When Jack Straw, the former foreign minister of Great Britain and now the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, started the ruckus about Muslim women and the niqab, the full-faced veil with tight openings at the eyes, I thought it would soon pass. Now, there's nothing much in America so visually strange to cause such a fuss. Hassidic dress, though a bit strange, doesn't hide the face at all. Neither does Amish garb, nor the variations on Amish. (What's truly uncomfortable is Shaker furniture, but that's another matter entirely. Buying expensive Shaker is your choice. And it's a sign of chic, not alienation and reproach.) Of course, a few Muslim women in the United States do don the niqab, rather than the more common headpiece with the scarf-like extension under the chin that could just as well be a fashion statement. Maybe it already, is, as a few years ago, a few radical young men in the country sported red-checked keffiyehs as a sign of identification with Arafat--which, come to think of it, is not much of a fashion statement at all.
One aspect of Straw's reproach to the wearers of the niqab, which almost no one has noticed, is that historically Straw has been quite sympathetic to Arab issues. He never lost a chance to bash the Israelis. This may be just another matter. Instead of Straw's statement--was it impromptu or calculated?--fading into the din of other issues, it resonated with others on the left. I don't know whether George Galloway, the Labour Party's own tribune for terror-supportive Muslims around the world, has blown his horn on the issue. But others certainly did, following Straw's lead. And now so, too, has Tony Blair. What comes next? The Tories are surely not more open to signs of separation than Labourites. But Labour as the party of the "multi-cultural" left may be the more relevant gauge on the issue. This is not good news for Muslims anywhere in Europe.
We know about what is already happening to the comfort level of separatist Muslims in Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and France. Now comes another auguring from Italy. Italian socialist Prime Minister Romano Prodi has also weighed in on hiding the face, and it should not be at all comforting to the Muslims and Arabs in Italy. Imagine what Silvio Berlusconi feels about these matters. The veil is not the issue. It veils the real issue, which is that non-believing Christian Europe wants Christianity to define it still. Is that, after all, not the right of the majority?
Print
COMMENTS (10)
from the Labour Party.
from the Labour Party.
"I don't know whether George Galloway, the Labour Party's own tribune for terror-supportive Muslims around the world, has blown his horn on the issue."
The left wing bigot accused Straw of being a, as you might guess, a Nazi.
"The jackboots of our time"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
/george_gallowa y/2006/10/jack_boots_today_and_70_years.html
He shamelessly compared the Muslims to Jews a people he normally treats with contempt.
As for the Conservative party it is not what it used to be.
"I don't know whether George Galloway, the Labour Party's own tribune for terror-supportive Muslims around the world, has blown his horn on the issue."
The left wing bigot accused Straw of being a, as you might guess, a Nazi.
"The jackboots of our time"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
/george_gallowa y/2006/10/jack_boots_today_and_70_years.html
He shamelessly compared the Muslims to Jews a people he normally treats with contempt.
As for the Conservative party it is not what it used to be.
While on a visit to Iran a few years ago, a militiaman took exception to my lady's outfit as not sufficiently modest.(It actually was sufficiently modest for a tourist, but she speaks Persian which probably confused him.) The nice man and his nice gun started to take me away. Not her, mind you...me. I was, after all, responsible for my woman.
Call me wild and crazy, but if an Islamic society can force its own clothing code on visitors at gunpoint, it's hard to see the problem with a non-Islamic society insisting on its clothing code. Or are we back to the old argument of "what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable"?
While on a visit to Iran a few years ago, a militiaman took exception to my lady's outfit as not sufficiently modest.(It actually was sufficiently modest for a tourist, but she speaks Persian which probably confused him.) The nice man and his nice gun started to take me away. Not her, mind you...me. I was, after all, responsible for my woman.
Call me wild and crazy, but if an Islamic society can force its own clothing code on visitors at gunpoint, it's hard to see the problem with a non-Islamic society insisting on its clothing code. Or are we back to the old argument of "what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable"?
but the purpose of the veil is to express modesty. If Catholic nuns in our society had developed a veil I suppose it would never had become an issue, however Nuns do wear Habits which cover the majority of their body. Does anybody have a problem with that? I imagine not. It should be a womans choice and if she is prepared for the consequences of it, ie. losing her job or having her opportunities curtailed, than I think that is her right.
