he’s chosen to move in the direction of little Ireland, of insular monoculturalism and of the vilification of cultural difference.  Is this really a path down which Labour wishes to follow?


1. Garibaldy - June 2, 2008

I have no problem with the banning of all religious symbols in schools or government workplaces, but Smiffy is total right to demolish Quinn’s assinine comments, which do have racist undertones. I guess this is of a piece to some extent with Rabbite’s attitude to foreign workers – the threat to our jobs, our culture etc. Can’t say I’m surprised, though if this is the left of the Labour leadership, we are in for some lean times ahead.


2. CL - June 3, 2008

“where all religions are respected because none is invoked”-This about sums up the constitutional position in the U.S. Ireland would do well to follow this republican tradition. Not that such rights are automatically granted. The case of the Sikh train driver Kevin Harrington in NYC is instructive.


3. steve white - June 3, 2008

labour’s education policy is bankrupt and cowardly

quinn doesn’t know the meaning of secular


4. Wednesday - June 3, 2008

Excellent piece, Smiffy.


where all religions are respected because none is invoked”-This about sums up the constitutional position in the U.S.

Yes, except that the constitutional position in the US also allows for individual religious expression, which means that there is no problem with schoolchildren wearing hijabs in public schools. There is sufficient precedent for Kevin Harrington to win his case, as well.


5. Conor McCabe - June 3, 2008

Excellent piece.


6. Damian O'Broin - June 3, 2008

Excellent, if depressing piece Smiffy. I hadn’t read Quinn’s comments prior to reading your post and I have to say I’m profoundly depressed by the line he’s taken.

There is indeed an argument for not allowing the wearing of a hijab in public schools – though I don’t accept it myself – but Quinn’s conflation of muslim with foreign is shocking.

“Christian and secular” – for feck’s sake, he’s an educated man.



7. Dan Sullivan - June 3, 2008

Is Quinn going to demand that we prevent students coming into schools with ash on their foreheads in future?


8. WorldbyStorm - June 3, 2008

“Irish girls don’t wear headscarves”

Hmmm… I personally remember a time when a large cohort women, young and old, wore headscarves – certainly well into the 70s. Granted not quite the same thing, but hardly as exotic a bloom imported into the Irish cultural context as Quinn proposes (btw, great post). Very very disappointing.

Do all political careers end on the right?


9. sonofstan - June 3, 2008

Do all political careers end on the right?

Tony Benn.


10. Conor McCabe - June 3, 2008

Ruari Quinn. Ireland’s future minister for secular goatees.


11. steve white - June 3, 2008

i listened to ruari quinn on the radio talking on the radio about trying for months to get info on the number of prefabs in the country, hanfin kept saying she didn’t have the info cos all the schools are separate institutions, likewise the dept of ed in this headscarf said it was up to the individual school, but quinn didn’t suggest centralising management of schools so this sort of information would be available and we could see how all our schools are doing and take responsibility for it. bankrupt and cowardly is he really a labour politician


12. Iftikhar Ahmad - June 3, 2008

Comment deleted by smiffy: No spamming!


13. D.J.P. O'Kane - June 3, 2008

I’ve spent the last semester teaching a class that included a hijab wearing muslim woman.

The sky did not fall in, surprisingly enough.

As for Ho Chi Quinn, ‘contemptible’ is the only word suitable to describe him.

Why don’t Labour just merge with the Blueshirts and have done with it?


14. jacobeck - June 3, 2008

such a great post.
thanks for sharing your thoughts.


15. Ian - June 3, 2008

There is an obvious (and absolutely ridiculous) contradiction between saying ‘we’re a christian and secular society’. I would imagine he meant ‘a society with the values of the Judeo-Christian Europe and the rationalist (and liberal) philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment’, which would be a fair enough comment. However what he is quoted as saying is scarily stupid and typical of the guff we see from the anti-immigration reactionaries on the far-right. I sincerely hope Ruairi meant otherwise and was just a badly phrased sentence.

