Talk:British debate over veils

Other Views

I have done some editing to this piece, although less than I think it really needs. The main change is that I have put the views of the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London at the top, rather than below the views of the British National Party and the Socialist Workers Party as they were. The Express poll showed 98 per cent thought a ban on veils would be a good thing (according to the Express), not that 98 per cent supported Straw's contention. To say they supported women "losing the right" to wear veils raises all sorts of issues - better to just use the language used by the Express in citing the newspaper's report imho. Personally I think this section is too long. I appreciate a lot of work that has gone into it and have not cut anything (except the reference to one anoymous woman reportedly shouting something at a meeting). Hobson 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Veil Issue

Last year I took lectures in Studies in Women's Fiction, in which we looked at a book called "A Distant View of a Minaret". Sitting before the rather masculine women lecturer, a hardened half-socialist Guardian reader, complete with experience from that horrible year 1968; I suffered four hours every week: she spoke of men needing women to lay the foundation upon which their adventures take place; e.g. while men are out gallivanting, adventuring, hunting, surveying, "being men", the woman is in the earthly environment of the home, keeping things "in order". But some interesting stuff was said about Muslim women and their veils, or the Niqab.

We learnt, amazingly, that the Muslim women actually have a gaze, or "the gaze", even when their face is covered. Wow. I could have thought of that myself. But, despite the fact that stating the obvious is frowned upon in this country, you sometimes need to do that in academia. So, what about the Muslim woman's gaze, anyway? Why is it important to focus on the gaze of the woman, and not so much the observation of the scared white British spectator? Well, we heard that in some Islamic countries (Iran, various north African countries), women are not so much the oppressed inferior gender as we perceive them in the West. No, they actually have a lot more antonymy than we might give credence to. I'll get to the autonomy part soon, but first let's look at sexuality, shall we?

Far from being docile and helpless, Muslim women actually can represent a threat to men. The women's sexuality is a threat because it affronts man's relation to God. The sharia of Muslim countries forbids fornication, for various reasons. But, far from the popular misconception in western culture, it is the women who are to be feared in ths respect, not the men. Muslim women most definitely have a sensual appeal to men, which is more aggressive, than obsequious. I imagine a swarthy woman with a dark mantle; the vampy is a powerful and dangerous being. And while the man sort of enforces the use of the niqab etc, a lot of women are acquiescing in the matter. Even volunteering.

Here's a quote from something I wrote about women in Islam:

Women in Islam are confined to the spaces of the home, excluded from all non home and family related matters (Mernissi, 1985, loc. cit.). The image is a quite enduring one, of families living in large compounds, with the central courtyard within the hab complex: this transferring the image of the women in the centre, and the men outside, somehow excluded from the earthly matters of home. Id est, while women are excluded by men, so are men excluded (perhaps indirectly), by women, from the environment of the mother or the woman.

I have a very enduring image of Muslim women in the home, with the woman being at the centre of home life; perhaps the inner courtyard of a Medina home in Egypt, where the windows of the home look out to this central courtyard environment, earthly, floral. And while the men are shuffled out of the home, the mother sees to her duties in the closed space, as the windows are on the inner walls looking out at the courtyard, and not on the outer walls looking out at the street. And then the men might be outside the kiosks (I was going to say café, but that sounds awfully western) playing dominos and doing other things which are away from the sphere of the home.

Before I get totally off course, I will refer back to the original image of the woman as a sexual being with the penetrating gaze. One who has a power behind the gaze, even when espying out from the niqab. Women in Islam are definitely dangerous. What troubles me, is that they are starting to be dangerous sexual beings over here in Britain. That's why I want them to stop wearing the veil altogether. There seems to be a disparity when the woman is covered save for the eyes, and looking upon the man, and yet he sees nothing but her eyes, which are the core of the power struggle.

These arrogant women (some of which were on Question Time last week, Oct 19 20006) are not correct in their assumption that the Veil issue is about personal choice. That's a self centered view. Actually there's an other dimension to the problem: the oppression that can come forth from the woman's wearing of the veil. It's oppressive because there is a clear social struggle between the woman and the person to whom she is speaking. She has then a power over her interviewee, whom she might bewitch with her dangerous enchantress's gaze.

The reason why those fascist thugs went around grabbing the veils off of women, was perhaps because they were sent wild by the alluring charm of the dark visage of the two eyes espying. It's not my fault that those thugs chose to use violence against such sexually alluring targets, but that's another matter. One thing's for sure, I am adopting a zero tolerance policy regarding these women who wear the niqab. A non violent zero tolerance policy of course!--CaptainSurrey 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best summaries of a debate I've seen on Wikipedia - an excellent list of prominent speakers on the issue. While its NPOV, it's shocking the amount of Islamophobic bull which has been printed in the name of free speach in the last few weeks. It makes me ashamed to be British. Snooo 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sociology graduate from University of Birmingham; maintain a weblog in my spare time." Well what a surprise that is! A sociology grad weeps for the poor oppressed minorities. But, you know, there are plenty of other reasons why you should be ashamed to be British. Aren't you simply jumping on the bandwagon? It amazes me how little foresight these "art house cinema" socialist graduates actually have. We are dealing with an immense problem at the moment, with a minority who think Britain's men are drunks, the women slappers, and to be brutally honest and very politically incorrect, there is a catasrophe waiting to happen. Those who want sharia law over here must be shunned, beaten, whatever. Although, a lot of people just can't see it, the niqab issue is largely connected to this desire to bring about sharia law in Britain; and I for one am not about to let this happen. I certainly don't require some second generation Muslim brit to instruct me on moral behaviour, when he himself comes from a backwards medieval society in which the year is only circa 1400 (I.e., Iran). CaptainSurrey 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

" I certainly don't require some second generation Muslim brit to instruct me on moral behaviour"... "he himself comes from a backwards medieval society in which the year is only circa 1400". If hes 2nd gen.. hes a Brit.. What part is causing you trouble? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is, I'm sick and tired of leftists launching vicious attacks on any one who actually tries to engage in honest, straight debate about a subject. I don't hate Persians, Arabs or any other ethnicity adopting the Islamic religion. What I hate is people who lie about things, hide information from people. The world isn't about 10,000 years old, and it certainly wasn't made by God or Allah; I don't know this for sure, but I believe it. But then my belief is based on some evidence put forth by scientists. There is plenty of evidence that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years. There's plenty of evidence that all the miracles that have ever happened have been those affecting only minor ailments which probably were cured by something else. And we all have heard of dopamine and the affect the anticipation of reward can have on the mind. (Just thinking you will get something good will give you something similar to an adrenalin rush.)

There's plenty of evidence that a Niqab (worn in some countries where a stricter school of Islam prevails, e.g. Saudi Arabia) upon a woman can be intimidating, scary, and can create a power imbalance between the two people engaged in talk. The veiled woman can see the person to whom she is speaking, but that person can't see the veiled woman fully, and so the veiled woman has an advantage. The advantage is due to the fact that over here in Britain, women are no longer seen as sexually dangerous beings, and therefore we don't make them cover up. But then in a society where men are increasingly being shown as equal to women or even weak up against the woman, the veiled Muslim woman would then actually be an equal woman with bizarre clothing to make her sort of mysterious and powerful.--CaptainSurrey 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with being afraid of Islam? Islamic terrorists caused 9/11, Islamic terrorists caused the London Bombings in 2005, Islamic terrorists caused the death of many of our troops and even more innocent Iraqis. Sure, Islam was a peaceful religion, but not now. Homophobia is a stupid fear, Islamophobia is alright. Islam is an idea, an idea that is pushing people to kill themselves along with many others. Why shouldn't we be afraid of Islam? --69.67.235.68 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)