veiled references

[winterbadger]

I caught the beginning of the Diane Rehm Show this morning, but didn't hear the bulk of it. Her first segement was on the wearing by Muslim women of the full-face veil (the niqab, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqab) in Western countries and Western reaction to it, particularly in light of controversies arising in the UK and US over non-Mulsims' perceptions and reactions to it.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the issues involved; I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts. Do you feel the suggestion by MP Jack Straw that constituents visiting his office remove their niqab to be reasonable or unreasonable? Do you think that the PM was wrong to say that the veil is a sign of separation? Do you believe that niqabis ought not to be required to bare their face to teach, or to identify themselves to police?

I'll use my Pakistan icon, as it's the only Islamic one I have.

Comments

[azbound.livejournal.com]

Anne Applebaum had a great op-ed in the post last week. I'll see if I can find it.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300976.html


I believe that the veil is a sign of separation - though I have no issue with someone choosing to do so. I do believe that niqabis remove their veils to teach. Why would you separate from those you are attempting to connect with to teach? And yes, I do believe they should have to unveil for the police.

[wolfette]

the teaching assistant who caused a lot of the controversy here in the UK felt that she should be able to keep her veil on while she taught (grade school children), because she had male colleagues who might see her face.

[winterbadger]

That's a good op-ed, IMO.

[murdergeisha.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's a sign of separation. Why can't they wear a medallion of graphically slaughtered underfed man nailed to a piece of wood like the rest of us?


Anything's a sign of separation if you look at outward symbology and expect to decode from it reasons or methods of interaction with the person sporting them, whether they be a Sikh turban, a black trenchcoat or a FUBU hoodie.

[wolfette]

to be frank, it's a difficult one for me. Most of the women I know who have chosen to wear the niqab say they have done so as a "women's liberation" decision - it removes them from the whole "judging on appearances" thing and allows them (they feel) to be judged by their words and actions.

However I feel that if we insist that motorcyclists remove their helmets in banks, etc, for security reasons, if we ban teens from shopping malls for wearing "hoodies" and baseball caps for the same reason, then why allow the niqab in those same situations?

And then there's the problem of "hearing impaired". IIRC Jack Straw - though he doesn't make a big deal of it, doesn't even claim "disabled" status for it - is totally deaf in one ear. (if it's not Jack - and I think it is - then it's another MP) *I* am not "hearing impaired", but I know that when I'm not wearing my glasses, I sometimes have problems following conversations that are not purely "one on one" - I miss the various "non-verbal cues" that tell me the speaker has changed, that someone else wants to speak, etc.

So I'd say that the wearing of the veil should be the right of any woman in the street, where they would be exposed to the random gaze of strangers, but in their workplace, in conversation, in banks, anywhere identity needs to be confirmed, then they should be willing to uncover their face - but still keep their hijab on.

[pisica.livejournal.com]

anywhere identity needs to be confirmed

Interesting tidbit I picked up when doing some invigilation for the Open University last month - Muslim women can wear veils that cover their faces, but after the exam they need to go into a room with a female invigilator and remove it so it can be confirmed that they are who they say they are. (Everyone taking an exam has to bring photo ID.)

[winterbadger]

(if it's not Jack - and I think it is - then it's another MP)

Yep, he has tinnitus, according to press reporting.

[wolfette]

as do I.

[kmusser]

I think it is a sign of separation, but if someone wants to wear a sign of separation they should have the right to do so. I think Jack Straw is being unreasonable, there is no special need in his case. I think niqabis should be required to bare their face if asked by the police or in other cases where they have a legal reason to need to establish their identity. In the teachers case I not sure, probably yes if they're teaching language because I'd think it would be hard to be an effective teacher in that if your mouth is covered - I'm not sure that necessarily carries over to other subjects though, if they can teach effectively with the niqab on then more power to them.

[flyingwolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's a sign of separation, but so are a lot of things. Nothing wrong with signs of sparation (except when they are violence related - i.e. gang colors.

MP Straw - what's the point of meeting with someone if you can't see facial expression or often even have eye contact. If he takes phone calls instead fine. There are safety issues involved.

They should be required to identify themselves to police - would be a great costume otherwise to hid in. (maybe there should be some kind of accomidations.. but I'm not sure if techology is up to that in areas where this is more of an issue.

Teachers - depends. I can see their point about teaching young children a different language. See the person's mouth could help the kids with pronunciation. If they are teaching kids that arn't used to that garb then it could be scarey to the kids.
but for a lot of other things, it shouldn't matter.

[dativesingular.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Personally, I find it a little unsettling to not be able to see someone's face, but that's just been my cultural upbringing and I'm also uncomfortable with forcing that on other people.

[winterbadger]

That was also the POV of one of the Muslim women participants in the DRS discussion; she actually said she finds it "terrifying".

[histoire68.livejournal.com]

The whole problem with the veil in the first place is that it's basically men telling women they have to cover themselves up - men telling women what to wear. How is this asshole telling women what they /can't/ wear in his office any different? He's just one more man telling women what to wear.

[shy-kat.livejournal.com]

A sign of separation? Yes, but that isn't sufficient reason to outlaw it. It won't fix the separatist attitude.

I just don't know. I can't figure out exactly how I feel about veils. I have big ethical problems with the cultural ideas behind the whole concept, but I definitely *don't* think the solution is mandating that the stop wearing them.

I know they make some Westerners uncomfortable. They also make it harder to read expressions/emotions--which, for me, is a valid reason that teachers probably shouldn't wear them--kids need those extra signals that they are used to.

As a complete aside, I noticed a *lot* of women in full veil at Tyson's mall last Sunday. Enough that it really struck me as odd.

[principia.livejournal.com]

Without treading back over the ground some of the other commenters have gone over, except to say that I agree pretty much in toto with Anne Applebaum's op-ed, I would say that the fundamental root of the problem is the sense that "the West" gets that modern immigrants (most particularly Muslims in Europe and Hispanics here in the States) are extremely hypocritical when it comes to cultural sensitivity.

The perception is that entire burden of compromising existing social mores is placed upon the societies that these folks claim to want to join, rather than it being a process of assimilation and recombination as the West has historically practiced. And in the case of some groups of immigrants, including both Muslims and Hispanics, some of the cultural traditions that are in question involve taking gigantic steps backward in the realm of civil rights, especially for women.

Is the niqab a symbol of separatism? Yes. Should women have a right to wear one if it's what they want, and it doesn't materially interfere with their job or cause a security risk? Sure. But I wouldn't place it on the same level as someone wearing a cross pendant or a yarmulke, because it involves fundamentally eliminating one of the primary ways in which homo sapiens communicates.

[pusscat.livejournal.com]

I have very mixed feelings about it. From my childcare background, I can see how it's harder to feel you "connect" with someone you can't see. But then again, children don't have the same preconceptions as adults and I suspect they would adapt to the niqab better than most adults would. I find them a little disconcering myself, but I see that as my problem. And most importantly, I feel like, for women who are used to wearing the veil, asking them to remove it is the equivalent of asking me to remove my top so you can have a more meaningful conversation with me - a huge invasion of privacy and not at all appropriate.