Jack Straw and veiled women
Well, while I wait for my cats to familiarise themselves with the new litter tray arrangements, I'm going to comment on the recent news item that seems to have sparked a great deal of debate and controversy: whether veiled women should be required to remove their veils when in positions of attention.
As many of you may be aware, Jack Straw recently made a comment on veiled women and how he felt uncomfortable discussing important issues with them (or words to that effect).
In general, it seems the UK population agrees with Jack Straw, viewing completely veiled women as being somewhat threatening or malevolently reclusive.
In some cases, however, Jack Straw's comments have sparked outrage, saying it is yet another attack targetting the muslim community and trying to force conformity.
In my humble opinion, I have to agree with Jack Straw. As I understand it, there is no mention in the muslim holy texts that every muslim woman must be completely covered with a veil. This means that such covering is perhaps merely a fashion statement and as such, there needs to be some kind of line drawn, a kind of dress code, as with other areas, such as schools, work laces, etc. I mean it wouldn't be acceptable for a school pupil to attend classes (other than maybe swimming classes!) in a tiny little bikini would it?
My reason for backing Jack Straw's statement is also the fact that being completely veiled takes away the level of trust between people. What I mean is, a vast majority of human expression is via facial display. Emotions such as happiness, shock, disgust, etc. are not easily recognisable when the only feature on view are the eyes. While you can see some emotions just by looking at someone's eyes, it isn't enough, especially where issues of importance are concerned.
My question would be why do these women insist on wearing veils that completely cover their face? (minus the eyes) And reverting to the religion argument is, I think, a cop-out. There seem to be too many instances where religion is used to 'get away with' certain actions. The way I see it, religion is something you believe inside and shouldn't be governed by the way you dress.
I mean come on! Just cos you don't wear a complete veil over your face means you aren't a true muslim??
Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for every religion and those who choose to follow them. And I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, so if I did, please accept my most sincere apologies.
I just feel that things are getting out of hand with religion and its use for the justification of certain actions.
I could debate this with myself all night but I think I'll leave it there.
What do you think?
Is Jack Straw right in his comments?
Or do these muslim women have a right to wear their veils according to their religious beliefs?
- missmaster's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 454 reads
Culture wars
Deep waters here. Some random thoughts.
Wasn't it just a century or so ago that a woman in mourning in the British Empire was supposed to be completely veiled? What were the rules then? I don't believe that the woman was expected to remove her veil under the conditions that (I infer from your post) Jack Straw would expect.
there is no mention in the muslim holy texts that every muslim woman must be completely covered with a veil.
True. And there is no mention in the Bible of Christmas - as the Puritans well understood, this being their basis for banning Christmas from their calendar.
Just cos you don't wear a complete veil over your face means you aren't a true muslim??
Islam is no more unified in its beliefs and practices than is Christianity. Sunni and Shia represent a divide as profound as that between Roman Catholic and Protestant. And, as in Christianity, there are innumerable sects within Sunni and Shia. Some of those do demand complete veiling of women. Few in the US would dream of challenging the right of the Amish to their technology-rejecting beliefs. To grant such tolerance to the Amish but not to veiled sects of Muslims is, to say no more, unfair.
Emotions such as happiness, shock, disgust, etc. are not easily recognisable when the only feature on view are the eyes. While you can see some emotions just by looking at someone's eyes, it isn't enough, especially where issues of importance are concerned.
Precisely. And the politician is in a position of power if he can observe, and manipulate, those emotions. To deny the outward signs of emotion is to transfer power from the manipulator to the denyer. No wonder Mr. Straw is unhappy.
I might also mention the circumstance of the Muslim civilian confronting coalition troops with their Star Wars Imperial Stormtrooper headgear.
religion is something you believe inside
I consider that a "symptom" of belonging to a religion, rather than its principal raison d'etre. The Protestant ethic of an individual, personal relationship between the believer and the divinity is an aberration even within Christianity. Religion is all about "group": group identity, group community, group mutual defense. This is so even within Protestantism - else, there would be no call for churches. Group identity, the only countervailing force to utter selfishness in most human populations, extends to creeds, social customs, even dress - once again, the Western freedom of dress is an aberration in the history of the world's social customs.
