Actually, the hand shaking is about ideology (because in this culture men and women do not touch).  The present thing is not about religion, but it is about how people show respect for others.  I don't understand what ideology has to do with anything, anyway.  Different people have different beliefs about what is polite/appropriate behavior.  You judging them based on your beliefs is rather presumptuous, regarless of whether the belief is based on etiquette, custom, or ideology.

Thalia

Different people have different beliefs about what is polite/appropriate behavior.  You judging them based on your beliefs is rather presumptuous, regarless of whether the belief is based on etiquette, custom, or ideology.

How far do you carry this, for lack of a better expression, cultural (or is it moral) relativism?

Moral relativism claims there are no absolutes.  And I disagree with that.  There are things that are wrong to do, regardless of what culture you are from.  Mayan human sacrifice?  Not OK.  Voluntarily wearing something that someone else doesn't like?  What business is it of that person?

I'm saying that someone American stating that someone else, in London at that, who decides to wear a veil is "insulting all men and women" is presumptuous at best.

Thalia

There are things that are wrong to do, regardless of what culture you are from... I'm saying that someone American stating that someone else, in London at that, who decides to wear a veil is "insulting all men and women" is presumptuous.

There is such a fine line between presumptuousness and making what one considers a moral or practical judgment. I imagine that your passing such judgment regarding those things that you would consider "wrong to do, regardless of what culture you are from"  might be considered presumptuous by some.

Moral relativism claims there are no absolutes.  And I disagree with that.  There are things that are wrong to do, regardless of what culture you are from.

I agree with you this far. If the basic, universal rule of morality is something along the lines of:  Do unto others as you'd have done to you, if you were in their shoes, then I believe in absolute morality, thought it's still relative to others' points of view. I can even imagine righteous human sacrifice.

Voluntarily wearing something that someone else doesn't like?  What business is it of that person?

But clothing is a form of communication. It signals gender, status, group affiliation, personal qualities. Unless she's wearing it to keep her face warm, it's definitely the business of her peers. I suspect what's going on with Ms. Azmi is about group identity and loyalty at least as much as it is religious devotion. If the question is changed from whether a devout Muslim ought to be allowed to practice her sartorial beliefs to whether a member of a subculture ought to be allowed to advertise her otherness at work, does the answer change?

It's hard to think past my desire to see the face of someone I'm interacting with. I get similarly offended by people who interact while wearing sunglasses.

Would you judge me because I prefer to wear jeans instead of skirts, even though I work in a law office?   I'm advertising my differentness, I guess.  Or maybe not.    I certainly am not choosing my wardrobe to tell you something.  I choose it for my comfort & beliefs.  Maybe Ms. Azmi is not trying to communicate with you with her clothes.

I find it difficult to deal with people who judge others' motivations based on their own.  It's curious that you think she is trying to communicate differentness.  Maybe she just feels more comfortable dressing this way, or maybe she truly believes that her religion requires this clothing.

Thalia

Would you judge me because I prefer to wear jeans instead of skirts, even though I work in a law office?

Of course, but maybe not in the sense you mean. "Judge" has negative connotations; a better word might be recognize, identify, or associate. There's a cultural spectrum between casualness and formality, comfort and propriety, keeping it real and keeping it appropriate, which is manifest sartorially. If I see a woman dressed in jeans in a law office, there are a lot of possibilities. Maybe she's not of the office, maybe she's a menial member of the office, maybe her job, though not menial, doesn't include dealing with the public, maybe there's some grubby thing she'll deal with today, maybe it's a casual office, maybe she believes in comfort, maybe she's part of the generation that makes jeans their uniform, maybe she lost a bet, maybe she's participating in a sociological experiment, etc. Whatever the reason, there are a limited number of possibilities. A suit skirt, leather pants, or a sarong would indicate different sets of possibilities.

Maybe she just feels more comfortable dressing this way, or maybe she truly believes that her religion requires this clothing.

