Opinion: Before the law, the veil is removed

Our open outlook

There are many reasons as a Western European I love living here even as a minority of many sorts. Despite the occasional negatives of racism, deprivation, inequality and much else, we as a people are probably still the most tolerant, accommodating, liberal and gregarious of all humanity.

That might be disputed but on the whole, we live and let live; very rarely do we impose our views on others and apart from populists and rabble-rousers for political gain, we are a peaceable people.

Garb and barb

However, over the last decade or so, our liberal democratic values of separation of religion and state to varying degrees have been challenged by the ingress of cultures, traditions, beliefs and attitudes that are not fundamentally what we might call our historical Western Judeo-Christian heritage – some have balked, but most have acquiesced, we make allowances, many allowances at that.

Recently, it has been about religious garb, the matter of coverings and modesty vary just as our interpretations of what constitutes those might differ depending on our beliefs and customs.

Germans for instance are not afraid of nudity, in fact, it is called, Freikörperkultur (FKK) which translates literally to Free Body Culture, it is a movement quite different from nudist sun-bathing and any other forms of public nudity, but that is a topic for another day. [Wikipedia]

To veil and to reveal

Yesterday, in the UK, we pussy-footed around the issue of the use of the full veil in relation to Islamic tradition when a lady appearing in court for a completely different issue of witness intimidation took us on a legal distraction as to whether she could appear in court fully veiled and never have the requirement to take it off. [BBC News]

The wisdom of judges must be commended when they give their opinions on these very sensitive issues, because in this case, the judge was accommodating of the lady to allow her wear her veil in court during the proceedings but that veil had to be removed when giving evidence.

Indeed, anyone who takes the witness box should only be accorded privacy and the possible invisibility for their safety and privacy as we do with minors, however that cannot be extrapolated on religious grounds to prevent an essential instrument of recognition and expression critical to jury observation and assessment, court is beyond just the hearing of words in answer to questions and cross-examination.

The visage of safety

The primary mode of identification for the elimination of doubt and the building of communal trust is the face as far as Western Europe is concerned, if you must access the public space for the convenience of the majority, which implicitly includes safety and security, the face must be visible.

We are conditioned to believe that a covered face is indicative of an assumed criminality, and whilst a religiously modest and pious woman might well be the most law-abiding citizen around, having a veiled face introduces an unnecessary threat, redefining our conditioning whilst it also can be exploited to ulterior ends – it is an unnecessarily difficult accommodation that we have to tolerate.

Dressed to digress

Back to Germany, it was a case of whether a girl could be allowed to wear the modest burkini if she were forced to attend compulsory swimming classes and then the extended religiously-tinged demand of her parents to prevent her splashing around with scantily clad boys in the pool. [Wikipedia][Economist]

Whilst, the burkini is almost too much dress short of a wetsuit with the attendant issues that do not need much exegesis, it is quite an accommodation redolent of our liberal and tolerant disposition to many cultures different from ours, we find it acceptable enough to not only condone it but accept it as wholesome and fashionable for those who choose to don that garb of presumed modesty.

Freedom and entitlement

However, judges found this accommodation that first could not exempt the girl from co-educational swimming classes which is the norm, by stating that, “the basic right of religious freedom does not confer any entitlement to be spared from encountering, at school, the behaviour of third parties... [behaviour] which is widely observed in daily life, outside school, at certain seasons.”

This construct should become both precedent and fundamental, because once again, the judges have identified the community of daily life as an unavoidable space of interaction available to the general public in which as human beings we are by choice allowed to participate and we cannot exclusively curtail that environment for the convenience of the few.

Freedom and allowance

The basic right of religious freedom is sacrosanct, you can practice it as fervently and fanatically as you will, but if you do not want to encounter the public in the observance of your beliefs, then the best accommodation we can afford is for you to absent yourself from that setting as a matter of right and privilege if of the age to exercise such a prerogative.

However, as a minor in Germany, where you must attend school and participate in activities that make up part of the curriculum, no entitlement is reserved to create exemptions to the point that each consideration if that situation arises creates disorder and chaos.

Adapt or depart

The broader point without stating it is the cliché - when in Rome, do as Romans do, and if you so feel that you cannot do as Romans do, the Romans should not have to change or adapt their Roman ways to your requirements as an entitlement, else they will no more be identified by their Roman ways, nevertheless, you having arrived in Rome might well find ways to adapt to what Romans do or extricate yourself from Roman influence by being in a recluse or leaving Rome entirely.

