The veil

indonesia / philippines / australia | religion | opinion / analysis Monday March 19, 2007 17:36 by Melbourne Anarchst Communist Group (MACG) - Anarkismo macg1984 at yahoo dot com dot au

No to racism

Our reaction, therefore, must be to defend a woman's legal right to wear whatever she likes and be free of harassment or discrimination for doing so.

We must oppose racism. We must oppose the oppression of women. These are elementary propositions. The media try to use the issue of women's Islamic dress to convince us that we can't do both. As usual, this is a lie. We can, and must, oppose both.

There are several forms of women's Islamic dress, originating in different societies, but they can be collectively referred to as “the veil”. First of all, it is necessary to realise that the veil is both a symbol of the oppression of women and an instrument of it. A story in a British newspaper recently (The Guardian, 17/10/06) told the story of a woman journalist who had decided to wear the niqab, a very strict form of Islamic dress, for a day. She discovered the discomfort and the impediment to her own safety and had difficulty breathing. It is a physical limitation on a woman's freedom and ability to act in society. This operates independently of what the garment symbolises to the woman wearing it or to anyone else. And it is the highly visible nature of the physical bondage of the veil which is the first reason why it is a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam.

Another reason why the veil is a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam can be seen by reflecting on the discussion about women wearing Islamic dress as a refuge from sexual objectification and the male gaze. Here, we find women in the situation where they are burdened with the responsibility to limit their personal freedom because of the poor behaviour of men. In societies where the veil is customary, the assumption is that women are sex objects and a man in the presence of an unveiled woman to whom he is not related cannot reasonably be expected to control himself and keep within the bounds of morality. Women who do not wear the veil are therefore seen as “asking for it”. Naturally, there is little social pressure in Western societies in this direction (the line where women in the West are seen as “asking for it” by dressing in a certain way is drawn at a different point), but it is in the societies where the custom originated that one can see the logic of it and where it fits into overall social relations.

In some societies and some situations, wearing the veil can be a rational choice for a woman to make. This does not, however, remove the obligation to denounce the circumstances which have forced women into making this choice and change the society in question. The question that arises is, therefore, how will these changes come about?

The first thing to say is that you won't succeed by banning the veil. The example of British politician Jack Straw is a case in point. His stance against Islamic dress, whereby he refuses to see women who come to see him unless they remove their veil, is actually a case of the use of political power to reveal a woman to the male gaze – precisely the disempowering experience against which the veil is a defensive measure! Secondly, this doesn't take account of the fact that many Muslim women in Western countries have adopted the veil as a symbol of defiance and cultural identity. Despite its physical oppressiveness, they experience it as a liberatory symbol. And thirdly, the tactic of banning and discrimination fails to take account of the concrete circumstances in which Muslim women find themselves, where adopting the veil may be a tactic for achieving more personal freedom in other areas as they negotiate with authority figures in their family and community.

Our reaction, therefore, must be to defend a woman's legal right to wear whatever she likes and be free of harassment or discrimination for doing so. What a woman is wearing should not be the occasion for discrimination in employment, for denying her service in shops or Government offices, for abuse in the street, or restriction on participation in social life in any form. This position, it should be obvious, is just as valid in Saudi Arabia as it is in Australia and, provided it is fought for vigorously and consistently, is even more powerful in Saudi Arabia than in Australia.

Further, we must fight against the anti-Islamic racism that encourages some women to feel they should don the veil as an act of defiance or cultural identification. By defeating racism, we will remove the illusory “liberation” of the veil and make its real physical oppressiveness more obvious. In particular, the War “on” Terror is driving Muslim women in Australia and other members of the “coalition of the willing” into the veil, so defeating the War will weaken this tendency.

Finally, we in the labour movement must fight alongside Muslim women against racism and sexism, so that we are aware of the precise terrain on which they struggle. Although the veil is oppressive, it is not the only oppressive thing in their lives and we must respect their priorities in deciding on what front to struggle at any point in time. Imposing a “no Islamic dress” line from the outside risks having some women put in situations where they have even less personal freedom (e.g. freedom of movement, freedom to socialise), something for which they would not thank us.

What women wear is theirs to decide. When Muslim women discard the veil of their own free will, it will be a great step forward. Forcing them to remove it, however, is oppressive and, in Australia, is racist.

· This article published in “The Anvil”, newsletter of Melbourne Anarchst Communist Group (MACG), issue No 1, Jaunuary-Febrary 2007.

For information and contact write to P.O. BOX 2120, Lygon St,. North, East Brunswick, Victoria 3057, Australia, email: macg1984@yahoo.com.au