I don't doubt, nor was I trying to cast doubt on either of those possibilities. I meant that people choose their clothes in the context of their lives. When a person puts on clothes, she still belongs to many groups and those identifications determine what is comfortable and appealing. Gender, generation, culture, status, and profession may not be intentionally declared by clothing, or clearly declared by clothing, but clothing still manifests these sorts of things. Garments of affiliation can be misunderstood, disliked or even deceptive, but that doesn't eliminate their meaning. Verbal misunderstandings and disagreements don't mean that talk isn't a form of communication.

It's curious that you think she is trying to communicate differentness.

I think it's curious if you don't. Do you think clothes are purely utilitarian? I sort of think they ought to be and I've caught flack for my frumpiness. If you think clothes don't communicate belonging and otherness, what do you think they do say? Do you think it's coincidental for a Muslim woman to wear a veil? Are jeans in a law office an accident? Are choices indicative of the chooser?

For what it's worth, I haven't made up my mind whether Ms. Azmi should've been fired or forced to give up the veil. I am confident the veil is meaningful and it's intent is to both communicate something (The story's wikipedia link introduced me to the idea that some Muslim women may "wear the veil to affirm their respectability and, paradoxically, their independence in respect to their families." Yippee for Muslim feminism or something.) and to limit communication. I have negative feelings about interacting with people whose faces are concealed. I'm not sure my feelings should guide public policy or dictate others' options.

I'm trying to say that my primary purpose in dressing in the morning is not to convey a message.  I'm sure people do take a message from what I do with my life.  But that's their problem.  My intent in choosing my clothing & lifestyle has nothing to do with the message observers perceive.  I expect Ms. Azmi's in the same boat.

FWIW, the message in jeans is "haha, I can be comfortable and don't have to wear a suit.  It's nice to work with engineers."  Some unknowing observers perceive it as "she must be in IT." Their problem, and it doesn't bother me.  But then, they're not trying to prohibit me from making these choices.

Thalia

I get similarly offended by people who interact while wearing sunglasses.

I assume you give them a pass if they're blind.

Now with caps!

Hey, does Bush give people a pass if they're blind?  Abolutely not

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

1. I'm not American (stop being so presumptuous). 2. Ms Azmi wasn't teaching in London. 3. If you use quote marks, it's conventional to quote verbatim, not just rephrase something to fit your own argument.

Gosh, adding an "ing" to your quote that the the veil manages to "insult both men and women" is a huge paraphrase indeed.  How about your respond to my argument, instead of nitpicking that I didn't put insult[ing] in quotes?

Thalia

It was the "all" that changed the meaning. Your "argument" seems to be that wearing a niqab carries no more connotations than wearing jeans. I don't agree.

So the handshaking thing is misogynist too - I don't see how that helps your argument.

As for what ideology has to do with anything, I can think of another group that wears costumes designed to cover the face. If you ever meet a Klansman, just remember that any offence you take is your fault for being presumptuous.

If we can't force Christians to do something they feel is indecent in the eyes of their God, why is anyone looking to force Muslims to do the same?

Because every human culture ever have used faces for identification, but few if any use boobs?

And why do the students have to identify the teacher on a regular basis?  It's not like she's trying to wear the scarf in a line-up.

Thalia

I think you're being disingenuous here, because I think you completely understand that a person whose face you can see while they speak is more understandable than a person whose face you cannot see.  It's why talking on the telephone requires more concentration than talking in person, and why it's easier to misconstrue meaning over the phone.  The face is a highly expressive instrument, which gives a constant barrage of clues to help listeners put speech in context.  Covering one's face when your job is to communicate on a daily basis with young people -- who have an even stronger need of additional context because they don't have the history of verbal communications adults have -- seems not only counter-productive, but it suggests that she values the veil more than she does the ability of students to learn.

While we're here, let's talk about how she handles hard of hearing students.  My brother is 75% deaf, and throughout his school career lived in the front row because he could pick up more with speech and lip-reading than he could with speech alone.  With this teacher, he would have been shit out of luck.  I have very little problem with people expressing their religion, but when a teacher puts her religious beliefs above the needs of her students, I'd suggest she's not a very good teacher.

