Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Lifting the veil

Since the former Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, made some comments about the Muslim full veil, or niqab, a couple of weeks ago, the media in the UK has been in a frenzy. First some background. The article that sparked the controversy was written by Jack Straw for his column in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. For those that don't know the story, it's relatively simple. Jack Straw says that whenever Muslim women dressed in full veil (pictured) come to his MP's surgery for help and advice, he asked in that very British way, "You wouldn't mind terribly, if you could just consider thinking about contemplating removing your veil".

Jack Straw reckons that the communication experience is enhanced if people who are talking can see each other's faces and read their expressions. Perhaps. The comments flooded into the BBC website. Comments such as "Jack Straw must have problems with emails, then. No faces." Worst of all, he offended blind people. Blind and partially-sighted people can't see the people they're talking to, and they'd argue that their interactive experience isn't diminished by being blind. Listen to In Touch, a programme for the visually impaired on Radio 4. (Do it by evening, Tuesday 10th, or read the transcript).

Communication is the reason he cites for asking that his constituents take their veil when they appear before him, however, in an interview with the Today programme, he lets slips his actual motivation. He's worried about "community relations". In other words, the people in a community cannot communicate with a woman who covers her face, in this instance at the behest of her religion. The veil here, acts as a barrier, just as 18-year-old boys in hoodies are intimidating. And if non-Muslim and Muslims who are trying to live harmoniously alongside each other cannot interact, "parallel communities" start to develop.

In one sentence, Jack Straw's comments about the veil is, about how Muslims practise their religion, and how it affects the British society in which they live and belong.

Since the debate is about religion, some see it as a non-argument. If we live in a society where religious freedom is a human right, it is the believers' prerogative to practise their religion as they see fit. However, these are the exact reasons why the issue must be debated.

First of all, there's the issue of the State. Every citizen, who interacts with the state must be, if you'll forgive the pun, naked. Who is beneath the veil talking to Jack Straw? In Islamic countries, where women wear the full veil, they are usually searched and identified by other women. This allays security fears, and the woman can still cover up. If heaven forbid, an accident happened, and a male police officer was on the scene, would he have to wait for a female officer before the woman in niqab can be helped?

The Aishah Azmi furore at the weekend is another interesting case to look at. Most telling is the interview, where she buckle under Peter Sissons's hard questioning.

Such religious expression in the presence of the State invariably melds both together. While countries like France and the US have an explicit separation of Church and State, the Church is still fully intertwined with the State. The Head of State, Elizabeth Regina, is the "Defender of the Faith". The head of the Anglican communion, The Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops sit in the upper House of Lords. He is also chosen by the government, and appointed by the Queen. And if you go back to medieval times when Estates of the Realm meant something, the Lords Spritual was one of the three. The only distinction in this case is that the religion in question is not Christianity, but Islam. If bonnie Prince Charles gets his wish to become "defender of faiths", things might change.

Secondly, there is the debate about why woman wear the veil. Some argue that it's an edict straight form the Qur'an, while others say that it's merely cultural. There's a great debate taking place within Western Islam about how faith can be compatible with citizenry. The question of whether one can be British and Muslim arises time and again. Whether a Muslim's obligation is to the state or to Allah, or if at all there has to be distinction.

The Yasmin Alibhai-Brown contention is that women wearing the veil is an attempted indictment on all men in the West. If the veil is worn to prevent the lecherous advances of men, it almost means that men are beasts of the field who cannot control their primitive urges. In this instance, it means, "back off, I'm unavailable". As this becomes a signal of being unapproachable, nobody approaches a woman in a niqab. So once again, the community relations and interaction argument kicks in again.

Nonie Darwish, contends that the rights gained by feminists who fought for women's rights in the last century have been misused. When women wanted sexual liberation, they didn't expect women to become hard drinking ladettes who are as lewd as the filthiest of gutter-mouth men. It wasn't so that women should take up the worst excesses of men. Likewise with the niqab. Women's liberation was not fought so that Muslim women could wear the veil - by choice. It's almost paradoxical that the choice of the modern woman is seen as a retrogressive by those feminists who espoused choice as a tenet of their liberation.

On the one hand, some women have embraced those rights by utilising them to the full, while other women embrace them by choosing not to use them.

There is the issue of sensitivity on the part of Muslim women who wear the veil. When any woman goes to Saudi Arabia, she covers herself. Someone like Frances Harrison (right), BBC's correspondent in Iran, always wears a headscarf when she's reporting. People visiting certain parts of the Middle East dress appropriately to the host culture. That may be by showing respect, or by diktat. In Western culture, even though culturally people don't wear full veils, there is nothing against it. As a result of liberal democratic philosophy, in theory, you can wear what you want. Some reckon that as Muslims have been allowed to practise their religion in Britain, the least they could do is to be sensitive to British sensibilities. The lands that their forefathers came from in the Middle East and South Asia are not so tolerant of non-Muslim religious practice. The recent case of a man in Afghanistan was facing execution for converting to Christianity is an example.

It's a livewire topic in Muslim countries and not just in the West. Nigeria, despite not being a "Muslim" country (even though we're members of the OIC), has its fair share of "ninjas", as they're disparagingly called. I can't envisage an immediate future where Nigerians are debating the wearing of the veil - it would mean that the country's religious veneer has faded. There might be the occasional ructions between Muslims and Christians, both religious leadership harbour socially conservative attitudes. In this, they are one and the same.

