Veiled Threats and Straw Man Arguments
Friday, October 20th, 2006 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerNever wanting to be bested by the French, the British are now doing their best to create a furore over religious dress. Of course being British, we don’t do furore very well (which might be why we have to use a foreign word for it) but we’re doing what we can: a question in parliament here, a street brawl there.
First we had Jack Straw, with his request that Muslim women not wear the veil on the grounds that covering your face makes it harder to establish good community relations. On this point, he is right on two counts: it’s easier to relate to people if 1. you can see their facial expressions and 2. they don’t look like daleks. Outraged reactions that Straw is trampling on Muslims’ human rights are of course ludicrous, but on the other hand, I’m not sure if it’s cricket for a minister to issue “requests” to his constituents, especially when some of them have recently arrived from countries where annoying a minister can result in your having your fingernails pulled out. As one Muslim commented, “Well if it’s only a request, then no problem, but ...”
Now we have the case of the Aishah Azmi, the ESL teaching assistant in Dewsbury who was suspended for wearing the veil. An industrial tribunal has found the school guilty of victimisation but cleared them of the other charges (direct and indirect discrimination, and harrassment). Like the Straw case, it is not clear-cut. The school has a reasonable point that a veil can interfere with language teaching, where facial expression and mouth movements are more important than most people realise (those who have tried having a telephone conversation in a foreign language will know what I mean). Nevertheless, it is interesting that of the many things that can interfere with teaching, they should pick on this one, so Azmi may well have a case for claiming victimisation.
On the other hand, Azmi’s justification of her position is extremely weak. First, she claims that wearing the veil is a requirement of Islam, which it is not. (As a side-issue, those who claim that Islam requires the veil are indirectly slandering the majority of Muslim women who don’t wear it, and the Koran has some stern things to say about slander.) She can of course claim that it is a requirement of her version of Islam, but then a Bektashi could claim that it’s a requirement of their version of Islam that they get drunk, ignore the Ramadan fast and take the piss out of other Muslims. Even if it were a genuine religious requirement, “my religion requires it” is not much of an argument for anything. After all, the holy book of one religion requires that you choose an island, fortify it, and “dung it about with enginery of war” (Liber Al vel Legis, III:4-6). Can you imagine the problems that would cause with planning permission?
Even her argument that she does not wear the veil with children, but only when a male colleague enters the room, which seems reasonable, is not without problems. She is a teaching assistant, which means that a lot of the time, other teachers will be in the room with her. The school can hardly be expected to arrange for only female teachers to work with her—if they did, they could be accused of discriminating in her favour, since all hell would break loose if they complied with the request of a male teacher not to work with female colleagues.
The argument is tangled because it has so many threads. In addition to the religious argument, there is the question of whether an employer can require that employees dress in a certain way. The legal position is uncertain, but EU law probably says “no”, unless there is a practical reason for requiring or banning certain clothes: you can require surgeons and chefs to cover their hair, but not bankers, for example. The school may have a case here, but it’s not a very strong one: wearing a veil may have a practical impact on ESL instruction, but then so can speaking with a Scottish accent.
Then, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ginmar has pointed out, it’s also a gender issue. We see strong reactions against women wearing the veil, but not so much for men wearing baggy trousers or sporting beards. If the problem with the veil is that it involves men telling women what to wear, then telling women not to wear the veil has to be a problem too.
Finally, there’s the whole “Islamophobia” thing. (Personally I dislike the term “Islamophobia” almost as much as I dislike “Islamofascist”, but the word seems to have stuck, and I can’t think of a better one offhand.) There is a popular misconception that conservative Muslims are more Muslim than other Muslims. They’re not; they simply have more cultural baggage (which of course they are perfectly entitled to hang on to if they want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone). There is also an assumption that more Muslim you are, the more likely you are to be a terrorist: you start by going to the mosque, then you start wearing a veil, and before you know it, you’re blowing yourself up in a supermarket. This is arrant nonsense, but it is nonsense that a lot of people believe, or at least feel deep down even if they won’t consciously admit it. Especially after 7/7, it might be best not to push too hard on sensitive points: even if we don’t create more Islamic militants, we might indirectly create more BNP members. People will only integrate into a society when they feel comfortable in it, and Muslim women may be more likely to drop the veil if we drop the veil issue.
