A Woman's right to choose....the veil
Posted by Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, at 09:42, Thu 12 October 2006:
My colleague Jack Straw last week sparked a debate on the subject of Muslim women wearing the veil. I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents asking me to outline my position on the issue. I therefore wrote an article this week explaining how I feel about the veil. You can read my article below. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ... THE VEIL
11 October 2006 The Evening Standard (c) 2006 Associated Newspapers. All rights reserved
I HAVE a problem with veils. Part of my problem is emotional. There is something about seeing a woman shrouded in black from head to foot and peering through a slit which shrieks female oppression to me.
However many times Muslim women insist that they are veiled of their own free will, I cannot quite believe it. For nearly a century European women have measured their emancipation by how much flesh they were allowed to show and the height of the feminist movement coincided with the shortest skirts in history. So I find myself thinking that showing no flesh at all must be a backward step. Intellectually, I suspect that veiling the face is more a cultural imperative than a theological one.
Middle Eastern women wearing veils predates Islam. Respected Muslim scholars say that the sacred texts say nothing specifically about veiling the hair or the face. And millions of devout Muslim women in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Indian sub-continent see no need to go veiled.
But, although I am troubled by fully veiled women, I am even more troubled by the physical attacks on Muslim women triggered by recent debate. And I am disturbed by the racism and intolerance of cultural difference which underlies some comment on the issue.
I also know that for some young women wearing a veil is an act of political defiance. Shouldn't we as a society allow them the space for that?
And, like many feminists, I am beginning to wonder if bare flesh and the objectification of women's bodies is quite so liberating after all. Is it possible that stepping out in your veil and getting on with your life might be a true liberation from the pressures of highly sexualised society with its insistence that women look 17 for ever?
I am also troubled that my colleague Jack Straw asks veiled women to remove their veil when they come to him for advice. I understand what he means about the veil being a barrier to communication, but his request still feels like a personal intrusion to me.
Maybe my issues with veiled women are generational. My son thinks the whole debate is a non-issue. From the age of four-and ahalf he went to school with hijab-wearing little girls. He never saw their hair, but thought nothing of it. As he put it, "That was just how they were".
So, despite everything, I find myself saying that "I may not agree with your veil but I will defend to the death your right to wear one".
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Ian McClelland, 10:07, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I'm still not sure what Jack Staw actually said, so murky and twisted and inflamed is the story now it's been squeezed out to us via the press.
Didn't he give them the option of removing the veil during consultation?
Jack Straw has the right to suggest or request this just as veiled women have the right to refuse him.
That's what's still great about this country.
Posted by Vicky Ayech, 10:19, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think my view is pretty much the same, they have the right to wear the veil without being attacked for it or asked to remove it, even if I agree that it is not really required by the religion and to wear it as a political statement is bad taste just now and rather stupid.
When Western women go to religious Arab countries we have to dress according to their rules. I think perhaps Moslems should dress according to our customs when here, but then you would also get a bad reaction in the strictly religious area of Israel if you dress in shorts, and religious Jews dress according to their custom in the UK. Perhaps we should all welcome the diversity.
Posted by Vicky Ayech, 10:25, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Jack Straw was being visited by women asking for his help. He was in a position of power and I think to ask them to remove their veils was insensitive in that situation. They might have felt, no matter how he said it, that they had less chance of getting help if they refused.
I think if he wanted to make the request then it should be in other situations where he is not the person they are about to ask for help from. He would actually always been seen as a powerful figure while he is an MP, although he should be seen as a servant of the people in his constituency.
Posted by Dominic Sweetman, 11:14, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thanks Diane, I think you got it right. And thanks for trying out the 'hearfromyourmp' site: I hope it works for everyone.
Posted by Ian McClelland, 11:43, Thu 12 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Women are expected to cover their legs and shoulders etc... in countries with strict religious or cultural codes, because that's the way those countries are.
Thankfully Britain isn't like that, and so anyone can wear whatever they like.
This is our custom, and we should insist that people wear what they like. Maybe Jack should have phrased his sentiment along these lines: "Please, I insist, wear whatever you like".
Then his visitors could have made their decision without being offended or intimidated or without inflaming the reactionary media.
Don't they teach you politicians anything?
Posted by Chris Burroughes, 22:12, Tue 17 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I. too am uncertain what Jack Straw actually said. However, there seems to be one part of the cultural debate that gets overlooked. Here in Britain we also have a culture. It's not the exclusive preserve of "ethnic minorities". In the culture that I have lived with all my life, in the UK, wearing a mask has been associated with nefarious practices such as robbing banks, being a highwayman, the licentiousness of carnival or of pretending to be somebody else. At a time when people of all cultures and religions are wanting to demonstrate their openness and good faith, maybe some cultural sensitivity could be shown for the practice of facing each other openly. This is a value that I think we should be proud of. Our language bears witness to this in expressions such as meeting face to face, facing up to the truth &c. This more than just a choice of clothing.
We should be equally proud of the lesser(?)freedom of choice in what to wear. However, we have to accept that if we choose to do something that goes against the culture, we must also share responsibility for the consequences. In this case, the consequences may be to increase distrust, just when some groups are complaining of being distrusted. For some that may be a choice they are prepared to pay. It's up to them, but they have played a part in choosing the consequences!
Posted by Ian McClelland, 10:46, Wed 18 October 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree that there is a significant cultural rift between certain elements of Islam and a certain aspect of 'Britishness'. This needs to be openly debated, without recourse to aggression and without recourse to legislation.
My hope is that this can all be resolved through dialogue, compromise and empathy rather than state edict.
However the context of that debate is already beginning to be that of 'us' and 'them'. I think this reveals more about the true basis of the debate, which is actually one of an unconscious racism. A fear of 'the other', fuelled by the current moral panic.