Politics - Headscarves

Strangers in a Strange Land

The term “Islamic Head Dress” means different things to different people. It can vary from the full on Afghani-style Burka, to colourful headscarves, black veils or even masks. They all have different names, foreign words that get confused in the minds of speakers, and blotted together in a patchwork of cultural and religious traditions. France has recently opted to ban the fashion accessory, and this has aroused opinions on one side and the other. Generally speaking, it shouldn’t be too controversial to say that the state shouldn’t mandate dress codes in civil society. It should be equally unanimous to say that if someone is deliberately obscuring their face, it should raise some questions, especially if such a person walks into a bank, for example. The rational standing ground in a changeable and evolving society shouldn’t actually be that hard to find, all you have to do is ignore the shouting fools who either claim “Love it or leave it!” or “God says so!”

For those who say that the burka or niqab is mandatory by Islamic law, they’re not being entirely truthful. The Qur’an is vague on the issue, encouraging women to hide their ‘precious parts,’ remain modest and not to bring attention to themselves. In urban Saudi Arabia, this normally manifests as the long black coverings, scarves and veils that all women are forced into by law. In rural Arabia, the women wear colourful coverings under a thin black cloak and sometimes even masks that have a more carnival appearance. Among Kurds white headscarves are common, capping a colourful stalk of clothes. Earth-tones and burkas take prominence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Indonesia there are traditionally brightly coloured silks, though theses are changing to the black veils of Saudi due to the work of Wahabi missionaries and the growing influence of the Islamic Brotherhood. Somali women cover themselves with tribal-allied colourful clothes, as is common in Saharan Muslim populations like in Chad or Mali. There is no such thing as a uniform Qur’an-mandated dress code. The clothes worn by women in the West, that get called “Islamic Head Dresses,” are the fashions of home, mandated by class and culture.

Since for men there is no harm done by dressing one way or another, there’s no need for a law preventing men from wearing a dishdasha, a khafeya or a pair of low-riding shovar. Seeing a man walking around in the West, dressed up as an extra out of Laurence of Arabia is not a common sight. Even the Saudi ambassador to Canada wears a business suit. His wife, however, is clad in black. This is an important distinction: A man can make his own decisions about how to interact with society. A woman must observe the rules of Islamic society and the home. She is not capable of making such decisions. That’s why when laws targeting Islamic Dress are accused of singling out and targeting Muslim women, that’s correct. That’s what makes this a bit of a thorny issue. This is an issue wrestling society’s values against one half of one religious minority group.

I’ve travelled all over the Middle-East, and generally only worn Western-style clothes (trousers and shirts,) though I realise there are different standards of acceptability for men than for women. I have sympathy for strangers in this land who want to wear the clothes in which they feel comfortable. I felt like a pony-on-parade when I wore my dishdasha in the United Arab Emirates, and I imagine there are many people from that region who feel the same way in jeans-and-a-t-shirt. The general rule of thumb is that if no one is getting hurt, don’t worry about it. As Mark Twain noted: Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
There are three reasons why a woman would choose to cover. One, she believes that God will cast her into hell if she doesn’t. Two, she lives in a society where that is the norm. Three, her family pressures her to. The first two issues are the two most easily dealt with. If she honestly believes that there is an invisible man living in the sky who has nothing better to do that cast an eye down on her, constantly searching for wisp of hair or flash of skin, only then to meet out destructive, retributive and permanent punishment down upon her, there’s not much that can be done for her. The solution here is education. Starting at a young age, present the children with strong role-models (especially Muslim ones) who don’t cover. Convince girls not to want to cover later in life.

For those who lived in a society where this was the norm, they live there no longer. They are now dressing in a manner that fails extraordinarily in their mission to stay inconspicuous. They stand out. They draw attention. They are seen as visibly rejecting the society in which they now live. Most people have seen the sight of a Muslim man, dressed in western clothes being followed by his wife, covered from head-to-toe. This is a failure of Canadian culture to integrate these women into society. Under the veil of cultural-privilege, these women are isolated, lonely and at odds with the world. Immigrants will always be on the outside to a certain degree; home is where the heart is, and is usually where you grew up, the foods you ate, the music to which you sang and danced. This is as true for an immigrant from Bangladesh as it is for an immigrant from Kentucky. Public education of the children, into the norms of Canadian society is the answer. Segregated religious schools (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic) only serve to reinforce this segregation.

The third category, those pressured by family, extended family and society, the matter is graver. This is the type of issue that police have to intervene on, though proving coercion is a hard thing to do, especially when a minority group has certain hostility to outsiders. This is the never ending challenge of breaking up ghettoes. Community policing, passive observation by clinics and doctors for signs of abuse are both necessary to keep an eye on the sins that surround the issue of cultural isolation. Domestic violence, hidden by veiling, is a serious issue that should be treated with the strong arm of the law. Education, and infrastructure designed to bring economic opportunities to all are necessary. Affordable housing shouldn’t get clumped together in housing projects, but diffused over the city. Micro-communities (ethnic ghettoes) foster pressures, both active and passive, that need to be countered with education and opportunity, lest they stagnate and form a permanent underclass.

The head-scarf is more than just clothing. Islamic Head Dress is a flag, proclaiming various spiritual, cultural and political alignments. While I was teaching at the University of Nizwa, in Oman, the girls all wore head-coverings. The Bedouin wore masks and veils over their faces, while their urban classmates usually wrapped their heads in Calvin Klein-designed black headscarves. In class the masks and veils had to come off. They could cover their hair, but not their faces. The government wanted to keep their traditions, but also wanted society to reject the backward tribalism and medieval aspects of the rapidly modernising country. While I was teaching at Istanbul Bilgi University, in Turkey, it was originally against the law to wear any kind of head-covering whatsoever. Religious students circumvented this rule by wearing wigs or hats over their headscarves, either of which made them look like a top-heavy bobble-head doll. Then the law changed, then changed back, then reverted again, leading to (or because of) protests on campuses, on streets and in parliament. At the end of the legal two-step, headscarves were allowed and basically accepted by everyone, but face coverings were not. During exams, a couple of students with headscarves (who didn’t normally cover) were caught cheating by way of concealed earphones. Both Oman and Turkey recognize that cultural backwardness is something that their country needs to overcome, and the subjugation of women is an integral indicator of this. Islamic Head Coverings are not something to be protected.

To sum up, the state has no business enforcing dress codes. That being said, not all women who cover do so voluntarily. Enforcing a public apparel law on this subject would accomplish little more than keep covered women in the home and out of society. The covering of women is illiberal and undemocratic, but something that has to be tolerated among the population that is illiberal and undemocratic. Children have to be taught not only that those traditions are wrong, but why they’re wrong. The children can teach the parents, or if they fail to do so, the parents’ generation will die off in time. Like an anchor cut off from the ship, this symbol of third-world backwardness can disappear into the darkest depths of the sea, never to resurface.