Comparing niqab-wearing women to disability
Since the story of Aishah Azmi, the niqab-wearing teaching assistant suspended from her job, broke, former British foreign secretary Jack Straw has been busy making an ass of himself. Or a bigger ass, I suppose, if you're a Muslim member of his constituency. Straw is currently the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal (that last sounds like a bullshit title, doesn't it), and has been handing out opinions about niqab-wearing women.
In this week's The Sunday Times, UK, India Knight writes an opinion about Straw and the niqab called "Muslims are the new Jews." While Knight believes the request that Azmi remove her niqab while actively engaged in teaching English to children is reasonable, the fallout of religious bigotry surrounding the case deeply offends her:
...What we are witnessing is religious bigotry of the most shameful kind. The words used in the context of the veil debate —-- "strange", "“spooky", "“weird", "“offensive", "“creepy", "“wrong", "“evil-looking"”, "“sinister" -- are not words a civilised society should use about other human beings.I'm fascinated both by the way disability keeps coming up as an analogy with this topic, and by the apologies or outrage that seem to follow automatically from that. In the blogging I wrote about in my last post, the outrage was from one commenter (at PunkAssBlog) to another in comparing the choice of wearing the niqab to the lack of choice involved in a severely disabled woman using a wheelchair. In her opinion piece, Knight regrets the need to "equate Islam with disability." The discomfort runs in both directions, and the implication is that there is something unseemly in the comparison.
People are made uncomfortable by all sorts of things: I find shaven-headed, tattooed men unpleasant, especially if they'’re drunk. I'm not mad keen on hooded gangs of youths at three in the morning. Facial piercings hurt my eyes....
But we all need to coexist peaceably. The fact that I find the man in Camden market with bolts through his face, or the Orthodox woman dressed in a drab sack and wearing a bad wig, as "“weird" --— weirder, actually --— than a woman dressed in black with only her eyes showing is neither here nor there.
I don'’t expect they think much of me, either. But I would have to be deranged, or consumed with hatred, to attribute random demerits to them on the basis of their physical appearance. A lot of people are made uncomfortable by disability, for instance -- because they live in a civilised society they don'’t say it.
Imagine if Straw had said, "There are an awful lot of autistic people in my constituency. I tell them to look me right in the eye, otherwise I can'’t help them."” Would there not be an outcry? I'’m sorry to equate Islam with disability, but I am doing so because an observant person'’s religion is as integral a part of them as their genetic make-up.
What's unseemly is pity, though it's presence is not recognized. It's viewed as unseemly to equate a regular "normal" difference like religious clothing with something as pitiful as a disability. Religious diversity is expected and comprehensible despite the bigotry it brings out. Disability is shameful and pitiable, and equating something good and acceptable about human nature with it is something to apologize for.
For example, Sunrunner has responded to my last post with quite a bit of interesting information about her muslim background and Islamic culture generally. But she also notes that comparison to disability would generally be found insulting to muslim women because of the stigma attached to disability.
I find the comparison between niqab-wearing women and disabled people to be incredibly apt, despite other people's clear discomfort with it. In direct public interaction, both a niqab and certain impairments may require other people to broaden their mind and accommodate the difference. And for the niqab-wearer or the person with the impairment, that difference about their physical being may make interacting with the rest of the world more difficult -- disabling.
Feminists have long noted that various styles of dress for women tend to inhibit movement. Along with the niqab, high heels and short skirts restrict complete physical freedom of movement. Sure, a person can adjust and very skillfully adapt to restrictive clothing, but that doesn't negate the effect. Choice, company dress code or coercion also do not negate the impairing effect of wearing something more physically restrictive than other (less, looser, different) clothing.
And regardless of political opinions about the niqab, it can't be denied that its purpose is to create a barrier between the wearer and other people. Muslim Brits interviewed for the BBC generally acknowledge the niqab requires some social adjustment, and many women who have tried it likewise acknowledge it can put limitations on the wearer.
