Politics of De-veiling

vertex,

...............your argument is rather disingenuous and the usual islamist attempt at obfuscation and subterfuge ..........there is absolutely no comparison between a punk kid walking around paris with purple hair and pierced eyebrows and a muslima strutting around in a hijab – one is a juvenile attempt at asserting individuality and the other is an “in-your-face” rejection of everything france stands for.................

............. in effect, the hijaban is saying, “ i reject the french culture, the french revolution, the french way of life.......... am better than you who eat pork and drink wine .............. your women are promiscuous bi&%hes for walking around half-naked with unshaven armpits............... i believe in the islamic way of life - allah is great and to hell with the republic !”...............

......... so, it is not an innocuous little piece of cloth that scares the escargot out the french and other civilized people ................ it is the ideology that lies behind it …………it is the ideology that claims to be superior to all others and seeks to destroy anything that is different.............that’s what this is all about, period(s)...............

Omar Kureshi:

````I`m a product of India and America`` -- yes, it shows -- ``

Yeah. And your being a product of Pakistan shows as well. No offense mate. but you really are a noxious prick.

jang

I agree that hijab will lose out eventually whether left alone or or not. Those who use it as a fashion statement, the kind that you have mentioned in your post, will jump to the next fad. But for those for whom it is a way of life, it will stick.

jang: ``i keep seeing teen-age girls in malls in hijabs and extreme tight-fitting tops, wunderbras, and low-hug pants lately. urs, its the rest of the stuff getting you all hot, and not the hijab. and dont confuse with the bandana some wear, THAT IS NOT A MICRO-HIJAB.`` -- dude u sound like one perverted old man

ayesha, if vertex disagrees with something and is against it why should that necessarily mean that she must not argue for the other side as well?

#28
Jews have lived in france a very long time and most of the time in ghettos which suggests that assimilation has been slow. Of course you`re expecting the french to be better people than most others and want them to speed up the assimilation of newer immigrants with more accomodation. What`s with ``french masters?`` Most western societies are letting immigrants in which is more than what others are willing to do. Of course they have to wash their past sins of colonialization with such acts but, nonetheless, they ARE doing the immigrants a great favor at the present time. (Is there any nation out there that is doing the right thing most of the time or are they all failing your high standards?)
Clitorectomy and circumcision are imposed on babies. The state has a duty to protect babies from acts that may harm them. What the grownups do to their own bodies is a different issue altogether. I don`t know what minor forms of clitorectomy are. Are these even practiced?
Your argument that there`s something sinister about the timing - is there a better time? Sometime in the future may be? When would it be a good time?
One thing that bothered/bothers me is that apparently there were very few veiled girls attending school which makes you wonder if the law was necessary at all. One answer may be that the recent immigrants are a lot more conservative and this is a warning shot for them. I don`t envy the french on the choices they have to make.

vertex,

If you`re pro the ban, as you say, then I don`t understand why you would go to such lengths to argue for it.

I completely disagree with you on your first point. And I do maintain that if a religious symbol is hidden from view, it is not violating the ban. And no, one cannot hide the hijab, which is why it is contentious.

Even if one accepts your assertion, for argument`s sake, that the issue was forced upon the Muslim community (although I believe it existed beforehand, not in the shape of a ban but otherwise, as an issue for women not being able to enter Islamic centres without it, etc.)--how it is dealt with is clearly a reaction that the Muslim community could have thought of and deliberated upon by prioritizing the teachings of Islam instead of dealing with it in classic knee-jerk fashion.

Lastly, I think you really need to spend some time in societies where women are forced to wear the hijab. These societies, much to your surprise, don`t only exist in Saudi Arabia or Iran but are also prevalent in America, UK, France, etc. It is not pleasant for these women. I personally know of several cases where women take on the hijab just so their fathers and brothers don`t question their every move or non-hijabi women have taken on the hijab within a few days of marriage into a family where hijab is considered a must. So please don`t go on and on about the ``freedom to choose``. Perhaps in a minority of cases it is that, but that is just a minority. In most cases, women are not so free to choose as you would like to believe.

