The French Burqua Ban - Or Bad Law is Bad
May. 22nd, 2010 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99I was hoping to not write this, because I was hoping that France would see sense and not bring in the stupid anti-veil law.
The worst of it is, that, while being absolutely against it, I can see why they can claim liberality while doing it.
The rest of this will descend into opinion and anecdotes.
The vast majority of the Muslims I know are women. The majority of these do not wear headcoverings of any description. The not so hidden purpose of the legislation (let's make it look like we're being tough on foreigners) is being fulfilled by attacking those who are visibly other, while being able to claim its not anti-Muslim because look at all these women it isn't affecting.
And that's the thing, that annoyed at least one of my friends so much, the particularly extreme brand of Wahabi-influenced Saudi Islam being held up as being 'the real thing'. It like holding up the Westborough Baptists lot as being 'real Christianity'. And that's the only cultural tradition where head-scarves are a thing (possibly also Northern Pakistan/Afghanistan, but the Pakistani girls I knew didn't wear headscarves). Most of the Muslim women I know aren't of that tradition, and at least one of them will point out that niquabs and burquas are unislamic in the extreme. None of them consider themselves to be bad Muslims because they don't wear headcoverings.
There's all kinds of ways that you can say that niqabs are demeaning to women and you're being all heroically liberal by banning them. For instance, I don't like the way, due to cultural stuff, it's only women that have to wear full coverings, when the Koran states both genders should be dressed modestly.
I've also seen the use of headscarves as a way of showing your control over women. A friend of mine was going through a bad patch with her husband, and in order to prevent him divorcing her (and her losing her visa and thus her PhD place [I only wish I was joking about that]), she agreed to wear a headscarf. When the bastard divorced her anyway, she stopped wearing a headscarf.
But I'm certainly not going to force my views on someone else's body, which this law certainly does.
My housemate N and I had a discussion about this, back when Shabina Begum was making the headlines - Details here.
Now there were lots of interesting things going on with this case, not least of which was that the head teacher, a practising Muslim himself, had organised it so that the school uniform worked with the "standards of modesty" of the local mosques.
Being as I am generally of the opinion that, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, people should wear what they want, I said I didn't see the problem.
N's argument was that there were enough nut-jobs who would then start shaming the girls that didn't wear the full-body armour and pressurising them into wearing it through any means necessary, that she felt that the school had made more than enough provision to cover "modesty".
She also said that once you start down that path you end up in a cycle of who's holier than who that never ends well either.
Of the two ladies I know that do wear headcoverings, one only wears a scarf, and had done for all of her school career (she was a friend of the other housemate N). The other, one of my students at present, wears a headscarf that she then wraps around her mouth. Now, due to being hard of hearing, this has caused me a couple of problems, but that is easily solved by me explaining that I have trouble hearing, and her repeating what she's saying a couple of times. It also makes it slightly harder to tell if she's understood the work that I've set her because I can't see the traditional student tell of 'what is she on about' which is a slight crinkle of the brow and a quirk up of one side of the face.
This is the bit I'm going to get it in the neck for - while I believe that it's everyone's right to wear what they will, I think that teachers shouldn't wear face-coverings because it negatively affects the ability of students with hearing problems to learn. I feel very strongly about this because my primary school had a hearing special needs unit attached (that's where I learnt to lip-read, something which regularly comes in handy). But, I also extend this to excessively large beards for the same reasons, which this law doesn't.
But, whatever your feelings on the matter, legislation is not the way to go about this, because all you're going to get is a push-back. For personal example, when the last government were doing the whole thing about introducing a law against the glorification of terror, both my Mum and I wondered if they were going to include Irish rebel song in that, and that, if they didn't, we'd have to write letters pointing out the two-facedness of that, and if they did, we'd have to protest with singing. I could certainly understand if people started to wear niqabs in protest.
Also this is a devisive law. It means that people can start looking at each other and going 'see, she's not a good Muslim because she's obeying this country's law instead of our customs' or 'see, she's a good Muslim, because she looks like us and doesn't wear a headcovering'. No good can come from that.
So yes, in short, bad law. Won't work. Bad things may happen.
The worst of it is, that, while being absolutely against it, I can see why they can claim liberality while doing it.
The rest of this will descend into opinion and anecdotes.
