Jack Straw mentions the palpably obvious—that, in London, covering your body from head to toe in an impenetrable black gown and peering at the world through a slit the size of a pack of cards tends to separate you from those around you—and is characterized as a racist anti-Muslim bigot.
The irony, of course, is that the niqab is intended to separate.
But that aside, the hullabaloo is a bit hard to understand at first, at least when you’re reading this stuff in Cairo.
Here, where the idea of freedom of religion is a sour joke unless you’re a Sunni Muslim, where racism (anti-black, anti-Jewish primarily) enjoys easy acceptance and where turning up to a demo to denounce a government figure will get you a date with a frustrated little man in Lazoughly who thinks a rolled up magazine is sex toy.
Now, Britain is replete with pasty-faced racists with angry little mouths who still spout the modern equivalent of “the WOGs begin at Dover.” (“They hate our freedom” being one of the more popular these days).
And maybe leaders like MCB General Secretary Muhammad Abdul Bari, who characterized Straw’s remarks as part of a “barrage of demonization,” see sparking a vigorous public debate on minority rights as a healthy way to define their constituency’s position in a modern multicultural society and a contribution to making sure that Great Britain doesn’t become as antagonistic to diversity and dissent as, say for example, Egypt.
But maybe, sadly, it’s just that they’ve finally learned something from the ADL and AIPAC: take offense early, take offense often.
“take offense early, take offense often.”
Its missing: take offense smartly!
Yeah, freedom of religion for Sunni Muslims. Tell that to the thousands of young men rounded, jailed, and tortured for growing beards and praying in mosques a little too regularly.
And I’m not sure people are upset Straw suggested the niqab separates. More likely they’re upset the moron claims he can’t hear or understand grievances or concerns unless he can watch facial features. What a load of crap.
Brits sort of invite this stuff – they may be sociologically secular but there’s a good deal of institutional mixing of religion and state still. So they’ll fund Christian faith schools and the Church of England, and then are obliged to give a new religious minority the same treatment. It should be no big surprise that when you try to set up a corporatist representation system for religious communities, you’re going to get the most conservative lot from each community (because they are, after all, the ones who feel most strongly about religious identity – I mean, Ali G ain’t going out there to participate in a Muslim council). And you can’t think you’ve done your duty by Muslim communities by just summoning a bunch of conservative “community elders” or clerics to speak for them every now and again, or funding faith schools. Give the old farts a platform and what do you expect them to do but be offended?
Wish the Brits would focus on real religion-state separation and the integration of Muslim communities, and not silly stuff likewhat people wear (like the hullabaloo last week about a Christian airline worker in the UK being told to hide her cross under clothing). I’d wager the niqab-wearing is more a symptom than a cause of integration problems.
You forgot to mention the Egyptian racism against South East Asians… Always enough bigotry for everyone…
However, what your post is totally missing is the feminist/gender angle, which is usually sadly forgotten when men discuss the hijab.
First, Ali G is Jewish mate.
Second, Straw is hardly an idiot, he made valid observations about the Niqab and its spread. Those whinging on about his rather temperate remarks are themselves seperatist religious bigots who believe that “their community” simply should not be criticised by the Kafir.
Niqab is indeed of course a symptom, but raising the issue at the very minimum gets people discusing the seperatists.
I case anyone hasn’t read what Straw actually wrote: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/blog/index.var.488.0.i_want_to_unveil_my_views_on_an_important_issue.php
Oh, Ali G is Jewish, really, dear me, I had no idea, I live under a rock. I meant the CHARACTER as an example of young people who presumably are more numerous among British muslims than the conservative old farts and salafis that trot out all offended every time there is a Muslim-related public controversy (but who may not mobilize as “Muslims”).
Jack Straw has every right to his opinion and he expressed it rather reasonably and thoughtfully. I just think complaining about the niqab is about as effective as complaining about the BNP. It sounds rather like playing for cheap political points, in the absence of a serious political initiative.
