many thanks!

[winterbadger]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my previous post; I was trying (not entirely successfully) not to make replies myself because I was more interested in hearing other people's points of view than in having a debate.

I would be interested, however, in discussing reactions to the proposition, outlined in the op-ed Brooke mentioned and elsewhere, that the niqab is not part of the cultural norms of western society, and that the same sort of consideration for western norms ought to apply to people who bring their customs to our countries that people of other nations expect when we westerners visit their countries. Yes, not every western person is offended or upset by women wearing the niqab, but then not every Arab or Afghan or Pakistani is upset by the sight of western people wearing shorts; the fact that *some* will be is considered enough for the courteous visitor to respect local custom, however.

And, yes, I realise that many Muslims who follow traditional practices are not "visitors" to the US or the UK but natives, born citizens of those countries. But I hesitated to use the phrase "born and bred"; clearly they are *not* "bred", that is, brought up in the traditional uses and practices of the nations they live in. Just as the children of US otr UK diplomats or other expatriates living in other countries often adopt a few (or none) of the local customs, may learn the local language, but often do not integrate, these are people who, for whatever reason, choose to live in western countries but not integrate into the populations. So, to my mind, these practices are still foreign practices.

Just my opinions; interested to see what other people say.

Comments

[gr-c17.livejournal.com]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Don't scan it...read it...read it again, good.

I may or may not like the niqab, I may or may not like their other customs, but if it is claimed to come from a religious belief no government or individual has the right to STOP them. If certain Island religions can cut the head of chickens, if certain "richer than God" televanglists can be tax exempt, if certain "cults" can cut themselves off from the modern world, if as a practicing member of certain "friendly" groups I'm exempt from the draft, then how do we with a straight face say "I'm offended or put off by your niqab, take it off"?

Who on winterbadger friends list would really tell a Catholic nun "your habit offends me, take it off"? Or how about telling a Buddhist monk "put on some pants"?

Re-read those words at the top, I'll wait. That is the Ideal to which this country must strive, we may never get there but we need to keep moving in that direction.

[azbound.livejournal.com]

The problem isn't with the robes - it's with covering the entire face, except for the eyes (and in some cases, even those are screened).

This is my own opinion, but if someone were talking to me fully covered, I'd alternate between having a hard time taking the conversation seriously (and not thinking I was somehow dropped into a Scooby-Doo cartoon) to wondering what the speaker was hiding.

I respect the religion. I respect the choice women make (hoping that it really is them making it) to be covered, and if in a Muslim country that required it, I would do the same. But the full covering of the face just doesn't sit with me well.

[winterbadger]

Except that it isn't as simple as that. Religious organizations and religious practices are restricted by law all the time, where it is deemed that society has a legitimate interest in doing so. And that's just in the US, where we have a Constitution that includes the amendment you quote. In the UK, there is no such written constitutional protection for religion and there is, in fact, an established religion (at least in England), even though most of its demands on governance have been relaxed.

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

...not every western person is offended or upset by women wearing the niqab, but then not every Arab or Afghan or Pakistani is upset by the sight of western people wearing shorts; the fact that *some* will be is considered enough for the courteous visitor to respect local custom, however.

First, there is a crucial difference you are missing in this parallel. In the cultures you mentioned, display of certain body parts is actually taboo. In our culture, covering the face is unusual, but it carries no religious or moral weight whatsoever. It's not sinful NOT to show your face. Heck, we just celebrated a holiday that's all about disguise (and candy). It's just not equivalent.

But more importantly, what other countries do isn't really the point, is it? This sort of argument reminds me of when a right-wing friend defended the torture at Abu Ghraib by saying "Saddam did much worse to many more people." It's not a standard worth judging yourselves by.

Whatever laws or cultural attitudes other cultures have is not the point. The point is what should be allowed in a democratic nation that allows free exercise of religion. Unless it is a matter of security or job functionality (which it is most certainly NOT in the classroom, no matter how "uncomfortable" someone is not seeing the teacher's face), then the wearers should be left alone.

[dativesingular.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Not seeing someone's face completely freaks me out, but it is in NO WAY my place to make that call. I'm sure many things about me freak out other people. ;)

[winterbadger]

In the cultures you mentioned, display of certain body parts is actually taboo.

For Muslims, yes. It is not taboo for nonMuslims, but nonMuslims who visit those countries follow their customs out of respect and courtesy. But when Muslims come to our countries and some people say "Please do so-and-so, out of respect and courtesy for us," the answer is "no".

Heck, we just celebrated a holiday that's all about disguise

It's a holiday because it's the one day a year that it's considered appropriate to disguise yourself, to hide your identity, to conceal your real self. It's the exception, not the rule.

To do so the rest of the time is not just unusual: it's liable to make other people uncomfortable, suspicious, hostile; it's likely to make you a target of police scrutiny because, let's face it, for the most part only criminals seek to hide who they are and what they are doing from thiose around them. I invite anyone who doesn't believe this to spend a day walking around a big city (or a small town) wearing a black ski mask.

Whatever laws or cultural attitudes other cultures have is not the point.

I beg to differ; it is exactly *my* point. Because what's happening (IMO) is that people from one culture are expecting treatment in another that they are not willing to accord to others in their own. I am not suggesting that we lower our standards, but that they meet their own.

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

But when Muslims come to our countries and some people say "Please do so-and-so, out of respect and courtesy for us," the answer is "no".

