So then if you’re racist then any black health care workers should address you as “massuh” and say “yassuh massuh” and “nosah massuh”?
Similarly, should Muslim female patients be allowed to require all female healthcare to wear hijabs?
Look, I actually think it’s perfectly valid to require people working in the healtcare industry to have their faces uncovered and I’m certainly not accusing you of being a bigot, but the “I’m a patient, it’s ‘my cultural standards’ that apply” is a really short-sighted idea.
To give one obvious example, if you’ve ever worked in an elderly healthcare facility, you’ll notice the overwhelming majority of patients are elderly whites, often suffering from dementia, and many of the staff tend to be African-Americans and the staff often have to put up with enough crap as is.
Were the facilities to adopt the argument you just put forth, things would be even worse for them.
I know a lot of Americans like to put religion and culture in separate little boxes but I think that’s a mistake. How people interpret their religion is a part of their culture. Muslims certainly aren’t a monolithic group and different people have different interpretations of what proper attire is. I don’t think there’s any clear line between cultural and religious from the point of view for those who wear veils.
I’ve only seen one woman here in the United States who covered her face in public. She was wearing one of those beekeeper outfits, burqa, while crossing the street at Parker and Independence in Plano, Texas. I sure didn’t expect to see her there.
The basic premise of the veiled Islamic woman is to avoid interaction outside of a very closed arena. A burqah is essentially a mobile tent the purpose of which is precisely to obstruct interaction (especially with males unrelated to the wearer).
Therefore it’s oxymoronic to propose that women whose faces are veiled should be accommodated into any situations where interaction with others is a normal part of the role.
I missed that post earlier, and I like it. Seen like that, the niquab makes sense in an internally consistent system.
Militant niquab wearers seem to miss this point, and seem to want to wear the niquab especially while interacting with the public. The only reasons I can see to that is wanting to shock (a desire often seen in young people of either gender ). And because if covering your hair means being good, then covering more of everything else seems to be the super duper, turned-to-eleven-version of that. And it isn’t. Niquab, as you say, is meant, not to have to interact.
Wearing a niquab is like to going out in full mourning clothes, including a face veil, and then insisting to joke around with everyone. Niquab wearers are just Muslim Goths !
I had fair number of Muslim friends back when I was in college, and I have both read the Koran in translation and asked a fair number of questions.
There is nothing in the Koran that says the face needs to be totally covered - modesty requires the arms to the ends of the wrists and the legs to the ankles, and the hair [and of course the rest of the body] but nothing about the face.
I make medieval persian clothing that absolutely fits the requirements and have gotten stared at because it is rich fabrics, and beautiful brocades [and I recently finished and delivered a ‘cloud collar’ that had gold bullion and pearlwork on it, based on figure 21] that admittedly would get me arrested and physically punished currently in some of the more fundamentalist countries. Why they decided dark blues and blacks are the only really acceptable colors for women is beyond me - I don’t see us women as inherently evil. There is something fundamentally bad about that. Stumptuary laws are one of the ways that a heirarchy will restrict people and the whole chadri/burqua/veil movement is specifically designed to keep women from fully particpating in society. Historically women were not forced to cover every inch of their bodies.
And for the question - if they are being photographed for ID, or doing anything face to face like speaking in court, conducting business or working with people they need to expose the face. There was a movement in Israel [of all places] where some of the ultra orthodox women were using the burqua and there was a bit of contention over the whole mess in 2010.
cite? This is the most widely held view, but just one interpretation. Nothing in the Koran clearly requires the hair to be covered. The following surah seems to assume a head covering will be worn, not surprising for either gender considering the climate, and requires that it be wrapped around the boobies when unrelated menfolk are around.
AFAIK schools and public buildings (that is to say, for public clerks and so on - as far as I’m aware you can show up at the DMV in a full-on fursuit and it won’t be an issue until the issue of photo ID comes up)
It seems part of the reason for women wearing the niqab is to cut her off from society, as she would be dependent on family and husband for that connection through them/him. Part of wearing it, or the spirit behind wearing it is being removed from society.
In a job situation, by taking a job you are entering society so the niqab should come off because you took the action to enter, you give up the right to the veil from it.
In a court situation it is a bit different, the question is can or perhaps more specifically should a court force someone who chooses not to be a part of society to be a part of it.
That being said, I was as disappointed as **Learjeff **at the law, because it was fundamentally hypocritical, Islamophobic horse puckey : the law bans “ostensible outward signs of religion” (or something to that effect, I can’t be arsed to search and quote for the actual text). Which means that crosses or stars of David worn on a necklace chain are A-OK because theoretically they can be hidden under clothes (but in practice, like your supervisor is going to give a fig) but any and all scarves are verboten because ostensible.
It’s the textbook example of a law that on paper sounds fair and equitable, but in practice is, and I quote Larry Wilmore, “some buuuullshit”.
As for me, I don’t think niqabs are an issue at all, nor do I understand how they “cut you off from interracting with society” (hi SanVito). Do you really need to see the annoyed smirk of the DMV clerk, the pursed lips of your math teacher when you fuck up yet another theorem ?
Niqabs are a problem when it comes to IDing the person, in which case I think it’s OK to tell them to pull it up for the purpose of the check, but beyond that, whatever. Hell, as a friend of Internet communication, I believe it’s better when people communicating don’t see each other, since there’s so much pre-judging and unconscious bullshit beyond the words packed into visual & verbal communication. People are more honest and open when they don’t know I’m in my skivvies.
Sure, as long as you have a non-bigoted reason to require the head to be uncovered, even a trivial one, and it applies to everyone. If the office manager comes to work in a ball cap every day and then bans head coverings as soon as the hijabi gets hired that is a different story.
Because cosplay etc. doesn’t have a valid religious basis for extending legal protections. Religious observance was the basis for my reasonable accommodation argument in a US context.
If you want to claim that your nudism has religious basis, your claim would have to be subject to judicial scrutiny.
As stated above wearing niqab is a social norm not a religious requirement. Unless you are claiming a “first amendment” right to wear it due to the freedom of association I think you do not have a point.
But if that was your point that freedom of association is not limited to religious groups and would apply to cosplay etc.
This is a fair response. While I interpret niqab as a social norm, I suspect that a plaintiff/defendant could credibly argue that they are wearing it for reasons of religious conscience. If they can’t, then it doesn’t deserve constitutional protection, IMHO.
Ok, I’ll take that as a yes, that if tomorrow the New York City Council were to declare no City Councilmen could wear a yarmulka you would celebrate the effective banning of Orthodox Jews from serving on it.
BTW, that’s not a gotcha. I assume that’s what you honestly believe unless of course you’re a hypocrite.
). And because if covering your hair means being good, then covering more of everything else seems to be the super duper, turned-to-eleven-version of that. And it isn’t. Niquab, as you say, is meant, not to have to interact.