kikkoman (a brand of...you guessed it...soysauce),

“Have you been to france? North african culture has made its mark in french culture - in its cuisine, music, architecture, language & even clothing. But that`s not to say there isn`t racism, which is a different problem entirely.”

Implying that the issue with N.African migrants is one of race relations does not imply that it’s an issue of racism. Racism is more systemic. This, however, is one of assimilation of a community that is rapidly growing and has the audacity to retain it’s culture. Not necessarily in toto, but enough to make your average Frenchmen scared.

Why now? Answer me that. After all this time, why is this law which allegedly is aimed at maintaining France’s secular traditions being footed. For so long pendants, yamakas, and even the Hijab has been tolerated. I think the answer is obvious, and I don’t think the swelling of the N. African community is a non-factor. Similar laws are passed in Germany. They have a huge Turkish minority. There have been talks of the same in UK, but they categorically reject the idea. Same issue, different approaches. Secularism is NOT the issue.

“Should there be a ban on clitorectomy? Jews are allowed to circumcise their newborn boys, so why not? How about under medical supervision? Would that be acceptable? That`s analogous to your demand that the majority reach out to the minority.”

Minor forms of clitorectomy should be allowed if circumcision is allowed. Why not? The “harm” argument is weak at best. There are many harmful things people do. I could argue the same for genital piercings that are oddly enough becoming a fad. Not as ‘harmful’ but sure as hell more ‘harmful’ than not getting it done. But because the major culture tolerates it, it’s okay? Sorry, but that sounds like “jump in lake” syndrome to me.

So, why is circumcision allowed? It’s because the Jews have successfully integrated. But what’s this…they have the audacity to practice something the majority don’t!!! Woa…maybe they’re on to something.

“What if the second generation takes up that practice? Ought that to be allowed? Is that the kind of accomodation you want?”

Yup. When the second generation does it, it’s no longer a question of assimilating to the “masters” desires. Sorry, but this holds doubly so for Western cultures which pride themselves on breaking tradition with previous generations. How much does contemporary Europe have in common with ‘50’s Europe? Victorian Europe? If the indigenous culture is not keen on keeping tradition, or maintaining status quo, and if sub-cultures with values which radically diverge from the mainstream were tolerated, then guess what…there’s really no argument here.

If there were a long standing history against scarves, or even some semblance of a decent tradition requiring NOT covering the head, then I could understand. But those don’t exist in this French culture. Secularism in public institutions would make sense, but not when the govt. funds religious organizations and such displays were tolerated up till now.

While we’re on this chain of what-ifs, what if the french decide Muslim slaughter of goats is no good…or that Friday prayers is just out of whack with French timings, so it should be moved to more reasonable Sunday. What if….anyhow, I think you can see making a mountain out of a pile of scarves is really a poor way to argue.

“You`d have the larger society educated to accomodate the cultural practices of the minorities. Should the french also allow the vietnamese immigrants to eat dogs and learn to accept that even if that goes against their sentiments?”

Well, like you said. They eat horses for God’s sake! This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. This raises two points

a) If the French start eating dogs, does it become okay? And this is important, because as I mentioned before, diverging from established norms is a hallmark of western culture. In this particular climate, such arguments are weak. Now, if the dog was sacred to the French...then you`d have a point. But how many are slaugtered in dog pounds yearly?

b) Why should the vietnamese shy away from eating dogs when the French do something that can be considered equally gross? Because the native French are in the “majority”? What right does that afford them? New commers may not think that way, but that ironically only shows their LACK of assimilation. This is about taking owner ship of your citizenship. If it’s good for the majority, it’s good for you. If you let them stomp on you this time, they’ll do it again. Assimilation is about understanding the system, and using it to yor advantage without malice or ill will or wanton desire to be destructive. It is NOT about adopting the dress habits, sexual habits, etc. of the numerical majority.

Vertex, I have thought more about the points you raised. Personally, I think veiling isolates girls. Peer pressure can be extremely taxing. Whereas the punk-look may be seen as cool, a veil probably won`t be. But beyond that, my own bias is that veil is anti woman. I may be projecting my own feelings on the french government action.
