Seeing as how everyone seems to be in the mood for some good old-fashioned political debate this weekend, I figure its time the veil controversy is mentioned on our blog.
Im sure youre all familiar with the latest events in Europe in particular, a young Mulsim teaching assistant dismissed from her job in the UK because she refused to remove her veil. UK House of Commons leader Jack Straw said he prefers it when women in his district remove their veils when they speak with him, and Tony Blair called the veil a mark of separation.
Generally when debates like these rage, I tend to defend rights of freedom of expression. I just dont think she should be forced to cross the boundaries of her beliefs against her will just because she doesn’t see the world the way we do.
But that line of thinking only takes me so far on an issue like female genital circumcision, cultural sensitivity doesnt mean jack to me, I dont think that kind of brutal assault on a womans body (anyones body ) should be tolerated in Canada.
And when it comes to the veil I cant deny that theres something about it that makes me so uncomfortable. But I dont think it has anything to do with the veil supposedly being a ‘symbol of foreignness’ or that it signifies a ‘rejection of western values.’ I just dont like not being able to see who Im talking to. When Id chat with girls wearing the niqab in my classes in university, it just felt so strange to not be able to see their faces.
I think my discomfort really just stems from my feelings about women in society any society being held to a different standard than men. Im talking about all sorts of demeaning and humiliating norms for women from the drunk freshman marching in wet T shirt contests, to the little old ladies dressed in black toiling with bad backs while their husbands sit around drinking coffee all day, to the young women who’s faces Ill never see because theyre hidden under a veil. And its important to remember that theres heated debate in the Muslim community about what the Quran really prescribes in terms of dress for women.
But although I dont like the idea of the veil, I respect womens right to wear it. I admit, however, I laughed heartily when one of my friends cracked: They should have the right to do what their told.
I want to know what our readers think of the veil debate, and about Swedens controversial integration and equality minister, Nyamko Sabuni (a Muslim woman) who has said that girls under 15 should be banned from wearing the veil, as they are below the legal age of consent. Im inclined towards her idea; I wonder if many young girls who dont want to don the veil, but do so under threat of punishment, might be glad of such a law. But Im neither Muslim, nor a teenager, and I fully admit that I cant understand what its like to be both at the same time.
What do you guys think?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
eight comments
Re: Sweden
I'd say that depends whether or not women over there are simultaneously told by caucasian-culture magazines that they're never going to attract a man who'll treat them well (because even good men go for attractive women) if they don't make themselves look attractive and told by caucasian-run courts that they "asked for it" if men--or even a gang of men (whose goodness or badness won't be determined by the court while deciding to drop sexual assault charges, because it'll be considered less relevant)--sexually invades their personal space.
I've seen Swedish magazines, so I can tell you they're no angels about the first message.
I don't know much about the reality of the Swedish legal/justice/punishment system. A 15-year-old girl from a family that is willing to punish her for not wearing the hijab is likely a 15-year-old girl who would be found to be "asking for it" if anything happened to her while dressed as she wants to be dressed (or, even, as Swedish media tells her she should want to be dressed in the interests of finding a decent man). If the police, the prosecutors, the DAs, the courts, the lawyers, etc. will refrain from ALSO sending messages that women "ask for it" when they do what they're told to to have a chance at catching the attention of men who won't abuse them (ha!) then maybe Sweden can go ahead and tell the families that they aren't allowed to dress their daughters in a way that implies the burden is entirely on the daughters. BUT...if Sweden is not that understanding of a legal system, then the government has no excuse to force girls 14 & under to dress in a way that other branches of that government will imply meant she "asked for it."
I can't find any specific citations of this happening in U.S. or Canadian courts at the moment; I'm at work. The idea only popped into my head because of a vague reference to the phenomenon that I read this morning. If you ask me to, I will look up specific citations.
