After mulling it over for a while, I’ve decided that it is permissible for Western secular societies to ban the Islamic veil, or niqab, in certain circumstances, including women in court, engaged in business in places like a bank, holding government jobs, and in government-supported schools. In such places the requirements of secular society overrule religious dictates, as they have in the U.S. in certain circumstances. France has also banned the full-face niqab everywhere in public, a decision upheld by the European Court of Human Rights this summer. I also see the veil as a tool of women’s oppression, regardless of their claims that wearing it is a “choice”. Well, it’s not a choice in the Muslim societies that require it, and where you can be beaten, or worse, for not wearing it.
Nevertheless, a famous girls’ school in London has just banned the veil, and it’s causing trouble among Muslims. In a nice piece at the UK’s National Secular Society, Maajid Nawaz defended the Camden School for Girls (I used to date someone who had gone there, and learned that the school now allows boys) for their decision.
You may remember Nawaz, a former Muslim extremist who became a moderate and now decries extremist Islam. He’s now head of The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank. You’ll remember the big to-do about the London School of Economics students selling Jesus and Mo tee shirts, and Nawaz tw**ted this about them: “This is not offensive & I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it.” As a result, he received death threats and, shamefully, petitions (signed by both Muslims and non-Muslims) to the Liberal Democratic Party to remove him as their candidate for Parliament. (See my post about it here.) I guess the non-Muslim Brits who signed it were afraid that Nawaz was an “Islamophobe” because of that tw**t. That’s equally shameful.
At any rate, here are a few excerpts from Nawaz’s piece:”Education, not the veil, must come first in schools”:
British Muslims are facing yet another controversy. Camden School for Girls in London has introduced a strict dress code for its pupils. Part of the code states that pupils’ faces should remain visible. As such, the school has insisted that a 16-year-old girl who gained admittance to study A levels must show her face when on school grounds.
A petition — yet another petition — has been started, claiming discrimination against Muslims and asserting religious freedom. The school must expect everything from protests and boycotts to sit-ins. But the real controversy is that this can even be a controversy. And I, like many other British Muslims, will once again collectively sigh: how on earth did we let it all come to this?
The answer is fear. We are all guilty, Muslim and non-Muslim, of decades of appeasing those with extreme ideas about “identity”. As a result, other groups, mostly of the far right, have emerged with equal force.
. . . No, you do not have the freedom to wear what you like at school. There is a dress code, defined by the school itself. And just as pupils are not allowed to wear crash helmets or hoodies in schools, they are not allowed to wear the veil. Any policy but that would be discrimination.
Teachers must be able to verify, at all times, that everyone on school grounds is a pupil. For that, the face must be visible at all times. Teaching is about communication, and much communication happens through facial expressions. For that, the face must remain visible.
The religion of Islam, my religion, can be interpreted in many ways. The view that the face veil is obligatory is a minority position, heavily disputed by most Muslims. The first command in Islam was to “read”, not to “cover up”, and so education must always trump ritual. This country grants more religious freedom to practise Islam, or any other religion, than all the countries in which the face veil is enforced as law. We should say to any Muslim protesting against Camden School for Girls’ decision: “You simply do not know how good you have it.”
Actually, that’s most of Nawaz’s post, which is short. And for that he’ll undoubtedly receive more threats. But, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he persists, for he is not a coward. The Camden School for Girls will, likewise, be besieged not just by Muslims, but by misguided non-Muslim Brits who see banning the veil as “Islamophobic.” Well, too bad: it’s not hatred of Muslims, but of one of their religious dictates. Secular needs trump religious ones when they conflict, and students in government schools must show their faces. It’s not even a dislike of Islam itself, but a view that one of their “customs” is inimical to maintaining a harmonious democratic society. Were Catholics or Jews to have religously-mandated face covering, I’d decry that as well.
Stand firm, Camden School for Girls!
sub
Well I never thought I’d hear Jerry Coyne confess to being a muller.
“Muller”, as in “reflective thinker characterized by quiet contemplation”?
Since Jerry said he’d been mulling, clearly.
But also, I’m pretty sure, a play on “mullah”.
/@
PS. And certainly not “a stone or other heavy weight used for grinding artists’ pigments or other material on a slab”!
I thought it was well known.
That’s why I asked the question! Wasn’t sure if Genghis had that meaning in mind, lol.
