Veiled references

[dreamer_easy]

Right. Since the West is obsessed with hijab, this is the last time I'm going to say anything about the subject (with the possible exception of linking to Muslimahs' opinions). It's an issue towards which I plan to pursue civil indifference. (You may also be relieved to hear that I plan to take a break from these seemingly endless postings until November. :)

I just want to draw your attention to this paradox. In some Muslim countries, women are forced to wear hijab; therefore, in some Western countries, women are forced to not wear hijab. A French woman has been charged with assaulting a niqabi tourist, ripping off her (legally worn) veil. Her reason? The mistreatment of Muslim women. Figure that one out!

ETA: Hijab means the headscarf, but it also means modest Muslim dress in general, male and female. The BBC provides a handy pictorial guide to hijab, niqab, burqa, chador, and other styles of coverings for women.

ETA:

Is Muslim Feminism More Than Just a Hijab Defense? | Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves…But Nobody Seems to Notice | Princess Hijab, Paris's elusive graffiti artist | Saudi woman beats up religious cop

Comments

[drox.livejournal.com]

About the ONLY place that a niqab ban makes any kind of sense (to me) is on identification photos. What is the point of a photo I.D. if all it shows is a veil? That could be anyone under there! It's not about gender (men AND women have to uncover their face) or religion (no niqab, but also no bandannas or turtlenecks pulled up to one's ears). But to be really consistent, a head-covering ban for identification purposes would also have to include a ban on wigs and makeup***, because those too can disguise one's identity.

Related rant observation one: for my last (U.S.) driver's license photo, I was ordered to remove my GLASSES for the picture. Apparently the photo-identifying software they use has difficulty with eyeglasses. I expect if I was wearing any kind of head covering I would have been ordered to remove it too.

Related rant observation two: during a rash of bank robberies a few years back, my local bank branch put a sign on the door asking visitors to remove hats and sunglasses before they entered. Presumably we were all on camera, and they wanted to be able to identify everyone if they ever had to look over photos/recordings of a robbery. This (limited) circumstance is another where personal or religious clothing preferences might reasonably come second to public safety.

***Makeup in the west often seems to be worn for many of the same reasons as niqab in the east; my own mother says she feels naked without it. Like niqab it's typically only women who wear it, and like niqab it can cover the marks of domestic abuse. Unlike niqab though, there seems to be no connection or identification with religion.

[dreamer-easy.livejournal.com]

This got me curious, so I went a-Googlin'... Face coverings can't be worn for passport photos in Australia, the UK, or the US. In Oz, you can't obscure your face with hair or dark glasses, or even glasses with heavy frames. In fact, I'd be surprised if there's anywhere in the West that you can cover part or all of your face for a passport photos, or for a driver's licence photo, for that matter. For passports in Australia and the UK, and for driver's licenses in at least some US states, the headscarf is OK as long as it doesn't obscure the face - a common-sense compromise IMHO.

That's a really interesting point about makeup. I keep imagining a tropical island where everyone goes around topless, and women who cover their breasts are considered suspicious, as this obviously means they are ashamed of being female and provoking men's lust, and what's more, they might be concealing bombs in their bras.