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

[Laird Bedore]

> [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?
>
>   
[Laird]
Hi Arlo - Before when I spoke of a perceived fear - what I was referring 
to is the perceived fear of a foreign culture's values and traditions 
violating our own (western culture in general). Face covering is a very 
taboo thing in western culture - people simply don't go around in public 
with their face covered. As you bring up in the next paragraph, it's 
definitely not a popularly-accepted practice (ski masks or veils, no 
matter), and people are threatened by the social connotations of 
covering the face. Unfortunately Islam is being dragged into this, but 
it's really not relevant, except where people stretch the situation 
beyond reality. Islam is like the passing-by second-cousin who's getting 
needlessly dragged into the fight in the high school parking lot, then 
gets blamed for starting the whole thing.
> [Arlo]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
We know through our daily experiences that this 'threat' felt on a 
social level is intellectually unfounded. And through intellect, we 
should temper our social judgements, but the social judgements cannot be 
completely eliminated on the basis of reason. There are static social 
patterns of value in conflict with each other, and they do need to be 
addressed. Otherwise, the social structure is being weakened by not only 
the 'threat', but also by our intellectual attempts at taming it. As 
above, the Islamification argument is political pandering, taking 
advantage of the conflict to spread an agenda. It's a tricky balancing 
act trying to maintain social order without compromising intellectual 
values.
> [Arlo]
> 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]
I think the protection from our nightmares has been present in 
government and its subsequent public safety since the beginning of 
civilization. When people were afraid of wolves or bears attacking their 
camp, one person keep watch overnight to provide protection and alert. 
International terrorism is just a new nightmare. It scares a lot of 
people, and many are willing to support precautions against it even at 
the expense of their own liberty, and liberty in general. The 
over-quoted quip from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind about "He who 
would trade a little liberty for personal safety deserves neither" - 
oversimplified and idealistic, but it does point to our sacrifice of 
liberty for safety, and it's painful to watch.
> [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]
Time is on the side of optimism. It's just that many of the things we'd 
like to see will take much longer than we've hoped. In the long term, 
optimism will quell rule by fear. We just have to be patient and 
persistent. The day will come.
> [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!
>
>   
[Laird]
I would not support such a law unless public concern reached such a 
point that the consequence of inaction was worse than the ramifications 
of action. Still, I'd be mighty unhappy with the law but would 
acknowledge its need to maintain social order on a _temporary_ basis. 
This reminds me of the whole trenchcoat scare in high schools after the 
Columbine, CO shooting. Trenchcoats were temporarily banned, not because 
of the fear of trenchcoats directly, but for fear of chaos stemming from 
the public concern. With veils, I expect that in a few (or maybe many) 
years time, the countries that pass laws forbidding veils will realize 
through cultural change that the ban is silly and no longer necessary, 
and will repeal the law. Despite my fiercely independent attitude, I 
have a hard time faulting the governments for trying to keep the peace. 
They could find better ways of working, for sure. But as "Dean 
Moriarity" in Kerouac's On The Road says, "Ah, but we know TIME!"... it 
just keeps on tickin' and things will work themselves out. Now there's 
an optimist for you!

> [Arlo]
> 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]
The continuum of liberty-vs-safety seems to play itself out in waves. 
Somewhere around 20 year cycles, it seems.  In a big conservative wave 
we see government footprint shrinking, pro-military stuff, a monopoly or 
two come into power, etc. Then a liberal wave, an antitrust case or two, 
an attempt to remove "under God" from the US Pledge of Allegiance, a 
push for gay marriage, etc etc etc... Some good and bad in both waves, 
eventually balancing out. And that's why I'm glad we have many political 
parties! I might not agree with any of 'em, but at least when group A 
says something unfathomably stupid, group B will counter and (in 
general) we'll end up on some halfway-decent middle ground.
> [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]
I think I chose the wrong word there... stigma doesn't quite fit. 
Prejudices, perhaps. Anyway, point taken, and +1 for individual freedom!
> [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]
Hahaha, the Gene Simmons imagery was just great! I might just have to do 
that sometime. Cheers to the middle ground again.

> [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]
To borrow a title from a childrens' book, Everybody poops. No favoritism 
suggested here. I could imagine some difficult situations to work out... 
Say a monk who has taken a vow of silence has to travel, and is 
interrogated by customs and undergoes a polygraph. I could see that one 
being tricky. I'm not sure what to make of that situation.
> [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]
Agreed... I think my point was that I'd rather not piss in somebody 
else's wheaties unless I am compelled to, ideologically or otherwise. 
When traveling I take the default stance that I'm visiting somebody 
else's culture. I'm the stranger, the weirdo, the outcast. I will 
generally conform to their social customs, but to a limit. I'm not going 
to eat monkey brains or perform ritual sacrifice or anything like that. 
But I'll have a great time eating dinner in a "sugar shack" in the 
Quebec mountains and enjoy watching the fine women of Montreal 
sunbathing topless in the summer! I might not partake in the various 
activities in Amsterdam but have no qualms with those who do. I guess 
I'm pretty lenient when it comes to social customs.

> [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.
>
>   
[Laird]
Oh, such sad seminars - good intentions but hardly ever helpful. I work 
quite extensively with people in europe and asia from day to day and 
often find myself stuck between differing Japanese, British and American 
ideologies, trying to get all sides to work things out. Frustrating!

I'm in central Florida. Today it's in the 40s, but still warm enough to 
ride. Days like today help me understand why some people like riding the 
big fully-loaded tourers with heating and MP3/CD/CB radios! My engine 
doesn't even get warm enough on the short ride to work to warm my legs! BRR!

Wonderful conversation, Arlo. I'm enjoying every minute of it!

-Laird