But how is it discourteous to wear the veil? I mean, yes, someone verifying ID needs to see a face, but otherwise?

I think we're mixing up "courtesy" and "safety." I might be uncomfortable with, say, a tarted-up 8-year-old and the parents who let her dress that way, but it's not violating my rights in any way. Whereas a person refusing to allow herself to be identified properly is.

I am not suggesting that we lower our standards, but that they meet their own.

To me, that's not what courtesy is all about. You don't treat people the way they treat you; you treat them the way you want to be treated. And this is a matter of courtesy, not law. I would want the right to dress as I see fit in those countries, so I extend it to those in my countries, even though I don't expect reciprocation.

[winterbadger]

You don't treat people the way they treat you; you treat them the way you want to be treated. You don't treat people the way they treat you; you treat them the way you want to be treated.

But the converse of that to me is that you don't go to someone else's house and ask for things that you wouldn't extend to them if they came to yours.

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying, but again, there are very few ways in which courtesy is enforced by law. (Silence in libraries might qualify.) Courtesy is typically enforced through example (and resultant shame). The "house" example is fallacious once again, because you're talking about the private realm, not the public realm.

[winterbadger]

I see what you're saying, but again, there are very few ways in which courtesy is enforced by law.

Well, I was about to remark how amusing I thought it was that so many comments were addressing legal issue, where that's not really my concern. I can only assume that's a result of much of my readership being American; we're such a litigious society--we seem to think that every social issue is a legal one.

The "house" example is fallacious once again, because you're talking about the private realm, not the public realm.

You may find it fallacious; I do not.

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I happen to have a big fat libertarian streak down the middle of my liberalism, and I like to keep the public/private divide intact. I do understand why you are offended and even a little concerned about the behavior, but I tend to be a bit more, "Eh, fuck 'em" than most people I know.

[winterbadger]

:-) Fair enough.

And, in the end, I am most interested in people's opinions, and while we can debate points of views or such few actual facts as pertain to the conversation, at the end of the day, each person is going to have their own perspective, which may or may not be swayed by hearing others'.

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

True dat. :)

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

Respecting religion is an important part of being a mature, compassionate society -- provided that the practices of said religion are not illegal or dangerous. Obviously, wearing a niqab is not dangerous, nor should it be illegal, but in cases where positive ID is required for safety or legal reasons (identifying oneself to the police, for instance), then the niquab should be removed enough to at least reveal the face. That's just a compromise you make for living in a country with certain types of laws and procedures.

And even in the case of non-illegal, non-dangerous religious practices, there are always times and places. Sure, you can cut a head off a chicken for your religion, but I don't think it's out of line to prevent someone from doing it in the middle of a crowded sidewalk or someone's preschool class. Okay, maybe that didn't have anything to do with the niqab, but I guess what I mean is -- use some common sense along with your tolerance, people. Everyone, the host society and the "foreign" practitioner, must be sensitive to each others' traditions, laws, and expectations. Honestly, why should the task of respect and compromise fall to only one of the parties involved?

Okay, that's enough for now. ^_^

[principia.livejournal.com]

I think one of the basic things that make westerners so uncomfortable with hijab practices is the impression that it's not presented as an option for the women who wear it... and it's quite often only imposed on the women, even though the standards of modesty are meant to apply to men as well. This stands out for me with the frequent occasions in this area when you see a Muslim woman out in public wearing a niqab (or at the very least a khimer, and no exposed skin other than the face and hands) while her husband is strolling around in a t-shirt and shorts.

Having said that, I'll reiterate that if that mode of dress is what a given woman prefers, it should be up to her so long as it doesn't interfere with her work (or on appropriate occasions, security concerns).

I think the occurence that more strongly highlights the problems with the integration refusal of some members of the Muslim community is currently going on at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and in other cities in the Midwest. There's a bit of a scuffle taking place, because a lot of the Muslim cab drivers who work the airport queue have decided that they're going to refuse to transport passengers who violate their Islamic standards for conduct. In addition to refusing passage to people who have alcohol on their persons, this has extended to cab drivers refusing to transport disabled passengers with service animals because dogs are "unclean." The fact that this is a blatant violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act doesn't seem to matter to these guys. Do they think the law doesn't apply to them because they're Muslim? Or do they not think of themselves as American? Something to think about.

[wolfette]

actually, several of the women wearing the niqab here in the UK are ethnically British women who converted to Islam and then chose to wear the veil. Not all, by any means, but several.

[winterbadger]

Understtod. There are many Americans who are not from a traditionally Muslim ethnicity who have converted to Islam. In fact, one of the most prominent and learned Muslim speakers in the US, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, is Greek-American by ethnicity and converted as an adult.

But, at the same time, these people are consciously joining a religion and adopting customs of a religion that is not native to the culture they are living in. That's certainly their choice to make (unlike, of course, a person in most strict Muslim countries, would could legally be killed for converting to another religion) and I don't think they should be asked to forfeit any rights because of a choice like that. On the other hand, I think they should not *gain* any rights that other people do not have (such as the obligation to identify yourself to a police officer), and I think that, like anyone of that religion who comes to the West from the Muslim world, they need to be prepared to adapt their practices *somewhat* to the society in which they choose to live.

[principia.livejournal.com]

Also an interesting note on converts: the new head of the Islamic Society of North America is a female Canadian college professor.