However, you may be right that the french government may have motivations other than deghettoizing or helping the girls. I don`t think this has been their argument. Moreover, their banning the display of all religious symbols negates this line of thinking. The girls may well be denied secular education or any formal education because the parents may withdraw them from school rather than agree to deveiling them. As i recall, the french muslim opinion on the matter of enacting this law tipped a bit in favor of it and many vocal muslim women were in favor of it as well.
I think however that the french government must be foolish to enact this law if it is seen as explicitly anti-muslim given that they apparently bend over backwards not to alienate the 10% or so minorities on other matters deemed important to muslims - position on israel, iran, etc. In sum, I am not exactly sure if there were ulterior motives to this ban other than a fierce adherence to their secularism.

Vertex,
I get the gist of what you`re saying & I don`t agree with it.
Have you been to france? North african culture has made its mark in french culture - in its cuisine, music, architecture, language & even clothing. But that`s not to say there isn`t racism, which is a different problem entirely.
Should there be a ban on clitorectomy? Jews are allowed to circumcise their newborn boys, so why not? How about under medical supervision? Would that be acceptable? That`s analogous to your demand that the majority reach out to the minority. What if the second generation takes up that practice? Ought that to be allowed? Is that the kind of accomodation you want? I cannot, in good conscience, argue that africans in their native lands ought to be discouraged by outsiders from performing their rituals. However, if the french wish to interfere with that practice in france i`d be in complete sympathy.
You & i disagree on the basic premise of whether a child ought to be veiled in a society where that`s very uncommon and which (I believe) harms the child. You`d have the larger society educated to accomodate the cultural practices of the minorities. Should the french also allow the vietnamese immigrants to eat dogs and learn to accept that even if that goes against their sentiments? After all the french eat horse meat, don`t they?
No one is saying that france is a perfect society. But the reach of the law is very limited. It may well lead to ghettoization and problems associated with that for the larger society in the long run. We`ll just have to wait and see. The french may be gambling with this law but it`s a gamble that they have to take.

Soysauce

“In north america, jews were ghettoized, and so were the italians, the irish, the chinese and now the hispanics and blacks from the caribbean.”

In north America, there were signs saying that dogs and members of said communities need not apply. This was not done at the behest of these communities. Integration in this case had to do with the majority accepting the minorities, not the minorities doing something silly as accepting majority dress codes, etc. which no longer exist. And that’s the point…they don’t exist. Assimilation back in those days meant something totally different than what it means today. Bad example.

“Integrating into the mainstream demands of the minority community to eschew in-your-face behavior (IMO, that`s what overt symbols of religion that set the minority apart from the mainstream) are.”

Sorry to say, but that’s utter bullshit. The youth culture of Western countries, for example, is predicated on “in-your-face” behavior. If you tolerate that, then why not tolerate it from other groups? Not to mention other sub-cultures which agitate against the established norms (hippies come to mind). Assimilation does NOT mean abandoning something as salient and irrelevant as a head covering…on the contrary, by making that an issue, it says something about the willingness to tolerate the community as a whole. There is a clear case of double standards here…

And what of those who are born in the country and not immigrants? Again, whatever these people do ARE expressions of American, British, French, etc. culture. Like it or not. You can perpetually think like an immigrant, but that schtick won’t get you past the first-born generation. Your arguments no longer apply.

“It is not as though the majority, in addition to sharing their home, also should put up with behavior/beliefs that are inimical to their values. Hijab is discriminatory of girls and the larger society has every right to demand that there be limits.”

Well, duh, it’s also discriminatory to insist that women not go around topless in most states. Men can. This isn’t about gender differences. Not in the least bit. Nor do I hear similar weak arguments against the sikh turban…discrimination applies to refusing admittance, or limiting the rights of women wrt men. In general, this is an issue. Not related to Hijab, though. Right concern, wrong argument.

“In ANY secular society there are no mechanisms to impose dress code other than that you wear something decent.”

