Blair Says Muslim Veil Is a ‘Mark of Separation’
The headline's pretty misleading, as Blair is actually referring to the Niqab/ Burqa. I agree with him about the Niqab -to a point. The issue is pretty straight-forward: you can wear whatever you like, but if you want to participate in the job market and exercise your rights to interact with socierty, your face needs to be visible, for security and social reasons. If you're not working, then wear what you want. If a photo ID is needed, you need to uncover your face for the picture and again, when using this photo ID (say, a passport). In both cases, another woman can verify the photo match. The exception to this is driving, for safety, security and identification purposes.
I don't see how any of this can be debatable. If Muslims feel these rules are oppressive, they're no more so than the Saudi rule enforcing veils even among western women. If I think the values of the place I live in are incompatible with my own, I leave.
LONDON, Oct. 17 — Prime Minister Tony Blair today joined a passionate and increasingly corrosive debate over the use of the Islamic full-face veil by some British Muslim women, calling it a “mark of separation.”
His remarks reflected a sense that British society is heading toward ever deeper fissures between its Muslim minority and non-Muslim majority, evoking questions about the nation’s readiness to embrace its Muslim minority and the minority’s own willingness to adapt.
The discussion mirrors earlier public disputes in France, Turkey and elsewhere about Muslim headgear — though, in Britain, the debate is largely limited to the use of the full-face veil known as the niqab.
“It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable,” Mr. Blair said when asked at a regular news conference whether he believed women wearing a full-faced veil could make a complete contribution to society.
There were signs, too, today, that the dispute had spread further across Europe. In an interview in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi was quoted as saying women should not be hidden behind veils.
“You can’t cover your face, you must be seen,” Mr. Prodi told Reuters, adding: “This is common sense I think; it is important for our society. It is not how you dress but if you are hidden or not.”
In Muslim societies the full veil is sometimes worn to shield women from the view of men outside their immediate family. The debate about its use among a small number of British Muslim women has crystallized around the case of Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant suspended by a local council for refusing to remove her full-face veil during class in the presence of male teachers.
Mr. Blair said he could “see the reason” for Mrs. Azmi to be suspended from her job at a Church of England school in Dewsbury, Yorkshire, where there is a substantial Muslim minority. Within hours, her lawyers issued a statement accusing Mr. Blair of interfering in a labor tribunal case about Mrs. Azmi’s suspension and they demanded a retraction.
It was the first time Mr. Blair had so explicitly backed Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, who raised Muslim ire earlier this month by saying he did not believe women should wear the full-face veil, a form of headdress, usually black, with only a narrow slit for the eyes. The argument against the niqab, according to critics like Mr. Straw, is that it prevents communication and sets its wearer visibly apart.
“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said, referring to the use of the full-face veil. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”
“We have to deal with the debate,” Mr. Blair said. “People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism.”
The debate is depicted by Muslims as a symbol of stigmatization by the non-Muslim majority.
The leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Bari, said in an open letter that some Muslims had been considering changing their names “in order to avoid anti-Muslim remarks. This is what happens when a community is singled out by those at the helm of affairs.”
Non-Muslims say it shows a reluctance among the 1.6 million Islamic minority — 3 percentof the population — to compromise for the sake of social harmony. David Davis, the Conservative opposition spokesman on home affairs, said last weekend that British Muslims risked creating “voluntary apartheid” by displays of separateness such as the full-face veil.
The gulf has been widening since the July 7, 2005, London bombings by British Muslims, but the argument has sharpened in recent weeks. In late September, Abu Izzadeen, a convert to Islam regarded by Muslims and others as a radical, harangued John Reid, the home affairs minister, at a public meeting in east London. Significantly, he called the minister an “enemy of Islam and Muslims,” demanding to know how Mr. Reid could venture into a “Muslim area” when he had ordered the arrest of Muslims in recent counterterror operations.
Then, after Mr. Straw questioned the wearing of the niqab veil in early October, a government education minister, Phil Woolas, went further last weekend, calling openly for Mrs. Azmi, the teaching assistant, to be dismissed. A slew of other government ministers, now including the prime minister, have joined the debate.
The discussion spills over into Britain’s broader embroilment in the campaign against terrorism and the war in Iraq. Mr. Blair and others say Muslims must do more to police their own ranks, while some Muslims say Britain’s deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerates the radicalization of young Muslim men like the July 7 bombers.
Last week, Britain’s top army commander, Sir Richard Dannatt, said British troops should be pulled out of Iraq “some time soon.”
But today Mr. Blair said : “If we walk away before the job is done from either of those two countries, we will leave a situation in which the very people we are fighting everywhere, including the extremism in our own country, are heartened and emboldened and we can’t afford that to happen. So we have got to see that job through.”
