Damsels In This Dress

With this little rumination, and also by posting this photo, I may have given some readers the impression that I'm opposed to Muslim women wearing hijabs or niqabs or burkhas. Truth is, I don't really care if they or anyone else wears a rubber chicken for a hat or goes around dressed like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

A friend of mine, however, is cautiously open to the idea of some sort of clampdown on Muslim females' traditional garb, though she doesn't favor a law to that effect. In France, they disagree with her on that last point: there, "conspicuous religious symbols" such as hijabs and yarmulkes have been officially banned, by law, from state-sponsored schools.

The topic just won't go away. Just last week, the appropriateness of Muslim women wearing the veil was questioned by British Labour MP and Commons leader Jack Straw, resulting in a national debate between his sympathizers and detractors. Even Salman Rushdie weighed in.

For what it's worth, here's my take.

If we insist — by applying social pressure, as in the U.K., or by making laws, as in France — that Muslim women must not wear the hijab or the burkha, then we should logically also require nuns to (at least in public) shed their habit. We should then perhaps also nix yarmulkes and turbans, à la the French. Come to think of it, is a golden cross or a star of David or a Wiccan pentangle worn around the neck an example of people potentially making others uncomfortable, inappropriately shoving their religion into others' faces? Do we allow orthodox Jews to wear black hats and side curls? May teenage girls wear WWJD bracelets without risking setting us off? Could Amish folks pose an affront to our secular or "neutral" preferences when they openly wear straw hats and ride horse-drawn buggies?

Live and let live. If Muslim women want to dress in dour black tents, or if the Pope is hellbent on proudly preening his pointy hat, I'll be the last person to stop them. At the same time, of course, I do reserve the right to laugh like a hyena at their chosen outfits (that picture above, for instance, really tickles my funny bone). And they shouldn't be surprised, much less hurt, if others shun them or regard them with suspicion based on those get-ups and on what those get-ups signify.

To be perfectly clear, the question is not whether people are entitled to believe what they want. They are, of course — at least in our part of the world. The question is whether outward manifestations of their faith, such as clothing or physical religious symbols, may be squelched for some greater good, and to what degree. I like that Jack Straw raised the veil question, and I hate that he caught so much flak for it (predictable though that was). Ultimately, though, I come down on the side that thinks people's sartorial choices must be entirely their own.

On a vaguely related note, have you seen a picture of Salman Rushdie's wife, Padma Lakshmi? Wishing to cover her in a burkha ought to be a crime against humanity. At least the male half of it.

Comments

[Adam W.]

I agree. And damn, Padma's hot!

[The Wine Commonsewer]

THAT is Rushdie's wife? See that begs the age old question: how the heck did he end up with her?

[K. Dale Boley]

Ya, I mean, Rushdie looks like he is barely holding onto to sanity. He looks like he might be at home covered in body fluids on a city sidewalk somewhere. And he gets her? No wonder that in every pic on google of him, he looks like the cat that ate the canary. Apparantly the man can lick his own eyebrows. See Rogier, there MUST be a God.

[Arcanum Veritas]

How about not concealing the face when in banks, public transport or airports? This would include motorbike helmets (already the case for banks), big arse sun glasses and stupid hats that cover the face. What's the use in having CCTV at millions of pounds per year if you can't use it to catch people, because they can hide in plain site.