Eh? Of course there is. It’s called the legal system. Evey country has the right to define limits to freedoms as they see fit. EU did not interfere with France for this reason.

“The french law is actually friendly to the girls by preparing them to integrate into the larger society at least during school hours.”

Rubbish. It can frighten them out of the public school system just as well. You also need to define ‘integration’ before you can prepare anyone for it, and how exactly hijab prevents integration without resorting to silly generic arguments.

And this is exactly what I was arguing for. Don’t give me this crap that this is about preserving France’s secular traditions. On the contrary, it is about assimilating the North African muslims, whose culture is not deemed acceptable to the French. French pluralism has met it’s limits. All I’m saying is that the French now understand why Muslims impose dress codes, and all that. Different outcome, similar reasons. Call a spade a spade, you can’t sugar coat this.

---

Ayesha,

“If the pendants are hidden then by definition they are not on display--that is the point of the ban--to do away with symbols exhibiting or displaying religious affiliation.”

That’s a means to an end, the end being the upholding of France’s secular traditions. You can emphasis the display, or the wearing of the items. In this case, it is clearly the wearing of said item that is what the contention is about. Can’t really hide a Hijab under something, can you?

So, as I said, it effectively does NOT ban the wearing of crosses or stars of David. Nor is the wearing of such items regarded as mandatory by the wearers. So, regardless of what the law is for, these groups are not affected – a fact not lost on anyone who spends 5 second thinking about it. That was the original point, remember? This ban is a blanket ban for something that really only affects two communities, one which was admittedly an afterthought. What’s so wrong with that? I actually support France’s right to do this, I just think it’s lame how they are trying to sugar coat it.

“So what? In the UK, a fifteen year old Muslim girl just lost a legal battle to wear a jilbab (an abaya style cloak) to school. She believed it is mandatory to wear that and according to her, her religious rights and freedom to practice her religion was being curtailed by her being denied that right.”

Not familiar with the case. What was at issue, was this a private or public school, and has it been challenged as a Human Rights case? The UK govt. pledged not to do this, so with the political backing in place, if she wanted to she could fight and win the case. UK has alternatives, though, and so I reckon it’s easier to move on to a different school. Anyhow, what’s the point of this?


“How far does one go? Does it stop at the hijab? Does it include the jilbab? There will always be disagreements amongst the roughly one billion Muslims as to what exactly constitutes ``Islamic dress``.”

It varies, doesn’t it? Why is it implicitly better to wear less? Answer than and score some serious brownie points…

Anyhow, I can play this game to. Ban the Hijab in schools, then in the public sector, then acoss the board…woa, when will it end? And with what practice? Maybe sending kids to Islamic school on weekends will be considered ‘forced’ and, woa…we gotta stop that too. Nope, can’t take the Kids to Jumma anymore, some Muslims may be pressuring their kids to attend…woops, gotta stop that too. Wow, I see where this is going (with my paranoia goggles on).

“In light of that, perhaps one must realize that given the deliberately vague instruction perhaps it is not such an important tenet of Islam and that Muslims need to focus on other clearer matters…”

Hooooooold on a second. This issue did not come from the Muslim community. It came proactively from the outside community. That’s something to ponder…it’s an immigrant FOB, with a little bit of uncle-tom/aunt jamaima, and a touch of “yes master, me brownie, me do” spinelessness to suggest we should bend over backward to appease whatever the majority community tells us to do, when they themselves do something quite similar.





“Listen to yourself! To say that the hijab is not just a women`s rights issue is tantamount to saying that denying women the right to vote is not just a women`s rights issue or forcing blacks to attend separate schools is not just a black rights issue.”

Oh, nice rhetoric. Is there symmetry between a woman who chooses to wear a Hijab, and a woman who wants to vote and is not allowed to? Or a black man who, against his desires, not allowed access to quality education? Are there gender issues in Muslim communities? Oh yes…is this ban a consequence of one of them? Nope. Not by a long shot.