This article appeared in the New York Times
I don't see how any of this can be debatable. If Muslims feel these rules are oppressive, they're no more so than the Saudi rule enforcing veils even among western women. If I think the values of the place I live in are incompatible with my own, I leave.
LONDON, Oct. 17 — Prime Minister Tony Blair today joined a passionate and increasingly corrosive debate over the use of the Islamic full-face veil by some British Muslim women, calling it a “mark of separation.”
His remarks reflected a sense that British society is heading toward ever deeper fissures between its Muslim minority and non-Muslim majority, evoking questions about the nation’s readiness to embrace its Muslim minority and the minority’s own willingness to adapt.
The discussion mirrors earlier public disputes in France, Turkey and elsewhere about Muslim headgear — though, in Britain, the debate is largely limited to the use of the full-face veil known as the niqab.
“It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable,” Mr. Blair said when asked at a regular news conference whether he believed women wearing a full-faced veil could make a complete contribution to society.
There were signs, too, today, that the dispute had spread further across Europe. In an interview in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi was quoted as saying women should not be hidden behind veils.
“You can’t cover your face, you must be seen,” Mr. Prodi told Reuters, adding: “This is common sense I think; it is important for our society. It is not how you dress but if you are hidden or not.”
In Muslim societies the full veil is sometimes worn to shield women from the view of men outside their immediate family. The debate about its use among a small number of British Muslim women has crystallized around the case of Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant suspended by a local council for refusing to remove her full-face veil during class in the presence of male teachers.
Mr. Blair said he could “see the reason” for Mrs. Azmi to be suspended from her job at a Church of England school in Dewsbury, Yorkshire, where there is a substantial Muslim minority. Within hours, her lawyers issued a statement accusing Mr. Blair of interfering in a labor tribunal case about Mrs. Azmi’s suspension and they demanded a retraction.
It was the first time Mr. Blair had so explicitly backed Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, who raised Muslim ire earlier this month by saying he did not believe women should wear the full-face veil, a form of headdress, usually black, with only a narrow slit for the eyes. The argument against the niqab, according to critics like Mr. Straw, is that it prevents communication and sets its wearer visibly apart.
“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said, referring to the use of the full-face veil. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”
“We have to deal with the debate,” Mr. Blair said. “People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism.”
The debate is depicted by Muslims as a symbol of stigmatization by the non-Muslim majority.
The leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Bari, said in an open letter that some Muslims had been considering changing their names “in order to avoid anti-Muslim remarks. This is what happens when a community is singled out by those at the helm of affairs.”
Non-Muslims say it shows a reluctance among the 1.6 million Islamic minority — 3 percentof the population — to compromise for the sake of social harmony. David Davis, the Conservative opposition spokesman on home affairs, said last weekend that British Muslims risked creating “voluntary apartheid” by displays of separateness such as the full-face veil.
The gulf has been widening since the July 7, 2005, London bombings by British Muslims, but the argument has sharpened in recent weeks. In late September, Abu Izzadeen, a convert to Islam regarded by Muslims and others as a radical, harangued John Reid, the home affairs minister, at a public meeting in east London. Significantly, he called the minister an “enemy of Islam and Muslims,” demanding to know how Mr. Reid could venture into a “Muslim area” when he had ordered the arrest of Muslims in recent counterterror operations.
Then, after Mr. Straw questioned the wearing of the niqab veil in early October, a government education minister, Phil Woolas, went further last weekend, calling openly for Mrs. Azmi, the teaching assistant, to be dismissed. A slew of other government ministers, now including the prime minister, have joined the debate.
The discussion spills over into Britain’s broader embroilment in the campaign against terrorism and the war in Iraq. Mr. Blair and others say Muslims must do more to police their own ranks, while some Muslims say Britain’s deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerates the radicalization of young Muslim men like the July 7 bombers.
Last week, Britain’s top army commander, Sir Richard Dannatt, said British troops should be pulled out of Iraq “some time soon.”
But today Mr. Blair said : “If we walk away before the job is done from either of those two countries, we will leave a situation in which the very people we are fighting everywhere, including the extremism in our own country, are heartened and emboldened and we can’t afford that to happen. So we have got to see that job through.”
This article appeared in the New York Times
posted by Basil Epicurus at 3:45 PM
5 Comments:
Good point-that article has the potential to stir up a lot of crap with the headline, which is somewhat misleading.
