Banning Veils - Should they or shouldn't they?

[_JS]

City schools 'should ban veils'
 
Muslim girls could be asked not to wear veils in the classroom under new plans.
Bradford City Council is drawing up guidelines stating that pupils and staff should not wear veils in lessons.

It said veils could cause problems with communication, identifying pupils and health and safety. However, the final decision would lie with the school.

Last week teaching assistant Aishah Azmi lost a case for discrimination and harassment after being suspended for refusing to remove her veil in lessons.

But an employment tribunal decided the 23-year-old, who worked at a school run by Bradford's neighbouring authority Kirklees Council, had been victimised.

Bradford City Council leader Kris Hopkins said: "Veils in schools, for staff and pupils, has never been an issue in Bradford.

"We feel the debate over veils is distracting from the real issues in education, that is raising educational attainment across the district for all children."

'Obey rules'

Dr Abdul Bary Mailk, president of the Bradford and Leeds Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, said wearing the full face veil, or niqab, was not an obligation under Islam.

He said: "If there are rules at work which say you must not wear a veil at work then I think it's the duty of every Muslim that they should obey those rules. If they don't like it they should not join that organisation."

He said Muslim girls needed to take off their veils in certain lessons, such as those held in laboratories, for health and safety reasons and they were regularly asked to do so in Muslim countries.

But Dr Malik said he thought the veil debate had blown out of proportion, as women who wore the niqab formed less than half a percent of the population.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6079798.stm

Published: 2006/10/24 11:25:22 GMT

[_JS]

I think this brings up a lot of interesting questions.

Should state schools not allow the wearing of veils or niqab for students or teachers? Britain has had a recent case of a teaching assistant being told that she could not wear her veil as well.

Also, are veils oppressive or liberating? Feminists in Britain have sided with the government and judiciary who have ruled against the conforming to hijab. Is it a method of gender oppression or as other scholars (especially Muslim) have indicated is it a method of liberation? Is this a matter of liberal individual choice, or a matter of what's best for the public?

[Lanya]

I think it should be left entirely up to the Muslim population. 
The more the Muslim hardliners feel oppressed and victimized, the more they'll move toward more of a fundamentalist stance.

I'm hoping that's the case, anyway.  As we've seen, it doesn't take much to whip up a sense of victimhood in a majority religion...

[Amianthus]

I think it should be left entirely up to the Muslim population. 

This whole issue of defining what clothing people wear is so stupid.

If there is a safety reason, fine. No safety reason, then they should wear whatever they feel comfortable in that meets the dress code of their employer.

[domer]

I think wearing veils is offensive, for the most part, for reasons I'll elaborate, but I also think that the right to wear them is fundamental to the values of this nation and must be tolerated absent legitimate health and safety reasons. Normal school activities would fall under the sweep of the general mandate for toleration.

I will briefly outline my personal opposition to veils. In a liberal democracy which thrives on openness and frank exchanges among citizens, veils present an obstacle, and a rejection of the very values just mentioned. An aura of secrecy is created, perhaps compounded by today's concerns about theclandestine planning of harm. In that light, veils are not only strongly symbolic but maybe even instrumental. From a human-respect standpoint, which may be called a feminist standpoint, the use of veils could signal acceptance and perpetuation of a harmful, limited role for women dictated by hoary rules developed in an unenlightened and harmful (to women) age.

But those are my concerns. The basic libertarian stance articulated by Ami -- live and let live -- is however the important "rule for decision" in this instance, which is supported by a host of other fundammental considerations, which I won't elaborate beyond the following notations. "Autonomy" (in tandem with "consensus" and "social cohesion," against which autonomy establishes a dynamic tension) is a prime value in our society, the deft working out of which in the social milieu is the essence of the American promise. Further, a specially-protected subset of autonomy is religious expression, which, on balance, must be favored over the benefits of promoting easier intercourse among citizens.

In the end, the use of veils, presuming a normal course of acculturation for all concerned, presents only an obstacle to human interaction, a prime concern, but certainly not its elimination. In any case, as we're structured and as the problem is being defined here, the accomodations to be expected from either standpoint, and the salutary debates they create, are indeed, in a sense, the essence of America.

[kimba1]

in the christian religion women wear scarfs.
showing hair is frowned upon.
but through time men for some reason do get a reaction from seeing women`s hair
maybe in the near fututre men won`t react from seeing women`s faces also.

[BT]

The fundamental question is whether schools should be allowed to enforce dress codes.

[domer]

The "veil situation," I submit, is more laden with principle than a naked claim that a teenager is allowed to wear a "Raiders teeshirt" to school.

[BT]

The "veil situation," I submit, is more laden with principle than a naked claim that a teenager is allowed to wear a "Raiders teeshirt" to school.

This situation is taking place in the UK so i doubt raiders t shirts come into play.

And i'm not sure whether the wearing of the veils violated any "separation"  issues the brits might have as the wearing of a cross or a pentacle would raise here in the USA.

I'm guessing the central reasons for dress codes is to elimate the potential for distraction from the sole purpose of education facilities which is to educate . And in that light does the banning of veils work towards that goal just as the banning of racist t shirts would work toward that goal.

[_JS]

I think Domer has the basic feminist argument down, or one could call it a human-respect argument as well.

The counter-argument, and this has been presented by scholars and followers of Islam alike, is that hijab liberates women from being slaves to standards of fashion, beauty, and being forced to compete for attractiveness to men. It is considered to free women from self-glorification and allows them to be accepted for who they are, not how they look. Keep in mind also that hijab (dressing modestly) is a requirement on men as well, though clearly not as strict as the requirement for women to cover their face.

[kimba1]

but the hajib will never be universally accepted by islam.
it just not a very practical thing to wear .
ex. indonesia is a massively muslim country but not many wear it for it`s simply not viable in any place with a high humid climate.
unless youy want a fullbody diaper rash.

[Plane]

   My job could not be done in a veil unless the veil was quite minimal , perhaps to be replaced by a dust mask.


    If a dust mask were substituted there may be an increase in safety since the girls in the masks would catch less Flu.


    I would want to accomadate the Muslim Women who wished to dress as they felt compelled by their scripture , unless there were an extremely good reason not to .

    Would you cash a check for a Woman in a conceiling veil?

[Michael Tee]

<<The fundamental question is whether schools should be allowed to enforce dress codes. >>

That's funny because my first reaction to all this was "It's so high-schoolish." 

But a dress code in high school can be a keeping-the-peace issue if kids are wearing gang colours to school.  The veil isn't a gang-colour thing, it's not meant to provoke, it's a religious dictate, which makes it a real can of worms.  How is anyone gonna ban veils and not ban skull-caps for Orthodox Jews, turbans for Sikhs, crucifixes, etc.?

Personally I think you gotta ban all of 'em or ban none of 'em.  (Gang colours are a whole different story.)  As between the two, I'd say ban none.  I wouldn't want anyone telling ME how to dress and I don't think I've got the right to tell anyone else how to dress.

[kimba1]

I wonder how they tell them apart at the muslim schools?
just using the eyes just not enough for me

[Lanya]

   My job could not be done in a veil unless the veil was quite minimal , perhaps to be replaced by a dust mask.
...............

lol
My friend G., the eldest of 11 children, said her mother kept a Kleenex box in the car so if they forgot the chapel veils they  at least had Kleenex to put on their heads (the girls that is).