Events & Issues

New Delhi, 20 July 2010

‘Veil Ban’ Controversy

ALL ABOUT BEING MUSLIM?

By Syed Ali Mujtaba

The controversial issue of banning the veil has taken Europe by storm. One after another, countries across the Continent are endorsing the idea against Muslim women wearing the veil that covers them from head to toe.

There seems to be unanimity towards accepting the majority view on Muslim women dress norms but there is little effort to explain the reasons why it is necessary to do so.

Some facts have surfaced to counter the ‘ban veil’ propaganda and it is vital to bring these out so that the one-sided cacophony on this issue does not become gospel truth.

Five arguments are commonly made in favor of the proposed ban of the veil. One, that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places. Two, that the kind of transparency and reciprocity appropriate for relations among citizens is impeded by covering part of the face.

Three, the veil is a symbol of male domination that signifies the objectification of women, who in turn are being seen as mere objects. Four, women wear the veil because they are coerced. Last but not least, the veil is unhealthy per se, as it is hot and uncomfortable!

An American political and ethics philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who has written extensively on gender and social justice has come out with some cogent arguments that demolish all the five propositions advanced in the campaign for banning of the veil.

According to her, the arguments that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places and relations among citizens is impeded by covering part of the face, are applied inconsistently.

Citing an example she states:  In Chicago and in many parts of Europe when it gets very cold, people walk the streets with their hats pulled down over ears and brows and scarves wound tightly around noses and mouths. At that time no problems of either transparency or security are raised nor are people forbidden to enter public buildings so insulated. Moreover, many professionals cover their faces all year round. Namely, surgeons, dentists, (American) football players, skiers and skaters.

What inspires fear and mistrust in Europe, clearly, is not covering of the face per se, but Muslims covering it, she points out. True, it is reasonable to demand that a Muslim woman has her full face photograph on her driver's license and passport. Of course, with suitable protection for modesty during the photographic session.

Equally correct however, is that the face is a very bad identifier. At immigration checkpoints, eye-recognition and fingerprinting technologies have already replaced the photograph. Also, when these superior technologies extend to police and airport security lines, one would be able to do away with the photograph. Bluntly, in this scenario security considerations don’t hold good.

Besides, Nussbaum asserts, there is a glaring flaw in the argument that the veil is a symbol of male domination that signifies the objectification of women. Why isolate the veil alone, society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects, she argues. Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans et al treat women as objects, as do many aspects of our media culture.

Add to this the "degrading prison" of plastic surgery. Isn't this done in order to conform to a male norm of female beauty that casts women as sex objects, she queries. Why don’t the proponents of the ban on the veil propose to bar all these objectifying practices? On the obverse, they often participate in them. After all, banning all such practices on the basis of equality would be an intolerable invasion of liberty.

Once again, then, the opponents of the veil are utterly inconsistent, betraying a fear of the different that is discriminatory and unworthy of a liberal democracy, she asserts. The way to deal with sexism, in this case as in all, is by persuasion and example, not by removing liberty, she suggests.

On the fourth point, that women wear the veil only because they are coerced, Nussbaum views this is a rather implausible argument. In fact, this is typically made by people who have no idea what the circumstances of a woman are. Instead, the authorities should zealously enforce laws against domestic violence and abuse, given that all forms of violence and physical coercion in the home are illegal.

For those who consider domestic violence to be a peculiarly Muslim problem, Nussbaum disagrees. As there is no evidence that Muslim families have a disproportionate amount of such violence. Indeed, given the strong association between domestic violence and the abuse of alcohol, it is likely that observant Muslim families will have less of domestic violence.

Not only that. She finds the fifth argument that the veil is per se unhealthy, because it is hot and uncomfortable, the silliest of reasons. She points out that clothing that covers the body can be comfortable or uncomfortable, depending on the fabric and not as one imagines so.

Questionably, then shouldn’t those proposing the veil ban seek to prohibit all uncomfortable and unhealthy female clothing? Like high heels, fashionable as they are. But no, as high heels are associated with majority norms, they draw no ire.

Clearly, all the arguments put forth for the ban are discriminatory and utterly whimsical. In multi-religious and cultural societies one should be accommodating and not oppose anything on grounds of religiosity.  There is no place for such arguments in a society that is committed to equal liberty and equal respect to fellow beings. Our conscience requires that this be outrightly rejected. ------ INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)