Beyond this, we must be concerned about the influx of ideas beyond the need for safety and security in the public space that informs the regulation of the public space by granting specific entitlements to certain persons, groups or beliefs which will curtail the freedoms and liberties we as a majority have for the satisfaction and accommodation of others.

The blunter point in terms of these conflicts of religious adherence that challenge the freedoms we all enjoy is that the law is finding better ways to say; adapt to your current environment and circumstances or depart to where those beliefs you so espouse have unquestioned currency.

Editorial: Lifting the burqa on identity and ignorance

Where the burqa belongs

The matter of the burqa though religiously sensitive needs to objectively thought about in its proper contexts. A number of European and Western countries have promulgated laws or are in the process of creating legal situations where the burqa is banned in public places.

In Islamic countries where the chastity and dignity of the woman is presumably preserved by the total cover-up with slits for the eyes, a see-through net or grille it is traditional and customary for women to be invisible as recognized individuals and personalities.

In more conservative settings, the women would have to be chaperoned by male members of their families to be seen in public and their identity is derived from who accompanies them.

Western societies have no such customs and this type of extreme modesty is rather alien to the concept of individual identity and the representation of personalities.

Where the burqa does not belong

The face is the first object of identification, communication requires eye contact and people, especially adults have the responsibility for acting as free moral agents with verifiable particulars of identification to access all sorts of services especially those to do with security, law enforcement and business transactions.

It means such open societies just do not have the means or the latitude to accommodate these alien customs because it abridges human-rights in terms of having a clear identity in the public space as it disrupts the sense of security people have by facial recognition of those within their space.

The civil liberties advocacy for the right to wear the burqa in open societies that require facial identification as a verification of identity simply holds no water wear no alternative system of identification exists to verify a covered face belongs to a particular person, it burdens such societies with impossible hurdles and impacts on the sense of equality we all have.

Whilst the preservation of right to religious observation is apparently sacrosanct, that of customs that go against the grain of easy identification cannot be so. The burqa just does not belong in free societies.

Unhealthy burqas of ministers of health

Health ministers would be expected to have the medical health of their fellow citizens as paramount with the aim to facilitate access to good, affordable and accessible healthcare to all.

For all their erudition, expertise and organizational ability, we expect that whatever they do will attract the greatest commendation of respect and praise of their service and one can dare to hope that they would avoid being embroiled in controversy.

It was bad enough that a health minister in Nigeria did not see the medical emergency of fake drugs and substandard drugs being dispensed in Nigeria’s University Teaching Hospitals suggesting only his predecessor was directly addressed and informed of the matter.

However, when somewhat progressive countries end up with health ministers in that kind of mould, a greater disservice is done to the people who deserve better than that kind of cack-handedness.

In South Africa it was the health minister in Thabo Mbeki’s presidential tenure who advocated the use of beetroot garlic and herbs for the management of HIV and AIDS that she earned the embarrassing world-stage moniker of Dr Beetroot as the medical situation in South Africa was allowed to grow into an epic emergency.

She has passed but the baton seems to have been handed to the health minister of the world’s second most populated counted and the largest democracy.

Donning the burqa of crass ignorance

Whilst health ministers are entitled to their moralities and values, they are not put in their positions to preach to the adherence of some moral code and alienate others on grounds that have no professional or medical basis.

It therefore comes as a shock beyond words when the Indian Health Minister at a HIV/AIDS conference he was attending said that “homosexuality is a disease which has come from other countries.”

It is hard enough listening to people propose that an element of human nature has a particular racial or regional progeny in their quest for a sense of cultural purity but to hear such stuff from a health minister is really beyond the pale.

There is every reason to expect this person to walk the plank before their pronouncements validate and promote the persecution of others on all grounds predicated from a false and illiterate medical perspective, one can only be filled with trepidation at what might result from this statement in a country where the matter of rights are not as sure and in others where India is supposed to serve as an example.

We need to lift the burqa on this kind of intellectual arrogance which is portends to have moral underpinnings but is stark ignorance expressed by one who should really know a lot better.

Acknowledgements

The BBC news website writes about giving powers to the New South Wales police concerning criminalising burqas by reason of the fact that it hampers the identification process in crime investigation and law enforcement. After a BBC documentary five years ago, I wrote a blog about the Unhealthy directors of Nigerian Health and yesterday, the Indian Health Minister took on the mantle of Dr Beetroot of India.

Do not cross the cross

Handbagging rotten design

“Terrible, terrible, absolutely terrible”, she said as she covered those so-called “world designs” with a handkerchief and walked off with her trademark Salvatore Ferragamo handbag.

Years, before, they paid hefty legal fees, generous compensation and ate humble pie as their institutionalised “dirty tricks” campaign against a business man who does not wear a suit blew up in their faces.

