Our Skewed Priorities

Straw said niqabi women make him feel "uncomfortable." But there is no shortage of bigots who feel similarly "uncomfortable" in the presence of Jews, Hindus, Hutterites or the Amish or ... He also said the niqab, also known as the burqa, is "a visible demonstration of separation and difference," and a symbol of "parallel societies." It is. But so are scores of others, starting with the strictly compartmentalized British social and cultural class structure. Blair, clever as ever, added a caveat: "I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not a matter of personal choice in the end for people to do what they want." It is. What, then, was the point of raising this ruckus? Sensible rules already exist for people to show themselves in person for security checks and in photos for passports and drivers' licences. If we wish to go further, women need well-defined rules, not patronizing lectures — by men. In Amsterdam, Alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim, has suggested depriving social assistance to women who refuse face-to-face interviews, thereby reducing their chances of finding work. The niqab does inhibit participation in society. But, in varying degrees, so do the hijab, the kippa and the locks of the Orthodox Jews and the turban for the Sikhs. Most democracies have managed to minimize discrimination against such faith-based practices. The public policy implications of Straw's musings are many. A British commentator, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, wrote that niqabi women are "just as much the victim of sexual objectification as a half-naked woman in a tube top." By this formulation, the state would be kept busy covering up the "half-naked" women and uncovering the niqabis. Another Muslim writer, Saira Khan, said that the niqab is "a sign of radicalization." Not necessarily. Most of these women may just be socially conservative. http://tinyurl.com/yj5atw

Note: http://tinyurl.com/yj5atw