You'll notice my caveat that if the student's understanding of her is impacted, the prohibition is legitimate, yes?  Most of my teachers in high schools were approximately as expressive as wooden blocks.  I don't recall noticing their faces at all.  Maybe you had deep meaningful conversations with your teachers in junior high, where you needed to see nuances of expression.  I recall mostly boring lectures, where I spent most of my time gazing out the window, looking at my notebook, or reading a book.

I can see why seeing the lips would be important to a hearing-limited person, though.  So if she's likely to teach such a person, I would absolutely say she cannot wear something that covers the mouth.  

Thalia

Well then I guess it is fine to you to have her teach her class by telephone or letters.  I mean, you don't think she should show her face to her students.  

Thalia, you are into the whole legal thing, do you think women should be allowed to wear the veil and cover their faces while on the witness stand?

That's a very interesting question.  I'm not sure how I would solve it.  It depends on exactly what the religious injunction is.  I think balancing the religious feeling and the necessity to judge truthfulness.  Maybe tape her testimony in front of only females, and then show it to the jury?  But would you expect a witness testifying about an injury to her breasts to take her shirt off?  Why is one "completely ridiculous" while the other one isn't?

Thalia

But would you expect a witness testifying about an injury to her breasts to take her shirt off?

Thalia, I think you know me well enough not to ask me that question..   ;)

No, seriously, I think it is a pretty interesting question.  The veil over the face is a particularly unique problem.  Unlike wearing a crucifix or the star of David or some other form of religious identification, the veil and burkha are social mandates as often as they are personal choice.  And they hide identity.  People are identified by their face, and by reading expressions you can tell if someone is sincere, truthful or sarcastic.  If the veil does not have a place on the witness stand, I think it has no place in education.  Now you seem to be arguing that in some cases it does have a place on the witness stand, or that witnesses be deposed on camera in front of a female audience, and that is strange.  

I think the veil is disgusting.  But that's just me.  I think robs a woman of her social identity.  But that being said, how you mandate people choosing their attire is a touchy subject.  The fact that it is a "religious matter" makes it even more complex.  My understanding (and I may be incorrect here) is that no where in the Koran does it mandate or sugest women wear veils or burkhas to hide themselves, but rather this tradition is reinforced by Hadith created much later by Islamic religious scholars.  I have doubts that this was as God commands, but more of an attempt by males in the middle east in controlling their female population.  

No, seriously, I think it is a pretty interesting question.  The veil over the face is a particularly unique problem.  Unlike wearing a crucifix or the star of David or some other form of religious identification, the veil and burkha are social mandates as often as they are personal choice.  And they hide identity.  People are identified by their face, and by reading expressions you can tell if someone is sincere, truthful or sarcastic.  If the veil does not have a place on the witness stand, I think it has no place in education.  Now you seem to be arguing that in some cases it does have a place on the witness stand, or that witnesses be deposed on camera in front of a female audience, and that is strange.

I think that, in general, this conversation is just about dead, but it's interesting to me so what the hell.

There's a couple of issues here:
1.) Identification - That can be achieved without the witness having to testify with her face uncovered.
2.) Sincerity/truthfulness/etc - While being able to see someone's face can help with these things, it certainly isn't the final arbiter. People can reasonably disagree, even with facial evidence, that this or that person is lying, being sarcastic, etc. I don't feel the loss of this one bit of data is going to make or break a case. If the witness is lying, it's the opposing counsel's job to point that out, and if the best they can do is say "look, she looks like she's lying!" then I think they have a weak case to begin with.

Sooner or later, of course, there may be a situation where the veil's going to have come off (you can't very well do a line-up, say, in a veil). But I don't believe that just because it is not to be allowed some situations, it should be discounted in other situations which aren't even similar. A courtroom is not a school. If the woman can do her job, and the children is learning, it seems to me the only unassailable reason to make her take it off is that makes some Westerners uncomfortable.