The was the watershed, the comeuppance of the domineering influence of the bastions of British establishment as the common man refused to be cowed by overbearing and reckless abuse of privilege to perpetrate what is patently wrong.

Secular uniforms for the working pagans

Generally, British Airways just seems to find a way of hugging the spotlight for the wrong reasons which border on the inexplicable earning brick-bats from all people of stature till they are forced to adopt what is supposed to be the common sense view.

There are people who would promote the secularist argument about religious symbols and apparel, and this excites social and political comment nowadays with the veil and the burqa.

The cross, a symbol of Christianity was the centre of a debate that had the principled stance of a BA employee elicit the support of civil liberties and put the BA in the crosshairs of religious disappointment and political opprobrium.

Eventually, the fence-sitting Archbishop of Canterbury finally cantered into the debate having flown to Rome in a BA flight – read as a tacit approval of the BA stance or a lack of conviction on a rather serious religious issue.

The employee had gotten suspended for wearing a cross having not been able to reach an agreement with her employers to compromise on a basic inoffensive principle – visibly wearing a cross no bigger than a small coin.

Disappearing Christianity in Europe

This is not the only problem with the way Christianity is being consigned to ignominious irrelevance, you only have to visit a card shop and notice how few cards talk of Christmas and many more talk of Winterval, Seasons Greetings and so on – God forbid, the mention the Christ or Jesus – people might find it offensive to hear about Christmas but be willing to take the holiday and the knock-down sales of the consequent days.

We now have to apologise for being Christian in Europe as people cannot profess their faith publicly because a foreign but non-indigenous faith is gaining prominence. We know the dominance of those faiths in their origin-lands is used to persecute other faiths, with impunity.

Sometimes, it appears political correctness is thumping commonsense values to the chagrin of many and this is becoming unacceptable leading to growing animosity between formerly accommodating societies and the seething intolerance to visiting cultures.

Teaching an old dog …

Now, that BA has backed down from this unsupportable stance having made us cringe from the bluster of official-speak and semantics, the impending boycott of their services can be suspended. Till the bishop customer cannot wear a visible large cross, the imam cannot wear a turban or show his prayer beads or some other inspired idea that a publicity faux-pas official can dream up to bring the BA back into the spotlight of every stupid thing that exemplifies British-ness (Brutishness). Just what we need – every time.

If British Airways can learn any lessons, it would be, you must not cross the cross.

References

New Tory cover-up shock

BA turns tail on colours

BBC ON THIS DAY | 11 | 1993: BA dirty tricks against Virgin cost £3m

Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross

Bringing the Burqa down on the Dutch elections

Electoral opportunism

Only a few days ago, I did wonder if there was anything going on for the Dutch elections on Tuesday.

Then, the Minister of Integration & Immigration, Mrs. Rita Verdonk suggested the idea of banning the burqa was not a discussion point before the elections. Well, that is no more the case, the cabinet having received legal advice that the ban on the burqa would not contravene Dutch law has voted to approve a ban.

This, with just one working day to the elections smacks of opportunistic electioneering by courting controversy. This decision could have been kept on hold till after the elections, but pandering to this cause sends a signal to the electorate about some perceived toughness on un-integrated Muslims and might garner votes from those who may not have seen through this abuse of process.

A seriously flawed leader

The cabinet is a caretaker cabinet which came about because the self-same Mrs. Verdonk, who whilst adhering to the rules about immigration and indigenisation could not interpret those rules with initiative, discretion, compassion and a humane perspective.

This really irked the legislative chamber, that they called her to defend her policies five times, however, the same chamber never had the courage to sanction her, rather, and it was the judiciary that did more to check executive excesses and abuse of office, privilege and procedure.

Her liberal party must have noticed these leadership flaws that they refused to vote her into leadership; rumours now have it that she is vying for the position of deputy Prime Minister – I despair.

How a lame duck cabinet which only had a few days of legitimate existence could pass a motion so radical and controversial, without drawing the ire of the electoral commission and some other judicial body escapes me – it probably shows a weakness the concept of Dutch democracy.

The helmet and the burqa

The interesting thing about this burqa law is that it might affect all kinds of wear that cover or protect the eyes when one is in a public place, on the street or using public facilities. That would include helmets, visors, possibly ski-wear and winter wear, but these have to be included to allow this thinly veiled Islamophobic law to pass.

I expect a few good challenges to this law because it is bad, it is unnecessary, it is blatant, shameless opportunistic electioneering and it does nothing for promoting the perception of Dutch liberality or tolerance.