I've got mixed feelings about the immigration problems of today. The US was founded on immigrants, all of whom came here and experienced hardship, prejudice, poverty, struggle, and much much more. The reason why American society eventually, more or less, came together, was because people assimilated. In fact, a recent study shows that Pakistanis in the US assimilated better that Pakistanis in the UK. I think everyone is entitled to worship in whatever way suits them personally, provided that it doesn't affect anyone else. But, if you find that your ideas are imcompatible with the society in which you live, like you said Basil, there are societies out there which most likely do make a better match. In the US and the UK, I think the niqab can be quite isolating.
It is as he said it is, a mark of separation & i think they should ban it, It is not religious in anyway & those who cover their faces are just idiotic.
Well, atheists think religious people are nuts and vice versa, and all religions make a living poo-pooing other religions.
But the question here isn't how idiotic they are for having a certain set of beliefs, but the line between tolerance for those beliefs and the social obligations that are expected of them.
After the infamous "cartoons" incident, I recall reading an open letter from who I believe was the editor-in-chief of the paper in question (i'm too tired to search for a link tonight). He said something to this effect:
I do respect your [world] religions. When I enter a mosque, I remove my shoes and behave accordingly. When I am in your countries, I observe your beliefs. But do not expect your taboos to be my taboos.
Hey Maggie, thanks for writing in. I agree, for the most part, with your comment. I did have some problems with your characterization of what may or may not be acceptable to Muslims.
For instance, you say:
"It is deeply offensive to the most fundamental feeling of people in free societies to see other people openly oppressed"
and:
"To see degradation of another human being worn publicly and held up as a virtue of some sort is simply sickening to us."
My own personal beliefs are that veils are unneccessary and Burqa/ Niqabs are unacceptable. That said, a lot of communities (including the Amish and the Hasidum, here in NY) insist on a dress code for women that emphasises modesty. You seem to have inferred that a veil or a niqab is synonymous with subjugation, which is simply not true. I have a couple of cousins who turned to the niqab of their own volition, as adults and believe this is how they're supposed to live. Their husbands are certainly NOT oppressing them. On the contrary, they wield equal power and, in the privacy of their homes, the dynamics of their relationship would be difficult to distinguish from a western one.
This link that you draw between the niqab and female oppression is, I'm afraid, a knee jerk one and while it may be true for burqad women in countries like Afghanistan, it is less likely to be so in a country like the UK or the US. You may not be able to grasp this, due to a cultural bias (which we all have), but the situation is much more nuanced than how you appear to have understood it.
Secondly, your equation of veiling/ niqabs with genital mutilation or honor killings, is really distressing to me. Again, the link simply isn't there. One is a personal choice, the others are a crime against humanity. My own mother was circumcised and my grandmother was neither veiled nor a monster. It is due to ignorance that it happens, not part of a grand scheme to subjugate women. I'm highly critical of arab/ muslim societies but I believe you're judging other cultures based on your own cultural lens.
Thirdly, the subject of polygamy is a touchy one for most Muslims. That said, I don't agree with you that it's disgusting and really caution you against proclaiming people's customs as such, when a) there's a rationale behind them and b) the West doesn't seem to have the same moral judgement on, say, someone who has kids with different women and then shirks his responsibilities towards them. Which is what polygamy was designed to do: make men accountable and ensure that kids from different women received their rights.
Polygamy is not common among the educated, in the Arab world. If my dad tried to pull that shit, my mom would bobbit-ize him before you could say 'I do' four times. But I personally think it's more commendable than fathering children all over the place and then not taking care of them. Which is a very real problem here in the US...among the lower socioeconomic classes. Do you see the link?
Polygamy is like any other system: it has it's flaws and it can certainly be abused. But the reasons it was set up is not as distasteful as you seem to have inferred from the media. It would be like me saying 'Oh, Southern people sleep with their sisters' which may be true of some people in the South but not all. And in that case, everyone seems willing to chalk that down to the correct reason: ignorance.
Despite all that, I do agree that burqas have no place in a Western society...where the women wish to participate in the economy, the market and the legal system. The difference is that it's simply impractical and not 'conducive to the greater good'. But it can't be banned or anything since this would undercut the principles of freedom that western socieities are based on. Rather, the Muslims need to adapt in order to reach an acceptable compromise. But the West needs to do the same.
The last thing I take issue with, Maggie, and I must say, I found this to be quite an egregious statement and almost a betrayal of your personal feelings of nationalism and so forth:
"If you are in our countries..."
I think you'll find that this is their country as well. And while a modicum of integration and assimilation is the burden of any new immigrant group, it's also their right not to abandon their belief system entirely and to work with other immigrant groups, over time, to arrive at social harmony and cooperation.
I hope you're not offended by my response, just like I wasn't offended by yours.
Post a Comment
<< Home