Two pennies on the face veil ‘debate’
There is no doubt that the issue of the veil, niqaab, worn
by some Muslim women is increasingly featuring in Politics and the
media. An MP refuses to see members of his constituency if they wear
such a garment, a University Student Union calls to ban it, and the Home
Minister insists we have a “national debate” around the issue.
Some commentators have spoken out on the
issue, arguing the freedom to wear what we want in public needs to be
respected. Simon Jenkins rightly explains a national debate is mirroring
the actions of states like France, who made a national decision on the
issue. If women wearing the niqaab were committing more crime, if such a
garment was genuinely linked to security threats, or if it was
counteracting integration, I’d be among the first to support a national
debate about the issue. Let’s be honest: as it stands, it just makes us
feel a bit uncomfortable.
The majority of Islamic thought
describes the niqaab as an additional act of worship, and this has meant
different things to women in different lands over time. In the end,
women are left to make their own choices about the way they choose to
dress, and the results of using our intellect is reflected in the
diversity of clothing Muslim women wear on the streets of Britain today.
We can’t hide from the fact that some women choose to wear the niqaab,
nor should we desire to. What we fail to understand is that this simple
act, which causes no harm, is an act of attempted integration. People
who stay at home all day and don’t interact with people need to give no
thought to what they wear, simply because they are not in the public
eye. The niqaab, which is an act of worship, is also the mechanism by
which some Muslim women create the right conditions for themselves to
interact in, experience and contribute to their societies. Living in a
country where the majority of the population is not Muslim, such a
decision does not come lightly, and reveals a strength, passion and
commitment to their values. Being denied the right to dress how they
want, these valuable women will simply retreat from the society which
will only benefit from them being active within it. There are certain
situations which allow for Muslims to compromise their position on
issues, for example, a woman being seen by a male doctor, but beyond
exceptional circumstances, they will not compromise. Why should they?
Liberal arguments in favour of banning
the niqaab centre on protecting the freedom of women, and emancipating
us. Such a stance would stand strong in a society where the niqaab is a
symbol and tool of oppression. It makes little sense that such a tool of
oppression would be worn publicly by women who are out doing things –
working, shopping taking children to school, addressing conferences,
changing the world… Again, if it was proved that the niqaab is forced
upon women and used to oppress them, I would be among the first to call
for a national debate. Admittedly there are cases in the World where the
niqaabl is misused, but I think we would struggle to think of any form
of practice or idea that hasn’t been misused for personal gain at some
point. Those issues need addressing differently.
Calling for a national debate suggests
the issue of the niqaab is one that affects everybody, and all have a
thorough opinion on the matter. A large proportion of the UK population
will never have sat on the same bus as a woman wearing the veil, nor
even passed someone in the street. The outcome of a national debate is
usually a decision which is made to improve the lives of everybody, yet
as mentioned above the outcomes look bleak. We are often encouraged to
talk about the ‘elephant in the room’. If you consider the niqaab to be
an ‘elephant’, by all means, please discuss it. Such a discussion needs
to take place privately, with individuals asking questions about it and
increasing their own understanding, which can then be translated
publicly. A national debate takes the niqaab away from being an
‘elephant in a room’ into a national crisis or a foreign phenomenon. It
doesn’t have the capacity to empower individuals, but will be divisive
and alienating. The flourishing of society needs us to work with our
similarities, shared humanity and the talents and abilities we all have
to contribute. If a woman wearing a niqaab is able to use her humanity,
talents and abilities to make the world a better place, why are we
politicising her wardrobe? We live in a society which prides itself in
being committed to equality of esteem, and where different groups
promote and facilitate the conditions under which others can flourish.
An approach such as this must be grounded in compassion and respect for
the dignity of all others.
I’m an advocate of democracy. I think
democracy is a wonderful thing, but we simply don’t have enough of it in
the UK. National debates are a form of democratic participation, and we
need them on matters that affect everyone and the flourishing of
society. So let’s have more of them on things that matter. Let’s have a
national debate on the proportion of the budget spent on the army; how
to tackle child hunger in the UK; how to ensure economic recovery; on
Syria; on welfare reform; on changing teacher’s pay; on ending world
poverty; on climate change. These things matter, and they affect
everyone. Now.
By Samia Aziz
No comments:
Post a Comment