Straw’s remarks were in a few different places, BBC has the lot:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5413470.stm
Sorry, but isn’t this rather missing the point, that neither Secretary Jack nor Mufti Muhammed have the right to determine what women are allowed to wear, one way or another?
Your post, Matthew, also elides or erases much of the context of Straw’s comments–when universities are being told to spy on Muslim students, when Blair and many, many others of his government are not just denouncing the veil, but openly questioning the ability of munaqabas to participate in British society, teachers are being fired for wearing the niqab, etc.?
I mean, what’s the difference between telling someone they have to cover up so they don’t offend your sensibilities and telling someone they have to strip so they don’t offend your sensibilities?
Please excuse me for finding this whole arguement incredibly hypocritical.
We have Straw saying, in a way to encourage dialogue about the topic, that he doesn’t find the Niqab “appropriate” for assimilation of Muslims into British society. Hardly a debatable point. And you have millions claiming he is a bigot, racist or whatever.
In Egypt, you have the government considering an all out ban on the Bahai’i people (all 4000 of them) since they aren’t considered one of the three monothesistic relgions. No birth certificate, death certificate or I.D.’s Yet I don’t hear a FREAKIN’ PEEP about how racist or bigoted Egypt is. Instead you have the Ikhwan providing the legislation for such a terrible law. Huh??
It’s all so laughable to me…like one big joke. Are standards for equality different for 3rd world countries compare to others??
Sorry to interrupt, EH, but the state (in which Jack Straw is an elected representative), *does* have the right to say what its employees can wear — as long as the rules are within reason. I think the debate in the UK is what constitutes a “reasonable” restriction. Is prohibiting a teaching assistant from wearing something that covers her face reasonable? Straw is saying is that yes, it *is* reasonable to prohibit such things because it hinders her ability to do her job. In the States, by contrast, the federal government actually filed suit on behalf of an employee who was restricted from wearing a hijab. Why? It was an unreasonable restriction.
Many scholar do not have a clear view over the Niqab. it is more of a culture dress than an Islamic as woman’s faces are not to be covered. there is nothing in the koran that states that women should cover their faces not even in the Kabaa which is Islams holliest place woman are not to cover their faces while praying and preforming the haj. The Niqab is a cultural dressw orn by the idiots in the Gulf and who have exported their the beduion culture to the rest of the arab world. they have managed to make men bushy ugly beards and wear short dishdashes and women to wear a black tent. It is the same as the Taliban. they are the same wierdo’s who are OK with their wives, sisters to be with a stanger driving for them rather than allowing to drive themselves !! Pathetic ! it has nothing to do with Islam or how faithful they are ! Muslim should go back to the book and read it other than copying people who think that whatever they say is correct just because they were born in Saudi !!
but sometimes they are not telling you you have to strip or you have to cover up.
sometimes they tell you it would be good if you cover up because of such and such and sometimes it’s you it would be good for you if you cover up because of such and such.
sounds like a perfectly normal thing to do, I tell people it would be better for them to use GNU/Linux and stop using Windows, I have friends who tell me I should be a vegetarian, etc.
it’s called advocacy, it can be annoying specially if the why I should do it is vague or if it is uninvited, the more it touches on morals the more annoying it gets.
but it’s perfectly acceptable.
even sheiks make an argument of why you should veil and I can’t see nothing wrong with an argument of why you shouldn’t, it’s mostly a waste of time though.
the problem is when you start drafting laws that force you to cover or strip.
Its always amazing to me how much the veil debate in the U.S., U.K., etc, is presented in such black & white terms, as if there’s no diversity of opinion among Muslims on the matter. I guess this is just one of the many insidious aspects of this whole Muslim v. West nonsense, since it creates these apologist/defensive reactions where Muslims feel like they have to stand united against these Western rants against their religion, even if we do not agree with everything taught to us about Islam by our schools, parents, governments, etc.