So, despite what seems to be a general distaste and discomfort with the comparison between niqab-wearing women and disability, I find it interesting and possibly instructive about social interactions with people of any kind who come across as "different" or "challenging."
6 comments:
I think the analogy is as apt as any comparing two marginalized groups - which is to say, it's useful, but there are places where it falls apart. For instance, transsexual and intersexual issues - there are places where the two groups have very similar issues (and in some cases, the groups tend to agree on the issues) and some places where their experiences are very different.
For those of us for whom pity is less of an issue, I suspect the discomfort comes from "choice". Wearing niqab is seen as a choice, whereas disability is not. Even when we realize that many women have no choice but to wear niqab, we still see it as an acquired characteristic that *could* be changed (which I suppose brings up an interesting parallel to The Cure in disability politics). Perhaps there's also some uncomfortable association with Wannabees (side note: there's gotta be a better term for that).
In this particular case, the choice issue is particularly appropriate - the news stories I read seemed to indicate that she had interviewed for the job without the niqab, then later refused to remove it in front of male colleagues. There is some room here for discussion of whether the former situation was possible because it was less public (and less likely to get back to her husband or her community or whomever) while the latter was much more likely to be discovered. But it still indicates that she does not feel compelled to wear the niqab in all situations with non-mahram men.
This entire issue has become incredibly instructive on so many levels.
I have been thinking alot about young Aisha. Today I read that she had been denied compensation on grounds that she was discriminated against, but was given some compensation because she was "victimized." I can't figure that one out, but I am wondering how much the media attention (which she likely did not seek out) contributed to the decision in that regard. Because, as it turns out, she was suspended last February and the news only hit the big time when Jack Straw and drew the attention of the media; and the bigger back-story is the struggle for power in the Labour Party (the politics of fear and loathing) as people scramble to fill Blair's shoes and "justify" the blood of innocent Iraqis already on their hands. The whole thing is sickening beyond belief.
But back to the niqab and non-Mahram men. There are instances when it is considered appropriate for a woman to remove her niqab, such as consulting with a male dr if a female one is not available. The question is, is where a woman (or as is frequently the case, her Mahram--or male guardian as he is often called) draws the line. And that for me is why it IS an issue of choice (someone's, even if the woman involved is unable to make the choice herself), because the lines "governing" these questions are all over the map.
The bottom line is that a rather odd employment dispute (and workers are more generally protected in the UK than they are here from discrimination--which makes me wonder if there wasn't some attempt to play the system, and if so, it would not be the 1st time) has become fodder for a rather horrific eruption of xenophobia. I am not sure that Aisha is a victim as an individual, but it is certain that many Muslim women in Britain (and the west) will be as a direct consequence of a nasty bit of Old White Men trying to hold onto power, with plenty of blood on their hands, playing gutter politics.
But back to the niqab and disabling, as much as I hate seeing it as a "disability, I can see your point, and in that reagard, it might be worthwhile to consider that idea that the point (whether acknowleged or not) of the veil is to disable human interaction, ie, the male gaze. Or a woman's sexuality. That is fine as far as it goes (high heels ARE disabling as well), but it does force people on both sides to stretch themselves in order to nourish "other" kinds of human interaction.
this whole thing is very interesting because in a way it boils down to is that some people care not to understand the concept that she belives this is right for her to wear the veil due to religous beliefs. to a larger degree she was raised this way and if she wanted to i am sure she challange these beliefs in order for her not to wear it or raise the awareness of others on why some muslims choose to go this route for dressing this way. either way there in a way is going to be some conterversy for the belivers of this particular sect of religion, but in a way we as a whole should try and understand to a degree why and how come and to broaden our minds on how to overcome it. and thusly so about disabilitys as a whole. if i am wrong in this way of thinking please let me know!
Hi there,
as an occupational therapist, a Muslim woman in the west, and mother of a child with a disability i found your post interesting. please refer to my own post to read an article on this niqab issue..
may God guide us all.
sorry, forgot to paste the link..here it is
http://stanceofamuslimah.blogspot.com/2006/10/niqab-debate.html
Thanks for sharing the link.
Post a Comment