Yet if anyone has followed Gordon Brown’s efforts to define ‘Britishness’ of late, one can see how simplistic and silly such attempts can be. I am broadly in favour of ‘intergation’ in terms of integration, but of the sort where the basic rights found in European liberal democracies are accepted by all, rather than some narrow nationalist exclusionary dogma. I’ve just read ‘Irish Freedom: The Histort of Nationalism in Ireland’ by Richard English (great read, btw) and the thing that stands out to me is that Irish Nationalism has always tended to be rather sectarian and exclusionary, even the so-called secular nationalism of Wolf Tone et al (of course, all nationalisms are arguably as such; but we don’t need to return to the extremes we’ve seen on this island north and south). If we were to take Ruairi’s logic to its conclusion, we’ll be back to the 1950’s again, with all its stifling Catholic orthodoxy. I always thought Ruairi was a man who actively sought a change in this sort of Ireland to the more liberal one we have today.

On a final note, banning hibjabs (although I see the secular argument) is essentially missing the wood for the trees. If we do that, we’ll have all our Muslims in muslim-only schools. How on earth are muslims supposed to integrate in schools (a good forum for this to occur) when our silly rules actually preclude them from interacting with non-muslims?? What we really need is non-denominational or multi-denominational schools in this country, not more mindless segregation.


16. Garibaldy - June 3, 2008


Ban faith schools as well and the problem of where to educate people of all religions and none is solved.

If you enjoyed English’s book, then you might be interested in the destruction of it by Brendan O’Leary in the Field Day Review of Books from 2007. There is a link from O’Leary’s website at the University of Pennsylvania, but it doesn’t seem to be working. For myself, I’ll simply say that anyone who regards an internationalist revolutionary like Tone as a nationalist has no understanding of him or his politics.


17. Ian - June 3, 2008

Banning faith schools would be my preference too Garibaldy, but schools where all religions and none are taught would be my fall-back position. Ideally, I would hope the former would be the case.

I must confess I know very little about Wolf Tone’s thinking so I’m not sure if you were directing that comment about misunderstanding his politics at me or at Richard English! My comments above were based on what I read in English’s book which I thought was a good account of that area of history I know little about (ie. 18th and early 19th century Irish history). I’ll have a look for that review though.


18. CL - June 3, 2008

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
(1st Amendment, U.S. constitution).

There’s no need to ban faith schools: just make it illegal for them to receive public support.
And those who wish to wear a religious symbol-turban, headscarf, rosary beads, whatever,-in a public institution should be reasonably accommodated.


19. Garibaldy - June 3, 2008

I was directing them at Richard English. And a lot of others 🙂


20. Ian - June 4, 2008

Phew! That said, I was surprised English didn’t even mention the Nine Years War in his narrative – an event I think would be crucial to any account. Anyway, I’m getting well off topic here.


21. Garibaldy - June 4, 2008

Well that is the fun of debate. I think the problem with the book is it set itself very ambitious targets and failed to meet them.

On CL’s point about making it illegal to give public funds to religious schools. That means if they can be funded, the damage to society that comes from dividing children from each other is still done.


22. Claire - June 4, 2008

Great, great post smiffy.

I would add to WorldBy Storm’s comment on “Irish girls don’t wear headscarves” that when THIS Irish girl was at school (I’m 23, so it was hardly the 1970s!) I was taught by no less than three hair-covering women.

The fact that they were Catholic nuns makes no difference in my mind. If we let teachers cover their hair – and they do, in convent schools and community schools – we should let the students also.


23. D.J.P. O'Kane - June 4, 2008

The worst of it is that Ho Chi probably doesn’t even believe this rubbish, he just thinks it might be a vote-winner.


24. Wednesday - June 4, 2008

Ban faith schools as well and the problem of where to educate people of all religions and none is solved.

You’d have to ban home-schooling too. Not that that’s necessarily a problem.


25. Conor McCabe - June 4, 2008

What I find hilarious, and equally sad, is that Quinn has taken the terms of a debate happening in England – which doesn’t have a tradition of nuns wearing headscarfs and teaching in public schools, nor the economic, social, and cultural history of an education system directed and maintained directly by the Catholic church – and applied them wholesale to Ireland – which does have a tradition of headscarfs worn by staff, as well as fundamental input from the Catholic Church: a church that has suddenly become ´secular´ in Ruari’s eyes order for the transfer of analysis to occur.
The fact that he called for a ban on headscarfs, and used the British secular education argument to do so, reveals that most Irish of actions: let’s look to what’s happening in England and apply it here, even if the facts on the ground make such an approach useless.

Facts get tossed out even in the most gentle of political debates. But Ruari’s analysis is such a denial of the history and current reality of education in the South as to make Fr. Dougal Maguire’s embrace of the facts amost Chomskian in comparison.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: