It is obviously complex, as so many things are, but I am struggling with this one. How can a school have the right to ban a child from wearing clothes required by their religion? And the excuses given - health and safety (isn't that now just an amazing "catch all"), security or impeding learning.
We are living in a world where religious intolerance is leading to hate and the shedding of blood. Where we look at those who appear different (this includes you, Jack Straw) and that alone is enough to unsettle us. We should be trying to send out an inclusive message, that we welcome all, that there is no "us and them". Instead school children, the most impressionable, are being targeted. What will those children learn? That the western world has no respect for their beliefs. That because of the clothes they wear, and that alone, they are viewed as untrustworthy.
I feel sad.
5 comments:
It is as you say a very complex issue, but I think I come down on the other side.
My main reasons are that most Muslims I know and respect are adament that face covering is absolutely NOT a requirement of their religion. It is rather a cultural imposition being pushed by certain agendas. Secondly a huge amount of communication relies on facial expression and to lose that without a very, very strong reason is not good and will seriously impede the education of the wearer, which let us remember are all female.
Of course there is an argument, and a good one at that, that says that it is still possible to communicate, without seeing the face (we manage on telephones for example), it is undoubtedly more restrictive a form of communication and I can understand a teacher's concern that their ability to communicate and engage to the *full potential* is seriously compromised by the full veil. Communication will be lessened and hence educational potential restricted beyond that of their counterparts. Now if it were truly a religous requirement then it becomes a very difficult problem to resolve, but given the huge evidence that it is much more to do with supression of a gender then I'm personally unconvinced.
As you know I'm passionate about equality of opportunity in education and I'm afraid the playing of a very weak religous tolerance card as an excuse to disadvantage the education of girls just doesn't play for me.
Which is a strange position to find myself in, as generally, I'm all for religous tolerance, but life is complicated and we have to balance competing factors.
For example in accordance with their five articles of faith many Sikh men will want to keep all hair uncut and the head covered in a turban.
To my mind in most situations rules regarding facial hair (some professions) and headwear (again either uniform or 'personal' safety) can sensibly be relaxed and therefore should be, out of respect for their religion.
However, another of the articles of faith is the Kirpan, a ceremonial 'sword' usually about 6 to 9 inches long, which should be carried on the person at all times. Clearly there are circumstances where that can be accommodated, but also some where compromise is going to need to happen. For example, whilst safety pins and eyebrow tweezers are banned in hand luggage on airplanes for security reasons, a 7" metal blade is going to be a no no for anyone.
Similarly I do however, see the Jack Straw situation very differently. I can understand his desires to be able to see the face and lips as that for him is very important to communication, but in that power relationship it's very difficult for him to 'request' someone remove a veil, without making the other party feel very uncomfortable. And in that case we're talking about a grown woman's choice about how she choses to communicate to her elected representative. If she choses to disadvantage communication due to a higher priority for her of face covering it is her choice. Very different from adults deciding how effective an education young girls receive.
Or maybe it's more simple than that if I'm totally honest, maybe in my world view it comes down to equality between genders scoring more highly than respect for religous or cultural conviction that runs contrary.
Tolerance is not the same as 'anything goes', well not unless you want to find yourself unable to condemn bizarre sects that support ritual child sacrifice ;-)
I logged on to say the same thing...I understand that covering the full face is not religious requirement, but some women choose to do so....it concerns me that if that is imposed on women by men, it is about power, and that power is being abused.
In a situation where there are only women present, ie perhaps at a school where all the teachers are women, there is no reason why faces cannot be uncovered.
Tolerance for race and culture should cut both ways. If I chose to live in another country then I would expect to live by their rules.
liz has pretty much said what i think....my understanding is also that there is no religious obligation to wear a full veil, it is a cultural interpretation tho I'm not wholly convinced it's a sexist surpression of women.
I'm not against people insisting on their right to live by an interpretation and personally I'm not convinced that there has been statistical evidence to support the view that educational achievement is restricted by wearing a veil. In my (admittedly limited)(and in the style of a sweeping generalisation) experience of the young muslim women who wear the full veil they are almost by definition beligerent, challenging, committed, determined, politically and socially aware and ambitious.
I don't find it makes their faces 'unreadable' we just have to learn a different way of reading them and pick up on other signs and signals - unless other problems such as safety or hearing loss do override such a possiblity.
that said - i didn't (and don't) think that there was an inalienable right for the BA woman to wear a cross round her neck contrary to the company dress code, so maybe i'm a bit muddled. It is tho the dress code that should be more accomodating, not the item or culture that should be banned. (but it is culture and not religion and certainly not grounds for allegations of religious intolerance)
Apart from agreeing about the religious versus cultural thing I would have said you were disagreeing with liz. Aren't you supporting the fact that they should be able to wear the veil?
sorry merlin, yes, it was the part about clutire not religion that i was agreeing with.
Post a Comment