What to do about the veil debate? I interviewed Afshin Rattansi, author of The Dream of the Decade about it.
RATTANSI: “First of all, I think former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, gleefully shouting his innocence for a war that may have cost 655,000 lives, may not be the best person to have started the veil debate. That is.” is especially true when he wants to be Deputy Prime Minister now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has almost resigned.
ME: Tony Blair said it was “a mark of separation” and that it “makes other people outside of the community feel uncomfortable.”
Gordon Brown, widely tipped to succeed him as British prime minister, said he “would prefer and think it would be better for Britain if fewer people wore veils. That’s what Jack Straw has said and I support.”
RATTANSI: “Messing with a group of British women (about 10,000) who come from the poorest in society is not very useful at best. The Labor government has exacerbated the gap between the richest and the poorest in Britain. society and therefore picking on the least able to defend themselves to advance your career is uncharitable.”
ME: But the veil debate is fascinating nonetheless. It exposes Voltaire’s joke that one must defend to the death the right of people to express themselves even if one disagrees with them in a very bright light, doesn’t it?
RATTANSI: “In this cocktail shake power and powerlessness, as well as the opposing concepts of liberal pluralism and the desire for a truly secular society.
“Clearly, I think, the way to stop British women from veiling is not to demonize them. Attempts to ban peaceful actions by marginalized groups lead them to engage in such acts more vigorously than ever before. The triumph of atheism in The Anglican Protestant faith in the UK has been based on ignoring people who choose to practice the national faith, as well as the use of directed comedy.
“Obviously, the veil is a very different manifestation of a faith in which, theoretically, it is profoundly misandrist. Assume that men can only think of one thing. As in any text of one of the Abrahamic religions, it is impossible to use them to decide whether the prophets and messengers decreed this or that sanction as mandatory.
ME: What about the sexual connotations?
RATTANSI: “Societies based on the works of Thomas Paine and others have progressed so far (after wars and colonization that have killed more than any faith) that the veil itself can be sexual. I am sure as I write this, there may well be powerful men and women who wear veils as sexual equipment. But I doubt the poor 10,000 whose families experience poverty and racism wear them for that. Most likely they cling to the veil for a sense of identity. Instead of Prada and Cartier, they believe that the veil not only brings them closer to God, but also connects them with history (the opposite of this comment is that countries like Iran supposedly have the highest incidence of rhinoplasty surgery – the headscarf can make women feel more obsessed with the physical self than most exasperated anorexic teenagers.)”
ME: What about identities?
RATTANSI: “We all have multiple identities. Veil wearers, as anyone on a flight to the Gulf will tell you, can be obsessed with makeup and designer trinkets. Yet the full veil subsumes all of these women’s other identities to many eyes This may well be the intention.
ME: Does your novel, The Dream of the Decade, deal with such concerns when it comes to punk music?
RATTANSI: “During the glories of punk, it was impossible not to feel that those who wore Vivienne Westwood-inspired styles subsumed every identity except band names signifying particular musical threads on the backs of leather jackets. The cry of many punk bands in opposition to commoditization was that no one had the right to tell a person what they should or shouldn’t wear.
“The answer to the veil debate depends on what kind of society you want.”
ME: How so?
RATTANSI: “If one is looking for a fundamentalist Muslim state in the UK, surely the headscarf should be actively encouraged.
“Second, if one seeks a multicultural British society in which all customs and religions are protected because they are perceived to add to the life experiences of individuals, then Straw was terribly wrong. This argues that all life should be one series of negotiations between seemingly opposing ideologies in a constant Brownian flux.
“Third, if one believes that all religions are at bottom a form of insanity similar to any faith in all powerful aliens, then one has to find the best way to end the religion as it spreads more and more. Quick”.
ME: The Muslim faith in the UK is the fastest growing faith in the country.
RATTANSI: “Let’s look at those who seek the third ideal. One could choose to lock up all religious people. That’s a bit like the Straw method. Ban the use of crucifixes (small, even tiny) and tell British women that they can’t have jobs if they wear veils will certainly make people think again when they choose to flaunt their religious beliefs – people who are religious will find their beliefs strengthened.
“If that is true, then the second ideal merges with the third. It will be precisely a liberal tolerance that will result in people ignoring religion. However, that has not been the case in states that do not have established religions. constitutionally: the US, for example, tolerance of Islam in Britain has not led to its decline.
“Even on that third ideal, surely it could be argued that if it is what one desires, one has to look at the reasons why people subscribe to irrational beliefs. Ultimately, surely it must be a case where the believer look for an answer.” to perceived helplessness. And since money breeds power, a more equitable distribution of wealth will lead to the third goal.”
ME: Of course, money and power alone do not confer confidence. Those who bombed London on July 7 were not among the poorest.
RATTANSI: “But, for them, it seems that British foreign policy rather than domestic policy was the catalyst.
“There is something brutal about having the poorest women in a community repeatedly endorse a MP, who desperately needs their help, only to be told that it is difficult for him to communicate without seeing them. Disgraced former Home Secretary David Blunkett was, unfortunately, able to communicate very well without seeing people.
“Paja and others should seek to reduce the gap between rich and poor if they are so offended by women wearing the veil. That would be a start.”