Now with caps!

Coquito, you bring up a line up.  If every woman is wearing a veil all teh time then a line up is useless.  They will all look identical.  

As a social mandate or even a fashion statement, the veil hides identity.  

Coquito, you bring up a line up.  If every woman is wearing a veil all teh time then a line up is useless.  They will all look identical.  
As a social mandate or even a fashion statement, the veil hides identity.

A line up is just one tool of law enforcement. Besides, there's nothing stopping a criminal from wearing a disguise, or a mask, or attacking in the dark, or putting panty hose on their head, you name it. There's lots of things we do in every day life that make crimes more possible, but we don't make them all illegal. I think a woman's right to wear a veil if she so chooses outweighs the possibility that some day we may need to put her in a lineup. Here I thought we were all innocent until proven guilty. Now apparently there's a constant suspicion of guilt we need to be able to dispel at a moment's notice.

Now with caps!

Here I thought we were all innocent until proven guilty. Now apparently there's a constant suspicion of guilt we need to be able to dispel at a moment's notice.

Well that is not exactly what I meant.  What I mean is that this "choice" to wear a veil, is far less of a choice, there is pressure on women to conform to this identity hiding.  While I would not outlaw wearing the veil in general, there are social situations where it is inappropriate, like in school, in a court room and other places.  I think getting the word out to women that if they choose to do this, they take away their identity and give away personal power.  Telling people that if it is a choice it is a bad choice is not wrong.  

I think getting the word out to women that if they choose to do this, they take away their identity and give away personal power.  Telling people that if it is a choice it is a bad choice is not wrong.  

I'm glad we got to this point, nmi. I think this is where our, and perhaps most people's, division stems from. I agree that there is cultural pressure for women to do this, however, I also believe plenty of women choose to do so for reasons other than that pressure. Insofar as it is their choice (and it's very difficult to figure out when it is and when it isn't) I am loathe to force these women to do something they feel shames, embarrasses, or otherwise degrades them. I go back to the topless example. Even on a topless beach, or in a community where all women go topless, there will be women who will feel it indecent to do so, and I would not force them to do so. I'm not even willing to claim, as you do, that it is a bad choice. I do not see it, in and of itself, harming anyone.

I also agree that there are, unfortunately, some situations in which that might actually be necessary, as it is sometimes necessary to force people to do things we would not otherwise. The court example is a complex one, and may be a venue in which I would say it is OK. I don't feel the same about the school example. Unless children's ability to learn is negatively impacted, then I don't have a problem with a veil. As a corollary, strip-searching is not commonly considered OK. But there are times it is necessary. My threshold for when this kind of invasion is necessary is pretty high, and a simple school environment doesn't cut it. On top of that, I feel that in many situations, while some argue it is necessary (like ID'ing someone coming into a school, let's say) I think there are reasonable workarounds (only in front of a female guard, for example, or using a fingerprint ID instead, etc). The specific workaround is less the point that the spirit of it, which is to say that I believe it is a valid choice for a woman to wear a veil and not something to be violated lightly or unnecessarily (our definitions of lightly and unnecessarily will, of course, vary).

Back to an earlier point of yours:

What I mean is that this "choice" to wear a veil, is far less of a choice, there is pressure on women to conform to this identity hiding.

Insofar as we agree with this, I would be more than happy to support ways of fighting this kind of cultural pressure which amounts, let's face it, to abuse sometimes. But again, it would have to be something that punishes those who force these things upon others without punishing those who choose to do them for themselves. It's tricky, and complicated, and I don't, myself, have an answer. But like you I have a strong feeling for where such legislation (or whatever) should come from. I choose not to assume that, when I meet an individual wearing a veil, it is being forced on them. I feel it is important to respect people's feelings on these kinds of matters and I think it would be disrespectful to discount the possibility that it is a choice, which is exactly what happens when we throw judgements at the practice, like saying the wearing of the veil "takes away personal power," etc. That is a broad statement that cannot, imo, apply to everyone who wears a veil or similar garment.  It brings to mind the complaints of some feminist groups, who argue that shaving her legs, or wearing high heels, or wearing make-up places a woman in a subservient position, or lessens her dignity or her "personal power" to borrow your phrase. It does, in some situations. Certainly, I think the cult of beauty in this country (and many others) is destructive. That doesn't mean I'm going to ban any of these. It would do as much harm as good, and it would miss the point by focusing on an expression of the problem and not the problem itself.

