lord of the blog

« Aviation and climate change | Main | Mary Seacole at the Rosemary Branch »

Friday, October 06, 2006

The Niqab or veil and Jack Straw

I am pleased that Jack Straw made the comments he did in his typically thoughtful way.I think it helps flag up the importance of the debate I referred to in my article for the Muslim News below.

I believe that as women we should reject Jack Straw's attitude and arrange a day or week even, of solidarity with muslim women and their right to choose. We should nominate a day and we all wear a veil

This protest will echo that in reverse, of the protest made by the population of Denmark, when Hitler made all Jews in Denmark wear a yellow star. In response, the King of Denmark himself wore a yellow star and the whole population followed.

By all women coming together for one day to wear the veil, we can learn what it feels like to wear a veil and we can express solidarity with our Muslim sisters. The date I suggest is the 1st November

best wishes
Liz

Is there a difference between hijabs on one hand and chadors, niqab or burqas on the otherhand? Or is it just a difference without significance?

I understand the problem people have with the veil. It is difficult for many non-Muslims, particularly men, to know how to form any kind of relationship with a veiled woman. It is as if they have said they don't want to talk, they are shutting themselves off from you and in the current climate could even be taken as rejection of non-Muslim society. I know that this is not what women wearing the veil are intending to do - many think it should prompt men to think about what they say and who they are rather than what they look like. But the effect is the opposite of what they intend.

A friend of mine from an elite Sudanese family descended from the Al-Mahdi rejected both hijab and veil, claiming that in the West it revealed more than it concealed - it brought out the worse rather than the best in Western men: curiosity, animosity, etc. She said that Islam demanded modesty and in her opinion in a Western context that simply meant wearing trousers and unrevealing tops. However, in Sudan she wears he hijab and does not associate with men unless she has a male member of her family with her. She believes that Muslims should bear in mind the cultural context they practice their religion. It does not mean compromising your faith, but adapting your behaviour. I think she is right.

While I don't think that Muslim women should have to change themselves to bend to the prejudices of non-Muslim men, they should think carefully about the cultural context in which they live. The irony is that many Muslim women adopting the veil are British-born and have mixed with the non-Muslim population. They are not from a village in Pakistan. They know the context and they should understand the reaction.

In many ways, the veil is a statement of rejection of the West in political terms and this is bound up with the war on terrorism, which led to the illegal and unjust. I don't think the supporters of war, like Clive Soley, truly appreciate the fact that the invasion of Iraq has severely undermined community relations in the UK. This coupled with the way in which anti-terror raids have been conducted and the Menezes shooting (without any punishment of Ian Blair) is worse than the veil in the way that it has put up a wall around the Muslim population. The refusal to acknowledge this is further alienating Muslims, who increasingly feel victimised. So, if you want to tackle the subject of the veil, also consider what has led many young British-born Muslim women to wear it as a political statement.

Additionally, I am totally astounded that Jack Straw would suggest that Muslim female constituents unveil their faces when talking to him. It is outrageous and insensitive. Politicians have no right to suggest what people should wear, even if they believe that the veil is socially divisive.

For a start one should give Jack Straw credit for his assiduous discharge of his responsibilities as a constituency MP whilst serving in the highest offices in the land. His example is by no means unique, but he could easily get away without doing the number of advice surgeries he does in person by delegating to his agent and constituency office staff. This reputation was part of the reason why he comfortably survived the high profile anti-war challenge by Craig Murray in the General Election.

I concur with many of the points Dan makes. The niqab may have a social role in Sunni Arab/African societies, but one can’t help associating it also with the misogynist and medieval behaviour of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and several other countries where it was/is rigorously enforced alongside the systematic denial of education and other basic human rights to females.

I won’t pretend to be a fan of the ‘hijab’ headscarf. I still find it disturbingly suggestive of female subservience, but it’s really no different to a turban, yarmulke or even Rastafarian dreadlocks. In many ways, particularly in view of Britain’s weather, the hijab has a practical purpose as an item of clothing, what it symbolises I have reservations about, but its wearers don’t especially alienate me any more than people who wear their Christianity, Buddhism or any other theological superstition on their sleeve do.

The niqab or burka however are in another category again. They are, frankly, alien. By completely cutting off any more than basic transactional interaction with the wider wide, non-Muslim society they send out a message of separateness and lack of an individual identity to which the face in western societies at least is so important.

snowflake5 makes the point that women wearing these garments “can't work, they haven't money of their own, they can't mix with people outside their families and communities, they can't look good, they can't even have coffee with friends at M&S.” Her point about the liberating aspect of work among western women in the last 100 years is well made.