Andrew, you are conflating two different things – Jack Straw was not talking about state employees wearing niqab, he was talking about how it made him uncomfortable to see someone who spoke with a British accent and was in every way British wearing a niqab, and how he considers this an effort at separate-ness (I don’t think he used the word separatism, and it’s loaded anyway) that is undesirable in British society. Imagine the furore if an American politician said that seeing young people where hip-hop inspired clothes made him uncomfortable because that’s what gangsters wear (maybe not the best comparison, but you get the idea).
Now, had he been talking about firing a schoolteacher for leaving her face covered in front of students, that would be another matter, and I think the state would be on stronger ground, because it can make the case that the niqab gets in the way of doing a job that one is paid to do.
It is neither Mr. Straw’s business nor that of the state (though as individuals all are perfectly free to discuss their feelings on the matter) to make policy based on how “uncomfortable” they feel with someone dressed very differently, however. By the same token, one should be able to deny a “shifty” looking person a job, or an Arab-looking person a seat on a plane, or conversely, Western women should be required by law to cover up from head to toe in a conservative country because it makes others “uncomfortable” to see their legs, and bare their midriffs and wear cropped, tight sari blouses when they go to India, to fit in.
There’s functional integration and there’s full -on cultural assimilation, and if the Brits insist on the latter and expect never to have to feel uncomfortable before surface cultural differences, perhaps they need a few lessons in integration too.
To weigh in again, I also think it’s not the same as simply giving someone advice or advocating a particular point of view, Alaa.
Straw is a member of government. He is obligated to represent all citizens equally. If someone with political power expresses an opinion like that, it has a lot more weight than when a private citizen expresses it.
Moreover, he is basically saying that you do not deserve equal access to representation in Britain if you do not conform to his idea of acceptable dress.
Also, as I said, this post leaves out that it is not just Straw expressing his opinion, but the Education Minister, the Race Minister, and Tony Blair himself all weighing in saying, effectively, to these people, Good Muslims Cannot Be Good Citizens. I don’t care if the niqab is not actually required to be a Good Muslim, the point is these women do think so, and they have a right to think so. It is emphatically not Straw or Blair’s job to tell them what is required of them religiously.
Aisheh Azmi, a teaching assistant, was fired for wearing the niqab around adult men–not around her schoolkids, mind you, but around adult men.
How exactly does that interfere with her job?
SP: I was only making a point that the government *does* have a right to restrict dress. That was all. The whole “no one has the right to tell me what to wear” idea is patently false if you draw a government paycheck.
EH: Jack Straw is under no obligation whatsoever to represent all citizens equally. He is under an obligation to represent his constituency — and then, only if he wants to get re-elected. Interestingly enough, I think he has a rather large Muslim constituency in Blackburn. Can any Brits out there shed light on how Mr. Straw’s electorate is taking this affair?
I’m quite glad AIPAC and ADL take offence early and often — I think it just might spare me having to encounter situations in which I’d have to personally take offence. They mark a sort of outer perimeter of acceptability, and I think, because of that, I’ve only come upon a swastika once in my life, rather than it being a more common occurance.
So why should Muslims not take offence? Whether the veil is nuts or not isn’t even the issue — if they feel they’re being unfairly attacked or singled out, let them take offence. It’ll force the alleged offenders to defend themselves. In the end, if the instigator did not really mean offence, and has a fair and serious point, that’s going to show.
Andrew, you are still missing the point – Jack Straw in his interview did not talk about discussions with *government employees,* he talked about interacting with British *citizens*. And he’s not talking specifically about whether or not they can do govt jobs, he’s calling them separationist and saying it makes him uncomfortable (I sympathise with him, btw, I just think it does more harm than good for a political figure to make us-and-them statements like that).
By allowing cultural norms and prejudices to creep into and be confused with more practical questions, one only confirms these defensive conservatives’ suspicions that host-culture majorities and political elites are just hostile to their different religion/cultures. I actually think the Americans deal much better with such things, you won’t find an American politician grandstanding about how the Amish or Mennonites or Orthodox Jews, with their strange 18th century dress and incredibly conservative social norms, are a separatist threat to American society.