Now, I understand everyone needs a poster-girl for a cause, and a wide-eyed, sad looking Hijabi looks like a good one (we call it a ‘cheap shot’ where I come from). Fact is, to reduce the entire issues facing the community to this self-defeating stero-type is kinda weak. May as well pick on other salient aspects of this religio/culture group. You’re trying to say Hijab is guilty by association. Not very clever.

“Of course all of these discriminatory practices affect society as a whole but one would have to have lost all sight of reason to say that they affect all members of society equally.”

When all members aren’t in fact affected equally, then no. The discriminatory practices you mentioned affected the group that that the practices were applied to generally. This “greater” society business is irrelevant since the greater society didn’t feel their pain…in fact it was inflicting it.

“By your own admission, a larger number of Muslim women supported the ban than opposed it. If they are the primary group that is affected by the ban, it is their thoughts that matter most.”

No, they are not. If this was about FORCING all muslim women to wear the Hijab, or FORCING all muslim women from not wearing the Hijab, then you would have a strong point. This law does not at all affect those women who don’t wear the Hijab in any way shape or form. Therefore, they’re not relevant. Nore are other women. This is VERY unlike the case with women voting, or segregation of blacks.

“And please don`t confuse ``freedom`` with the ``curtailment of freedom``.”

Oh boy, here we go…

a) Is banning the Hijab by those who want to wear it not a “curtailment” of “freedom”?
b) Where is this confusion being made by myself?

“One only has to look to societies in which an overwhelming number of women are dressed in hijab, jilbab, etc. and compare the status of women there with countries like France, UK, USA and the results are clear.”

Well, you know, this argument falls flat on it’s face when the Hijabis we are talking about are IN school, and are trying to participate IN the US, UK, French culture as a whole. You can be careless enough to unthinkingly blame the cloth across the board, or you can tackle to real issues BEHIND it and OUTSIDE of it.

This argument gets back up and commits suicide when you realize that elevating the status of women is dependant on education…something that’s being directly affected by this law.

urstruely,

i keep seeing teen-age girls in malls in hijabs and extreme tight-fitting tops, wunderbras, and low-hug pants lately. urs, its the rest of the stuff getting you all hot, and not the hijab. and dont confuse with the bandana some wear, THAT IS NOT A MICRO-HIJAB.

in think hijab will lose-out naturally if left alone..

Whoever thinks the article was motivated by a religious zeal has got it wrong. I do not subscribe to any religion but I think to understand the Other you have to be able to empathise with them. Mocking, debasing and dehumanising cultural practices and identity expressions we happen to dislike does not help foster harmony and mutual understanding. Additionally, those who consider western liberalism to be the final word in human wisdom--something we should all unquestioningly assimilate into- sound no less doctriniare than religious fanatics. Nonetheless, I thank everone who has contributed to the debate. Have learnt from you all.

On the specific issue of veiling I think it is important not to lose sight of the difference between saying A) That veiling is not a sign of subjugation B) That it is not necessarily a sign of subjugation. It is the plausibility of the latter proposition that I have tried to point out. If we hold that the majority in France have a (moral) right to ban a minority practice that they do not approve of then we would probably have to accept also that Islamist regimes have a (moral) right to ban forms of dress and ways of life that are inimical to their values. In both cases, the offical decree would run contrary to the principle of individual autonomy and freedom. The reference I have made to the harm principle in the article was meant to draw attention to the fact that it is not each and every minority practice that I would consider worthy of protection-at least not the ones which clearly bring physical or psychological harm to the individual. However, in many cases both Muslims and non-Muslims can easily stretch the limits of their toleration.

#13 vertex
This is so fascinating. Ghettoization is a much more dangerous, and complex problem faced by ethnic groups from all over the world. France, in particular, has a HUGE North African (mostly algerian) community, and it is largely in ghettos. The idea that the Hijab espouses ghettoization is simply excusing those in the mainstream who would ghettoize these women for wearing somethig on their head. Indeed, many staunch secularists took to the streets citing exactly this - if anything, banning the Hijab from school may cause the Algerian community to take their children out of the public school system altogether and into some makeshit alternatives of pooer quality in the ghettos. NOT a good way to integrate a minority.