Posted by Katie
October 30, 2006, 1:51 PM
While there are many useful critiques on this topic, I'm going to share this link to the blog of academic and writer James Laxer (this ran in the Globe and Mail, apparently):
http://www.jameslaxer.com/blog.html
He makes an interesting argument about who is fuelling the debate over the veil: the loudest protest (or at least the cries being given the most media attention) is coming from powerful, white men like Jack Straw, who shroud their protest in broad strokes of acceptance and wanting Muslim women to look like everyone else. As Laxer writes:
"What gives the narrative about the niqab its traction in the media is that it is the thin edge of the wedge in a critique of Muslims in general, not just those who wear the niqab. The question that is being asked, in a highly coded way to be sure, is whether Muslims constitute an alien presence in our society. Can they be relied upon to fit in as immigrants, to assimilate and become members of our society? Or will they be a dangerous, separate people, and even a source of terrorist recruits for attacks on us, with repeats of attacks like the suicide bombings in London in the summer of 2005?"
Posted by Nicole
October 30, 2006, 6:06 PM
Why didn't my posts posted as "me@me.com" show up? Because of the bounced e-mail address? *sigh* I think I said some really important stuff...any chance those are in some moderation backlog that they could be brought out of? I'll post with this e-mail address from now on. Thanks!
Posted by Katie
October 31, 2006, 11:47 AM
GAH. We have an automated spam-catcher on the site that handles all of our comments, and generally it's quite good. Your comments are the first false positives I've ever seen, and I'm guessing it's the me@me.com that did it (it's not that the messages bounced, it's probably a dummy address spammers use a lot to get past the e-mail check).
Anyways, all your comments are back (I think). In the future, if you're going to use a fake e-mail address, be creative and use something no spammer would bother to come up with, like "nowhammiesnowhammies@bestgameshowever.net".
And now, back to the discussion.
Posted by Wesley
October 31, 2006, 12:14 PM
Thank you! That's the one I generally use to be private yet take little time to type it.
I'll refrain from it on this site. Much appreciation.
Posted by Katie
October 31, 2006, 1:03 PM
FYI, there's a piece in today's Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Cont...
about a Muslim woman living in the Peel region, Farzana Hassan, who feels she has been attacked by the Islamic community for her refusal to wear the niqab (her house was egged).
Katie and Wesley - seeing as how Katie's comments are safe and sound, mind if I delete the discourse on the temporarily deleted posts?
And Wesley - can you tell me how to put a link to a site in a comment (as opposed to a new post), I can't seem to figure it out!
Posted by zoe
October 31, 2006, 1:30 PM
Whoops, I am quite late on replying to this post!
I think in any situation it's important to put the conflict in the context of the racial/political/
economic/etc climate it takes place in. If Islam was as respected and accepted a religion in Western society as Christianity, I would think that the problems people have with it were more benign. But the whole kerfuffle around Muslim womens' dress started after (or around?) September 11th, and it's impossible to separate that event from the issues people have with the hajib and naqib etc.
I get very uncomfortable and upset with arguments of "internalised oppression" etc etc because they just seem so condescending. As distressing as female genital cutting is to us in a different society, if a woman chooses to have it done, it just seems so disrespectful for people in the West to try and get it outlawed and to dismiss the women who assent to it as self-hating.
I feel the same way about the dress - if someone chooses to do so, what business is it of ours? No one ever runs after nuns and tries to convince them to take their habits off. Can you imagine the controversy if that happened? (Interestingly, a large number of my teachers wore habits). So how is it that a hajib/naqib are "marks of separation" and a crucifix, a kippah, prayer beads are not?
It's ironic too, that a country like England who has a long history of racism in particular towards South Asian/Middle Eastern immigrants, now have a problem with the very people they have ostracised at other points in history trying to keep to themselves - if that's indeed what people are doing in wearing hijabs, which I don't really think they are. It reminds me of how here in Canada, when Chinese immigrants came over at the turn of the century they were totally segregated, if not by explicit laws than by poverty - and then they were criticised for being too insular and not contributing/integrating with Canadian society.
Gah. It makes me mad.