Anyway, this is starting to get a little long. Suffice to say we're definitely coming from different perspectives, though not so different in the end. Different concerns, perhaps.

Thanks for all the posts (not that mine should be the last ;).

Now with caps!

Coquito, I am glad to have this conversation with you.  I think you come up with some cogent points.  

I think this personal choice to hide their face behind a veil is really the product of centuries of oppression against women, it has been integrated into religion and culture.  I think critics of teh veil should be vocal and express to women that this personal choice is not one that liberates or gives them freedom and power.  And that in many non-muslim situations it is also socially offensive and in poor taste.

There are many situations that are considered impolite and poor manners, and wearing a veil in mixed company where there is conversation and exchange of ideas is inherently impolite.  Religious and cultural tradition can be a social faux pas.  As a religious Christian, I support many of my religious traditions, but accept that while in mixed company with non-Christians, it woudl be impolite for me to interrupt a conversation and jump to my knees and recite the Lord's prayer.  It is considerate to face people in polite manners and give them the due respect they deserve, respecting them by showing my face, being honest and being involved in a social exchange.  

Now this may come across as "anti-muslim" but I find that Islam does pressure people to disregard social responsibilities and subjugate them to religious and traditional responsibilities.  Example, at certain times, abandon your activities, face Mecca, get on your hands and knees and pray, wear a veil to cover your face.

Choice is liberation, freedom.  Do you think muslim women are truly free to choose not to wear the veil?  Maybe in the US, but not in many other places.

I remember some years ago, I met the most beautiful woman I have ever seen.  She really has the perfect face, bright and glowing lustrous smile.  She was from Iran (she said "I'm Persian").  In America she did not need to wear a evil over her beautiful face.  She was liberated and very happy.  She did not identify herself as "Iranian", because Iran has this stigma attached to it.  She did not want to be expected to be a Muslim woman who should cover her face.  She identified herself as "Persian" because her ethnic heritage had no stigma, no pressure to be ashamed to be a woman.  I am glad for her liberation in the US.  To me it would be a sin to cover such a beautiful face.  

Well I am so glad Muslim women have a choice.   According to this Muslim cleric, a woman who doesn't wear the veil is "uncovered meat" who attract sexual predators.

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."

Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

Well now we have THAT cleared up.  Maybe many women wear the veil in fear?  Hey, that's their choice.  

C'mon, nmi. I can find you examples of Christians and others right here in the U.S. making the same kinds of comments about women wearing "revealing clothing." Just because something can be forced on people doesn't mean it always is, and it doesn't mean that those who do choose should have that right taken away.

Now with caps!

Actually, any number of places have existing anti-mask laws on the book, so apparently we're sometimes okay with criminalizing that sort of thing.  That most of the mask laws were started to deal with Klansmen is interesting.  What will be more interesting is when someone arrests a woman wearing the veil using one of the mask laws.

Again, Thalia's beat me to the punch, but I agree - what's the ID issue here? Are the students worried it isn't her?
If this is really an ID issue, I'm sure there's ways to do it without making her walk around, full time, without the veil.
Honestly, I get the impression the veil thing just bothers you and you're looking for excuses why. I know that might be reaching, but...

Now with caps!

what's the ID issue here?

In a school? You're joking, right? You don't see any problem with an almost complete identity mask for a person at a school? Why not find out what's-her-name's height, then post "You must be this tall to be a be a pedophile/kidnapper/drug dealer" sign at the door while you're at it?