As a recently retired MP, Clive will know the number of times he has been asked to take-up complaints or issues by people he suspected might not be revealing the whole truth. Of course in theory one should make such judgements based purely on the evidence presented – but in that case, many deprived people who are unable to articulate their case properly themselves and who go to their MP as a last resort, would be turned away.

The point about constituency MPs is not that they should be social workers to 80,000 odd people, or even operate as alternative advice bureaux, but that they should take up difficult cases on behalf of citizens who have been treated unfairly and have failed to receive redress by other means. Such casework is complex and resource intensive, but it ultimately does more good than acting as an amateur social worker or advisor. Jack’s staff in Blackburn are no doubt very good at dispensing basic advice, referring constituents to the appropriate agencies and following-up.

Top politicians, like top poker players, may perhaps be more adept at reading faces than the rest of us, but it is disturbing for pretty much any westerner, male or female to converse with a fully veiled woman. One feels like one is talking to the veil, not the person inside. It seems to me to ‘de-humanise’ the individual wearing the burqa or niqab.

Straw says that he doesen’t demand that consitituents remove their veils, but that to date all have agreed to do so. I would surmise that few of those who come to their MP as a desperate last resort would wish to upset their opportunity to tell their tale to someone with the potential authority to lift a phone and sort things out would feel obliged to decline on grounds of islamic purity. Doubtless he will shortly be visited by one who refuses to. Although of course in practice there is no reason why one shouldn’t lobby one’s MP about a position they have taken, it would be nice if she has a legitimate personal grievance too.

Intuitively I think Dan is right in suggesting that veil wearing British born muslim women appears to be on the increase. Dan says that the wearing of the full veil
“is a statement of rejection of the West in political terms”.
I tend to agree. It is a statement of a rejection of the social and political values whose development has underpinned western judeao-christian society since at least some women stopped being treated as chattels around the 16th Century. Specifically it is a rejection of the basic principles of feminism and women’s autonomy. It is a statement in support of literalist and dogmatic reading of the Koran by people living in a 21st Century liberal democracy and it is this religious fanaticism (which would be familiar to John Knox) that is unable to bring itself to terms with the 21st Century.

I don’t pretend for a moment that every observant muslim woman who wears the full on veil is a radicalised fanatic, but do these articulate talking heads on Newsnight really speak for them? What is the incidence of domestic violence is observant muslim households compared to the national median (why not consider tabling that one Clive?)

If motorcycle helments are barred from banks and post offices and hoodies from shops, what about the black moving objects? I predict that in the coming few days we may read about petrol stations being held up and other misdemeanors committed by criminals disguised in burka’s. Ah well, if it moves the debate on …

I don't think politicians should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot wear.

You're our bloody servants.

Or had you forgotten.

I HAVE never commented on or raised the subject of the veil, earlier. I have been present at various discussions on it but I was never able to, until now clearly take a side, my ignorance of the subject being the reason.

I spent the 1st 15 years of my life in Saudi Arabia, a country that has been the icon of growth, prosperity and development in the gulf. It has been a symbol of Islamic culture and the heart of the Islamic civilisation. In this duration, had I been asked to count the number of Arab women that I met, greeted or had the pleasure of conversing with I wont be able to recollect more than 4 or even 5 at the most...

My curiosity lead me to express myself on the mystery behind the veil
Its a series of entries regarding my entries on the blog and will be posted one after another in succession.
Heres the link to my series on The Women In Black (W.I.B)

http://blogme.mykarma.in/464/W.I.B.html

I spent the 1st 15 years of my life in Saudi Arabia, a country that has been the icon of growth, prosperity and development in the gulf. It has been a symbol of Islamic culture and the heart of the Islamic civilisation. In this duration, had I been asked to count the number of Arab women that I met, greeted or had the pleasure of conversing with I wont be able to recollect more than 4 or even 5 at the most.

My curiosity of the hidden mystery that lies behind the veil in those mesmerising eyes has lead me to write a series of entries on the W.I.B
WOMEN IN BLACK,

http://blogme.mykarma.in/464/W.I.B.html

Jake,

I half agree. The public indecency laws should be abolished and the Naked Rambler saluted for taking the direct action he did.

On the other hand there is a clear case for health and safety legislation requiring the wearing of hard hats and flourescent clothing on construction sites and restrictions in the food processing industries for example.

Clive is a peer of the realm. He is nobody's servant.

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.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: