No of course not. In 21st Century Britain there should be no issue with this. Baroness Warsi would make a great foster mum. She is bright ambitious, well connected and we assume able to square the rights of post industrial westerners with her own possible faith based reservations about a range of western identity pre occupations like sexuality or gender reassignment.
Baroness Warsi, however, was not the foster mum in the recent Uk “Times” story. The foster mum concerned was photographed shrouded in black. The purpose of this traditional dress is that it ensures women observe very strict codes of modesty. This is irrespective of how the woman might feel about this, or indeed how a foster child may view it. The collective pressure of her community and the disapproval of others ensures compliance by te woman concerned.
No little girl “Christian” or otherwise should be encouraged to see women as an object of adolescent like male lust. An object that should be shrouded to prevent community disapproval, punishment or in the case of white girls in Rochdale etc the most appalling and degrading abuse.
Are there any other issues that arise from this sad story about cultural incompatibility? Well yes. Taking a traditional view of a woman’s need for modesty should prompt the local Social Services team to ask further probing questions about the wider rights of women and girls and perhaps how the prospective foster carer views the rights of others like gay people or apostates etc (we should ask similar questions before granting citizenship).
We suspect that these questions are not asked. If they were we suspect that too many religiously observant foster carers would be considered highly unsuitable, and that seems to be Ok as long as their faith is Christan or rather non-Muslim. It’s Ok to have a go at Christians or others, they don’t hit back. This illustrates the point we at Blue Revolution make all the time and that is that in the land of the hard left London Boroughs, the general concern for individual rights including rights under the broad banner of “identity politics” can be set aside in deference to the Islamic faith. But why?
A recent programme on BBC radio 4 covered the subject of Princess Diana. A feminist author took the view that Diana was a practitioner of “victim feminism”. We are not experts on feminism but it sounds like victim feminism is based on the idea that if you claim to be abused, discriminated against and demeaned you have a right to be angry, demand approval, forgiveness, and support, in essence, given “permission” to behave how you like.
Is this what is happening within our western culture with our reaction to the orthodox observance of Islam? It may be that there are two battles going on against the West by Islamists and Islamophiles. One is fought out in the courts by Islamophile human rights Barristers all claiming special status for Islam as a persecuted and victimised faith. Whilst in Parliament the Civil Service and numerous Council chambers “victim” status is established for Islam scaring social workers, police officers and the like into acquiescence on a range of its cultural peculiarities.
The other battle goes on on the streets. On the streets where the cause of Islamophobia has its roots, where Islamism shows its aggressive and murderous side along side it’s general incompatibility with modern values linked to the rights of the individual. There is little if any Contract, Choice, and Consent in orthodox Islam and you can’t expect there to be. These are western notions forged in the white heat of capitalism and industrialization, which are alien to cultural Islam.
The lessons from this sorry tale of the little foster child are that whilst we should not in post industrial 21st century Britain be worried about anyone being fostered by anyone of faith, unfortunately, we have to be when that faith is orthodox observant Islam. Practitioners of orthodox Islam in almost all cases will hold beliefs that contradict a whole range of individual rights identity rights, and modern values. Beliefs that certainly won’t be compatible with the Human Rights Act such as the basic right of gay men to have a life or a woman to be sexually liberated from control by her “guardian” male.
With the skillful application of victim status by Human Rights Barristers within the British legal system and with a left wing Islamophle local government bureaucracy more than happy to champion these “faith victims” above all others, the dialogue with practitioners of orthodox Islam is silenced. We need a grown up conversation, not about Islam but about the values people bring to roles like fostering. The lack of this dialogue is what fuels Islamophobia. Shame on the establishment for letting the people down again!