There has been much political discussion recently about when
and whether it is appropriate for women of Islamic faith to hide their
faces. Birmingham Metropolitan College attempted to ban the full-face veil or niqab, but pulled back from this
rule. The Liberal Democrat MP and
Coalition Minister Jeremy Browne MP criticised the wearing of full-face veils
and Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health has asked the NHS to look at its
policy on dresscode, due to the feelings of disquiet some patients have when
treated by a medical professional who keeps their face hidden from them.
The matter that sparked off this debate was when a defendant
in a criminal trial wished to hide her face when in the box. The judge required her to remove her
veil when under examination, so that the jury could observe her facial
expressions. This seems a
commonsense solution. The
defendant might have felt subject to unwanted scrutiny when her face could be
seen, but when you are a defendant in a criminal trial that is an inevitable
part of the process.
As a conservative who believes in freedom I would be very
reluctant to follow the French example of banning the veil in public
places. France is an avowedly
secularist country and can therefore consistently ban expressions of religious
faith. On these islands we are a
free society with a Christian heritage.
To ban expressions of religious faith goes against the grain. With an established church and Lords
Spiritual in the upper house, religious faith is woven into the fabric of our
constitution. And so is freedom. Not the French idea of freedom based
around secularist ideology, but the freedom to be left alone – an Englishman’s
home is his castle, as the expression goes.
The trouble is when a very different culture is grafted on
to a longstanding society such as ours that is based on unspoken norms of
behaviour, there can be cultural clashes and misunderstandings. Yes we are a free society, but we
achieve that by giving each other space and not forcing our opinions on each
other.
The veil adopted by some Muslim women is a strong and
uncompromising expression of religious opinion. In a free society it should not be banned, but the blogger
questions whether the veil is actually the sartorial equivalent of forcing your
opinions on others. It creates an
awkward social situation just as someone talking about religion and politics
down the pub makes for an unpleasant atmosphere. It steps over a certain boundary and while strictly-speaking
it is simply an individual choosing how they dress, it is really a non-verbal
statement and creates a physical barrier.
To put it bluntly, in ordinary every day life, the veil can be perceived
by non-Muslims as crossing the boundary into bad manners.
In our culture it is good manners to look a person in the
face when you speak to them. I do
not condemn recent immigrants who have not yet adjusted to Western
society. Rather, the fault lies
with those in the political class and liberal elite who close down debate about
the veil in the name of that chimera the multicultural society. This means people new to our society do
not appreciate how many of us are made to feel awkward by the hiding of the
face.
I am sure there are good cultural reasons in Muslim
countries for the veil – I do not presume to say otherwise. The flipside of
this is that to help the new immigrant societies to integrate they should be
helped to understand that the hiding of the face in our culture sends a very
different message.
Many would argue that it is up to us to be tolerant of this
choice of dress. In terms of the
law I agree; it is not for the state to criminalise dress. It is however, the role of society to
nurture good manners. To give a
less controversial example - Perhaps in some cultures the physical contact of a
man’s and a woman’s hand through the handshake would be unacceptable. In our culture to decline the handshake
would seem bad manners.
A blanket ban, outside of the workplace, is not right in a
free society; however, the blogger cannot see anything wrong with requiring
employees or students to dress in a way compatible with those institutions' dress codes. In the health
service, when people are often feeling vulnerable and are unwell or in pain it
seems very sensible to ban the full-face veil.
Interaction between people is enhanced by facial
expressions. You can tell how
someone is reacting to what you say.
It is about being able to engage fully. If immigrant communities dispensed with the veil it would
make it all the easier for stronger bonds to be built with individuals of the
indigenous community.
Broadly speaking I agree. The difference is that there is no law against bad manners (for better or for worse) and, on the other side, many Muslims view the uncouth, drunken, immodestly dressed culture of the irreligious "West" as being very bad mannered indeed. It is, in Islamic, society very bad mannered for a man to speak, or attempt to speak, to a woman to whom he's not been introduced. To put it another way, Godfrey Bloom thought it was funny to call the women he was speaking to recently "sluts"; I very much doubt he would have done so had they been wearing the hijab.
ReplyDeleteApropos of Godfrey Bloom - he's a obviously a prize prat but he gets immense kudos for smacking that creep Michael Crick on the head. What good is a clown without a little slapstick?
ReplyDelete