[MD] What is the intellectual argument about Islamic veil wearing?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Laird]
I'll preface my responses by saying that I don't think this issue has anything
to do with the religion of Islam or persecution/fear of it, except by displaced
coincidence. I see this as merely a conflict of social conventions where some
people are using the religious argument as a bargaining chip for their views.
Damn shame, really.

[Arlo]
Hi, Laird. You have me a bit confused. I thought last time your main point was
that it was a "perceived fear" that drives the law. Maybe I took this to mean a
"fear" of Islam, but now you say it has nothing to do with this fear. I'm not
sure then what the critical mass has a perceived fear _of_, if its not Islam.
Ham mentioned that westerners are (what I suppose would be) conditioned to be
paranoic about hidden faces. You mention ski-masks in grocery stores, and
compare the two. Maybe this is what you mean?

My response would be this. 99% of the time when someone wears a ski-mask into a
store, and it is not in Vale, Colorado, they are attempting a robbery. The
wearing of the mask triggers, rightly, a survivial response to alert
authorities. But, is the wearing of ski-masks illegal? Should it be? (Apart
from on the slopes). 99% of the time when I see someone wearing a veil, they
pass me harmlessly on the street (actually, 100% of the time), or sit at the
next table in our local cafe and drink tea or coffee without bothering me. That
is, there is no logical connection between "veil wearing" and "threats to me".
Ski-masks (unless I am on the powder too) are another story. I would be weary
of a ski-mask wearing person entering a store when I was in... based on
experience and probability of threat.

This leads to the next point, Platt's comment that 'everyone who wears veils
supports radical Islamofascism, and thus everyone who wears a veil wants to
kill me'. I dunno what world he gets that experience from, as I said I see veil
wearers almost daily (at least weekly) for years and have never once been
threatened or harmed. Again this leads me to "manipulated fear to advance
political ideology". They _want_ us to be afraid, because it supports their
power and we blindly allow their agenda.

I can't remember if you were on the list when we last talked about The Power of
Nightmare. Khaled, one of our contributors, turned me onto this BBC series, and
I strongly recommend it. From the first part transcript, in the very
beginning...

"In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different
ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic
visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people
have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as
managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores
their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now
promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from
dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest
danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with
sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought
by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been
exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It’s a dark illusion that has
spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security
services, and the international media."

[Laird]
At this point, you're moving past the social order into intellect very, very
quickly - quicker than those who are perceiving a threat and thus making the
public outcry for something to be done. The stimulus-response of the legal
system is responding to a social stimulus, and reacting with a social response.
Yeah, it's definitely rule by fear, which (like it or not) is much of the basis
of social rule- legal, religious, or otherwise. In these fine modern times, we
try to temper our social edicts with use of intellect, as I agree we should.
That isn't to say we always succeed, though.

[Arlo]
Well, I have been accused before of being hopelessly optimistic. I would like to
think that we've advanced to a point where "rule by fear" and "tribal
conformity" are seen as the foolish things they are. I am proven wrong every
day. 

[Laird]
People wearing combat boots or with big beards or long hair are often seen as
threatening too, with the same lack of intellectual reasoning behind the
feeling.

[Arlo]
Oh I get this all the time, despite being a rather nice guy. That people react
to my biker persona with trepidation, I don't fault, I see it is my task, as an
ambassador of diversity, to quelch their fears. But let me ask, would you
support it if people _outlawed_ combat boots and beards and long hair because a
majority of people respond with "fear"? This is just what I'm talking about,
and I'm trying to keep this on the social level. If Platt gets all in hizzy
when someone wearing a veil walks in, or someone wearing biker boots and road
leathers walks in, should the moral response be to "forbid by law the
particular clothing"? I should hope not!

So for me the frustration is not "why" people are afraid, that's answered for me
every time I see a RNC campaign ad. But what people do with their fear. If they
turn to the law, to forbid the things that make them afraid, what's next? Maybe
it will be biker wear. And we'll all have to dress like those BMW riders in
their full piece, matching color, kevlar armor.

[Laird]
I've been on the 'wrong end of the gun' plenty of times with those social
stigmas. It sucks, and I can sympathize. These social stigmas change with time,
and eventually these strange things become (to some degree) accepted.

[Arlo]
I don't know if I think this is a social stigma. To me a stigma is "being fat"
in a society that obsesses over "size zero twig people". Wearing a leather
jacket, or a veil, is not a stigma, but a choice to express one's identity
freely. Now, other might say that its a stigma to wear a biker jacket out to
the bar, but I see it as something I am proud of. 

[Laird]
However, there are certain times when unveiling is necessary and should be
enforced. Identification for a Driver's License, to a police officer or airport
travel security agent, are all mandatory actions for all people, citizens or
not, pretty much across the world.

[Arlo]
And you'll find it as no surprise that I agree. Just like with my humorous
"public nudity" debate with Platt, I'd said there are times when society is
right in forcing concealment (the example I gave was in places where sanitary
issues arise). This is Ian's heralded "pragmatic middle ground", where saying
"yes, you need to unveil if you want a driver's licence" and "when in public,
one should be free to wear what one chooses" are not contradictory, but
pragmatic, and intellectually guided, positions across context.

Here (driver's licensing) the unveiling is (1) not out of fear, (2) not
discriminatory because even Michael Jackson has to show his face to get one,
(3) grounded in the use of facial indentification in criminal and emergency
services. But while they wouldn't let me wear my Gene Simmons makeup to get my
driver's photo taken, they can't stop me from wearing it when I drive (... Get
up! Everybody's gonna move their feet!...).

[Laird]
Those who take the holier-than-thou approch "no I will not take off my veil for
my ID photo, for an officer, or at an airport" need to realize that they're
directly, explicitly choosing NOT to cooperate in the society that they have
explicitly chosen to live in (or at least visit, for airports/etc).

[Arlo]
Now, I'm not sure of the religious customs of others across the board, but so
long as we'd demand the same removal from a nun as from a Muslim, you'll get no
complaints from me.

[Laird]
Just as local laws are still enforceable upon me if I visit the UAE or Saudi
Arabia, the laws that require unveiling for identification/etc should still be
fully enforceable upon all when they visit a non-veil-wearing place. When in
Rome, do as the Romans do. It's courtesy, common sense.

[Arlo]
I think we pick and choose our battles. A society that would demand you dress a
particular way "when in Rome" is one I would publically criticize, whether its
the USA or the UAE. Would I do it? Perhaps. But if I was part of the electorate
that could change that tribal-cultural practice, I would. And if I could speak
out the educate people not to be afraid of someone who's dressed differently,
or be offended by it, I also would certainly do so.

Just because its how it is, does not mean its how it ought to be. 

[Laird]
As we should act with intellect, so they should as well. That's my only
stipulation on the intellectual side.

[Arlo]
Oh, most definately. I hope I did not give the impression that only WE should be
tolerant. Sometime I'll have to relay my experience in a "diversity sensitivity
seminar" I had to attend. It was quite funny (and sad).

By the way, Laird, in what region do you live that you are able to still ride?
Or am I just a wuss for stowing the bike when the temperature drops below 35.