Turkey's secular state has proscribed the headscarf, while only a couple of days ago, the Tunisian government has spoken out against the headscarf. The distinction in the Middle East is quite interesting. In Egypt, more women wear the veil and headscarf now than did 20 years ago, whereas in Tunisia it's not as widespread. It should be also be noted that both countries are de facto police state dictatorships.

No doubt this will rumble on.


Quest said...

I think the issue of "why women wear the veil" is irrelevant. It's about respect. Jack Straw and others like him need to get over themselves - ├Żou can't ask someone who has been veiling to show her face to you just bcuz the veil makes you icky. It's ridiculous that people like him are telling women how to dress. Veil-don't veil...what makes him think he has the right to dictate what muslim women should or should not wear? He's as bad as the muslim men he's so worried about.

Monef said...

My issue with this is that I don't think that it is Jack Straw's place to dictate whether women can wear a veil or not. I do however feel very strongly that as a child I would have hated it if my teacher was veiled. Teacher student relations are difficult to establish without the presence of a physical barrier let alone when you cannot read facial expressions!

Nkem said...

Forget that it was Jack Straw who sparked the debate. There are Muslim women out there who agree with him, is the debate any less valid?

Quest said...

Should the muslim women ban the veil from other women who want to wear it? That is my issue. I'm sure you'll be able to find some women who would agree with Straw's request that ppl unveil when they meet with him...just like you'll find some nigerians who say "all of us nigerians lack critical thinking." House niggers are a dime a dozen.

My point: when it comes to an article of clothing (veiling is not threatening anybody's life) Straw or any of the hypothetical muslim women agreeing with him can't force someone to give up something that holds religious significance for them. That's how I see it. If a muslim woman does not want to veil, she can either stop veiling, start a revolution or dialogue within her religion (which I would support), or leave her oppresive community and live like any other religious person in the world who decides to break rules that make no sense to them. Nobody is dying here.

I think what really infuriates me about discussions such as these is that ppl act like muslim women have no choice in the matter. She carried her hand and put veil for her face. If she doesn't like the veil, she will stop wearing it. Govt (or outsiders to the religion) cannot regulate such things. It's not our right! Now if it's something like FGM that victims are obviously being physically and psychologically abused, that is a different matter.

Another issue that concerns me: this dialogue is not taking place between the ppl most affected by veiling. You're not muslim, neither is Jack Straw or the british media or myself. How is this legitimate "dialogue" when its the nonmuslims bitchin about it? None of us have any right to make the decision for them over a matter that is so culturally specific and non-life threatening.

Quest said...

Nkem there has been an ongoing discussion for weeks now about the burqa at brownfemipower.com from a feminist and anti-imperialist viewpoint...do check it out, then lets talk. it all began here:

and ended here:

Please note that I am not saying the veil is good. like monef said, I wouldn't want to be veiled. And I am against the oppression of women everywhere, and support arab women fighting patriarchy in their countries/communities. What I have a problem with is the imperialist and racist and entitled undertone of western media when it comes to arabs.

Anonymous said...

It probably is not Jack Straw's place to dictate who should wear the veil, but it is definitely within his rights to request that those who seek his parliamentary consultation should reveal who they are.

What next, would we have passports with photos of veiled women if they have to travel? We know, that would just not cut it, the fully exposed face is still the primary form of identification - at least in the West.

I have to take off my hat when I show my passport at customs checks.

This subject of being veiled is not for the emancipated, I fear to say, it is for those whose life revolves around the bedroom, the kitchen and the market.

If you do more, then you cannot seriously take the veil in Western and democratic societies and expect to assessible, friendly and communicative.

My views are further expounded here.

Morountodun said...

Damn! Blair came out today to say that Muslim women shouldn't wear the veil (Niqab) cause it makes other people feel uncomfortable?!? How about the their right to feel comfortable? Its interesting how all the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon as its seen as an indirect way to attack islam and thus win votes. I don't see anyone talking about how the skinheads with their tatoos make me feel uncomfortable (mainly cause I need to resist the urge to knock them the f*** out).

And Akin I disgree that 'those who seek his parliamentary consultation should reveal who they are' him asking these women to remove their veils is about power. He is the elected MP who role is to support his electorate, he is in a position of power and of course if he asks these women invariably they'd be obliged to remove the veil whether they like it or not cause they need his help.

Nkem its very relevant that its Jack Straw who raised the issue. He's been the MP for Blackburn for over 20years (an area that has over 25% muslims) and all of a sudden when he wants to get a hgh profile in order to seek a role as deputy PM after Blair he raises an issue that has been b4 his eyes all this while. Come on...

noherveleger said...

Dsquared Men Dsquared Shoes Dsquared Belt Dsquared Cap Dsquared Hoodies Dsquared Jeans Dsquared Suit Dsquared Sport Pants Dsquared Shirt Dsquared Polo Dsquared T-shirt Dsquared Swimwear Dsquared Shorts Dsquared Trunks Dsquared Jacket Dsquared Denim Shorts Dsquared Down Jacket Dsquared Long T Shirt Dsquared Sweater Dsquared Women Heels Shoes Dsquared Women T ShirtTory Burch Shoes Tory Burch Tote Bag Tory Burch Wallet Tory Burch Flat Shoes Tory Burch Sandals Tory Burch Suede Shoes Tory Burch Boots Tory Burch Heels Shoes Tory Burch Wedge Shoes Tory Burch Flip Flops