In a school? You're joking, right? You don't see any problem with an almost complete identity mask for a person at a school? Why not find out what's-her-name's height, then post "You must be this tall to be a be a pedophile/kidnapper/drug dealer" sign at the door while you're at it?

No, I'm not joking. Did you read the rest of the comment? Did you read the article? I'm not trying to be jerk here, but it seems like you're trying to manufacture an issue that does not exist. Assuming they're worried about security, there must be a guard of some sort, right? Fine, she can ID herself with the guard. She doesn't have a problem lifting the veil in front of other women and I didn't see anyone ask if she'd be willing to show her face to a male guard (probably because there was no security issue mentioned in the article) but maybe she would be. If there's no guard, then you sure as hell don't need a veil to snatch a kid. Put on a pair of dark sunglasses, fake mustache and a ball cap when you walk in and you're in business.  Sadly, people do it all the time. Like I said in my comment, if there were a security issue (and, again, I didn't see one mentioned as the reason for her being dismissed) there's ways to deal with it.

Now with caps!

What if she doesn't feel like going to work and gets her sister to go in for her?  What if she has four sisters and each one works one day a week?  You want to pay someone for letting unqualified people do her job for her?  

I'm honestly not sure if this is a serious question. I covered concerns such as those already. I never advocated that, assuming there's a security system in place, she be allowed to circumvent it.

Now with caps!

What if she doesn't feel like going to work and gets her sister to go in for her?  What if she has four sisters and each one works one day a week?

Sweet...that reminds me of one of my favorite books when I was a kid...
The Seven Chinese Brothers

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I'm thinking hot muslim triplets, but that's just the kind of perv I am.

Note to stevetherobot:  Do not under any circumstances employ people who have identical twins.  They could let an unqualified person do a job!  

Thalia

Peter concurs in his First Epistle (3 :3, 4):   Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Christianity apparently has nothing to do with following the injunctions of the Bible, but rather it's about feeling victimized.

Now find me a counter quote that says that Christians should wear jewelry, and we can talk.

Thalia

Let me re-phrase the question for you, Thalia: why should a non-denominational orgaization make allowances for personal religious observance? Doesn't doing so give tacit approval for said observance?

I'm Ok with telling a Christian not to wear a cross -- it's their company, and their rules. I'm less OK with making allowances for one religion but not others.

Let me ask you a question.  Why do most jobs give you Sunday off, but not Tuesday?  Want to guess?  It's because it's a Christian observed religious holiday.  Even secular organizations do this. Why?  Because it's good business.  If your customers won't be there because they're in church, you don't need your workers there either.

Secular organizations should not discriminate based on the religion of the employee because discrimination is wrong.  If your religion requires you to wear dark clothing, for example, and there is no reason why wearing dark clothing is a bad idea, you shouldn't prohibit it just for entertainment value.  If you can tell me why the dark clothing is either (1) not a good idea in your line of business, or (2) not legitimately a religious injunction, then feel free to restrict it.  My argument is simply that wearing a cross is not legitimately a religious injunction.  

Mind, I also agree that a teacher who wants to wear a hajib should make sure that she can be well heard, and isn't muffled.  If wearing it negatively influences her performance, that is a legitimate reason to prohibit it.

Thalia

Why do most jobs give you Sunday off, but not Tuesday?  Want to guess?  It's because it's a Christian observed religious holiday.

Note the tense. Observed. In the past. There are plenty of things the government used to do, and which still have cultural weight of habit, which it couldn't now if the decision were to be made anew. In the here and now, we're asking whether the government should allow positive discrimination by granting special consideration other people don't get.

If your religion requires you to wear dark clothing, for example, and there is no reason why wearing dark clothing is a bad idea, you shouldn't prohibit it just for entertainment value.

So, do Jedi get to wear pajamas and swords? That's not an imaginary question -- there are people who profess to be Jedi. All the documentary evidence we have shows that Jedi wear comfortable attire and carry swords. (But me no buts about lightsabers; the approved ancillary texts -- books and videogames -- agree that before the Force guided Jedi to the creation of lightsabers, they wore swords.)