First we had Jack Straw, with his request that Muslim women not wear the veil on the grounds that covering your face makes it harder to establish good community relations. On this point, he is right on two counts: it’s easier to relate to people if 1. you can see their facial expressions and 2. they don’t look like daleks. Outraged reactions that Straw is trampling on Muslims’ human rights are of course ludicrous, but on the other hand, I’m not sure if it’s cricket for a minister to issue “requests” to his constituents, especially when some of them have recently arrived from countries where annoying a minister can result in your having your fingernails pulled out. As one Muslim commented, “Well if it’s only a request, then no problem, but ...”
Now we have the case of the Aishah Azmi, the ESL teaching assistant in Dewsbury who was suspended for wearing the veil. An industrial tribunal has found the school guilty of victimisation but cleared them of the other charges (direct and indirect discrimination, and harrassment). Like the Straw case, it is not clear-cut. The school has a reasonable point that a veil can interfere with language teaching, where facial expression and mouth movements are more important than most people realise (those who have tried having a telephone conversation in a foreign language will know what I mean). Nevertheless, it is interesting that of the many things that can interfere with teaching, they should pick on this one, so Azmi may well have a case for claiming victimisation.
On the other hand, Azmi’s justification of her position is extremely weak. First, she claims that wearing the veil is a requirement of Islam, which it is not. (As a side-issue, those who claim that Islam requires the veil are indirectly slandering the majority of Muslim women who don’t wear it, and the Koran has some stern things to say about slander.) She can of course claim that it is a requirement of her version of Islam, but then a Bektashi could claim that it’s a requirement of their version of Islam that they get drunk, ignore the Ramadan fast and take the piss out of other Muslims. Even if it were a genuine religious requirement, “my religion requires it” is not much of an argument for anything. After all, the holy book of one religion requires that you choose an island, fortify it, and “dung it about with enginery of war” (Liber Al vel Legis, III:4-6). Can you imagine the problems that would cause with planning permission?
Even her argument that she does not wear the veil with children, but only when a male colleague enters the room, which seems reasonable, is not without problems. She is a teaching assistant, which means that a lot of the time, other teachers will be in the room with her. The school can hardly be expected to arrange for only female teachers to work with her—if they did, they could be accused of discriminating in her favour, since all hell would break loose if they complied with the request of a male teacher not to work with female colleagues.
The argument is tangled because it has so many threads. In addition to the religious argument, there is the question of whether an employer can require that employees dress in a certain way. The legal position is uncertain, but EU law probably says “no”, unless there is a practical reason for requiring or banning certain clothes: you can require surgeons and chefs to cover their hair, but not bankers, for example. The school may have a case here, but it’s not a very strong one: wearing a veil may have a practical impact on ESL instruction, but then so can speaking with a Scottish accent.
Then, as
ginmar has pointed out, it’s also a gender issue. We see strong reactions against women wearing the veil, but not so much for men wearing baggy trousers or sporting beards. If the problem with the veil is that it involves men telling women what to wear, then telling women not to wear the veil has to be a problem too.Finally, there’s the whole “Islamophobia” thing. (Personally I dislike the term “Islamophobia” almost as much as I dislike “Islamofascist”, but the word seems to have stuck, and I can’t think of a better one offhand.) There is a popular misconception that conservative Muslims are more Muslim than other Muslims. They’re not; they simply have more cultural baggage (which of course they are perfectly entitled to hang on to if they want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone). There is also an assumption that more Muslim you are, the more likely you are to be a terrorist: you start by going to the mosque, then you start wearing a veil, and before you know it, you’re blowing yourself up in a supermarket. This is arrant nonsense, but it is nonsense that a lot of people believe, or at least feel deep down even if they won’t consciously admit it. Especially after 7/7, it might be best not to push too hard on sensitive points: even if we don’t create more Islamic militants, we might indirectly create more BNP members. People will only integrate into a society when they feel comfortable in it, and Muslim women may be more likely to drop the veil if we drop the veil issue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 01:16 pm (UTC)My head's kind of hazy right now, so I hope that makes some sort of sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 09:15 am (UTC)When I was at school I only knew anything about the religious beliefs of two of my teachers, and I think that was really two too many. One was the RE teacher, and I only know that he was a Christian, nothing more than that. The other was one of my maths teachers, and we only found out, when we were 17, that he was a Christian because we asked one of the other teachers why Ted only went to the last assembly every year when he clearly enjoyed the singing. It was because he was deeply Christian and believed assemblies should either be christian or secular, but not a mixture of both designed to glorify the headmaster.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 05:30 pm (UTC)