The vast majority of the Muslims I know are women. The majority of these do not wear headcoverings of any description. The not so hidden purpose of the legislation (let's make it look like we're being tough on foreigners) is being fulfilled by attacking those who are visibly other, while being able to claim its not anti-Muslim because look at all these women it isn't affecting.
And that's the thing, that annoyed at least one of my friends so much, the particularly extreme brand of Wahabi-influenced Saudi Islam being held up as being 'the real thing'. It like holding up the Westborough Baptists lot as being 'real Christianity'. And that's the only cultural tradition where head-scarves are a thing (possibly also Northern Pakistan/Afghanistan, but the Pakistani girls I knew didn't wear headscarves). Most of the Muslim women I know aren't of that tradition, and at least one of them will point out that niquabs and burquas are unislamic in the extreme. None of them consider themselves to be bad Muslims because they don't wear headcoverings.
There's all kinds of ways that you can say that niqabs are demeaning to women and you're being all heroically liberal by banning them. For instance, I don't like the way, due to cultural stuff, it's only women that have to wear full coverings, when the Koran states both genders should be dressed modestly.
I've also seen the use of headscarves as a way of showing your control over women. A friend of mine was going through a bad patch with her husband, and in order to prevent him divorcing her (and her losing her visa and thus her PhD place [I only wish I was joking about that]), she agreed to wear a headscarf. When the bastard divorced her anyway, she stopped wearing a headscarf.
But I'm certainly not going to force my views on someone else's body, which this law certainly does.
My housemate N and I had a discussion about this, back when Shabina Begum was making the headlines - Details here.
Now there were lots of interesting things going on with this case, not least of which was that the head teacher, a practising Muslim himself, had organised it so that the school uniform worked with the "standards of modesty" of the local mosques.
Being as I am generally of the opinion that, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, people should wear what they want, I said I didn't see the problem.
N's argument was that there were enough nut-jobs who would then start shaming the girls that didn't wear the full-body armour and pressurising them into wearing it through any means necessary, that she felt that the school had made more than enough provision to cover "modesty".
She also said that once you start down that path you end up in a cycle of who's holier than who that never ends well either.
Of the two ladies I know that do wear headcoverings, one only wears a scarf, and had done for all of her school career (she was a friend of the other housemate N). The other, one of my students at present, wears a headscarf that she then wraps around her mouth. Now, due to being hard of hearing, this has caused me a couple of problems, but that is easily solved by me explaining that I have trouble hearing, and her repeating what she's saying a couple of times. It also makes it slightly harder to tell if she's understood the work that I've set her because I can't see the traditional student tell of 'what is she on about' which is a slight crinkle of the brow and a quirk up of one side of the face.
This is the bit I'm going to get it in the neck for - while I believe that it's everyone's right to wear what they will, I think that teachers shouldn't wear face-coverings because it negatively affects the ability of students with hearing problems to learn. I feel very strongly about this because my primary school had a hearing special needs unit attached (that's where I learnt to lip-read, something which regularly comes in handy). But, I also extend this to excessively large beards for the same reasons, which this law doesn't.
But, whatever your feelings on the matter, legislation is not the way to go about this, because all you're going to get is a push-back. For personal example, when the last government were doing the whole thing about introducing a law against the glorification of terror, both my Mum and I wondered if they were going to include Irish rebel song in that, and that, if they didn't, we'd have to write letters pointing out the two-facedness of that, and if they did, we'd have to protest with singing. I could certainly understand if people started to wear niqabs in protest.
Also this is a devisive law. It means that people can start looking at each other and going 'see, she's not a good Muslim because she's obeying this country's law instead of our customs' or 'see, she's a good Muslim, because she looks like us and doesn't wear a headcovering'. No good can come from that.
So yes, in short, bad law. Won't work. Bad things may happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-23 10:35 am (UTC)I think that's what it all comes down to. I may disagree heavily with someone being required to cover their face and/or head, but that doesn't mean I think I have the right to decide whether or not they do it.
Also this is a devisive law. It means that people can start looking at each other and going 'see, she's not a good Muslim because she's obeying this country's law instead of our customs' or 'see, she's a good Muslim, because she looks like us and doesn't wear a headcovering'. No good can come from that.
I agree.