Whether to wear hijab and niqab is one topic that will not leave us so easily. The subject has now crossed the Atlantic and there is a fierce debate currently going on in Britain about a Muslim woman’s right to wear niqab. Niqab cover the whole face except the eyes while hijab is scarf over the head.
On a recent visit to London, England, I was amazed to see huge headlines dominating British papers on the issue, with pictures of niqab-wearing women splashed on front pages. The controversy was ignited by a judge who ruled that a Muslim defendant can wear niqab during a trial but not when giving evidence. Judge Peter Murphy made history by his ruling, adding that the court should recognize “freedom of religious expression.”
Earlier, Birmingham Metropolitan College had ordered its students to remove all hoodies, hats, caps and veils to ensure individuals were “easily identifiable” and to create a “safe and welcoming learning environment.” The ruling created a public storm with a demonstration planned and forcing even Prime Minister David Cameron to issue a statement endorsing the right to have such a policy. Cameron said the state should back institutions such as schools, courthouses and immigration centres which require individuals to remove face-covering veils. He said he did not believe there should be a ban on wearing the niqab in the streets.
But he made it clear he was “happy” to look at the issue of whether the state needed to do more to back up institutions, which choose to implement a ban. Interviewed on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show, he had this to say: “We are a free country and people should be free to wear whatever clothes they like in public or in private. But we should support those institutions that need to put in place rules so that those institutions can work properly.
“So for instance in a school, if they want that particular dress code, I believe the Government should back them. The same for courts, the same for immigration. I think we should back those institutions that want to have sensible policies that actually have a particular purpose.” Asked if he would respond to a judge’s suggestion that there should be national guidelines on the wearing of the niqab in court, Mr Cameron said: ‘I’m very happy to look at that. Obviously, in court the jury needs to be able to look at someone’s face. I’ve sat on a jury, that’s part of what you do.
“When someone is coming into the country, an immigration officer needs to see someone’s face. In a school, it’s very difficult to teach unless you can look at your pupils in the eye. It’s a free country and I think a free country should have free and independent institutions. No plans for anything on the street, but if the Government needs to do more to back up institutions, then I would be happy to look at that.”
Adding fuel to the controversy were media reports that staff at Al Madinah School in Derby claimed that they had been ordered to wear Islamic hijab, even though they were not Muslims. And despite the fact that the Birmingham College was forced to abandon its ban on veils, the debate on the issue still continues. While we agree that everyone should be allowed to wear what he or she pleases, supporters claim that wearing niqab would prevent young Muslims to integrate in the wider society, leaving them in isolation and outside the wider community.
Granted that in a free society like ours, everyone is allowed to wear clothing of their choice, but people should use common sense. For example, no one would jump in a swimming pool fully attired because it is just not practical to do so. One hopes that the fully attired swimmers in our society, who will definitely be objects of ridicule, would not experiment this exercise as an example of personal freedom. By the same token, immigration officers should be able to see faces of those who enter the country and judges in court should be able to see faces of witnesses and accused during a trail.
The niqab advocates always bring up the point that banning it is a necessary step towards preventing cultural oppression of women. Niqab-wearing Muslim women that I have met are wearing it not because they are oppressed but because it’s a cultural issue for them. They wear them at their own free will and as a form of religious expression. These women are educated and progressive-minded professionals who contribute to society. Whenever such divisive issues come up, there is a segment of our population who enjoy not letting the opportunity at Muslim-bashing slip by.
Hijab and burka bans have been imposed in numerous countries including France, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Lebanon and Turkey. In HYPERLINK “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11065911″Kosovo, with the majority of the population being Muslim, the hijab was banned from public schools in 2010, with deputy foreign minister Vlora Citaku explaining that she considered it “a sign of submission of female to male, rather than a sign of choice.”
All these countries claim that they are banning niqab and veils in the name of secularism and integration but that doesn’t mean that they should do it at the expense of melting different cultures and religions, thus creating one identity-lacking culture. On the other side of the coin, it is also wrong that we have countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia where hijab and burqua are forced upon women. This is tantamount to violating their religious rights and personal freedom of these women.
The ban on hijabs and niqab hinges on several important matters such as women’s rights, multiculturalism, religious freedom and whether the state has authority over its citizens’ personal expressions. The simple answer to this is that the state should not interfere in a women’s right to express themselves. Is the hijab and niqab issue so important that we have the country’s prime ministers and presidents getting involved in it instead of concentrating on job creation programmes and other issues plaguing the nation? We don’t need a national debate, as suggested by one British minister, on this issue. We need a national debate on unemployment, the deficit, threat of terrorism and health care instead – issues on which governments are elected. Enough is enough on niqab and hijab.