I doubt any of this would be an issue if the Muslims in those societies in all other respects acted civilized, but just because there are barbarians among the Muslims does not mean we should shame the women.
but the purpose of the veil is to express modesty. If Catholic nuns in our society had developed a veil I suppose it would never had become an issue, however Nuns do wear Habits which cover the majority of their body. Does anybody have a problem with that? I imagine not. It should be a womans choice and if she is prepared for the consequences of it, ie. losing her job or having her opportunities curtailed, than I think that is her right.
I doubt any of this would be an issue if the Muslims in those societies in all other respects acted civilized, but just because there are barbarians among the Muslims does not mean we should shame the women.
Cloistered nuns up until very recently would have been hard to pick out of a lineup. The cloistered Sisters of the Sacred Heart had their foreheads and chins covered. They could be visited only through a screen.
I feel confident in asserting that the vast majority of women, worldwide, would, like men, choose comfortable clothing that neither hid their bodies nor exposed them. So let's talk about them instead of the women (or men) prone to paranoia or exhibtionism.
Whatever they may say in interviews as defense about hiding themselves, sometimes to the point of looking like black mounds(phrase taken from a friend), it is the price they pay to belong to a group. I do not dispute that some, ... view full comment
Cloistered nuns up until very recently would have been hard to pick out of a lineup. The cloistered Sisters of the Sacred Heart had their foreheads and chins covered. They could be visited only through a screen.
I feel confident in asserting that the vast majority of women, worldwide, would, like men, choose comfortable clothing that neither hid their bodies nor exposed them. So let's talk about them instead of the women (or men) prone to paranoia or exhibtionism.
Whatever they may say in interviews as defense about hiding themselves, sometimes to the point of looking like black mounds(phrase taken from a friend), it is the price they pay to belong to a group. I do not dispute that some, perhaps many, pay the price. But I contend that if, as with the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, the price would no longer be required, the women would relinquish the costume gladly. (Remember my caveat: the vast majority of women.)
In NYC we tolerate all manner of dress. But tolerate does not carry with it condonation or approval. We live and let live. The state should interfere only if the dress interferes with the purposes of the state. For instance, some years ago, some public high schools in NYC introduced dress codes that promoted the calm and lack of distraction necessary for learning. The students improved. Drivers licenses used for identification require a face, not a veil. That is another legitimate need of the state.
Public officials, as in England, may also make it clear that they promote integration of immigrant populations. That, in my view, is part of their job.
Sorry to be didactic, but it really annoys me when people think most women like going around looking like mounds, or with headscarves on hot days, or with corsets, for that matter.
Call me wild and crazy, but if an Islamic society can force its own clothing code on visitors at gunpoint, it's hard to see the problem with a non-Islamic society insisting on its clothing code.
I've never bought the "religious nutballs do it, so it's OK for us too!" logic. After all, it's policies requiring people to look like walking blanket piles at gunpoint that makes me call them "nutballs." I say they can wear veils if they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (I'd be leery of a vieled woman, say, trying to drive...not that it's an issue!), and employers can enforce dress codes if they wish.
Call me wild and crazy, but if an Islamic society can force its own clothing code on visitors at gunpoint, it's hard to see the problem with a non-Islamic society insisting on its clothing code.
I've never bought the "religious nutballs do it, so it's OK for us too!" logic. After all, it's policies requiring people to look like walking blanket piles at gunpoint that makes me call them "nutballs." I say they can wear veils if they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (I'd be leery of a vieled woman, say, trying to drive...not that it's an issue!), and employers can enforce dress codes if they wish.
Eric Kaufmann in the current issue of Prospect has a similar analysis to that of Martin Peretz - there are many Europeans with a Christian identity even though they cannot be described as Christian believers. In addition to anecdotal evidence Kaufmann describes fertility trends among the Christian faith-friendly majority that should counter the well known Islamic demographic trends that are usually viewed with alarm.