The clue to a homonym was in the “hear”.
I have been troubled by the veil issue. Individual freedom is of great importance, and the veil seems like an individual freedom issue. But where do the limits lie? This helps put it in perspective. I think France may have gone a bit too far.
Children can not speak whenever they want during school for fear of punishment. Call your senators!
Individual freedoms have a high place in democratic societies, but there are various conflicts in this case. Choosing to wear the veil should not trump concerns over security or academic integrity. Teachers should know if that is you taking a test, for example.
I am less sure about the balance between individual freedom and the understandable need of others to see your expressions when they are talking to you. In any case, students going to a school with a dress code are obligated to have less ‘individual freedom’.
I’m not in favour of any general restrictions on what you can where in public, but I think any organization has the right to set a dress code, whether it’s a school or a restaurant.
/@
*wear in public
😞
But where exactly in public are you concerned about wearing in public? Yes, of course schools, and perhaps restaurants, but what about at the swing set in the public park?
What about on the sidewalk between the school and the restaurant?
Public.
/@
I’m troubled by it for the same reason. I am somewhat more comfortable with having children abide by school dress codes because I don’t believe they have a meaningful choice after years of indoctrination.
I am suspicious of that argument, though, because it supports my anti-religious gut reaction.
My anti-religious gut thinks likewise.
Yes, personal freedom is very important. But pretty much all laws restrict individual freedom. I can’t drive through red lights, or take my neighbor’s car just because I want it. What makes this such a big dispute is that it’s a religious issue. As in the post Jerry quoted, no one is protesting because students can’t wear hoodies in class. It’s because religion demands to be treated as privileged, somehow deserving of special consideration. I don’t buy that.
Good point. Is there such a thing as a law that isn’t intended to restrict someone’s freedom in some way?
This is exactly the point imo. Religion thinks it should have special dispensation when it comes to the law. In the US it was the “sincerely held” religious views of Hobby Lobby et al. If someone’s sincerely held views were those of, for example, the KKK, we wouldn’t consider they should have special dispensation, so religion should be no different. Further, as has already been mentioned, these children could be being forced to wear the niqab against their will anyway, and unable to speak out.
Agreed, but on the other hand, just because an expression is religious, should it be banned? What about kids wearing a cross around their neck? Something with no overt anti-social effect?
Fine unless all kinds of pendant are banned, e.g., for health & safety reasons.
/@
Well I would not contemplate talking to anyone whose face I cannot see.
It is very distancing. I saw a woman in a niqab in the railway station in Toronto and thought how unapproachable she is because you can’t see her face and barely her eyes. You can’t relate to her at all. That to me is sad and disturbing.
It’s simple — in circumstances where a mask would interfere with identificaton or communication (non-verbal communication of facial expression) then masks, including niqqab & veils, should not be permitted.
I am uncertain about the French law — is it just the niqqab, or all forms of masks? If the latter, are exceptions made for special occasions or temporary activities, as opposed to continuous & routine usage?
In France it is about the separation of church and state. Crucifixes, etc. are also banned in state institutions such as schools and government offices.
And, now that I click through on the links supplied above by the good Prof. I see that they also have a separate law that prohibits the covering of the face in public by any means, religious or otherwise, safety helmets, etc. execepted. So no more V for Vendetta masks at protests either.
I think the school made the right decision. Not being able to identify students is dangerous as you can not reliably keep account of where those students are.
Maajid Nawaz has it right. The underlying problem is that ignorant outsiders accept the claims of the noisiest and most uncompromising to represent their religious or even ethnic communities.
All power to those who dispute such claims; to Nawaz for challenging the doctrinal credentials of those who interpret Islam as demanding the veil, and to those Christians who challenge the doctrinal credentials of creationists.
Hi Paul,
I tend to agree, but:
(1) People should be entitled to decide for themselves what their religion is and what it requires, and not be dictated to either way by interpreters of Islamic doctrine, and
(2) Whether or not the veil is required by a religious belief should be entirely irrelevant for whether they are allowed to wear it in school.
Point (1) is religious freedom, (2) is basic equality, that everyone should be expected to abide by the same rules and that being religious doesn’t grant one extra rights.
The use of death threats by religious people belies their “love and peace” BS.
They need to be asked, constantly, why it is so important to choose compliance over sincerity.