Then, we learn that there can only be 50 to 100 wearers of the burqa in a population of 16 million in the Netherlands.

It makes you wonder, how a non-issue can gain so much momentum on the perception of a non-existent threat to generate unnecessary clamour and lead to a controversial law that targets a minuscule minority and would affect a reasonable majority who need to care about their welfare and safety.

As an expatriate, Dutch politics never ceases to amaze me.

References

Cabinet backs plan to ban burka

Dutch Muslims condemn burqa ban

The veil amongst Christians

The head scarf debate

As we settle into what would be a debate for a long time in the West about head scarves, veils, the hijab, coverings and exposures, I remember quite poignantly that this debate has been around for quite a while.

Some 20-something years ago, this debate was going around in evangelical circles, this was not just contentious but frustrating that what was so explicitly discussed in the Bible still left some selecting what they wanted to believe to support their prejudices.

Not, only so, people of other religions also select portions of biblical scripture to support their views completely out of context of the truth that was being portrayed.

Selecting Bible choice cuts

In the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (King James Version), gives the complete low-down on this issue, but it would take an open mind and fresh eyes to appreciate the context and direction of this passage.

The keys to this discourse are in verses 3 and 16, but the 3^rd verse usually gets misunderstood and the 16^th verse conveniently left out of the discourse for reasons I can never understand.

I would take particular verses and break them down for the purposes of furthering this debate, there are other meanings with regards to relationships in here, which I would not cover, but I would clearly contextualise because it is used to foster abuse.

Separating every man from the husband

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

What we need to note here is the article and possession, it says the head of every man is Christ, however, NOT that the head of every woman is man.

The woman using the definite article pertains to a single woman in relationship to a man, her husband. Every man anywhere cannot just lord it over any woman, he can only do that, in a relationship that is a marriage.

In another blog, on the more emotive issue of wife-battering, I covered how the husband has to be as selfless as Christ to be able to exercise any kind of authority where they believe themselves to masters of their homes and be able to throw their weight around the place.

What is clear is a woman outside the relationship of marriage automatically has Christ as her head, when she has her man, the dynamic of headship changes to her husband.

It is a difficult one, but man in general consists first of male and female; in this case, there is no conferment of the complete servitude of the female sex to any to every man born on earth – it would be illogical.

Traditions and customs might support this dynamic of making all women in society less of the male, but it is not supported in Christianity to give man husband-status to every woman except his truly wedded wife.

Who covers whom?

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Here, it is clear that this refers to man as male.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This uses every woman, but the possibility of two heads, if unmarried, her head is Christ and if married her head is her husband – NOT every man.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If a woman would not cover her head, she should shave, but if shaving is considered a shame, she should then cover her head.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Once again, the definite article is here, the woman (wife) is the glory of the man (husband). We do not go around presenting every woman as our wife, rather, there is one woman who takes that pride of place, and we adorn her and present her with pride and honour her with love and devotion.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

This takes us back to the Adam and Eve story, where Eve was crafted from the rib of Adam as his helper and companion. The definite article also features here – the man (husband) and the woman (wife).

The woman’s prerogative

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Now, this fouls up every authority man tries to exercise over the woman because it says it is the prerogative of the woman to decide on whether to cover her head or not. There is no duty of man to impose this on the woman.

This is usually read as the man ought to have power of the head of every woman and force them to appear in a wifely role or subservient role.

For many, the Scripture ENDS here, reading any further is too inconvenient.

Co-dependence of the sexes and equality

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Equality in the church and equality before God, so where did all this male domination come from?

So, no one would like to read beyond verse 10 because to serious home truths break down the male domination fortress.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Well, this is question of traditions and customs; there are places where women can be covered and others where woman do not get covered – debate.

The long hair day

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Touché – men with long hair have no say in this matter, they need to deal with their issues.

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Oh! Apostle Paul does begin to complicate issues by clarifying them. There is a separation between the head and the hair introduced from verse 14 and the reference is now to long hair.

It appears, if a woman has long hair, she already has a covering for her head – it is a no-brainer that hair does grow out of the head - she does not need an artificial covering like a scarf.

Well, why do we have all this fuss about scarves when the hair already covers the head?

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If this becomes a contentious topic, drop it, we have not taken on any traditions or customs of head covering, hair covering or even male domination – it is not the way of the church.

And all the men say … Amen!

Rape-bait without the veil

Religious discordant

Religious leaders have always used analogies, parables and allegories to convey spiritual thought and teaching in ways to help their adherents understand truths that can be personally applied.

Just as we are reviewing the commentary about the veil and integration an alternative view has appeared about the veil and ingratiation.