When folks point to a far conservative outlier in a group as justification that “those people” have trouble integrating, or only treat the far end of conservatives in a group as representative, it sounds like a way of dodging the issue.
SP: I wasn’t so much “missing” the point as choosing not to engage it. I just wanted to clarify/correct something EH had posted. I understand what Mr. Straw is saying.
In case you haven’t yet seen it, this is from the NYT today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19thu4.html?hp
but SP the whole freaking point of the niqab is to seperate and segregate people of different sexes.
how is it offensive if he echoes that fact?
while I tolerate niqab and would fight for the right of women to do whatever they like I actually find the niqab offensive, it is giving me a clear message that I’m not to be trusted just because of my gender, that I’m a loose canon who’d sexually molest any female that passes by if she wasn’t covered head to toe.
so what’s wrong with me saying that? (apart from it being totall futile).
he is making a touchy feely point about the importance of facial expression (yeah sure he makes it sound like a uniquely british thing, which is quite funny considering typical stereotypes of brits here but that’s beside the point). the monaqaba is also making a point about the importance of facial expressions and features they’re just making different points.
now I agree with you that there is something wrong about putting too much weight in the extremly conservative members of a community, niqab is sooo impractical that I wouldn’t bother even talking about it, it’s fringe here in Egypt and I’m sure it’s even less prevalent in the UK. it’s like someone discussing the anti social behavior of satanist youth, yeah satanists are probably anti social but hell there are like 5 of them who cares.
not to mention that there is no guarantee the whole does not communicate well and seperates thing will cease once the monaqaba takes of the thing.
if the neqab is an offensive statement about my manhood then I’m sure the woman will find hundreds of ways to communicate the same exact message (eh white women freaking out when you smile at them is as offensive as the neqab).
but still stupid as it may be the reaction is even more stupid IMO, he did not generalize (in fact he defended the veil).
I have to admit that I don’t know about the context though (THEY HAVE A RACE MINISTER?!!!!)
I think efforts to create a multicultural society by formally discussing each subculture are ridicolous, the state and politicians should try to be blind to cultures (not really achievable but should try) and let the different subcultures figure it out away from them.
Alaa, I understood his use of the term separateness to refer to Muslims separating themselves from “mainstream” British society, which has been an ongoing concern – rather than women separating themselves from men. He worries about the impact of the niqab for “community relations” not relations between men and women (see the last few quotes from the BBC extracts above). I’m guessing veiling is more of an ethnic statement than a gender-religiosity statement in the UK and Europe.
It’s not what he said about the niqab that was silly (in fact I thought his comments were quite reasonable, as personal sentiments, as I wrote above) or offensive. Rather, of all the things a public official should choose to say in addressing the question of charged religious-ethnic relations in Britain, it was not the most productive, because he’s choosing to address a sensitive and pretty secondary problem, a symptom of poor integration and insecurity rather than a cause. And the veil is something of a symbolic lightning-rod in the UK and Europe anyway, something that provokes heated debate that never changes a thing.
If you’re going to create a furore and piss off reactionaries, might as well do it for something important like domestic violence, IMHO.
Feel sorry for the poor chaps who feel insulted at the implications of women veiling from them, but sorry, the comments on the streets of Cairo make me understand why some women want to cover up…in London they probably get stared at all the more, though!
SP hmmm, as I said I’m ignorant about the context so took seperatism to mean something else (seperating gender still affects coimmunity relations). so yeah maybe you’re right.
but no point in mixing viel and niqab, what I said and what he said are about the bloody niqab not the viel, from the bbc quotes (which are the only background I have about the story) he specifically said he has no problems with the viel.
Egypter complained thet “I don’t hear a FREAKIN’ PEEP about how racist or bigoted Egypt is.”
If you read the post it clearly stated how racist Egyptians are towards Africans and Jews, I mentioned in my comment that he forgot to include south east asians there. Classist prejudice is big and it’s all about the patriarch here. If you read Arabist frequently you will find posters and commenters lamenting this.