Beyond the veil
at 11:48am on Monday, 9th October 2006
By choosing to comment on Muslim women's dress last week, Jack Straw plunged himself into the heart of a debate that is seen as symbolic of the pitfalls that lie ahead for our increasingly multicultural society. His argument was that the niqab - the style of dress that calls for women's faces to be veiled below eye-level - creates a physical barrier that is problematic because it reflects the social and cultural barriers that already stand between Muslim communities and their non-Muslim neighbours. As Straw knows well from his own constituency, the consequences of these divisions can be profoundly destructive, ultimately leading to violence and perceived "no-go" areas for both communities.
But although no-one debates the underlying social issues that appear to motivate Straw's comments, the question remains whether he will spark the sort of change he seems to desire as a result of it: specifically, a closer and less suspicious relationship between his Muslim and non-Muslim constituents. I suspect the answer is that he will not.
First, by picking a relatively superficial issue and tackling it without reference to the wider social and religious contexts in which it plays out, Straw risks contributing to the debate in a way that perpetuates some of the worst misjudgements about the Muslim community, rather than helping to break them down. Creating bridges between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is about creating a sense of security for members of communities wtihin their own setting whilst also asking them to reach out to others who are different to themselves.
Insecurity breeds the insularity about which Jack Straw is rightly concerned. Breaking down the barriers than lie between his Muslim and non-Muslim constituents is about tackling the poverty, underachievement and exclusion that is rife within their locality. This will demand a much longer-term approach to tackling the structural unfairness that affects much of the Muslim population in the north-west. In Change Within (a Demos report produced in partnership with Barrow Cadbury Trust), we argue that community organisations hold the key to catalysing this sort of change within black and minority ethnic communities. Supporting the groups to which communities themselves feel a sense of allegiance will give government the best chance of building an enduring instrastructure within minority communities that can act as a starting point for lasting change.
But although no-one debates the underlying social issues that appear to motivate Straw's comments, the question remains whether he will spark the sort of change he seems to desire as a result of it: specifically, a closer and less suspicious relationship between his Muslim and non-Muslim constituents. I suspect the answer is that he will not.
First, by picking a relatively superficial issue and tackling it without reference to the wider social and religious contexts in which it plays out, Straw risks contributing to the debate in a way that perpetuates some of the worst misjudgements about the Muslim community, rather than helping to break them down. Creating bridges between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is about creating a sense of security for members of communities wtihin their own setting whilst also asking them to reach out to others who are different to themselves.
Insecurity breeds the insularity about which Jack Straw is rightly concerned. Breaking down the barriers than lie between his Muslim and non-Muslim constituents is about tackling the poverty, underachievement and exclusion that is rife within their locality. This will demand a much longer-term approach to tackling the structural unfairness that affects much of the Muslim population in the north-west. In Change Within (a Demos report produced in partnership with Barrow Cadbury Trust), we argue that community organisations hold the key to catalysing this sort of change within black and minority ethnic communities. Supporting the groups to which communities themselves feel a sense of allegiance will give government the best chance of building an enduring instrastructure within minority communities that can act as a starting point for lasting change.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
I agree with this - but I also think it's important to look at the politics of what Straw said.
Immigration and the presence of minorities is one of the most important political issues of our day - it's what the public want to talk about. And yet politicians find it incredibly difficult to speak about the issue without being accused of racism or insensitivity.
One result of that is a sense of grievance and confusion among a lot of white communities. I've sat in the focus groups and heard it expressed.
So what Straw's playing into is probably a sense that the white community (and maybe some other established immigrant groups) want some sort of visible concession from minorities - some sense that minority groups are actively trying to fit in, are prepared to give something up to be English. Ultimately, I suspect, they want a sense that integration and immigration is happening on terms set by the 'indigenous' population (although you'll find very different definitions of what that term means).
What makes this so difficult is that the mounting desire for cultural concession is coming at exactly the same time as muslims themselves feel a need to protect and strongly express their core values. The danger is that both sides feel the other has to make all the concessions - and that way lies precisely nothing good.
Is Jack Straw offering a way to bridge the gap? That depends on whether you think his comments offer the beginning of a new language for talking about ethnic difference, or a perpetuation of the concession-go-round. I’m not sure what the answer is yet.
On 9/11 my wife and I were supposed to fly from LAX to Kennedy to meet old friends (Jewish, as it happens) who had planned to take us to lunch at the top of the WTC. On 7/7 we were in central London (on separate errands) at the time that bombs were exploding. Perhaps that has made us both somewhat uncomfortable in the presence of the niqab, even though, as children, we were both perilously close to exploding German bombs. Of course we know that only a very small proportion of Muslims are terrorists just as we knew that only a few Irish Catholics were IRA members but, had we been in a London pub at the height of 'the troubles', we might well have got up and left at the same time as the Irish gentleman at the next table.
My work has taken me to the far corners of the world where, whenever it seemed necessary or merely desirable, I was at pains to conform to local standards of dress and behaviour. Here, neither Sikhs in turban, and Jews in scull-caps are perceived to be a threat. Here, however wrongly, the niqab, is often seen as a threat or, at best, a provocation. In my neck of the woods there are young men who regard football "as much more important than life or death" but they wouldn't wear a Newcastle shirt in Sunderland unless they were bent on confrontation.
I have been an atheist since I first knew the meaning of the word. In my old age, and suffering from incurable cancer, I might be better described as an antitheist. As I wrote recently (in defense of my position) to a Catholic friend,
"why should he (he being any religious person of either sex) regard my deepest values as less important than his? This is my problem with religions as a whole. I have no problem with what consenting adults do in private but the problem is that most religions seem to want me to live and die according to their (conflicting!) beliefs rather than mine. I could give you many examples but here is one
http://www.olsm.org.uk/faith_matters.phtml
Not content with blocking Lord Joffee’s Bill on “Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill” (cf. Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams saying that life is “a gift from God that we cannot treat as a possession of our own to keep or throw away ”) Jim Dobbin is introducing a Ten-Minute Bill requiring palliative care for the terminally ill.
This is fine if you believe in God or the effectiveness of palliative care but why impose it on those who believe in neither?"
Naturally, as an antitheist, I am encouraged by the "shrinking number" of Anglicans and Catholics. Conversely I find the growing number of Muslims (regardless of race) alarming. How many Muslims would respect and safeguard my deepest values?