He concludes: "Daniel Bell prophesied that modernism's antinomian cultural outlook would prompt a 'great instauration' of religion as people sought spiritual solace from the alienation of modern life. Bell has so far been proved wrong, but history may yet vindi ... view full comment
Eric Kaufmann in the current issue of Prospect has a similar analysis to that of Martin Peretz - there are many Europeans with a Christian identity even though they cannot be described as Christian believers. In addition to anecdotal evidence Kaufmann describes fertility trends among the Christian faith-friendly majority that should counter the well known Islamic demographic trends that are usually viewed with alarm.
He concludes: "Daniel Bell prophesied that modernism's antinomian cultural outlook would prompt a 'great instauration' of religion as people sought spiritual solace from the alienation of modern life. Bell has so far been proved wrong, but history may yet vindicate him as we bear witness not to spiritual revival, but to a religious reconquista based, ironically, on the nakedly this-worldly force of demography."
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details .php?id=7913
PMolloy,
In an affluent society where child-bearing is a lifestyle choice, the link between fertility and some notion of faith is obvious. If faith is the triumph of hope over experience, then for affluent adults to choose to bear and raise children represents the ultimate expression of faith and hope. It's an extraordinary gamble that constantly requires one to connect the present to the future, to see happy outcomes in the midst of adversity, to put aside one's present pleasures for the sake of future rewards that flow to others.
This cycle is mutually-reinforcing: spending time with one's children breeds hope, which blosters faith. And of course, as the man said, the greatest ... view full comment
PMolloy,
In an affluent society where child-bearing is a lifestyle choice, the link between fertility and some notion of faith is obvious. If faith is the triumph of hope over experience, then for affluent adults to choose to bear and raise children represents the ultimate expression of faith and hope. It's an extraordinary gamble that constantly requires one to connect the present to the future, to see happy outcomes in the midst of adversity, to put aside one's present pleasures for the sake of future rewards that flow to others.
This cycle is mutually-reinforcing: spending time with one's children breeds hope, which blosters faith. And of course, as the man said, the greatest of these [benefits] is love, which is the force driving the whole process.
blackton,
The nun's habit-- which is worn only by a tiny minority of orders these days-- is the visible sign of the religious ascetic's renunciation of the world. It does not signify anything specific to woman's role or the social position of a particular group. It is a voluntary designation signifying an achievement that has been earned, or bestowed upon, the bearer. In that respect the nun's habit has much more in common with the medical doctor's white coat with his name stitched on it in red cursive lettering than it does with the muslim woman's garb.
blackton,
The nun's habit-- which is worn only by a tiny minority of orders these days-- is the visible sign of the religious ascetic's renunciation of the world. It does not signify anything specific to woman's role or the social position of a particular group. It is a voluntary designation signifying an achievement that has been earned, or bestowed upon, the bearer. In that respect the nun's habit has much more in common with the medical doctor's white coat with his name stitched on it in red cursive lettering than it does with the muslim woman's garb.
For Teplukhin,
How can I bring myself to disagree with you? When nuns did wear habits and cloistered themselves,working (teaching, etc.) within their convents it did represent more than an achievement. In many families, a daughter was informally designated for the Church, as was a son. Arguments could have been made then that the commitment was not entirely voluntary, but akin to a Muslim woman paying a price her culture exacted from her in order to not be excluded from that culture. I don't really think it's an accident that since the decision is voluntary, there are fewer nuns and priests.
For Teplukhin,
How can I bring myself to disagree with you? When nuns did wear habits and cloistered themselves,working (teaching, etc.) within their convents it did represent more than an achievement. In many families, a daughter was informally designated for the Church, as was a son. Arguments could have been made then that the commitment was not entirely voluntary, but akin to a Muslim woman paying a price her culture exacted from her in order to not be excluded from that culture. I don't really think it's an accident that since the decision is voluntary, there are fewer nuns and priests.