And, when CHILDREN have to have their faces veiled, it’s not a choice. L
I can tell you for a fact that the French law is only politics. I see in every major city women completely covered. The police simply doesn’t notice that. And when asked they move that slow even a todler would get away. Some say they are afraid because the guardians of the veiled women are quite violent. Some say they just haven’t noticed.
In Belgium the police was attacked by islamists for enforcing the law[1]. Yet I haven’t read about islamists being thrown out of the EU because of their activities. Some guy even created quite a stirr[2].
Bottom line, the humanists are quite bottom naked before the islamists.
[1] http://www.euronews.com/2012/06/01/brussels-police-attacked-by-islamists-mayor/
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728932/Senior-Belgian-diplomat-arrested-tearing-face-veil-Qatari-princess-asked-directions.html
“This country grants more religious freedom to practise Islam, or any other religion, than all the countries in which the face veil is enforced as law.”
That’s a great line.
Indeed!
Sub
When did “phobia” come to mean “hatred” instead of “fear”?
I think when “phobia” is used in words like “homophobia”, “Islamophobia”, etc., it is meant to invoke its connotation as “irrational antipathy”.
Which goes to show that trying to label certain views as “Islamophobic” is a misnomer. Good reasons abound for opposing certain Islamic doctrines and practices.
Yeah, as they say: “It’s not Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you”.
…except not to vocal Islamists.
If muslims can arbitrarily require women to cover up, the the church of the FSM might decide to require that they go naked – and both such dictates are equally absurd. If a school can dictate the length of skirts, require the wearing of bras, ban the recent practice of wearing pants below one’s ass crack – all because these things are said to detract from the educational mission – I see no reason why banning the veil can’t be one of the school’s prerogatives.
Not to parse out words, but is ban really the accurate term? Isn’t the school simply not extending an exception to the dress code to muslims? Anyone who has ever been a teacher can attest to the necessity of being able to see you student’s faces. So the veiled A-level student is really just asking for a religious exemption to a part of the dress codes that effects the teachers ability to educate and can be a potential safety and security concern.
The Qatari Women’s basketball team withdrew from the Asian Games yesterday for what they described as a ban on the hijab. The rules for basketball regarding headgear are very clear. Glasses, goggles and headbands are permissible in most leagues, but head coverings, caps, rags or hats are prohibited. It has nothing to do with islamophobia, Sikh athletes have been prohibited from wearing turbans on the court in prior competitions. So when the Qatari Women’s basketball team say they are withdrawing in protest of a ban, what they are actually doing is withdrawing because they are not being given an exception to the rules which will allow Qatari society to remind these women that even though they have the honor of representing their country in international competition, they are still to be subjugated.
My guess is that the dress code never considered that students might show up with veiled faces. It likely isn’t “encoded”, so this issue wouldn’t be a matter of granting an exemption, but of modifying the code to reflect previously assumed behavior.
That said, I agree with the ban.
So, in a way, they are not so much withdrawing as being unable to meet the standing qualifications.
Exactly. They are essentially withdrawing because they will not adhere to the rules regarding uniforms.
The question is, why is religious freedom more important than any other freedom? I’m sure there is a great number of outfits and accessories that are not allowed at that school and, apparently, no one has a problem with that. In some countries, the US included, the traffic authority will allow you to wear a colander in your driver’s licence photo before they allow you to wear a wool hat.
“US included, the traffic authority will allow you to wear a colander in your driver’s licence photo before they allow you to wear a wool hat.”
These Departments of Traffic are different in each state in the US. I think some states have denied the religious colander of Pastafarians on drivers licenses. In some cases the individuals had to jump through many whoops to obtain permission.
Presumably spaghetti “whoops”?
many whoops?? LOL;-) I’d love to whoop with a collander on my head;-)
There you go. Making virtue of necessity.
I believe that in New Jersey a guy was told that a colander is not on the official list of religious headgear, while in, of all places, Texas and Oklahoma it has been recently accepted. But the exemption is only made for religious head coverings, not for any other reason. In other words, if someone claims that they need to wear a wool hat at all times, trying to justify it rationally, for example by a medical condition, or that they are embarrased by being bald, or whatever – it will be refused. But if they say that an invisible pasta monster told them to do so – no problem.
It’s easy to defend a dress code on some narrow grounds. But what France did takes guts.