In north america, jews were ghettoized, and so were the italians, the irish, the chinese and now the hispanics and blacks from the caribbean. Integrating into the mainstream demands of the minority community to eschew in-your-face behavior (IMO, that`s what overt symbols of religion that set the minority apart from the mainstream) are. It is not as though the majority, in addition to sharing their home, also should put up with behavior/beliefs that are inimical to their values. Hijab is discriminatory of girls and the larger society has every right to demand that there be limits. It`s fascism only when france starts demanding that muslim girls not wear hijab at all. In ANY secular society there are no mechanisms to impose dress code other than that you wear something decent. The french law is actually friendly to the girls by preparing them to integrate into the larger society at least during school hours.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

vertex #13 has gone on and on but I will once again dare to counter him:

``I double checked, and ``In public elementary schools, junior highschools and highschools, students are prohibited from wearing signs or attire through which they exhibit ostensibly a religious affiliation.`` Little pendants are easily hidden beneath the clothing, and therefore easily avert the wrath of school officials.``

If the pendants are hidden then by definition they are not on display--that is the point of the ban--to do away with symbols exhibiting or displaying religious affiliation.

``A good number of those who do wear the Hijab, in particular those who are opposed to this law, do in fact regard the Hijab as mandatory.``

So what? In the UK, a fifteen year old Muslim girl just lost a legal battle to wear a jilbab (an abaya style cloak) to school. She believed it is mandatory to wear that and according to her, her religious rights and freedom to practice her religion was being curtailed by her being denied that right. How far does one go? Does it stop at the hijab? Does it include the jilbab? There will always be disagreements amongst the roughly one billion Muslims as to what exactly constitutes ``Islamic dress``. In light of that, perhaps one must realize that given the deliberately vague instruction perhaps it is not such an important tenet of Islam and that Muslims need to focus on other clearer matters such as monotheism, humility, regular charity and not concern themselves so much with matters of dress, which will necessarily vary from one group of Muslims to the next, given different cultural mores and traditions. It would be far wiser, as some Muslim groups in France suggested, not to protest the ban and focus on strengthening the community as opposed to asserting a separate identity and thereby hampering assimilation.

``Like I said, the Hijab in and of itself is not a women`s right issue. No more than mandatory dress (i.e. a top, pants) are. One poll suggested that 49% of Muslim women support the ban and 43% did not. Last I checked, Western notions of ``freedom`` weren`t a matter of a vote.``

Listen to yourself! To say that the hijab is not just a women`s rights issue is tantamount to saying that denying women the right to vote is not just a women`s rights issue or forcing blacks to attend separate schools is not just a black rights issue. Of course all of these discriminatory practices affect society as a whole but one would have to have lost all sight of reason to say that they affect all members of society equally. By your own admission, a larger number of Muslim women supported the ban than opposed it. If they are the primary group that is affected by the ban, it is their thoughts that matter most.

And please don`t confuse ``freedom`` with the ``curtailment of freedom``. One only has to look to societies in which an overwhelming number of women are dressed in hijab, jilbab, etc. and compare the status of women there with countries like France, UK, USA and the results are clear. Many other interactors through their comments below agree with this. Some like you obviously don`t. When there is disagreement on such issues, the best possible way forward is through a vote.

hijab and the theory of gravity ................

........ based on personal observation and experience, it is evident (to me, at least) that most of the middle-aged women take to the veil once they get fat in the behind and their wired bras loose the battle against gravity ........... over the years i have known many women who, in their younger days, strutted around showing upper and lower body cleaveage and who now walk around in arab death shrouds ............. they have also started attending koran classes and given up sex ................ their husbands have grown hair in their ears and also attend koran classes to eat samosas and look for the answers to the unified theory ..............

............. who is getting screwed by this ridiculous behaviour ?.......... the children, especially the girls ........ they run around with raging hormones, dressed in tight jeans and arab headjobs trying to hide their shame ........... they wet their pants at boy band concerts and then come home to undergo severe penances by debasing themselves in front of an uncaring arab god ........... some of them can`t handle the pressure and become frigid or turn into suicide bombers ............... it is a shame