The main point itself is about the veil and how that relates to societies in which people are either forced or elect to wear the veil.

Concern or prejudice?

The Mufti of Australia, the most senior Muslim cleric had given a sermon during the pious month of Ramadan where he contended that women who do not wear the veil dishonour themselves.

That is an opinion, albeit held by a religious leader with a following; does this imply that the leader is engaging his listeners to impose the authority to ensure that women do not dishonour themselves?

However, to then go on and say that without the veil, women become ready prey for scavenging and hungry predators – in fact – this is the quote – “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?” Read …

Outrageous views of those not integrated

Breaking it down, the leader is saying the uncovered women are as uncovered meat and men taking sexual advantage are like cats drawn to meat.

I cannot imagine that any religious leader would make a statement like this in the 21^st Century, more so, a religious leader who has been in this position in a Western country since 1989. The fact that he is a Muslim is really beside the point.

Any leader should temper his views with reasoned logic and context, taking note of the message that could be imparted to possibly impressionable followers.

A broad fallacy of flawed logic

The leader obviously identified in his thinking what might be sexual provocation through undress, bodily adornment and accentuated feminine gaits – however, that does not absolve observers from restraining themselves and preventing the situation where lust hunger and lasciviousness get the better of their civility.

What this leader portends is that men cannot be held responsible for committing rapes predicated on the sexual attraction of the victim – we cannot have a society where rape is right for any reason regardless of the circumstances – in this – the leader was utterly remiss and should not only attract opprobrium but condemnation and ridicule from all quarters.

This statement not only denigrates women, it belittles men and offloads responsibility for personal attitudes and conduct to externalised stimuli – I am not sure an apology would suffice for what might just be inciting to rape.

Beyond the veil

Right through the veil

A lot of commentary has gone in the talk of unveiling the veil which gained some serious press when Jack Straw, the leader in the UK House of Commons revealed that he always entreated veiled visitors to his constituency surgeries to remove the veil.

As Nkem in African Shirts highlights, whilst he submitted the issue of communication, he was really pushing the issue of integration – both in my view are important.

Coming from an African society, Nigerian in particular, it was a sign of disrespect or obstinacy to look elders in the eye when being spoken to or when speaking to elders. In fact, rarely do we look each other in the eye when communicating even amongst peers, it is deemed confrontation and aggressive that it rarely happens.

Look me in the eye

When I moved to the UK, this cultural thing came with me, but then I realised all too soon that people expected you to look them straight in the eye when conversing, it represented honesty, truthfulness and sincerity – I was at the risk of being condemned untrustworthy for not interacting in the expected manner.

The expected manner being the culture and norms of forms of conversation in the UK, this regardless of the fact that I for a while from the age of 6 to about 25 the dominant culture in my life was Nigerian.

In these modern times, we are used to various forms of communication; the telephone by which variations in tone and inflexion can convey a manner and demeanour; emails or letters where hopefully thought and expression are used effectively; online chat which allows for casual forms of communication or Short Message Service (SMS) test messaging on mobile phones.

Senses in communication

The list is not exhaustive, but these allow for communication without the need for physical contact. However, when the person with whom I am communicating is in my presence, then, I expect with all the available senses I have at my disposal to interact with varying levels of intimacy.

Recognition (sight) of whom I am meeting, then a handshake (touch), as part of an introduction and greeting that would be voiced (hearing), if we are wearing cheap cologne or perfume (smell) and (taste) in a kiss, if we are a lot more intimate.

Some people might have some of their senses deprecated and then would have to rely on other senses to interact – Helen Keller – who was both deaf and blind used her hands to feel faces and communicate.

My point, when there is a presence to communicate; concealing the face does become an impediment to communication.

Where we are from is not where we are

Now, there are cultures and locations in this world where covering the face with slits for the eyes are signs of chastity and purity, that place in not in Europe.

My view is that we should definitely bring the best integrating bits of our foreign cultures to meld with host cultures for the promotion of understanding of where we are from, those bits of our cultures that separate us such that it creates division rather than interest and inquiry do not help us get assimilated into host cultures.

The freedoms the West offers us to be who we are should be not taken to the point that our expressions of values go against the grain of cohesion and the fostering of community relationships.

We are who we are, yes, but we are no more the dominant culture when we leave our indigenous lands of origin.

Basically, I do not see this as an Islam issue, it is basically a cultural-integration issue where people forget that freedoms they enjoy in freer societies should encourage them to integrate rather than look for ways to dissociate and be separate.

People who read this along religious lines are just looking for conflict rather than conciliation and shame on them.