Posted by Thea
November 4, 2006, 5:53 PM
I think it is wrong to allow a group of people to seclude themselves from society by masking their face. The veil worn in public makes it clear that 'they don't to be part of society'. In view of the reasons for the veil being worn 'men are pressumed to have no control over their sexual urges and women that don't cover are pressumed to be without dignity' i think it's highly immorally and offensive to all men and women, when this garment is worn. It judges all men to be sex beasts and women without dignity. No one should be given the right to discriminate against men and women in public. Nor should they be allowed to cry racist when challenged about showing their face. Racism doesn't come into it. Racism is a lever being used to further a right to wear a garment that is a religious symbol no less. Religious beliefs of this extremeness belong in the home or places of worship where they don't infringe on the rights of others. In addition, the veil gives out mixed messages to different people, i asked a young boy why he thought the teacher hid her face when the man came in the classroom, he replied 'the women had done something wrong and was scared of the man'. That insight from a 9 year old boy is shocking. That said, the actions of the veiled teacher teach young girls cover up its shameful to show ones body', it also teaches that women are submissive and that men are to be feared. These are indoctrinations we don't want to force onto children in schools. The veiling could also cause young boys to grow up resenting women as it tells them 'you are not worthy to share my space'.
As for the outcry in regard to jack straws request, a simple one that most of us never need to be asked 'can i see your face', i find it laughable that he was labelled as being racist. Eye tests require the face to be unveiled, so does dental treatment and operations? I take it that all veilers go without these things??? So are these people that offer these services also racist? I think not. When the racist card is played by veilers its nothing more than an attempt to get their own way. Where is my right to see who i am talking to? Racism has no place in this issue. This issus is about veilers wearing a uniform to identifiy their difference. I also perceive it as a display of their intolerance for people that are different to them. To allow a group of people to wear publically their beliefs over their head and face is intimidating, it also ensures they dont have to participate in society. The purpose of the veil is to cause a barrier, it does that with flying colours. I feel let down by the powers that be for allowing this divide to happen. Showing your face is respectful in uk. Helmets are removed out of respect, so are hoodies and hats. Why should a group of people be allowed to hide their face? No one elses difference offends me as they don't hide their face and peer out from behind a veil. This is 2007, not 700. No one should be able to make others feel as if they are not worthy. Religion has too much importance in society and it's all one sided. No one should have the right to wear a portable barrier to keep out those different to them. I do think human rights are being manipulated by veilers and that they have the upper hand. What about the rights of others that don't hide their face? We have none. Only in the workplace can a female be prevented from veiling, as it's sexually discriminating against men when they veil among them.
Communication problems caused by veils are another matter. Voices are muffled under a cloth. I could go on about this issue but i think the video of the teacher on u-tube makes clear the difficulty in understanding what the teacher was saying. She too had trouble understanding the questions put to her.
When veilers liken their right to veil to that of a surgeons, its laughable almost. Some other instances of masks worn are below: Bike riders helmet is worn to protect the head from injury should they crash.
Surgeons or dentists' surgical mask
is worn to protect from blood splashes and to prevent infection. It's also smaller and thinner and attaches around the ears. Its the surgeons/dentist duty to protect the patient and themselves from infection.
Rugby and hockey players face mask and helmet is worn to protect from injury.
Welder's mask is worn for health and saftety reasons.
Fencer's mask is worn to protect from injury.
Not veiling doesn't cause the wearer health and safety issues. Veils are also not required for speech. If they were life saving, i would accept them. If the person had a skin allergy to daylight, no one would object as exposure to light can kill people with this condition.
I think all religious dress symbols should be banned from the workplace and schools, so that no one can wear anything religious. That way the rule is fair. Schools are not there to accomadate religious requests, they are there to educate children. Religion belongs in the home and in places of worship. Until this loophole is tightened up, there will not be equality among men and women. France and Turkey imposed dressing curbs, why on earth can't the UK. On a larger scale, how do we know who we are talking too? If we can't see them....The veil is not a religious requirement in the quran and it's not compulory in Islam, so why is it choice here? How does one know all those that wear it, do so by choice? Given that females would be scared to speak out against their forcer.
Posted by Amy
June 29, 2007, 8:11 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.