For one group to impose its customs on another is nothing more or less than a power game. War without the shooting. To a certain degree, such power games are inevitable in a pluralistic society, where the choices are compromise, anarchy, or shooting war. But I think it important to call such debates what they are - debates about how much cultural independence is to be permitted in a particular society. Forget about "rights". They are legal fictions, and ones that are forgotten when power figures find them inconvenient (see GUANTANAMO).
I would learn how to accommodate oneself to the "veil" custom, because to do otherwise risks mutual demonization of the two groups, with subsequent risk of harm via munitions to both. Of course, the demonization is probably already, and irreversibly, in place. In which case, you'd better get yourself to a gun club and practice your marksmanship.
Interesting comments..
Very deep.
I think the big problem here is where do we draw the line?
As for churches and the 'group' view of religion, this has been fabricated by the churches themselves. In my view, there is no need for a place of worship, as such. More a 'state' of worship. Whenever you feel the need, or wish, to communicate with your god, you just do it, inwardly.
I'm a firm believer in people believing in what they choose to believe in, but I'm also a firm believer of not pushing your beliefs onto everyone else.
I can see your side of the Jack Straw politician-wanting-to-manipulate side of the argument though. That may well have been his whole underlying reason for bringing this subject to light.
I think at the end of the day there has to be some sort of agreed upon standard where people do not infringe upon the way of others, yet there still has to be some control over how far that can go.
The main point I'm trying (and possibly failing) to make is the need for control of freedom. It may very well sound oxymoronic but without some kind of control, there will be very little progress when it comes to things that matter.
People aren't permitted to go into banks and post offices without first removing their motor cycle helmets. Why? I think the veil argument fits in there somewhere.
Hmm. I'll maybe try this again when my brain ain't so fried. Sandpaper eyelids you know.
Need A Reliable Freelancer?
Both deep and difficult
where do we draw the line?
Whereever it gets drawn, you can count on it moving later.
As for churches and the 'group' view of religion, this has been fabricated by the churches themselves.
Strongly disagree. If for no other reason that no "group" can have any fabrication imposed on it, and have it stay there, without its at least tacit approval. My take on this is informed less by studies of religions than on studies of the behavior of social animals, of which we are one. Religion is one symptom of both the innate and learned impulses of humans towards community, without which we would never have survived as a species. To be sure, certain persons benefit from these impulses (at least one wit has said that he can never understand how a priest can encounter another without laughing), but that observation has never succeeded in removing religions from the human experience.
The solitary spiritual impulse exists, but it will never pull you through a war.
the need for control of freedom
This is a central issue in the function of any social animal. What is the balance between individual (selfish) behavior and community ("altruistic") behavior? What's worse is that there's no fixed function. In good times, or very bad ones, individual survival is favored by selfish behavior. In other times, individual survival is favored by community behavior. When two groups are squaring off, your chances of individual survival are far less if you "go your own way" than if you stick with the group.
Right now, "Christians" and "Muslims" are squaring off. Making it difficult for either the "Christian" to accept the veil or the "Muslim" to abandon it.
And we wonder why these questions are so difficult. I argue it's 'cause we're relying on the wrong information. Religious, ethical, political. Almost always non-scientific, narrow-minded, human-centered. Basically, propaganda for me and my group.
Everybody should read Konrad Lorenz, E. O. Wilson, and other great scholars of animal behavior, accept their insights with humility ("we are only animals") and, with humility, use those insights to understand, and control, our own stupid pride. Individual and group pride both.
Churches
I guess what I was getting at is the fact that churches (and other places of worship I suppose) have been built for the sole purpose of religious worship. The churches use this to their advantage by saying that you cannot properly worship your god outside of the church (physically). This is what I don't agree with and what I meant by fabrication.
I only check this site just before bed and so I'm at my worst when it comes to explaining what I mean!
Oh well. :S
Need A Reliable Freelancer?
In our society the complete
In our society the complete covering of the face is seen as a threat, that's why bank robbers wear masks and why highwaymen used to wear them.
That's why we feel uncomfortable with them.