A proper role of civilized society is the preservation of human dignity, especially for women. And that is why an enlightened society should not allow – in public – symbolic slavery disguised as quasi-religious custom, whether it be a veil, chador or burqa.
For the same reason we reject the flying of the Confederate flag at government buildings we should reject the burqa. For the same reason we reject separate but equal, female genital mutilation, and public stoning, we should reject the veil.
And we have a long history of preserving human dignity in public. We have rejected child labor, slavery, public executions and punishment. We are halfway to rejecting public spanking of children. Forget about not sparing the rod. We even protect the dignity of animals in public – we have outlawed cock fighting, animal cruelty.
And yet we are conflicted over whether it is proper to allow the public dehumanization and degradation of women?
My understanding is that the French law serves the purpose of expressing solidarity.
We have lived in two different cities in France (not Paris) for the last fifteen years, and though we have not ever seen a woman wearing a niqab, we haven’t seen much police either. My husband has never, and I just once! Therefore the enforcing of this ‘law’ is pretty hard to come by.
Well, when you put it that way…
And yet again liberals rush to defend the most extreme forms of illiberalism….
See in particuar Gaby Hinsliff’s criticism of the school in (of course) The Guardian.
There are no shortage of good reasons to dislike face veiling ( it demeans women, it demeans men, it blocks communication, it’s a rejection of western society etc etc) but the main reason to hope the school doesn’t crumble in the face of the inevitable schouts of Islamophobia is that if it does it will set a worrying precedent; veiling will become more and more commonplace and the walls between muslims and the rest of society will grow higher.
And yet again liberals race to defend the intrinsically illiberal.
See Gaby Hinsliff’s article crticising the school in (of course) The Guardian.
There are plenty of good liberal reasons to despise face veiling (it demeans women, it demeans men, it blocks commiunication, it’s a clear rejection of western, liberal values etc etc )but the main reason to hope that the school stands firm against the shouts of Islamophobia is the precedent that will be set if they crumble. Veiling in schools will be seen as a right and will become more and more commonplace. The walls between muslims and the rest of society will grow even higher.
Hope I don’t get any threats for this. Are moderate Muslims a sham to keep us believing that the ultimate Muslim goal is to take over the world. In some European counties, Belgium and The Netherlands Muslin populations are exploding. The silent majority are having many children. The Muslim population is 30% in Brussels now and some to be 50%, what then? Sharia for everyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAivyEazJQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1T_15IDAg8
Sharia in America…
http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/
Just saying…
Nope: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp
Ah, it’s a satirical web site, thank goodness!
Just to be clear… “the national report” link is a satire site. The two video clips are not satire.
Thank Ceiling Cat that’s a fake!
I checked Snopes –
“the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories”
Please do not embed videos in the comments section! Read the Roolz about how to avoid it.
This lifts the veil from my eyes. And Nawaz piece is a gem to behold!
“The first command in Islam was to “read”…
I’ve always understood the first command in Islam was to “recite”. After all Mo was illiterate as was almost everyone else back in 652 AD.
It was all carried on originially by word of mouth, it was years after Mo died that the Quran was put down in writing.
GRR. Good rant regardless.
Supposed to be a reply to jblilie – “Sorry, this was supposed to be…”.
I think the links are broken again. Someone should talk to someone.
My focus here is on the daughters of women who “choose” to wear the burqa/niqab. It’s hard to argue with a woman who says see has freely chosen to wear a burqa/niqab. However, without indoctrination, she would never has done so, and neither will her daughters. Allowing her to wear them in public has the efect of aiding and abetting her indoctrination of her daughters to do likewise. And the cycle of discrimination against women continues.
Pulled away from its religious context, the wearing of the burqa/niqab IS essentially discrimination against women, even if they choose to be discriminated against (many slaves also chose to be slaves and initially rejected the abolition of slavery). Whatever the law can do to prevent this “choosing to be discrimiated against” to be recycled in the daughters of these woman can only be a good thing for these daughters. That’s why I support the ban.
Really, who on Earth would “freely choose” to spend their entire public life covered in a sack.
“we” (here on this website) often ask the question, perhaps half jokingly, whether there are any moderate Muslims.
Maajid Nawaz certainly seems one. Eminently sensible. The fact he is constantly attacked by fellow Muslims tells you what you need to know about them.