Those Eyes

[monk222]

♠
Salman Rushdie, whose book "The Satanic Verses" once led to death threats against him by Islamic clerics, said last week that Straw "was expressing an important opinion, which is that veils suck, which they do. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women."

-- Thomas Wagner for The Washington Post

If Salman Rushdie can say it, then it must not be politically incorrect.

In addition to the incident of British foreign secretary Jack Straw, in which he requested women not to keep on the niqab, a head and facial covering that only leaves the eyes exposed, when having a meeting with him, Phil Woolas, Britain's faith and race minister, has ordered that a Muslim woman be fired from her position as a teaching assistant for refusing to remove her veil when at work, which case is now going through their legal system.

The issue seems to have gotten some traction over there, too. Initially, following the Straw furor, Alan Cowell reported: 'Prime Minister Tony Blair distanced himself, saying through a spokesman that Mr. Straw's decision to make the remarks "does not make it government policy."' By contrast, in today's article, Wagner writes: 'Prime Minister Tony Blair praised Straw for raising the issue "in a measured and considered way," and he urged Britons to engage the topic without "becoming hysterical."' And let's hope that there are no bombings, knifing, or nun killings.

xXx

Comments

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

The irony is that a lot of Muslim women feel the veil is a feminist issue and choose to cover in order to take back power. Ah, the complexity of modernity.

I gotta go with Islam on this one, I'm afraid. As long as religious dress doesn't affect job performance (ie the job can be done while wearing the clothing), I don't think a workplace should be allowed to say no. Are we not getting more to the story? Has she said she can't work with men or is it just that people are pissed they can't see her face when men are present? Seeing someone's face doesn't strike me as a fundamental educational right, duty, or job skill.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

It's not as clear a case as your cabbie story, or the example of the relgious pharmacist who does not want to hand out birth control. But I do favor giving secularism a clear edge in public life. Considering the circumstances, it can seem a bit militant, like a more acceptable way to push the Islamist revolution. Seeing someone's face may not be a fundamental educational right, but it is pretty obtrusive as well as separatist. These are, for now, secular, liberal socieities, and when in Rome...

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Granted, this is all playing out in Britain, but in the US I suppose it would depend on whether or not it is a public or private school. In public, it would be accepted that certain allowances are made for the 1st Amendment. Although last night's Boston Legal was a thought-provoking case on Scientology and whether or not a private employer can fire someone just based on not liking their religion.

The veil may seem obtrusive and separatist, but integration is a step up from, say, immigrant ghettos where ethnic groups never deal with anybody non-ethnic.

I'm not sure I agree with your use (not your invention, I know) of the term "secular, liberal society." I'm not sure that by *not* being religion-specific I think the Founders, in our case, meant non-religious. Now, in Europe, the attack on Christianity has gone a little differently, granted. But I tend to favor a plurality in society where the religious and non-religious are given equal treatment and access rather than the presumption that religion is somehow banished. The problem with giving secularism a "clear edge" is that secularism is a religious belief as well.

I think public should mean just that...open to anybody, free, and without limitation. I think Western culture is more about de-regulated society in terms of what is required in public behavior. Ah, there's my libertarianism again. LOL

I take your point though. It is a totally valid debate.